The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BRITISH PENSIONS

Mr Mills moved resolution 16:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that there are a large number of British old age pensioners residing in Ontario who are, in many cases, entirely dependent upon pensions earned through their contributions made while working in the United Kingdom, and that these pensioners suffer deprivation and discrimination in that the amount of their pension incomes were frozen to the rate in force when first commenced, in contrast to British pensioners in other jurisdictions whose pensions have been indexed to the cost of living, the government of Ontario should (a) petition the government of the United Kingdom in the name of those ideals of justice and human rights to review immediately their policy pertaining to pensioners living in Canada and thus the province of Ontario, to abandon the damaging inaction of the past 13 years and return to the table to resume discussions with the government of Canada over the long-sought, wide-ranging social security reciprocal agreement which will bring into force the indexation of British old age pensions in this country and province, and (b) petition Her Majesty the Queen to request Her Royal Highness's intercession with her ministers to rectify this manifest injustice.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This morning I am pleased to rise in my place to speak to my resolution, which addresses a matter of considerable concern to thousands of our senior citizens who have come to live in Ontario and other parts of Canada from the United Kingdom and who are deprived of their rightful, fully indexed pensions which they have earned in the United Kingdom.

Resident in the province of Ontario are about 60,000 men and women who have all been treated not only unfairly but, more to the point, unjustly by the government of the United Kingdom. All British old age pensioners living in Ontario are indeed saddened by the British government's complaint that it can't afford the large sum to update fully British pensions in Canada. The annual pension bill in Great Britain is about £28.5 billion. They say they have no money to pay the expatriates, yet in five minutes or so, they managed to drum up billions of pounds for the Gulf war in defence of principle, honour and justice.

The Monty Python Ministry of Nonsensical Notions, through the Bouncillor of the Exchequer, under the direction of the Wry Minister, has decreed that the well-known national interest, not necessarily the interest of its nationals, requires that there be haves and have-nots; the have-nots to be the 110,000-odd compatriots, no more and no less, who may have crewed the same tank, served on the same destroyer, served on the same anti-aircraft post, shovelled the same incendiary bombs off the same rooftops, tilled the same fields, worked on the same wartime factory assembly line and, perhaps above all, made the same contributions to the same pension fund, the same national insurance fund.

I want to turn for a few moments to speak to health care costs as they relate to British old age pensioners now living in Ontario and indeed throughout all of Canada. I think the comparison is an important point in this debate.

The United Kingdom government estimates that to fully index the pensions of the recipients living in Canada is about £100 million each year. Based on health care estimates, if all the British pensioners were to return to the United Kingdom next week, they would not only qualify immediately for fully indexed pensions but the estimate of their health care costs would be a staggering £900 million. These costs, together with the increased pensions, amount to a total of £1 billion. To claim that the £100 million to index pensions is unaffordable for the British government, given the facts, is nothing less than an affront to reason.

British pensioners from the United Kingdom now resident in one of the so-called favoured countries, for instance in the United States, Germany or Italy, continue to receive fully indexed pensions from Great Britain. This senseless discrimination has prevented many elderly British pensioners from joining their families and their loved ones in Canada because their pride will not allow them to become a burden to their family members, a burden that is bound to occur the longer they live past the very first year of their arrival here. Many more pensioners have died while waiting for the decision for a fair, universally indexed British pension, parted from their loved ones in their twilight years.

1010

I'm going to make brief reference to a Mrs June Borsberry, living at this time in North Devon, England. This lady, in her twilight years of life, is waiting to come to Toronto to be with her son but is prevented from doing so for precisely the same reasons I have just made reference to. This situation is appalling and an example of what I shall term frozen justice.

Another example involves a woman who recently moved to the United States from Canada. This woman advised the pension office in London of her change and was advised by that same pension branch office in Newcastle that her pension would now be fully indexed as she had moved away -- believe this, Mr Speaker -- from the Commonwealth. We see everyday examples of a world gone crazy. I don't have to say any more about the incident I've just outlined to you.

Some time ago a prominent British politician wrote a letter to a British pensioner living in Canada. That letter was sent to a Mr Will Brown of Oakville. The writer said:

"I fully appreciate and sympathize with your sense of unfairness at the way in which British expatriate pensioners living in Canada are treated. I know of no reason in equity why those who have chosen to live in one of the dominions, many of whom have served their country in war, should be denied the uprating of their pensions, which they would have been entitled to if they remained in the United Kingdom."

The letter-writer goes on to say: "The truth is, you should get a bonus for relieving the British taxpayer of responsibility for your care and medical treatment in your old age." The writer of that letter was Winston S. Churchill.

Over the years, thousands of letters have been sent to British ministers of the crown and to MPs in the British House of Commons from British old age pensioners and their families. These letters haven't yet been able to create an irresistible impact. Not trying to overstate the matter, the British government, like most contemporary governments around the world, has allowed expediency to pre-empt principle.

It is vital that the present pressures on the British government be increased. The whole point of my referendum today is to increase that pressure to prevent them from riding out the mass storm of protest. The policy may be seen as an irrational policy approach, but the British government, once considered the doyen of rational and commonsense behaviour, seems to have deserted its tradition.

In conclusion, I am asking for the unanimous support of all members of all parties in this House to my resolution today. Personally I find the situation of British old age pensioners, both those living in Ontario and indeed throughout all of Canada and those waiting to come to spend their twilight years with their loved ones, linked with discrimination. It is a disgrace to the tradition which many of us have grown up with, and you too, Mr Speaker. I know your traditions; I know your heritage.

Many of us have grown up within a country which has always prided itself on common sense and embraced the practice of logical and rational behaviour. This is the crux of this resolution. I'm going to wait and listen intently to the remarks of my colleagues on the government side and in both opposition parties. I implore everybody in the House today and those who will come later on around 12 o'clock to vote on this motion to support this because we have to do something about this dreadful situation.

I had a letter that was placed on my desk this morning. I'll use up my last 54 seconds to summarize it. It's from the Salvation Army at Toronto Grace Hospital to the social benefits folks in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It says that a lady came over here on a visit and had a stroke. Her pension was not only frozen but her supplement was also taken away. While she was here and could not go back to the United Kingdom, this lady's family continued to pay $576 a month to uphold their mother in an institution, because the British government had deserted her and cut off all pensions and supplements. I find that single injustice terribly discriminating and unacceptable to me and my colleagues here this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Durham East will have two minutes in summation at the termination of the debate.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): First of all, I want to say I am going to support this resolution.

[Interruption]

Mr Callahan: Don't clap too soon.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to advise our visitors that indeed they're most welcome, except that a demonstration such as applause is not tolerated. We would ask you to please refrain from applauding.

Mr Callahan: Can I have the clock rolled back, Mr Speaker? I lost time while that admonition was being given.

I applaud my colleague the member for Durham East for bringing this motion forward. It is certainly a most worthy one. I always have an open and advocating heart with reference to seniors, because these people have worked and put in the years that have created many of the things you and I are enjoying and our children will enjoy.

Having said that, I have to go first to the question of how the structure of this House works so these people do not think that if this receives the unanimous consent or support of the House today anything will happen. We all know the process in this House in private members' hour. It's almost to the point where you might abolish private members' hour, because it never gets anyplace.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Come on now, don't be so cynical.

Mr Callahan: It's not a question of being cynical at all.

My colleague the member for Carleton East introduced Bill 54, which received second reading in this House in December 1991. Mr Speaker, you will remember that bill because it was an admirable one. It's a bill that he now fights each day by a statement in the House to get the government House leader to call forward for third reading. The bill basically says that cheque cashing operations, such as you see in Las Vegas, which are open 24 hours a day and are charging seniors as well as other people fees to cash their cheques, should be regulated and there should be certain cheques on which there should be no fees payable. That bill got second reading in this House, which is approval in principle, with the unanimous vote of this House. It has never been called for third reading by the government House leader of the New Democratic Party.

I want you people to understand that what happens here today -- and I applaud my colleague the member for Durham East for bringing it forward -- is really something that depends upon the whim of the government House leader. If he doesn't call it forward, nothing will happen.

I can tell you there's only one bill in this House that has ever been brought forward, and it was brought forward by a person who is now one of the spin doctors on the second floor, Mr McClellan. It was a bill to advance daylight saving time by one week. That's the only bill in private members' hour that has ever been taken through third reading and given royal assent.

I want you to understand that. I don't believe in fooling people. I believe people should understand what the rules are. As I said, I'm going to support it and I hope the government House leader does take that. It's a simple matter of petitioning the United Kingdom to give you people equity. But I'm telling you that this hour really could be abolished. When we were in government, private members' hour was a free vote. We were entitled to move anything. We never tried to whip the vote.

You watch over here. If there's something against the government policy, they will all vote as though they're joined at the hip.

Mr Hope: If he made sense we'd probably listen to him.

1020

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. I would also like to advise the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Callahan: I'm getting back to the bill. I now want to go back to why I think it's so important -- not just because of the inequity that has been discussed by the member for Durham East, about the fact that these people worked for their pensions and that every other British dominion indexes the pensions and the effect it has on either their existence here or coming here to stay in this country -- because their lot becomes even more cruel by the things that are happening to seniors. For instance, we haven't heard it yet, but I'm sure there will be a speculation tax brought out in the next budget which will tax the most significant asset that seniors have: their homes. If that happens then this asset that has accrued in value, which may be their only asset and may be the thing that's going to keep them in their golden years, will be taxed by the government.

The second thing is inheritance tax. I believe there is inheritance tax in existence in England. There was inheritance tax existing in Ontario and in Canada about 10 or 15 years ago. It was abolished because it was considered to be unfair, particularly to people who had amassed an estate and wished to have the opportunity to pass it on to their loved ones. I can tell you that you can look forward, unfortunately, to one of the budgets coming down from this government that will reinstitute inheritance tax and will institute speculation tax. That will impinge on the amount of money you have to survive on as well.

In addition to that, you look at the track record of this government in terms of what it has done for seniors. I know a lot of seniors and I'm getting pretty close to that myself, so I'm trying to pad my own existence. Seniors used to be able to go to provincial parks, I believe, for free. A lot of them like to travel in trailers and go to the parks. This government has increased the fees for those provincial parks for seniors. Seniors are now allowed to get in free into Ontario Place. The problem is, it costs you $9 to park. It used to be that seniors got in free at Ontario Place and there was no parking charge, or it certainly was a lot less than $9.

You look at the question of the federal government giving us all a break in terms of our taxes, and this government in its last budget took all of that money back by upping the Ontario portion of the provincial income tax. So in fact what happened was the federal government, and I don't speak for it, tried to give you a tax break. They picked it up. They picked up not just that but a bit more.

I look at the question of OHIP. Some of you people may travel outside of Ontario. We're trying to get the health care costs under control. That makes sense; I can support that. But hey make an announcement privately that if you stay out of the country the length of time you used to stay out suddenly your OHIP premiums disappear. They didn't bother to tell the seniors about that.

As I said to the Minister of Health in the House: "That is a devastating thing to do to seniors. What if they got ill down in Florida or someplace in the world and weren't aware that the time frame had been shortened? They would be left totally without health coverage." That certainly doesn't augur well in my mind in terms of what this government feels about seniors.

You look at the question of drug costs. You've now got a double-digit attack. You've got the federal government passing particular legislation and also a number of drugs that are available for use by seniors are being removed from the formulary. I've had letters in my office from people who are seniors and require a specific drug and it's been taken off the formulary. They can't get it. If they want it, they have to go out and pay the full cost or maybe buy a name brand, and it's even higher.

I suggest to you that there are a lot of things that really have not been done for the benefit of seniors. That's why I'm supporting this. I think you people deserve that extra pension. You're going to need it, because I'm suggesting to you that if the track record of this NDP government continues in its present vein it will be picking your pocket more and more. You're going to need all those extra dollars, so I'm strongly in support of that.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Give us a break, Bob.

Mr Callahan: The member says, "Give us a break." There's one thing in politics that I cannot be accused of by anybody in this House, and I challenge them to do it. It is that when I speak to people I don't try to play games with them or fool them. I tell them the full facts, and that's why I'm saying the things I am. It's not a question of trying to put down.

The member for Durham East is a fine gentleman. He has brought forward a motion that deserves the support of this House, as I've said right from the outset. But I think it's important that the seniors who are here and those who may be watching understand that the reason they need this extra money is because of the reasons I've given: that this government is picking away and taking away, bit by bit, the moneys that seniors have. Seniors are, in the main, on fixed incomes. Every time a government makes a decision that affects a senior citizen, it removes that safety measure that the seniors have. That's totally unfair. So I believe in putting the matter in perspective and letting these people know exactly what may happen in terms of this motion.

I certainly hope the government House leader is listening -- he's not here, but I hope he's listening -- and that the Premier, who is not here, is listening. This motion doesn't require a great deal, Mr Premier. I'm speaking to you. You're not there, but I'm speaking to you.

The member for Durham East is simply asking on behalf of these very worthy people for a petition to be sent to Great Britain -- with the backing of the NDP government and the backing of the entire Legislature, because I think we'd all vote for it -- that these people should be entitled to have their pensions indexed. I think the arguments the member for Durham East makes are eminently sound and logical: the fact that if you sent these people back or they returned to England the cost would be greater than their staying here and having indexed pensions. I think that's a marvellous argument and I wish you well, member, that you're able to persuade the people who have the levers of power to do that.

What may happen is the spin doctors in the back room may say: "That could be politically dangerous to do because we don't want to talk about indexed pensions. Even though all of us politicians get indexed pensions, we don't want to talk about that because it may mean that other people will want indexed pensions." So, "I'm sorry, Gord," he'll say to you. "We can't do anything with that motion. It was passed unanimously by the House, but it's not going anyplace."

One of my colleagues here in the House wishes to have two minutes of this, and I'm going to attempt to give it to him. I want to say this to the member for Durham East and to every member of this Legislature: If we are going to have meaningful representation by backbenchers who are not part of the power group in this place, if we're going to make Thursday morning important rather than wasting our time here, then we have to reform this Legislature to the point where if a bill gets second reading, as was the case with Bill 154 of my friend the member for Carleton East, that bill is brought forward and is passed and given royal assent.

Governments have got to stop this thinking: "That's a pretty popular bill. We don't want to give the opposition the benefit of having gotten that bill through the Legislature. We want to take the glory for ourselves." I'll tell you, we've got to get over that habit too. We're here to serve the people of this province. We're not here to serve ourselves or serve our own egos or try to get our picture in the paper or get on television. We're here to serve the people of Ontario. The sooner we realize that and the sooner we deal with the reform of this Legislature, empowering backbench MPPs to vote the way they wish rather than joined at the hip, the better off we'll be.

I've left you only a minute and 30 seconds, my colleague, but I'm happy to give it to you. I will be supporting this bill. I urge all other members to support it as well.

1030

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to stand in this House this morning and support this resolution. I see this resolution as being a totally non-partisan matter. I'm sorry some of the comments have developed into that flavour. We have lots of times and opportunities in this House to be partisan. The good thing about private members' business on Thursday morning is the fact that for the most part most of the bills and resolutions are non-partisan.

It's particularly significant for me to have this opportunity to speak to the member's resolution because I grew up in England. My parents were British. Except for the fact that my father died three months before the end of the war in the Royal Navy, and that my mother died in 1976 over here, my parents too would be in the position that the pensioners are in on whose behalf we are speaking this morning.

I also have been fortunate in receiving a number of telephone calls from my own constituents in this matter. If there had been more lead time and the if member who's moving the resolution was able to have more time to deliver the message, we probably would be in a position where we could actually speak personally on behalf of very many more of our constituents. In my case, the people who have called me are people I know very well in the community. It's a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of these individuals because they have made a tremendous contribution to this country, where they have chosen to live to be with their families.

It would make sense for the government of Ontario to support this resolution and follow it through to its final destination. I would hope that since the mover is a member of the government caucus, there will not be any problem with the intent of this motion being carried out. If there is, I say to you, Mr Mills, perhaps we should all camp out in the Premier's office.

People have called me this week: Dorothy Jamieson, Florence Gundhill and Mr and Mrs Corpe. When I mention those individuals, I know they are only four people of thousands whom we all have an opportunity to support in this House this morning.

I would also like to say at the outset that I think we all owe a tremendous expression of gratitude and congratulations to Benson Zonena. I think that Benson, as president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, has obviously been working very hard for a very long time on this issue. I've fortunately been furnished with a number of newspaper articles and publications from him, from my friend Mr Mills and also from another friend, although not a constituent, in Toronto, Mr Douglas T. Ross.

This article in the Weekly Telegraph is only one of many. I suggest to anyone who is not familiar with this issue that if he would like to contact my office, I would be more than happy to give him a copy of this article so he knows the importance of the debate we are taking part in this morning.

I would also encourage any of our British pensioners who live in Ontario today who wish to know more about this cause, and are wondering how they can be part of the thrust Mr Benson Zonena has started, to call my office and I would be happy to give them the telephone number. In fact I'll do it now. I'm not quite as old as Mr Mills, but I do need my glasses. The number is 253-6402. That's in area code 416. That's the number for the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners. This is one of their newsletters, and I would be happy to forward that information to anyone who wants to be part of this very important campaign.

I wonder who would have thought that in July 1992 we would have to stand in this House this morning on behalf of these pensioners. Who would ever have thought that of any government in the world, our British government would have chosen to copout totally in its responsibility to some of its pensioners. I could perhaps see it with a country with less history and less prestige, maybe even some other Commonwealth countries if we want to stay with the Commonwealth, but there are many countries in the world which would not have that system of honour that Great Britain has had throughout its history. That's why I think it's very hard for us to understand that of all countries, we are now pleading with the British government to rectify what is absolutely an injustice.

I do not see this issue as a question of choice for the British government; it is purely a question of obligation. When these people contributed to their national insurance fund when they lived in Great Britain, they were doing the same thing we do in Canada when we contribute to our Canada pension plan. We all do that in good faith, anticipating that at the very least we would all be treated equally in the end.

What we have in this situation is favoured countries on the one hand, and countries that are not in favour on the other hand, depending on where you live. What an irony that as we stand here in this House today, perhaps a mere 30 miles from the United States, we can talk about the fact that the people in Ontario are not entitled to indexed British pensions, but if they had chosen to live 30 miles from here, in the United States, they would have that advantage and access to indexed pensions.

It is cruel that we have 42% of the people who were in Britain making their contributions to their national insurance fund, in good faith, receiving their indexed pensions, and yet we have 58% who do not have that right. In fact, and I say this to the member who moved this motion this morning, in my opinion, all these pensioners are not only entitled to be treated equally, but those pensioners whose pensions have been frozen these last number of years are entitled to a retroactive payment to be equal with those people who have been receiving it.

1040

There is a tremendous irony because I haven't seen anywhere in this literature where in fact British pensioners living in our province are asking for that. They are not asking for retroactive payments, which I have said I think they're entitled to. They're simply saying: "Let us now be treated equally. Let it now be a fair system."

Frankly, I think the British government -- and it's gone on long enough, of course, that we can say it's gone through more than one political party -- is treating our expatriate pensioners as though they've already died. The sad thing, of course, is that in far too many cases, that is what has happened. People have died without the same privileges as other people receiving the same pension in other countries.

When people choose to retire abroad -- I notice in a number of these newspaper clippings that the term "retire abroad" is used quite frequently -- it's not usually for any other reason than that they want to be with their family members. A lot of older people do not wish to leave Britain because that's where they have their friends, their business associates and their community contacts through their churches and other organizations. When they make that choice to retire abroad, in 99% of the cases, it's a matter of a family tie.

I think it is totally obscene that any government would discriminate against a family that chose to retire abroad, in the colloquial sense, to be close to its family and grandchildren, with the irony, perhaps even more so, that they need additional support financially. The pension itself isn't any great gold mine even at its indexed rate in Britain. When you come to other countries that are excluded and without the indexed rate, it certainly becomes a pittance with today's standard of living.

I want to read one thing very quickly. This was what really bothered me. By the way, I should mention that in Mr Ross's letter to the editor of the Weekly Telegraph, he said something I thought was very significant, "One is led to assume that the greater the procrastination on this issue the lower will be the financial liability as the numbers diminish." Isn't that sickening? Unfortunately, it's factual.

A quote in the Daily Telegraph of Monday, June 1, says:

"A spokesman" -- of course it would be a spokesman -- "for the Department of Social Security said that cost was a major deterrent to such a change, however desirable the object might be.

"'The main purpose of the annual uprating of pensions and benefits is to protect the living standards of people in this country,' he added.

"'The cost of uprating pensions for all people living abroad would amount to _275 million a year and has to be considered in the light of other competing demands on the social security budget.'"

I would love to know who this spokesperson is in Britain who has the gall to say that the main purpose of upgrading the "pensions and benefits is to protect the living standards of people living in this country," meaning Britain. Who are they to decide the living standards should be any different wherever those entitled pensioners live? It is outrageous that the British government has for so many years felt it could remove itself from this responsibility. It is a moral responsibility they have, and for the Britain I grew up in I am ashamed that we are here debating this resolution. I hope it will have some impact on the British government ultimately.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise to support my colleague's resolution with a great deal of pleasure and concern, pleasure that I can support my friend and concern for the plight of fellow Canadians. These British pensioners are Ontarians who have come to us, as has my friend, from the United Kingdom. These are people who have become an integral part of our community. They deserve respect and consideration, not only as neighbours and newcomers to our cities and towns, but also as a part of the continuing heritage we share with them as a part of the British Commonwealth of nations. They offer us a direct connection with our many ancestors of British origin.

Since the 1970s, representatives of the more than 100,000 British pensioners in Canada have lobbied the British government. Most of those pensioners live here in southern Ontario. British pensioners from all over Ontario have been calling their local members of provincial Parliament to make them aware of this debate.

I hoped that we would have more representation and forthright support. Today, Joyce Read from my riding of Durham Centre is here. My friend Tom Edwards, the mayor of Whitby, has told me the plight his family members have suffered because of the basic unfairness of the British pension system.

Indexation is essential to fair pensions. After a lifetime of hard work and contributions, seniors deserve to have the security that they will be able to live with peace of mind, free from worries about their next meal. Not only have they earned this security, this peace of mind, but we as a community owe it to them. As a government, we are committed to basic social equity and fairness. Indexation of pensions is an index, a measure of that fairness.

I have heard of few more dramatic examples of the need for indexation of pensions than here with British pensioners. I've met numerous seniors, some frail and impoverished, who are recipients of an insulting crust of bread in the form of their pensions. These women and men are loyal subjects of Her Majesty. Their pittance is a shameful return, a shameful response to their earnest loyalty. Their loyalty is steadfast and constant in value, while their pensions have declined to become an insult to that loyalty.

Elderly British pensioners like Tom Calder of Oshawa may receive only $3.80, or _2, while if they were living in the United States or the United Kingdom their pensions would be indexed to $100 a week, 26 times the amount that Commonwealth residents receive, a 2,600% increase due to indexation, indexation that's automatic in the United States. Surely the loyalty and needs of British residents here in Canada are no less than of those residents in the United States.

Seven years ago our federal government deindexed family allowances and attempted to do the same thing with old age security. Seniors from all over Canada rose in indignation and the federal Conservatives reversed their stance. British pensioners do not directly have the power of the vote in the UK, wherein lies the mother of our parliamentary system. We in Ontario know what it is like to deal with an insensitive government. We have the prospect of a change in that government. British pensioners in Ontario must depend upon our entreaties on their behalf and upon their own lobbying efforts. British pensioners in Canada have petitioned the British government year after year, and to no avail. Our government has attempted to secure bilateral agreement on social security and made some progress. We have such arrangements with 23 other countries.

1050

What other country do we have closer ties with? Look at the flag of our province. It boasts and boosts the Union Jack. It's prominent in the left corner. And above us here we have the Union Jack itself. Our banner announces, "Ut incepit fidelis sic permanet." United Empire Loyalists we started, and loyal we remain.

My ancestors and those of most of us here came to Upper Canada from Scotland, from Wales, from Ireland, from England. We are Ontarians, we're Canadians, but even in our present rich nation, which is multicultural and includes people from all lands and races, much of what we are has been shaped by our heritage as British Canadians. Our very form of government, this assembly, is a growing part of British parliamentary tradition.

It seems ironic that the British government fails to recognize and respect its traditional fealties, the loyalties and traditions of Canada and other Commonwealth nations. The UK has a reciprocal treaty with 30 countries, but not with those that have a fealty to the British crown.

I urge my colleagues of all political persuasions to unite in support of their constituents who came to us from the United Kingdom. Join my colleague the member for Durham East in passing this resolution to petition the government of the UK and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as her subjects in Ontario, this most loyal of provinces.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too arise, in my one minute and 30 seconds, to support this resolution which is brought forward by my esteemed colleague on the government side, the member for Durham East.

It's a very important motion, and I too would like to emphasize what my colleague the member for Brampton South has said, because not only do we know, very much so, of the contribution of these people to this wonderful country and to their country of birth in Britain, it is living evidence that their contribution we enjoy today and we build upon.

