Journal des débats 1994-mars-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise today to pay tribute to Lawrence Martin, a constituent, friend and colleague from Sioux Lookout, a town in my riding. Lawrence was recognized last night at the 1994 Juno Awards and received the first Juno for the music of aboriginal Canada.

Mr Martin's significant achievements are many and varied. A great deal of his work is making direct contributions to the aboriginal society. In his principal profession of telecommunications, he has worked with Wawatay Communications and currently acts as Wawatay's executive director. As a recording artist, Lawrence is making an enormous contribution to the visibility of native music and native cultures in Canada and abroad.

His extensive leadership capabilities were recognized by the residents of Sioux Lookout in 1991 with his election to the office of mayor. In his capacity as mayor, I have worked with Lawrence on many occasions and I've been struck by his deep concern for his community and his commitment to those around him. It should also be noted that Lawrence is the first native Canadian to be elected mayor of an Ontario town.

I join with Lawrence's many friends, family and colleagues throughout Ontario in recognizing his remarkable achievements in various diverse endeavours, and I congratulate the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for recognizing his great talent. For those of us who know him, Lawrence Martin has come to symbolize the positive linkages that are needed between the many distinct cultures in our society.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Vaughan CARES has released the results of a survey it conducted in January in the Premier's riding. The survey clearly indicates that Mr Rae and the NDP government are totally out of touch with the people of the province of Ontario. A total of 91% of those polled favoured the study of alternatives, including rail haul, incineration, more aggressive 3Rs and central composting. In fact 83% of the residents of York South say that they will not even vote for Premier Rae in the next provincial election.

People want this government to look at alternatives. There are alternatives to building three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. There are alternatives that the people of Peel, York and Durham deserve to have the right to choose.

The residents of York South are making their opinion known to this government, just as the thousands of residents of Durham, Peel and York have been doing since this flawed process began with the passing of Bill 143 and the Ministry of the Environment setting up the Interim Waste Authority.

The survey tells us the people of Ontario expect more from our government. They expect real alternatives to difficult problems. Mike Harris and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party have made a commitment to all the residents of Peel, York and Durham that will seek out alternatives. It is time for the NDP and the Liberals to do the same. No more waffling; no more empty promises; real action from a political party that is willing to make promises and keeps them.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My riding of Scarborough East covers the waterfront of Lake Ontario from Markham Road to the Rouge River. The presence of the Scarborough Bluffs as well as the Guild Inn means that this area has much to offer the people of Scarborough and the province in the form of natural and cultural amenities.

I've been participating in discussions about the revitalization of Kingston Road, which bounds this area, along with many local representatives. We see the potential of community economic development and of developing local recreational amenities. The lakeshore features add to these possibilities.

There is, however, one drawback. Areas of the bluffs have been undergoing erosion, and this is now proceeding at an alarming rate. My constituent Gerald Quinn of Sylvan Avenue graphically describes it as resembling the Californian earthquakes when they hear objects rattling on their tables. The local residents have been very patient and have put much time into constructive meetings with conservation authority staff.

Discussions about remediation have been going on for some years now and it has been agreed that construction of a breakwater at the foot of the bluffs is a solution. I want to suggest that construction should be a priority of the Metro conservation authority. Funding is always a difficulty, but this could be an ideal infrastructure project for collaboration with the federal government. We're all looking forward to innovative plans for the waterfront from the regeneration trust, but the rapid rate of erosion requires remediation without further delay.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today is designated as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This day was proclaimed by the general assembly of the United Nations. As a matter of fact, some cities and some counties have declared the entire week.

I'm not greatly excited about all this. I'm actually disappointed and almost fed up with the fact that racism issues are being exploited by parties to the right, with their rhetoric and catering to some of the rednecks that goes on with these kinds of remarks, and parties to the left who throw money around and feel that it is Christmastime. The fact is, here it is now like Christmas, so we drop a million dollars here and then we look forward next time again to say, when it comes again, that we will then pay our token contribution to racism.

As you have seen, racism has increased not only in Canada but all around in the world. I am extremely disappointed that today of all the days that we have a day like this, none of the parties here have decided that we would have unanimous consent to speak on this rather serious issue, but what we do is we go around the province and we talk about how concerned we are and committed to eliminating racism.

Commitment is not only money; commitment is a part of feeling the pain of people who are suffering from racism, which should be eliminated by doing something very practical.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Every day members of the Legislature are inundated with mail, much of which is completely unnecessary or members never get an opportunity to read it. Nevertheless, it takes an enormous amount of our time to open the mail, sort the mail and throw out those things which we are not interested in. If one is not concerned about the high labour costs of this exercise, one certainly should be about the environmental cost.

I want to extend my personal commendation to the Environmental Assessment Board, which recently sent me a notice indicating that its annual report was available and that I could receive a free copy by returning the attached order form. I was further impressed by the fact that they asked if I wished to receive the report in either French or English, because I am continually astounded by the amount of paper distributed by this government in both French and English to me.

Let's make it perfectly clear that I believe all government documents, such as news releases and annual reports, should be available in both languages so that people do have their choice. That was guaranteed by the passing of the French Language Services Act. But I cannot understand that this government continually distributes every document to every person on its mailing list in both languages.

Environmentalists should be outraged. Taxpayers should be outraged. I believe all government communicators should examine the sensible method employed by the Environmental Assessment Board; that is, offering the document so that you can order it only if you are interested in reading it, and then only taking it in the language of your choice.

1340

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today, March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I encourage all members to wear the multicoloured bow, a symbol of the observance of this day, but I would also remind all members that we have a special commitment to show leadership and to work together to fight racism and eliminate all forms of racism and discrimination.

This international day was introduced by the United Nations in the 1960s to remember the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa in which more than 70 peaceful anti-apartheid demonstrators were killed and more than 180 were wounded. The significance of today is also to proclaim and recognize that racial discrimination is a global problem.

On July 29 of last year, I rose in this Legislature to inform the members of the resolution passed by the city of Kitchener condemning acts of racism or discrimination and endorsing the development of policies and actions that will send a clear message that racism will not be tolerated in this or any other community.

In Ontario diversity is our greatest strength, but, sadly, Ontario has not escaped racism. We recognize that racism is one of the serious barriers we face to economic growth and the creation of jobs in this province. Not only is racism unjust, it also results in an enormous waste of human resources.

I would like to take the time to thank the Regional Multicultural Youth Council of Northwestern Ontario for supplying us with bows today. Let us wear the multicoloured bow as a sign of our commitment to fighting racism every day of the year.

LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY AWARDS

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): In anticipation of the other Academy Awards tonight, I thought I might just present the Ontario Legislature's own Academy Awards.

In the category of worst original score by an outgoing Premier in an unsupportive role, there's only one nominee; and for his rather screeching performance of We're All in the Same Sinking Ship Now, the winner is Bob Rae.

In the category of best question period performance by an actress, the nominees are Marilyn Churley, for Casino Queen; Frances Lankin, for I Could Go On Like This For Ever; and Marion Boyd, for In the Name of the Mother; and the winner is Shelley Martel, for Silent as a Lamb.

Finally, the nominees for best actor are Floyd Laughren, for Honey, I Lost Two Billion; Tony Silipo, for Naked Food Bank; Bob Mackenzie, for In the Name of the Brothers and Sisters; Bob Rae, for That Was Then, This Is Now; and Gilles Pouliot, for Smile, You're On Photo-Radar; and the winner is the entire NDP caucus, for Unforgiven.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today marks the anniversary of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it is on this day that we reconfirm our commitment to rid the world of racism.

The United Nations proclaimed this day in 1966 in memory of the 69 South Africans killed protesting apartheid in the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. Since then we have seen reform in South Africa, with the first ever country-wide election involving all the people of South Africa just a month away. We have seen the release of Nelson Mandela and we have seen a government respond to the needs of the people.

But this day is not just about South Africa. The Sharpeville massacre acted as the catalyst for the recognition of racism. It brought to the forefront the need for public disclosure of racism and racist practices by governments, organizations and individuals in our society.

Today our world is as complicated as it was in 1960. There's a rise in wars against racial groups. We need only to draw our attention to the former Yugoslavia, where an ethnic war has raged, Ireland, where there's a battle between Protestant and Catholic, and in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

Closer to home, we have noted a rise in anti-Semitic activities by neo-Nazis. We've seen attacks on members of our ethnic communities. We've seen widespread outbursts of protest against individuals in our society, whether it be spray-painting swastikas on the Ontario Legislature or the increase of printed hate propaganda against Jewish people, ethnic minorities or aboriginals.

The first step to eliminating racism is understanding. Let us understand we have a need to fight this together.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to speak with some very good news. I want to tell folks about the Algoma Steel Corp. I'd like to tell the members here that for every $100 invested in the common shares of Algoma on November 10, 1992, yesterday they were worth $29,500 each. That's 300 times more in the space of 16 months.

What has happened is that the Algoma shares have caused a lot of people to kick themselves in their behinds, none the least your people who stood in this Legislature. I have it in Hansard here. In September 1991 you took the Premier to task. You said he'd lost his compass in the woods. You took the cabinet to task because you said we didn't know what we were doing. I've got it on record here.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: Mr Kwinter, your critic for that, said: "My concern is there are decisions being made against Algoma Steel that make no business sense at all." He said: "I just have a problem. You're kidding the troops in saying you're going to go in and you're going to go and turn this thing around, you're going to make it a model of efficiency, you're going to be a world beater, because if it could be a world beater, we would have done it."

That's my concern. I haven't got time. The leader of the third party said the same thing. Shame on all of you. Algoma's a success.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a very special group of visitors who are seated in the Speaker's gallery. They are Mr Velo Edward Sibisi, Mr Vusumzi Pikoli, Mr Innocent Sithole, Mr Valley Omar, Mr Sydney Choma and Ms Elsabi Combrinck. They are visiting from South Africa and are here for the next week and a half to observe our parliamentary practices. Please give them a very warm welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also invite all members to join me in welcoming the 16th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament: Laura Baxter, Rainy River; Megan Bradley, Lincoln; Meredith Covert, Northumberland; Christopher Enright, Scarborough East; Alice Evensen, Riverdale; Jonah Gindin, Dovercourt; Cindy Grohnwald, St Catharines; Tracy Haynes, Simcoe West; David Holsworth, Kingston and The Islands; Elisa Hung, Oriole; Allison Imrie, Peterborough; Ross Jordan, Ottawa South; Grant Karn, Elgin; Oliver Long, Algoma-Manitoulin; Sean Lougheed, Bruce; Jennifer MacNaughton, Cornwall; Kim McLeese, Frontenac-Addington; Brie Miles, Wentworth East; Ashley-Bree Nason, Kenora; Dennis Patterson, Lambton; Philip Robinson, York-Mackenzie; François Roy, York Mills; Hsien-Yeang Seow, Oakville South; and Matthew Wereley, Lanark-Renfrew. Please welcome our latest group of pages.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wish to bring to your attention a matter that seriously infringes my rights and privileges as a member of this Legislature. On or about February 7, the Minister of Municipal Affairs placed a massive advertisement in Ottawa-Carleton newspapers on Bill 77. In this ad he stated, "The bill will be law well in advance of the official closing date for nominations of October 14, 1994." In addition, he said, "I'm calling on the opposition members of the Legislature to cooperate in seeing that this legislation is implemented." Finally, he erroneously stated, "The public has indicated that the time to implement these reforms," meaning Bill 77, "has arrived."

1350

These statements infringe on my rights in three ways. First, the minister has misused public funds for strictly partisan purposes by trying to intimidate the opposition. Second, the minister has made a mockery of our parliamentary system by claiming that Bill 77 will be law by next October. Third, despite massive protests from suburban municipalities, the minister wrongly claims that the public wants his reforms. All of these actions seriously undermine my work as a legislator, and I ask that you request of the minister a public retraction of his purely partisan and highly inappropriate letter to Ottawa-Carleton electors.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Nepean, first, I appreciate the fact that he has brought this matter to my attention. He will know that while I don't believe he has a point of privilege, he does touch on something which may in fact be a point of order. I will be delighted to take a look at the material which he has provided and will report back to the member later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I am sure we would agree that there is one issue that people across this province are more concerned about than any other issue, and the issue is jobs. Premier, you have talked a lot about the need for optimism. You have said that the recession is over, but we see, sadly, the reality of the latest unemployment figures and we see that there are 10,000 fewer jobs in the province of Ontario in January and February of 1994 than there were in January and February of 1993. If the recession is over, how do you explain 10,000 fewer jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I know it's the job of the Leader of the Opposition to make things sounds worse than they really are, but I'm sure if she talked to her colleague the Prime Minister and her colleague the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, they would point out to her the fact that all the indications with respect to this province are that this year is going to be a year of very substantial growth, as was last year.

Let's look at the numbers. We have seen a decline in the number of bankruptcies. We've seen a significant decline in the number of layoffs. We've seen a significant growth in the number of creations of new businesses. We are seeing today, this month, representing the February figures, which were released at the end of last week, an increase of 11,000 new jobs in the province.

I would say to the honourable member that if you look at our strategy with respect to Jobs Ontario and our strategy with respect to encouraging an increase of private investment, we expect that investment this year will increase 8.6% in 1994. We understand that businesses plan to increase their investment this year by 7.2%. We can go with you community by community. In your own community, where I visited just last week, we've got the most substantial investment by Bombardier in partnership with this government --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We're going to have more people employed at that plant than was ever the case during your administration, than ever before.

Perhaps the honourable member would just accept for a moment that things are getting better. I know it defies the rhetoric of the opposition. Things are improving in Ontario. Things are getting better. We are on the right course and we are on the right track.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, you are lost in the clouds of your own rhetoric. I suggest you get down to hard reality, look at the numbers and recognize the people behind the numbers. There are 10,000 fewer jobs in Ontario in 1994 than there were at this time in 1993. Those are real numbers and real people.

Premier, I suggest to you that your predictions, your projections about job recovery, are no better than your government's projections about budget revenues. I would suggest to you that your budget problems have a great deal to do with the fact that there are 10,000 fewer jobs in this province. Premier, until we can get the people of this province working again, you are going to continue to have revenue shortfalls.

Premier, your government has predicted that we would see 88,000 new jobs in Ontario in 1994. We already have 10,000 fewer jobs. I ask you today, is this one more projection that is already completely offtrack?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that when she says, for example, that as long as we have such significantly high unemployment we will continue to have a problem with respect to revenues, of course that's true. That's true for our government and that's true for the Liberal government in Ottawa, which I would remind the member is now the federal government, which is continuing its policies of cutting back and discriminating against the province of Ontario, policies which you have been apologizing for and which you have been supporting.

I would say to the honourable member that despite those cutbacks, despite what the federal Liberal government is doing to this province, despite what is taking place, we are determined to keep faith with the people of this province, to maintain the social infrastructure, to maintain the Jobs Ontario programs, to maintain public investment and to make sure that this time next year things will be even better than they are today. We're going to continue on a steady course of job creation, of deficit reduction, a very positive message for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada if only you would let them hear it.

Mrs McLeod: All right, Premier, let's talk about keeping faith with the people of this province. Let's talk about those people community by community whom you want to bring your message of hope and optimism to and let's get back to talking about reality.

I suggest to you that this document reflects the reality in some of those communities across the province of Ontario. This is a listing of job losses in one area alone, Trenton-Belleville. There are 16 pages here documenting some 2,600 job losses in over 100 layoffs or closures over the past three years. This is the reality for the communities of Trenton and Belleville, Premier. I think this reality should say to you that your economic plans are not working in spite of all the rhetoric. Your policies are shutting businesses down and they're putting people out of work. You cannot blame this on anybody but you and your own government.

What's happening in the province of Ontario in January and February 1994 is not what's happening across the rest of this country. If you look at the rest of Canada, you will see that there are 143,000 new jobs in January and February 1994. I ask you again, how do you explain that here in Ontario we are still losing jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not going to get into a statistical game with the Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to say to her very directly and as candidly and as clearly as I can that we have been the government during the most difficult recession this province has seen since the 1930s. If you think that a message from you which says that every job loss is the personal fault of the Premier or the Minister of Finance has any credibility with anyone who's going through this difficult time, you are sadly mistaken.

