Journal des débats 1994-avril-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to speak about an industry in my riding that employs a number of my constituents, namely, the makers of Bacardi rum. Those jobs, and the 10,000 other jobs that are available throughout Canada, are in jeopardy, and they're in jeopardy because of smuggling.

The smuggling takes place because the taxation of spirits in this country is so high. Nearly 83% of the price of spirits in this country, of which 60% belongs to the Bob Rae government, is put on to a bottle of spirits.

This industry, which is one that employs a number of people and certainly generates a significant amount of activity in this province, something in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion a year, is one that needs to be protected.

I urge the Treasurer in his upcoming budget to consider at least a minimal reduction. I'm told by sources in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario that 10% would be significant, would allow the industry to continue to compete.

When one recognizes the fact that Canadian Club, which is made in Windsor, Ontario, sells in Chicago -- a litre and a half of that spirit sells for about $15 or $16. The equivalent price you would pay here in Ontario for that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 to $55.

One can understand with that type of taxation, that type of increase in price, why the spirits industry in this country and in this province specifically is suffering, and perhaps to the detriment of those 10,000 jobs or the jobs in this province and my riding.

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today I am pleased to pay tribute to the winners of the World Junior Women's Curling Championship. After rebounding from a 7 to 4 deficit, this Unionville team beat out the United States by 10 to 7 to claim victory at the junior curling championships in Bulgaria. The secret to their success was a combination of experience, youthful enthusiasm and a love of curling.

This solid gold team was made up of skip Kim Gellard, vice Corie Beveridge, second Lisa Savage and lead Sandy Graham. Their team was later joined in the winner's circle by Colin Davison's Edmonton team, which grabbed the junior men's title. The championship sweep was the first for Canada since 1988 and the first world junior triumph for a Canadian team since 1989.

Our community shares their excitement, having watched them come so close in previous finals, but this team never let their losses daunt them and they continued to play and practise, honing their skills that assured them victory this year.

It is a great honour to commend these players for their hard work and love of sport and the love of their community and their country. This is a victory that is a great win for this team, it is a great win for Markham and it is a great win for Canada.

WILSON BROOKS

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise in the House today to commemorate a great Canadian, a contributor to the Canadian culture, an educator, a historian, a veteran, a black man, a man worth knowing.

Mr Wilson Brooks was born in Windsor. He received a BA degree from the University of Toronto and a bachelor of education from the Ontario College of Education. He was a teacher, the first black principal in Ontario schools, in Toronto schools. His community leadership experiences included the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Black History Society and the Toronto Urban Alliance on Race Relations. He was a part of the fair employment practices advisory committee and later-life learning at Innis College at the University of Toronto.

My voice and the emotion in it speaks to the fact that this was a friend. This was a person who gave a great deal to Ontario and to Canada, and yesterday this man passed away. I rise here today because we have lost a wonderful person: a leader, a Canadian, a black man who was proud of it. I wish that we all recognize his contributions and mourn his loss.

LINHAVEN HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Health Minister Ruth Grier should heed the words of Peter Monk, president of the Linhaven Residents' Council, and family and friends of the Linhaven home in St Catharines who are urging the provincial government to restore the kind of funding to long-term care facilities that will enable the staff to provide the quality of care that is a necessity for vulnerable aged members of our society. I quote from a letter that has been directed to the minister:

"I am writing to you as a concerned and loving wife whose husband suffers from Alzheimer's disease and lives in Linhaven Home for the Aged, St Catharines, Ontario. My husband is unable to manage any aspect of his personal care without complete assistance from staff. He can no longer feed himself or tend to his most personal needs. He can no longer walk or speak. The staff attempt to attend to all aspects of his 24-hour care. Together, staff and family members struggle to couple professional, technical care with love and compassion to give adequate care. It becomes increasingly difficult.

"My letter comes to you with an appeal to address the issue of funding cutbacks to the vulnerable elderly in our society. My concern increases daily as I watch increased staff shortages chipping away at the quality of care my husband receives.

"We must not allow this to continue. Linhaven was, in my opinion, giving excellent care to those residents living there. I now fear for the future of my husband and others."

I urge the minister to take the action urged in this letter.

1340

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Each week innocent victims die in senseless deaths. In fact the illusion of safety for any one of us has been shattered. I have a letter here from the staff, students and faculty of Wilfrid Laurier University.

"Dear Mrs Witmer,

"As students and other members of the...university community, we are writing to you to express our shock and concern at the murder of Joan Heimbecker.... Joan was an alumna of Wilfrid Laurier. She graduated last year with honours, and was the recipient of the prestigious Governor General's Award for academic excellence. She will be sadly missed by all who knew her.

"Unfortunately, incidents like this are occurring all too frequently to Canadian women. The murder of Heimbecker by her ex-boyfriend...indicates to us one more tragic example of the extreme risk that many women face when separating from a partner. We believe all women will continue to be at risk until communities all over this country condemn the violence.

"From our government we expect tougher legislation and a zero-tolerance, hands-on commitment to ending the violence against women. We are angry that women are dying at the hands of people they once loved, and we want to put an end to the violence before there are any more tragedies to remind us that it is indeed an important issue.

"We are sending you this letter, Mrs Witmer...to ask for representation on this issue in the hopes that these concerns be brought to the House on behalf of Joan Heimbecker...."

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I take issue with some of the statements made by the leader of the official opposition in this House last Tuesday. The honourable leader claimed that this government broke its election promise of financial assistance to farmers.

I remind the leader that during the election we promised $50 million in immediate interest relief for the farmers in this province. In 1991 we brought in a one-year interest relief program that distributed over $60 million to more than 12,000 farm families in Ontario.

I would add that, unlike the interest assistance programs of the previous Liberal government, we did not hold back grants from any eligible farm family because the province happened to guarantee a bank loan to the farmer under some other program. In fact the neediest farm families never saw a penny of the money to which they were entitled under the Liberal OFFIRR program.

I take particular pride that not only did the task force consult widely, but the ministry followed up with two workshops and several working groups to which we invited various farmers, including representatives from the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the National Farmers Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, where they took an active role in shaping the agricultural investment strategy. The agricultural investment strategy is a program devised for farmers by farmers.

It's rare indeed for the chair of a task force to see all the task force recommendations implemented so swiftly by this government. I'm very proud to have taken part in that.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I stand to denounce the announcement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs intending to transfer the regional Municipal Affairs office from Ottawa to Kingston.

I find it very, very strange that the minister would make such an announcement without consulting the area municipalities. We're just wondering, from where will the 11 municipalities only in Ottawa-Carleton receive their services from now on? From Kingston. I find it very strange that when you consider the population of the Ottawa-Carleton area, we deserve an office. We deserve an office right in downtown Ottawa, where it exists today. The minister has chosen, without any consultation with the members from the area or even from the minister responsible for Ottawa-Carleton, the Honourable Ms Gigantes, the Minister of Housing -- no consultation.

I realize that the ministry and the government are trying to save dollars, but we would appreciate being consulted when such a major move is being made without any previous announcement. I find this minister uncooperative for the simple reason that he's been telling us that, "Hey, I'm so close to the government of Ottawa-Carleton," yet he doesn't have time to consult with its members.

SPORTS AND RECREATION FUNDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Because of misguided priorities, sport and recreation programs in Ontario have been chronically underfunded by this NDP government. According to one group, Sport Ontario, the government has slashed funding to provincial sport and recreation organizations an average of 24%. The casualties of these cutbacks are often children who can't now afford to participate. It means poor kids can't afford to play hockey.

I have a couple of useful suggestions for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation on this.

First, increase the share of lottery profits to sport and recreation from the unacceptable and meagre level of 8%.

Second, the Ontario Lottery Corp spent $22 million on marketing itself last year, $22 million to inform the public about all the worthy causes which are supported through lottery funds. What the TV ads don't say is that sport and recreation's allocation is only 8% of the lottery corporation's total profits. Why not take that money that you're spending on marketing and instead spend it on recreation programs themselves?

The minister should take to heart the following comments taken from one of the many letters I have received from people concerned about the future of sport and recreation. Steve Thompson, a constituent of mine from Drayton who is a board member of the Ontario Water Ski Association, writes:

"Another cut in funding for sport, combined with reductions in transfers to municipalities, could result in the collapse of the sport system Ontario has built since 1974. And that will leave Ontario a drastically poorer place."

GUELPH INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Recently, the Guelph International Resource Centre held an international development fair. The theme was "Together we can make a world of difference."

I was impressed with many local groups who displayed information about their work in Canada and in developing countries, such as Amnesty International, the El Salvador Project, Guelph Africa Network, Guelph-Jinja Project, which is a municipal twinning project with Uganda, Ontario Worker Co-op Federation, Red Cross Save the Children Canada, a lot of groups.

Guelph's reputation in international work is well known across Canada and around the world. Through many community organizations and the University of Guelph, we have links around the world through overseas projects, partnerships and volunteer work.

Guelph International Resource Centre, or GIRC as it is known, is an umbrella group which networks with community organizations in international development and education.

At this event there were a lot of volunteers who talked about their experiences in working overseas. They learned at first hand of the challenges that developing countries face each day. This opened their eyes to the obscene and shameful waste of valuable resources that wealthy countries take for granted.

They also learned that while Canadians are materially wealthy, we are sometimes comparatively poorer than communities in developing countries in terms of spiritual, cultural, family and community work.

After they saw the entire communities pull together, I think the message of "Together we can make a world of difference" is one that we can all learn from.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Brantford, Mr David Neumann. Welcome.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you are aware, each day the business of the day of this place is printed by the government, titled "Business for" and then the day. I'd like to raise I guess perhaps more a point of privilege than order in relationship to a number of my colleagues, particularly those from the Ottawa community, who yesterday, along with myself, were somewhat surprised to find that a bell began ringing for a vote, a five-minute bell on second reading of Bill 143.

It has been customary and a matter of courtesy for the government House leader for the government of the day to ensure that members in this place receive notice of the business that is to transpire. In yesterday's orders of the day, the business for Monday, April 11, there was no mention of this vote being called. There was no mention in any way whatsoever. A number of members of my caucus, and we have a large representation from the Ottawa area, were not available, were not aware, were taken totally by surprise, I can only assume through a mistake, unless someone from the Ottawa area had some influence on the decision. That's entirely possible.

1350

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mahoney: But it seems to me, Mr Speaker, that having had the government House leader surprise and spring the time allocation motion on this place with no discussion among House leaders, which is also customary, to then spring a surprise of calling a vote on second reading with no notification will only lead to the rather intemperate attitudes that seem to occur in this place from time to time.

I would just like to raise to you, sir, on behalf of all my colleagues but particularly those from Ottawa, for whom Bill 143 is a very major contentious piece of legislation --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham East come to order, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- that for the government House leader to spring a surprise vote with five minutes' notice in this place on a bill of such impact and import in the Ottawa community, where the entire structure of the municipal government is being realigned in that community, and not to afford the opportunity for my colleagues, sir, to be here to vote on that was totally uncalled for. I think that the government House leader, at the very least, owes this House an apology for that action.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): For the member opposite, I do apologize for having neglected -- because he is correct. I did neglect to mention Bill 143 in my business statement on last Thursday evening for this week. However, members opposite should know that we did discuss this matter at the House leaders' meeting with both of the opposition parties last Thursday, and it was clear that the second reading vote had to happen today so that the committee could start on Wednesday. That is precisely what is occurring. The committee had been informed to make its preparations for dealing with the bill in committee starting this Wednesday.

I apologize for having neglected to have mentioned the bill in my business statement, but there was discussion of this matter last Thursday with both of the opposition House leaders.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West and to the government House leader: First, I appreciate the matter that the member has brought to my attention. Indeed, he is right that things run more smoothly in here when there is good communication among the three parties. When there are surprises, then it makes it difficult to maintain a civil atmosphere in which to conduct public business.

The government House leader has apologized for neglecting to include the item on the business paper. The member will know that, unfortunately, as far as he is concerned, there is no point of order. Everything was done properly yesterday. However, a courtesy should have been extended, and it was not. I trust that every effort is always made to ensure that every courtesy possible will be extended to all three parties.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier this morning, I attended a news conference at which the Premier and the Minister of Education and Training were present and in which they made what I consider to be an extremely important announcement concerning the building of a new campus of Seneca College at York University entitled Seneca at York.

If you'll just bear with me for a moment, sir, had the government done the appropriate thing and made an announcement here in ministers' statements, I would have been prepared to stand up and congratulate the government on it and remind the government that the final package would require a subway at York University as well.