But I must again emphasize the point made by my colleague from Brampton, that not only will he and my colleagues here support it on the first motion but look with great anticipation to support it on second reading and third reading, like many of the private members' bills here. It is very important that he has brought to the attention of all who are here listening, who are in the gallery, that saying it on first reading does not make it law. We hope the government and all of us here will see this through all the readings.

I want to commend him very much, because we know how passionately he feels about these people who have contributed so well. I know I can't talk about ancestry, but I talk about fairness and human rights, and that's why we should support this.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I haven't got a whole lot of time to talk about this. I wish I had more, and I'm counting on the people around me to slow me down when I get to the end of the time allotted to me.

The folks watching this can't see the galleries, but I want the thousands of people in Ontario watching this on their television sets this morning to know that there has never been so complete and thorough an attendance by members of the public in the public galleries during private members' resolutions.

You know, it makes me feel good. I can't tell you how good it makes me feel when I see the public coming down here. This is your building. It is; it's your building, and you have a right to observe, to monitor and to criticize -- I enjoy the right to criticize on occasion myself -- but to watch what happens here in this your building, your Legislature.

Yes, I support this resolution, and I'm really counting on there being unanimous support for this resolution so that the message from this Legislature is a message about justice, it's a message about fairness. It's a message about equity, isn't it? It's about simple equity; it's about getting what's rightfully yours.

The folks who are here and the folks who are listening are like so many people of their generation. I don't demean anything anybody's done, but they live with the most modest they have, with the most modest of goals. That was to make life a little bit better for their children than it was for them. To do that these people made sacrifices, they made commitments, they lived by their convictions; they adopted principles and they stuck by them. They made sacrifices and they served: They served their community, they served their country, they served their workplace, they served their neighbours, they served their churches. Many of them served in some of the most difficult of times and many of them have but memories of spouses or parents or siblings who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I'm so proud to be able to speak to this, this being an issue of justice and fairness and, yes, equity. I don't know if the folks know this or not: We're not supposed to refer to members by name. Oftentimes members are referred to by many other things besides their names, but the member for Durham East -- I take it upon myself, and please, Speaker, don't jump to your feet and condemn me for referring to Gord Mills by his name because I happen to know him and his wife, and I know his wife calls him that; not the member for Durham East but Gordon Mills.

Seniors have a great number of advocates here in this Legislature -- yes, in all three parties; there's no exclusivity on the part of New Democrats -- but no advocate for the rights and interests of seniors has been more vocal, more articulate, more adamant than Gord Mills from Durham East. That riding has a tradition of very outspoken and enthusiastic representation here in the Legislature. I know that, because I was here before 1990 and I tell you, Gord Mills carries on that tradition of outspoken, strong, forceful, articulate, spirited and principled spokesmanship and representation of the people in his riding.

I want the people who are here to know there's a minister responsible for seniors' issues, and that's Elaine Ziemba, Minister of Citizenship. People who've got pens and paper with them should take down the minister's phone number. You can call Elaine Ziemba at 325-6170. Call her after this resolution is passed to let her know that you want her to join Gord Mills and this Legislature in calling upon the British government to create the fairness that this resolution calls for.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise and vigorously support the resolution presented by the member for Durham East. As the member for Welland-Thorold said, while it may be not appropriate to use the name of Gord Mills in this House, I certainly want to tell the people of his riding and the many visitors we have today that Mr Mills has in fact defended the rights of seniors and forwarded the rights of seniors since his arrival in this place.

I support this resolution for many other reasons. Mr Mills mentioned in his remarks that we have 60,000 expatriate Brits living in Ontario. Many of these people live in my constituency. Maybe some of the folks who are sitting here today are resident in the riding of Scarborough Centre. I do this for you, and I do this also for my Uncle Tommy. It's too late for his wife, my Aunt Mary, as she's deceased, but it's not too late for his daughter, Julia. If they decided to emigrate to this fine country, they would be disadvantaged by a policy that has taken a snapshot of people 13 years ago and has frozen them in reality. Things have changed in the many years, the different times that have transpired since this snapshot was taken.

1100

I want to urge the Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba -- and for those who missed the opportunity during the remarks of the member for Welland-Thorold, that number is 325-6170. Write to Ms Ziemba, call Ms Ziemba and urge her to write the Prime Minister, John Major, to write Her Majesty the Queen to implore that this policy be changed to ensure equity for British pensioners in this country.

As the member for Mississauga South said, it's a disgrace that we have people who have worked, have fought side by side with my father during the Second World War, and they've come to this country, they've built this country, they've worked hard, they've built businesses, they've raised families, and now, at a time when life is supposed to be made easier, it is in fact more difficult.

The people of the British Isles have endured many hardships during the history of time. It is now time for this country to urge the country of Great Britain to reduce and eliminate the inequity with respect to pensions. Again I urge all members in the gallery, all people who are having the opportunity this morning to watch the parliamentary channel -- and perhaps it's a good thing we are sitting later on into the summer, so that there is an opportunity for more people to observe what goes on in this Legislature, to have an opportunity for members of the public to come in. As the member for Welland-Thorold has indicated, never ever have the galleries been so full.

In conclusion, again on behalf of the 60,000 expatriate British subjects in this country, on behalf of my Uncle Tommy, on behalf of my Aunt Mary, on behalf of his daughter, Julia, on behalf of the constituents who live in the riding of Scarborough Centre, I want to urge this government to contact the British government to eliminate this inequity.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has two minutes in summation.

Mr Mills: I've found this one of the most encouraging resolutions or bills I've ever had the privilege of introducing into this Legislature. I'd like to thank the members who have participated in this debate and I'd also particularly like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Mississauga South, Margaret Marland, who too had a father who is deceased but who fought in the war and would undoubtedly be very pleased today to be spoken of in the context of my resolution.

I'd like to thank the president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, Mr Benson Zonena, who's in the gallery. Believe it or not, Ben feels so strongly about this that only on Monday last he was having heart surgery and he's here today. I'd also like to recognize the vice-president of the alliance, Mr Bob McMullen, who's in the members' gallery. I'd also like to mention the treasurer of the alliance, Barbara Curly, who's also here. I'm very remiss. My own sister, Phyllis Grace, and her husband, Keith, are here from England, from Peterborough. To all you wonderful people, thank you.

[Interruption]

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I again want to remind everyone that you're most welcome, but demonstrations, such as applause, in the galleries cannot be tolerated. Thank you very much.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering if, with agreement from all sides of the House, it would be possible to have the vote at this time rather than at 12 o'clock because most of our guests are elderly. I'm wondering whether, to accommodate them, we could have an agreement to have the vote now.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed. We will therefore proceed to a vote on Mr Mills's resolution 16. Are any members opposed to a vote on this resolution?

Motion agreed to.

Mr Mills: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I know that in Hansard it will record just that the motion was passed. I'd like to go on the record to indicate in Hansard that it was unanimous with everybody present in this House today.

LANDFILL

Mr Beer moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3), and the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario, and the impact of a landfill site in the greater Toronto area has not been fully examined in terms of the effect on communities, the environment, agriculture, municipalities, businesses and individuals, the Minister of the Environment should amend Bill 143 to allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, and consideration of disposal sites outside the GTA where a "willing host" community exists.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to first of all thank my colleague the member for Quinte, who allowed us to make use of his private member's time today, my colleague the member for Markham, who has this motion in fact on the order paper, and my colleague the member for York Centre. All three of us, the member for Markham, the member for York Centre and myself, believe this is a most critical matter of urgent public importance and we wanted to ensure that this summer we were able to debate this topic and try to convince the members opposite that Bill 143 should be changed. In my opening remarks I want to focus on two main elements.

Bill 143, just to remind people, is An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. It is my contention and our view that this is bad legislation which enshrines within it autocratic decisions by the minister that simply should not be tolerated in a democratic society.

1110

It is ironic in a sense that we have just unanimously supported a motion which deals with persons who come from Great Britain, where in fact the democratic traditions and customs that we practise here originally began and were nurtured. I think one of the focuses we have to have when we look at legislation is to ensure that it is fair, that it is equitable and that it speaks to those democratic traditions and customs we have had. In this case, this bill does not.

We're going to hear a great deal today about process and about how this elaborate process that has been developed under Bill 143 is going to lead to a fair and just decision. It is our view that this is utter nonsense, that in fact this bill does just the opposite. Let's remember the impact of this bill. In real terms, this is a bill to decide where to put Metro Toronto's garbage. The decision taken by the minister and enshrined in this bill is that this garbage should go to the region of York. No discussion, no debate; that's where it's going.

What is it that is going into the region of York? Here is perhaps the most fundamental problem with this bill. From a government which has said in the past in opposition and which has proclaimed itself as recently as this month as the great defender of the environment, as the great party that speaks for the environment, what has it done here? It has said that in the region of York there shall be not just a dump; there shall be the largest dump in North America, larger even than the dump at Keele Valley. In trying to give people some sense of the scope of this dump, I think the best description is to note that it is the equivalent of 80 SkyDomes.

For a government that sees itself as being on the cutting edge of environmental progress and environmental reform, I think everybody has to ask himself the question, does it make sense then to proclaim that the most significant step we can take is to use what my friend and colleague the member for York Centre has termed "outhouse technology," a dump that will go down into the ground, but at the end of its time will be some 130 feet into the air?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thirteen storeys high.

Mr Beer: Thirteen storeys high, which is perhaps a better way to envision it and which will be the equivalent of 80 SkyDomes. That's what this is all about. That's what this is leading us to. It's the creation of that kind of dump.

Within the act the minister says: "Other options cannot be considered. I will not tolerate that other actions, other options will be considered." No one is standing on this side of the House and saying, "There is but one option available to any government in terms of dealing with waste." We all recognize we have a problem. But to state in this bill, in the act that was passed by this Legislature because of the members opposite, there is but one way to go and that is to force a dump of that magnitude on the region of York, surely, I say to those members, runs counter to every environmental principle that exists.

Put it in the context, as I did in my question to the minister earlier this week, of the environmental bill of rights that has been brought forward by this government. Where are the rights of those persons living in the regions of Peel, York and Durham when it comes to dealing with what they are going to be forced to accept through this bill?

In my motion today, the motion I'm sharing with the member for Markham and the member for York Centre, we are simply saying that other options and alternatives should and must be considered. It is only right and it is only fair. This Bill 143 needs to be changed to make sure that in fact that can happen, because what we're saying is that as we go about trying to find solutions for our waste problems, we must not confine ourselves through ideology.

We've got to look at all of the new technologies that exist out there. What we have said is that they should go through the environmental assessment process. This act will not allow that. This act in effect speaks against using the environmental assessment process, which again the government has said for so long must be used in all matters of this kind. Well, if that is so, then let's make sure that is done here.

The second point I want to make in my opening remarks is the question around why the region of York has been fingered to take the waste from Metropolitan Toronto. Let's get one thing very clear at the outset: The region of York, where the Keele Valley landfill site exists, has been taking other people's waste for a long time. This is not a NIMBY issue here. We have been doing our part.

The region of York has said all along that it will deal with its own waste. That is not the issue. The issue is, why has this minister arbitrarily, unilaterally said in the bill that in addition to looking after the region's own waste, the region will also look after all of the waste of Metropolitan Toronto?

The minister received a letter dated July 8 from Eldred King, who is the chairman of York region, and I want to read this into the record because it is an important letter.

"Dear Madam Minister, I was most discouraged that you were not present at the rally on the steps of the provincial Legislative Building yesterday. I believe I had a very important message to share with you." He goes to attach a copy of that message.

"Also of great concern to me and York region council is a printed message from a communication published by your ministry...which is absolutely and blatantly inaccurate. Metro Toronto and York region have an agreement related to Keele Valley landfill site only. The agreement states, 'Metro will accept York waste up to the parameters as set out in the certificate of approval or to the year 2003.' If the site is filled prior to 2003, Metro must accommodate York's disposable waste in any other Metro facility. York region may also, before 2003, handle our waste in a manner so determined by regional council.

"There is absolutely no" -- and I repeat -- "there is absolutely no other agreement between Metro Toronto and York region, beyond the completion of the Keele Valley site."

It is for that reason that the region of York has gone to court and, under the charter, laid out a case which states very clearly that the rights of the individuals in the region of York have, through Bill 143, been denied. We believe that is a most serious charge and a most serious case.

It's for those two reasons in particular that I rise and speak against Bill 143 and for the changes proposed in this motion: First, it is simply bad public policy and bad environmental policy and I don't believe there can be any question to the contrary; second, it unilaterally and arbitrarily forces upon the region of York, with no discussion, the waste from Metropolitan Toronto.

This bill must be changed. Other options and other alternatives must be found. I encourage the members opposite as well as all of those on this side of the House to support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for York North will have two minutes in summation later.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The fact is that when Europe was under attack, the Allies formed a pact on which they worked together, and certainly the kind of relationship I've had with the members for York North and York Centre is that when we have had to put something first, it is our local communities and the people of York region ahead of partisan politics. So I compliment the member for York North in presenting this resolution and I support strongly the things Mr Beer is saying and certainly what Mr Sorbara is doing as well.

If everyone could work together on things like this, our society would be stronger and better for it, instead of allowing it to become something where the politics become far bigger than the needs of the people in the community. So I'm complimented that Mr Beer is using a resolution that I tabled earlier. It shows that we can work together and we will work together. I commit myself to continue to do everything possible to fight for the people of York, Durham and Peel to prevent the kind of terrible travesty to the environment that is being brought forward by this government.

1120

The resolution is broken into four parts, and what we are really talking about is the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites that go beyond their boundaries under the Environmental Assessment Act. I have to say that the Environmental Assessment Act, which has long standing in the history of Ontario, goes a long way to describing how a government can deal with it.

The other evening, I made a presentation to the Interim Waste Authority in its Stouffville office on behalf of the Conservative caucus. I would like to read into the record one of the paragraphs I presented at that time:

"To put it bluntly, the perceived override by Bill 143 of the Environmental Assessment Act's requirement, as stated in subsection 5(3) of that act, that an assessment include 'a description of and a statement of the rationale for the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking' truncates the process in a manner which not only precludes the assessment of alternatives to landfill in the GTA, but has also, for that very reason, fuelled public opposition to and scepticism about the process itself."

There isn't any doubt that when the government passed Bill 143 it removed the rights of people. That simple reason accounts for why York region is funding the court case of Mr Robert Johnston, mayor of Georgina, to fight for those rights in the courts. How terrible it is that people in a region have to use legal costs and court costs to fight the province here at Queen's Park. It's just a wrong use of money.

Notwithstanding that, the government is putting more than $19 million into the funding of the Interim Waste Authority's activities, and there is no intervenor funding for people who want to fight it. That is not forthcoming. It should be forthcoming. What we're doing is fighting each other. That's not the way to build a strong, healthy environment. That's really what has been fomented by this government in the way it's causing groups to fight each other rather than fight together for a common cause.

The third point of this resolution -- 1 and 2 go closely together -- is that the impact of landfill sites in the greater Toronto area has not been fully examined. I don't think there's any doubt that there's been a massive failure by this government to examine these sites. I have to feel that if they're dumb enough to put those 57 sites together, they might be dumb enough to put a landfill site in any one of them. If this government's dumb enough to choose them in the first place and put them on the list, then who knows what it's going to cause to happen? That is why people are wrecking their summers, fighting to have some understanding of justice.

In the Interim Waste Authority office in Stouffville, its topographical map showing the M3 site is so outdated it doesn't even show the large subdivisions south of 16th Avenue. That causes people to wonder whether they've taken into account all the people and population and social impacts that are part of it.

You say, "Come, people; express your views about these sites." When people went there the other night, there weren't even enough forms for them to sign to indicate their reasons for being concerned. Notwithstanding that, a couple of days ago the mayor's task force for Markham made a presentation. Indeed, task forces from all across the regions of York, Durham and Peel will be making their presentations. It's demonstrating the failure of the Interim Waste Authority to, in the first place, qualify the sites it has selected for any consideration at all.

The presentation given by the mayor's task force brought up the extremely hazardous use of land for a landfill site when it's close to airports. That alone should have precluded consideration of at least three sites. With a landfill, you end up having birds and different kinds of traffic coming into it that are dangerous near airports. Provision must be made to prohibit landfills within an eight-kilometre zone. The federal Ministry of Transport will be talking about the effect this has on the three sites: M3, M6 and one in Stouffville on Spring Lakes golf course.

Look at the data they had before they selected these sites. One site has a large, 25-hectare strawberry field on it. One site is so close to a blue heronry; it's 900 metres from the M6 site. You're talking about flood plains that have never really been understood and are not part of the IWA process. You've got creeks that are missing: certainly the Burndennett Creek was missed in the M3 review.

We're talking about an analysis that is extremely incomplete. We're talking about the impact these sites can have on the large socio and geographic areas they are close to. What they've done is laid down a number of sites without any understanding, it seems, of the relationship it's going to have on the people and on the communities.

We concern ourselves with how this government has selected its criteria in choosing these sites. It confuses the importance of one site over another. They contradict themselves by virtue of their own policies and how they have it going. I have an example. My friend the member for Dufferin-Peel, who very much wanted to be here this morning but cannot, asked if I would comment briefly on some of the considerations of the 15 sites that are selected in Caledon and in Peel.

One site is owned by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. One borders on the Oak Ridges moraine and the Humber River tributary. One also includes a farmers' burial ground that was established in the 1800s, not registered but there are definitely bodies there. All sites in Peel are on agricultural land and on excellent farms.

We're talking about sites right across the whole of York, Durham and Peel that cut into the Oak Ridges moraine, the tributaries of the Rouge Valley and the Don River. You're talking about sites that are on the Ganaraska, sites that are in close proximity to Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario. What a fool this government has proven itself to be in selecting such sites to eliminate Metro Toronto's garbage. The logic they use is totally inadequate, that they believe people have to see their garbage. Maybe they should provide bus tours so the people in Toronto can come and see where their garbage is going. Most people don't even know where Keele Valley is; they probably think it's out in Manitoba. Once it leaves their doorsteps, once it leaves their streets, they think it's gone. It is gone, but it's very close to them.

The people in Metro as well as the regions surrounding Metro have a genuine reason to be concerned that this government has said, "It's just going to have to be this way." The government has closed its mind to the options that are available. That is the third and final point I wanted to stress in my presentation this morning, and that is part of the presentation I made to the Interim Waste Authority earlier this week.

On behalf of our caucus, we wanted to make it very clear that the authority review the legislation which gives the authority power to consider options other than just looking at the most valuable space in Canada that surrounds the greater Toronto area; in other words, look at the rail-haul option. Our caucus had two resolutions we presented to Mr McIntyre and the IWA: that the IWA commission or conduct a complete environmental assessment of the Kirkland Lake rail-haul proposal, and that the IWA assess the proposal by applying the same eight criteria it will employ in a comparative evaluation of the GTA candidate sites.

I'm not saying that Kirkland Lake, Adams mine, is the site; I don't know. But I do ask that there be a thorough environmental assessment of that site. It's a willing host site. When you hear the kind of remark made by the New Democrats, "That means you have to look at all other sites," that is a lie. When there are people who are a willing host site and are prepared to accept it, that is the kind of opportunity we should look at here within the greater Toronto area. It's happened in Oregon. It's happened in many parts of the United States where you have a rail-haul option, and it's working.

The other recommendation we made on this very important point is that the IWA reduce uncertainty and strengthen the credibility of the site selection process by immediately delisting candidate sites located in, on or near environment biospheres. When you realize the effect these landfill sites will have on such a large area, you have to understand that there are other considerations beyond just the people.

Part of the presentation that was made earlier this week by Gartner Lee in the mayor's task force touched on environmental considerations: the gases, the leachate, the traffic, the vectors, the odour, the visual impact. When you think that these sites we're talking about will be 11 storeys tall, it has a huge impact on these communities. The litter, the dust, the noise: How many people want to have 500 trucks passing their homes and their streets and going through their communities every day? The air emissions, the effect on settlement, the effect on heritage: All these are considerations that have to be brought to mind.

1130

As we speak in favour of this motion, we're asking only for common sense. We're asking for some sanity, for some chance for this government to reopen its consideration of other options, other than delimiting and controlling the search process to the 57 sites that have been proposed. If this were done, we would be in a position in this province to take it a step further and open up for technology and open up for other ways of handling our garbage.

I compliment the member for York North. I sincerely hope this will be a day we will see a change of heart by the member for Durham-York, who certainly is part of the York community, a person who has sensibility. I hope that at this point in time, he'll have an opportunity to come on side for the people of York rather than take the partisan political role he has taken up until now. I don't know what the member for Durham West will do. We all know he has talked on both sides of this issue. Therefore, as we hear him talk in the House and in committee, we know there are different ways in which he handles the issue. The public will deal with him appropriately when the time comes.

I'm going to leave a few moments for my member who's critic for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd like to address those last comments first. My stand on the issue of waste management has been consistent since 1987, when Metropolitan Toronto first made its incursions into Ajax at the Brock South site. It remains consistent, and that is that there should be no landfill sites anywhere in Durham that do not undergo a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing. I agree that Bill 143 fulfils those requirements. I have not said anything different and I will continue to --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: Also, I would like to point out that during the debate by the member for York North and the member for Markham, I sat here and did not heckle. I would think the return courtesy would be useful.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): But you've got to tell the truth in this House, Jim, and you know 143 is not a full environmental assessment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Wiseman: I would tell the member for Oriole that I have done nothing but tell the truth in this House and that if her party were consistent with what it has done in the past -- it's rather interesting that it is lately coming to this position of full environmental assessment.

But I'd like to read my prepared remarks. I rise once again in this House to debate the issue of waste disposal. I welcome the opportunity to revisit the issue we debated endlessly over the past winter when we discussed Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. I have to admit I understand the member's anxiousness to debate this issue once again. It may well be that some of the members of the opposition did not pay very close attention when this bill was brought through the House, as they did not realize that this bill was going to be a catalyst by which potential landfill sites could end up in their backyards or their ridings.

I understand that not all members of this Legislature have had the opportunity to understand the garbage issue the way I do, and I think they're lucky they don't. It is an issue I cut my political teeth on. It is an issue that is very near, but I can tell you, not so dear, to my constituents.

The member wants to "amend Bill 143 to allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of...waste" in the greater Toronto area.

I know what he's talking about. He's talking about incineration. We live in a parliamentary democracy. The bill prohibiting incineration as an option for the GTA's waste disposal was debated in this House. It was referred to the standing committee on social development and we had five weeks of hearings. We returned the report of the committee to the Legislature, debated it a third time, and as happens in parliamentary democracy, the bill was passed and it became law.

Am I missing something here? Has there been some change to the definition of "democratic process"? I'm sure the members opposite would like to believe a democratic process is one that favours the whining of opposition members. I'm afraid that just isn't the case. We had the hearings and we listened to all sides of the argument. Yes, I said all sides. Issues have more than one side. That is what --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You'll have your time to reply.

Mr Wiseman: During these hearings we had agreement from the member for Mississauga South, who shares this government's view on incineration. As a matter of fact, she spoke more eloquently on the subject than anyone else did during the hearings.

I am proud to say this government is considering future options for the disposal of GTA waste. There is nothing in Bill 143 that prevents this from happening. Evaluation of these options is happening as we debate this very issue in the House today. No, only incineration was ruled out. It is clearly not an environmental answer. All it will do is swallow up the precious and few natural resources this world has left to offer, further pollute the air we breathe and leave a toxic waste at the end of the process even more difficult to dispose of than normal waste if it can only be disposed of in a hazardous waste site. It does nothing to close the environmental loop.

The second part of the resolution deals with the consideration of disposal sites outside the GTA where a willing host community exists. I am sorry, but I have to laugh when I see the phrase "willing host." My constituents in Pickering know all about "willing host." They are the most unwilling of willing hosts there are. The Brock West landfill site currently in operation in Pickering for Metropolitan Toronto waste was in the beginning based on a "willing host" scenario. Well, even the most courteous of willing hosts can get upset with a visitor that has overstayed his welcome.

Pickering reached that point with Metro some years ago. They were counting the days until Brock West could finally be closed. Then, lo and behold, even without knowing it, Pickering residents became a willing host yet again. It seems that the council of the region of Durham in conjunction with the regional municipalities decided that Pickering would once again be a willing host for Metro garbage. This was the birth of P1, the proposed interim landfill site in Whitevale that was proposed by the previous government without any options. It was technically a willing host, but for the 60,000 people in Pickering it was just the big guys raking in the bucks by sacrificing the little guy who didn't have enough votes on regional council to fight it.

My constituents know about willing hosts. They know about the shortcuts the previous government took. They know about the democratic process. They do not have to be reminded, and I find it rather interesting that the Liberal Party has been converted on the road to opposition, where they justly deserve to stay for a long time if that's their view of the democratic process.

Mr Sorbara: This debate on Bill 143 is going to continue until either the New Democratic Party government is defeated by the people in the next election or at an earlier time when the Minister of the Environment introduces amendments into this Legislature to change the basic principles of Bill 143.