The Leader of the Opposition has got to come to grips with the fact that there is a very difficult transition. We have stayed the course with the city of Belleville. We have stayed the course with people in Trenton. We have stayed the course with the people in Thunder Bay. When your people were telling us not to help the workers in Kapuskasing, we kept faith with the workers in Kapuskasing. When your people were saying, "Don't do anything for Sault Ste Marie," we kept faith with Sault Ste Marie. You people made a bad deal in terms of the UTDC; we made a good deal in terms of UTDC. We've kept faith with de Havilland. We've kept faith with the people of this province in a difficult time, and we're going to continue to do that despite the gloom and doom we hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

1400

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Premier, on another subject which I hope he will at least see as being immediate and real and surely in part his responsibility.

Premier, we are 10 days away from a strike deadline at Ontario Hydro. It is clear that public concern is mounting, and I know you're getting the same letters I'm getting. Placer Dome has written to you. They want you to know that any rotating blackouts would pose immediate, major safety concerns for people who work underground at their mine sites. You've had another letter from Petro-Canada. They've written indicating that they are concerned about the immediate economic, environmental and safety impact of a strike at Ontario Hydro.

I ask you today if you will tell the people of this province what you are doing to make sure the lights stay on in the province of Ontario.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer that to the minister responsible.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I recognize the importance of the issue being raised by my friend the Leader of the Opposition and would indicate to her in direct response that my colleague the Minister of Labour has staff meeting with the parties to assist them in the collective bargaining process. We are confident that with goodwill on both sides a voluntary settlement will be negotiated.

Mrs McLeod: We all trust that there can be a settlement reached, but as I indicated some two months ago in raising an issue with the Premier, I believe it is the responsibility of the government, of the minister and of the Premier himself to ensure that the health and safety of the people of this province are not jeopardized in the event that there is not a settlement and in the event that there could be a strike at Ontario Hydro.

I asked over two months ago that the Premier indicate what the government's contingency plans would be in the event of a strike, recognizing that the risks of a strike for workers, for patients, for ordinary citizens could be enormous. I ask you today, Minister, what contingency plans are in place in the event that settlement is not reached and there is a strike at Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Wildman: We're confident that the parties will work hard to bring about a voluntary settlement that will ensure the health and safety of all people of this province. I want to assure the member that I am aware she is more understanding of the collective bargaining process than her question demonstrates and that she would know it is not in the interests of that process at this time to respond in any other way.

Mrs McLeod: I am well aware of the collective bargaining process. I am also aware that there's a situation facing us that we have never before faced in the province, and that is the possibility of an Ontario Hydro strike under the new labour legislation that this government has implemented. It is clear that even Hydro workers themselves are concerned about how they could protect public health and safety in the event of a strike under the new legislation.

Nobody knows how the emergency provisions of Bill 40 are supposed to work. Nobody knows who is going to determine where and when public safety is going to be at risk in the event of a strike. I ask the minister whether any potential agreement with Ontario Hydro workers could act to protect the safety, for example, of the underground workers at Placer Dome. I ask what he will do and what the Premier of this province will do to ensure that there is no risk to public health and safety in the event of a strike at Ontario Hydro.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that it is unusual or in any way surprising that the workers from Ontario Hydro would be concerned about the health and safety of other people in this province. I'm sure that everyone who has had anything to do with the Power Workers' Union and its members understands how seriously they take their responsibilities with regard to all forms of generation in this province, particularly the nuclear generating capacity of this province.

I would say that the best way to protect the health and safety of all workers in this province and the economic benefits that our electricity system produces is to negotiate a voluntary settlement that is acceptable to both sides.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There are more than 500,000 people out of work in Ontario today, and there are many more who are afraid they will lose the job they have. Among them are residents of Simcoe county.

Premier, 1,900 jobs may be lost there as a direct result of your labour legislation. CN rail intends to abandon the rail line from Collingwood to Barrie, thus killing nearly 2,000 jobs in the area. Private investors would be willing to continue to run this line and save these jobs, but they can't do it. They can't do it because your Bill 40 treats them as if they were the employer of record all those years. Because of successor rights in Bill 40, they cannot take over this line. Are you willing to save these 2,000 jobs in Simcoe county by amending this provision in Bill 40?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that to the minister who's most actively on the file, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Bill 40 is not the issue here. There is nothing catalytic; it's not a make-or-break situation. CN is owned by the federal Liberal government. If there is any intent of ripping up the rail, of sapping that vital resource from people's lives, we shouldn't be asked to carry the guilt. It's not a provincial endeavour.

Furthermore, we did not negotiate those collective agreements. The member mentions Bill 40. All Bill 40 did was to close a loophole. The intent and the spirit of collective agreements were negotiated and are the responsibility of the federal government. We will, of course, once we gauge the full impact of public necessity and convenience, make representation not only on behalf of people, on behalf of the commodities, on behalf of the reason for being of municipalities. But I want to make very clear --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- that Bill 40 does not prevent an agreement being reached by all parties so that an alternative to the existing process can be found.

Mr Harris: Clearly, we've got the wrong person on the file. Minister, you say it's not a make-or-break deal. CN says it's Bill 40; the investors say it's Bill 40. How would you like to tell the mayor of Collingwood, who has come here today, that it's not a make-or-break deal? Mayor Raymond Barker has come to Queen's Park and is in the gallery today. He's here to represent these workers. He first wrote to your Premier last year. To date, he has no answer. Maybe nobody's on the file, or at least nobody who understands what's going on.

He wrote again earlier this month to you, Premier. Still no answer. He's in the gallery. He's waiting for an answer. Nearly 2,000 Simcoe county families need an answer.

Since you're now on the file, Minister, having heard what people are saying about Bill 40, are you willing to lead the charge in that cabinet as nobody else is willing to? Are you willing to solve this problem by supporting an amendment to Bill 40, or is your concern for jobs nothing more than political rhetoric?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The leader of the third party uses this opportunity as the first question when school's back, when the House resumes today, and indicates that the Minister of Transportation has the wrong file or does not understand the process or diligence in this case. I would like to reciprocate by, with respect, informing the leader of the third party that he was elected to the wrong House: If he's going to cast a stone, he should do it in the big House; he should do it in Ottawa.

I am not aware of an application being put in front of the labour board. I am not aware of a real situation where people have said, "We are willing to seek an alternative to keep people employed: A, B, C, D. What is it you're willing to do?"

All you have to do to be given consideration is to file an application. The proponents know that, the presenters know that. The ball is clearly in their court. We are the facilitator; we wish to make things happen.

1410

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to say first that I'm extremely disappointed that the Premier would not answer this question. For nine months the town of Collingwood has tried to get a response from this government, simply a response from the Premier or the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Transportation, that this government cares about 2,000 families in the Collingwood, Midland, Orillia and Barrie areas.

Paul Tellier, the president of CN, wrote the Premier on February 25, after months and months and months of trying to get the Premier and the Minister of Labour to address this issue. He wrote the Premier and simply asked the government to turn its attention to this issue, to sit down and negotiate with the Collingwood Rail Retainment Committee and with CN to try to come to a resolution of this matter.

The government doesn't want to admit that there's a problem with its job-killing Bill 40 labour legislation. The fact of the matter is that this does not belong with the Minister of Transportation; this is an issue that belongs to the Premier and the Ministry of Labour. It is succession rights that is the issue --

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

Mr Jim Wilson: -- and the government cannot get away with sloughing off the question to a minister who knows not of what he speaks.

My question is -- since I'm stuck with this minister -- will you support a private member's bill that I'm to introduce in this House this afternoon? I will introduce that private member's bill to amend Bill 40 so we can save those jobs and get on with creating an economic base in this province that's conducive for business to carry on business. Will your government support my private member's bill? That is the question. I want an answer on behalf of the government.

The Speaker: The question's been placed.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's quite difficult to make a decision on a bill that hasn't been introduced but is in the future some time.

More to the point, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will be meeting with Paul Tellier, who is the CEO, the chairman, of CN. Last Friday, I met with Doug Young, my federal counterpart, the guy from Tracadie who's responsible for the Ministry of Transport at the federal level. And yes, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of MITT and myself, with the Premier's office, with members of caucus, are right on top of the issue.

What I'm saying, simply put, is that there are many components to this -- not to this crisis; the opposition would wish to make it a crisis. We're right on top of it. We are more than interested in 2,000-plus jobs. Premier Rae, Deputy Premier Laughren and the rest of caucus are committed on one issue and one sole issue: to put Ontarians back to work as soon as we can.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: The people of Ontario are getting fed up with this government blaming the Liberals for everything.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier. Gerard Kennedy of the Daily Bread Food Bank said on the weekend that your flip-flopping on welfare reform is causing uncertainty and grave concern to those on welfare, to those most vulnerable in our society. Gerard Kennedy said it is time for you to be upfront about welfare in this province.

There are over a million people in Ontario today who depend on some form of social assistance. Those people, and indeed all taxpayers in Ontario, want to know, what is your government intending to do about welfare reform in this province and when do you intend to do it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I want to say to you, and I would say to Mr Kennedy if he were here, that in the face of a very difficult recession and in the face of the most blatant act of discrimination ever carried out by a federal government, either Liberal or Tory -- in fact both -- we have kept faith. We have maintained rates and in fact increased rates.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Which you complained about.

Hon Mr Rae: Which you complained about, which the honourable member opposed, which members of his caucus have said was a mistake. We have done that and we're proud of it. I'm proud of the fact that the disabled people in this province have a higher level of support than they do in any other jurisdiction in Canada. I am proud of that.

It's also widely recognized, and I think it's widely recognized as well in Ottawa, that there are things we need to do. In fact, we can only do them together after the total abandonment of this province by the federal government on the subject of welfare.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines laughs. The people living in his riding are getting 29 cents from the federal government. The people living in Shawinigan are getting 50 cents.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You always blame somebody else.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bradley: The people from St Catharines blame you.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no, no, no.

Mr Bradley: They want you out.

The Speaker: Would the member for St Catharines take his seat.

Mr Bradley: That's the difference; they want you out.

The Speaker: I caution the member for St Catharines to please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that we are working with the federal government and we are working with all of our partners in the municipalities and elsewhere to ensure the continuing integrity of our support for people who have no other means of support in the community and who qualify for social assistance. We're going to continue to do that, and I'm hoping that we will be in a position through this next week and in the very next couple of days to make a very clear announcement with respect to exactly what it is we can and cannot do on this question. But I want to tell the honourable member, we are very proud of the fact that in the face of very, very difficult financial circumstances, we have kept faith and we have maintained rates, and we are determined to maintain the integrity of that system. We're going to do that.

Mr Harris: I want to make it very clear to the Premier that nobody is prouder than I that this province has had the wealth and the prosperity and the ability for those who truly need help to have the most generous assistance in Canada. I am proud of that. I am proud to have been a part of it.

But, Premier, according to David Frum of the Financial Post, aside from those who legitimately need help, there are three times as many households on welfare at the end of 1993 as there were in the depths of the recession of 1981. In fact, when the money was pouring in between 1985 and 1990, the number of people on welfare in this province went up and up and up under the Liberals. There is no end, unless there is substantial welfare reform, to the number of people who will be willing to accept welfare as a lifestyle. You know that's wrong. I know that's wrong. We've had general agreement now from study after study, from SARC to Thomson to others that the Liberals sat on and now you have sat on for the last three years. I would ask you, clearly, since you know and the people of Ontario know there's something wrong with this system, when are you going to bring forward proposals that we've all been calling for to fix the system?

Hon Mr Rae: The one thing I can tell the honourable member is that this government, when it fixes a system, is not going to blame the victim. That's what this government is not going to do. We are not going to join in this right-wing chorus, which the leader of the third party now wants to be the guardian angel of, which says that the real problem with respect to social assistance is the people who are on it and that they're lazy. I want to tell the honourable member, that is not the view of this government and that is not the view of this party. The reason that we have high levels of social assistance is because we have very high levels of unemployment.

I would say to the honourable member, the reforms to unemployment insurance which his federal counterparts brought in have increased the burden of social assistance by some $200 million over the next three years. The reforms which were brought in by the Chrétien government will increase it by a further $150 million. That's the impact of the kind of reform that we've seen from Liberals and Tories.

I can assure the honourable member, we brought in Jobs Ontario Training. We've taken thousands of people off welfare and put them into the workforce. We've created child care spaces. We have the best social housing program going in Canada. We're going to continue to put the emphasis on work --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- and on training and on fairness, and never talk about what it is that's wrong with the victim rather than what's wrong with the system. There's a system that needs reform, and people need dignity. They don't need to be blamed, which tends to be the approach of some other parties.

1420

Mr Harris: I think the record will show that nobody has been more consistent, including Helle Hulgaard, in saying: "Let's not blame the victim. Let's not blame those on welfare. Let's blame the system. Let's blame the government."

Let's put the blame where it belongs, right here in this Legislature. The system is broken. The system needs fixing. The Liberals sat on this for five years; in fact, they made the problem worse. You have sat on it now for three and a half years. Every year we have a throne speech; we have a session opener. Welfare reform is a top priority, you say. Every year we ask questions: When are you going to reform the system?

Premier, I ask you again: Is your government finally willing to stop the rhetoric? Are you willing to stop saying it's just a priority? Are you willing to move on welfare reform in this province so we can do two things: one, help those people who truly need help in a most generous and compassionate way, as this province is known for, and stop the ripoffs and abuse of the system by those who have no business being on it? Are you willing to bring forward those proposals this session?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say I think the record will speak for itself in terms of what we have done and also what the honourable member opposite has said on the subject of welfare: how he thinks it's okay for someone to say, "No, I'm just going to go on it. That's the way I want to be"; the very speeches that he's made, the kind of encouragement that he has given.

I want to say to the honourable member, our record is clear. We're the ones who brought in Jobs Ontario Training, which the Conservative Party has opposed. We're the ones who have expanded child care by over $200 million in the last three years, and we will continue to do that. That's how you do it: through training opportunities, through child care opportunities, through a serious effort to offer incentives. That's what this government is doing and that's what we will continue to do. That is the reform that we are carrying on.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Surely both the Premier and the leader of the third party understand you can't have social welfare reform unless there are jobs for people to go to, which is why I want to return to the question of the job loss that could be incurred if the Barrie short-line rail problem is not resolved. I will place my question to the Premier.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mrs McLeod: I will place this question to the Premier, because it was to the Premier that I wrote about this issue some six weeks ago and I am still awaiting his response.

Premier, it is quite clear that the short rail line between Collingwood and Barrie is the cheapest or the only transportation link for a number of local businesses and that there are indeed a great number of jobs that depend on the existence of those businesses. It is also clear that CN no longer intends to run the line and that there are other potential purchasers of the route who have said they can run it. But it is clear as well that the cost of the successor rights provisions under Bill 40 make it impossible for anybody else to take it over.

Premier, let me give you the example, and that's that implementing the successor rights under Bill 40 could mean that any new purchaser of that rail line would have to pick up some 17 collective agreements even though they would need to employ 10 or fewer workers to run the line. I ask you, does that not seem to you to be absolutely ridiculous, and if so, will you not grant an exemption from the successor rights provisions under Bill 40 for any new purchaser of the Barrie short-line rail?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the honourable member, the lead ministry in this is the Ministry of Transportation. Economic Development and Trade and Labour are involved. We have a group of people who are tackling this question. We take it seriously. We also believe the federal government continues to have some responsibility with respect to the CN line. I'm not passing responsibility; we want to be constructive and helpful.

Experience will tell us that a solution has to involve the workers, and we are initiating discussions with the unions. It has to involve the purchasers. It has to involve CN in terms of its responsibilities. And the federal government has to be there; they can't just walk away.

There will be a negotiated solution to this question, I'm quite confident. It should happen. But it's one that's going to have to involve some give and take on all sides. That's how these things are resolved: not one simple solution here or there, but a sense of give and take that will be there. There are all kinds of opportunities for this to happen, and I want to give the honourable member my assurance and give the assurance to the people who are listening that the government is very interested in this question and in being a constructive partner together with others in finding a solution, because that's what it's going to take: give and take on everyone's part in order to find a solution.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I guess the question is, who is giving and who is taking? So far, all we see is this government taking and not giving anything on this particular issue.