I'm wondering, sir, under the order of ministers' statement, why in the world the Minister of Education wouldn't have shared that announcement with the members of the House at some point today, appropriately under ministers' statements.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know he does not have a point of order. However, I'm sure that his words of congratulations are appreciated by the minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I wondered where Bob Rae was. I thought he was out driving that expensive Swiss car of his on Preston Manning's expense account. I'm glad to know that he's up, I'm sure, with the member for Yorkview, who must be happy about that announcement today.

At any rate, my first question is to the Minister of Social Services -- 1,500 bucks a day for a Swiss car. Boy, I'll tell you, my -- anyway, my question is to the Minister of Social Services. I want to follow up with the minister on the discussion that my leader was having with him in this place yesterday about the problems with social assistance in this province. The minister and his government have routinely told the Legislature and the province how it is that they are going to fix this system, and it is quite clear from the data that my leader presented yesterday that the system is broken.

Minister, you took some pains yesterday to say that the backlog in hearing appeals at the Social Assistance Review Board was, in fact, not what was indicated. I have in my hands a ministry document provided to me today which indicates that the average length of time it now takes to get a decision from the Social Assistance Review Board, the provincial panel that decides these matters, is 154 days. That is nearly eight months.

Would you not agree that that evidence alone clearly indicates that your system at the board is broken, and because it is broken it is costing the hard-pressed taxpayers of Ontario tens of millions of additional dollars that need not be spent?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): We could all, I guess, attribute ownership of the system to whomever we'd like, I suppose, depending on who's in government at any particular point in time, but I think the member would, in his heart of hearts, know that in fact the problems that we have in the system are not problems that have just started in the last few years.

I think we indeed agree that there are problems that need to be fixed, and the problem that he particularly pointed to with respect to the Social Assistance Review Board is one of those. He quoted correctly from the memo that he received indicating that 154 working days is the average time. That's about seven to eight months, when you count in the weekend times in there, and that, some may think, is longer than we would like it to be. I believe it's longer than we would like it to be.

There have been, I can tell the member, some increases recently in the social assistance case load in terms of the Social Assistance Review Board as a result of some changes that have been made, and that's something that we are looking at. I think that we can make some improvements, and I've talked with the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board around some possibilities, both with respect to some of the appointment issues that we are going through now and with respect to some of the procedures. I think that there can be improvements made that will reduce the time lines that are there. These are things that we are working on doing.

Mr Conway: There isn't a knowledgeable person in this province who wouldn't agree that this appeal system of yours is punishingly and expensively unacceptable. Let me cite two other data.

According to the information provided by your department to me today, only 33.6% of the cases that go to appeal are in fact granted. We know that under this system you can claim benefits until those decisions are made. So we're paying out millions of dollars to people who are not going to be approved by the appeal board. You know that: 33.6% of those at appeal are granted.

Secondly, you mention previous governments. Well, when the other government was last in office the number of appeals was approximately 4,200 annually. In the year just ended, the number of appeals annually went to 13,000.

I say to you, do not these data make plain that your system is broken, it's hurting legitimate recipients in this system, and it is crucifying the taxpayer? You have promised to fix it --

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

Mr Conway: -- and you have not done so. Will you, Minister, today indicate what steps you're going to take that you have not taken to fix this mess?

1400

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm sorry that I'm not just not up to responding with the same kind of volume that the member opposite decides to ask his question today. Let me just put a few more facts on the table which may actually address the point that I think he's making.

One of those is that I think the member should know better than to conclude that because only 33% of appeals are granted, therefore that means everybody else is receiving assistance during that time, because the reality is that about half of the people who file an appeal receive interim assistance. We need to compare the right figures here.

Secondly, who could argue with statistics? It's quite correct that the number of appeals have increased during the last three years, but compare those to the tremendous increase in the case load and I think you would find that they are not out of whack. In fact, I can tell the honourable member and members of the Legislature that the Social Assistance Review Board has taken a number of steps to improve the delivery of decisions and the speed with which it renders decisions.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Like what?

Hon Mr Silipo: One example that I can cite is in going from three-person panels to one-person panels. That's something that's happened in the last couple of years, and it's directly as a result of steps that have been taken, supported by this government, by the social assistance board to better manage its case load.

There's no denying that there's more work that can be done to continue to improve the situation there, and we're working on that right now.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Let me give you some examples of a system out of whack, of your bungling the job.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Oh, come on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Murphy: No, no. I'll give you some examples: An overpayment of $3,000 to one individual which will take eight and a half years to pay back; an overpayment of $4,400 which will take 12 years to pay back; an overpayment of $4,000 which will take 16 and a half years to pay back; and my unfortunate favourite, an overpayment of $7,000 which at $10 a month will take 58 years to pay back. And why is that? Because the case load, for example, at one of the welfare offices in my riding, for each case worker has doubled while you've been in charge of the ministry.

There is no way they can do a good job with the resources you're giving them. Instead of hiring 270 for after the fact, why don't you fix it up front? Why don't you help make sure that the people who deserve the assistance get the job right, and what are you going to do to fix the bungling job you're doing with the welfare administration?

Hon Mr Silipo: It's really hard to resist. Members across, particularly the Liberal members, have a lot of gall in talking about the issue of overpayments when, as I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, it wasn't until the NDP became the government that there was even any central tracking of the amount of overpayments, and it was specifically under the Liberal government that they decentralized the system to such a point where nobody even knew what was going on in the system, by and large.

We are taking hold of the system. We are trying to get better control over what is going on. We're going to continue to do that, and I would also say to any of the Liberal members, particularly across the way, that if they have a real interest in working with this government to fix the very significant problems that we believe and they agree exist in the system, I would suggest they spend some of that energy in talking to their local MPs and help us to deal with the funding problems that are getting in the way of us doing the kind of fundamental changes that we would like to be able to do.

Interjections.

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

Mr Conway: I don't want to tease the bears, Mr Speaker.

I have a second question. You ought to listen to some of the interjections from the Minister of Housing. She is offending every sensibility that the Attorney General has brought to this legislative debate. I'm just trying to play by Marion's rules, you know. Boy, if I accused anybody of foaming at the mouth, wouldn't I be in the bad books.

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

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question to the Minister of Health: Last week my colleagues Mr Elston and Mr Miclash raised with you in this House their concerns about an ongoing problem all across rural Ontario, in southern and northern Ontario, and that is the maintenance of adequate medical services at emergency departments in those community hospitals.

My colleague the member for Kenora is going to rise shortly and tell you that the situation at Red Lake is not fixed, that in fact the 6,000 people, residents of Ontario, who pay a very considerable level of tax to support a public health care system, cannot be guaranteed that at certain times of the day or week when they now go to their community hospital in that part of northern Ontario, they are in fact going to be able to access a physician at that emergency department.

Minister, what are you doing, as Minister of Health, given your leadership responsibilities, to ensure that at Red Lake and everywhere else across the province the people of Ontario are going to know and be guaranteed that they will have access at all times to the adequate number of physicians in their emergency departments at those community hospitals?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad the member acknowledges that this is a problem all across the province and it has been for quite some time, as governments of all stripes have struggled with how to get physicians to the underserviced areas, and especially how in those areas physicians who are paid on the basis of fee for service can be assured that there will be sufficient remuneration for them to continue to carry out the functions that they have historically provided.

As the member says, the taxpayers of Red Lake pay their taxes, and we the taxpayers contribute significantly for the 6,000 people in Red Lake. There's over $4 million of a hospital and over $1 million in billings by five doctors. Those five doctors and that hospital are there, and I consider that is sufficient to provide the care for the people of Red Lake.

I profoundly regret that because of an argument with the physicians over how they are paid and how much money they are paid, those physicians have stopped providing on-call services to the emergency room. What our ministry has been doing, what the medical association and the Ontario Hospital Association have been doing, what the College of Physicians and Surgeons has been doing is meeting with those physicians and attempting to remind them of their professional responsibilities and, on the other hand, to negotiate with them about an alternative method of payment that will allow them to continue to fulfil the responsibilities they have to the 6,000 people of Red Lake.

Mr Conway: We're all aware that there are committees, there are joint committees, there are task forces, there are good intentions. I even have in my hand a very clear and declaratory press release, in the name of the Minister of Health, dated but two and a half weeks ago, March 25, in which you make a solemn and unequivocal commitment to the people of Red Lake that you will do whatever it takes to provide at all times a minimal level of service.

Minister, two and a half weeks after you made that commitment it is not being lived up to, and it's not just a problem in Red Lake; it is a real problem in communities like Goderich and Wingham and Mindemoya and Newbury and Deep River and Barry's Bay and scores of other communities across this province.

My question remains: What, as the leader of the ministry in this government, are you prepared to do to live up to your commitment of just two and a half weeks ago to ensure that in all of those communities I've named and scores that I have not named, the people of this province will know and can be guaranteed that when, at 11 o'clock at night on a Thursday or at 4 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon in Newbury or Red Lake or Barry's Bay, Ontario, the patient walks in or is brought in by ambulance to those emergency departments, there will be an emergency physician available?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me tell the member what this government has done to try and address a very long-standing problem. What we have done is to negotiate, with the profession and the Ontario Medical Association, an agreement with respect to the provision of services to the people of this province, an agreement that provides for almost $4 billion in funding to the province's 20,000 physicians.

Having negotiated that agreement last year, having had that agreement ratified by the Ontario Medical Association, we now find a number of physicians in emergency rooms in small hospitals saying, "We want extra funding over and above what was negotiated for us." That is something that we are prepared to talk about within the pool of funding available to the Ontario Medical Association. We don't think it makes any sense for people who are serving in emergency rooms to be paid per patient. We would much rather pay them on some different basis so that they would feel it was worth their while to be on call.

Let me remind the member, however, that with respect to many of these hospitals, a patient brought in did not necessarily find a doctor waiting for them even in the palmy days of his government; they found a doctor on call willing to respond to an emergency. That is a physician's responsibility, and that is the kind of responsibility I hope the physicians of Red Lake will continue to uphold.

1410

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, you will know that I have stood in this House on various occasions -- one really comes to memory -- demanding that we have adequate medical services for my constituents in the Red Lake area. I was pleased to go back to see what the minister had said some three weeks ago, when she indicated to me in this House that there would be adequate medical services in Red Lake.

My colleague referred to the minister's press release, and I would just like to quote from that press release. This is from your office, Minister: "'We will make sure that, if necessary, other doctors are in Red Lake on March 31 to maintain hospital service,' said Mrs Grier."

Second quote: "Ministry staff have made arrangements to fly doctors into Red Lake if necessary."

As of March 31, there has not been that adequate service in Red Lake. We have had two replacement doctors, for a total of 72 hours over 12 days. To me, that is not adequate medical service in Red Lake. As of 7 o'clock last Saturday morning, there was no doctor in Red Lake to cover for emergency medical services.

We cannot leave this in the hands of the OMA. We cannot leave this in the hands of the OHA. You are responsible for medical services in Red Lake, and I must ask you, why are you not living up to that responsibility and ensuring that my constituents of Red Lake have adequate emergency services provided to them?

Hon Mrs Grier: As minister, I am responsible for managing a very complex and very complicated system. Responsibility for providing medical services is shared between the medical profession, the hospital and the ministry, which pays the bills.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You buy a plane ticket and you fly them in. It's not complicated.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that there are five doctors in Red Lake. There is a 22-bed hospital in Red Lake. In the week between the 4th and the 11th, there have been two emergency calls in Red Lake. One was dealt with at the hospital; one was stabilized and evacuated, as are many of those emergencies.

But I share the member's concern and I share his anger that doctors who have a responsibility to provide services either have stayed in Red Lake and refused to provide them or have not been willing to go to Red Lake.

I can assure him that I have asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which has the responsibility for looking at the actions of what is a self-regulating profession, to examine the actions of the physicians in Red Lake and to assure me that in fact those physicians have lived up to their responsibilities, and to examine the state of care that is being provided in Red Lake. That is how physicians have to exercise their responsibility, and I'm looking forward to the report of the college.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Two weeks ago the member for Wellington and I raised examples in Wellington county of interim welfare assistance being abused, of millions of dollars being wasted. I indicated two weeks ago to you, Minister, that it was taking the review board six, eight, 10 and 12 months' time to render decisions.

I would like to quote back what you told me two weeks ago. You said, "I've had this discussion very directly with the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board -- that they in fact have managed their workload down to the point where decisions are being rendered in a matter of weeks." You said, "I would ask the leader of the third party to update his information."