I've sat in this House for over seven years now and represented the people of York region, or some of the people of York region, for seven years. I want to make it clear that I have never in the course of those seven years seen such angry, fierce and determined citizen involvement in a matter of public policy as on this issue, as crafted by the Minister of the Environment under the terms of Bill 143.

I can just think back to a meeting in King City a couple of nights ago, where more than 500 people gathered to express their outrage, their anger and their determination that they, along with the other residents of York region, will move heaven and earth rather than allow the government of the day to implement what is provided for in Bill 143. I've never seen anything like it, not on the most controversial of bills. I too, I tell my friend the member for Durham West, believe in the democratic process and I believe that in a democracy the will of the people is going to prevail.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West, you had your turn. It's his turn.

1140

Mr Sorbara: I was speaking about the meeting in King City the other night and the determination of the people there to make sure this policy is not implemented. The kind of speeches I heard there from citizens and local representatives actually struck fear in me, because as one councillor put it, "There will be blood in the street before this dump is opened in York region." I don't agree we have to go that far, but I just mention it in this Legislature to advise members of the degree of anger.

Let's find out why this is. Let's review the facts and circumstances. What brought us to this point? First, is there a problem? Yes, there is a problem. Metropolitan Toronto, a community of some 2.5 million people, creates on a day-to-day and month-to-month basis a great deal of garbage. Its facilities at Keele Valley are now filling up and at some point or another Metropolitan Toronto, in conjunction with other municipalities in the area and the province of Ontario, is going to be required to find new facilities or new ways of disposing of its garbage.

Let's give credit where credit is due. Bill 143 does say a lot of the right things about reuse, recycling and reduction of waste, and we have no quarrel with that. All of us agree unanimously that it is time we got on with that agenda. But the other part of Bill 143 is the thing that has outraged citizens, not just in York region but throughout Metropolitan Toronto and around the province.

Why is that? It's for two reasons: First, the Minister of the Environment determined that she would impose upon the province her personal and political ideology; that is, that the only solution to the disposal of garbage is the old outhouse technology of digging a hole and dumping it. Second, the Minister of the Environment determined that the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto would have to go in the urban shadow of Metropolitan Toronto. That means you have to dump it as close to home as possible; again, the outhouse technology.

I want to say a few things about dumping in the urban shadow. No jurisdiction in North America or Europe has used the urban shadow approach for dumps in the past 30 years. One wonders why Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto and Ruth Grier are doing it, but that's for another, longer debate.

Even assuming that the political approach of dumping in the urban shadow of a large metropolitan area is the appropriate one, instead of saying all the urban shadow can be a candidate site, the minister determined that only one municipality in that urban shadow would be an appropriate candidate region for the garbage. That determination is so arbitrary, so outrageous, so unacceptable, that the people of York region said, "It cannot survive, and if the minister does not change her mind, we will ensure that the government is defeated and that garbage is never dumped in Metropolitan Toronto."

Let me put it to you another way, Mr Speaker, just to enforce the point and the perspective of York region. I ask you to make a determination. How fair would it be if the Minister of the Environment said the garbage dump can go anywhere in Ontario except York region? Would that be fair? Would that be acceptable? What if the Minister of the Environment said the garbage could go anywhere in the urban shadow in the regions of Durham, Peel or Halton, anywhere in the urban shadow except York region? Would the government members support a bill of that nature? I tell my friends in opposition they supported a bill that did the exact same thing, except in reverse, when Ruth Grier said in the bill that the facility shall go in York region.

That's the justification for it. That's the thing that so troubles the people of York region. If the rest of the urban shadow had been open as a possibility for a candidate site, they might have said: "Okay, it's their politics that it goes in the urban shadow. It's their politics to have dumps, so okay, all of the urban shadow is a possible area for this megadump." When the people of York region read that bill and it said that Peel has to find a site for Peel garbage, they said, "Okay," and Durham has to find a site for Durham garbage, they said, "That's okay." But then the bill said that Metro Toronto and York region have to find a site for their garbage and they said: "No, stop, hold it. That doesn't make sense." Tilt -- you know, you're playing pinball and the machine says "Tilt." Something is out of order. Something is not acceptable.

We said to the Minister of the Environment when she introduced the bill: "Ruth, don't do this. It's a political decision. All hell will break loose. You are creating a crisis that you will not be able to control. You can't arbitrarily identify York region as the site for Metro garbage and get away with it. The democratic process will not allow you to do that."

She was stubborn, she was arbitrary, she insisted, and they used a closure motion to ram it through Parliament, I say to my friend who refers to the democratic process, and now we have the law on the books. But in a democracy where the will of the people prevails, I am absolutely satisfied that this megadump will never open in York region, because if the minister does not change the law, then the people will change the government.

It's not just a York region issue. Every single environmental group in the province of Ontario has told the Minister of the Environment that she was wrong in the way she has gone about this. Every single council in York region has provided funds to fight this. The region of York itself is taking the minister and the Interim Waste Authority -- as if there is anything interim about this -- to the highest court in the land to challenge this under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects or is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of this province.

I simply want to say in closing and in completing my remarks that we here in opposition will continue to race as fast as we can to keep up with the people of York region who have a determination in this regard that gives me the highest degree of confidence that this will never happen. We will fight until the end. We will defeat the government or we will change this bill or, if I have my druthers, we will do both.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity, and the members from the Liberal Party for bringing forward the motion Mr Cousens drafted. It certainly shows there is some cooperation on at least one issue.

First, the list is long on the inaccuracies that the member for Durham West outlined in his speech. I only have a minute left. I'll just go through quickly what's wrong.

This government has absolutely butchered this issue, totally butchered it from day one. Metropolitan Toronto acted in a very uphanded and fair manner. All the sites that they were going through were going through full environmental assessment hearings under a shortened process. It was a very public and very understandable process. Granted, that government there didn't agree with that process and I accepted the fact it didn't agree with the shortened process. I understood the fact during the election that they didn't accept the process and they came forward and said, "All sites must go through an environmental assessment program," and I understood that.

The environmental assessment program takes 17 years; 17 years was the last site approved on the environmental assessment program. Under Bill 143 these sites will be on stream in two to three years. They're trying to tell me that's a full environmental assessment program. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. The only thing that's consistent is the clothes they wore in 1987. That's the only thing that's consistent about their position.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, members opposite, and the member for Durham West particularly should be very ashamed of his position, because you are not representing your constituents and you've been co-opted by government.

1150

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to be debating this again, as we have on many occasions. There are some points in this resolution that I'd like to particularly address. The first point is the decision about the prohibition of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond its boundaries being contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act. I want to point out that the traditional waste master planning process and the practice is to define the search area, and that's exactly what the government did.

The second point that has been raised is the right to a full environmental assessment and the right to review all options. The preferred sites that will be selected by the Interim Waste Authority will be defended, and have to be defended, before the Environment Assessment Board, and that's a process that is quite open.

Quite often in this debate we're hearing about options. One option that one of my colleagues pointed out was incineration. Why not incineration? I don't think I could go off into my constituency and tell any of my constituents that the opposition members would like to see an incinerator here, because they don't think burying the garbage is a good answer. That option was well debated in the committee; we heard from an awful lot of experts. I'm not saying I'm an expert on it, but that's one of the options that has been talked about, and that's something we want to talk about.

When they refer to all the options, another one is the train, sending it north to Kirkland Lake. I've got an article here from USA Today newspaper, and it's dated July 14, 1992. I'll read you the title of it: "Trash Train Continues Vagabond Course." The Santa Fe Railway calls it the "PU Choo-Choo." That's a very good name for it because in the article it says there were large numbers of flies, maggots and an odour coming from the containers that were dripping. The vagabond train has focused attention on the growing debate over solid waste disposal and the regular hauling of household garbage all around the country.

I don't know if, when that train was making its trek up north, the members opposite thought about when it stops. It could get stopped and delayed in Beaverton or in Orillia or in Huntsville or North Bay, because that's all very likely, and maybe we could have the PU Choo-Choo sitting in North Bay. I don't think the members opposite would like that too much.

When they talk about Kirkland Lake as an option, the so-called willing host, if it had to go before the Environmental Assessment Board, every single potential site would have to be considered. This is because a proponent of a landfill site cannot go in front of the Environmental Assessment Board with just one site having been examined for that reason, because there are people who want the garbage there, the willing host. The board would simply dismiss that undertaking.

Another aspect was the impact of landfill on the greater Toronto area. We've seen the emotion that's been stirred up by this, because we did have some large rallies here, and there are a lot of large meetings taking place up in my constituency and my other York colleagues' constituencies. But when they show up here at Queen's Park, they let the people of Metropolitan Toronto know they've got a responsibility in this. They've got to get serious about waste reduction. They've got to take that to Metro council and tell it that it has got to be responsible.

There is an agreement, an arrangement that Metro would take York's waste till the year 2003. There's also a responsibility on the part of Metro to start taking a look at reduction, and that's what those residents were coming down and saying as well. They're not only being critical, but they're taking a look at all of the aspects that need to be looked at.

I know my colleague from the north wants to talk a little bit about it, so I'm not going to go on much longer. I just want to say that, as far as the impact of landfill not being fully examined is concerned, every aspect of landfill I have mentioned is going to have to go before a full Environmental Assessment Board hearing. These hearings will take into consideration the full impact before a shovel ever touches the ground, and I think that's important. Two new landfill sites within the greater Toronto area were to go to Whitevale and Brampton without going before that board, and I don't think that was a democratic process.

The Interim Waste Authority was not created to say that we didn't have a responsibility, because, yes, we've got a responsibility and we're not turning our backs on the people we represent. We've got a serious problem and we're addressing it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Very briefly, I want to join in the debate by indicating that this whole process has certainly troubled the Doanes, a family in my riding whose farm, which they've been farming since 1935, has in fact been zeroed in on as one of the sites for garbage.

I suggest to you that flies right in the face of the New Democratic Party's lifelong statement that it wishes to preserve good farm land. This farm land has been in existence since 1935. What are the Doanes to do? Are they to be left on hold for a year or two or three, before they can finally get back to making plans to farm on a long-term basis?

In addition to that, there are other people in my riding who went through a process that went on for years and many of them would come to me when I was on city council and say, "I'm afraid to fix up my rec room, Mr Callahan, because I don't know whether or not that landfill site across the street is going to be the one designated."

I suggest to you that what has happened now is we've put them right back in that same process. We've put them on hold. That's not fair to the people of my riding or, for that matter, to the ridings of those members who have spoken on this matter. I want to thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to say those few things on behalf of my constituents.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've only got a few minutes. I'll just make the most important points. It is with great pleasure I have an opportunity to get up and participate in this debate that was put forward by the Liberal member -- I forget the riding -- Mr Beer.

I just want to point out a couple of things in his debate, because I think it's fairly important. One of the things I'd like to point out is that one of the things that is said by the opposition -- I think the member for Markham mentioned it -- is how this whole approach in regard to Bill 143 was an unthought-out process; it wasn't any good, there was no logic to it and it didn't work at all.

What they're advocating, what they want to do in this particular situation, by allowing the garbage to be shipped outside of the GTA is that -- basically the analogy would be like saying, "I'm cleaning my living room and rather than take the dirt and put it in the wastepaper basket, I'm going to take it and sweep it into somebody else's room" -- that's the position they're advocating.

The one thing I want to point out that's really interesting is that the Liberals have finally found a piece of policy. For years they were in the opposition; then they became the government. We didn't know where they were going when they were in government, so people booted them out. But all of a sudden they came up and they found a policy. The policy is that now they believe in environmental protection. They believe that there should be a full environmental assessment on these particular sites, which there will be, because we provided for that under Bill 143.

But I'm glad that they've taken that position, because I want to tell the people watching today that what happened under the Liberal government when it looked at the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake in Boston township is that it was going to allow that particular site to go ahead and become a short-term site without an environmental assessment. They were going to allow it to go as a short-term site. It would go under the EPA and, once they got garbage into the pit, who needs an environmental assessment at that point? So they didn't have a policy when they were in government because they were going to allow that site to go ahead.

What needs to be pointed out over here is that what happened is they needed to deal with the garbage crisis. No problem, that's fair. As a government they tried to give it some direction and leadership. They were kind of short on that. What they did is they turned around and they went out and they said, "We want municipalities to nominate those sites that they think would be able to act as interim sites in the short term." Metropolitan Toronto was the one that nominated Kirkland Lake. Metro nominates a town in northern Ontario to become its waste disposal site because supposedly it's a willing host.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No. I'm a northerner and we don't want garbage in northern Ontario. We have to deal with our own.

The thing is that what happened is that Peel went and nominated 6B, Durham nominated P1, and all of those sites, if any one of them had been accepted, would have gone without an environmental assessment, not one. That's terrible.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Liberals all of a sudden demand that there's going to be an environmental assessment. They want an environmental assessment. They think every site should go ahead with an environmental assessment. I agree, but it's a long time after the issue that you've changed your mind, because you were going to allow Kirkland Lake to go without such a provision. It would have been done under the EPA and that is totally correct.

That's what the people in Kirkland Lake found out when they started reading the agreement, because this agreement was put as a package that was so wonderful initially, but when people started to read the fine print they found out there were no recycling jobs, because the garbage you were going to send up there was the residuals and had nothing to do with the recyclable contents. Second of all, it wouldn't have undergone an environmental assessment; it would have been under an EPA.

1200

Come clean for once. The Liberals are such that if you put two glasses of water in front of them and they have to choose one, they'll die of thirst. They can't make up their minds. That's what's going to happen to them. So come clean.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr Beer: Let's be very clear, when we listen to the rubbish that has just come out on this issue, that we had in the person of Jim Bradley the finest Minister of the Environment this province has ever had. We had with that minister somebody who stood up and defended the environment. What is incredible in what we have heard from the members opposite --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we have heard from the members opposite --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, I advise you to remain quiet.

Mr Beer: The reason why they try to go back and talk about things which didn't happen and tell us about a policy that they say existed and didn't exist, is because they know they stand on such flimsy ground with Bill 143, which should never have been presented to this House, which is, in and of itself, garbage.

We have heard a number of comments about the motion. I want to go back and commend my colleague the member for Markham, who, in a very thoughtful address, set out all of the problems that have emerged as we begin to look at all of the sites that have been put out. There are many. My colleague the member for York Centre noted the feelings that exist in those areas because of this arbitrary policy. Somehow, one of the things that we have to do in this House, and from this side of the House, is to make you understand what is happening up there.

The other point that has to be made is that when the members opposite talk about what happened in the past or a short-track process, what you are doing in this bill -- there's nothing short-track about it -- is a direct and fundamental attack on the basic rights of individuals because you're saying there is no choice and no option.

In addition, they come at us not using the words in the motion, not in fact using any words that were expressed here and through that old favourite of saying, "They want to talk about incineration," or "They want to talk about Kirkland Lake," or whatever. Let me remind them that what they're proposing in this bill and what they refuse to talk about is a megadump, outhouse technology, 19th-century technology, bad environmental technology, bad environmental policy. It is just simply bad. Why don't you have the courage to focus on that issue? Because what you're saying, no matter what stand you have taken -- and I respect that in the past on different dump sites -- what you are saying by supporting this bill is that dumps are the way to go and that in the region of York the only way to go is to create this SkyDome monstrosity, this 13-storey-high dump. You're saying that is the answer.

The inequity of this bill is simply what we have said. In the process all options should be on the table. We have not argued for any one. In fact, the Kirkland Lake proposal was that it simply go through a full environmental assessment. Nobody was saying that had to be the one. What we know, those of us who are living in York and Durham and Peel, is that what this does is say, "Thou shalt have a dump," and in the course of York region, "Thou shalt have a megadump and there will be no question about that."

Earlier in the week in a question to the minister I used the metaphor of, what good does it do to a person who is going to be taken to the gallows to be told, "Listen, we're going to allow you to participate in a wonderful process to choose the site where the rope will be swung"? You go through a six-month process and you look at different sites -- outside, inside, some with flowers, some without -- but let's face it, at the end you are going to be swinging from the gallows. That is exactly what is happening here in terms of York region. There is no choice. There will be, according to the Minister of the Environment, according to the New Democratic Party, a megadump which goes against every fundamental environmental principle I would have thought that party supported.

So when the member for Markham, the member for York Centre and I have come forward from York region with our views and our feelings on this issue we need to underline that we are reflecting what is being said within our own areas. What is being said is that this is a rotten process, a faulty process, a sham process. This bill must be changed, because the people in York region are not going to accept what you are forcing upon them. I urge you to think very carefully, before you cast your vote today on this motion that this motion should pass.

1212

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

Ayes -- 23

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Jordan, Murdoch (Grey), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 29

Bisson, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Fletcher, Grier, Haeck, Hope, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1215.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows that Bill 75 calls for the annexation of 64,000 acres from Middlesex county municipalities, including the entire town of Westminster, to the city of London.

In alternative proposals to the minister, representatives of the town of Westminster, the townships of Delaware, London, North Dorchester and West Nissouri and the county of Middlesex have proposed that the amount of land to be annexed be 24,000 acres, rather than 64,000 acres, as put forth by the greater London area sole arbitrator, Mr John Brant. These are realistic options to try to resolve a bitter boundary negotiations process.

I'm very pleased that the minister has agreed to meet with the affected parties. However, the conflict around this situation could have been prevented if the minister had followed a more reasonable process. The minister arbitrarily appointed a sole arbitrator to review the problem and make recommendations. Although the minister had a wide-ranging authority under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act to effect a new settlement, this kind of third-party determination is unprecedented and disregards the principle of having locally elected representatives negotiate a settlement.

I am pleading on behalf of the residents of Middlesex county, and indeed many of the residents of the city of London, that the minister use this opportunity to listen to the alternatives put forward by locally elected officials and to effect changes to Bill 75.

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the House and the Minister of Culture and Communications of the value of the Owen Sound Little Theatre to my community. This company, which began performing in 1961, operates in the Roxy Theatre and has been entertaining local people and visitors since that time. The theatre is also home to touring professional acting groups, commercial promotions, children's shows, dance recitals and concerts by various arts groups. These presentations make the city the cultural centre of Grey and Bruce and are vital in maintaining the life of Owen Sound's downtown core.

But the theatre now needs to expand and upgrade in order to fully accommodate people with disabilities, to meet current fire and building code standards and to encourage a broader public use. People in wheelchairs and walkers need improved access to all areas of the building and the members of the tour group need a rehearsal hall and costume and set-building areas.

In all these years of operation this theatre has never run a deficit, thanks to a dedicated band of volunteers who administer and maintain the facility and to the active community fund-raising events. But now they need a capital grant and they deserve support.

I would urge the minister to look favourably at this request. She must see that these funds will be well spent in that she will be assisting a hardworking and excellent amateur theatre group. They have made the Roxy Theatre into a cultural focus for the city of Owen Sound and an attraction which draws people from several areas of the province. We in Grey and Owen Sound are proud of the Little Theatre. It has delighted and educated people of all ages and has given a love of culture and the arts to many. It is my hope that it will be able to continue to do so for a very long time.

GEORGE A. SEIBEL

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This year we mark the 200th anniversary of the Ontario Parliament. This will be re-enacted in September 17 in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The Niagara area is certainly rich in culture, heritage and beauty. Amidst the development of the modern hotels and attractions in Niagara Falls, we must not lose sight of our rich history.

There is one person I would like to honour in Niagara Falls who has made this his personal quest. Mr George A. Seibel has made an outstanding contribution to preserving and recording our history.

When I first moved to the city in 1977, I looked for a book on the history of the city. It was George's 1967 centennial history of the city. He created the Niagara Falls Heritage Foundation. He organized the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Portage Road. That's the original portage around the falls, starting from Queenston and winding through the city, ending up in the village of Chippawa.

He has been the adviser to all of us in the city on the history. He has given freely of his knowledge and experience. He has secured grants and done fund-raising to pay for all his projects and has never accepted payment for any of his work.

I know George as a man of creative and imaginative powers, skilled in organizing, research and hard work but, most of all, he loves working with people. His perseverance and courage are even more evident now in times of illness.

This is a lively collection of all the things he has done, many books about Niagara Falls. I would like to thank George for all he has done and continues to do.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I rise today on behalf of the senior citizens of Ontario, the fastest-growing segment of our population and one that has been totally ignored by Bob Rae's NDP government.

Let's just look at the NDP's record with seniors:

1. They disbanded the ministry for senior citizens' affairs and it came under the umbrella of the Ministry of Citizenship.

2. In last year's budget, the NDP put the tax grants that seniors receive to a means test, effectively killing the universality of seniors' benefits.

3. Seniors used to be able to go for walks and drives in our provincial parks at no expense. Now they must pay for each visit or buy a yearly pass.

4. Perhaps the worst of all is what happened to seniors as a direct result of the NDP government's failure to move on the reform of long-term care. The Minister of Health is going across the province closing down chronic and palliative care beds and cutting back on nursing staff, while the Minister of Community and Social Services is not picking up the slack by increasing funding for home care programs. Meanwhile seniors are slipping through the cracks.

5. Speaking of the health care system, the NDP is now attacking the Ontario drug benefit plan by slashing numerous prescribed drugs from the formulary.

The Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance has demanded the re-establishment of the ministry of senior citizens' affairs. Is it any wonder they feel there is no one at the cabinet table speaking for them?

I urge Bob Rae and his NDP government to reinstate the ministry of senior citizens' affairs and give the fastest growing segment of the people in Ontario a voice at your cabinet table.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to point out a glaring contradiction in the government's health care policies. The Ministry of Health's redirection of long-term care is supposedly intended to place increased emphasis on community-based services, to enable elderly people and people with physical disabilities to remain in their homes for as long as possible.

The government's long-term care reform policy has already increased the number of acute and complex cases that require care in the community as hospital bed closures occur. This has increased the need for more highly qualified health care providers outside the hospital and in the community, yet in what appears to be a totally contradictory move, the government is cutting back funding to the Victorian Order of Nurses. In Ottawa-Carleton the VON has laid off 27 registered nurses in order to cut $250,000 from its budget. This is totally inconsistent with the Minister of Health's claim that quality care and a consistent standard of service will be ensured.

The VON has provided outstanding home support service in Ontario for 94 years. In Ottawa-Carleton alone the VON cares for 3,500 patients, making about 1,000 daily house calls. If the government is genuine in wanting to shift from hospital beds to home care, it must show that by being supportive of the VON, a premier organization that was decades ahead of all governments in providing excellent community and home health care.

KINGSTON AND DISTRICT EXHIBITION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to inform members that the Kingston and District Exhibition will once again be bringing the Memorial Centre in Kingston to life from July 21 to 25. There will be a combination of old and new attractions that will appeal to people of all ages and backgrounds.

Just a taste of the activities includes a midway, a parade featuring antique cars, agricultural competitions of animals and crops and the milking competition by local media representatives. Canada's own George Fox and Caroll Baker head up the entertainment roster, which includes old-time fiddlers, the Leeds county cloggers, square dancing, a demolition derby, a tractor pull and more. For the first time, an ambassador to the fair will be named. The Women's Institute will be providing refreshments in its tearoom.

1340

Mr Speaker, 1992 marks the 200th anniversary of Ontario's first agricultural fair. Fittingly, the theme of the Kingston and District Exhibition this year is "Building on Tradition," and what a marvellous rural heritage the Kingston and District Agricultural Society has to build on. This year's fair is the 162nd annual event.

Originally fairs were started to give farmers the chance to come together to develop better practices through friendly competition. This cooperative spirit evolved into the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which now provides support to the farming community in so many ways, but the heritage of building strong farms also lives on in today's farmers and their organizations.

I applaud the members of the Kingston and District Agricultural Society for staging their exhibition once again this year. By giving city dwellers a firsthand experience of farm and rural life, it encourages vital support for a vibrant agricultural community. A province with farms is a province with a future.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Social assistance was increased last year by a meagre 2%, hardly enough to help low-income Ontarians get by. Some recipients of social assistance, in spite of the increase, saw their benefits decrease by 4.9%. This is because they had to pay a fee to cash a government cheque. The exploitation of the most vulnerable and needy members of our society will continue for as long as the decision-makers in this government believe that charging a fee to cash a welfare cheque is a legitimate practice.

I'm trying to understand how the Treasurer reached the conclusion that recipients of social assistance would not be well served by Bill 154, introduced by the member for Carleton East. Why did he tell the president of the Cheque Cashers Association of Canada that the bill does not reflect current government policy when many of his colleagues have expressed strong support for this legislation? He has written that he supports the concept that social assistance recipients require 100% of their payments for daily needs. If he supports the concept, why does he not support the bill, unless he thinks that losing 4.9% of a welfare cheque is only a concept?

The concrete reality is that low-income Ontarians are experiencing severe difficulties in meeting their basic needs. They must resort to food banks to supplement an insufficient diet. This is no concept; this is the harsh and painful reality of poverty.

REVIEW OF HOSPITALS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Over the past three weeks, people from across Ontario have contacted me to express their concerns regarding the public hearings into the Public Hospitals Act.

In a letter to Bob Rae, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops stated: "We would be alarmed should Ontario introduce legislation which would effectively divest Catholic owners of ultimate control of their hospitals." Religious hospitals, health care professionals and the public at large are concerned with the NDP's attempt to force a single solution on to the backs of hospitals throughout the province.