The Premier might be interested to know that this morning in fact I heard from a potential purchaser group involving some of the current employees, in fact the model that this Premier has touted as the way to go in Ontario. These are the actual workers, who are members of the union, who are interested in taking over this line. They too, Mr Premier, want you to amend your job-killing labour legislation to help them acquire this particular property. They are unable to assume the responsibility that lies under 17 collective agreements. In that regard, they have asked that we also sponsor a private member's bill. In the past, you have been noted to support private member's bills that this member has put forward; maybe I can get you to do the same, if I could get a page to come and take this over.

I've also agreed to sponsor a private bill incorporating a new railway company for these workers to take over this spur line if indeed they are the successful bidder, but they insist, sir, that you must agree to amend Bill 40 before they are prepared to make the financial commitment. The legislation I've introduced to you, Premier, will pave the way to allow communities such as Collingwood and Barrie to work with interested buyers, be it the workers or be it someone else, to keep the rail line open and to protect the jobs in that community. Premier, will you make a statement today that you are prepared to support these jobs and to support this legislation, and will you use your authority to ensure that this private member's bill passes quickly through this Legislature?

Hon Mr Rae: I would simply say to the honourable member that we want to be constructive in this regard, and we are looking to finding a solution on a practical basis to a series of problems. It's clear this isn't just a one-off issue. We're going to have this on a systematic basis because of the decision by CN to abandon a number of lines and the potential that those lines could be used for other purposes and could be used in other ways by appropriate purchasers.

I would say to the honourable member, if he looks at the experience rather than the rhetoric, with respect to the ACR there was no government more determined to find a solution, which was difficult, which required concessions on all sides and which required a willingness to move. We were the ones who helped to engineer and to focus that question. I can assure the honourable member that I'd be very interested in getting the names of the people that he's referring to, very interested in hearing what their concerns are and how we can in fact meet and deal with this problem. We are very interested in finding solutions, and we do not want to see any legislative roadblocks to finding a successful solution.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. It's about Ontario Hydro. Considering the escalating concerns that are taking place with respect to Ontario Hydro and its unions, considering the fact that there have been discussions about strikes and work stoppages and also considering the provisions of your Bill 40 and the impact of operating the sites if there is in fact work stoppage, could you answer the question that is being most widely asked out there in the business community and the public itself considering the jeopardy of the health and safety of the communities in Ontario? If the Hydro people go on strike, Mr Premier, would you be prepared to legislate them back to work for the safety of the people of the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that again to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think I answered that question in response to a query from the leader of the official opposition in terms of her understanding of the collective bargaining process and mine. I'm not sure that the member opposite has the same understanding of collective bargaining, but I suspect he does, and he must know that this question does not make it possible or enhance the opportunities for a negotiated settlement.

1430

Mr Stockwell: There are a significant number of businesses in this province that operate with the need for hydro. Clearly, it's one of the most important things that we supply as this province. Certainly, with your Bill 40, it becomes rather difficult to ensure safety and health for all the citizens of Ontario to be properly managed if in fact there were a strike.

The question that's coming from the public is, if there is a strike, is this government prepared to legislate those workers back to work to ensure economic stability and care for the health and safety of the people of this province? I understand the collective process, but I think it's important for you to think on behalf of the citizens of this province. We must know if you're prepared to legislate these people back to work. All the businesses and people would like to know this.

If you're not prepared, say so, and that is not going to affect the length or the type of negotiations you're going to have. If you're not prepared to do that, tell the workers today. If you are prepared to do that, may I suggest your strike could be a lot quicker and your negotiations could be settled in a much more timely fashion.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm tempted to say that the way the member has posed the question indeed indicates that he doesn't understand the collective bargaining process. The fact is that the government, the members of the Power Workers' Union, the members of the Ontario Hydro board and management are all concerned about the health and safety of the people of this province and recognize the importance of electricity and the generation of electricity to the economy of this province.

All will do their utmost to ensure that there is no disruption in service. I'm sure the best way to do that is to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Recently Metro council voted to build only two of the four rapid transit lines. In a last-minute flip-flop, Liberal Metro Chairman Alan Tonks decided to kill the over 30,000 additional direct jobs that would have been created by constructing the Spadina-York University subway extension and the Scarborough RT. The existing transportation needs of the people of Downsview, Weston and Vaughan have lost out to the land speculators and the more affluent communities along Sheppard Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Don Mills.

My question to you, Minister, is, will you allow Liberal Chairman Tonks and Metro council to stop the creation of over 30,000 direct jobs and ignore the transportation needs of the Downsview, Weston, Vaughan and Scarborough communities?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): While we were disappointed that in the council resolution all four projects didn't get the unqualified support to proceed at this point in time, I want to point out that there was approval in principle for all projects. Two projects are moving ahead right away, which is good; that's 38,000 jobs. But I agree with the member that the other 30,000 jobs are more than a worthwhile goal. We remain committed to doing everything we can to see all four projects proceed.

Specifically, you make reference to transportation needs of parts of the city. By that, I know you're referencing the fact that the Spadina line was not one of the two that have been given approval. We are working with people along that Spadina line to see the potential. We think we can in fact maximize the potential we think is there, to involve private sector development in the cost of proceeding with that line. Additionally, there have been proposals to move ahead with a design-build approach on the Scarborough light rapid transit as well.

We think there are ways, through involving the private sector and through issuing a debenture on these lines, that all four could proceed at this point in time without additional tax burden to the residents of Metro.

Mr Perruzza: I respect the sincerity and the hard work that the minister is doing in order to ensure that the four projects and that all of the lines and all of the jobs move. But I have to tell you that I was at Metro council when Metro was deliberating this very question, and there was a lot of wheeling and dealing and private deal-making.

While the public rhetoric was that money was the issue, and taxes and so on, I have to tell you that in the end Metro opted for the most expensive of all of the options. I believe the Sheppard subway is going to cost $400 million more than the Spadina-York University line, at a direct cost to Metro of $100 million.

While I respect the efforts of the minister, the ministry and the government to get the jobs and the projects off the ground, I have to tell you that Metro's games-playing and its commitment to our job creation programs are very much questionable. How long will we allow Metro to continue with the games if the deal can't be made?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member raises a very interesting point with respect to the reasons given for not proceeding with Spadina and Scarborough in reference to costs and the relative cost-value assessments of the various lines.

Having said that, we are working right now with Metro to pursue alternatives in terms of financing. They've established a committee. That committee is to report back by June. I hope that we can find a solution before that time, but there is a time reference that was built into the council resolution.

I think the member raises points that will be of interest to the Ministry of Transportation whenever a final package is brought forward. If we're not successful in achieving all four lines whenever that package is brought forward, then the Ministry of Transportation will be reviewing that and looking at those projects and looking at the cost-value assessments. I think those are points that he raises that are of value and the ones we should continue to look at as this unfolds.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning some of the incidents that the workers at Ontario Hydro have had to put up with over the last several months. But in particular, I have two interesting items which have gained a lot of attention in my area, where we have lost now over 900 jobs with respect to the early retirements, the layoffs. Maurice Strong has a vision and my community lives the nightmare that has to deal practically with the problems created by Mr Strong.

I want the Minister of Environment and Energy to tell me if he agrees with two actions taken by Ontario Hydro: first, advertising for a parking lot official for an advertised salary of upwards of $81,900 per annum to manage a parking lot; and second, if he approves of the over-$1-million ad campaign talking about the new Ontario Hydro, which we see posted all over the bus shelters of this city. Does he believe that those two steps have added to the credibility of the management decisions and to the efficient operation and production of affordable power in this province?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In reference to the member's preamble, I would say that perhaps the former Conservative and then Liberal governments had a vision with regard to Darlington, and now perhaps Bruce is living the nightmare of Darlington. I would say that the decisions related to the overbuilding of the capacity for Ontario Hydro have had to be responded to. That has led to a significant downsizing of Ontario Hydro in attempting to deal with its excess capacity.

With regard specifically to the two instances that the member raises with regard to the day-to-day operations of Ontario Hydro, I assume from his question that he wants to ensure that Ontario Hydro does not spend money unwisely, and if he is suggesting that these are ways that the corporation should review its spending, I will bring that to the attention of the senior management of Ontario Hydro. I'm pleased that the member supports the attempts to ensure that any excess expenditure by Ontario Hydro is ended.

Mr Elston: That was a total abrogation of the minister's responsibility for Hydro in this chamber. He refused to answer any of the question with respect to advertising or with respect to the posting of this high-priced position for managing a staff of three people.

Perhaps the Minister of Environment and Energy, since he's raised the issue of capacity and other things at Ontario Hydro, would like to tell me, when his ordered review is taken on by the Ontario Energy Board, if he would be willing to do two things: one, to commit that the decision of the board that reviews the Ontario Hydro vision as it will be put, I presume, by Mr Strong and others, will be a decision which will be binding upon Hydro which he will enforce; two, to undertake with us, particularly those of us who represent areas in which workers are being laid off in large numbers, like Lennox, Lambton and Bruce, to table in this House the vision of what Hydro is to be in the next five months, five years and 10 years so that we all know what the vision at Ontario Hydro really is.

1440

Hon Mr Wildman: The member would know that what he is requesting with regard to the Ontario Energy Board process would require legislative change in order to ensure that the decision of the board is more than providing reference and advice. I note that his government did not make that kind of legislative change when it had the opportunity.

I would also say to him that I am very concerned about the communities that he has mentioned and will be meeting later today with representatives of the communities affected. I'll be pleased to hear their views. Of course, he knows that before the Ontario Energy Board, any interested party, whether it be a member of the community, a municipal leader, business leader, labour leader or members of other interested groups such as environmental groups, will be able to make their views very clear on what the future of Ontario Hydro should be and how it relates to the operation of management and the setting of rates.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Although my question is for the Minister of Labour, since he's not here I will go to the Treasurer since it is a financial question.

In an effort to address its financial problems, the Workers' Compensation Board has been considering expanding its scope of coverage to include the financial services sector. Unfortunately, the WCB still believes that the answer to its financial problems is to seek more and more revenue from Ontario's beleaguered employers, as opposed to controlling its own expenditures.

Given the recent commitment by your government to establish a royal commission to review the workers' compensation system, it would obviously make a mockery of this process to proceed with expansion. Will you give us your assurance that the WCB will not proceed with expansion of its coverage to the financial services sector until the royal commission completes its report?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps I could put a little perspective on this matter briefly to the member. The royal commission issue was what was recommended to the government from the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. It is not a decision that the government at this point has taken, just so that is clear. I'm not ruling it out; I'm just saying that it's not at this point a decision of the government.

I'm very much aware of the whole issue of expanded coverage. The argument being made for it is that those financial institutions benefit a great deal from the work that goes on, for example, by the mining industry, by the construction industry, by the forestry industry, yet they don't pay an assessment to the Workers' Compensation Board. On the other side of the coin, I do understand their argument that most of them already have coverage through the private sector and therefore don't need to be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. It's an interesting issue on which the government has not made any decision at this point.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, I'm glad that you made that point clear, because there is some feeling among the members of the business community that the royal commission is going to be issuing a report and that you will not be making any further changes. You have certainly indicated to us that you are probably going to be making some changes unilaterally, either through regulation or legislation, and in some ways the royal commission is nothing more than a ploy to deflect the heat from the problems at the WCB. I think it's important that we recognize that. It's not going to be a delay.

Another area of concern is the fact that there is a plan to expand entitlement to include compensation for chronic stress. We have asked for a moratorium on all new entitlements such as chronic stress. Again I ask you: Will you give your assurance that indeed there will be a moratorium until the royal commission completes its task and makes a report?

Hon Mr Laughren: I need to stress yet again to the honourable member that there has been no royal commission appointed. The member is talking as though it already exists and is about to report, or is going to report in the foreseeable future. That simply is not a decision that's been made.

The member also talks about us making unilateral decisions on either expanded coverage or enhanced benefits to injured workers. I would simply say to the member that for many, many, many years the problem of the unfunded liability has been growing and that if we did make a unilateral decision, we would be the first government that actually tackled the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. Certainly, the previous government sat back on its hands and watched the problem develop and grow and grow and grow. I don't think it is fair for the member opposite to imply that because we would make some decisions we would be avoiding the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. As a matter of fact, we, for the first time, would be dealing with the very serious problems there.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Madam Speaker -- Madam Minister; we've been away for a while; you'll have to pardon me -- there's a situation that has arisen in northeastern Ontario in regard to tree seedling growers, an issue that a number of us have dealt with over the past couple of years. Specifically, what has happened is this: The MNR has let out contracts in regard to who is going to be growing seedlings for the province of Ontario. What has happened is that a number of Quebec firms have bid on the tree seedling contracts in the province of Ontario through that particular bid system, and one particular firm that I know of received a contact to grow a number of tree seedlings for the province.

The difficulty is this: In my looking around the issue and meeting with people like Energreen greenhouses in Ramore and other greenhouse growers in northeastern Ontario, I found that not only have Quebec growers bid on Ontario contracts; what's really the problem here is that the Ontario growers don't have the ability to bid back into the province of Quebec because the province of Quebec has a preferential treatment regulation --

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

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It'll take a second to get through.

The question is simply this: Presently the province of Quebec, when it comes to growers, has the ability to be able to bid into Ontario. Unfortunately, the Ontario growers do not have the same ability. I would simply like to ask the minister this: What is your ministry doing in order to be able to address this issue?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm most certainly aware of the problem. I think it's important to set the context and remind ourselves that for some time in Ontario seedling operations were actually done on a regional basis and there were protective measures that were in place in Ontario as well. For a number of years, MNR has been working towards moving to a more open tendering system. The Provincial Auditor has supported moving in that direction and, quite frankly, our government supports that as we try to bring down interprovincial trade barriers.

We have done that now in Ontario, and Ontario contractors are actually winning contracts in Alberta and in BC. However, you're also right that we don't have that equal access into the Quebec market. This is an issue that is under negotiation, both in the bilateral negotiations --

Interjection.

Hon Ms Lankin: I haven't taken my whole time yet -- and in the multilateral negotiations, and we're hopeful of making some progress there. What would be helpful, though, are the specific cases that you raise where people have tried, so that we can document it. It's helpful to take that information to the negotiating table.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask the minister, in regard to the negotiations that are going on now, is the province of Ontario ready to sit down with the province of Quebec and say, "Listen, all we ask is that Ontario growers be treated the same way as Quebec growers"? If Quebec growers have the ability to bid into the province of Ontario, clearly Ontario growers should have the same right to do so into the province of Quebec. If the Quebec government is not willing to move on that issue, what will this minister do in regard to putting pressure on the province of Quebec to open up the process to Ontario growers?

Just for a bit of background, what happens in areas such as Ramore is that its only employer happens to be a greenhouse. The difficult is that by not having access to those particular contracts because of what happened with this particular grower, it puts --

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

Mr Bisson: -- them in a very serious business to be able to operate that company over the longer run.

Hon Ms Lankin: I missed the very tail end of that question, but the gist of it, I understand, is with respect to what action we are taking in the negotiations between Quebec and Ontario.

I can indicate that the procurement policy with respect to goods and services, and this would be considered a service, is under negotiation, both in the multilateral negotiations involving all provinces, but also in the bilateral negotiation with Quebec. We expect that we will reach conclusion of those negotiations by late April, so we are expecting that this issue will be resolved under that context and we are hopeful at this point in time that it will be resolved in that context. I think that to prejudge what will happen, or to suggest that if we don't win on this what will we do, would suggest failure on the entire set of negotiations and I'm not ready to concede that at this point.

1450

CASINOS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, what were the initial estimates for the renovations for the interim casino project in Windsor and what are the actual costs coming in at?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have that information today and really the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is responsible for that, so I will hand the question to her.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Mr Speaker, I am sorry. Having just finished the other question, I didn't hear the member's question.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr McClelland: Actually, I had two questions, Mr Speaker, a supplementary I am now not going to get on as a result. The question that I asked initially was the initial estimate of the costs of the renovations for the interim casino site in Windsor and now the actual costs as they are coming in.

Hon Ms Lankin: I will provide those exact numbers to the member. I don't have them with me at this moment. There have been some additional costs incurred, as structural issues and other issues with respect to design of the building, the renovations, have been incurred during the construction and renovation. There are some changes from the original projections to the costs now and I will provide the members with the details of that.

Mr McClelland: I have a bit of difficulty in terms of a supplementary, unless the Minister of Economic Development and Trade can refer it back; I'm not sure. I really wanted to know what the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' plans are today with respect to the extension of commercial gaming in the province of Ontario, on first nations reserves and other locales in the province of Ontario.