Today you acknowledge that the average is eight months, exactly as I told you two weeks ago. Can you tell me why, in your direct consultations with the chairman of the board, you were told or you understood a matter of weeks, and two weeks later you now acknowledge and confirm that I was right in the beginning, that it is eight months? Can you explain that discrepancy in what you told the House two weeks ago and today?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't think there's an inconsistency. In fact, in many instances the board is able to make decisions very quickly, in a number of weeks. I think it's quite correct. If I in any way misled the honourable member in an earlier response, I apologize for that, but I think the facts are what they are, and there is on average the eight-month period that's there in the figures.

Having said that, I can also tell the member that the board has significantly increased and improved its ability to render decisions from what it used to be before. In fact, they doubled the number of cases they were able to deal with during the 1993 period alone. So there have been improvements, but, as I said earlier, there's no denying that there is more that needs to be done.

Mr Harris: The fact of the matter is, your quoted statements from two weeks ago and your statements today are in direct conflict with one another. The fact of the matter is, you don't have a clue what's going on, not a clue. Social workers are bringing cases to your attention. They're writing you letters which you don't even respond to.

Two weeks ago we raised the cases of many 16- and 17-year-olds who have figured out how to beat the system. Today, when you were asked about the dramatic increase in the number of people getting interim assistance, you came back and said, "Well, the number of cases is up," which is another indictment of your disastrous economic policy, by the way.

Can you explain this to me? The number of cases have doubled since you took office in the last three years -- bad enough -- but the number of interim welfare assistance cases has quadrupled over the same period of time. If it isn't because 16- and 17-year-olds have figured out how to beat the system, can you explain why there are now more than twice as many on interim assistance as there are on full-time assistance?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the leader of the third party should be a little wary and not try to blame all the problems we have in the system -- and I agree that there are many problems in the system -- on the 8,100 16- and 17-year-olds who are receiving social assistance, because that's the number. He well knows that we have 1.3 million people in the province on social assistance, and to blame all those problems on 8,100 young people I think is stretching even his version of the truth.

I could stand here and recite from charts I have that show very clearly the workload and the case loads and what has been happening. In the 12-month period that ended in February of this year, the appeals received by the board were just under 11,000. When you compare that with the huge increase in case load, I don't think that's out of line with what the historical pattern has been. That doesn't mean it's an acceptable level; it means there is more work that needs to be done, but that's something we are doing.

I've indicated specifically to the member and to other members who have asked this question that on the issue of assistance, both interim and ongoing, as it relates to 16- and 17-year-olds, we acknowledge that there are some things that need to be done there. We are working on tightening up the guidelines that are issued --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and that they're available to people, because we think that's an area where there is in fact some more work that needs to be done.

1420

Mr Harris: The fact is, Minister, that nobody believes your statistics any more. They're not believable.

We're not suggesting that this will solve all the problems. The only way we're going to do that is to replace you entirely as a government. Then we can get at solving all the problems. But there is one specific problem that could be solved. Today the Globe and Mail reported a similar situation to the ones the member for Wellington and I raised two weeks ago. A 17-year-old, safely living at home, was awarded a year's worth of benefits just by launching an appeal.

Would you agree with me that to solve this one problem, if we could take a few of the dollars that are being frittered away -- just a few of the dollars being frittered way -- and speed up the appeal process to a matter of weeks, as you said it was, there wouldn't be any need for interim assistance at all? Would you agree with me that that would be a commonsense, straightforward solution that would save millions of dollars spent on interim welfare? Put a few of those into the appeal system and it would ensure a more compassionate and more effective way of delivering welfare. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't know how many times I need to say to the member that I agree there are improvements like that that can be made. I also want to say to him that in fact it's our view and our intent to go even further than that. We think we need to continue to improve and speed up the appeal process, but we also think that in an area such as the question of 16- and 17-year-olds, there is some tightening up of the rules, as I indicated earlier in the House, that we need to do and that that will also respond to that particular situation.

The leader of the third party began his last supplementary with a reference fact that the only solution here is really a change of government. I want to say to him, as I said to my Liberal friends earlier, that he knows full well -- I think he knows full well -- that what we have been trying to do is grapple with difficulties that have been there historically for many years but which clearly have been accentuated during the last three to four years, a period during which a party he represents was the government in Ottawa, which has resulted in a significant decrease in terms of the amount of funding we get, from 50-cent dollars to 29-cent dollars in Ontario compared to other provinces. That's something he can't get away from as being part of the reality of the system we have today.

Mr Harris: What you have done, Minister, is to prove you're incapable of grappling with this problem, along with many other problems. You are incapable.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Solicitor General. There has been much debate in the last few weeks about gun control, about tougher penalties for criminals. As you know, Minister, our caucus put forward our recommendations in these areas in New Directions, Volume Three. But while the federal gun control debate goes on and continues and likely will continue for years, there is something positive that I believe we can do today.

Several American cities have put in place a guns-for-goods program. People can exchange weapons for grocery vouchers, for concert and sports tickets, and cash, no questions asked. To help get guns off our streets today, will you spearhead a similar program for the province of Ontario?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Let me say to the honourable member first of all that I appreciate the fact that he begins his question with a constructive recommendation on the same issue -- that is the second time; we had one from the official opposition, and I think it says a great deal about the quality of the members in the House, who are prepared to face an issue like this in that light. Let me try to respond in a similar fashion by indicating to the honourable member that should he or anyone else have a proposal they feel would assist us in making our streets safer, particularly as they relate to the control of guns that cause so much destruction, certainly I would be very prepared to consider and review any such proposal.

Mr Harris: In the guns-for-goods programs last year, 1,300 guns were collected in four months in Boston; in Hennepin county, Minnesota, 6,200 guns were turned in in just seven days. I don't pretend that this effort alone will rid our streets of weapons, but I do believe it would be a positive first step, and it's one that can start today. It costs taxpayers nothing. It will involve Ontarians of all ages in preventing crime. It could bring communities together by including the police, church groups, educators, sports celebrities, local merchants.

Solicitor General, based upon the results of similar programs, I ask you to endorse this call. Will you join with us and implement such a program today?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I believe I've already indicated my willingness to consider and review such a proposal, and if there's any possibility that the benefits would be as strong here as they have been in other jurisdictions, my answer to that is, indeed, let's do whatever will make a difference, particularly things that happen right away.

Let me say two quick things while I'm on my feet. One is that I also endorse the comment of the honourable member that this one effort alone won't do it. I think he acknowledges that no one effort will, that there needs to be a combination of efforts on the whole issue of crime prevention. I believe his report says that also.

Let me also indicate to members of the House that the federal Justice ministry has indicated they are forming a federal working group on gun smuggling -- we've received correspondence from them on this -- and that I will be signalling to the federal government our participation through the OPP, specifically through the chief provincial firearms officer, and will continue to work with them on any -- any -- measure that would help to make the streets of Ontario as safe as we would all like them to be.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the comments by the Solicitor General. I would say in response to the comments about another task force that the Liberals are the masters at setting up task forces, study groups, look-ats: delay, postpone. We know that. They've proven that provincially, federally, wherever they've been given an opportunity, unfortunately, to govern.

What I am proposing today doesn't require a task force or a study. It's pretty simple, it's pretty straightforward, it's pretty basic. You would be aware that just this weekend a Toronto man offered $200 to the first kid who turned in a gun. Given that safety in our streets is an issue that brings everyone together, an opportunity to do something positive outside of implementing all the recommendations in New Directions, Volume Three, and what the federal government can do, I ask you this: Will you sit down with me after question period today so that tomorrow we can launch an Ontario program that will have as its core a guns-for-goods program? No study, no task force, no bureaucracy: You and I will settle it today and announce it tomorrow. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Christopherson: You were doing real good up until then, Mike. The honourable member started out with some very constructive suggestions. I think that's the way to deal with this, and I tried to respond in kind. We dealt with a couple of other issues in the supplementary, and I think now he's starting to cross the line in terms of what is realistic.

I'm prepared to meet as quickly as possible if he's got some actual material, to give us a chance to look at it, but I do believe that people watching here today would suggest that it's just a tad bit of grandstanding to suggest that we would just go behind the chairs and cut a quick deal and that's how we're going to prevent crime in the province of Ontario. I just don't think that's the reality.

Let me also say that in terms of the federal Liberals being good at task forces, I'm surprised the honourable member would say that, because there's a renowned report called Crime Prevention in Canada, 12th report of the standing committee on justice and the Solicitor General, headed by the Tories: a well-known report, a good report, one which we endorse and which we're working with the current federal government to work on implementing.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you've stated in the past very clearly that you and your government are opposed to video lottery terminals, VLTs. We know, in terms of your so-called policy in the past, that you were opposed to casinos. In fact, you called it a matter of conviction; your Minister of Finance called it a matter of principle. You abandoned that for the sake of the gambler's dollar. So it's not a great deal of assurance for people to understand where you're coming from when you say that you are opposed to VLTs.

What is your position, Minister, and the position of your government with respect to the introduction of video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario? I might add that we know the Premier, and his good friend and de facto campaign manager, Mr Agnew, is in favour of it, but what is your position and the official position of the government, and can we count on that position?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): When we announced that there would be a pilot project, a casino in Windsor, we said at that time that there would be VLTs in the casino itself in Windsor, and that is the policy of the government.

1430

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Minister, but I'm afraid you haven't answered the question. We understand what your position is with respect to VLTs in a commercial casino. What is your position today and what kind of assurance can you give us that your position will remain as such, frankly, more than a few days, because we know how rapidly it can change, with respect to the introduction of video lottery terminals in locations other than commercial casinos in the province of Ontario? It's not a difficult question.

We understand there's divisiveness in your own cabinet. But understanding that, tell us how that's been resolved and what side you come down on.

Hon Ms Churley: I believe that was the same question repeated and my answer is exactly the same. I presume that although he hasn't referred to it, he is referring to a study that was recently reported on -- done by I forget who, but not this government -- that did some studies on the opinion of people across Ontario as to their feelings about VLTs. I presume that's what he's getting at. We certainly have not changed our position on VLTs in the province of Ontario. I've already said that, and I say it again.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you have not only broken your promise to fix the problems with emergency room coverage in Red Lake but you have in fact made the situation worse.

On April 7 you wrote a letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario asking it to inquire into the state of medical practice in Red Lake. This written request was followed by a verbal request for the college to investigate allegations made by officials in your ministry that a locum physician was harassed by Red Lake physicians during his Easter weekend placement at the Margaret Cochenour hospital in Red Lake. The locum, Dr Benjamin Chan, says in a letter that this allegation of harassment is totally untrue.

Given that there is no factual basis for this investigation, I ask you, who from your ministry asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate this charge of harassment and what prompted this request?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The College of Physicians and Surgeons has been asked by me, in a written letter, to investigate the state of medical care in Red Lake and to assure itself, as the responsible body, and me that in fact there is no risk to the public in Red Lake. Any additional conversations that members of my ministry may have had, and I'm not aware of them, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons I can assure the member are not part of the referral and the request that I made to the CPSO, and I have no comment on them.

Mr Jim Wilson: I suggest the minister get a grip on her ministry. Your ministry's hidden agenda, and I believe this minister's hidden agenda, with respect to this issue is to blame the doctors, to blame the hospitals, to blame the Ontario Medical Association. Everyone's to blame for the lack of emergency room coverage in rural Ontario except this minister. The people of rural Ontario don't buy that approach to this issue at all. In fact, this posturing could have tragic consequences for Red Lake and for rural communities all across this province.

In your letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Minister, you state that your ministry is continuing to try and find locum physicians for Red Lake, but nowhere does Red Lake show up on the Ministry of Health's April 1994 list of communities that require respite or urgent local services. Nowhere on the list is Red Lake mentioned.

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

Mr Jim Wilson: While you continue to say one thing and do another, the OMA and the Ontario Hospital Association are proposing solutions to this problem. Your inability to manage the health care system is having a profound effect, not only on Red Lake --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- but on other communities like Wawa, Dryden, Kenora, Terrace Bay, Chapleau, Hearst and Newbury, to name just a few.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Jim Wilson: My question to the minister: At what point are you going to stop blaming physicians and hospitals and begin to address a crisis that has paralysed Red Lake and that has serious consequences for all communities in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm amazed at the member's lack of understanding; in fact, I don't believe he has a lack of understanding of how the health care system in this province operates.

I want to say to the member that I take very seriously the situation in Red Lake and in all of those other communities, and that's precisely why the constructive response of, for example, the Ontario Hospital Association, which has been helping to try to negotiate a solution to this around the province, and the OMA --

Mr Jim Wilson: When was the last time you actually talked to somebody in Red Lake? I went to school with Ben Chan. I know Ben Chan.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe West, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: We set up a committee last fall to attempt to deal with this crisis, not on a specific town area but because we recognized it was a problem all across the province.