In St Catharines, those who came before the Wessenger panel gave overwhelming support to the idea of maintaining the system of volunteer hospital boards.

During a Public Hospitals Act meeting in Sudbury, Dr Jack Hollingsworth stated: "The government has made a power grab to administer the hospitals in a very monetary fashion without credence for other factors such as patient care and physician retention. It may work in other communities but it won't work in Sudbury."

In Thunder Bay, most of the presenters told the Wessenger panel that the act should have enough flexibility to accommodate the needs of all hospitals and that the success of hospitals is directly linked to the tireless commitment of volunteers.

I would urge the Minister of Health to listen closely to the pleas being made to the Wessenger panel, and I would caution the NDP against using the review of the Public Hospitals Act as a smokescreen to stack local hospital boards with union supporters while abandoning community volunteers.

FUNSTATION FUNPARK

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I rise today to commend the efforts of a very hardworking individual who is committed to working for the good of the community. Mr Don Pyatt is the owner of Funstation Funpark, an amusement park in my riding of Yorkview. He has worked diligently the past eight years to make the park what it is today: a clean, positive environment that is fun for children and adults alike.

Funstation Funpark offers Metropolitan Toronto the largest mini-golf course in Ontario, batting cages, a carousel for youngsters, bumper cars and a wide variety of games. It is now expanding to include an enclosed building to host banquets and group functions.

Mr Pyatt's Funstation is not only a thriving business, but it is also very involved in the community. We all know that communities must work together in these tough times, and Don is an excellent example of how community leaders can take an active role. Located at Jane and Finch, Funstation provides good, clean fun for everyone. It is noteworthy that the park offers a complimentary policy for handicapped and mentally or physically challenged individuals.

The park has raised funds in conjunction with many groups, including the Ministry of Transportation for the United Way. Funstation is currently planning a summer event with the Canadian Diabetes Association.

Honourable members, you can well see that Mr Pyatt's contributions to the community are just wonderful. I would like to welcome my colleagues to congratulate Mr Pyatt, who is seated in the east gallery, for his current expansion and to encourage his continued community involvement. We wish him the very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you, Mr Pyatt.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I would like unanimous consent to make a brief statement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): As we all know, this can be a House of heated debate and opposing views, but always we are colleagues sharing in each other's happiness. Therefore, on behalf of all the members, I wish to express our most sincere best wishes to Robert Marland, son of the honourable member for Mississauga South, in his pursuit of a gold medal at the summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. Robert is a member of the eight-man rowing team and he is competing in his second Olympic try.

Also joining with Robert are Bill Irwin and Mike Strange of the Niagara Falls Shamrock Boxing Club. I am sure all the members join with me in wishing these three special gentlemen and the entire Canadian Olympic team our best wishes for a truly successful Olympic games. I know he is already blessed by having Margaret for a mother.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to relay our best wishes to Robert in his endeavours. As members of this House, we often have difficulty juggling our family responsibilities and our responsibilities to our constituents. I think Margaret Marland has shown that she has given leadership to her family and to her son. I know she has supported him tremendously through the years of sacrifice he has put in in endeavouring to be part of the Olympic team. So please, Margaret, take to your son Robert and to the other members of the Olympic team our very best wishes. We know he's going to come back and you can probably show us the pictures of Robert with his gold medal. Best wishes.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On behalf of our caucus, we are obviously extremely proud not only of Robert, but of Margaret as well. I think it's all too often that we forget we are individuals. We have personal lives which we are quite often asked to put on hold, even in the middle of July, as it turns out. But I think the genuine spirit of sincerity that prevails in the House, at least for these few minutes, indicates that indeed we all are individuals and we have a great deal of love and respect for each other.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): If I might, Mr Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, there's another person going to the Olympics who will be the son-in-law of one of the members at the end of August. The member for Northumberland's daughter is marrying a shot-putter who's on the Olympic team. I thought, in the interests of all of us being aware of the members of the Olympic team, that I might point that out to the House and wish them the best of luck. His name is Peter Dajia.

1350

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): With yet further indulgence, and although not a relative, a friend and a supporter, thank goodness, young Tommy Glesby, the outstanding boxer from Welland, who I don't believe could have been overlooked by the whip in her recitation of famous and celebrated young people from Niagara participating in Barcelona: Of course, I wish Tommy the very best of luck. I don't think he's going to need it, because he's got a great right.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): May I express my heartfelt appreciation to all members who have risen to recognize our Olympic athletes. It's obviously very emotional for me personally and I deeply appreciate the fact that members of all parties would recognize our son Robert and also the other athletes who are already on their way to, if they're not already in, Barcelona.

The good news I would like to bring to all of us, because I think this is a story that is an inspiration for all of us within and without sport is that we spoke to our son two days ago and Silken Laumann is rowing so well you would not know she had ever been injured. Silken, who is walking on crutches and sometimes is in a wheelchair, is able to row when she's in her scull because it's upper body muscles that are used.

I think all of us with constituents who face different forms of adversity from day to day, and obviously people with injuries they sustain through many different causes, are inspired by the courage of Silken Laumann and her determination to represent her country. I'm sure that whether Silken Laumann has a medal or not, she represents for all of us what our proud young people in all sports on the Olympic team are about. I thank you today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): Effective immediately, I am closing the Ministry of Correctional Services Bell Cairn staff training facility in the city of Hamilton. I am appointing an independent person to review the centre's operation since it opened last year, the ministry response and allegations of systemic harassment. That individual will make recommendations to improve the way this facility operates. This centre will not reopen until I am satisfied that it can operate in an appropriate manner.

As well, the Ontario Provincial Police today have announced that they are investigating allegations of two sexual assaults at the centre. I want to assure the individuals involved that their confidentiality will be strictly protected during this investigation.

I also want to reiterate the government's commitment to eliminate sexual harassment and to deal swiftly with allegations of this nature. As I have said previously, I take these allegations very seriously. On behalf of this government, I am outraged at these allegations and the lack of information I have received from the Ministry of Correctional Services. This government and this minister will not tolerate sexual assault, abuse or discrimination in any form.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have just a brief statement that I feel I should make myself since I'm the one who made the decision. I have decided to assign the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services to special duties within the Cabinet Office in light of what has taken place and, frankly, what has not taken place.

RESPONSES

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond to both statements made by the government this afternoon on a matter of very real concern, I know, to all members of the Legislature and certainly to the people of Ontario.

What does one say, particularly in response to the last statement made by the Premier? The public servant involved is someone I know, someone I worked with closely over the course of a number of years. I must say that in light of what the Premier has said and in light of what has not been said to date, one can only conclude the government now believes, and has information to support this, that no one in the office of the Minister of Correctional Services or in the office of the Solicitor General was apprised of the incidents that occurred in Hamilton some six or seven weeks ago.

I must say, knowing the public servants involved and knowing the system that has been in place within the Ontario public service for years, that I find that absolutely incredible. Those of us who have served in government know that each and every department has a mechanism in place to report, to the minister's office, what might be called significant incidents. I cannot imagine that this incident which occurred in Hamilton at the Bell Cairn facility on or about June 1, 1992, was not reported to the minister's office. We are apparently to believe that. I want to see more evidence than I have at the present time before I can conclude that is so.

As I said, I know the particular public servant, I know the traditions of the Ontario public service and I find the government's line today absolutely incredible.

I want to say as well that all of us take very seriously our responsibilities to rout out sexual assault and violence, particularly violence against women and children, and what we have here apparently is the following: Ontario public servants, female crown employees, were apparently assaulted -- we are told by some, gang-raped -- by other public servants on public property owned by the government of Ontario in or around Hamilton some six weeks ago and that no one in the office of the minister involved knew about it. It is perfectly incredible that could be so.

We have heard from this government, we have heard from the ministers, particularly the Minister of Community and Social Services but from the Premier himself, how dedicated the government is to attacking the evil of sexual assault in this community.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm told by the Minister of Health that's why this action is being taken today. I want to say that the only reason the House knows about this is because it is sitting and because a few days ago someone in the government of Ontario phoned the member for Leeds-Grenville, who reported this incident to the Legislature and to the province beyond. I think that speaks to incredibly negligent administration on behalf of this government in this very sensitive issue.

I want to conclude by observing that four weeks ago in Washington the Secretary of the Navy resigned from the Bush administration, not because he didn't personally know about the incident at Las Vegas some days earlier, but because the Secretary of the Navy said it was his ultimate responsibility to give leadership through the Department of the Navy for something this important.

In his letter of resignation, the secretary observed: "The tradition of our navy mandates that senior officials bear the ultimate responsibility for their command. I accept full responsibility for the handling of the Las Vegas incident and the leadership failure which has allowed such misconduct to occur." administration has a higher and better standard in these matters than the Rae government in Ontario.

1400

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Briefly to the comment made by the Premier this afternoon, it's passing strange and certainly disturbing that he is making an internal move like this without responding to questions posed in this House with respect to responsibilities and communication or lack of communication: the problems within the ministry. He's making this move without any explanation. I believe that is indeed unfortunate.

In regard to the statement by the Minister of Correctional Services, if this weren't such a tragic situation, this announcement would be laughable. He uses the words about the government's "commitment." Given the treatment of the women in this situation, the way this was handled internally by this ministry, this government, those are empty words.

We talk about allegations of a gang rape by provincial employees on the grounds of a provincial institution. The fact that the deputy minister knew about this, the fact that we find out today that the manager of the institution had sent a memo out to regional directors over a month ago and that we in this House and the public at large are to believe that a civil servant with over 20 years' experience in the government did not inform the minister, did not inform any other official at a senior level in government, simply boggles the mind. It's not acceptable.

The minister uses the words in his statement "will not tolerate." I want to say that on this side of the House we will not tolerate a coverup that may reach into the highest levels of this government.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to respond directly to the statement that was made by the Premier today. The minister in response to questions yesterday refused to answer direct questions that were placed to him that he would know the answers to. Questions such as: When did the deputy minister know? Questions such as: Did officials in his office know? We have not had any answers forthcoming as to: Who has talked with the deputy minister? Who did the deputy minister inform: who in the Premier's office, who in the Cabinet Office, who in the minister's office? And if not, why not?

What we simply have had today is the Premier making a statement of reassignment of a deputy minister, of a 20-year civil servant in this province, without any explanation. When we asked the question: "You've got to wait for the police study. You've got to wait for the investigation." But the Premier has now passed judgement.

Premier, as the member for Renfrew North pointed out, when we're dealing with accountability, when we're dealing with responsibility, as regrettable and as unfortunate as it sometimes is, when we're dealing with who is responsible for the lack of communication within his or her ministry, there is only one person who must accept that responsibility. That one person is the minister.

Premier, I would have understood and expected the minister to offer his resignation today. I would have understood and expected you to accept that even if it was until this investigation was over. I think anything less than that is unacceptable. It was unacceptable to the Bush administration. It was unacceptable to governments in this province until you took office and set new standards.

I am astounded that you made the statement today about the deputy minister. If it is you who is accepting this responsibility, if the deputy minister reports to you and not the minister, then perhaps you should resign. But I'm going to tell you this: That lack of communication, if in fact that's what it was, is the minister's responsibility and it is the minister's responsibility to resign until we get a thorough, independent investigation of what happened with this coverup.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Minister of Correctional Services has a series of questions to answer today. Can the minister tell us when he or his staff became aware of the tragic events we are talking about today?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I became aware and my staff became aware of the incident when it was brought to the attention of the House by the honourable member opposite, Mr Runciman.

Mr Elston: It's very difficult to believe that the minister would not have been aware, particularly when I have today a copy of a memo dated June 16 from Ms Klaassen concerning the tragic events of June 1, in which she says, "You may have heard that there was another unruly party at Bell Cairn."

Sent to the regional directors, some five in number, and circulated to regional managers, some 10 in number, plus to three senior directors at head office of Correctional Services, this memo concludes, in a couple of paragraphs, this way: "During the course of this, a social worker counselling two female ministry staff advised us that they had been seriously sexually assaulted in the residence while here on course. In each instance, more than one male was involved."

The memo goes on, and perhaps this most tragically: "Unfortunately, these victims do not feel safe in bringing this situation to the courts because of feared retaliation of their peers." It goes on to say, "Of course, the staff at Bell Cairn were appalled that these women did not feel safe enough to talk to any staff here or to notify security."

The disturbing details of this memo were dispatched not only to the people indicated but, we are now told, although it has not been confirmed, the deputy minister actually was in possession of this memo the same date it was written, June 16, 1992. How can the Minister of Correctional Services ask the public of this province to believe that neither he nor his staff nor anyone close to him or to the people in the Premier's office could have been without notice of this very serious incident at Bell Cairn?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think the issue has been raised by both spokespersons for both opposition parties that they find it incredible that the Minister of Correctional Services was not advised over such an important matter. I think therein lies the answer to their very own question. So do I find it incredible. I, as soon as I became aware of that situation, took the responsible actions which I have outlined to this House now on a daily basis, and you are aware of them, and that is the truth. It is the total truth and it is the fact of the matter.

Mr Elston: We know about facts as usually delivered to this place by those people, but let me go on.

Further from the memo: "While there have been rumours circulating" -- and this is interesting. This is a memo of June 16 from the acting manager of that facility at Bell Cairn. This is interesting, because it says, "While there have been rumours circulating that the lounge was trashed, this is incorrect." It went on. It was left in a mess and there was some extremely tasteless decorating done with intimate female attire. This identifies that the ministry was rife with rumours about what has been divulged now, thankfully, by the member for Leeds-Grenville as a disturbingly unhappy event for all of us here.

The minister chairs a senior management meeting every single week in which he is told of events of a sensitive nature in his ministry. Every day he receives an incident report of every occurrence in every institution under his charge as Minister of Correctional Services. At least 18 senior people had possession of this memo as of June 16, and probably more. The rumours were all over the province throughout the Correctional Services ministry. I ask this minister to tell us how it was that he now says that neither he nor any senior staff in his office knew of these serious events, which were obviously all over the Correctional Services ministry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I've responded very directly and very forthrightly, but if that very direct answer wasn't understandable -- and I can't imagine how it was not understandable -- I suppose an additional answer might be, in the very same way, that the former leader of the official opposition didn't know, or perhaps to ask why the Correctional Services critic for the official opposition didn't know. A simple answer is that you could not possibly have known or responsibly act if you were not advised of that knowledge.

1410

Mr Elston: This is to the same minister, and it concerns the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, a doctrine that this government seems to have honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It's a doctrine of parliamentary democracy that a minister takes responsibility for the actions of his or her department. I ask the minister, is he prepared to take responsibility for the incident that occurred at Bell Cairn?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have taken responsibility for the incident. The House and the public are well aware of the actions I have taken. I do in fact have a responsibility for that ministry, and the ministry officials have a responsibility to make me aware and knowledgeable of incidents and occurrences within that ministry.

At the very time I was advised of that, immediate actions were taken to launch a police investigation and to try to be extremely sensitive to individuals who are involved. I have been making additional announcements since that day with respect to the closure of the facility until I am satisfied that it might reopen in a successful way and that an independent person is being brought on board to review this total situation. All of those actions have been taken within hours of my being personally notified. I believe that's very responsible, I believe it's direct, and I believe it's immediate action.

Mr Elston: This really is a question of competence, a question of being responsible for management of the ministry. I want to convey to the minister, a man who has meetings once a week with his senior management people talking about sensitive incidents -- he receives a report every day from his ministry about sensitive issues that have occurred so that he can be prepared and take action.

In 1983, concerning the democratic principles of ministerial responsibilities, Mr Rae, as he then was, just the member for York South, said it was a very strict principle, that "it is important in a democracy because unless we can hold someone in this assembly accountable, one has government, but no one and nobody is responsible."

I ask the minister once again: Will he take the right action and the appropriate responsibility for the occurrence of this problem at a facility that this memo identifies as having a history of unruly parties, and identifying that his own ministry, with whom he should be in close contact, was rife with all kinds of rumours of this unhappy event?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite has received a very honest, forthright explanation of the circumstance. I do not wish to take up the time of this House by being repetitive. I regret he cannot seem to understand or perhaps accept those very factual representations, but they are the facts. That is the situation. I was equally outraged at the circumstance. When I became aware of it I acted very swiftly, very directly, very immediately.

I think as well that all members should be concerned with the issue and should be quite understanding of the direct action taken, once it was brought to the notice of the appropriate official.

Mr Elston: Make no mistake about the fact that we are here only because somebody in the ministry knew that the minister himself was not in charge of this ministry and would not take appropriate action until it became public under the auspices of the member for Leeds-Grenville.

I ask again, how is it that this minister refuses to bear the kind of responsibility that the Secretary of the Navy in the United States bore when he found out about the incident in Las Vegas? Can the minister tell us why he will not be as responsible as one of Mr Bush's people would be in the United States?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I don't know Mr Bush. I don't know the Secretary of the Navy. I haven't been in Las Vegas recently. To try to tie this very serious matter to that kind of landscape is not particularly responsible.

The member opposite has been told the factual, straight goods on this matter. I can't help it he refuses to understand or accept it. He has been given the absolute facts with respect to the matter. I can't help it that he fails to absorb them.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Before we get into this coverup affair I would like to ask one last time the government and the Premier to bring some common sense to an issue that is splitting our province apart, costing us jobs, costing us investment and leaving scars that will take a long time to heal.

Premier, yesterday we finished second reading debate on your minister's disastrous labour law reforms. Yet even at this stage of the process your minister refuses to do an impact study. Instead, your government, your party and your minister have spent all their time attacking the research that others have done, whether it's Ernst and Young, Environics Research Group or now, I believe, the city of East York. Ironically, the legislation, Premier, that you said would bring business and labour closer together, working more cooperatively -- which we all wanted -- is actually driving them further and further apart.

Premier, since I get the impression you're getting ready to bolt and cut out of here for the summer, I ask you one last time: Will you, instead of barging ahead with this legislation as you plan, agree to a tripartite committee this summer of business, government and labour so we can deal with this issue without destroying our economy, without driving the parties further and further apart in the process?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I had a meeting yesterday afternoon with a group of business and labour leaders to talk about the overall climate of labour relations and the future of productivity and efficiency in the province. I can tell the member it was an enormously productive meeting. It was a very positive meeting. It was a very constructive meeting. I can tell him I left that meeting to vote on second reading of the bill on the reform of the Labour Relations Act. I'm proud to have done so, proud to have had the meeting and proud to have been able to vote in favour of the Labour Relations Act reform.

This bill will be dealt with, as other legislation has been dealt with, by a parliamentary committee which will be holding hearings this summer to hear from different groups. There will be lots of opportunities for people to discuss and make suggestions about possible amendments. That's exactly how we're going to deal with the bill.

1420

Mr Harris: I'd like to quote from a recent column of Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star, which may come as a surprise to Mr Walkom. It says: "Ontario MPPs continue to wrangle over proposed changes to provincial labour law. It is a debate marked by bitterness and excess. It should not have been that way."

Premier, I believe Mr Walkom is right. The poison in the air over this issue is bad for the province, bad for investment. So I would ask you, Premier, instead of discrediting your critics, instead of lashing out at concerned opposition, instead of having a summer of bitterness and critics who will be lashing out at you, driving the parties further and further apart, will you consider the option of bringing all groups to the table, as your NDP friend Michael Harcourt has done in British Columbia, with the support of business, with the support of unions, with the support of the people? Will you consider doing that, to discuss these reforms in a calm, cooperative and constructive way?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course, but I would have thought that, in fairness to Mr Walkom, you should quote other parts of what he has to say.

It says: "Hard-line rhetoric does not serve the province. One of the things that makes Canada a better place to live than the United States is that there are proportionately more unionized workers here -- and thus proportionately more good jobs.

"Unions are not radical. They are essentially conservative organizations which help maintain a middle class that is solid and stable."

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You'd better read the whole thing.

Hon Mr Rae: If you're going to read it, read the whole thing.

"It is no accident that the world's two most economically dynamic, socially conservative -- and middle-class -- nations, Japan and Germany, are extensively unionized.

"For employers and their legislative allies, a province without unions may sound tempting." Let me repeat that sentence. "For employers and their legislative allies, a province without unions may sound tempting. But in the long run, it's bad business. And bad politics." Thus states Mr Walkom.

Mr Harris: Yes, I agree, Premier, given that it is your legislation, given that it is your bill, given that it is your rhetoric, given that they are your statements -- such as "a motley crew of business extremists," referring to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Ernst and Young -- that are elevating the rhetoric that is precipitating this argument, this debate, this fight that does not serve the province well, that is not in our interests. Given that only you as Premier have the option to take the Michael Harcourt route, only you can -- as you just said in this House today, you had a very productive meeting, where you brought business and labour together to meet with you in that forum -- show the way, because you're setting the agenda, because you hold all of the cards, because you're the boss, because you have a majority, because you have the clout.

So, Premier, instead of elevating the rhetoric, instead of having your party spewing out all its rhetoric and eliciting the type of responses we're getting from some in the business community, instead of the irrational paranoia we're getting from your minister about attacks, instead of accusing the media of NDP-bashing, you have a choice to do something a little different. I would ask you one more time: Why will you not take the option of bringing business, labour and government together in a different forum other than the confrontational one that you have set up to date?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, we are doing exactly what the honourable member is suggesting. All the rhetoric in his question aside, his suggestion that we bring business and labour together -- we have the Premier's Council, we have the special committee which I've established of senior business and labour leaders, which I met with yesterday. We're having a very constructive dialogue, and the theory somehow that what is going on here is proving enormously divisive for the province is a theory that I simply don't accept.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier and it relates to the problems within the government, specifically the Ministry of Correctional Services.

Yesterday in his announcement the Minister of Correctional Services indicated that you had called on the Secretary of Cabinet to investigate internally as to why the system broke down, why the minister wasn't informed and why other members of the government were not informed of this very serious allegation.

Mr Premier, with respect to the reporting mechanisms -- and you will perhaps want to elaborate on this -- as I understand it the Secretary of Cabinet is the senior civil servant within government and the deputies are directly answerable to the Secretary of Cabinet. This, in my view, raises some concerns. If the deputy minister failed to report to the minister, did she report to the Secretary of Cabinet? Did the Secretary of Cabinet inform anyone in the Premier's office? What I'm getting at here is that this raises a whole series of questions about the appropriateness of the Secretary of Cabinet being appointed to conduct this investigation. How does the Premier justify this appointment?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, let me say to the honourable member that there are basically two issues we've had to deal with since he raised this question. There are two sets of problems. There is a general systemic problem with respect to the issue of sexual harassment at the centre. On the basis of the information I received this morning I became satisfied that there has been a problem there for some considerable time; in fact, almost since the centre opened.

This government has an obligation to provide workplaces and study places which are free of any kind of sexual harassment. From the information I received today, I'm satisfied that we were not doing that. Over a period of months, information with respect to a number of incidents was not shared with the minister, was not shared with the Premier's office or with anyone.

The second particular incident was an allegation with respect to assaults on two women. That information was provided to the deputy on June 5. While the deputy took action which she felt was appropriate within the ministry, at no time did she inform either the Secretary of Cabinet, the minister or anyone in the Premier's office with respect to these allegations.

The deputy minister is a person of great ability and of great integrity, but I have to make it very clear that I think there was a fundamental error of judgement in not relaying this basic information to those in government, in the cabinet, who have a responsibility for taking action. I can tell the honourable member that if I had known of the extent of the problem earlier we would have closed the centre earlier. There's no way we can tolerate this kind of atmosphere in which, according to some information, women were afraid to stay at the centre because of the overall climate of harassment. I can't tell the member how entirely unacceptable that is.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: While steps were taken and while efforts were made to deal with the problem, I don't feel they were adequate. I don't feel they were sufficient, and that's why we're taking the additional steps we've announced today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The supplementary is for the member for Leeds-Grenville. Order.

Mr Runciman: Those are fine words, but the actions to date simply --

Interjections.

1430

Mr Runciman: I was saying that those are fine words from the Premier, but the actions simply don't match up to the rhetoric. He completely avoided the question I directed towards him, and that's the appropriateness of a senior civil servant conducting this investigation.

The reality is the system isn't working, the system failed. A civil servant came to me when the system failed, anonymously, afraid of retribution, and you're telling the people of this province that we should be happy and content that the man in charge of this failed system, a man who may himself be involved, is conducting the investigation. Premier, that doesn't wash. Your solution stinks. You're putting a fox in a henhouse, and if you persist in this stand, you are part of this coverup.

I sent over to you a copy of a resolution I intend to table later today, calling on you to immediately appoint an independent commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. This will bring in an independent third party to review this situation. Will you agree to this?

Hon Mr Rae: We have already agreed to bring in an independent third party in order to deal with the question of systemic harassment and to deal with the question of the operation of the centre.

Let me say to the honourable member, the reason we couldn't go the public inquiries route, and I can assure him the thought came to my mind very quickly, was precisely because of the fact that there is now a police investigation ongoing. He will know that problem as a structural problem with respect to the issue. Perhaps he won't accept it, but he will certainly know that's a factual reason.