A few months ago, indeed a few weeks ago, the position of the government was that there would be one site, Windsor, for three years, to take a look at it. The minister was very unequivocal in her position. That was her position. Apparently that's changed today and it might be different tomorrow.

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

Mr McClelland: I'm wondering, what is your position today with respect to the establishment and the extension of commercial gaming in the province of Ontario, both on and off first nations reserves?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member attempted to switch back and at this point in time he has asked a question which is not within the purview of my portfolio. I can indicate to him that with respect to the interim casino, and I come back to his original question, there will be rent provided to the art gallery of $6 million over the three years and there will be a $1.3-million provision to it to reconvert back to the art gallery at the end. His first question was specifically with respect to the costs of renovations, and I will have to get back to him on the details of that.

PETITIONS

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario is planning to implement a photo-radar system to penalize speeding drivers; and

"Whereas the provincial freedom of information commissioner has ruled that the NDP's photo-radar system violates the province's protection of privacy legislation; and

"Whereas there may be a number of legal and constitutional challenges to the NDP's photo-radar legislation; and

"Whereas the photo-radar system will cost millions of dollars to set up and implement; and

"Whereas the photo-radar fines involve no demerit point penalties, which the Minister of Transportation has said are the only way to force the public to obey other highway safety regulations, such as the use of seatbelts; and

"Whereas the photo-radar legislation penalizes the owner of the vehicle even if the owner is not responsible for the violation; and

"Whereas there have been concerns raised as to whether photo-radar technology will accurately measure the speed of all vehicles; and

"Whereas the government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person admitting that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring new revenue to the province; and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue it does receive;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

I sign this as I'm in agreement with this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition here with approximately 250 names from people in Stouffville and Markham:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and a Liberal majority, but with no PC support, in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by almost 700 of my constituents who live in Wilmot Creek:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed as expeditiously as possible to third reading and royal assent of Bill 21."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

BROADCAST OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which I wholeheartedly support:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario residents are deeply concerned about issues such as taxes, auto insurance, wasteful spending and the provincial economy; and

"Whereas the broadcast of the proceedings of the Legislature is crucial to helping the public understand what its elected officials are doing; and

"Whereas TVOntario does not broadcast the daily question period until late at night;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government encourage TVOntario to schedule its broadcast of question period earlier in the evening so that all Ontarians can become more involved in the proceedings of the Legislature and the actions of their elected officials."

I have signed this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site-selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure that the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand the NDP government of Ontario to repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

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

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

It's been signed by dozens and dozens and dozens of people from my riding in the community of Sutton-by-the-Lake. They're astonished by the delays the opposition played in this committee process and were very angry it took them this long. I hope we can proceed with it.

1500

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding Bill 55, introduced by Progressive Conservative member Don Cousens.

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

"Bill 55 makes it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

It's signed by 85 constituents.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, or it may be a point of personal privilege: The honourable member for Brant-Haldimand just referred in his petition to a certain private member's Bill 55. I would like to inform him, if he doesn't already know so, that he could save his breath on such petitions: That bill has been withdrawn. I did withdraw it. I brought it into the House in good faith to do something to --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No, on this point of order, because he's made this petition. I'd say it is not valid. He may as well save his breath.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by some 120 constituents of the city of London and the county of Middlesex.

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

"We, the undersigned, would like to let it be known that we oppose Bill 120 and want it defeated at the third reading.

"The NDP government has not given any thought to the impact of this bill to retirement homes, despite the effort to give input by these facilities. By placing retirement homes under the Rent Control Act, Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act, you will cause serious problems to the running of these homes.

"Our elderly need these homes to help them to continue to be independent individuals who need assistance with their daily lives but not to the extent of nursing homes. By placing retirement homes under the landlord act, the care givers would not have ongoing access to the residents' rooms and emergency situations would go unnoticed.

"The residents are in these homes so they can be watched, helped and protected if needed. Residential care should fall under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Housing.

"Before you place another Band-Aid solution on a problem, stop this bill."

This petition has been signed by many people, 120 families in London and Middlesex, and I'm adding my name to the petition.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by many parents of children at St Boniface school in Scarborough concerned about the overcrowded conditions that exist there. They're petitioning the government to address this growing problem and finance the addition to the school as a high priority.

The petition states that their concern is about the over 600 students who attend there, most accommodated in 15 portables onsite. The portables take up most of the school yard, covering two baseball fields and one soccer field. The gym is inadequate, the washrooms are limited, the office space is very crowded, with little space available.

I'm pleased to add my support to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I too have a petition that was given to me much in advance of the withdrawal of Bill 55, but I feel obligated to read it into the record for Mr Eldon Grist. The member for Markham, who tabled that bill, has made some indication that it's been withdrawn, but in any event I read the petition:

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

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

"Bill 55" -- which the member for Markham introduced and made reference about earlier -- "will make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society."

I won't read any more of the preamble but just indicate that I will attach my signature, as is required by the rules of the House.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crime; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews and public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, be passed into law."

I've signed that as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition signed by parents, teachers and students of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, St Joachim, St Patrick's, St Columba, St Bernadette, St Ann's and many others which reads:

"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 schools are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of residents who are concerned about creeping user fees, that reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP has always said it was against user fees in health care and other social services; and

"Whereas the NDP promised it would never implement user fees for health care and other services of a social nature; and

"Whereas the NDP has bowed to pressure from the Conservative Party and is now working to implement user fees in a number of areas; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to implement a number of health user fees by charging for various necessary drug treatments, for annual checkups, psychiatric counselling and speech therapy for children and other necessary services; and

"Whereas the NDP government is trying to fool the public by saying that these are not user fees but rather copayments; and

"Whereas it has been shown that user fees do not make health services more accountable but only restrict access;

"We, the undersigned, urge the NDP government to reconsider its new policy on user fees and protect the integrity of our universal health care system by cancelling its proposed user fees on health services."

I'm going to add my name because I agree with the petitioners who have asked me to present this to the House.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My petition is from Mr John A. McIntosh in Waterloo.

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

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing orders 8(a) and 96(a), the House will not meet on the morning of Thursday, March 24, 1994, to consider private members' public business; that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 43, 44, 45 and 46; and that Mr Poirier and Mr Elston exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

1510

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have one other motion, and I seek the consent of the House. The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly committee is currently conducting interviews for the Environmental Commissioner under the Environmental Bill of Rights, and we agreed at the House leaders' meeting this morning that that committee should be allowed to sit beyond 6 o'clock; that where it has scheduled an interview that either commenced before 6 o'clock or was supposed to commence before 6 o'clock, it should complete that interview even if it means sitting past 6 of the clock.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall the bill be reported for third reading?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No. Committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report on the underground economy and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I would like to say that this is the first time the standing committee on finance and economic affairs has examined the underground economy in the province of Ontario. I want to thank the clerk, Lynn Mellor, and certainly the research officer, Elaine Campbell, for the very hard work they did with regard to this report. I also want to thank the many witnesses for their very valuable presentations before the committee. I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 95, An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant l'adoption par la cité de North York de règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 95 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report on pre-budget consultations 1994 and preliminary response to the Fair Tax Commission and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any statement to make?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'd like to thank the hard work of the clerk, Lynn Mellor, and certainly the research officer, Elaine Campbell, who again has done a good job in helping us assemble this report. I also want to thank all the many witnesses for their very valuable presentations made before the committee.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eddy from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 119 be ordered for third reading? No? Committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords, be not reported.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to address the motion, if that's in order, and we believe it is, with respect to the recommendation dealing with Bill 20, a bill that I introduced in the Legislature in 1993. It passed second reading in this House and went to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The bill dealt with the concerns of tenants right across this province but especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area -- tenants and police officers, I might add, as well -- and it attempted to add an additional tool for the crown, for landlords and concerned tenants with respect to the ability to evict convicted drug dealers from apartment dwellings in this province.

The bill failed in the committee when it was not supported by government representatives on the committee. If you set aside the NDP fronts and the landlords, the people who appeared before us in an objective way were very much supportive of the legislation.

I want to say that the witnesses who appeared -- and I will identify a couple of them who I think were nothing more than fronts for the NDP party. It was some of the most offensive testimony that I've heard in my years in this Legislature. We have seen some difficult things occur in terms of being inappropriate testimony that has been arranged, I believe, by the current government, witnesses who've appeared and given the government line, but this was perhaps the most offensive.

I suggested that at least two of the witnesses appearing before us misled a standing committee of the Legislature, and I want to mention the two groups specifically: the Parkdale legal aid clinic and the East York Tenants' Association. The language during their testimony was offensive, insulting, and in terms of questions answered by members, the representative from the Parkdale legal aid clinic indicated, and it's in Hansard, that in his view there was no serious problem with drug dealers in apartment dwellings in the Parkdale area. He also said that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority was dealing in a very adequate fashion in terms of eviction of drug dealers in Metropolitan Toronto housing. Both of those claims were proven to be false when we had independent and objective witnesses appear before us later.

The East York Tenants' Association also indicated that there was no problem in their view. The only problems apparently were with landlords. They could see no problem with drug dealers.

1520

The concerns that both of these groups raised -- and I want to put them on the record, because these concerns were supported by the NDP representatives on the justice committee. The concerns they expressed were not the concerns about tenants and families and children living in apartment buildings who have to have drug dealers running through their apartments, concern about dirty needles in their communities etc; what the NDP members were concerned about was the violation of drug dealers' rights. This was a concern expressed: a violation of the human rights of drug dealers.

Another comment made, again supported by the NDP members of the justice committee, was that by evicting drug dealers from apartment buildings, convicted drug dealers, this was cruel and unusual punishment; it was cruel and unusual punishment for convicted drug dealers to be evicted from public housing. These people are being subsidized by the taxpayers in terms of public housing, but the NDP and their cronies who appeared before us said that this eviction would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr Winninger, the lead man on the NDP tag team, suggested that --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I sat in on that committee and I was party to the proceedings and I can tell you --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I know that particular member has tenants in his own riding who are very much concerned about this problem, but it certainly wasn't expressed by him during the hearings. In fact, he was absent most of the time.

I want to say that even the point man for the NDP, and he had some difficulty with me in respect to this matter during the hearings --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask once again that when he refers to members of the public who come to appear before the committees as "cronies," that's absolutely and totally inappropriate. I was there. They were intelligent --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear the comment and I will not render any judgement. The member for Leeds-Grenville. And please don't interfere with the debate.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I could rise on a point of privilege, because I think it's unfortunate. I'm trying to express a point of view that I think is representative of a significant number of Ontarians. Certainly, the justice committee, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, expressed this concern --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, would you rule me out of order if I called them wide-eyed lunatics?

Mr Runciman: -- and that member keeps interrupting me because he would not represent his own tenants' views in this committee and now he doesn't want me to represent the views of many, many Ontarians in respect to this very important issue.

Mr Winninger, the member for London South, as I said, was the point man for his membership on the committee. One of his major concerns -- and I'm not quoting directly, but we straightened this out in Hansard and I'll re-read Hansard if he wishes me to do so if he gets up on a point of order -- was, again, he felt these people convicted and evicted had the right to ply their trade if they so chose, and he expressed sympathy.

Mr David Winninger (London South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that if the member is going to quote from Hansard, he should quote in the entire context. I never suggested even remotely what the member is attributing to me.

Mr Runciman: Part of what the member says is fair comment in the sense that I was unable to get my hands on Hansard, and I would be glad to put that in a statement in the future in the House in the proper context. Certainly in my view there was nothing to apologize for in committee in respect to that interpretation, but I take what he says as fair and I will indeed put the appropriate quotation in Hansard at a later date.

We heard about concerns. Someone said the landlords can deal with these things, and tenant organizations. We heard testimony of tenant organizations being taken over by drug dealers. We heard about tenants and landlords being intimidated by these kinds of individuals.

We had a detective from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force who appeared before us and talked at length about the significant problem in Metropolitan Toronto Housing in respect to these kinds of activities. He talked about an explosion occurring in a high-rise in a Metro Toronto Housing building last year, I think it was. Luckily, it did not result in significant fatalities but it very easily could have. Some of these dealers occupy three or four apartments. They're using one of the apartments to mix their drugs, they're using the other apartment to arrange deals and the third apartment is for money collection.

Of course this detective also pointed out that Parkdale was the most critical area in terms of Metropolitan Toronto police and drug dealers in apartment dwellings, although we had a witness supposedly representing the legal aid clinic in Parkdale saying it wasn't a problem. Well, the Metropolitan Toronto police say Parkdale is the most serious problem area.

We also had the same representative, whom the NDP takes offence at me calling a crony of its party, appear before us and say MTHA had no problem in terms of evicting these kinds of individuals. We had two board members from the MTHA appear: a past chair, who was fired from her job because she was too much of an activist in terms of questions like this, and a current board member; both are current board members. We also had a tenant from MTHA. They talked about the horrible conditions that many tenants have to live under, the harassment, the intimidation, dirty needles in hallways, all sorts of activities occurring in these buildings, and tenants simply can't get any action taken. We had one tenant appear before us who talked about his wife being murdered by drug dealers, apartments being boarded up because of security concerns because of the activities of drug dealers in these buildings.

I now have the opportunity to put Mr Winninger's comments on the record as he said them. I am quoting from Hansard, Mr Winninger expressing concern about convicted drug dealers being evicted from apartment dwellings: "This is aside from all the other concerns about their moving on to other residences and plying their trade elsewhere, if that's their inclination," "their trade" being the selling of illicit drugs to the youth of this province.

Mr Winninger: On a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How can you have a point of order about Hansard?

Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask Mr Runciman, if he's going to be referring to excerpts from Hansard, to refer to the entire context, which will show quite clearly that my suggestion was that evicting a drug dealer from one residence and moving him to another is not going to solve the problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If you want to rebut his comments, you'll have 30 minutes to do so, like he has.

Mr Runciman: I'm going to take the member up on his suggestion, because I think it's appropriate that perhaps we put a few more of his words on the record, and I'll do it briefly, but this is the concern --

The Deputy Speaker: No, on a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's not normal that we have a series of interruptions, and I apologize for interrupting, but at the time when there have been now four interruptions by the New Democrats on this intervention, I would ask that you add three minutes to the speaking time of my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville because they have been incessant in their interruptions on the same matter, and I suspect there is an awful lot of support for that being the case.

The Deputy Speaker: No, there won't be any change. The time allocated is 30 minutes for each individual on each party, so I will respect that procedure. I would ask the opposition please to remain quiet, and if you want to debate, you can do so afterwards; you have 30 minutes to do so.

Mr Runciman: I want to take up Mr Winninger's request, the NDP member for London South, that I put his comments on the record, because when I look at some more of his comments I think indeed they should be on the record for all the public of Ontario to appreciate what he was saying.

1530

He's talking about context here. We have to remember he's talking about sympathy for convicted drug dealers; that's what we're talking about. Mr Winninger says, "Why would you somehow put these people in double jeopardy?" Convicted drug dealers; he's expressing concern about putting convicted drug dealers, people peddling drugs to the young children across this province, in double jeopardy. That's a priority concern for the NDP and Mr Winninger. He says, once they've served their sentence, once they're ready to re-enter society, why shouldn't they have a residence to go back to? This is aside from all the other concerns and plying their trade elsewhere, if that's their inclination.

It's clear what he said. I make no apologies for it. If anyone should be apologizing to his constituents, to the people of Ontario -- read it, Mr Speaker. Everyone in Ontario, get a copy of Hansard and read it and you interpret it. Mr Winninger, the member for London South, the NDP point man on the justice committee, was expressing very strong sympathy and concern for convicted drug dealers, not for tenants who have to live with these people, not for landlords who can't get them out of their buildings, not for the Metro Toronto police who have to deal with these people on an annual and daily basis. No, his concern was for convicted drug dealers. That is disgusting, nothing less than disgusting.

I said, when I came back to this session, that I wasn't going to get worked up about issues like this. I'm going to take a breath and calm down, because I have great difficulty in understanding the NDP on issues like this, where they're coming from in terms of the concerns they express. It's unbelievable.

I talked to some of the backbench members who served on the standing committee on justice after the second day of hearings. I said: "Why in the world are you opposing this legislation? I simply can't understand your reasoning." A member said to me, "We're following marching orders."

Interjection: Told how to vote.