I don't think pointing fingers and casting blame is the way to resolve it. I think all parties responsible -- the OMA, the OHA and the ministry -- have to work together to resolve it and I profoundly regret that the Ontario Medical Association withdrew from that committee and obviously does not see the need for it to be part of the solution.

The OHA made a proposal some weeks ago to facilitate a solution in Red Lake. We agreed and asked the OMA to agree to that. We have not had a response and that's why the college, as the responsible body --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- has been asked by me to investigate and to assure the people of Red Lake --

Mr Jim Wilson: That's no way to negotiate. You're accusing the members of harassment. I wouldn't sit at the table with you.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that their health care is not at risk. That's what matters, not who to blame.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: What matters is that people in Red Lake get the care they need. That's my responsibility.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question's to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Minister, in Yorkview today, it's not a very pleasant day. We are saddened that we're not going to get the major and the main campus over at Jane and Finch in terms of your announcement today at the Newnham Campus, the Seneca College campus. Quite frankly, Minister, my community has pretty much sent me here today to give you a very loud message, that being, of course, that they're not happy with your decision and that the appropriate place for the Seneca College campus would have been Jane and Finch.

Minister, of those on social assistance in my community, 65% are single parents. As you know, when the discussions started a number of years ago and the hope of getting a Seneca College campus at Jane and Finch was being talked about, it was my hope that we could get some of these people and these recipients off welfare, off social assistance, and do it right at Jane and Finch.

Minister, my community has relayed this particular message to you time and time again.

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

Mr Mammoliti: You have not responded, in their opinion, and they are quite saddened at that fact and quite mad at you, and quite frankly they're not that pleased.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Mammoliti: Minister, why? Why York University? Why not Jane and Finch? There was ample space at Jane and Finch. Why York University? Why does my community feel like it's been shrugged off by you?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I know the interest the member has in this particular issue and I do understand; I've met with people from the Jane-Finch community. I understand very clearly the desire that community had to have the main campus in the Jane-Finch area.

There was a study that was commissioned by my predecessor that looked at all the options. It came down to a number of very practical concerns, one of them being really exciting: that for the first time in our nation, we will have a college and a university sharing a campus, sharing services, recognizing credits and having the synergies of a community college and a university together that, in our belief, will increase accessibility for working people and for low-income people, and that is a first in Canada that we are proud of.

There are also some practical concerns. The site at the Jane-Finch area was $40 million for 24 acres; at York University, $15 million for 50 acres. There are some realities like this that we also have to consider.

1440

Mr Mammoliti: You met with some individuals yesterday, but it wasn't to ask them their opinion in my community; it was to tell them that their hope was dead, it was to tell them that we weren't going to get the main campus at Jane and Finch and it was to tell them that the decision had been made. Quite frankly, the decision at York is and was yours and you've made it, and it is a first and I must agree with you there.

But what about all those hundreds of people who I thought and we thought would get off the social assistance system by having a Seneca College campus pretty much right next door, where those single parents could take their children with them in the morning and get off the system, quite frankly? That's what we were hoping for and that's not what we got. What we did get was a learning centre. I'm not going to criticize the learning centre because at this point I have no choice, obviously, but to work with the learning centre.

My supplementary question to you, and I certainly would like some sort of a commitment here today, recognizing that the main campus is dead at this point --

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

Mr Mammoliti: -- will you meet with me and with my community to talk about the courses and the dos and don'ts of the learning centre and the wants and the needs of the community when we talk about the new learning centre, and will you do that relatively soon? For my community, this is now very important.

Hon Mr Cooke: Part of the process for the community learning centre, which is going to be an 18,000-square-foot facility that will offer not only training and retraining programs, but post-secondary programs as well in the Jane-Finch community -- the precise definition or decision on the programs has not been made yet because the college and the university have committed themselves to working directly with the community.

Anything that my office can do -- I talked to the president of the university and the college today about the process. We will set up an advisory committee, we will work with the university, the college and of course the local member in order to determine the programs that need to be in the Jane-Finch community, which I think will provide the accessibility that is so absolutely essential to the people living in that part of Metropolitan Toronto.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Minister of Labour: Last week I raised the question of the decision by the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to merge three agencies currently, or in the past, delivering health and safety training in the community. They are the Care-Givers of Ontario Safety and Health Association, the College, University and School Safety Council of Ontario and the Tourism and Hospitality Industry Health and Sefety Education Program.

A number of people have contacted me about this decision. I've been contacted by colleagues. The former minister, the Honourable Hugh O'Neil, the member for Quinte, has been contacted by people in the tourism industry to express a lot of concern. My office has received a number of calls expressing outrage at this unilateral decision.

I also have in front of me a legal opinion from the firm of Baker and McKenzie, barristers and solicitors, here in the city of Toronto. They report on the five issues:

"The health and safety agency does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw funds. The agency does not have the authority to order the board of safety associations to reach consensus. The agency does not have the jurisdiction to direct future decisions in those agencies." Further, "It does not have the authority to order the directors of these agencies to merge." Finally, "The course of conduct of the agency, as we understand it, clearly indicates that the agency has not discharged the duty of fairness which is owed to these three training agencies."

Minister, they have violated your own legislation. Will you ask the board of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to revisit the issue and reopen the negotiations with these three safety associations that have a right to continue doing what they've been doing so well for many years?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): In direct response to the request of the member opposite, the answer is no.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, by answering that, you are condoning the fact that your own health and safety agency is actually violating the law. Minister, don't shake your head. Let me read it for you. This is under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Point number one: "The associations" that I'm referring to "formed under section 123 of the Workers' Compensation Act" before the coming into force of this section, "except for the Farm Safety Association Inc, are continued under the authority of the agency."

It says very clearly, and it's substantiated and backed up by a legal opinion in writing, Minister, that these agencies are to continue under the act.

It then says: "The Workers' Compensation Board shall continue to make payments and grants to and on behalf of the associations referred to in this section as if section 123 of the Workers' Compensation Act...continued to apply to the associations."

Minister, your answer suggests that you condone the fact that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency unilaterally has violated not only the spirit of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but has actually violated the letter of the law.

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

Mr Mahoney: How can a minister of the crown condone an agency of this government breaking the law, Minister? We demand that you instruct the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to reopen this issue --

The Speaker: The member has placed his question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member can demand all he wants. I don't intend to do it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I'm not sure she heard me.

Minister, when a cabinet colleague brings in legislation, do you and your ministry get involved in assessing the economic and job loss or gain implications of the initiative? Assuming the answer is yes, what role do you play around the cabinet table if the job loss implications are very significant to this province?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Mr Speaker, because I've had advance warning of this question and understand that it relates to a bill that is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, I'm going to transfer the question to her.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This question is dealing with jobs and that minister's role and I will not accept a referral. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Minister of Health, absolutely nothing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Chair knows nothing about advance warnings, but the question did seem to be a question about economics and was a request of the minister to respond to economic decisions that are reached at the cabinet table. If the minister feels that's not within her responsibility, then of course she can refer the question, but there are supplementaries allowed. The minister may wish to reconsider her --

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the Speaker's comments. I have received advance notice from the party opposite of this question and it has to do with the impact of a bill that is under the jurisdiction and the portfolio of the Minister of Health, and I'll refer the question to her, Mr Speaker.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That's a complete falsehood. I gave this minister no notice --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Before we deal with the question, we must deal with the unparliamentary language. I know that the honourable member would like his question replied to, but the honourable member used some unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw that.

1450

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw at your request, but on a further point of order I'll ask you a question as the Speaker of the House: I asked a very specific question in terms of the impact of legislation and job loss and how that minister and her ministry respond to the implications of legislation brought in by her colleagues in respect to that one area where she and her ministry are totally responsible.

Speaker, I would ask you for your advice and support. I cannot see where that question has any relationship in terms of a referral, and her request to refer should not be supported by the Chair.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point quite well and I appreciate the concern he expresses. Under the standing orders the minister has the right to refer. I attempted to assist the member by suggesting that she might wish to answer the question. The minister has the right to refer, she has in fact referred the question and has referred it to the Minister of Health. The minister may respond. The Minister of Health.

Mr Runciman: I have not asked anything about the Ministry of Health, Mr Speaker, and I do not see any grounds for you to support this --

The Speaker: I explained earlier to the member that under the standing orders a minister of the crown has the right to refer a question, and that is in fact what the member has done. The Minister of Health may answer the question if she wishes.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me disabuse the member of any impression he may be under that any minister in this government unilaterally introduces legislation. They are collective decisions of our cabinet --

Mr Runciman: This is garbage, Mr Speaker, and you should not be supporting it.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You are not doing your job, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and, as such, all aspects are taken into account.

Mr Turnbull: This is not what you are supposed to be doing.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills come to order. The member for York Mills is out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I answered the question. I don't hear a supplementary.

The Speaker: Is there a supplementary? New question.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Housing. You know of the Clayton study which was commissioned by FRPO, that is, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. This study claimed that shelter allowances are less expensive than building non-profit housing. This has been an issue in my riding of Niagara Falls, where several landlords I know quite well, such as Felix Pingue and Mr Klein from Klein Construction, have raised this issue very sincerely. They feel that shelter allowances would certainly help them personally as well as cost the government less.

Your ministry has now had a chance to study the results of the Clayton Research Associates document. Minister, do you concur with its findings?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Yes, I do, indeed I do, to the member. The original report done by Clayton for FRPO had suggested that the cost of doing non-profit housing for 1,100 of the neediest people who would be looking for housing over 50 years would be $2.2 billion more than providing a shelter allowance. The analysis that we've done, which uses the same figures as the Clayton report but uses much more reasonable assumptions than the Clayton report, indicates that in fact the shelter allowance program would actually cost about $6 million more over the same period.

Ms Harrington: I just want to get it very clear, once and for all, on the record: Non-profit housing versus shelter allowances, what is the truth? Which one is cheaper?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Our analysis is based on the fact, and it's quite clear to everyone, that the rising cost of rental housing and the associated cost of a rental subsidy program over a long period of time means that those costs are going up. With the non-profit housing program over a long period of time the highest costs are at the front end, and over time the costs go down, so there's a crossover point.

If you're taking it out 50 years, as the Clayton report did and the Clayton analysis did, then it's clear to us that over a long period of time, from a financial point of view, to say nothing of the fact that it's generating jobs and creating a new stock of affordable housing in the community, it's better to be doing non-profit housing.

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the issue of the question from my colleague from Leeds-Grenville to the minister and with regard to your interpretation of standing order 33(f), I would ask you to look into the subject matter to which the question relates and the matter of ministers referring.

This is not the first time that we've had to deal with this in the last couple of weeks, and I think this would be a good example of the prerogative of ministers to refer with regard to the standing order, and I will put it on the record:

"33(f) A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject-matter to which the question relates."

I would ask you to look into that.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: As a minister of the crown and a member of the executive council, I would like it clarified, Mr Speaker: Is it not the case that it is within the rules for a member of the cabinet in answer to a question during the question-answer period to either answer or not answer as he or she sees fit?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Oh, I thought you were not coming back.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The tantrum's over.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I left because I didn't want to listen to the minister who had no responsibility.

My colleague from London North raises a good point in respect to the fact that this matter was referred to a minister who had no business responding to this. There was a very specific question related to the economic development minister's responsibilities and her ministry's responsibilities and how she has responded to a specific piece of legislation and its job implications.

That was very specific and related solely to her responsibilities and her ministry's responsibilities, and I want to support my colleague from London North because I think this has very grave implications for this assembly and for the functioning of the House and how the opposition can deal with matters of significant importance to them if we have this kind of fobbing off of responsibility and our inability to even get a response of any kind, way, shape or form from the minister responsible.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): If I could just add to the point made by my colleague from London North, I have spoken with the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who in fact has discussed this matter, as has the member for Leeds-Grenville, with the Premier.

The Premier in talking to them indicated that he would take up the matter with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, to whom the question was directed. The Premier obviously thought that the subject matter was subject matter that she should be dealing with. The Premier indicated as much to my two colleagues. That is why the question was directed to the cabinet minister that it was.

I understand that Bill 119 has carriage of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health, I should say, has carriage of that particular piece of legislation. But this aspect of Bill 119, the subject matter of this section or sections of Bill 119, has very much to do with trade, has very much to do with employment and economic activity in these two members' ridings.