I would only say that the kinds of comments the member is making about the Secretary of Cabinet, who was appointed as Secretary of Cabinet by a previous government, somebody who has served all three parties in government for a considerable period of time, I think are most unfortunate and I'm really quite surprised that he'd make those kinds of comments.

Mr Runciman: I think what the Premier says is something of a red herring, unless the police are investigating the deputy minister for possibly obstruction of justice. If that's the case, then your argument holds water; otherwise it doesn't. It simply doesn't.

The system has failed, and now you have the head of the system investigating why it failed. It's a ludicrous situation, insulting to the people of the province, especially the women of this province. A senior civil servant contacted me because he didn't trust the system. He didn't trust this government. Now you're going to those who failed to find a solution, and that's simply, as I said, a ludicrous situation.

I'm imploring you, Premier -- imploring you -- to try to appreciate how the victims in this situation feel, how the people at large feel about this, and once again ask you to bring in an independent third party to carry out a thorough investigation.

Hon Mr Rae: That's exactly what we're going to do. That's exactly what we're doing.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): My question is to the Solicitor General, who wears both hats, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. It's a very simple question for the minister who wears both hats of Solicitor General and Correctional Services. It appears as though you're going to have the police investigate this incident as well as the Grandview incident that's already under investigation. How can you possibly justify that?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm somewhat befuddled by the question. Is there some question about the OPP's capability or credibility? I don't understand. They are an investigative force. They are highly competent, highly regarded. They will deal with all investigations in the very capable manner they always have.

Mr Callahan: Clearly the minister doesn't understand that by wearing both hats, Correctional Services as well as Solicitor General, what in fact is happening is that one arm is investigating the other arm. How can you possibly allow the people out in the public to understand that justice is not only being done but appears to be done when in fact that's what's taking place? In fact what you're doing is that one branch of your ministry, one of your hats, is investigating the other branch of your ministry.

I suggest to you, Minister, the only honourable thing for you to do is to either, as was suggested, have an independent tribunal look into this issue or, in the alternative, do the right thing and resign one of those portfolios.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite draws a very long bow in terms of the question he has just raised. I think, quite factually, evidence will show in a myriad of situations where investigations of this type -- even if there is, as the member opposite suggests, some sort of duality, there's an absolute separation. They are all concluded to an appropriate conclusion. I think I understand that kind of question from an opposition party, but I really don't think it bears up.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services and once again it concerns the coverup by ministry officials of sexual assault allegations at the Bell Cairn training centre.

Newspaper reports have confirmed that the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services met personally with the head of the Bell Cairn centre on July 2 to discuss rape allegations. We had to find that out in the halls and in the media. The minister would not admit that to us yesterday. Will the minister today be somewhat more forthcoming than he was yesterday and tell the House whether any of his ministerial staff attended that meeting on July 2?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Not to my knowledge. With respect to any of the questions vis-à-vis the alleged assault which is now the basis of a police investigation, I would defer comment until the conclusion of that investigation.

Mr Runciman: The minister has to understand that it's incumbent upon him to tell the people of Ontario whether anyone in his office was aware of the sex assault allegation before I raised the issue on Tuesday. Your refusal to come clean on who knew about the allegations and when they knew about the allegations suggests that your office knew about this alleged gang rape but chose to do nothing.

I think the minister has to realize that he can't unequivocally say no one on his ministerial staff was aware of the sex assault allegations before Tuesday afternoon. Then he, the minister, implicates himself and his office -- the perception that someone in his office knew. I'm giving him another opportunity to address this. I have the name of an individual, we've been advised, in his office who was so informed.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I've responded to the question. I've responded to it directly and factually. I was not advised of this situation, as I've indicated in the House, and if I respond to the question many times over, the answer will not change.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I actually want to respond to a question raised a couple of days ago by the member for Scarborough North. At that time the member raised some questions about Jobs Ontario Youth and specifically around the guidelines. As well, he relayed to the House and to me some concerns he had, or one of his constituents expressed to him, about some inappropriate questions asked by a counsellor of a young person applying in a centre in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Having had a chance to look at the situation, I have provided the member with a copy of the guidelines we have issued as well as the intake form to be used. In those guidelines, as members will recall, the efforts of Jobs Ontario Youth were to reach out to the black community and black youth by ensuring that the existence of the program was communicated to them, because one of the objectives of the program was to reach disadvantaged youth.

The guidelines state that the objective of the program is to provide summer placements to youth facing systemic barriers to employment, particularly black youth. Beyond that they provide the usual administrative guidelines, as the member will see from looking at the guidelines.

The second concern he raised dealt with the inappropriateness of the questions and the question of quotas. I want to say to him very clearly that no quotas have been established through this process. The concern that might have been expressed with respect to the centre was that the particular centre the member referred to has traditionally served community with about the kind of ratio of breakdown of racial minorities he indicated in his question, but very clearly this in no way reflects any ratio or quotas set by the program.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: In fact in our guidelines and instructions to the agencies we've made that very clear. Since these concerns were expressed to me, I've undertaken to ensure that those concerns were relayed to the particular centre. My understanding is that the director of the centre has met already with the staff to discuss the situation and will be pursuing it further.

1440

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I really want to thank the minister for getting back to me so quickly on the matter and sharing with me the guidelines of Jobs Ontario Youth. But, Mr Minister, your response begs the question as to the method or methods being used to train those counsellors. I see nothing wrong with the form -- normally it's just a form -- but I think those counsellors who are there are not trained properly. That's the impression I get here.

I should also, while I'm on my feet, just bring to your attention that I met with some young black people in Mississauga yesterday. They feel that the program itself has run out of gas. It has not served them properly. They are not getting proper service. I still feel, first, that the funds are inadequate and, furthermore, that the counselling relationship between the client and the counsellors is completely inadequate. Could you comment on the training process that is in use for those counsellors?

Hon Mr Silipo: I appreciate the question. A number of sessions have been held with people from the various agencies that we are working with to deliver the programs. At this particular centre we are dealing, I am told, with people who are very experienced in the way of counselling and providing these services to young people. I have to take from that that the incident the member relayed to us a couple of days ago is unique and quite frankly one which, as I indicated then, if it did happen, should not have happened and should not continue to happen. I am satisfied that the information we've provided, not just on paper but through sessions we've held, is adequate and continues to make those points about the usefulness of the program.

Second, the issues that were raised with respect to the concerns that the member has heard in a broader sense about the program are certainly ones we would be delighted to keep looking into to see what can be done, but we believe this program is providing a very useful service and addition to the kinds of jobs needed in some of the centres in the province aimed, as they are, to address some of these systemic problems we've had over the years.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I want to briefly review what we've seen and heard this afternoon. The Premier has sacked the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services. We have from the member for Bruce a very incriminating memorandum of June 16, circulated throughout the executive branch of the Ministry of Correctional Services, indicating just how serious problems were at Bell Cairn. We now have the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville alleging -- and he will perhaps return to this -- that in fact it appears to him at least that someone on the ministerial staff of the honourable Minister of Correctional Services sat in on a meeting some weeks ago where this issue was raised.

This is now taking on the quality of Iran Contra. We are being asked to believe that all of this was going on and the minister did not know. My question to the responsible minister is the following: Do you ever go to the Ministry of Correctional Services? Are we right in assuming that you take a weekly briefing from senior staff as to issues before the department? Is there in fact a significant events mechanism reporting to your staff? Specifically, did the deputy minister tell you why she never raised the issue with you and did she give you an assurance that she or no one else in the ministry ever spoke to anyone on your ministerial staff?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member opposite is correct. The deputy minister did not advise myself or members of my staff of this incident.

Mr Conway: I look at the overall situation and what was going on in the department and I'm left incredulous at this situation. If you go to those meetings, do you sleep through the management meetings? It's a serious issue. The Premier has sacked the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services. That's what he's done. We have Mr Elston's copy of the June 16 memorandum where it is manifestly the case that senior officials in the department knew. We're being asked to believe that for weeks the responsible minister has been going to management committee meetings in the department for which he is responsible, and he and his staff knew nothing, heard nothing, saw nothing, read nothing.

Let me ask you, Ronald Reagan, what do you do as the responsible minister? Did you and do you sleep through the management committee meetings at the department of correctional affairs? And how is it possible, Mr Reagan --

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

Mr Conway: How is it possible, Mr Reagan, that this kind of memorandum could be circulating through your department weeks before the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville raised this issue in this House and you did not hear? Surely the only justification is that you're either incompetent or a fool --

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

Mr Conway: -- and on either ground, you are duty-bound to resign.

Interjections.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Do you have any empathy at all for the people involved?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have responded factually and correctly, and beyond that, I am not going to grace that kind of a diatribe, which is not based on anything other than politics, with an answer.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the honourable member for Renfrew North take his seat.

Mr Conway: You are responsible as a minister of the crown. This is a very serious incident and you have failed in your duty. The Premier has sacked the deputy and this fool stands in his office. I tell you, that says it all on this government.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Renfrew North to withdraw his remark, which is insulting to any member of the House, and I believe the member knows the particular word to which I refer. I would ask him to withdraw it so that we can try to maintain --

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, quite frankly, I will be as responsive as I can, but what I said that I think you might be concerned about is that on the basis of what the government has said here today, the minister of corrections, in my view, is either a fool or an incompetent. That is the only explanation for his complete maladministration. I don't consider that anything but factual on the basis of the breathtaking actions and explanations given, and I don't feel that that could in any way be offensive. That minister stands here and --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The reference to which I was referring -- the member will know that it specifically outlines in our standing orders that we should not use language which is insulting, and the member referred to another member of the House as a fool. That is not language which is helpful in any way and it is indeed unparliamentary. I would ask that the member withdraw it in an attempt to try to restore a better atmosphere in this chamber.

Mr Conway: I am sorry. I'll leave, because this explanation is absolutely unacceptable. What has been done to Ms Palozzi is outrageous. The member is a fool, the Premier is a clown and I'll leave.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I believe the member for Mississauga is next in line for questions.

1450

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The Minister of Natural Resources asked if we had any empathy, and I would say to him yes, we have a great deal of empathy for the victims of this gang rape.

My question is for the Solicitor General. The minister has repeatedly insisted that he knew nothing about this extremely serious allegation until my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville raised it in the House this week. I suppose we can assume then that when the time comes to lay blame, the minister will be lining up with the three proverbial monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Minister, it is that kind of not-my-problem attitude that has led to generations of women being afraid to speak up when injustice is done, because no one wanted to listen.

You cannot shuffle this on to someone else's shoulders. Will you accept responsibility for your ministry's apparent coverup of this violent and cowardly incident?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Now that I am informed, this actually gives me the opportunity to ensure that the very kind of appropriate circumstances the member opposite outlines in fact will be achieved, and I will do so.

Mrs Marland: Minister, it simply is not good enough. It is not good enough for you to tell this House that you didn't know what was going on. It is not good enough to claim that it's someone else's mistake. It is your mistake. It is your problem, because violence against women, as your own government rightly points out, is everybody's problem. Will you leave your government with one tiny shred of credibility and principle? Will you do the right thing and resign or at least step down during this investigation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly not. What I'm going to do is ensure that those circumstances that were negative and unwanted are replaced by the kinds of circumstances in which women of this province can feel very confident. I'm staying on to do exactly that job.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Mr Minister, as you know, farmers in my riding remain extremely concerned about the future of agricultural land use in Niagara. In fact, just last week I presented several petitions in this House from constituents who are asking our government to immediately come to the aid of farmers in the Niagara area.

Some months ago, you appointed a committee to study the idea of establishing a system of conservation easements which would pay farmers not to develop their land. Many of my constituents, people like Arnold Lepp and Gracia Janes, are represented on that committee and I know they have been working very hard to try to come up with a way to put such a system in place. Mr Minister, I would like to ask you what the status of this committee's study actually is and when we in Niagara can expect some action on conservation easements.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The committee she refers to is actually a subcommittee of a larger group looking at agricultural land use in the province. We are looking at how we can save agricultural land for the purposes of agriculture.

There's a lot of interest in the Niagara region in conservation easements because of the difficulty faced by tender fruit farmers. As a result, we set up a subcommittee to look specifically at conservation easements. It's my understanding that committee has almost completed its work. They have asked me for a meeting to present their recommendations. I'm hopeful of meeting them some time in early August so they can present their recommendations and proposals for conservation easements, which I understand at this point will only apply to the Niagara region. We will then see how we might use their recommendations to save agricultural land as well as the tender fruit industry in the Niagara region.

Ms Haeck: Mr Minister, I know you're aware of the hailstorm that occurred in my area and the concerns that are being voiced by farmers, as well as their constant concern about preserving our agricultural land. In fact, some of these growers are talking about giving up and not farming any more. Recognizing that it could be several more months before a decision is made on a province-wide system, is there a possibility we could consider having a system of conservation easements in Niagara on a pilot project basis?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's early to suggest whether there would be a pilot project in the Niagara region. I want to see what the recommendations are, see what the potential costs are, and obviously then I would have to take forward any new policy commitment to the cabinet, to my colleagues for approval. That will take some time. I obviously will not be able to respond at the time of the meeting that I mentioned earlier as to whether there's a cheque ready to be mailed out. It will take some time, but we will give the committee report serious consideration because I understand and recognize the seriousness facing the tender food industry down in the Niagara region.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I had intended to ask a question of the Premier, but since he refused to stay in the House I will instead ask it of the Minister of Correctional Services.

In yesterday morning's scrum, the minister responsible for women's issues suggested that the women who were victims of sexual assault at Bell Cairn had to come forward before their complaints could be investigated. In fact, she went so far as to suggest that investigations could not be started on unsubstantiated rumours. At 1:30 yesterday, the Minister of Correctional Services announced that two separate investigations were under way into these so-called unsubstantiated rumours.

My question for the Minister of Correctional Services is, what changed in those four hours that suddenly an investigation would be launched, other than the fact that complaints your government regarded as unsubstantiated, and therefore not worthy of investigation, were suddenly under great scrutiny by the press and the public?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Quite simply, as the House well knows, the matter came to my attention through the House from the member opposite. We immediately attempted to find information and detail. It is even now, I think, only about 48 hours since that happened. I have made daily responses to the House. I don't really think anyone could have expected anyone who had not been advised prior to have instant knowledge and instant judgement on the situation. Very clearly we have acted effectively, very decisively and in a very prompt manner.

Ms Poole: I find it very strange that in the morning the minister of women's issues is saying one thing and suddenly, four hours later, all the facts have come to the minister's attention so he can launch an investigation.

I have in my hand a copy of Carole Klaassen's June 16 memo, where the issue of the sexual assaults at Bell Cairn is raised. According to the memo, the Bell Cairn staff blamed the women for not coming forward. Then the Toronto Star printed, and I'll quote from the article, that the Minister of Correctional Services "said Tuesday that he could understand why no one reported the allegations to him since the women were unwilling to personally come forward."

The Bell Cairn centre blamed the victims for not coming forward. The Minister of Correctional Services has blamed the victims for not coming forward. That's also what the minister responsible for women's issues has done. How can women trust this government to protect them when the first thing the government does when it's put to the test is to say an investigation can't be started on unsubstantiated rumours and the second is to put the blame on the victims for not coming forward?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I reject the characterization that the member opposite has made of these circumstances. I think it's very clear -- and the member should take heart from the fact -- that we have almost immediately launched a police investigation. We have undertaken to be very mindful of the sensitivity of individuals who may be involved, which is very important. We have closed the centre. We are appointing an independent person to ensure that the operation, procedure and safety, and the fact that there will be no discrimination at that centre, will be the order of the day. We have moved in a very active way to do all those things in order that we ensure the safety and rights of women in this province. That's what we've done. It's been almost immediate, once the information reached my attention. I think that's very positive.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question?

1500

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Again I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I asked him a question earlier in respect to his staff and if any member of his ministerial staff was aware of the sex assault allegations. I want to broaden that and expand it somewhat and not simply confine it to staff within the Ministry of Correctional Services, but to his personal staff at the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Has he asked all of his staff if indeed they were aware of these allegations?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The answer is, as I have said previously, no member of my staff was advised of this incident in either of the ministries that I have responsibility for: that of the Ministry of Correctional Services or that of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Mr Runciman: That's difficult to believe. The Premier was just quoted in a scrum outside, "Serious problems in the ministry going back several months which were relayed in various reports." So it's difficult to understand that the minister's staff, who were there, I would assume, to protect him and report to him, would not be aware of these goings-on contained in various reports, according to the Premier of this province.

We were advised -- I can't indicate that it's accurate, but I think it's incumbent upon me to indicate it in the House today -- that a staffer for you, a Mr Cim Nunn, who works within the Ministry of the Solicitor General, was indeed advised of these allegations and was aware of the sexual assault allegations before I raised them in this House Tuesday afternoon. Can you assure the House this afternoon that Mr Nunn was unaware of those allegations?

Hon Mr Pilkey: How many times can I say it? I or my staff were not advised of these circumstances with respect to Bell Cairn.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, let me put before you a most puzzling case, which has led to some serious questions on the part of one particular citizen in Ontario. This citizen, a 90-year-old woman from a village in another riding, received prescriptions from her doctor to aid her in maintaining good health. The prescriptions were for well-known and widely used drugs. They were given to her from the local pharmacy in her village.

As this person is over 65 years of age, the cost to the government was as follows: For one particular drug, the cost was 21 cents, the fee of the pharmacy $9.99, for a total of $10.20. Another drug was $2.66, a $9.99 fee, the total $12.65. The last one was a vitamin that was needed, $2.21 the cost, a $9.99 dispensing fee, $12.20 was the total cost. The total cost of the drugs and vitamin was $5.08, the total fee charged was $29.97, the total being $35.05.

As you can see, Madam Minister, the fees charged by the pharmacy are exceedingly high. Added to this is the fact that this particular woman used to get three months' supplies of her drugs, but has been told recently by the pharmacist that it can only be given on a month-to-month basis. This new policy is not only inconvenient for this particular woman, who is also having difficulty seeing --

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

Mr Drainville: -- but more important, it could also be an abuse of the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Madam Minister, I ask these questions: As regards the policy of only filling prescriptions on a monthly basis, whose policy is this -- the government's, the doctor's, the pharmacist's? Is this potential abuse of the drug benefit plan going to end? What is the minister doing about it?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): It's a very good question; I only hope the Speaker will give me enough time to answer all of the elements of that.

First of all, with respect to the amount you outlined of the actual dispensing fee that was charged, in Ontario there is a structure where there is a charge for the drug and a charge for the pharmacist's work, a dispensing fee. For those people who are covered under ODB, the Ontario drug benefit plan pays a dispensing fee of $6.47. We froze that this year. I am a bit perplexed at the number you raise. If that in fact is the case, and it's being charged to ODB, then I think we have a problem that should be investigated. I appreciate that with the assistance of your constituent we might be able to look into the particulars of that case.

On the more generic issue of the length of prescriptions and where that responsibility rests, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act currently states that pharmacists must dispense the prescription as it is written unless the patient requests a smaller quantity. They of course can always call and discuss this with the physician, but it really comes down to the physician prescribing an amount. There have been a number of recommendations from reviews on reform that for certain drugs, particularly for seniors and chronic conditions, there should be longer prescriptions. We are hopefully, with the secretariat reform, looking into this, a review of eligibility and a number of other issues and are going to be coming forward with this issue of longer prescriptions.

We may be able to take some short-term actions. I sent a letter very recently to pharmacists and other stakeholders, asking their input on this. We may be able to move in the short term on this, but the bigger issue will have to be reviewed in the context of the drug secretariat reform.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. I wish to draw to the attention of the House that this is the last day for our current group of pages. The members should know that these pages, who had served here previously, volunteered to give up a portion of their summer so that they could serve the House. I think they've done a great job.

PREMIER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As the Speaker, you are the Chair of the Board of Internal Economy and preside over this House and the budget of the expenditures of the members of this Legislature. As such, sir, I think probably this matter ought to be drawn to your attention under a point of order.

As you know, some $5 million or more is provided for members for the publication of householders -- that is, flyers that we send three times a year to our constituents to inform them in a non-partisan way as to what is taking place both within the Parliament and within the government of the province. Sir, part of the current trend in householders is to include questionnaires. I think that the rule about non-partisan questionnaires or surveys would apply equally.

I want to bring to your attention the latest householder and survey from none other than Bob Rae, MPP York South, the Premier of the province, in which there are two questions placed to the residents and constituents of York South. The first reads in the form of a statement, "I feel that the New Democratic government is doing a good job." The first box says, "Creating jobs," "Maintaining services," "Controlling the deficit," "Other." There is a second question, and it reads as follows, "Given that this is the worst recession since the 1930s, I think the New Democratic government is doing as good a job as can be expected." "Agree." "Disagree."

I want to submit to you, sir, in all seriousness that this expenditure and this questionnaire by the Premier of the province represents an abuse of the expenditures of this Legislative Assembly and that you ought to take up this matter because the Premier should be setting the highest standards for the expenditure of -- if I just might make one more point, this kind of electioneering is permitted out of caucus budgets. That is, the New Democratic Party can spend its money any way it wants, even on silly surveys, but the taxpayers' money allocated for householders ought not to be expended in this foolish and offensive way.

I ask you to look into it and to ensure that the expense for this householder is personally paid by the Premier or --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre indeed identifies quite properly that the Speaker has an opportunity to take a look at these matters when they are brought to his attention. I would appreciate it if the member could forward the actual document. Indeed I would be quite happy to take a look at the matter and report back to him later.

1510

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm not sure around which standing order it would revolve but it does revolve around your intervention today in the House proceedings to require the member for Renfrew North to withdraw the word "fool" as it was used, I guess, in the context of his question.

There has been, over the years I have been here and much longer than even my presence, a sense of the words that shouldn't be used in this House and that this chamber then would require a person to withdraw the use of those particularly offending words. All the time I have been here the word "fool" has not been one of those words that has been identified. There have been particular uses of words and phrases, and used with a tone of voice, which have always caused some dislocation but which have never been identified, at least until today, as being unparliamentary and hence requiring the intervention of the Speaker.

If it is, Mr Speaker, your will that there are to be added new ones to the list of words which we know about as being unparliamentary, and if it is in fact your will that the intonation of use of words which by themselves are not offensive or have not been seen to be offensive be added to the list for unparliamentary usage in this House, then could you let us know what those are and can you identify how it was that you came to determine today that in fact the words should be withdrawn?

I don't countenance the raising of some fuss in this place, but it happens in the course of the event without using words that have been banned here. I ask you to identify the new list. I ask you also, Mr Speaker, to provide us with some assurance that when words are used that offend any of us we can rise right at the moment and ask you to have the person who used them withdraw them, whether they're on the list that we know about or not, because it would appear that there is a new test with respect to language, words and phrases being applied now in this House.

The other issue, just before you respond to that, Mr Speaker, is that your intervention in this regard took up almost three minutes of time in the question period. I understand your will to solve behavioural problems of the members here, but in that regard it probably cost another question of the House during a day when the debate has been seriously focused upon incidents that none of us think should occur. I'm talking here not only for the opposition but also for the government party.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you could provide us with some assurance that you will be circulating for us the new list or the new test or something so that we understand when you're going to intervene, that would be of some help to all of us.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Bruce: I know that by his very example he shares the same concern I have with respect to the language which is used in the chamber. Indeed the member will know and it would be absolutely correct that should it not ever be necessary for the Speaker to stand during question period in order to restore order, there would be very many more questions that would find their way to the floor. It is always with reluctance that I find I must stand to interrupt the proceedings, because all the members should have an equal opportunity to be able to ask questions and receive responses.

I understand full well his concern. I must say to him that there is no list of unparliamentary language and that indeed, as the member will know, those who are skilled in the use of vocabulary will find that in certain circumstances an individual word is found to be unparliamentary but in other circumstances it is allowable. It depends on the context; it depends on the general atmosphere in which it is used.

Today it was my observation that the particular word was used in such a way as to be insulting to another member of the House. To use any vocabulary that could be very easily determined to be insulting or denigrating in any way should not be acceptable.

I wish that I could provide a list for the member. I suspect that if I were able to do so, the list would be quite lengthy indeed, because of the very nature that it is often the context which determines the situation. Second, any language which causes disorder can be ruled to be unparliamentary, because the language in and of itself is not necessarily unparliamentary but it has been used in a way to create disorder.

It is a difficult and tricky business, I acknowledge to the member, but all I can do is to caution all members to try to use temperate language and to try to avoid using any language which could be determined to be insulting or as not respectful of other members of the House.

Last, I share with him the frustration that we be able to utilize every moment possible for members of the House, especially private members on the opposition side, to be able to ask questions of the government of the day. That is what I try to achieve. Some days it's not easy.

Mr Elston: Just to clear the reason why I raised it in this context, I was asked the other day, and I think appropriately, by you to withdraw the phrase "corrupting the truth" because you found it offensive, and so did the member for Windsor-Riverside. But at that particular time things were being said that were offensive to me and were impugning my motives, I felt, and it caused grave disorder, but you chose not to intervene when he uttered those words. I'm asking you, I guess, to consider the problem --

Interjection: Sit down.