Mr Runciman: They were told how to vote on this legislation. That's not only insulting to them as individual members -- they're prepared to accept it, obviously -- but it should be offensive to the people in their ridings whom they purport to represent and to the people across this province whom, as the government, they purport to represent. They're simply not standing up for the concerns of so many, many people.

The testimony we heard in the last day of hearings of this committee -- members can attest to this -- was heartrending. We had a man who had lost his wife break down in tears. His wife had died in his arms, murdered by a drug dealer. His daughter was abducted and held hostage for four days, raped a number of times, by drug dealers in Metropolitan Toronto Housing.

But again, you might as well speak to a wall as try to get this message across to the NDP and its members on the committee. They had come in there with set marching orders and it didn't matter what kind of testimony was heard. It didn't matter how heartrending, how convincing, how persuasive. It simply was to be ignored, and that was a fact. This has to be of significant concern to all of us in this Legislature.

I mentioned I was deeply offended by the fact that a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee had obviously and clearly been arranged through the NDP. They appeared there, purporting to represent tenants, which they did not do. They represented the NDP position on this legislation, and that's all.

Mr Stockwell: On the payroll.

Mr Runciman: These organizations apparently have some funding mechanism. I don't know what the reason is, but it was clearly offensive because of the testimony that followed from the Metro Toronto police, from tenants themselves, from other witnesses who had no vested interest, very objective and clearly concerned people who live this kind of life on a day-to-day basis, who have to live with drug dealers in their neighbourhoods, who have to live with drug dealers down the hall, who are afraid to put their children out into the hall or out into the yards of these apartment buildings because of the activities that are going on.

We heard about lobbies of apartment buildings. You have to be in by 8 o'clock in some of these buildings. Otherwise, it's too dangerous because the lobbies are taken over by drug dealers. That's a reality out there today. That's a reality which the NDP and the committee members chose to ignore.

This is an unusual process in terms of requiring this report to come back, reporting not to report, but we felt it was so important that we discuss this issue that we're following through on this process. We intend to continue to pursue it. When another incident occurs in a Metropolitan Toronto Housing property, we're going to continue to raise this issue and the position the NDP members took and the position the NDP government took in respect to concern about tenants in this province and concern about Metro Toronto police, who have to go into these buildings and try to deal with these problems.

We think it's a sad day when the NDP, simply for political reasons, I gather, because I cannot understand any rationale other than the fact this bill was proposed by a Conservative member, an opposition member -- what other possible reason could they have for rejecting legislation? We proposed a number of amendments to address their concerns and witnesses and they still continued to reject it. The only rhyme or reason we can appreciate at this stage is because it was introduced by an opposition member.

That's totally inappropriate. Their actions are, again, ones they will pay for when the electorate finally has an opportunity to express its views. They simply have a propensity for doing things which certainly are not in the best interests of Ontarians. I think that in terms of Bill 20, all of them, every last member of the NDP, should be ashamed of the votes their members cast on Bill 20.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, are there questions and comments on this or just debate?

The Deputy Speaker: No questions or comments.

Mr Elston: Okay, thank you. I will just add a few words, not so much to carry on about the bill itself -- I think the member for Leeds-Grenville has given his piece on that -- but a little bit about what I see to be a very unfortunate occurrence in this particular committee. Private members' time is one of those areas in the House where there apparently is a truce among the members. We have an hour at which point a private member has a chance to put his or her particular piece of legislation before the entire chamber so that we can pass judgement as a unit on the merits of a private member's bill.

Much has been made recently by the government of its endeavour to pass pieces of legislation which have received the nod of approval by the entire chamber. The member for Leeds-Grenville was one of the people who fortunately was able to have his bill moved on second reading, approved by the chamber as a whole, the people who were here. It was then agreed by the government, and that's a big hurdle for us to get over at times, to have it ordered for committee time.

I think it would have been assumed that had the government ordered it for committee time and had it received the nod of all the people here in the House, there would have been a report back from the committee that would have maybe suggested some amendments, that might have refined it, that might have done something to change some of the provisions, because that is well within the contemplated activity in committee.

At no time would we have thought, when the truce had been declared around private members' time, that the committee would have ganged up on this private member's time along partisan lines to put an end to this legislation. That seems to me to be the most blatant and most violent abrogation of the truce around private members' time that we could have.

There are a couple of other ways the government can kill private members' legislation. The person currently sitting in the Speaker's chair may very well contemplate, for instance, that there is a refusal by the government to move on a bill that he sponsored some three years ago now, the so-called cheque-cashing bill. It has been waiting for third reading. It went through committee, got its approval on second reading, got its approval at committee and is now sitting or languishing -- we pass a motion every time we prorogue this place to have it survive -- in a type of legislative twilight zone where it continues to exist, but on a plane which is not accessible by the real world. That's another way this government could have demonstrated a refusal to proceed with this particular legislation.

1540

I know that it is well within the authority of the majority members, in this case all New Democrats, of this committee to refuse to report any part of the bill back to this House, back to this chamber, for us to consider as a whole legislative body. But it is, in my view, presumptuous that when the Legislative Assembly, the entire chamber, has spoken on a private member's bill, the committee, but six individuals in this House, should suppose they have the authority to put an end to any legislative consideration of an item which on principle received the approval of this chamber.

That is the type of manipulation of this chamber which I think should be held in some high degree of disregard by the public of this province. Six members of this chamber have said no to a bill that on principle has passed on second reading in this House, and they have offered not one explanation to the collective chamber as to why they have taken it upon themselves to put an end to this private member's desired legislative scheme.

Do you know something, Mr Speaker? It is not, when it comes for passage on second reading, just this member's scheme any longer, because the House as a whole has adopted it as a principle that is well worth pursuing. So while the ownership belongs to my colleague from Leeds-Grenville, the House has adopted the principle as one that we should explore and develop further if that is required. But why is it, and particularly with respect to private members' time when the truce has been declared among all the House under the auspices of the standing orders, that these six people will remain unaccountable to the chamber as a whole, merely by making a motion with their larger number of members and passing a motion to kill a bill which in principle has been approved by the whole chamber?

Mr Speaker, I don't understand. I don't understand what it is the government hopes to achieve by using six thugs in dealing with this particular -- I withdraw the word "thugs" -- six people who are following the orders of the hierarchy of the New Democrats to put an end to this particular legislation. How is it that those six people will remain for ever unaccountable to all of us, because none of them stood up when they had a chance on their 30-minute time to explain why they put an end to this bill? They merely, at the behest of somebody who shall remain nameless and faceless, used the member for London South to put the message that no longer will this bill survive for legislative consideration in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I don't understand why they chose to flex their legislative muscle in this regard. I think the bill ought to come back for committee of the whole discussion if there is something that is totally out of whack as far as those six people are concerned. I don't think those six people should have the right to tell the chamber that they have put an end to a bill for which this chamber says, "You, as committee members, will consider this legislation."

I am asking the members of the New Democratic Party in this chamber to put an end to this type of blatant end to the piece around private members' time. They have it within their authority right at this moment, or as soon as this debate ends, to put an end to that type of high-handed, heavy-handed committee activity around private members' time. You can vote to disregard the report of the majority NDP membership on this committee and you can say, "This bill ought to be reported back with amendments," if that's what you like, but that it ought to come back for further consideration either in committee of the whole or on third reading.

It would seem to me that probably the best line would either be to have this thing referred back to the committee for further work and bring it forward again for us to consider in committee of the whole or to have it brought directly into committee of the whole where we can talk about the reasons why the government feels that this private member's initiative should not proceed as it was originally planned by this chamber. I don't understand what there is to lose for the government in that regard.

I don't understand what it is that was so bad about this piece of legislation that shouldn't have been brought up at the very time this received second reading. If it's a matter of principle, it's at second reading that those six people should have stood on their feet and said, "This bill should not go further and we're voting against it."

If there was something in principle wrong with this bill, the minister responsible for the Solicitor General's department, or for the Housing ministry, or for photo-radar, the Minister of Transportation, any of these people, should have stood on their feet and said in principle: "We are opposed to this bill and we are not going to do anything further with it. We are killing it on principle because we are against dealing with drug dealers in this fashion."

How is it that when a committee receives an order from this House to deal with a bill, six people alone of the 130 who represent the province of Ontario can say, "There is nothing further that will be considered on this because, as a matter of principle, we six don't like this"? That's what they're saying. I don't think these people should assume that they should carry the day. They should report the bill back. It's well within their limits to report the bill back unamended, and then we could have the debate around committee of the whole.

You know something? The minister, the Solicitor General or the Attorney General or the Minister of Finance or the Premier can come in here and pooh-pooh the things that have been proposed by the member from Leeds. They can say the whole chamber, upon sober second reflection, or whatever it is they want to say they've had, has changed its mind. They can go through the debate item by item and say, "We no longer support the ideas put forward by the member for Leeds and are prepared now to put an end to it," but the entire Legislative Assembly ought to have that choice.

It seems to me that in this regard the government members should come on side with democracy and allow the chamber to speak about the bill. It should in fact not recommend that the bill not be reported back to us but that the bill should be reported back to us for further consideration. The entire chamber was able to make the consideration on second reading, and the entire chamber ought to be offered the opportunity to put its case in this regard.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The entire chamber will get the opportunity.

Mr Elston: The House leader says the entire chamber will get their opportunity. Well, that is not true. The only thing up for debate right now is not the issues inside the bill. The entire debate on the report right now is, shall the bill not be reported? That is an infringement of the types of activities this chamber has undertaken in private members' time. They have really tripped over the power lines on this particular issue.

It's not the first time it's happened. It isn't the first time muscle has been flexed in the committee structure in the intersession. I was there with my colleagues the members for Mississauga North, for Carleton and a couple of others, the member for Dufferin-Peel, when we were talking about the appointment of the Environmental Commissioner. It was a bit strange that for that one particular item the government dropped a new person into the committee, who attended on one particular morning for only the time it took him to put the government's case, and the rest of the people fell in line like a bunch of rookies at a hockey training camp.

It was an interesting exercise. This fellow just appeared at the door, the aura preceding him to his chair, and held forth about why an Environmental Commissioner should be chosen in the manner the government told him. He said -- I heard him say -- "I have been advised that this is the way it should be done," and all the rookies at the table bowed to the superior information of the member for Windsor-Walkerville as they voted with their hands and said, "Oh yes, if Bob Rae wants it that way, I'm following." That's the second example of how this New Democratic Party has used its power to throw away the traditions of this place.

Well, here is another one, except this one is even more blatant, in the sense that if you happen to compare the Hansard from the Legislative Assembly committee in which the member for Chatham-Kent was a member and said: "I want to do my work, I want to represent my constituents in choosing this Environmental Commissioner. I want to exercise my authority" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is being conducted by the member for Bruce. If you want to make any comments, you can take your seat and do so. I would ask the House to refrain from shouting.

1550

Mr Elston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just repeat myself. The member for Chatham-Kent was in the Legislative Assembly committee saying: "I want to make the choice. All of us should have the opportunity to make this decision about the Environmental Commissioner. I want to represent my constituents." And you know something? A lesser number of individuals, a subcommittee doing that work, was unacceptable to the member for Chatham-Kent, and not only to the member for Chatham-Kent but the member for Sault Ste Marie and about three others of the four who actually spoke. The fourth person who spoke, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, of course was the person who delivered the edict from the central authority. The politburo spoke, and these underlings all marched lockstep into the place and voted to say, "This larger number should undertake the decision."

But if you compare that Hansard with what has just gone on here, here there are six individuals who have received instructions from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 130 of us who have said: "Please do the work on this bill and bring it back to us. Refine it if you have to, hear witnesses if you have to, but bring it back to us and report." Well, do you know what those six have taken unto themselves? They have said, in spite of five people voting in favour of this legislation and in spite of the fact that in principle the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has said this bill ought to progress through the system: "We six are all-knowing. We are the individuals who are making the final decision for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We have decided in principle that the rest of those people were wrong in letting this bill come to us, so we six, alone of the 130, have decided that we hold the upper hand and we are going to put an end to it."

That shouldn't happen. Why doesn't the New Democratic Party admit it was a tactical error, that it was bad and that it should bring that bill back -- as it exists, if it doesn't want to amend it? They should bring it back into this House and amend it in committee of the whole or deal with it in third reading, but put on the record, publicly on the record so that all can see and hear as we debate this bill, either in committee of the whole or on third reading, why it is that they have had a change of heart on this. The minister ought to have enough gumption that she or he stand in their place and put their side of the issue on the record.

None of this will send the messenger so that he can be dealt with by the public, in a way that may not be very satisfactory, from their point of view. But the minister ought to have the ability to accept responsibility for having sent the emissary in the first place to put an end to this bill. Why is it, if we took the time to debate it and pass it on second reading, that the people who are opposed to it in the government haven't got the stamina to identify themselves and identify clearly on the record why they want this bill ended? If that's what you want done, do it publicly and up front. None of this reporting back to the legislative chamber that we don't want to do anything any more with it. We should have a full-scale debate like we had on second reading.

What principle is it that has changed in this bill, that has determined now for the government that it no longer wants to pursue it? I haven't heard what it is, but there obviously is one. There is a rationale that ought to be put on the record of the full assembly, not just to be brought in that this bill dies in committee.

That's all I can really say in relation to this debate. The debate is one of style, it is one about the substance, it is one that may have demonstrated that the government has had a change of heart. If in fact they have had a change of heart, they should put that change of heart on the same public record in which they originally supported this legislation. They should come to this forum as a whole and tell us why it is that in principle they supported this bill on second reading and why now -- on principle, I guess, or whatever other reason -- they have determined to deep-six this thing.

It's within the power of the individual members of the New Democratic Party caucus, if they feel responsible towards this process, that they now vote to have the bill come back to us. It's not a tough vote. We just have to reject the report which says the bill will no longer be dealt with, bring it back and deal with it up front, deal with it in this chamber and confront head-on the reasons.

The easiest thing for the New Democrats in this regard probably is to kill the bill on the report. Do you know why? None of these people over in the New Democratic Party will have to tell us why it was that they are against this bill. It's easy to hide behind those six individuals who put an end to this bill as it now stands. If you are timid as legislators -- I know some of you are not -- you will vote in favour of the report as read to us by the member for Fort York, but if you desire to have an airing of the reasons you want this vote ended, if you care about that being put on this public record, you will oppose the motion brought forward by the Chairman of that committee. It's a very large step to take.

If you are timid, if you don't want to tell your constituents why you don't want to deal with this issue, hide behind the six. But if you really mean what you say -- I've read a number of your constituency letters, I have listened to a number of your speeches, I've read the press releases of I don't know how many of you New Democrats, and if you really are going to continue sending that stuff out, then the only way you can vote on this motion today is no.

You, Mr Speaker, are here at a watershed in how democratic the New Democratic Party really is. Will the secretive types, the small group of hired guns who put an end to a piece of legislation, govern the way this chamber operates, or will the entire chamber be able to deliberate about the bill to which we earlier gave the nod? Thank you for your time.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I want to thank the speaker who just commented for his contribution. Even though he wasn't a member of the committee, he did seem to capture the flavour and the concerns of that debate.

I did, however, have the privilege to support my colleague Mr Runciman from Leeds-Grenville as I supported his private member's bill. Just so everybody is aware of what exactly the bill is, it was Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords.

I was very deeply concerned about the apparent tactical manoeuvre by the NDP members of this committee, which I will share with the House in a little more detail. I was concerned, as my colleague Mr Runciman was concerned, about the apparent support that may have been given under questionable circumstances by the government for this bill, only to have it in a manner scuttled, at great expense to taxpayers.

I will say this. At least the previous government, the Liberal government, when it did not want to support something, had the courage to say, "I don't want to support it." Just in this area of justice and victims' rights, at a time when Ontario was the last province in Canada to have a victims' bill of rights, I recall that the Liberals defeated that, but they had the courage to stand up in the House and say they were not going to bring in a victims' bill of rights.

The NDP two years ago stood up in this House on my private member's bill on a justice issue, had the courage to stand up and say, "We don't support victims' rights and we're not going to support a bill."

This is a serious matter, when the business of the House can be consumed with a private member's bill. When the government isn't committed to those reforms, it should say so. First of all, it is apparently misleading to the public, because on the day of a private member's bill, it is announced with much fanfare that the bill received all-party support.