Obviously, they think so. Obviously, the Premier thinks so, and I think it only would've been fair if the minister who the Premier thought should be dealing with this matter answered the question.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I don't know if it will help the situation, but I certainly did not intend to cause a drama of this nature with respect to this. I can indicate that it was my clear understanding, based on a conversation with the member for Lanark-Renfrew, that the question would be coming forth from the member for Lanark-Renfrew and the member for Leeds-Grenville today, that it would be with respect to this bill and with respect to the proposal of referring that one section of the bill out for public consultation and that it would also be tied into the job impact.

I understood that was part of the question. If I misunderstood that, then my apology, but I thought it was inappropriate for me to be responding on that point. I do believe that the member is correct that, with respect to any issues around jobs, economic development, that is appropriately within my portfolio. I think there was a miscommunication which led to my response. I apologize for that, and I'd be pleased to meet with the members and to respond to them and their concerns and their communities' concerns with respect to these issues.

1500

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, on that same point of order, and I do believe it's very important to this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton South has the floor.

Mr Callahan: I think it's very important to this House, because there have been two indications made, one by the member for London North to the effect that a minister may refer a question to a minister who is involved in the question. The Minister of Natural Resources quite rightly said that the rules allow a minister to refuse to answer.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, as well as the other members, to look at this, because the implications of it could be just as ludicrous as this: that a question could be asked of a minister on a specific trade or job issue, and that minister, instead of refusing to answer it, could refer it to the Solicitor General. That way you would block the possibilities of ever getting an answer from a minister who was responsible, thereby making question period a total farce.

The Speaker: First, to those members who have discussed this particular point of order and concern which has been brought to my attention, I appreciate it.

To the member for Leeds-Grenville, I understand the concern which he expressed with respect to his question that he was attempting to place and to the minister who he felt was the appropriate minister to whom to address the question.

I will be pleased to review the matter and I will report back to the House as soon as possible.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding that in fact the minister is willing to answer the question, and therefore I don't think it's necessary that you rule on it. Why can't we have the question now?

The Speaker: First, I understand and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade rose in her place and she offered an apology for everything that had unfolded. At the same time, a point of order was raised. It is my responsibility to take a look at it. I'm more than pleased to do that.

Question period has expired. The only way in which you can now entertain a question is if we had unanimous consent for a question to be placed and responded to. Is there unanimous consent for a question to be placed to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition which I'd like to present that has been submitted to me by residents of the riding of Quinte, and it concerns Bill 45 and Bill 56.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I have signed this petition. I obviously agree with it, and in fact the contents of this petition are now the subject of public hearings which commence in a half-hour before the social development committee.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition here from York East. It's signed by 104 people and it says:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services at its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary student and $2,542 less per secondary student (based on 1993 estimates and published statistics);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition that reads:

"Periodic health exams save money and lives. Prevention and screening costs less than treatment and cures. Prevention and screening may save your life or the life of your loved one.

"We, the undersigned, believe that all Ontarians should be covered for preventive health and periodic screening procedures. Money will not be saved by delisting preventive health exams."

I have signed that petition also, and it's signed by 80 of the residents of eastern Ontario.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, therefore, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with the following:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course examination."

This comes from the Spencerville, Kemptville, Lancaster, Bainsville area, signed by other 40 constituents, and I have signed the petition as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you, Mr Speaker, that I have a petition from the folks of Twin Elms and Strathroy in my riding. They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by 94 people from the towns of Zurich, Clinton, Parkhill, Mitchell, Leith and Kirkwood, and I'd like to read it to the assembly.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

I have signed this petition and I thank the members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada for submitting it.

1510

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I've signed this petition. It's also signed by a number of people from Stayner, Wasaga Beach, Creemore, Singhampton, Collingwood, New Lowell and many other places across the province and my riding.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition similar to the one that was just read in. It was sent to me by R.G. Morgan, the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. There are approximately 500 names on the petition. Most of those folks are residents of the riding of Oxford and about half of them are members of the federation; half of them are just citizens who signed the petition. So I would now be pleased to submit that petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with respect to Bill 45:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition similar to the one presented by my colleague the member for Oxford, and it was sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I've noted that a number of the people who have signed this petition are not members of that organization and some are. It petitions the Legislature, the Premier and the Solicitor General to change the plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination. I present that petition.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here:

"We, the undersigned, believe that all Ontarians should be covered for preventive health and periodic screening procedures. Money will not be saved by delisting preventive health exams. Periodic health exams save money and lives. Prevention and screening costs less than treatment and cures. Prevention and screening may save your life or the life of a loved one. The government wants to delist this important service. Please say no."

It's signed by a number of people from the Elgin county area.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time to pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"I/we, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have affixed my name to that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr107, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES CORONERS

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

Bill 148, An Act to amend the Coroners Act / Projet de loi 148, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les coroners.

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

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The Coroners Amendment Act is based on recommendation 128 of the Jonathan Yeo inquest, which read:

"The chief coroner and coroners of Ontario are 'the voice of the dead for the benefit of the living,' therefore, for that voice to be heard for the benefits of the living, the power of the chief coroner of Ontario under the provisions of the Coroners Act to counsel this government for the implementation of jury recommendations must be increased.

"The Coroners Act shall be amended to provide that agencies, ministries and officials or persons to whom these recommendations are directed must respond to the chief coroner of Ontario in a timely fashion," and that the chief coroner report to the Ontario Legislature on an annual basis.

This bill responds to the concerns for an automatic coroner's inquest to be conducted whenever a person dies violently at the hands of a violent criminal put forward by Jim and Anna Stephenson. Their son, Christopher, was sexually assaulted and killed by Joseph Fredericks, a psychopathic paedophile released on mandatory supervision by the National Parole Board.

The bill also addresses the concerns of Priscilla de Villiers of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, or CAVEAT, that automatic standing at an inquest be provided to the victims' families, and that is contained in recommendation 128 of the Yeo inquest.

This bill is about fairness and further protection for the rights of crime victims and their families to better fulfil the coroner's mandate: "From the death of one, we may learn to help lengthen the lives of many."

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the members, in the future when a bill is introduced, to try to limit your comments as short as possible.

1520

TOWN OF NAPANEE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr70, An Act respecting the Town of Napanee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi 113, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Bill 113 for second reading. This legislation is necessary to fulfil our international trade obligations by making sure foreign-brewed beer has equal access to Ontario retail markets.

On August 5, 1993, Canada and the US signed a fair commercial agreement which benefited our domestic brewing industry, its labour force and Ontario consumers. As a result, imported beer became available at Brewers Retail beer stores across the province.

By amending the Liquor Control Act, the government will have the authority to guarantee equal treatment of imported and domestic products at Brewers Retail outlets.

A number of changes to the beer retail and distribution system have already taken place with the voluntary cooperation of the Brewers Retail. Nevertheless, part of our commitment to our trading partners was an assurance that we would implement the necessary legislative changes in order for the government to guarantee the continuation of these changes in the future.

These legislative changes will ensure a level playing field for all foreign, out-of-province and domestic brewers. At the same time, Bill 113 will ensure that our high regulatory standards governing the sale of beer in Ontario are maintained. I firmly believe that the Ontario brewing industry can be competitive in an open domestic market and highly successful in the international marketplace as well, as indeed it is proving now.

Finally, I am proud to say that Ontario fulfilled our international trade obligations without in any way compromising our legitimate environmental and social policy objectives. The environmental levy on all non-refillable beverage alcohol containers has been maintained. This policy is part of the overall environmental agenda of our government to promote a conserver society. The environmental levy provides an incentive to continue to use more environmentally sound containers. A reusable, refillable container backed by a deposit-and-return system that works is more environmentally sound than single-use containers.

In addition, we secured a recognition from GATT of minimum pricing as a legitimate social policy tool. Revenue from beverage alcohol taxation helps pay for Ontario's comprehensive health and social services network, a network that is lauded around the world. Minimum pricing protects our ability to preserve and enhance our social programs and social policy goals.

Most importantly, the changes we introduce will provide some essential stability to our brewing industry. They will enable our brewers and brewery workers to make plans to support competitive, viable operations in Ontario and maintain thousands of brewery industry jobs.

I'd like to thank all of our partners in the industry and the unions who worked tirelessly with us throughout the couple of years. They helped us very much and I don't think we could have come through our negotiations so successfully. At times the negotiations were very difficult and tough and it was our partners who hung in there with us, gave us good advice, and I'd like to thank them for their support.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I think the minister will find general support for the principle of this bill. I do have one area of concern which has been referred to in the past, and that is that the bill seems to be silent on the removal of the 10-cent tax on beer cans in Ontario.

In the United States, as I understand it, the putting of beer in cans is the main choice; that's the main use in the United States. I guess I question the philosophy of that when I look at the fact that this tax doesn't exist to the soft drink industry; it only applies to the beer industry, which suggests that the province of Ontario is creating an unfair competition of tax with respect to the American jurisdiction, which may be contrary to the spirit of GATT. I don't know, but it is interesting that this legislation appears to be silent on that topic.

Aluminum beer cans and, as I understand it, refillable beer bottles are environmentally equivalent with respect to recycling. At 88%, Ontario has the highest recycling rate in the world with respect to cans.

I think the issue remains that the 10-cent tax on cans really isn't an effort for the purposes of them being environmentally sound. I would submit that in fact it's a tax to create competition for the Americans where the predominant use of manufacturing of beer is with respect to cans. Hopefully the minister will be in a position to comment on that before she leaves.

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

Hon Ms Churley: I was about to leave, but I can't resist running back and taking him up on his offer on that. I think the member is aware that the situation is very different with the returnable system with beer bottles and pop cans.

The reality is that I believe it's over 60 years that the brewery industry has had a returnable deposit system for beer bottles. We've seen in BC, with the dumping of American cans coming into BC, their deposit return system really suffered. The reality is, we don't want to be in a position with a lot of American beer coming in here in cans, and in fact losing ground on a system that fortunately, unlike a lot of other jurisdictions, we have in place.

The reality with pop cans: We know it's been around for a long time. I know the Ministry of the Environment -- through, I think by now, all three parties in this House -- and the government side have tried to deal with it. It's a very different and much more complex situation.

I think we should be very pleased that we have the beer industry having such a sound system in place. We wanted to make sure, within this bill, within these new negotiations, which were very hard fought -- it was very difficult to get the federal government, the then Tory government, to go along with us on this, because they said what you said, but they were wrong. We have to preserve a system that works for us, and I'd like to see other companies and other products develop the same kind of system with the help of our government, but it is a very different situation. So I hope very much that you will support that aspect of the bill, because it is really important.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to initially say that the general provisions of the bill are appreciated, and the efforts of a number of interest groups that have sought to bring this to the floor of the Legislature today and to get on with it, so to speak, in terms of bringing things into compliance with GATT and the expectations related thereto are appreciated by all of the players.

Although it is somewhat tangential and parenthetic, I want to also express a hope, I suppose, and support for our wine industry in this province of Ontario that they would have the opportunity to aggressively market through their boutiques and through their onsite stores a product that I think is gaining, and rightly so, recognition and a positive reputation for the fine quality of product that is produced in this province. We're pleased to see that happen as well.

There are a few concerns, and they are significant, I think, particularly in terms of the so-called "housekeeping" provisions of this bill with respect to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the provisions of Bill 113 as it impacts particularly restaurateurs in the province. I want to put on the record some of those concerns.

It's my understanding that House leaders have agreed that this bill will be referred to committee so that interested parties, particularly those from the Ontario Restaurant Association and other interested parties, may have an opportunity not only to express their concerns but to hear back from the minister the rationale for the provisions within the bill that have been put forward.

Let me raise those issues very quickly because, as I said, I think they'll be given a more complete and full hearing at the committee level, when not only will there be an opportunity for dialogue and exchange with the minister or her designate but also ministry staff and political staff on that occasion will, I'm sure, resolve some of the concerns that are being expressed.

As we look at the legislation as it's written, one concern that jumps to mind immediately, by a number of individuals, is raised by way of section 4.1 of the bill. I'll read that on the record for reference. It says, "The chair of the board may designate any person as an inspector to carry out inspections," and it goes on to indicate the reasons inspections would take place.

1530

The language is at best vague in terms of how a person would be designated, "any person." I know it's not necessarily out of sync with other enabling legislation that provides ministerial prerogative and authority to designate agents and/or officials on behalf of that minister and the operation that is ancillary to the rightful monitoring and -- I use this word advisedly, I hope -- policing of the responsibilities of people who operate under a legislative framework.

The nub of the issue is simply this: The language is somewhat vague in terms of "any person" being designated as an inspector. People in the industry would like to see some sort of provision attached to that or a reference to a regulatory framework so that there would be some handle in terms of how that person, he or she, would come to be appointed as an inspector, the qualifications that individual would bring to that position and their understanding of the industry.