Mr Elston: Who wants me to sit down?

Mr Speaker, I just want you to consider the problem that with interventions, if you are prepared to make them, if a member identifies them to you, are you prepared now to stand and ask somebody to withdraw the offending language at each turn? I'm only asking you that because my problem is that you can't do it sometimes and not do it the rest. You've embarked, it seems to me, on a very difficult task, maybe more difficult than you now understand.

The Speaker: The member makes a very fair and reasonable request. I can assure him that with any intervention by any member of this House, if the Speaker hears it and it's determined that it is an inappropriate remark, that member will be asked immediately to withdraw it.

Second, remarks have been made in the chamber which the Chair has not found to be insulting, but some other member has been offended by the comment and the member has been asked and voluntarily has withdrawn the remarks. Whenever that happens, I see that as a very positive sign for the good cordial relations between both sides of the House.

I appreciate very much the matter the member has raised and indeed I will try to be even more vigorous than in the past if the member feels I haven't been quite as vigilant as I might be. I will always do my utmost to be fair to both sides of the chamber.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by 31 residents of Middlesex county as follows:

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature.

1520

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This might be the last day of the House, and if it is, I would like to table --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: You just never know. That's why I'm tabling well over 10,000 signatures on these petitions from the people of York region, in York Centre, York North and Markham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to uphold legislation to protect environmentally sensitive areas from landfill sites; and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the NDP government and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect environmentally sensitive areas and look at all viable options for waste disposal. York region protests the location of landfill sites on environmentally sensitive areas such as the Rouge Valley and the Oak Ridges systems."

It is signed by these thousands of constituents and others, and also has my name affixed to it. It is absolutely unacceptable that this government is proceeding with these sites. I hope they will listen to these petitions.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, and particularly John Turco from Greystone Walk in my riding of Scarborough Centre:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two education systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal educational systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature of support.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I have a petition which you're very familiar with at this point because it's becoming a constant refrain in this Parliament. It reads as follows, and of course it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It states:

"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" really only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended" -- this is the interesting part -- "the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized" the rules we used to have "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 also 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" -- I'm not sure that's factually correct -- "and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier" -- and of this I have no doubt -- "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" the same "Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes" -- that would be the first step -- "imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

If members want further information on this, I direct them to the column by Carol Goar in today's Toronto Star.

I have affixed my name to this petition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Stop the clock, please. I would ask the cooperation of all members who wish to present petitions to bear in mind that if we follow the normal procedure of simply presenting a petition without editorial comment, we will have a better chance during our brief time -- we allot only 15 minutes to the presentation of petitions, and if members use some of that time to editorialize, then obviously other members will not have the opportunity to present petitions.

I would ask the cooperation of all members to simply read the petition. The explanatory notes perhaps can be provided by way of written submission at some point in time.

Start the clock. The member for Grey.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition --

Interjection: What's it all about, Bill? What's your petition about?

Interjection: I think you should give us some editorial comments.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, I think I should.

Interjection: Time's up, Bill.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, my time's gone. I'm waiting till the Speaker sits down.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is to add many thousands of names that have already been added by the different members from that area, from London and Middlesex.

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 116 Middlesex constituents who urge the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the report of arbitrator John Brant relating on the greater London area. Many in Middlesex also have grave concerns regarding the size of the annexation and the recommendations within that report.

I have signed my name to this petition.

GRAND MARBLE AND GRANITE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by at least 100 constituents on the North Shore area. It says:

"We, the undersigned, citizens of the North Shore and other concerned citizens believe that when it comes to government funding of projects, such as the Grand Marble and Granite stone plant, it should be a priority.

"As you are aware, employment is very scarce at this time and we believe when it comes to aiding a company such as this, who employs up to 100 jobs directly, it is essential to back them 110%.

"If Italian investors can commit $3 million and feel this is a sure thing, we believe our government should at least be able to accept the application for $1 million from the president of Grand Marble and Granite."

I'll affix my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have affixed my signature.

VIOLENCE IN PUBLICATIONS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by 265 residents of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and other communities.

"To the Legislature of Ontario: The following is a petition for the banning of psychopathic killer cards into Canada," and although this is not under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, they have asked that their names be added to the government of Ontario's support in urging the federal government to take whatever action it can.

I have also affixed my signature to this.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by six residents of Eglinton riding, two of whom are very prominent, Jay Waterman, the NDP candidate from 1990, and Bob Garthson, the vice-president of the OSSTF.

I would like to table this petition which is regarding the Labour Relations Act and, as required, I have affixed my signature.

1530

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I've a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"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.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition signed by many people in my region to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. These many, many people stated they are not in favour of the environmental levy put on beer cans. Furthermore, they are against any levy to be placed on soda cans. "These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently being recycled at a very high rate. To impose this and any further tax on the canning industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border."

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 28 residents of my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this for-profit clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn, including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities;

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

I've affixed my signature to such a petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London; and

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings; and

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here signed by many residents in Sutton-By-The-Lake, and it's around the land-leased communities. They petition the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to follow through and release the committee's report on land-leased communities and propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals living in these land-leased communities."

I have signed my name to it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by approximately 25 people. I've affixed my signature to it. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act have been made without any prior consultation with the people who will be directly affected by this legislation, and this is totally unacceptable;

"Whereas there are serious reservations about how the legislation will affect the national health, welfare and pension plan and the hard-earned moneys contributed for the protection of our families and futures;

"We, the undersigned members of provincial unions" -- and these are managers as well as rank and file -- "do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately withdraw Bill 40."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): "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 of leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate the bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly may 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 a neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether 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 and procedures in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Renfrew North, I notice that you came back in the House. I just want to let you know that the fact that you walked on your own when the Speaker was just about to name you does not preclude you from being named. I ask you to withdraw or you leave me with no other choice than to name you, sir.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not wanting to offend the sensibility of the Chair, I will certainly withdraw any remarks that the Speaker found offensive and serve notice that from this date forward I will be engaging the Chair on a very regular basis about the inclusion of words that have been long found acceptable by previous Speakers. But lest there be any confusion, I withdraw anything that offended the sensibilities of the honourable Speaker of the 35th Parliament of Ontario.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not hear the Speaker name the member for Renfrew North in any event. I don't know how this got trumped up. The Speaker did not name him. The Speaker was engaged in a discussion with him. The member voluntarily withdrew and there was no naming of anybody. I don't know how now somebody can name him.

The Deputy Speaker: I tried to explain that I had spoken to the Speaker before I made this statement. The Speaker was about to name the member for Renfrew North. This is the reason why I say that the Speaker was about to name the member for Renfrew North. I have accepted the apology of the member for Renfrew North and I consider the case closed.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order relates to the matters you've just raised. I take you at your word, sir, that you had a conversation with the Speaker prior to assuming his place in the chair. Notwithstanding that, sir, I think I might say it's highly irregular for one Speaker to make a ruling on something the other Speaker was about to do. Many things can happen --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I've understood your point. Let me explain again, please. The member for Renfrew North left of his own volition. That he had left on his own doesn't mean that he is precluded from being named by the Speaker. The Speaker was about to name him, but he left. Please take my word. I consider this case closed.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I in fact will take your word that you do know the motive of the Speaker at that time and in fact that the Speaker was going to name the member for Renfrew North. But my question and clarification involved in this is exactly what word was the then Speaker going to name the member for Renfrew North for. If in fact you're going to make a ruling at this point that he was going to be named, could you please tell me why he was going to be named?

The Deputy Speaker: I think you understand very clearly that the Speaker's role is not to debate a ruling. My ruling has been made and I consider the case closed.

1540

Mr Conway: If I might, Mr Speaker, I just want to be clear what it is that I've withdrawn. I find it remarkable. But let me be clear: I understand that this Speaker has found the use of the word "fool" unparliamentary. I find that absolutely unbelievable, and I find it -- I won't say what I find it because I know the rules of this place. I withdraw, but the word that apparently offends is "fool." I simply serve notice that if that's the new threshold, if that's the new baseline, I will govern myself accordingly.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you don't want to pursue this overly, Mr Speaker, but for my edification and for all those in the House to know full well exactly what word it is that we're not allowed to use any more would be very appropriate, because I would not like to think that if at some future date I used the word, if it is "fool," that I would be turfed out, and if so, I won't use it.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, I don't want to go on on this issue. I have made my ruling and the member for Renfrew North has accepted my ruling. The case is closed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr46, An Act to revive The Mississauga Real Estate Board.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr48, An Act respecting Bikur Cholim.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the committee's report on the Impact on Women of the Government's Conversion Policy relating to Child Care.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked so hard on this report and I would like to thank all the presenters from around the province who took their time to come and speak to the committee about this very important issue. This is a report that unfortunately we did not find consensus on in the committee, and it has two minority reports attached to it.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on Changes to the Funding of the Ontario Student Assistance Program and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I would also like to thank all the members of the committee and the presenters who came before it. I would like to underline that our report was a unanimous report on the Ontario student assistance program, and I think what's important to take from that is the concern that all members felt about the state of the Ontario student assistance program. The need for fundamental reform was something that we believe needs to be addressed at the earliest dispatch.

On motion by Mr Beer, the debate was adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR SPONSORED VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES CORPORATIONS À CAPITAL DE RISQUE DE TRAVAILLEURS

Ms Wark-Martyn moved third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments / Loi prévoyant la création et l'inscription de corporations à capital de risque de travailleurs aux fins d'investissement dans des entreprises ontariennes admissibles et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Ms Wark-Martyn, comments?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I would like to thank all those members who participated in the review of this bill by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The committee hearings resulted in the adoption of a number of amendments that will help to create a more effective program to develop real partnerships between business, labour and government.

The government believes this legislation offers two distinct yet complementary methods for the creation of new sources of capital for investment in small and medium-sized Ontario businesses. Investment funds sponsored by organized labour, including worker cooperatives, are designed to encourage the participation of all working people and Ontarians in the economic development of our province. The legislation will also provide working people who are faced with changing economic conditions with the increased opportunity to participate in the decision-making in their workplace. It will also allow all Ontarians to become involved in the restructuring and rebuilding of the Ontario economy.

This legislation is not intended to answer all the economic problems we are facing in this province, but we believe this program will be a key element in our overall economic strategy to create real and effective partnerships between business, labour and government, a strategy that will allow Ontario to emerge from the current recession in a strong and competitive position to respond to the economic challenges of the 1990s and beyond.

I'd like to introduce to you today in the east gallery members of the Canadian Federation of Labour: Reg Conrad, president of the Canadian Federation of Labour -- Ontario Council; Warner Baxter, vice president, Canadian Federation of Labour, director of Working Ventures Canadian Fund Inc, and Ron Begg, the president of Working Ventures Canadian Fund Inc, who are here to join with us in third reading debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): During the hearings there were two questions asked that we are still awaiting a response on. One, as the minister will know, was a clarification from the federal government that it was planning to extend the tax credits to the worker co-ops and also that it was not planning to move in any other areas. The committee was informed that we would be getting that answer in writing.

The second question we raised was that there was still some question at the committee about whether other organizations would be eligible to manage these venture capital corporations. I used the specific example of the Ontario Teachers' Federation because I was concerned that the narrow definition of who can run this program might not include organizations like the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I wonder if the minister can clarify both of those matters for us.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Now that we're in third reading of this bill, I just want to put a question or two to the minister and hope that she can deal with it in the two minutes she has to reply. The matters I raise are ones that are going to be developed further by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt when he speaks to third reading of this bill.

The issue, in short, under the administration of the worker venture capital portion of this bill is that there was clear evidence during the committee hearings that the very people who are authorized to participate in this program -- that is, the trade unions and the trade union movement in the province -- had said that they don't like the design of the bill, do not support the bill and will not be participating in the bill in the way it's currently shaped. I think my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is going to refer specifically to testimony that was given during the committee hearings.

I ask the minister what she has done to amend this bill, to reshape it, to reframe it so that those very people, and only those people, who can participate, because it's restricted exclusively to the trade union movement -- what she has done to reshape the bill in a way that makes it acceptable to the very people for whom it is designed: the Ontario Federation of Labour.

It seems strange that we would be giving any further consideration to this bill at this time given the current state of affairs that the people for whom it was designed say that it's not designed properly and they're not going to participate in it. Surely what she should have done is halt consideration of the bill and redesign it in consultation with the Ontario Federation of Labour before proceeding to third reading and royal assent of the bill.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the statement the minister made to the House initially about the time frame in which she wishes this bill to be considered by the House, particularly in light of the fact that the Premier has brought in new rules of the House which now will limit the amount of time each member is permitted to speak, the lead speaker has the opportunity to speak for an hour and a half if that person considers it appropriate, but after that, each member may speak for only 30 minutes. If a person had a compelling argument to be advanced beyond the first speaker, at 30 minutes the Speaker would indicate that person must sit down.

In addition to that, if the member wanted to see other bills considered under her jurisdiction, she would know that the House is not going to sit as many days under the new rules brought in by her Premier, which stipulate that the House shall sit fewer times.

I also am concerned whether the minister would consider bringing in a time allocation motion since now she has the opportunity under the new rules of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to determine how long the debate will take place, rather than the natural flow of debate that used to take place before those rules were implemented by her Premier through the government House leader and, last, her viewpoint on the discretion of the Speaker being taken away in view of a closure allocation motion, where the Speaker used to be able to indicate whether he or she felt sufficient debate had taken place.

That determination will be now made by the government of Ontario, presumably on orders from the Premier's office, since everything done by this government comes from the Premier's office. I wonder if she has the same concerns Carol Goar has in the Toronto Star article today, an excellent article on this subject.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I'm rather disappointed that the Progressive Conservative Party doesn't have any questions or comments for the minister or the government members, but be that as it may, I want to just take advantage of --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You can only do it once, sorry.

Mr Sorbara: Oh, really. Can I have a reference to the rules, sir?

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I too have a question for the minister. As someone who participated at committee during the debate I know that, as critic for the Ministry of Revenue, I raised the concern I have that individuals who will be making investments into the labour-sponsored investment funds may assume there is a government guarantee.

I was pleased the minister accepted the Liberal caucus amendment which would clarify that the order in council recommendation did not constitute a guarantee, but I wanted to ask the minister at this time if she would speak to that issue, one, to ensure that individuals who make those investments -- how will they be notified and how will they be aware? People tend to not read the legislation, so what are you going to put in place to make sure that people know they are not getting the government's guarantee that these are good investments?

Second, the concern I have is that potential investors in both the worker-ownership schemes and the labour-sponsored investment funds have the information they need so they can make informed decisions about whether these are the types of investments which will be secure for them, since they will be investing in a lifetime up to $150,000 per individual.

I believe it is very important for the minister to address these issues, first, so people will have the information to make a sensible decision about participation, and second, so they will be aware that they are not getting a government guarantee for their investment and that possibly their risk may be more than what they consider it is. I ask the minister at the beginning of this third reading debate if she would address those issues.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: In two minutes, I'll respond to the ones I can. The Treasurer has deemed that broadening the eligibility parameters at this time to establish labour-sponsored investment fund corporations is inadvisable for several reasons.

This is a new type of program. We do not know what the takeup will be. Broadening its scope greatly at the onset could result in a proliferation of very small labour-sponsored investment funds with insufficient capital to meet the program's objective, which is to create new sources of equity funding for small- and medium-sized businesses in Ontario.

Second, the government would also like to maintain control of the size of the program and the amount of revenue involved to support it. Broadening it greatly at this point would make this impossible.

Third, established, long-term and large entities sponsoring and managing labour-sponsored investment funds will reduce the risk of failure of the fund to investors. The government will look closely at the possibility of expanding the eligibility requirements for labour-sponsored investment funds to other organizations once some experience has been obtained.

On the issue about the support for this bill, I would like to point out that the Ontario Federation of Labour is in support of the employer ownership component of the bill, as is the Canadian Auto Workers in specific situations. Other presenters at committee, including representatives of organized labour, have seen merit in the new program. In particular, Mr Ron Begg of the Working Ventures Canadian Fund, sponsored by the Canadian Federation of Labour, spoke in support of the concept.

This government believes it is important for organized labour to have the opportunity to develop new partnerships with business and government to help Ontario increase productivity, improve labour-management relations and set the groundwork for sustainable prosperity and competitiveness.

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

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chance to join in the debate on Bill 150. I think most members in the House appreciate what we're dealing with here. But to refresh our memories, there are two components of this bill.

The first is what's called the worker ownership portion of the bill. We on this side of the House, certainly in the official opposition, very much support initiatives that will broaden the participation of people in the Ontario economy. From my own personal experience in the private sector, before I came here I was chairman of three companies and in each of those three companies there was broad ownership. As a matter of fact, I might add that every single individual in the company participated in profit-sharing and a large percentage owned significant shares in the company. There's no doubt that individuals who have a stake in the operation feel more a part of the operation; all the evidence will support this. That's to be applauded. So we support initiatives that will expand worker participation.

The second part of this program establishes what are called in the bill labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. Again we support the concept of programs that will, in the province, develop additional pools of capital for investment, particularly in ventures that will benefit the Ontario economy. So on both of those fronts we are supportive now and in the future of concepts that will achieve both those objectives.

I might, as a small point, point out that in the bill for some reason or other there continues to be a strange name for the employee ownership part of the bill. This is the one where workers are provided with tax incentives to purchase a significant share in their corporations, in their businesses. The title in the bill still says, "Employee Ownership Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations." For some reason or other, that name still exists. It has nothing to do with labour-sponsored venture capital. It is essentially employee ownership corporations. Having said that, it's not a central part of the bill. I just point out that frankly it makes no sense.

1600

As I say, we support the concept and the objectives of the bill, and therefore we will be supporting Bill 150. Having said that, we regret very much that the government has chosen to ignore many of our proposals, and many supported, I might say, by the third party. I think I will show today that they were reasonable proposals that should have been supported. I thought there were some exceptionally good recommendations from groups that appeared before the committee that were also ignored.

Therefore we in the opposition are put into a rather difficult spot because there's no doubt -- for example, this bill is the one that was used in Kapuskasing for the Spruce Falls purchase, and that was a good idea. There's no doubt that it is an important element of the successful Spruce Falls operation and there's no doubt that the bill will be used for other similar situations.

We don't want to be standing in the way of that, particularly as we all know, and just yesterday we pointed out in the House, we've seen record numbers of plants closing. Yesterday we learned that already this year in the province of Ontario we've seen a third more plants close in the first six months of 1992 than we saw in the first six months of 1991, even though the Treasurer said we're coming out of the recession, and certainly we pray we are.

We saw yesterday that, as already announced, there are 18 plants closing in the month of July 1992, and we know that last year in July a total of 10 closed. So there can be no doubt that we continue to see, right from one end of the province to the other, plants closing. Some of them, I would hope, could use this mechanism to restructure themselves and get a fresh new start, so we are put in the position of saying, "We don't want to stand in the way of that happening," but being forced to vote for a bill that there is no doubt could be substantially improved.

I will talk later on about how the only organizations that can run these venture capital corporations -- on the worker ownership part, we'll be indicating how we think it could have been improved. On the venture capital part, if it's going to be a meaningful economic tool in the province, it has to be one where the unions take an active and vigorous role.

Why is that? Because the only organizations that can manage the venture capital portion of this bill are the unions. Nobody else can, other than co-ops, but nobody else can do it. If I heard the minister correctly, I don't even have an assurance that the Ontario Teachers' Federation could participate, so only the unions can run the venture capital part.

Mr Speaker, as you know, the Premier has held this out as one of the great economic tools to help the province, but the OFL has said it will not participate in the venture capital part of this bill, so here we are being asked to support a bill that's structured in a way to ensure its own lack of success. It's the unions that can run the venture capital, and the major union, the OFL, has said it doesn't want to participate.

I appreciate that the Canadian Federation of Labour is participating. It is an important body, a national organization, a well-run federation of unions, and fortunately it is participating, and I think vigorously, but there's no doubt that the OFL is by far the larger union organization in the province, and it has flatly said no, it is not going to participate.

We now have the problem of being asked to approve a bill about which the very people who will be responsible for making it work have said, "Listen, there are fundamental flaws in it." We're put once again in the position of the government saying: "We're right. We're the ones who know best. You in opposition don't know. We're right and you're wrong. Take it or leave it."

We had several amendments that we felt could have substantially improved this bill, which were rejected. My colleague the member for Oriole developed two of them herself, put them forward, and they were both rejected.

The people who are watching this often say to me as a politician: "Why is the opposition always so negative? Why don't you make suggestions for improvements?" The Minister of the Environment is shaking her head. Well, why don't we? Here's the problem, Mr Speaker:

Let's take Bill 143 which the Minister of the Environment herself brought forward. We predicted the dilemma she now finds herself in. My colleague the member for York Centre, my colleague the member for York North and a member from the third party, the member for Markham, all said at committee, "Listen, this Bill 143 is crazy," and made specific proposals for improvements. What happened? They were rejected. The Minister of the Environment is shaking her head, asking why we aren't we constructive. We are constructive, but you know best, you know what's right and you will ignore our recommendations; similarly in the budget.

I point this out because I want to illustrate that on Bill 150, the opposition parties, both ourselves and the third party, attempted through hearings to improve the bill. In fact, if I might say, it was the members of the opposition who demanded that this bill go to committee. Just before Christmas, when the government was trying to get third reading of the bill, Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, and I said, "No, we think this should go to committee." Frankly, fortunately for the government's sake, it did.

Here are the amendments that were brought forward.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): We saved your bacon again.

Mr Phillips: We saved their bacon, to use the member for Carleton's language.

There were 42 separate amendments to the bill that the government House leader wanted to get passed last December. Fortunately we asked that it be referred to committee and therefore we were able to allow the government to make those amendments. Unfortunately the government rejected our amendments.

To the people who are watching this, when they say, "Why doesn't the opposition be constructive?" I use Bill 143 as an example. I use this bill, and I will go through the amendments we've proposed and why we proposed them. People say, "Why aren't you constructive on the budget?" We had many recommendations on last year's budget. The government said, "No, no, we know best."

Youth unemployment would be another example. I was up in the Legislature 18 months ago saying: "I can tell you there are significant problems coming in youth unemployment. For heaven's sake, start to do something." It was a tragic coincidence that on the afternoon of the day we had what can only be described as a riot on Yonge Street, about four hours before the riot, I was again in the Legislature begging the government to get on with some youth employment programs. It was only after the riot that the youth employment programs came in. I can show you the Hansard, Mr Speaker. Just mere hours before it happened, we in the opposition were trying to get some action on improvements.

Why am I going through that background? It is because I want to put the government on notice. I am telling you there are fundamental flaws in the bill. I'm telling you we're going to support it, because we want to be in a position to help communities like Kapuskasing and others that may use the bill, but when the things happen that I guarantee you are going to happen, I will get up in the Legislature and say: "I told you it was going to happen. We begged you to change it. You wouldn't, and now we're going to hold you accountable." I guarantee you I will do that.

1610

Let me just start to put this program, the worker ownership program, in the context the government would like us to put it in, and that is that this is part of Premier Rae's economic renewal plan. Mr Speaker, you may recall that both he and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- I can recall very vividly, September 23, the day we came back to the Legislature, on September 23, about nine months ago, the Premier got up in the Legislature and said, "The economy is our number one priority and we are going to move forward with significant plans."

What were those plans? Let me tell you what the plans were. There were five of them.

There was training. The Premier kind of wants this to be his issue. This is the one that on the national scene he wants to be known as the person who really cares about training. That's what he said, "Training is fundamental to our economy." What have we seen? We were promised legislation. We were promised the legislation this spring. We were told that we would have the legislation so we could see clearly what the government's plans were. Where is the legislation? That was one major plank in the government's economic platform, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

I think it's fair to say that the passing of that legislation must be eight or nine months away. I gather the government's going to introduce it in the fall. I gather that it will be a substantive piece of legislation. I would think, because it's going to impact virtually everybody in the province, I would think, because it's going to have, I gather, a budget of $2 billion to $3 billion -- the Minister of Skills Development shakes his head, but those are the numbers we've been getting from the ministry. It will have a budget of $2 billion to $3 billion. Where is that piece, that important element of the Premier's economic plan?

The second big part was the use of public sector pensions. You remember the Premier said we would have that coming. We haven't even seen the end of the consultation period, let alone legislation on it. Here we are, a record number of unemployed, the unemployment rate running at 11%, and the second platform in the Premier's economic renewal plan, the Ontario investment fund, nothing's happening on it, while we're seeing plants closing every day, 18 closing in July, and that was the second element in the platform.

The third was the Premier said he would guarantee more cooperation and partnerships in the workplace. "We're going to have a new level of partnership in the workplace in the province of Ontario." This was going to be the third element of Premier Rae's economic platform. That is the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments.

Regardless of how you feel on that issue, whether you're for them or agin them, the facts are that they are extremely divisive. We're going to have five weeks of hearings that'll be -- I know what will happen. The two camps will have chosen up sides, each will come, and it will be a pitched battle, rather than the partnerships we had expected by now, right at the crucial time when, as I say, unemployment is running at 11%, youth unemployment is running at more than 20%, plants are closing, believe me, at a record number. There are more people who have lost their jobs in the first six months due to plant closures than lost their jobs in the whole of 1982, right at the heart of the recession, in the whole year. There's more already in the first six months. The third part of their economic plan, that is, the workplace partnership, that one's in tatters.