In fairness, on the day this bill in question was debated in this House and voted on, it received the support of the member for Yorkview, Mr Mammoliti. He has a serious problem in his riding. He is listening to his tenants, and he stood in his place as a member of the governing party, but independent, hopefully, under the rules of private members' hour, and spoke in support of the bill.

1600

Mr Winninger got to his feet when his time came and he spoke against it. But if the government was committed to stopping this bill, why did it allow for a long, expensive process, taking up valuable time on the justice committee -- incidentally, there are three or four other bills that the justice committee would like to be dealing with -- wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money? When the time came, when we'd finished the public consultation on this bill, the NDP didn't even support the amendments which would strengthen this bill. In other words, when you look at Hansard for this committee, it's a remarkable reading of Hansard. Every vote was a recorded vote. Every vote demonstrates very clearly the government's lack of interest in or support for the democratic process of committee work.

One of the reasons we're having a debate on the floor today on this bill is because the government simply had, with its controlling majority on this committee, the marching orders and the power to kill this bill. That has an impact on how we operate this House, if it's to be a democratic extension of the will of the people. The government has the right to bring forward government bills at will, but this was a private member's bill which the House, by majority vote, sent to a committee to spend money on, to research, to bring in expert witnesses on, to refine it, to amend it and to return it here.

What is the motion from the Chair of the justice committee today, by a recorded vote of all six members of the NDP against the bill? It was that it's not a priority for the NDP. "Let's just kill the bill; let's just cover it in dust and maybe it'll go away."

I ask the members of the government who are here today to examine what this bill would do. First of all, the government should be pleased that this is the kind of initiative to make our communities safer, to support law-abiding citizens, whether they're tenants or landlords or land owners, any citizens, over the growing rights and privileges that criminals enjoy in this province and in this country.

On this issue we should have unanimity and we should be able to seek support, but we didn't get one ounce of cooperation or one ounce of interest coming out of the government. Here are some of the objections we heard. I want to remind members that there was considerable expense to taxpayers for this committee to meet, that several deputants came many miles in order to make presentations, many of these presentations eight, nine or 10 pages long, thoughtful documents, thoughtful arguments on legal points about the constitutionality of it, how intrusive this would be into our courts of justice system.

Right off the bat, the NDP's first argument was: "This is an attack on tenants. It unfairly targets tenants for eviction." The truth of the matter is that we heard cogent testimony that there are all sorts of federal and provincial legislation that impounds the assets and the property of criminals in their activities.

Your own government, through regulation when the House wasn't sitting, brought in seizure powers for those people smuggling tobacco. The principle of taking away a criminal's property has been going on for years. The criminals are getting smarter. Why would they buy a house and open it up as a crack house when the government and taxpayers will subsidize them in government-run housing units? All they do is walk away from it after they've damaged it.

The government missed the whole point. It wasn't an attack on tenants. My colleague Mr Runciman was responding to the legitimate concerns of tenants. I'm going to read into the record one brief comment from one of the tenants whose experience was heart-wrenching, was deeply disturbing to anyone who has a family or has any sense of decency, who couldn't avoid but be supportive of this bill after hearing this.

We heard the other problem for the NDP: It'll only attack 20% to 30% of the drug dealers in Ontario. This is mind-boggling. According to the NDP government of Ontario, we shouldn't be wasting our time here because we're only going to get 20% to 30% of the drug cases dealt with in the lower court. Aside from the fact that we had proposed amendments to fix that, aside from the fact that we heard cogent testimony from a police officer who spends his life going after criminals who are drug dealers, aside from the fact that these people are marketing death in our projects, in our housing units all across Metro Toronto primarily, we were told by those Metro drug officers that the 20% to 30% represents the most serious drug dealer offences in this province, and yet there was no support and no political will from this government of the NDP for this simple law-and-order issue and to provide protection for those families and children living in those rental units.

We mentioned that the government seemed misinformed that there would be victims' impact statements that went routinely towards court and that a judge could consider restraining orders in other matters. This simply did not square. First of all, victims do not have rights in this province, thanks to the NDP and the Liberals defeating that motion. Secondly, victims don't have a say in a drug dealer case because of the manner in which the offence is approached by the crown.

Where the victim appears is when they go to their landlord and they say, "I'm being victimized," and the landlord says: "Fine. If there's a criminal activity, I'll go for an eviction, but you come forward and testify in court. We won't offer you any protection." There will be no protection because if you read the testimony, case after case after case, the criminal has his lawyer down there in no time flat. He's back out on the street before the police are finished interviewing the witness whom they're trying to build their case on.

We heard testimony from several legal aid clinics which talked about the civil libertarian rights of criminals in this province. They actually came forward and, with the support of the NDP -- which is what my colleague's comments were about, this apparent arrangement of likemindedness on the issues of "A tenant is a tenant is a tenant whether they break the law or not," that they have a right to live somewhere.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): There were independent witnesses.

Mr Jackson: There were lots of witnesses, Mr Sutherland, and if you'd participated in more of the discussion and more of the bill, you would have been aware of the independence of a lot of the witnesses, but the ones from the legal aid clinics came forward with testimony which indicated --

Mr Sutherland: Oh, only ones that agree with you.

Mr Jackson: They don't have to agree with me. I'm disturbed when the police of the day, they can't agree with; they call them racist. I'm disturbed when tenants come forward who have lost family members, Mr Sutherland, and when they've lost a family member and politicians are saying, "This is an important issue," right to their face; that was not a pleasant experience in committee.

When we asked these legal aid clinics, "You're predominantly assisting tenants in this province?" they said yes. We said, "How many times would a tenant come forward to you to complain about illegal activities?" They said, "Not very often." I said, "Well, when they do come forward, what advice do you give them?" In fact, I asked Raymond Kuszelewski from the Parkdale Community Legal Services, who was one of the presenters, what advice he gives to tenants who come to a legal aid clinic for legal assistance when there are criminal activities occurring in their residence.

The staff lawyer for Parkdale Community Legal Services indicated, and Hansard will bear this out, that what he avoids doing is telling tenants to call the police, because that's ratting on another tenant; that's informing on another tenant. What is more fundamental to justice in this province than for law-abiding citizens to state their case without fear of reprisal to anyone for their own public safety? Yet we have a legal aid clinic openly stating, "We don't recommend they go to the law."

Parkdale Community Legal Services receives its money from the taxpayers, from the very tenants whom it purports to serve and the very taxpayers who are watching this debate in the House today. That is the level of commitment from these kinds of legal aid clinics that were condemning the bill.

1610

I have to say that not only did I say it at the time, but my colleague Mr Runciman and I have asked the Chairman of the justice committee to write to the Attorney General of this province to ascertain if in fact these legal aid clinics are counselling tenants not to call the police. I consider that a serious matter and one which the Chair has agreed to undertake to bring to the attention of the Attorney General. Certainly, I find that inappropriate and I'd like the Attorney General of this province to clear that up.

We heard from Metro police, from their drug squad. We heard them indicate the nature and the depth of the drug activities that are occurring, the number of citizens who are at risk, the increases and the severe level of drugs. The police made a very helpful amendment to this bill. They recommended that section 1 of the bill include schedules G and H of the Food and Drugs Act for those manufactured chemical hallucinogenic drugs that are also pervasive, and yet the NDP didn't think that was a good idea. The NDP said, "Chemical drugs, we're not going to worry about them," even though the police came forward and offered some good, sensible amendments.

Even Ray Kuszelewski from the Parkdale Community Legal Services came in and gave us two very positive recommendations. One was to parallel my colleague's bill with the Landlord and Tenant Act, and the NDP voted that down, something as simple as clarifying the parallel nature of the definition between the two acts, and yet the NDP had its marching orders: vote after vote after vote, denial, denial, denial, cannot support.

I've already indicated about the waste of money and the lack of courage on the part of the other members. We also heard from Norm Gardner, who was that day working on the Metro budget for police services. He left that to come down to Queen's Park; he felt that this issue was so important to public safety in this province.

Councillor Norm Gardner made the following suggestions: He suggested that this bill could even be stronger if it were to become extended to all other criminal activities like common gaming houses and bawdy houses, and that was recommended, and that the bill should be expanded to forbid the common use of properties for criminal activities and for their purposes.

He said, and I want to quote one briefly here, "By making these changes, the intent of the proposed bill would not only encompass the protection of tenants and landlords, but would also address and curtail the elements which support and allow criminal activities to flourish and thrive." That's what Norm Gardner had to say, if anybody on the government side cared to listen to him. He's a senior police commissioner, a senior councillor in Metro Toronto.

We also heard from June Rowlands, the mayor of Metro Toronto, who as well told this committee that this was important legislation that should be approved to help be a partner in the process of cleaning up the criminal elements that seem to hide in these larger rental high-rise buildings.

She says: "This proposed legislation would give landlords an additional tool as they try to maintain their premises and ensure the safety and security of their tenants. Therefore I urge the members to endorse Bill 20 and take whatever measures possible to ensure that it becomes the law in Ontario."

To simply dismiss the mayor of Toronto when deputant after deputant made cogent arguments about how badly needed it was, that the current eviction notice was not the simple method, that we needed to do what this bill purports to do, to fast-track evict criminals who are dealing in death and drugs and the spread of AIDS in these projects throughout Metro Toronto.

I'm going to finish by reading a commentary from one tenant, a Mr Frederick Hood, himself a resident in Metro Toronto housing. Mr Frederick Hood said the following: "I'm going to tell you something. It's a very sorrowful sight that you have to live around. One of my children lost one of their eyes because the crack dealers used to throw their beer bottles and their syringes out in front of my house. I couldn't let my children go out. At that particular time, they were four years old, six years old, eight years old and a 15-year-old boy.

"Do you know what it's like to see your grandchildren go out in front of their house and you can't leave them out there? They get threatened to be kidnapped or people threaten to steal them. They took my daughter, as I said to you earlier, and they raped her for four days. She set herself on fire. They had to go to the nut house." That's the only place for her. "I've had custody of the children ever since. You don't know how frustrated and how angry I feel."

Mr Hood goes on to explain that his way of fighting back was to start a drug line for children in this specific Metro Toronto housing project, that he's trying to help the many children who are flocking to Toronto and hiding. He went on to suggest, as we received, that these kids are running from all over Ontario and coming to Toronto. I'm still quoting:

"They end up in Toronto housing because they can blend in, because everybody there is too scared to say anything. If you think these children run away and have safe hideaways -- no way. MTHA is the only place you can go. You can hide anybody you want in there, and that's a shame. There are a lot of good tenants in Ontario housing, a lot, but they are victimized and they are terrorized."

In the final analysis, during Mr Hood's deputation, he pleaded with the members of the committee, in particular the six members of the NDP caucus who were hijacking this bill. He said that the two criminals who raped his daughter for four days were charged with forcible confinement and assault. They spent between 60 and 90 days behind bars, but today those two criminals are still the next-door neighbours in that Metro Toronto housing complex.

We plead with you, my colleague Mr Runciman and members of the Conservative caucus, to please allow this bill to come forward so that tenants like Frederick Hood and his family will know that this government cares enough about them as victims that it will not allow criminals to enjoy a further leg up, because we've sent a clear signal that in Ontario we do not understand how to correct the problem and to serve the rights of victims in Ontario.

Mr Winninger: I'm pleased to speak to this important issue as well. Perhaps at the outset I could state for the record that I and other government members of the standing committee on justice repeated their concern about the problem with cocaine, with crack and drug crimes, and in fact crimes of all sorts that affect tenants and other people living near dealers of cocaine and crack. At no time did we indicate that we didn't place any weight on the concerns of victims of crime. In fact, we support those victims of crime with their concerns.

What we did say, however, and it was repeated again and again by the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee, is that not only is this bill opportunistic, but it is, in the words of Kenneth Hale of the Tenant Advocacy Group --

Mr Runciman: Baloney. The only ones who said that were political hacks, specifically hacks for the NDP. You're misleading the House.

Mr Winninger: I note the member for Leeds-Grenville is trying to shout me down, but the facts and the Hansard speak for themselves.

Mr Runciman: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville on a point of order.

Mr Runciman: The speaker just said witness after witness said certain things, which is totally inaccurate. Only the front organizations for the NDP gave that line.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Runciman: Only the front organizations for the NDP.

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

Mr Winninger: I didn't expect to speak to this issue today, but the member for Leeds-Grenville was extremely provocative and I am responding.

I obtained a list of the speakers on the various days that the committee had its hearings. Mr Kenneth Hale, member of the Tenant Advocacy Group, South Etobicoke Community Legal Services, a man with experience and knowledge of the Landlord and Tenant Act, described this bill in very clear terms. He called it unconstitutional, he called it unconscionable and he called it unnecessary. For me, that description sums up a lot of the criticism that was advanced towards the bill.

1620

Even Mr Henry Verschuren, manager of legal services for Greenwin Property Management, speaking on behalf of landlords, expressed grave concern that Mr Runciman's act would dilute the powers vested on the court under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the recourse and redress that landlords enjoy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, because under section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, any landlord, where a tenant is committing an illegal act on the premises or disturbing the quiet enjoyment of other tenants or poses a risk of serious harm to other tenants, can serve a notice -- seven days to correct the action -- and then proceed to evict the tenant.

What Mr Verschuren was concerned about was that Mr Runciman's bill, as it was introduced, would override the powers under the Landlord and Tenant Act. You would have to wait until after a conviction to proceed against a drug dealer for carrying out an illegal act. Furthermore, because the proceeding would be brought in criminal court, you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was guilty of the offence, whereas under the Landlord and Tenant Act any landlord can prove on a balance of probabilities that an illegal act has occurred and a landlord can then seek an order to terminate the tenancy and a writ of possession. So even the landlords, who you'd expect to support this bill, had grave concerns about some of the language in which it was couched. Not only was it unnecessary, it's unconstitutional.

The member for Leeds-Grenville introduced an amendment that he hoped would save the bill, and that amendment was that instead of allowing provincial court judges to issue eviction orders in criminal proceedings, he would change that and only judges in the Ontario Court (General Division) would be allowed to issue such eviction orders.

While the member for Leeds-Grenville may have thought that this solved his constitutional problem, because provincial court judges don't have the power to evict tenants, and that's been made quite clear in the 1981 Residential Tenancies Act case, the General Division judges, who do presumably enjoy that discretion to issue orders to evict tenants, only hear approximately 10% of all drug cases. So you'd have 90% of the drug offenders, traffickers and so on coming through the provincial courts, to which this act wouldn't even apply.

They challenged my figures, and when Detective Sergeant Craig Hilborn of the Metropolitan Toronto Police central drug information unit came, at the request of Mr Runciman, he agreed that the majority of cases are dealt with in the provincial courts and this act wouldn't even apply to them. Of the so-called supporters of the bill, and I can think of two of them out of 20 or so who appeared over the course of the two days, one, representing the landlord, was concerned that he was wanting to supersede the Landlord and Tenant Act, which already offered the remedies they need, and the Metro drug sergeant was concerned that the majority of cases wouldn't even be heard by the General Division judges who could issue orders under this legislation.

The vast majority of presenters who appeared before the committee underlined the weaknesses of this statute for a variety of reasons. The tenants, in fact, for whom Mr Runciman introduced this bill, whom he alleges to protect, universally said that this was an attack on tenants. They said that property owners who may be drug dealers or harbour drug dealers wouldn't be affected by it, so why focus on tenants? The suggestion was made that this was for very insidious reasons, that it was to attack tenants. That was their concern.

Many other concerns were expressed about this bill, too numerous to mention here, but just to name a few: What is the point of evicting a convicted drug dealer's family? In many cases, as you know, Mr Speaker, drug dealers may prey on single mothers with families. What purpose does it serve society to evict those families along with the drug dealer? What purpose does it serve society to move a drug dealer on to another neighbourhood? What purpose does it serve to evict drug dealers? They have to live somewhere.

Mr Verschuren of Greenwin Property Management cited an illustration of how one of his landlords evicted a drug dealer from one side of the street and he turned up in another residential complex across the street.

It's foolish and silly for this kind of bill, which for me is only a political statement, to suggest that this is how you stamp out drug dealing. You stamp out drug dealing not by moving drug dealers on to another neighbourhood, not by evicting their innocent families; you deal with it through tough prison sentences. That's the key. No one in government or on the standing committee sitting as a member of government in any way criticizes tough penalties for drug dealers.