If one is to engage in the very significant responsibility of an inspector, one would hope, and I think it's a reasonable expectation, that they would be qualified. That almost goes without saying. But I can understand the concern of restaurateurs who see that and ask, "Is this the situation again where we're giving carte blanche to a government, without any recourse and without any handles for us to deal with those individuals who may be appointed as an inspector?"

I put that on the record simply as an introduction of a point that I suspect our friends in the Ontario Restaurant Association will subsequently put some more meat on the bones of, if you will, flesh it out somewhat so they can more fully articulate that concern and, as I said earlier, the opportunity to dialogue with the minister and/or her representatives to address that concern.

Let me jump down to the two subsequent sections, sections 4.2 and 4.3, that have raised some concerns as well. Section 4.2 starts out by saying, "An inspector may enter any premises described in subsection (2)" -- and it goes on to describe the premises -- "for the purposes of ensuring compliance with" a variety of acts and regulations.

Section 4.3 indicates, "A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing an inspector...to exercise any of the powers." What we have here, chronologically within the body of the act, is a bill that says an inspector has, by way of right, the authority to enter a premises, and I'll indicate the sensitive point of the definition of "premises" in a moment. Section 4.3 then goes on to say, "A justice of the peace may issue a warrant" to allow those powers to be exercised.

It seems, on the face of it, contradictory that in one section you would give the authority that would reside within the office of an inspector, that he or she could exercise that authority, and yet in section 4.3 you go on to say that for essentially the same fulfilment of an individual's responsibilities as an inspector, they would have an opportunity and provide a mechanism by which they would go before a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant.

You can understand the confusion that I think legitimately exists with restaurateurs in wanting to understand the rationale for that. Why, on one hand, do you give the inspector the opportunity to walk in, and then the very next section of the bill says we will give the inspector a procedure whereby she or he will go to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant to enter a premises?

One would think if they're entering an establishment where liquor is being served pursuant to a licence, that would not necessarily be problematic, because we would presume and hope that virtually all people who are operating in the hospitality industry want to do so in compliance with the law. Indeed, those who are doing so would want their competitors to be playing on a level playing field and would hope that the inspectors would fulfil their rightful responsibility in ensuring that happened.

The difficulty for some lies in this. "Premises" goes on to define a locale where "books or records relating to the sale, service, manufacture or storage of liquor are kept or are required to be kept." If you think of some of the major restaurants that some of us have perhaps visited from time to time, generally speaking, they would have a system in place where professional staff do their bookkeeping and accounting. The fact of the matter is that there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands -- I think I'm safe to say thousands -- of small operations, often family-run, often where three, four or five members of the family run that establishment. There are thousands of those kinds of establishments across the province.

What often happens is that they work 16-, 18- or 20-hour days in some cases, particularly on weekends. They throw all their receipts and their bookkeeping materials into a briefcase and take it home. In some spare moments, sometimes on a weekend or whenever they might have a slower day, they sit down and do their bookkeeping and their recordkeeping. Some people in this industry, I'm sure you're well aware, work extremely long and hard hours. It's only practical and quite a matter of convenience for them to be able to do their recordkeeping and keep their books and so forth at their place of residence.

You can understand, therefore, the concern, if you understand what I just said with respect to section 4.2 and the power of entry that would be afforded an inspector, without a warrant, to enter into a place where records and books are kept and that place happened to be a person's residence. You can understand that there would be some concerns.

I understand the delicacy of trying to balance an issue of doing effective monitoring and effective control over the industry. By the same token, I think there's an issue with respect to the power of the state as it effects itself upon our lives and indeed our residences. I recognize that people make a reasoned business decision to use their homes for the purpose of conducting their business, but it seems to most people that the last place of refuge is your home.

I have some very grave concerns about the right of an officer, an inspector, under legislation, whoever she or he may be, I'm sure exercising their job in good faith, in good conscience, to just enter into a home. I know the minister -- I regret that she's not here -- would perhaps want to make some comments with respect to that particular issue. I understand why it's there, but I think we have to really get our heads around that particular issue and come to some reasonable balance and control with respect to the right of entry into a person's premises.

I feel very strongly with respect to the issue of private property and a person's residence. Notwithstanding the fact that an individual may make a conscious and reasoned decision to use their residence for business, I think they should be afforded some measure of protection in terms of the government arriving at that particular locale and entering upon it and seizing documents and records and so forth.

Having said that, I again hope, as it comes before committee for the opportunity of further discussion, that that particular issue would be further articulated and the competing interests discussed, with a reasonable and workable balance and solution that everybody can live with.

The last point I want to raise is similar. It deals with a specific provision of this bill that is contained in section 4.4. As I read it -- and again I regret that we don't have the opportunity for feedback from the minister at this point -- section 4.4 sets out a mechanism whereby an inspector, having found something that appears to be inappropriate or not, on the face of it, in compliance with regulations, may seize property of the operator of an establishment.

It then goes on to say that this inspector should promptly and with reasonable dispatch return those items into the possession of the owner and operator. Again, on behalf of the many thousands of women and men who are engaged in the hospitality industry, they are asking that the government consider something more definitive, whereby there's a specified time frame, where there's an onus upon the inspectors to return it within a specified period of time, 48 hours or 72 hours, whatever the case may be, and if they aren't able to do that, provide a reason and/or rationale for it.

1540

My suspicion is that in the vast majority of cases it would be fairly routine that documents would be seized -- I know that sounds a little bit onerous and heavy-handed, but I think in the context people understand that -- by an inspector and that inspector would probably go to an office nearby, a government office presumably, photocopy the documentation, appropriately catalogue the material and return it to the restaurateur.

I might add that there is a provision in the act that says that prior to taking it a receipt must be given for each and every item seized. I think that's indicative of the goodwill contained in here with respect to the powers of the inspector.

But to try and summarize that point, restaurateurs would say that perhaps the onus should fall back upon ministry officials to maintain in their possession any records or any property beyond a specified period of time, so there would be a fail-safe mechanism built in there for the prompt return of those materials, another level of assurance and/or confidence that might be given to restaurateurs with respect to records and goods that were seized.

I think and I hope that on behalf of those individuals in the industry I have at least put on the record the substance of their concerns, perhaps not as well as they will doubtless do when they have the opportunity to come before committee.

I want to acknowledge and thank the government and my colleague the House leader and critic for the third party for working together to make sure the restaurant association has an opportunity to put its concerns in a very direct way to the minister and to her officials.

In summary, let me say this. There are a few housekeeping concerns, those I tried to articulate, that I think raise the need for some further discussion and the opportunity to dialogue and come to a resolution that everybody can live with. I want to indicate, on behalf of the official opposition, that we support the general thrust of the bill. We look forward to getting on with it and putting things in compliance with our international responsibilities, and in that context look forward to a continued and, hopefully, successful growth of both our domestic producers, their related industry, and those in the hospitality industry to continue to be able to provide the generally good and excellent service they provide for us in this province.

Thank you for the opportunity of putting those concerns on the record, and I look forward to the continued discussion here this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm pleased to rise to speak for a couple of minutes in relation to this issue. I note with concern some of the issues raised by the member for Brampton North and indeed look forward to the public hearings to air those concerns further.

Our legal experts in the ministry have informed me that provisions under section 4.2 of the LCA do not constitute an exception but are rather the norm, and provisions of the kind found under section 4.2 of the LCA also exists under the following: the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, the Travel Industry Act, the gaming control act and the Liquor Licensing Act. I am further informed that a warrant is usually not sought until after there is sufficient reason to believe that the subject of the inspection is suspect. But again I'm pleased to listen to the concerns raised by the member for Brampton North in that area.

Under the question of hours, he's well aware that under that particular section of the act, the hours are set out. The subsection establishes the hours in which a warrant may in fact be executed. Clause 4.3(4)(a) is for business premises and 4.3(4)(b) is for other premises. In 4.3(4)(a), it's "during the normal business hours of the place named in the warrant, in the case of a place of business" and (b) "in any other case, between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm." Also, the justice of the peace has discretion to set other hours as necessary.

Again, I'm pleased to listen to the comments of the member for Brampton North. I look forward to hearing other concerns raised by the industry when the committee meets for the one day.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? You have two minutes, if you want to reply.

Mr McClelland: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I don't think I need two minutes simply to say to the member for Halton North, who is, as we all know, the parliamentary assistant for the ministry, that in terms of my comments, having said initially that I recognize it is consistent with other legislation -- perhaps you didn't hear that -- therein lies a bit of the problem. The restaurateurs are saying, "Maybe this government isn't hearing us, to be able to sit down and dialogue."

The parliamentary assistant rose and said he wanted to assure me of something I'd already said I was aware of. The restaurateurs are saying, "Are you really hearing us?" and therein lies their concern. They want to sit down and talk to you because, as the parliamentary assistant has said, there is some rationale for it but they haven't had the opportunity to discuss it, they feel. Indeed, I say this, and I hope it's taken in the context I'm going to put it in -- I'm not trying to be confrontational: The minister indicated to me today that she wasn't even aware that the restaurateurs had concerns.

I think it's reasonable that the parliamentary assistant has said that they look forward to the opportunity to discuss it in more detail, and again I thank them for that, because I think therein lies the root of the problem, the genesis of the problem: that the restaurateurs have not had, in their opinion, the opportunity to discuss with the ministry and with ministry officials that exchange.

I thank the parliamentary assistant for responding and the goodwill he expresses and look forward to the opportunity to discuss this with the interested parties. I'm sure we'll come to a resolution that everybody can live with; that we can get on with the act and deal with essentially the foundation of the act, the international compliance issues, which are really the substance and the rationale for this act being brought forward, and deal with the ancillary issues in a fashion that keeps everybody happy. I think that's important and we all want to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd like to comment on a few aspects of Bill 113 briefly this afternoon.

Supposedly the purpose for Bill 113 is to comply with the GATT agreement, yet it's interesting to note that a great majority of Bill 113 does nothing with respect to GATT. The GATT provisions are generally taken care of by regulatory powers which are not outlined and stipulated in the bill. As a matter of fact, it is of course an amendment to the Liquor Control Act of Ontario.

It's also interesting to note that the bill was first introduced for first reading on December 7, 1992. We are now in April 1994. About a year and a half later, we're finally getting around to dealing with second reading of this piece of legislation.

I, like my colleague from Brampton North, would like to encourage the provisions of the bill that deal with wine, beer and spirits being sold in their own stores. This is going to be very important to the wine and spirit industry in the province of Ontario, and I think it's about time.

I'd like to deal with an aspect that is not touched upon with respect to this particular piece of legislation, and not touched upon in the act, and that is the matter of interprovincial trade. What happens to other provinces in Canada under the treatment the Ontario government is giving them is that breweries, for example, in New Brunswick, Moose Head being an example, are going to be treated the same as American breweries. I don't agree with that. I think that being a Canadian should mean something.

Recently we've seen in the media that over the last few weeks there's been a discussion among trade ministers from all provinces with respect to interprovincial free trade. I understand the position that the Premier has taken and that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has taken. Quite frankly, I concur with a lot of the things they have said with respect to the overall agreement they were trying to reach. But surely we should be treating fellow or sister provinces a little bit differently than we treat foreign jurisdictions with respect to their product.

But as I understand it -- and the minister or the parliamentary assistant will surely correct me if I'm wrong -- the three distribution charges that are charged against foreign beers, for example, are also applied to beers brewed in other provinces in Canada. I think that's wrong, and I think it's about time we changed that and how we deal with fellow or sister Canadians in our own country.

Another aspect I want to touch on very briefly is the one that was mentioned in a two-minute Q&A by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, that is, that this legislation does nothing about dealing with the 10-cent-a-can levy charged on cans. The ministry and the government can talk around this issue all they want. They say this is an environmental issue. The reality is that it is a 10-cent-a-can tax directed towards the American brewery system.

1550

The minister and the ministry well acknowledge, I'm sure, that unlike Canadian brewery products, most American products are sold in cans as opposed to bottles. They refer to the 10-cent-a-can levy as an environmental tax. If they were serious about the environment, it would apply to all cans, not just beer cans. Why are beer cans the only ones being centred out? I think we know the answer to that. This is in fact a hidden 10-cent tariff on American beer coming into Ontario. Why don't we just admit that's what it is instead of calling it an environmental tax?

If it were an environmental tax and they were concerned about the environment, there are a lot more soft drink cans out there floating around the province than there are beer cans, and if they're interested in cleaning up the environment, there'd be a 10-cent levy on every can, I don't care what's in it, in the province of Ontario.