The fourth area was the industrial strategy. That was promised months and months and months ago. We still don't see it.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The member is heckling, not even from his seat. If you would get on with your economic plan, I would stop complaining. But I'm just telling you there were five elements of it, and you're doing nothing on them.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Labour is starting to yap again. I would just say to him what I said to him the other day: I have no confidence in you, Minister. You went around accusing me of causing people to die in the workplace with Bill 208, then you become Minister of Labour and you go out and buy yourself an ad saying what a great piece of legislation Bill 208 is. What I concluded from that is that you say one thing in one place and another thing in another place. I have no confidence in you. I lost confidence the day I saw that ad with your face on it saying, "Bill 208, the most progressive legislation in North America: Minister praises the health and safety legislation." One time you're dragging coffins in --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We're debating Bill 150.

Mr Phillips: I understand that, but if the Minister of Labour chooses to heckle from his seat, I will tell him what I think of his heckling.

So I'm on to the fifth element of the economic plan, and that is worker ownership. The problem with this bill is this: They say it's going to accomplish things, yet the major partner, the only one who can make it work, the OFL, has said categorically it's not going to participate in it. They're not going to participate in the venture capital. What are you doing passing a bill designed, as you say, to create venture capital, when the OFL, the major organization that can run this, is saying what about it? I asked the member of the OFL specifically. I said, "I guess there were words in here somewhere that suggest you won't participate in it." What did the OFL say? "We are not interested in participating in the labour-sponsored investment fund aspect of the act."

What we've got here is the fifth plank of the economic renewal plan. This is what the Premier has said he's going to get the economy rolling with, the fifth plank, and the organization that has the responsibility, the only organization that can make it run, says it won't participate in it.

The reason I wanted to highlight that for you is that the government has said, "Jobs and the economy are our number one priority." The government has said, "Here's how we're going to get the economy rolling." The Premier said it was his number one priority on September 23, 1991. Now here we are. Ontario Training and Adjustment Board: We don't even see the legislation yet, let alone debating it. The Ontario investment fund: still consulting. The workplace partnerships that were going to bring us out of this: a pitched battle between the business community and the labour community, and there's no doubt about that. The industrial strategy: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has promised that, and it's not here. Now this bill: When the session finally rises, all of you, when you go out and are asked, "What have you accomplished?" will say, "We've passed the amazing worker ownership bill." But the OFL says it's not going to participate in it.

1620

I wanted to put this particular bill in the context of the overall economic plan. Now on to the specifics of the bill and some of the aspects of this bill we have expressed our concerns about and have been unable to get the government to move on.

First, I think the people who follow these things should appreciate that the government anticipates that this bill, when it's fully mature, when it's up and running, will cost the taxpayers of the province $250 million a year, so we're talking about substantial amounts of money. If I'm not mistaken, the entire tax revenue from mining profits in the province is perhaps $100 million; we're talking about a program that will cost two and a half times the total amount of tax revenue the province gets from the mines. I just put that into some perspective. It's an extremely large sum of money.

What we said in committee, and my colleague the member for Oriole actually proposed it, is that we should have a mechanism that triggers a review of this. We're not talking about small amounts of money; we're talking about significant amounts of money. It's not a direct analogy, but recall the scientific tax credit program the federal government had several years ago that just got completely out of hand; it just went wild. We said let's put a specific mechanism, a trigger, in here that would allow us to review, so we could at least say, "Gee, it's going to go substantially above $250 million; we should review the program.".

That amendment was rejected in committee. Again, it is part of my thesis: "We're right and you're wrong and don't bother us with your recommendations." I think the taxpayers of the province should know that both, I think it's fair to say, opposition parties felt there should be a trigger mechanism here so that if this bill does go ahead, we have a review of it so it just doesn't run free. That seemed to me to be a very sensible recommendation, but it was rejected.

I might add that we will be watching carefully how this is accounted for in the finances of the province. There are some who would argue that in the past the way the provincial government has assisted corporations is through grants. That shows up directly on the books; it shows up as an expense, I think normally in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, if I'm not mistaken, Ontario Development Corp grants. This is just as much an expense as a grant. The taxpayers are going to forgo $250 million a year of revenue. It's just the same as if we put out grants of $250 million a year, but governments sometimes find it easier to hide the tax concessions than they do the grant program. We'll be watching this carefully and I'll be saying to the members opposite what I've said many times: I have confidence in the Treasurer, but I don't have confidence beyond that.

For those of you who are watching, this year's budget has some extremely questionable accounting in it. The members of the NDP caucus may not realize, but the Treasurer came to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the other day and acknowledged one of these things. The Treasurer was faced with the deficit being not $9.9 billion but $10.4 billion. He had a neat little trick. The province owes the teachers' pension fund $500 million, due January 1, 1993, so the Treasurer went to the teachers' pension and said: "Suppose we just delay paying you that for three months? Rather than having to show that $500 million as an expense in this fiscal year that would have driven our deficit up to $10.4 billion, why don't we just say we'll reschedule that payment to April 1, three months, and then we won't have to show that expense?"

The teachers are good business people and they said, "Sure, we'll do that, but you've got to pay us competitive interest rates." The Treasurer said, "If I've got to pay you that interest rate, it will be at least two percentage points above what I'd have to go to the market on." They said, "That's your problem."

There's no question -- the Treasurer acknowledged it -- that the taxpayers of the province have just thrown away $2 million, thrown it right away. The member is shaking his head. It is a fact: They've thrown away $2 million. The Treasurer himself said, "Yes, we could have gone to the market and borrowed that $500 million for $2 million less in cost, but that would have taken our deficit up to $10.4 billion. We don't want that." The Premier in particular wanted a $9.9-billion deficit, so he said, "Do whatever it takes."

For that little piece of questionable accounting, just to show an artificial deficit, the taxpayers threw away $2 million. They got nothing for it. The only thing they got was Bob Rae being able to say, "Our deficit's $9.9 billion."

If I were in the NDP caucus -- each of us has groups coming to us saying, "Can't you help me out?" Tomorrow is our constituency day. I will have people coming to see me who cannot get home care and that sort of thing. But the province threw away $2 million and all it got for it was a delay in payments for the teachers' pension for three months.

By the way -- I'm pointing this out particularly for the back bench, because you have to get after the cabinet ministers on this and ask, "Why did we throw the $2 million away?" -- to make it even worse, this is going to go on year after year after year because it's all built in. Believe me, the teachers did the honourable thing; they were absolutely right. They said, "Sure, we'll delay the payment for three months, as long as you pay us the rate we could earn in the market." The teachers get a higher interest rate than the government pays for its money.

The reason I raise all of this is because we're going to be watching this $250-million expense. We have tried to ask the Provincial Auditor to come in and look at this accounting practice. We think it's wrong. If you were in the private sector and you tried what the government has done with this rescheduling of payments to the teachers' pension, the auditor would never sign the report. The auditor would say, "This does not represent a true reflection of year-to-year expenditures and we will not sign it."

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Oh, for goodness' sake.

Mr Phillips: I'm telling you that.

Do you know what we did? We sent a letter to the Provincial Auditor saying, "We think this is wrong and will you look at it?" He said, "I will be happy to look at it, but I need a legislative committee to ask me to do it." The members here will recall that I asked the Treasurer if he had any problem with that and he said no. We took that motion to the standing committee on public accounts. For those of you who have been around here for a while, the public accounts committee is one that normally gets at matters like this and looks at them and is to an extent a non-partisan committee; it's one that tries to ensure that the public money is looked at and properly handled.

All we wanted was to ask the auditor to give us an opinion on whether this rescheduling of cash payments, which is really just borrowing $500 million from the teachers -- it's a loan. In fact, the Treasurer called it a loan in the committee; he calls it rescheduling of cash payments.

We have real reservations, as I hope you all know, about the fiscal stabilization plan. It always makes me angry in the Legislature when the Premier gets mad at Mulroney and then goes cap in hand for $1.2 billion in fiscal stabilization. We've said to the government that we really wonder about that. We think it's a phoney. As a matter of fact, the day after the budget came out the federal officials said: "Where did he get the $1.2 billion fiscal stabilization? He doesn't have a hope of getting that this fiscal year." We asked for that to be looked at.

The third thing we asked to be looked at was the sale of assets. For those of you who follow this, and I hope the backbenchers do, in this year's budget there is $1.2 billion for sale of assets. The only ones that have been identified are Suncor and the SkyDome. There's another $1 billion unidentified.

We have questions about all three of those things and we have asked to get the public auditor to look at it, but the whip has been on and the government members refuse to allow that to happen. I'll say to the government members that I'm not going to stop. I'll keep at it until we get the answer on that thing. The reason I raise this is our concern with the $250-million expenditure and how that will be reported and whether the taxpayers of the province will have an accurate understanding of the cost of this bill.

1630

I want to move on now to the worker ownership component of this bill. This is an extremely serious matter. I know the people who are viewing this will understand it. I want to get on the record on this thing because, I will tell you, I will have the Hansard out in two or three years and I'll say, "I told you so." In the bill there's a fundamental flaw. On page 16 of the bill there is the establishment of -- it's on page 16, subsection (5). I'll just read it out and then I'll explain it:

"(5) A recommendation by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology under subsection (4) shall be based upon a recommendation received from the Employee Ownership Advisory Board made after consideration by the board of the matters set out in section 42."

What this means is this. Let's say a group of employees get together and they want to purchase their company. They and the current owners sit down and they work out a deal. They try to figure out how they can do that. They then have to send that to this Employee Ownership Advisory Board. Later on in the bill, on page 49, section 39, it goes over how the board is established; then on page 50, and this is perhaps the important part, the duty of the board.

The reason I'm raising this is that the Steelworkers who came to see us and made, I thought, exceptionally important points -- I don't think there's any organization in the province that knows more about worker ownership than the Steelworkers. I truly believe that. Mr Gerard has been totally involved in this for years and years and years, well before Algoma, but he's been totally involved in the Algoma situation, and the Steelworkers forcefully brought this to our attention. This Employee Ownership Advisory Board will put its stamp of approval on it and, without its approval, the proposal can't go forward.

The board is appointed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. They shall "appoint not fewer three nor more than 12 persons as members of the board," an equal number of members from each of labour, business and government etc. But this board will evaluate the proposal, and here are some of the criteria that they use. They have to evaluate:

"(a) whether the proposed investment that is the subject of the business plan submitted...under this act is equitable and reasonably commercially viable over the period covered by the plan;

"(b) whether an investment to be made by employees is equitable in the circumstances and in light of the objectives of the proposal; and

"(c) any other matter required to be dealt with...."

And they shall consider industry trends, past performance of the company etc. The problem with this, and the Steelworkers pointed it out, is that what the government --

Mr Bradley: What did the Steelworkers say?

Mr Phillips: My colleague the member for St Catharines asks, "What did the Steelworkers say?" Their testimony was extremely beneficial. I might add that Mr Gerard sent to the Chair of the committee a letter expressing "the disappointment of the Steelworkers that they were not consulted earlier in the process." In fact, they "did not get the invitation to attend tonight until Tuesday," and Mr Gerard was extremely unhappy.

I of course jumped in immediately. I said: "I would be personally happy to invite the Steelworkers to come participate next week, if that would be helpful. I agree with Mr Gerard's letter."

Mr Bradley: I have always found his advice to be very good.

Mr Phillips: Thank you. I agree with that.

I said, "I think probably no one in the country has been more involved in this than Mr Gerard."

The Steelworkers made several important points, this one on the employee advisory board. In the interests of time, because I may run out of time, "Turning to the second point" -- this is the Steelworkers. They had to send their lawyer because Mr Gerard was at the convention. I had hoped we could have had Mr Gerard there the following week but that wasn't to be. This one is related to the operational advisory board.

Mr Bradley: I think he was fighting Sunday shopping, wasn't he?

Mr Phillips: He could have been.

"The view of the Steelworkers is that the advisory board should have its scope of activities limited either by the act" -- listen to this. "One of the main concerns with the operation of the advisory board is that it should not have the power to second-guess the people who are actually putting their money on the line. The advisory board should act as a compliance board. It should act to ensure that the spirit and intent of the legislation is satisfied."

"We suggest that the regulations make it clear that any business plan put forward by an employee group should be presumed to be commercially viable and that the onus on the advisory board should be to show that the assumptions underlying the business plans are not supportable."

The point the Steelworkers were making is one we agree with, that is, it is paternalistic or maternalistic for the government to tell the employees it knows their business better than they do. In our view, it's wrong for the government to be in a position where it's going to second-guess the employees who are going to be putting their own money into this program, who are going to be in many respects putting their future into the program.

For several reasons it's wrong to have the employee advisory board making that decision. One is that as soon as we think someone else is going to backstop it, we take the responsibility off ourselves. That's the point the Steelworkers were making. Why should someone else second-guess the workplace? Who knows the business better than the workers who are involved?

Furthermore, and this is extremely important, once this Employee Ownership Advisory Board puts its stamp of approval on it -- it literally does. It has to sign off, showing, as I said earlier in my remarks -- the duty of the board talks about "equitable and reasonably commercially viable over the period covered by the plan...equitable in the circumstances," etc.

Once this board has put its stamp of approval on it, I think it's reasonable to expect people to believe that someone has looked at this thing and has assured themselves there is a future for this endeavour. Then if the endeavour fails, I think those workers who put their money in have a very strong case for coming to the government and saying: "Listen, you said it was commercially viable. You said you've looked at the industry trends. You said that you think it makes sense. You approved this thing. I put my money in it and it failed. I'm suing you." For those of you who have been around for a longer period of time than myself, you will recall there have been, in cases less clear than this, individuals who have gone after the government for recourse.

1640

I agree with the Steelworkers' concerns as they were expressed to us very strongly. I think it's a mistake the way this Employee Ownership Advisory Board is putting its stamp of approval on, and I think we're going to find down the road an awful lot of people banging on the front door at Queen's Park and saying, "You got me into this mess; you get me out of it." The Steelworkers were right in saying that responsibility doesn't rest at Queen's Park; it rests in the workplace.

The second area of concern about the worker ownership component, and again I will refer to the Steelworkers' concerns, because they couldn't have been clearer with us --

Mr Bradley: They know the Minister of Labour very well, too.

Mr Phillips: The member for St Catharines indicates they know the Minister of Labour, and I'm surprised that the government would be proceeding with this when the Steelworkers have so many concerns. I repeat to the people who may not be totally familiar with this: If there's an organization that's worked on this stuff, it's the Steelworkers, not just here in Canada but in the US. They probably have more examples of worker ownership programs than anybody.

Their concern is that right now in the bill, once the proposal has gone from the workers to the Employee Ownership Advisory Board and it puts its stamp on it, it then is approved by the minister in order in council. Here's what the Steelworkers say about that, and again I'll try and highlight it, because it's a little bit of a lengthy one here:

"Dealing first with the issue of ministerial discretion, the committee is undoubtedly aware that many industries in Ontario are export-oriented," -- that's what we're all interested in, I think, export-oriented industries; the Premier of the day was talking about that -- "and because they are export-oriented they are very concerned about the reactions of their foreign competitors. In particular in the United States many foreign competitors of Canadian industries and Ontario industries are quick to bring trade action over perceived subsidies and government interventions" -- the very matter we've been talking about here. The Steelworkers alerted us to this.

"The concern the Steelworkers have is that if Bill 150 is passed in its current incarnation there is a perception that there is too much discretion vested in the hands of the minister, and there is a considerable perception of government intervention in the marketplace. In particular, there is concern that companies that try to adopt Bill 150 and use the tax credits to promote worker ownership will be exposed to trade retaliation. At least, in the context of certain transactions the Steelworkers are interested in, we have consulted trade lawyers in the US who have commented that the ministerial discretion provisions of Bill 150 could give rise to countervail action in the United States. That is a serious concern for any export industry in this province.

"As is pointed out in the submission you have been given, there are a number of specific areas of Bill 150 that give the minister discretion. I understand from reading Hansard of a couple of weeks ago, the comments made by some of the staff members, that the ultimate approval process for tax credits under Bill 150 will be a cabinet order in council." Listen to this: "When we raised the concept of a cabinet order in council being the final decision generating a tax credit, we almost had to peel our trade lawyers in Washington off the ceiling. In their view, there could not be anything clearer than a cabinet order in council as an indication that there is some kind of government intervention in the marketplace here, and that means countervails, and that means a lot of the companies who probably need worker ownership and need the assistance of this bill will not be able to access it simply because their foreign competition will take them to whatever trade tribunals are appropriate in the foreign countries." This isn't just a US thing. "That is a serious problem with this bill, and I can't overemphasize that point."

Here we have the Steelworkers, and I don't necessarily always agree with the Steelworkers, but I do agree that there's no organization that knows this better than it does and there's no one who's more in the centre of it, having just gone through the Algoma thing and knowing the risks of countervail to Algoma. As a matter of fact, as I think members of the House know, that matter is right now in the courts. Here we have the Steelworkers --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): You know, Gerry, you shoot first and ask questions later.

Mr Phillips: One of the members is barking over there, but here we have the Steelworkers --

Mr Bradley: It's been a tough day for them; don't be nasty.

Mr Phillips: I'm trying to be helpful here. I'm trying to indicate to the government and particularly the backbenchers -- because if they don't speak up, the ministers won't listen to us. We try our best; they won't listen to us. You're going to have to go to caucus and say, "Why are we doing this?" If Leo Gerard says we're putting them into an intolerable position, they're putting them into an intolerable position.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order, please. Order.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope the members opposite appreciate that it's important for organizations like the Steelworkers, the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Auto Workers to get their views known here on this bill.

That's the second part of the worker-ownership thing we wanted to raise here, and we wanted to point out the Steelworkers' concern on it. We asked the government: "Why won't you get us a legal opinion that gives us some comfort that the Steelworkers' fears are not justified? Give us some comfort here, so we don't end up introducing and passing a piece of legislation that the Steelworkers say this is what's going to happen: There's going to be a company that could benefit from this bill and as they get into it, the workers are going to say, 'What are the risks here?' The lawyers are going to say, 'Well, as we pointed out to the government when they were passing this bill, if this ends up being an order-in-council approval, much of our business in this company is done in the US; we're in trouble.'" Why the government would want to proceed with something the Steelworkers have flagged as a major problem is beyond us. But we couldn't get anywhere on that.

In the interests of time, because my colleagues will also want to speak, I want to move on to the venture capital part of this bill. You recall, Mr Speaker, that we talked about this bill having the two parts, the worker ownership part -- and I say to the government members, we're about ready to pass a bill. For those people who may not be familiar with the language around Queen's Park, we're at what's called third reading stage here, and we are only a matter of days away from essentially this bill becoming law.

Yet the worker ownership part and the organization, the Steelworkers, Mr Gerard and that group who are -- "desperate" is too strong a word, but are anxious for this bill to be passed, have given us two strong pieces of advice and have said -- and what could be clearer than them saying -- "We had to almost peel our union trade lawyers off the ceiling in the US when they heard the way this thing was going to be set up"? They said hardly anything could be a clearer indication to competitive trade lawyers in the US and other foreign countries to attack the provisions in the bill. I just hope we don't end up with the product of the Kapuskasing-Spruce Falls project, those products having difficulty accessing the US market because this bill's been set up this way.

I want to go back to what I said earlier. The reason I'm spending the time on this is that I would try to point out, before the bill became law, that I guarantee you we'll be saying, "We told you it was wrong," when we begin to run into these problems. Why the government wouldn't have moved on it, I just can't figure out.

1650

I want to move on to the venture capital part of the project, and this, for those people out there who are wondering about what this is, is the second half of it. The concept, as I said in my opening remarks, is solid. What it attempts to do is to ask individuals to invest their money in this venture capital fund that has a series of criteria for investment and a very strong pro-Ontario bias towards it, which we very much support. In return for that, it's very interesting -- I'll just generalize a little bit, but you as an individual, I as an individual, any individual -- not the union -- any person in Ontario can put $5,000 a year into this venture capital fund, and it is RRSP-eligible.

You put in $5,000, and if you're making, probably, $50,000, you can get a $2,500 tax credit on your RRSP. Then you get a 20% tax credit from the federal government -- that's $1,000 -- and you get a 20% tax credit from the province as a result of this bill -- that's another $1,000.

I'm afraid I may run out of time, but what it means -- and it's a wonderful potential investment, frankly -- is that you can put $5,000 into it, it's eligible to go into your RRSP and your actual out-of-pocket cost is $500. I'm not trying to do a sales pitch for Working Ventures, I'm just quoting from the Working Ventures document. But that's the result of this proposal and anyone of us, I think -- well, I don't know; because of pensions we may not be able to. But most individuals out there could put $5,000 a year into it, and your out-of-pocket cost, what it would cost you, is $500. It's essentially a 90% tax credit because it's RRSP-eligible.

It's a very attractive investment. The federal government, as I think most people know, just took the credit up from 20% of $3,500 to 20% of $5,000 in its last budget, so that's where the $1,000 federal tax credit is. This proposal here is to phase up to the federal one, and you'll get also a $1,000 tax credit from the province.

I think it could be quite an attractive investment for individuals. I recognize, of course, that the cost is borne by the taxpayers, but it's a good investment. Our questions here are: Does it get at the root problem? What problem are we trying to attack here?

I go back here again to the Canadian Auto Workers. The CAW came to our committee and it had quite a strong brief. They have some real reservations about this. It was Mr O'Neil, the secretary-treasurer of the CAW and Sam Gindin, the assistant to Bob White, president of the CAW, and I will tell you that they had reservations about both parts of the proposal. What the CAW said was that there is no evidence that a lack of venture capital is what is inhibiting the economy.

The Ontario Federation of Labour had a similar comment. Mr Shenk said:

"To our knowledge, there has been no research presented to indicate that a lack of venture capital is a major problem in the economy of Ontario. Either we have missed something or you people know something we don't. We have never seen it documented that this is a major problem, and we think it would be valuable not to assume but to document.

"Second, if there were such 'capital gaps,' the question that arises is, why should union members and other employees be the central focus of raising the necessary moneys rather than those individuals and institutions with capital who are in the business of providing it for a fee?"

What I'm saying is that two of our major union organizations, the Canadian Auto Workers -- the CAW actually very much reflecting Mr White's view on this, who is strongly against both parts of the bill; and now with Mr White the new president of the Canadian Labour Congress, I suspect the Canadian Labour Congress will have much the same view -- and the Ontario Federation of Labour, are both questioning whether this is the right approach.

As a matter of fact, when you have the kind of tax credits we see here, we will hope there is an enormous amount of vigour attached to the investments in these venture capital funds. I know the Working Ventures group that came before us went through its criteria, and I feel confident it will have a rigorous screening exercise for the investments in it.

But the point I'm getting at here is that the big union organizations, apart from the Canadian Federation of Labour, are even questioning whether there's this particular need that this is trying to match. They also question whether it's a good investment. I think most people are familiar with the Quebec solidarity fund, and that's a little bit of the model here.

The OFL said: "As an investment, the rate of return for Quebec solidarity fund shareholders has been very low. A Canada savings bond has a higher rate of return in the long term. If you looked at it over 10 years, for example, by the end of 10 years, even with the tax breaks, the Quebec equivalent of the fund you are establishing in this bill would not produce more than a Canada savings bond. We would suggest that the reason many Quebec employees have invested in the QSF is more for purposes of a tax break than an investment....Without detailing the evidence here, it is suffice to note that the Quebec solidarity fund record on job creation is also disappointingly low."

The second issue we would have with the venture capital part of this is, is it a good investment vehicle? It may or may not be, and it depends how it's managed.

The third area on the venture capital is, who should participate? At the committee we raised some real concerns about why the bill was limiting participation to unions only. Page 4 of the bill defines employee organizations. "'Employee organization' means, (a) a trade union, (b) an association or federation of trade unions." There was another amendment brought in at the committee hearings to include co-ops, which we incidentally support. We thought that was a good idea.

1700

But we also believe we should broaden the definition of "employee organization" to incorporate, as Saskatchewan does, other employee groups that may not be traditional trade unions. We raised the issue of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. The advice we got at the committee was, "We're not sure whether they would fall into this." But there is an example where, if the committee had accepted our recommendation, which is to use the Saskatchewan definition, then we would have been sure that we could have incorporated teachers' unions or teachers' federations in this bill. But that was rejected.

The reason I raise all of this is that here's what the OFL said about whether it was going to participate in this or not, the venture capital, and frankly if the OFL say no you're talking about a major part of the labour movement.

I said to Mr Schenk: "I appreciate the brief. As you quite correctly point out, to accommodate the social investment fund requires fairly dramatic revisions to the bill," because what the OFL said is the bill could be adapted to meet its needs, but as the bill is currently structured it won't. Then I said, "Is it the OFL's position that, as it's currently structured, the OFL has no interest in it and would not participate?"