What it comes down to is this: We have the member for Leeds-Grenville introducing a private member's bill in the House, and that's of course his right and prerogative, fraught with constitutional problems, unnecessary, as even some of the landlord and police representatives suggest, and unconscionable in that it zeroes in on tenants, for one thing, zeroes in on innocent families of tenants, and doesn't pay any attention to drug dealers, who if they're successful presumably could afford to purchase their own properties.

At the end of the day, the government committee members had to ask themselves, "Is this bill salvageable, notwithstanding the amendments that were introduced?" The overriding opinion of the people who came before the committee, landlords, tenants, members of the public, was that this bill was unnecessary, unconscionable and unconstitutional, and to my view opportunistic. Why should the committee waste this House's time by reporting it back? We listened very carefully to the submissions before the standing committee and the overwhelming opinion before that committee, and Mr Runciman certainly can't refute this, spoke in opposition to the bill.

Mr Jackson: That's misleading. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South on a point of order.

Mr Jackson: The point of order is simply this, Mr Speaker: The speaker opposite is quoting the overwhelming majority. The truth is that the Toronto housing authority is the largest tenant organization in all of Canada, and they and their tenants and their directors presented support for this bill. So the member's comments are misleading and I bring that to the House's attention.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for London South may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Winninger: Just to complete my remarks, quite clearly Hansard will speak for itself. When you read Hansard in its totality --

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In fairness, the word "misleading" is not allowed in this House. I don't think we can skip by that or we're going to get ourselves into trouble. I think the member should withdraw that word.

The Acting Speaker: The member is not even on the right side. Would the honourable member have withdrawal, please.

Mr Jackson: I thought I raised it in a point of order, and I didn't raise it during debate.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: No, I raised it as a point of order; I didn't raise it in debate.

The Acting Speaker: Do you wish to withdraw it? I did not particularly hear the emphasis on "misleading." If you did say "misleading," it is not parliamentary.

Mr Jackson: I'll withdraw it.

1630

Mr Winninger: In conclusion, the remarks made by the presenters before the standing committee will speak for themselves. Those members of the House who choose to take the time to review the record in Hansard will see indisputable evidence opposing Bill 20, not just from tenants, not just from members of the public, but also from landlords; and, actually, evidence from the police staff that they had grave concerns that this would just move a drug dealer from one neighbourhood to another.

In sum, I think it entirely appropriate that the report was phrased the way it was to the House. I hope members will not be swayed by some of the comments made by the member for Burlington South and the member for Leeds-Grenville which would suggest a pattern of events and evidence that simply did not occur.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I don't plan to speak long, perhaps five minutes at the most, but I feel obligated to stand and talk a little about Yorkview and the experience at Jane and Finch, the experience that has plagued us, quite frankly, for a long time.

I must say, we're no longer plagued. The Jane and Finch community has certainly improved. The most recent statistics at 31 Division, I understand, are that almost 50% of the crime related to drugs has been reduced over the last three years. It's been reduced for a number of reasons.

(1) Some of the drug dealers who had plagued the community have now moved to a different location, a different area of the city. You'll note from some reports from the police department that this in essence has happened.

(2) Prevention and early intervention have been wonderful in my riding of Yorkview. We are now able to get to those who are addicted to the substance, those who need the most help, those who are most vulnerable and need some rehabilitation. That's happening throughout Yorkview. That, in my opinion, is a response to one of the members on the other side who said this government isn't doing anything. This government has spent more money at the corner of Jane and Finch and in Yorkview over the last three years than any other government has spent on early intervention and drug rehabilitation or any of the education components that are attached to all of this in our schools.

Mr Stockwell: What's your point?

Mr Mammoliti: The member asks, "What's your point?" My point is that this government has reacted and has reacted in a positive way, has given us the moneys that are necessary to try to get those statistics down, and it has worked. We keep hearing about MTHA. The fact is that this government gave MTHA, if I'm not mistaken, well over $600,000 to renovate its lobbies and to put in security systems and to put in new locks and new doors and the upgraded panels, which has worked in Yorkview, has worked at Jane and Finch. When the member says this government hasn't done anything, I say to him that he doesn't know exactly what the government's done. As a matter of fact, it's because of this government's initiatives that the crime related to drugs in Yorkview has gone down almost 50% in the last three years.

Having said that, that doesn't mean I don't support the member. If you talk to any of the experts around drug addiction or anybody who's involved with enforcement, they will tell you there are two components attached to trying to deal with these problems. One certainly is the early intervention and prevention aspect. Of course enforcement is the other. Enforcement in Yorkview has worked tremendously. The police department in Yorkview has taken a new approach and has done that for the last three years, and it's worked. You see a lot of them walking around trying to mingle, trying to talk with people, trying to find out who those drug dealers are and who the people who need the help are. The enforcement component in terms of how the police department is fighting those dealers and how it's actually working together with the judicial system to evict some of these people has worked to a degree.

That's where I would agree with this particular suggestion. Enforcement is important, and the government has tackled it as much as it can or to a degree where perhaps it can't any more; maybe there's some movement around there. But in terms of early intervention and prevention, we've done it.

Now it's time to act on the enforcement aspect of this. This is where I agree with this component. If we don't become vocal and if we don't become aware of what's been happening -- not only in the MTHA complexes, I must tell you, but also some of the private buildings. I can tell you that in Yorkview MTHA has pretty much been cleaned up in comparison to some of the privately owned buildings that currently are plagued with the problem. Having said that, you must understand that while I was an employee of MTHA and also represented well over 1,000 employees at MTHA at one point, I stood firm on the enforcement aspect of what was happening there. It's not only an MTHA problem; it's a problem that exists within the system.

While some people will advocate that these technicalities might be an issue when it comes to eviction, I've been saying that we can't afford to wait for these types of technicalities when we talk about drug dealers. Drug dealers are in essence taking over some of our buildings in some of our communities. Jane and Finch was certainly one of them. Two years ago, if you drove along Jane Street to the corner of Jane and Finch, you would know exactly who the dealers were and who weren't. The dealers were those who were hanging around the lobbies, hanging around the corridors and of course intimidating those who were walking back and forth.

The question is posed, what does this do for that particular situation? From what I understand of the legislation that's being talked about here tonight, if somebody gets convicted of dealing drugs, that person could get evicted a lot easier than under what currently exists.

The benefit I see in that is that I would not put any drug dealer over any of the kids in our community or any of the children who have been witness to some of the dealings that have been going on. The quicker you deal with something, the quicker you react to that particular problem, in whatever way you react, the better it is for those children and those families. In some of the units I've seen over the last three years around Metro -- around Ontario, for that matter -- I know drug dealers take over some of the empty units. We used to have to board up some of these units the drug dealers used to take over and sell their crack in. Crack houses is what they were called.

This might separate those dealers, for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever -- and I must make that very clear. Those who believe we should have sympathy for those dealers because perhaps they're on some sort of substance themselves -- there are a lot of people who think drug dealers are actually addicted to some sort of drug. Most of the dealers out there don't even touch the stuff and don't sell it for that reason. As a matter of fact, most of the dealers who are out on the streets in Metro and other parts of the province and other parts of the world, for that matter, are very much in control and know exactly what they're doing. Why? Because it's very profitable.

1640

Mr Jackson: Don't you think they should evict them?

Mr Mammoliti: The question is, should we evict the drug dealers and should there be a mechanism or a way of doing it a little more quickly, expeditiously? The answer is yes. I believe that we need to, for a number of reasons. I think that we need to do it because we need to save some of those children, some of those kids whom I have referred to earlier. I also believe that we need to send a very strong message to those dealers. Those dealers must know that we as a government, we as a society, aren't going to accept what these drug dealers are doing to our children. Unless we find a mechanism or a way of doing that, it's not going to happen.

There are some arguments that will be given -- I'm sure they were given at committee -- in terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act being that avenue, that mechanism to be able to get rid of these particular tenants. I can tell you that in my experience -- again, I note that I represented well over 1,000 workers in MTHA, and I said this about six or seven years ago and I'm saying it now -- MTHA and some of the other buildings across the province have had a difficult time evicting some of the people for those reasons. Why? Because they found that there may have been some sort of a technical difficulty in the judicial system, and for that reason the problems continued. The workers who were on the sites at one point asked me for bulletproof vests. I can remember advocating for bulletproof vests at a time when there were problems on those sites and other sites across the province.

Those concerns were legitimate. I mean, if you talked to some of the workers who worked in some of these buildings, they would tell you very directly that they were afraid to change a lightbulb because every time they would move the chandelier, every time they'd move one of the ceiling tiles, a gun would be pointed at their face because that's where the drug dealers would hide their substance. They'd watch them through the peepholes.

So for those of you who don't think that it's a problem, I must tell you that it is and that we need to deal with it. The Landlord and Tenant Act is good for a lot of people. But when you're talking about drug dealers, the Landlord and Tenant Act does not go far enough, in my opinion. We need to send a very loud message. Call me right-wing, call me whatever you want, with this debate. I must tell you that we have to agree to disagree on this one, because I know that there's a problem. We need to send that message.

Again, I'm in support of it. But please, over there, across the floor, don't think that we're supporting it for the same reasons. I think that you're supporting this because you're hungry. You want to eat people. You want to be able to mulch them up and spit them out. I'm supporting it because I really think that the main objective here is to deal with the problem as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm very concerned it would happen in this committee -- and I just noticed they spelled St Catharines incorrectly in a government publication here; it's something those of us from St Catharines always object to -- that the government members would in fact be voting down this bill. The committee report is disappointing, because I thought we were getting to a position where there was a consensus being reached on many issues.

The member for Leeds-Grenville has certainly been a long-time advocate of very tough legislation in the field of justice, and there are many of us, I think in all parties, who are very concerned when we see some of the lawbreaking activities that are taking place. I thought the effort that he put forward in this bill to ensure that we would have a regime where we could deal with drug dealers in an appropriate fashion was a good initiative.

One of the problems we notice from the news media, and some members have seen it perhaps on a more firsthand basis, is the problem encountered by people who are struggling within a large housing complex, for instance, to keep the drug dealers out. If anybody thinks they're welcome people, they're not. I think of people, particularly perhaps single-parent families in many cases, where there's a real effort being made by whichever parent it is to look after the children, to keep the children sheltered from those who are breaking the law. The initiative on the part of the member for Leeds-Grenville was in fact designed to tackle that problem, particularly within rental units where there is access in terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act and landlord-tenant issues.

I know the government members are concerned about this as well. I'm not a person who believes that all of the concern rests on this side of the House. So I was surprised that the government members would not agree to this legislation. They would not allow for the bill to proceed, at least for further debate and consideration in this House.

The issue is a genuine issue. The issue is one that is affecting not only the young people but family units as well as young people and older people become addicted to drugs. We can see the damage that is done to the individual in our society when drugs are provided to these people. We can see a life which could be a positive life, a constructive life, being turned in the wrong direction because these people are introduced to drugs.

We know that many people in these developments, the overwhelming majority in housing developments, don't want the drug dealers around. They think it's a bad atmosphere, it gives a bad name to the complex, and it is illegal activity taking place, and those who are affected by the drugs are often carrying out crimes which are of a violent nature or that are taking property from those who don't have very much in the first place and are struggling to make ends meet.

That is why I'm concerned when I hear the report that the government members, it appears -- I can't verify this -- on a partisan basis, because the legislation happened to be initiated by a member of the opposition, were prepared to vote against it. As we know, when the government members are told by the whip to vote against something, that legislation is as good as dead, because the government has a majority on virtually all the committees. So it must be disconcerting to people in this House, because we hear all three party leaders and representatives of the three parties say that we would like to see a circumstance in this House where the partisan background of a person presenting a piece of legislation or a resolution doesn't matter so much, but rather the content of that resolution or that bill.

There may be times when I am in disagreement with the member for Leeds-Grenville. We've both been in the House a long period of time. We've agreed on many occasions; we've disagreed on some occasions. But I'm not about to endorse a situation where people would vote against his bill because he happens to be a member of another political party. I don't think that speaks to what people who are watching today and who read Hansard, the many thousands who read Hansard -- I don't think that's a situation that they're looking forward to. They're looking for consensus-building. They're looking for people from various political parties to work together on an issue.

So I express genuine concern that the government would vote against this bill. It may not be a perfect piece of legislation. Some members on the government side have pointed out that there may be some deficiencies in it, but surely those can be corrected, surely the bill can be amended, surely the attitudes can be modified and this legislation would then be acceptable to all members of the House. But if it's simply a matter of trying to get credit for something, I think we delay unnecessarily when we could have had the bill proceed.

1650

I was not a member of this particular committee, so I don't believe it's my right to speak at great length on this issue and I don't intend to, but I did want to get on record my concern that we had an opportunity to deal with drug dealers in the rental housing situation and that is not going to happen as a result of the government members on the committee voting against this legislation. I hope they'll reconsider and I hope that today this debate will persuade them that they should allow the legislation to proceed, even if it has to be modified to a certain extent.

Mr Stockwell: I would wholeheartedly endorse many of the comments with respect to this piece of legislation. Obviously, the number one concern was outlined by not only the members for Leeds and Burlington South and St Catharines but also the member for Bruce. It is respect for the process that's involved.

It seems to me that a majority of members of this Legislature referred a piece of legislation off to a committee to examine and hear public deputations upon it. That committee, I believe, has a responsibility to report out on any bill. Reporting out means giving the majority of the people in this Legislature an opportunity to weigh the comments that were made and weigh the recommendations of a specific committee report.

Having the six members, as the member for Bruce suggested, unilaterally taking that right away from a majority of legislators, who in fact requested this bill be put to committee, in my opinion certainly circumvents, if not usurps, the democratic process we were entrusted to uphold.

I don't know how those six members, and I look across the floor and I see some of them, think or understand or feel that they can make a decision separate, distinct and different from what a majority of members of this Legislature asked them to do. That's the first point. I don't know how that serves the democratic process and I'm not quite certain of the rationale they would use when defending that process.

If you listen to the member for London South, who I think is absolutely dead wrong on this issue, but that's beside the point, not once did he enter into the real substance of the debate. Why was it killed at committee of six? Because he thought that was worthy of this legislation when a majority of the members opposite thought it was an important piece of legislation.

The other particularly galling point that I think was brought up, and I wish the member for London South were here --

Hon Mr Charlton: He is here.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I'm sorry; that he is. He was not in his seat. The other particularly galling point that the member for London South seems to offer up on a regular basis is snippets of information. He offers snippets of what a deputant or a witness will say when appearing before a committee. Once again, in what I find to be typical NDP fashion, they take snippets of information thoroughly and totally out of context and build a house of cards out of it. When you go and examine what they've said they're building this foundation on, the foundation is seriously flawed and very, very short on documentation and evidence that was offered up by the witnesses.

I have no time for this kind of public process or usurping of the democratic process, no time whatsoever. I have no time for drug dealers; I have no time for this issue. They're everywhere in Metropolitan Toronto and certainly probably outside of Metropolitan Toronto. To make the comment that the member for London South suggested, that the vast majority of people appearing before him unanimously, in some cases -- he said "unanimously." People appeared before him to tell us that this piece of legislation was flawed and in fact supported the government knocking it down and in some instances said there wasn't a problem.

I say to the member for London South, if you don't think there is a problem, you are so out of touch it's incredible. You're absolutely, categorically and thoroughly out of touch with what's going on in the real world. If you could tell me in London South that you don't have a drug problem, that you don't have a drug problem in MTHA housing projects, then I say to you, Mr Speaker, what we need is to educate this member for London South, not in the pristine walls of this House or in the committee rooms we meet in; we must educate him in those housing projects, in Jane and Finch, in Willowridge, in Scarborough and in these outposts right across this province of Ontario.

Drug dealers and drugs are taking over entire neighbourhoods. People are frightened to come out of their homes for fear of being shot, killed. They don't allow their children out for fear that these kids won't be safe. Entire, complete neighbourhoods are under seige. What we need to do to educate the obviously uninformed member for London South, who attributed remarks earlier, what we need to do to educate members such as him, is to get them out on to those streets to see what kind of awful conditions people are asked to live in because of drug dealers.