That is a red herring of an argument. They know it. I know it. Admit it. It's a 10-cent trade barrier tariff on American beer. That's what it is. Just admit it. Be up front. But you can't do that because you're afraid, of course, that the Americans, and quite rightly so, are going to get a little uptight because you won't be complying with GATT. But you call it an environmental tax.

The Minister of Environment shakes his head. Perhaps it's a good point for him to engage in a debate, in a two-minute Q&A. Why is this 10-cent-a-can levy not applicable to all cans in the province? I think we need to have that answered. If our real concern is the environment and we're concerned about this, then it would be applicable to every single can, including soft drink cans. I wait to hear his two-minute Q&A on that.

With respect to the bill, I would also like to reiterate or state a couple of concerns that have been raised by my colleague from Brampton North and that have also been raised today by the Ontario Restaurant Association, which has been in touch with us and I presume the minister as well. We have talked to the government House leader. He has agreed to send this bill to the justice committee briefly so that at least the Ontario Restaurant Association and its concerns can be heard in committee by way of public hearings.

Having just spoken to the Ontario Restaurant Association a few moments ago, again, it is concerned that most of the GATT regulation or subject matter is being dealt with by regulation as opposed to being dealt with in the statute. They feel that there hasn't been an opportunity for enough public input with respect to that aspect of the bill. Presumably they will be satisfied by being able to go to the justice committee and having those concerns looked at.

They are also somewhat concerned that the Canadian-American beer agreement may be on some shaky ground. They understand that the Americans are seriously considering charging an additional levy against Canadian beer because they feel Ontario's not living up to its side of the agreement. Presumably, we will hear more about that during the public hearing aspect or period of this bill as well.

Their third concern is about the pricing of alcohol in the province of Ontario, particularly as it relates to border communities because they're concerned about the lack of competitiveness. For example, they say a large Ontario brewery sells its product for less in Detroit than it does in the province of Ontario, in Windsor for example. That causes them some concern. They believe that's bad for the hospitality industry and they believe it's bad for the tourism industry, particularly in border communities in the province of Ontario.

As alluded to by other colleagues of mine before, they are concerned about the expansion of powers given under sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the bill. I heard what the parliamentary assistant said. They have concerns about the presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence. They have concerns about the power to enter into homes or private dwellings, which could be, I suppose, if you read section 4.2 carefully -- "An inspector" without a warrant "may enter any premises...at which books or records relating to the sale, service, manufacture or storage of liquor are kept or are required to be kept."

That would mean that if the owner of a licensed premises chose to keep some of his or her books at home, an inspector without a warrant would have the power to enter into a private residence or dwelling at which such records were being kept. They are concerned about that and they would at least like the opportunity to address that in committee and hear what the government has to say about it.

They are a little concerned about, as I said, the definition of those premises under section 4.2. They're also concerned about the return of seized items and documents. There doesn't seem to be anything in the legislation, as the member for Brampton North has already alluded, as to when those items and those documents have to be returned to them. There's no time stipulation.

As he has said, we are in favour of the general principle of the legislation, but the Ontario Restaurant Association and others have these concerns that they would like addressed. I think that perhaps now that the bill is going to committee briefly, we'll be able to do that there.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mr Duignan: I appreciate the comments of the honourable member and indeed I look forward too to the public hearings to clear some of the air on some of the issues raised by the honourable member.

I want to assure the honourable member that Ontario is not more closed to other Canadian beer than any other province in Canada. We are not any less fair than any other province. In fact, we were one of the first provinces to let beer into its market, and I believe that is cooperation.

On the whole question of issuing a warrant, "A justice of the peace" is authorized to "issue a warrant authorizing an inspector...to enter premises" in order "to search for and seize" evidence, but they would require a search warrant to do that.

Again, I look forward to the public hearings as well to clear the air on some of these issues and listen to the concerns of the restaurant association.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? The member for Parry Sound, you have two minutes.

Mr Eves: I was just looking forward to the comments about the environmental tax on cans from the Minister of Environment, but I guess he's not going to comment on it.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Tilson: The member for Halton North spoke with respect to the issue of a warrant. I can tell you that on your interpretation of section 4.2 as to whether you need a warrant, with respect to section 4.2 you don't need a warrant. You can simply go in. The inspector can go into any premises without a warrant and do any number of things as are specified, and that's the problem we're raising on this side of the House.

You're right that the next section refers to the requirement of a warrant, and that is only obtained when the inspector may be refused entry or the inspector may have reasonable grounds to believe that the inspector will be denied entry, and that's the problem. I guess the very generality and vagueness that the member for Parry Sound has raised with respect to section 4.2 is simply that you need far more clarity with respect to that issue.

The bill seems to do a number of things and I think that members on this side, as we've indicated, support in general principle the philosophy of the bill. It does amend the Liquor Control Act in order to implement the province of Ontario's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I think we support that in general principle.

Bill 113 also "gives the Liquor Control Board power to impose conditions on authorizations granted by or on appointments made by the board under the act."

It's the third point that I wish to spend some time on this afternoon. The legislation "provides for inspections of premises at which liquor is sold, served, manufactured, kept or stored for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable legislation." As I indicated at the outset, it is that very concern, the very vagueness of section 4.2, that I have general concerns with.

1600

The fourth issue, of course, is that it allows manufacturers of Ontario wine and beer and spirits to sell their products in their own stores.

I guess it's interesting, just to show the concern of this government, that this bill was initially introduced on December 7, 1992. Obviously, this government hasn't been in very much of a hurry to pass this legislation to give US brewers access to its beer stores, and the delay may be justified by the timetable it's had in the past, but certainly it hasn't been of prime importance to wait all this time to bring it to second reading.

I'd like to spend some time on section 4.2, because I'd recommend that between now and when we come back to the House for third reading, either at the committee stage or before that, the government seriously consider amending this section.

Section 4.2 says, "An inspector may enter any premises described in subsection (2)...." Those are as follows: Those have to be where "liquor is sold, served, manufactured, kept or stored." Very general phrases. It could conceivably mean one's house. I'm sure that's not the intention, but where "liquor is...kept or stored." That's what subsection (2) says. Then it goes on: "for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this act, the Liquor Licence Act, the Wine Content Act or any other regulations under those acts."

It may well be the government is saying, "Oh, well, that ensures compliance," but I will say that the wording of this legislation simply says that without a warrant, in my reading of this section, an inspector can simply go to premises, and it's not against the law for them to enter those premises, any premises where liquor is "sold, served, manufactured, kept or stored." That's the only requirement and they can simply enter those premises. It's very general phraseology which I believe should be clarified.

The second reason for which an inspector may enter premises is, "at which books or records relating to the sale, service, manufacture or storage of liquor are kept or are required to be kept."

That may not be quite as damning as the first subsection, but certainly it leads me to believe that an inspector can enter premises, any premises, whether it be residential or commercial, without a warrant.

Why do I come to that conclusion? Because then I turn over to section 4.3 and 4.3 sets forth when you need a warrant, and the only time you need a warrant is when "the inspector has been denied entry," forcibly denied entry, or the inspector has "reasonable grounds to believe that" entry is going to be denied. So for any other reason, it's not illegal for an inspector to enter commercial premises or residential premises. That's the interpretation that I believe needs to be clarified in due course, hopefully, by the government.

Then it goes on to say what the inspector can do, and all of this is without a warrant. The inspector can "remove documents or things" -- I have no idea what that means -- "relevant to the inspection for the purpose of making copies or extracts." These are quite wide-ranging powers that an inspector has without a warrant. Removing "things relevant to the inspection that cannot be copied and may be evidence of the commission of an offence," and then there are a number of other sections, "conduct such tests as are reasonably necessary for the inspection."

That's the main purpose of my rising in this House today, the concern that I don't believe inspectors should be given that general ability to enter premises without a warrant, for no reason whatsoever. The only ground is where "liquor is sold, served, manufactured, kept or stored." That's all they need to know. It's not illegal for them to do that, I would think then, if that should be the case.

The final issue I'd like to speak on has to do with an issue that I spoke on in response to the minister, and that had to do with the fact that Bill 113, this particular bill that's before us today, does nothing to remove the 10-cent levy on cans in Ontario, which creates a problem with the American companies because for most American companies this is the emphasis of choice of packaging in the United States.

If the government felt as strongly as it did on environmental matters, why wouldn't it extend this 10-cent levy to soft drink cans? It's rather suspicious that it affects strictly beer cans. In other words, it's almost a form of discrimination against the American beer companies, which is what the overall intent of the legislation is trying to avoid, and that was to put everyone on the same playing field.

The 10-cent tax will add, has added, $2.40 to a case of 24 cans of beer and it doesn't apply to refillable bottles. Again, I emphasize that generally speaking, beer is sold in cans in the United States. Aluminum beer cans and refillable beer bottles are environmentally equivalent, and as I've indicated, Ontario already has the highest recycling rate in the world.

That would be the second point I would hope the government would consider in possible amendments to this legislation, removing that 10-cent levy on cans in Ontario, because the principle as to why that tax was put forward in the first place simply doesn't apply.

Ontario, to my knowledge, unless someone can correct me, is the only province with a special tax on beer cans, and because it doesn't go with respect to soft drink cans, that leads me to believe that the sole purpose of that 10-cent tax isn't for the environmental purpose that the Minister of Finance has said in the past or the Minister of Environment has said in the past, but it's simply to create discrimination for American beer companies.

About 40% of the beer sold in Ontario is in aluminum cans and there's no evidence, either at the time that 10-cent tax was issued or now, that the 10-cent levy would improve the Ontario environment.

Those are the brief concerns I have with respect to this legislation. I'm pleased that -- at least I think it's been agreed -- it's going to committee, because I think that some of the interest groups should add their comments and hopefully that committee will make recommendations of amendments, particularly with the civil rights issue that clearly jumps out at us when we read section 4.2.

It clearly jumps out at us that something is wrong when you allow an inspector to enter someone's premises without any reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence is being committed. They simply can go in there, as long as it's being sold, served, manufactured, kept or stored. Those are the sole grounds for the entry without a warrant to premises, and I don't think the people involved in this industry should be put to that discretion.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for participating in debate this afternoon.

1610

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments? Further debate? Seeing none, does the honourable minister wish to wrap up? Parliamentary assistant.

Mr Duignan: I'll just take a couple of minutes and go over some of the points raised by the honourable members. Again, amendments to the Liquor Control Act will make it possible for the government to guarantee changes to the provincial beer retail and distribution system that have already taken place with the cooperation of Brewers Retail Inc. These changes are necessary to meet Ontario's international trade obligations and will ensure equal treatment for imported products, especially for imported beer.

Since September 1991, the GATT ruling on provincial beer policies, Ontario has responded quickly to comply with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As far as we know, at this particular time our bill is consistent with GATT and, again as far as we know, the US negotiators have no serious concerns.

The amendments we have introduced reflect Ontario's ongoing commitment to meet our international trade obligations. Working in close consultation with our domestic industry and brewer workers, Ontario made a strong representation to the federal government for a response to GATT supported by both the beer industry and labour, and indeed it was our government insisting that we have a proper approach to GATT that ensured the viability of a strong beer industry in this province. Without our strong representation, the federal government would have sold this particular industry down the tubes the same as it sold other industries down the tubes in relation to NAFTA.

The partnership we have created between brewers, government and brewery unions resulted in changes that would enable the Ontario brewing industry to compete successfully in both an open domestic market and the international sphere as well.

Let there be no mistake about it: Our domestic industry welcomes the opportunity to compete head to head with the United States. We have full confidence in our industry's ability to hold its own, thereby maintaining the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of people working in the industry.

As a first step to prepare for the removal of international barriers, in March 1992 we announced the elimination of interprovincial beer trade barriers, permitting out-of-province spirits to be sold in Brewers Retail stores.

In the summer of 1992, we eliminated listing policies, introduced a single pricing system for imported and domestic beer and made a commitment to provide access to imported beers at Brewers Retail stores, with the voluntary assistance of the Ontario brewers. We have been meeting that commitment.

As my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has already stated, the recent Canada-US beer deal maintained the high standards of our domestic brewing industry and beverage alcohol distribution system here in Ontario.

I would also like to focus on another aspect of this important agreement: It has maintained Ontario's access to one of the largest markets in the world, that of the United States. This important competitive opportunity for Ontario brewers is no small matter. Traditionally, around 15% of domestic beer production in Ontario has been produced for the United States market. American consumers have long recognized Canadian beer as a distinctive, high-quality product that is much in demand. Canadian beer sales in the United States have never been better.