What Mr Schenk said was: "We would participate in the first part on employee ownership." That's what I said all along; they would participate in that. "That is a part that we think is valuable. In the Algoma Steel situation I think we virtually have a worker buyout. It's a valuable experiment and perhaps, as we state here, the only way to save people's jobs. It perhaps will lead to some interesting experiments in technology and work design as well, so we're very much in favour of that" -- I understand that.

"It's the labour-sponsored investment fund, which is to raise money from workers to give out to those small and medium-sized firms which allegedly have experienced capital gaps, that we don't think is valuable. We would much prefer to have that socially targeted, along the lines of what we suggest. So, yes, it is something that we think needs substantial amendment and it's something that we do not favour."

Then I went on to say, "Well, does that suggest you wouldn't participate in it?" and Mr Schenk said, "We are not interested in participating in the labour-sponsored investment fund aspect of the act." I went on to say: "Does it make much sense for the government to proceed with it, then? There are two groups, I think, that are eligible, yours and the Canadian Labour Congress. You're the huge organization here in Ontario. What economic value is there in even proceeding with this if you're not going to participate?"

My point is this: The government's going to go ahead with this. The Canadian Federation of Labour is participating in it and that's fine. But we are deliberately restricting the groups that can run these venture capital funds at the particular time when the OFL says it's not going to run it. So why not adopt the Saskatchewan model? Why not do what they've done in Saskatchewan? But that amendment was defeated.

I would like to get on the record, because I think, if you accept our concern about this bill, down the road we are no doubt going to want to be looking at some substantial amendments. I believe that at the committee hearing the committee indicated -- I think it was the parliamentary assistant; I'll find it here in a moment; here it is. I actually think the minister today indicated it as well. I understand the government will have its way; we will not get the amendment passed that will allow us to expand who could participate in it, but I want to read into the record that the government is receptive to adding other organizations in the future. I think the minister today said she wanted some experience with it.

The parliamentary assistant, Mr Johnson -- I think he's the parliamentary assistant -- said: "The government is therefore satisfied that the proposed definition of employee organization for LSIF" -- that's the labour-sponsored investment fund -- "purposes is both reasonable and prudent for the time being. The government does not, however, preclude at some future point, after some necessary experience on this program has been gained, a wider range of employee organizations which may establish LSIFs" -- labour-sponsored investment funds.

The reason I raise this is that I am convinced that in this area, when the OFL has wiped its hands of it and the government's going to be looking for organizations that want to take on the responsibility of managing these venture capital funds -- I hoped the bill could have accommodated broadening it. I hoped we could have dealt with it now, but in the future, at least, we see that the government is receptive to adding additional groups.

The concern with the entire bill is that we were told time and again that this -- worker ownership and worker participation -- was going to be a key element in getting the Ontario economy rolling again. We agree with the concepts. We agree very much with the need to involve more worker ownership, we agree very much with the need to develop pools of capital, but I just want to refresh our memory on the concerns I've tried to articulate and the frustration we've had in dealing with them.

Here we have the worker participation bill, which could be easily fixed. The Steelworkers, the organization that has all the experience with it, came in and pointed out the problems with it and yet we can't get the government to accommodate those two concerns. Again, the two concerns are that we're having this third party put its stamp of approval on the proposal, and the Steelworkers are saying to us: "How can you expect some group outside the workplace to understand our business and to go over our plans and approve or disapprove? How can you have so little faith in the workers of the province that they wouldn't have the good common sense to understand what they're getting into?"

Seriously, if you think about what we all stand for, and that is participation and understanding and faith in the working people of the province, this runs absolutely contrary to it, because essentially you're saying: "I don't care whether you think it's a good idea or not. I don't care whether the workers in that plant think it's a good idea or not. I don't care whether you've looked at it and you've determined through energy and activity that it's a good idea. We're going to make that final decision."

When you think about that, why do these things work? They work because there is a total feeling of participation and wanting to make it work. Here's what's going to happen, and the Steelworkers pointed it out to us: You are going to have somebody here at Queen's Park second-guessing the workers in Kapuskasing. Now, this bill wasn't in place when the Kapuskasing deal went through, but it does affect Kapuskasing because this is retroactive. I repeat, why are we supporting this? It's to help workers in Kapuskasing and others. But can you imagine? What if the workers in Kapuskasing and the unions and the town organizations and the various individuals who put all their sweat into that proposal, had gone through all that activity and said, "Listen, we're prepared to bet on the future of this company" -- and I suspect that in many of these circumstances it will work, not because it's an easy business proposition and the kind of thing where, if you went out and said to a bunch of Bay Street investors, "Will you invest in this?" they'd look at the numbers and do it. They may well say, "No, I won't invest in that," but the workers in Kapuskasing know they can make it work.

1710

But this bill doesn't leave that decision with them. It comes down here to some bureaucratic process where it's going to be sent to this employee advisory committee, and this board, appointed by the minister, is going to have the requirement to second-guess the workplace. It says here:

"The board shall apply any written direction given to it generally or in any particular case by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and shall evaluate in accordance with this act and regulations."

Whether the proposed investment that is subject to the business plan submitted with any proposal in this act is equitable, reasonably commercially viable over the period covered by the plan, whether an investment to be made by the employees is equitable in the circumstances in light of the objectives of the proposal, believe me, this is --

Mr Bradley: Dynamite.

Mr Phillips: Dynamite, as my colleague says. It also is insulting to the workplace parties to say that somebody down here knows better than they do, that they don't have the ability to assess the business plan and they don't have the ability to make the determination that this is economically viable. After all, they are the people who will be putting their money into it.

It says here:

"In any evaluation under subsection (1), the board shall consider,

"(a) industry trends and prospects affecting the eligible business;

"(b) the past and projected performance of the eligible business;

"(c) the competitive position of the eligible business; and

"(d) such other considerations affecting the economy of Ontario as are from time to time indicated to the board by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to be relevant."

Talk to people who have been successful in either starting a business up or turning a business around -- and this is what this is for -- and they will inevitably tell you, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it." But they did it. They had a blind faith in the future, they had a blind faith in their fellow workers. They sat around at a table and said: "All right, this is going to be tough. I know it's not going to be easy." In the case of Kapuskasing, a major North American corporation said it couldn't make it go, but the workers, the union, the town and some of the management team all said, "We can make it go." To the best of my knowledge they're making it go.

So why would we take that responsibility away from them and say, "You do all your little work but we'll make the decision down here"? Why would we put the people in the position where they know they're going to be second-guessed, so they say, "Fine, we'll send it down there and let them do the thinking"? That's not how you treat people in the workplace. The Steelworkers couldn't have been clearer.

I think the members know I follow carefully the whole issue of plant closures and layoffs. I view them as human tragedies. By the way, in July there were 18 closures; seven of them, I think, are CAW plants. I haven't added up the Steelworkers but I suspect the Steelworkers are involved in many of these.

The individual who probably faces the most grief in a situation like that, apart from the individual workers, is the union president, because as soon as that happens the members look to him or her for help and advice and ask, "What are we going to do?"

Here's a tool we are about to pass into law in the next few days which the people in these various plants -- the 18 in July, the 74 in the year to date -- would be looking at as a mechanism, perhaps, to help them. For the ones that have already closed, maybe it's too late, but certainly ones in the future.

The Steelworkers come to us and say: "Listen, we've got concerns with this thing. We've got major concerns with the Employee Ownership Advisory Board." We share those concerns for a slightly different reason, but they are the same concerns. We're frightened that down the road we will have misled workers who have invested their money, because they will think once that stamp of approval's on it, the government somehow or other is going to back it up.

We can say whatever we want about that. We can say, "That's not the case," and "Buyer beware," and you can put a big stamp on it, but I think once this Employee Ownership Advisory Board does all its work, all the industry stuff, acknowledges it's commercially viable and puts a stamp on it, certainly I, as someone investing my money, would feel I've got a level of comfort as a result of that.

The Steelworkers are saying: "Don't do that. Leave that to the workplace parties." They clearly understand they are going to make it work, they are going to make this successful, they are going to look it over and evaluate it.

A point that can't be lost is the risk the workers are taking in this, because many of us make investments, whatever they are: We buy Canada savings bonds; some of us own cottages -- I don't own a cottage. Many of us make investments, but in this particular case, the investment also is an investment where you work, so it's an enormous step. You've got your money in there; you've got your job. In some respects, the community's at stake here.

When the Steelworkers make the recommendation to leave it to the workplace parties, I think people should listen to it. When the Steelworkers make the comment, as they did, about the risk we put these companies at in terms of trade sanctions, I think we should listen because I will say again: Nobody knows this stuff better than the Steelworkers. They've been involved for at least a decade in it and what they said I want to emphasize again in this point about ministerial discretion:

"As is pointed out in the submission you have been given, there are a number of specific areas of Bill 150 that give the minister discretion. I understand from reading Hansard of a couple of weeks ago, the comments made by some of the staff members, that the ultimate approval process for tax credits under Bill 150 will be a cabinet order in council. When we raised the concept of a cabinet order in council being the final decision generating a tax credit, we almost had to peel our trade lawyers in Washington off the ceiling. In their view, there could not be anything clearer than a cabinet order in council as an indication that there is some kind of government intervention in the marketplace here, and that means countervails, and that means a lot of the companies who probably need worker ownership and need the assistance of this bill will not be able to access it, simply because their foreign competition will take them to whatever trade tribunals are appropriate in the foreign countries."

I want to emphasize that last point, because this isn't just Canada-US. The Steelworkers clearly point out "whatever trade tribunals are appropriate in the foreign countries." This is a serious problem with this bill, and I cannot overemphasize that point, yet we are choosing to go ahead.

1720

Again as I look at the various circumstances, Mr Speaker, you can imagine as you look at these plant closures, many of them involve companies that rely on export business. When the Premier was talking the other day, he talked about the need for -- I think he talked about world mandates.

Mrs Caplan: World product mandates.

Mr Phillips: World product mandates. Thank you, member for Oriole. The Premier said that is his vision of the future. In many respects I share that. I think IBM in Canada has been successful because it has had a world mandate for many products, some software products and some hardware products. The example the Premier used was, I gather, that Camco had a world mandate for some products.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): They thought they had.

Mr Phillips: My knowledgeable colleague the member for Wilson Heights, who knows this matter better than I do, points out that Camco thought it had a world mandate. That was the issue he raised the other day in the Legislature.

My point is this: The Steelworkers have been clear with us. They want to invest in the future. They want to get the Steelworkers involved in ownership. They want to get involved not just when things get really tough, as in Algoma, but when things aren't that tough. They can see their ownership owning a significant share of companies that aren't at that critical point where you're trying to save them.

The Steelworkers have told us that if we pass this bill as it's structured, the value of this bill diminishes dramatically. They're going to be put in a tough spot. They'll say to the workers, "We can try this bill, and we'll try to use it to provide you with some modest tax breaks on your investment." I think the people of the province understand that what is proposed here is that you can invest up to $15,000 a year and you can get a tax break. But they're going to be put in a really tough position because they'll have to say to their members: "There's a risk here. If our competitors, wherever we're selling this product, choose to, there's the possibility they can take us to the trade tribunal, whether it's in Germany, Japan, the United States or wherever, because of the way this thing is structured with the ministerial discretion."

Mrs Caplan: And the central control.

Mr Phillips: And the central control, as my colleague points out.

I go back to the point I made at the beginning of this debate, that the opposition parties -- certainly our party -- are put in a tough spot. We want to be helpful to organizations like in Kapuskasing and that's why we will support the bill. We want to see successful pools of venture capital developed and that's why we'll support the bill. We've tried to point out where the improvements could be made.

The employee advisory board set up by government to put on a stamp of approval is going to cause grief to people like the Steelworkers. I guarantee you that whoever is in government four or five years from now, they'll be parading up and down out front saying, "You put the stamp of approval on this business, it's gone under, I've lost my job, I've lost my $15,000 a year investment that I counted on for retirement, and you owe me," and frankly they're going to have a bit of a point. So we have trouble with the employee advisory board.

The ministerial signing of the document has been signalled -- the Steelworkers almost hit the committee over the head with a sledgehammer to try and get it to pay attention to that. In fact I think their final comment was, "That is a serious problem with this bill, and I can't overemphasize that point." But we didn't do anything about it.

As I say, as the Steelworkers attempt to use this mechanism in the next circumstance, they're in a dilemma. They'll have to inform the Steelworkers that there's a risk in the process, that we may on the one hand be able to use the bill for tax breaks and on the other hand subject the company in the future to all sorts of trade retaliation, all because the bill is being set up in the way it is.

On the venture capital side, the Ontario Federation of Labour has -- I used language in the House the other day I regret now. I should simply have said the OFL has said it won't participate in it. I said they will --

Interjection: You didn't say that.

Mr Phillips: Well, I don't want to use it again, but I used the term, "The OFL essentially said, 'Count us out of the venture capital part.'"

Mr Bradley: You'd better explain that. People may think it was worse than it was.

Mr Phillips: I just said they essentially said to shove the proposal somewhere else. I used the word "shove" and I regret using that, but they essentially told the government to shove the bill somewhere else, because they won't participate in the venture capital.

The opposition will be supporting it. We've done our best to be as constructive as we can. I wish the government had listened to us, and I guarantee we will say, "We told you so," when the problems come.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Owens: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes some rather interesting observations with respect to Bill 150. In terms of his comments regarding the Steelworkers' concern about the potential of a free trade countervail, I think there's two things the member should keep in mind, the first of which is that this program is of a general application, so we are not in essence subsidizing one particular industry.

I think second, and probably just as important, history since this free trade agreement has been signed has demonstrated to us that our neighbours to the south tend to shoot first and then ask questions later. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of protections or optical appearances you put in. If the legislators to the south determine in their minds politically that an issue is being subsidized, they will certainly apply for those countervail actions.

In terms of the investor protection, the Ontario Securities Commission has worked hard to work out a health warning that is both specific and written in plain language so investors will have an absolute opportunity to understand the other risks they are taking in terms of the investment. The stakeholders like Mr Begg and Working Ventures will work with these groups to ensure that working people have a clear understanding of what is being called the health warning so they understand what is at stake with respect to their investment.

I think in terms of the employee ownership, not only are we looking for ailing companies, but this is also an opportunity for healthy companies to take advantage of additional capital they may otherwise have great difficulty in raising. I think the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that 25% of small businesses indicated that they had difficulty obtaining capital.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I hope my friends in the government caucus paid careful attention to the remarks of my friend from Scarborough-Agincourt. Indeed, through the magic of telecommunications, I was able to follow the initial part of my friend's remarks here in the House, much of his speech, listening to it in my office on the parliamentary channel and the remainder of his speech here.

I did so because I believe without any equivocation that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt understands the details and the weaknesses and the strengths of Bill 150 in a way that no other member of this Legislature does, and I regretfully include the minister responsible for the bill in that and perhaps many of her bureaucrats as well.

He has studied this bill in its finest detail and he has talked about it at length here to try to impress upon the government one more, final time that there are ways in which the government could amend and restructure and improve this bill so that it really would achieve the objectives that the government says it wants to achieve, including expanding the opportunities for working people to participate in the equitable ownership of the very business entities that could come into the hands of working people as a result of this bill.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that's going to happen. Although the minister has, to give her credit, sat through this debate, I don't believe that she has listened carefully enough to realize that the improvements recommended here in the remarks of my friend from Scarborough-Agincourt are thoughtful, articulate and could make this piece of legislation a truly good piece of work from this House. The fact that they are not listening is to be regretted.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: My concern, as it is with so many of these bills, is with the amount of time that might be available for the consideration of these bills. The member mentioned in his speech his concern about that. He spent considerable time on the bill and I think it was very helpful that he had that allotted amount of time to deal with the people who had made submissions regarding this bill, people he had met with, people who had been before a committee.

My concern is that there may be other members of the House who have some additional information that would be relevant and pertinent to this bill and that because of the 30-minute restriction on any speeches that may be delivered in this regard, I'm wondering whether the member feels that is going to prevent members of the House from carrying out their responsibilities appropriately and whether the bill will get the kind of consideration it should as a result.

I commend to the member, in making this judgement, the column in the Toronto Star that was written by Carol Goar, a national columnist, which talks about the federal House of Commons as compared to this House here. It talks about the federal House of Commons and how it has become irrelevant, partially because of the kind of rules that Premier Rae has imposed upon this House. They've also imposed them on the federal House and other legislative and parliamentary chambers and whether there was a feeling in the member's mind, in relation to this bill, that this is going to confine that opportunity of members to deal with it.

Of course the Premier, as we know, has limited the number of days, as has Prime Minister Mulroney, that the Legislature can sit. As a result, a number of bills cannot be dealt with probably as appropriately as they might be and the amount of legislation the government wants through may not be able to get through.

Finally, I'm interested in the taking away of the power from the neutral, objective, elected Speaker and placing it in the hands of the Premier's office.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I'm pleased to rise and have a couple of minutes to compliment my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who has, I think, over the last few minutes given an excellent presentation on every facet of this piece of legislation. He has outlined very clearly the different components of the bill, those things that are supportable, those parts of it that are flawed, and he has pointed out, I think in a very articulate way, in a way that is easy for people watching this debate to understand, how complicated and complex it is, but also many of the important criticisms that that are a part of this bill.

My constituents in the riding of Oriole should be very interested in this bill, but I can tell you that I don't think I've had one phone call or one letter from a constituent, primarily because this piece of legislation at this point in time is not understood by the general public, even though the labour-sponsored investment fund is open and available to every citizen in the province.

I'm hoping to have the opportunity to speak on this bill -- and under the new rules I will be restricted to 30 minutes -- and I'm looking forward to doing that next week as the critic for the Ministry of Revenue. This is a Revenue-sponsored bill. I've taken the time to study the bill thoroughly. I participated at committee, and there are many comments that I am looking forward to being able to share with members of this House.

I think this bill could have some very significant impact on not only business and unions within the province but also individuals, and I would say to the minister that she should listen to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has had to say.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to respond.

Mr Phillips: Just on the timing one, because I realize that perhaps some people who are watching at home may not appreciate what we're going through here. We in the Legislature now have some brand-new rules that severely limit how much time we are able to debate a bill. This bill is going to have a cost to you out there, the taxpayers, of $250 million a year, but more important, it's an important bill and it's the only opportunity we in the opposition have to let our views be known to the public.

There are what are called committees here. The government has a majority membership on them. They take place in a committee room, out of the spotlight, away from the public. This is the only opportunity we have to raise our concerns, to share those concerns with all members of the Legislature and to share our concerns with the members of the public.

Here we have again a bill that I wish I could have had more time on. I've only dealt, frankly, with the highlights of my concerns. I was able to speak for 90 minutes. Now my colleagues will have a chance to speak for only 30 minutes on it. It does severely limit the opportunity that we have to let our views be known. The government may not want to hear our views, but I think the people of Ontario sent us here to let our views be known.

In terms of the comments from other members from Scarborough, I was very clear in my remarks to point out that the Steelworkers weren't talking about the US. They were saying they were concerned that their foreign competitors will take them to whatever trade tribunals are appropriate in the foreign countries. They were talking about all the countries. It was the Steelworkers' concerns I was raising.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: I am pleased to join the debate this afternoon on Bill 150. I guess I'm a little disappointed, though, after having found out in the last 10 minutes or so that it is perhaps the government's intention to cut off third reading debate on Bill 150 with a motion which may or may not be called on Monday. We would have an opportunity to debate that motion, I presume, on Monday, but we would be debating the motion as to whether or not there will be any more speakers on Bill 150. Notwithstanding that, it had been clearly my intention before I stood up to adjourn the debate at this time, but I'm not going to do that because I may not get another opportunity to speak on this particular motion for third reading of Bill 150.

1740

Unlike the Liberal opposition, we voted against this bill on December 18 of last year on second reading, and we intend to vote against it on third reading as well. We want to do that because we consider Bill 150 to be a colossal ripoff of the taxpayer of Ontario. This is going to cost taxpayers some $250 million. We are not convinced -- in fact we are certain that under either the investment plan as defined in the first part of the bill or the investment plan under part II of the bill -- we don't think that either part of the bill will create one single job in Ontario. It may in fact preserve for a short period of time some jobs, but we do not believe that Bill 150 as outlined will help many new businesses out. We don't think it will deal with some of the problems of struggling businesses either.

I thought the New Democratic Party was a party that wanted to close tax loopholes. I thought I heard that from many of the NDP politicians in the last election. I thought they talked about tax loopholes like they were next to the most grievous sin a person could undertake.

Mr Speaker, I want to bring to your attention an insert that was put into the Globe and Mail, I think two or three months ago, which embodies Bill 150 in a commercial sense. It says on the outside of it, "Take Advantage of New Tax Legislation." In other words, "Come on into the loophole which the New Democratic Party has created for people who have money in this province."

You open it up and it says in here, "Now There's a Way to Keep More of Your Tax Money," ie, "We're creating a new tax loophole here in Ontario, even though we're the New Democratic Party and we talked about tax loopholes as being bad things, we talked about doing away with tax loopholes, we talked about doing away with corporations which don't pay any taxes." We get none of that.

We don't even see a follow-through to their promises with regard to the existing tax loopholes in some of the legislation, as they would define them. We see the New Democratic Party creating a new tax loophole for Ontario taxpayers. Is it going to cost us? "Well, not very much money, only $250 million," it's estimated, and even we don't even know if it is limited to $250 million. It seems to be an open-ended program whereby if enough people got a hold of this particular investment vehicle, it could blow up to $500 million, or whatever.

I guess as a Conservative I would not be as concerned about this particular matter if I was convinced that the money these taxpayers are not going to pay for our social services which we hear so often about -- we hear the Treasurer lamenting that he doesn't have enough money to pay for hospital beds. He doesn't have money to pay for the Victorian Order of Nurses in my own Ottawa-Carleton area, and I was complaining about that earlier today. He wants to give that out to people who might invest in businesses across this province.

But when we sat in the finance and economic affairs committee this past May and June and heard people come in front of that committee, we found that this investment fund which is going to be created through our taxpayers' dollars, that money is not going to end up in small businesses, it's not going to help small businesses that might want to set up businesses in this province, it's not going to help out entrepreneurs who might want to start new endeavours. It's going to help out publicly listed stock companies, it's going to help out existing shareholders in those public companies by raising the price of those shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That's basically what's going to happen with this legislation, and at a cost of $250 million to this province.

I want to refer specifically to one brief to our committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I think their remarks are most salient to the whole idea of trying to help small business create new job opportunity. If in fact that's what they want to do, I suggest that they take the advice of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

"CFIB's analysis of this program shows the program is not an appropriate vehicle for encouraging modernization, growth and restructuring in small and medium-sized Ontario companies. It also shows that Ontario taxpayers, including the small business community, will not get good value for their hard-earned cash dollars from this program. A better use of the $250 million, which would accomplish the above-noted objective of the program, is to exempt the first $400,000 of payroll from the purview of the employer health tax."

In other words, what small business would rather see instead of the NDP government setting up a new tax loophole, as it does under this program, is some relief given to small businesses that have employees at this time or that could see their way to expanding their business and hiring a few more people. We all know what a retrogressive tax the employer health tax is because it discourages employers from hiring additional employees. In addition to paying the wages, Canada pension plan, workers' compensation, all of those other things, you've got to pay 2% to the government under that particular tax.

CFIB points out that in addition to that help they might provide for small business, the whole setup of this labour-sponsored venture capital program is really that what the government is doing is setting up a new form of mutual fund. What they're doing is going to set up the opportunity for new mutual funds which will be labour-union-sponsored to set up in competition with existing mutual funds.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In cooperation.

Mr Sterling: No, they're going to be driving it. The labour union is going to be driving these --

[Failure of sound system]

Mr Bradley: What has Dave Cooke done now?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I'd ask the House to hold on.

I'd like to say to the honourable members that at this point we've got emergency power here in the chamber. There's no power in a lot of the building at this point in time. We are going to continue with the sitting. We'll have to see if Hansard is still recording. We are going to continue the session until 6 o'clock. If we are not recording, we'll have to adjourn the House.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Hansard does not seem to be recording, so I'm going to recognize the honourable member for Niagara South, who will give a business report for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Pursuant to standing order 53, I will give a business report for next week.

On Monday, July 20, Tuesday, July 21, Wednesday, July 22 and Thursday, July 23, 1992, we will debate the following:

Government notice of motion 13 on time allocation --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize that Hansard is not there, but I don't believe that it's proper you take the floor from me, and I would comply with your wishes and adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): My apologies to the honourable member. The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton.

We have just received different news that apparently Hansard is recording at this point in time. We did not have that news a moment ago. I would say, with the members' agreement, that if we could go on with the business statement, it being nearly 6 of the clock, we'll adjourn the debate for the day.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: It's not necessary.

Mr Sterling: It's not 6 of the clock.

The Acting Speaker: Apparently it's not necessary. You will still have the floor when we begin this debate again. The honourable member for Niagara South.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Government notice of motion 13 on time allocation of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments;

third reading of Bill 150;

second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex; second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act; second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act; second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1754.