If the comments from Hansard were brought out and distributed to the people in MTHA housing projects -- not just MTHA but in housing projects, period, that are overrun with drug dealers; not just apartment buildings but neighbourhoods, houses, where they've shut down streets from fear; drug dealers have shut down entire streets -- if they were to hear this kind of socialist pap, the absolute garbage that came out of this member's mouth in the committee about double jeopardy, that it somehow put these people into double jeopardy when they lose their apartments, it wouldn't take a minute of time before he would be absolutely accosted from all angles by the people he purports to represent, along with his government, suggesting in here, "Once they serve their sentence, once they're ready to re-enter society, why should they not have a residence to go back to?" This is aside from all the other concerns about them moving on to other residences and plying their trade elsewhere if that's their inclination.

That's the kind of stuff at committee you've got to listen to from a member who is so completely out of touch he actually believed the Parkdale legal aid clinic, which is nothing but a front; the fact is it's a front for the NDP, nothing but a front. They came in and had the gall to suggest there was no drug problem in Parkdale. How can we, in good conscience, who travel back and forth going through Parkdale on a daily basis, even begin to lend credibility to the kind of comment, "There is no drug problem in Parkdale"? This person is clearly and absolutely so wrong, it's incredible how wrong they could be, that there is no drug problem in Parkdale.

Another shill who came in representing the NDP, and the member from Leeds may remind me about the person who came in representing another grass-roots group, suggested -- get this; this is what they suggested -- that rather than trying to evict the drug dealer from his residence and terrifying floors and floors in apartments and neighbourhoods, what the community should do -- get this; this is actually representative of the people whom this member heard from, who he thinks are representative of the community -- this person who came before us as a witness suggested that the community should get together and have a meeting with the drug dealer to talk him out of dealing any more drugs.

Mr Runciman: That's the same guy.

Mr Stockwell: That's this Parkdale legal aid clinic; the same guy who said there wasn't a problem. He said the best way to solve it isn't with law enforcement, isn't with cleaning out the drug dealers and the nests that are all over this community; we are supposed to expect the community to organize a group to go and meet with the dealer and tell him why he should close up shop and not deal any more drugs. This is the stuff the member for London South puts his faith in when he gets asinine, hare-brained attempts at logic and leaps of faith that come out of the Parkdale legal aid clinic. That's just a joke, that anyone could sit there and listen to that garbage and then bring it forward in this House as if it were some kind of legitimate person coming forward and offering concrete, reasoned argument against this kind of legislation.

1700

The other point I want to make very clear is that he took time at great length to quote -- I have his name here; I'm sorry, it's a difficult name -- Mr Kuszelewski with respect to representing the property management companies and the fact that they are opposed to the legislation brought forward by the member from Leeds.

What the member for London South did not do, which is typical of the member for London South, is provide all the concrete data offered by this person in terms of what he thought of the legislation. This is what I'll do for you. He suggested that this was a bad bill and should not be passed? That can't be any further from the truth. Again, he takes a snippet of information and builds a paper house and tells us that property managers and property management companies are opposed to this piece of legislation. You can't use the word "misleading," so I won't, but that is just fundamentally without basis in fact.

He said: "Having an opportunity to review Bill 20, I can indicate to this committee that it is of prime importance respecting the protection of victims of drug offences and offences related thereto. There is little enough legislation in this province to defend the safety of innocent persons from this type of plague."

He's suggesting to you, I say to the member for London South -- and I don't have to tell you, because you know this. You simply chose to have selective amnesia and not quote this kind of stuff.

I'll read on: "As someone continuously involved in the judicial procedures now available regarding residential tenancy law, I would be remiss if I did not include herein some suggestions to expand upon and improve those current procedures through Bill 20."

The bottom line is that he says that maybe it's not a perfect piece of legislation, but he offered changes that would make it better, and that this is the kind of legislation we need to help those people in their fight against the cockroaches who are the drug dealers in our community and get rid of them, out of the buildings and out of the communities they're infecting. In my opinion, the member for London South was totally unwarranted and unfair, the way he took the positions put forward by this witness and twisted them, in his typical socialist ideology, to build a paper house that doesn't have a foundation worthy of debating.

In conclusion, he said, "Without Bill 20, the ability of landlords to successfully curtail the criminal element in residential settings is in some circumstances limited."

It's shameful, first of all, that six members of the government would take something that a majority of the members of this Legislature asked them to review and kill a piece of legislation without giving us the opportunity to vote on it, when we simply asked you as a committee to deal with the deputations involved. Finally, to warp and provide misinformation with respect to the deputations you heard is equally disgraceful.

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is the largest housing authority in this province, and they came in and told you these problems exist and that this kind of legislation is a step in the right direction. To offer up anything less than real concern among tenants, real concern among landlords and real concern among police officers who are trying to patrol these problems is despicable, in my opinion -- typical but despicable.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I just wanted to add a couple of concerns from the perspective of a community that is not necessarily within Metro Toronto, although I understand the comments made by the previous speaker and the concern around the MTHA. We as well, of course, have numerous areas in our community that cause some concerns with regard to this issue.

But what I find most interesting, not having been on the committee, is to see the result of committee hearings spilling out on the floor of this place, which clearly shows me that the predetermination of the government members on that committee was likely made before any of the deputations or witnesses came before the committee. That's unfortunate.

This takes me back. Some members will know I've suggested for some time in the past that we take a look at changing the process at committee and doing what I refer to as inverse legislation, which would mean that a private member or a government member could introduce a piece of legislation into a committee and it could actually be taken seriously at the committee. Government members, if it were an opposition piece of legislation, could put forward amendments. They could get, without having the situation driven by the party whip, of any of the three parties -- you could actually have an open and honest dialogue.

It seems to me that this particular bill, put forward in a spirit of getting tough with drug dealers in the province, not just in the city of Toronto -- because as I and others have said on numerous occasions, this is not the province of Toronto; this is the province of Ontario. There are problems with our young people being lured into drugs everywhere in this province. I don't care where you go. You don't have to deal only in Toronto or in Mississauga or in Richmond Hill or in London. Go into northern Ontario and take a look at the problems we find in isolation, where there are kids who are being dragged into drugs, into abuse. This bill, it seemed to me, was put forward in a spirit of zero tolerance for drug dealers anywhere in the province, and what better way to use the law than to give people the authority to reject having drug dealers living in their community? We're simply going to turf them out.

The thing we tend to forget is that sometimes the message is more important than the actual bill or legislation. I find it passing strange that we would all endorse a policy of zero tolerance around violence in our schools, that if we have a young person in our school who's caught with a weapon, that's it, they're gone, they're out -- I've heard members of the NDP caucus, and the recent by-election was probably a good opportunity to test some of the policies, saying they support the Scarborough Board of Education's policy of zero tolerance. I've heard some debate on that. I've certainly heard the Tories and our caucus saying similar things, although we've expressed concerns about what happens to the young people when you simply transfer them from one school board and send them out -- you can't put them in another one. They wind up at home. They wind up breaking into our houses.

Here we have a situation where there appears to be, on a broad-based level, support for zero tolerance against violence in our schools, yet we wind up on the first day returning in this place debating what in essence is a policy of zero tolerance against drug pushers in our communities, and we have a government-dominated committee rejecting that? I'm astounded at that. I had hoped we were going to get into the debate on the credit union issue legislation, Bill 134 that's put forward today.

Hon Mr Charlton: So was I.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sure you were. It's astounding, I say to the House leader opposite, who must be aware of what goes on in committee, to find that the six government members of this committee would simply leave this bill to float for ever and never come into this place, because that's in essence what they do when they don't report it. They didn't vote against it. They just kill it. They use the process that is available to them in this place to kill the legislation.

I heard the member for London South try to portray the fact that the Landlord and Tenant Act that exists in this province has more teeth than the justice system. Ask landlords what they can do to evict a tenant in the province of Ontario. Ask any of them. With the stalling and the games that can go on, that tenant could be there for ever. So don't try to kid us that under the Landlord and Tenant Act, if a landlord determines that a drug pusher lives in their community, all they have to do is issue them an eviction notice and boom, they're out of there. We know that's not true. We know from history that's simply not true.

1710

There may be some legitimate reasons in the past, and there have been, to provide protection for tenants. Indeed, our government was part of many proposals that would do that, but we're talking about drug pushers here. Even if the legislation as proposed by the member from the Conservative caucus wasn't 100% enforceable, my point is, it's the message you send out there that is the important thing.

Last week or the week before, I was in Sault Ste Marie and I was invited to a meeting --

Mr Elston: Your home town.

Mr Mahoney: My home town, where I was born, thank you very much. I have many relatives all over this province but we won't go through that.

But I was invited to a meeting at the Ontario Lottery Corp because there have been a lot of complaints recently about the fact that Bill 92 -- which members will remember was the private member's bill that made it illegal to sell lottery tickets to kids under the age of 18. The concern has been expressed that the bill is not being enforced and kids are still buying those tickets and playing Pro Line gambling. I know that's true.

Does that mean we should not have passed that bill? Does that mean that we should not have sent a message out to the young people and to the retailers and to the lottery corporation? Does that mean that it's okay for young people to gamble on professional sports in our corner stores? Does that mean it's okay to turn our corner stores into bookie joints? None of that is acceptable just because it's hard to enforce. Because it's hard to enforce the selling of tobacco products to our young people, does that mean that we shouldn't have a law that says it's illegal to do that? I would certainly hope not.

I think in this place we have to pass legislation that sends a message out there, that sets a standard out there. The standard is that it's not acceptable in our society to have our kids spending their lunch money gambling, that it's not acceptable out there to see our kids buying cigarettes and smoking cigarettes and I think clearly a message that would be equally if not more appropriate is that it's not acceptable for drug pushers to infect our young people with their particular way of life. If this bill just had one little chance of sending a message out there that says we are going to have zero tolerance for drug pushers, whether it's in our MTHA properties, whether it's in our Peel Non-Profit Housing properties, whether it's anywhere in our community, we are going to seek ways to destroy drug pushers from continuing to operate in our society.

I just don't understand any kind of logic other than the mindless partisanship that has been shown by the six members and to have them actually stand up in this place and try to defend that nonsense is really quite remarkable. It's particularly remarkable to see an NDP try to defend that because we have seen the sanctimonious debates over the years where these same people have tried to pretend that they are the defenders of the little guy, that they are the only ones who believe in family morals, that they are the only ones who care about work for our youth and our young people, that they are the only ones who care about reforming our education system, and we've simply seen that is not the case. It appears the emperor has no clothes and this government has no moral leadership when it can ignore a legitimate concern.

If you didn't agree with the way that the member from Leeds-Grenville was putting forth his case, why wouldn't you make an amendment or two? Why wouldn't you sit down with the member and say: "We think you're going to an extreme here and it won't work. We think that the courts will declare it unconstitutional and it won't work. We agree with the principle that's stated in the bill that we have zero tolerance against drug pushers selling drugs to our young people in our housing developments in this province right across the province"?

I'm sure there are serious problems in Windsor, in Ottawa, in Sault Ste Marie, in Thunder Bay. I'm sure it exists everywhere. Just talk to some of the young people. We see the young person who comes out today. It's interesting: I was at a luncheon for the YMCA in the past couple of weeks and the guest speaker was Ken Dryden, former commissioner for young people in this province and a well-known --

Mr Stockwell: He's running for you, isn't he?

Mr Mahoney: That's right. He may well run for us at some point. We would welcome him with open arms.

Mr Stockwell: He's running for us too.

Mr Mahoney: You'd like him to run for you, but I can tell you that he's probably not going to do that.

In any event, his point, which was quite interesting, was that when you go and visit the schools, you see these young people in the schools and at first blush you meet them and they've got -- he talked about one fellow who is in science who had metal parts protruding from various parts of his body; rather odd, rather strange. To look at this young person you would think you've got a very strange individual on your hands. He then got to talk to this young person, talked to the teachers and found out that they had a science major inside this unusual clothing and way of portraying himself.

My point is that we have a lot of tremendous talent within our schools and within our youth communities. Too often we hear about the young offenders. Too often we hear about the mass murders and the problems and the drugs and everything else, when the fact is -- having three young people of my own I'm attempting to help kickstart their lives -- I believe the vast majority of our young people are honest, decent, hardworking, caring, moral. They have higher moral standards today, in many cases, than we had when we were their age.

I suggest that we have an obligation to set standards for those young people, to say to them, "We're going to give you a chance in life even though we know we can't give you a job right now," even though we would encourage our young people to stay in school as long as possible because there simply isn't work out there for them, and they're better off to focus on some training and on improving their chances whenever we can get an opportunity to get this economy rolling again, which may begin in about, I'm guessing 12 months or maybe less when Mr Rae and Mr Mills and others decide that they're prepared to go back to the people and talk to the people about their vision of how they -- and do you know what? When we go back to the people, I hope that this issue becomes a real issue right in the schools and in the communities. I hope that anybody who runs is prepared to stand up and say, "I not only believe in zero tolerance for violence, but I believe in zero tolerance for one of the root causes of violence in this province, and that's drug abuse."

Drug abuse is something, I can tell you, that when you see the problems that people have today in getting jobs, you see single mothers worried, they send their kids out every day, you go into some of the complexes -- I had a situation a couple of years ago in a community known as Roche Court in Mississauga where the tenants came to me and said: "We have a real problem. We've got a lot of violence and we've got drug pushers in our community. What can we do about it?"

We developed a plan where we, through city council's efforts, decided to take back the community, away from the criminals who were the dominating lifestyle in Roche Court. We convened public meetings. We got people involved. We had Saturday morning cleanups. We had activity days that we organized in this complex. We changed, for at least a short time, the attitude and we actually turned it around where the drug pushers and the criminals were afraid to stick their noses out in the community instead of the decent folk afraid to go out at night or even in the daytime. So it can be done.

There are other examples in my own community and in my own city where we've gone out and collectively, through working with the community, taken back the streets and made it safe for women and for children and for everybody to enjoy themselves in that community. So much of it is attitude. So much of it is the message that you want to send out.

In closing, let me just say I think we have to reinforce the attitude that as legislators, as leaders in our community we are not going to tolerate this kind of thing. It could be so simple if a legislative committee would simply put its partisan hat aside and stop the bickering and stop the hate that seems to manifest itself in some of these debates and take a look at the real issue: Do we care about drug pushers being in our communities?

Do we think this will get rid of them? No, it won't. There's absolutely no doubt that this particular private member's bill will not eliminate drug pushers either in MTHA housing units or in any housing unit or community, but it is one small step where we could all unite, as we did on Bill 52 with our kids' gambling. We united in this place and in six days we passed a private member's bill that said: "We're not going to allow that. We're going to send a message that says gambling by our young people is not acceptable."

Why could we not do the same thing when it comes to drug pushers anywhere in this province? I think it's most unfortunate. It is indicative, however, of the attitude that permeates the government backbenchers when they go into committees with these particular pieces of legislation. Instead of looking at what is good and positive and wholesome to revitalize the family unit in our communities, they look at what is partisan from their point of view and they make their decisions on that basis.

They should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting this bill into the House for good, wholesome debate and for amendments to be put forward so that we could indeed tell our young people that we care about their future and we are not going to tolerate drug pushers in our communities for one second.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate? Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it. Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1722 to 1752.

The Acting Speaker: Would the members please take their seats.

Mr Marchese has moved the adoption of the report of the standing committee on administration of justice with regard to Bill 20. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Crozier, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 53 and the nays being 29, I declare this motion carried.

Mr Runciman: Madam Speaker, on a point of privilege of all members of the House and of the province of Ontario: We were talking about the new member who recently won the by-election in Victoria-Haliburton and the member for Scarborough Centre, the chair of the NDP caucus, asked where the new member was and had he packed his white robes yet. I think that's the sort of remark that has to be drawn to the attention of the Chair, because it's the sort of remark that is insulting not only to members of this House, not only to members of this party, but to people right across this province. That sort of attitude from the chair of the NDP caucus --

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

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the members take their seats, please.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Mahoney, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 141, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member have any statement with regard to this bill?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): This is private member's legislation that was referred to earlier today in question period in asking the Premier to adopt this legislation, which would amend Bill 40, the labour relations amendment act. It would allow private rail operators in the Barrie-Collingwood area, but indeed anywhere in the province, to be able to acquire the spur lines that are being closed by CN, or by CP for that matter, and would deal with successorship rights, which is section 64 under the labour relations act, Bill 40. It would allow these people to save jobs in that community and keep the spur line in operation.

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

The House adjourned at 1800.

21 mars 1994