Since the commercial agreement was signed last summer, Canadian beer exports to the United States, most of which originate from Ontario, increased dramatically, up some 47% in October 1993 and 29% in November 1993. Of course, this kind of economic success story translates into job opportunities at Ontario packaging plants and breweries and in the transport industry.

I would also like to speak very briefly to another aspect of Bill 113, and that is the proposed amendments to the Liquor Control Act which will give Ontario's eight distillers a chance to market their products in a new and viable manner. The new legislation will permit distillers to sell their products at retail stores located in the manufacturing sites in the province. As you may already know, wineries and brewers currently enjoy this privilege. I believe it's time that Ontario distillers were granted equal treatment. Wineries in the Niagara region have greatly benefited from onsite retail outlets. Numerous award-winning wineries are attracting an ever-increasing number of tourists eager to learn about the winemaker's art and visit a beautiful part of our province.

In conclusion, I know Ontario distillers would welcome the opportunity to open an onsite retail store. The sooner this legislation is passed, the sooner it might benefit the local economies for distillers of established manufacturing sites.

I look forward to the public hearings on this to deal with some of the concerns raised by the members for Dufferin-Peel, for Parry Sound and for Brampton North and indeed by the restaurant association. I look forward to those hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Mr Duignan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We wish this Bill 113 to be referred to the justice committee. I understand there's agreement of all three parties that we'd have a day of hearings on this.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement that the bill go to justice committee? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is so ordered.

Orders of the day. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Order number 6, Mr Speaker, and I believe that there is agreement to stack the votes on this order until the end of committee of the whole consideration of the entire matter.

Interjections: No.

Mr Eves: With respect to the stacking, Mr Speaker, I don't believe we discussed deferring it to the end of the bill. I believe we did discuss stacking to the end of the day.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement to refer stacking to the end of this day? Agreed? Agreed.

House in committee of the whole.

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Consideration of 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 Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which section?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'd request an opportunity to move to the front row of the Legislature and call in a couple of staff who may want to help, should I need a little bit of assistance in answering the questions or comments that might be put forward by my colleagues.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member can proceed with that request.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I question the presence of a quorum in the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: Could the clerk clarify if indeed we have a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair ordered the bells rung.

1620

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Durham-York may proceed. Amendments, comments and/or questions, and if there are amendments, to which sections, please. We'll deal with those first.

Mr O'Connor: At this point, the government doesn't have any amendments. We look forward to participating in this debate, as my colleagues seem to have some amendments that they would like to bring forward for discussion at this point.

The Second Deputy Chair: Questions, comments or amendments by other members.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have an amendment here which reads as follows --

The Second Deputy Chair: I would ask the honourable member to simply tell us which section it applies to and we will deal with it as we proceed.

Mr McGuinty: It applies to section 9 of the existing bill, and I'm asking that the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph --

The Second Deputy Chair: We'll deal with that. There may be amendments prior to that section.

Mr Runciman: Mr Chair, I move adjournment of the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Leeds-Grenville has moved adjournment of the House.

I am advised that the honourable member can move that the committee rise and report but cannot move adjournment of the House.

The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville, comments, questions or amendments.

Mr Runciman: I have several amendments which have been distributed to the table and to the other two parties: an amendment to subsection 5(1), an amendment to clause 18(1)(d) and subsection 18(3).

The Second Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

We will therefore proceed, committee of the whole, with Bill 119. We've been advised by the opposition that there will be amendments. It's An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others.

Sections 1 through 4 be carried without amendments. Agreed? Agreed.

We do have the first amendment, the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville, to subsection 5(1).

Mr Runciman: These amendments are being introduced by members of the Conservative Party, related to generic packaging, most of them, certainly a significant majority.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Please, the member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: These are related to the generic packaging provisions of the act. In this motion related to subsection 5(1), and I'll put it on the record -- is that appropriate at this time, Mr Chair?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes.

Mr Runciman: I move that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Packaging to bear information

"(1) No person shall sell or offer to sell tobacco at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose unless the package bears or contains a health warning and other information in accordance with the regulations."

I appreciate this opportunity. Although the Conservative Party is essentially in support of Bill 119 and the bulk of provisions inherent in the bill, we're very much concerned about the generic packaging element. Our concerns are based on the impact it will have on jobs in the province of Ontario, and the fact that it would appear that the government and members of the social development committee who supported the legislation in its present form were not aware of the economic impact and the job losses that would flow from the initiatives they've undertaken in respect to the implementation of generic packaging in the province.

I want to put some of these facts on the record now in the hope that government members, and hopefully members of the Liberal Party as well, will sit back and take some time to appreciate the significance of what they're doing.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I've read through the standing orders. I know there was a motion to adjourn. I read page 36, section 42(h), and I see no place where the standing orders say that during committee of the whole a motion to adjourn is not in order. I ask that you, as Chair of committee of the whole House, guide me as to where this is written and where exactly I may find the motion within the standing orders that says a motion to adjourn is out of order.

The Second Deputy Chair: I'm advised that the honourable member can move adjournment of the debate, which would then mean -- no, sorry. You cannot in committee move adjournment of the debate. It's simply a matter of moving that the committee rise and report, which would terminate committee of the whole.

Mr Stockwell: The point of order I asked, Mr Chair, is that I would therefore assume that that would be outlined in the standing orders, that a motion to adjourn and a motion to adjourn the debate is not in order. I'm looking on page 36, where we deal with consideration of the committee of the whole House, and nowhere in the standing orders do I find the item that says you can't adjourn. Now, it may well be you found it, but it certainly isn't dealt with on page 36 in the standing orders.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Legislature at present is sitting in committee and not in the regular proceedings of the Legislature. The mace is not on the table, and therefore we are sitting in committee, as in a regular committee room. Therefore, it is not in order for the committee to adjourn the House.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. But as I suggested, Mr Chair, there are motions to adjourn committees and there are motions to adjourn debates at committees, and those motions I guess would be applicable to a committee of the whole House. Mr Chair, if those are in order in a committee and we are in fact in a committee, why are they not in order here?

1630

The Second Deputy Chair: My understanding is that the only way this can be done is to move that the committee do rise and report. That is how you adjourn the committee of the whole when the mace is not on the table.

Mr Stockwell: I thank you for your patience, Mr Chair, and would ask again. In committees there are procedures to allow committees to adjourn and there are procedures to allow committees to adjourn debate. I wonder why those particular motions within committees are not applicable. The only difference I see is that rather than being in a small committee state, of some 12 or 15 members, we're in the large committee of the whole House state. Why do those committees' rulings not apply to a committee of the whole House?

The Second Deputy Chair: It is my understanding that it is simply because a committee cannot order the House to adjourn, because we are in committee of the whole.

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, Mr Chair, a committee isn't asking the House to adjourn. We are in committee. How on the one hand can you argue that, being in committee, it is not allowed to have the rules of the House followed, but being in a committee you can't then follow the rules of the committee? One way or the other, there have to be rules involved in this place.

I ask you, under what rules are we operating, the committee rules or the House rules? You've told me it's not the House rules. I can only therefore assume it's the committee rules. If it is the committee rules, motions to adjourn and motions to adjourn debate are in order. Why are they not in order in the committee state we're in now?

The Second Deputy Chair: Because we are in committee of the whole House.

Mr Stockwell: Fine. Then, finally, Mr Chair, where in the rule book do I go to see the rules of procedure --

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Let me tell you where to go.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are feverishly looking.

Mr Stockwell: I understand that, and I know the member up there, the ex-cabinet minister with the shoe that fell from her mouth, is very interested in hearing this as well. But I ask you, what committee rules do we follow? Where's the rule book that talks about the rules we follow in the committee of the whole House? I'm very interested in looking them up to find out when an adjournment motion will stand and when a motion to adjourn debate stands.

The Second Deputy Chair: I can tell the honourable member that the area he refers to is on page 40, 45(c), and it states as follows: "A motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House during any debate, or for the Chair of a committee to report progress, or to leave the chair, is not debatable."

Mr Stockwell: I understand it's not debatable; I'm asking about the bells and how long they ring. With all due respect, Mr Chair --

Mrs Haslam: This is a delaying tactic.

Mr Stockwell: The member with the shoe in her mouth wants to get in on this, so maybe we can offer some time to her as well.

Standing order 45(c): "A motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House during any debate, or for the Chair of a committee to report progress, or to leave the chair, is not debatable." I accept that ruling; I understand that ruling. I'm just asking you now: I would like to move the motion to adjourn debate. How long do the bells ring and what rules do we work under, the House rules or committee rules?

The Second Deputy Chair: On page 70, standing order 101: "A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own meeting or the consideration of any matter to a future date, but this standing order shall not affect the application of standing order 16."

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, Mr Chair, I do not plan on adjourning the committee of the whole for consideration of any matter to a future date. I'm not doing that. I can understand the ruling clearly. I do not plan on adjourning the whole House to a future date; I'm just asking to adjourn the House.

I say through you, the Chair, that if you read this clearly, it says, "A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own meeting or the consideration of any matter to a future date." I am not adjourning it to a future date; I'm asking you whether a motion to adjourn is in order. I can't find in the standing orders where it says it's out of order. You may not adjourn to a future date; I accept that. But where does it say in the standing orders that a motion to adjourn is in fact out of order?

The Second Deputy Chair: It has been ruled by the Chair at this particular point, because we are in committee of the whole, that if you move that we adjourn, it's a motion to rise and report, which would terminate debate.

Mr Stockwell: Then can I ask a further question, Mr Chair? Thank you very much for your leniency.

In standing order 102, "Report progress," it says right underneath that: "A motion may be moved during the proceedings of a committee of the whole House that the Chair report progress and ask for leave to meet again, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

When you move a motion to "report progress and ask for leave to meet again," would you then have the same procedures fall in line for a motion to adjourn etc, where a bell would in fact ring? In fact, if it were adopted, you'd have to come back and meet again as a committee of the whole House?

The Second Deputy Chair: If indeed we proceed with your request to adjourn, it would effectively be that the committee would be rising to report and effectively concluding debate.

Mr Stockwell: This is the point I'd like to make through you, Mr Chair, to the House, and to you as well. If in fact on page 70, item 102, it said we were in fact adjourning the whole House, "that the Chair report progress," period, I would agree with you. But the difficulty I have is that it doesn't say that.

What it does say is, "A motion may be moved during the proceedings of a committee of the whole House that the Chair report progress and ask for leave to meet again." I am prepared to report progress, but I insist on asking for leave to meet again. Therefore, would it be incumbent on the House to allow time at a future date to meet again, if that is how the motion is structured when asking leave to rise and report?

The Second Deputy Chair: I am simply advising the member that if the motion is put, it will be effectively to rise and report. What happens from then on is in the hands of the House.

Mr Stockwell: So you're saying that even though this committee of the whole House has said very clearly, "We would like to rise and report, but we insist on asking leave to meet again," the government of the day can overrule a decision made by the Legislature.

The Second Deputy Chair: I follow the honourable member, but as it stands now, if the motion occurs it will be to rise and report, and at that point in time if the House decides to rise and report, this terminates debate.

Mr Stockwell: But I do not want to move a motion that simply says to rise and report; I want to follow section 102 here. I want to move to rise and report, but I ask leave to meet again, and "such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate." So the question I'm asking in my point of order is, how can that be interpreted as saying that I want to rise and report and not meet again, when it says I would like to rise and report and meet again?

The Second Deputy Chair: The normal procedure is that any time the committee rises and reports, the Chair at the time begs leave to sit again.

Mr Stockwell: I understand that. I understand what normal procedure is and I understand what protocol is. I understand all that business. What I'm trying to do is read the rules of this place, and the rules of this place --

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. We're about ready to terminate debate on this particular item.

1640

Mr Stockwell: I understand, Mr Chair, and I thank you very much for your time. But I want to read into the record what the rules of this place say, and they have nothing to do with procedure or decorum or protocol. They have everything to do with the English language, and the English language says "...committee of the whole House that the Chair report progress and ask for leave to meet again...." Now, that's not protocol, that's not history; that's plain and simple. When you rise in the committee of the whole House and report progress, you can move that motion on the proviso that you ask for leave to meet again.

I'm asking you as Chair, how do you interpret that any differently than those words? We ask leave to meet again.

The Second Deputy Chair: And if this occurs and if we ask for leave to sit again, it is in the hands of the committee to decide if indeed we sit again.

Mr Stockwell: What committee?

The Second Deputy Chair: The committee of the whole House.

Mr Stockwell: Okay. Then I ask, Mr Chair, through you: You're saying that if we ask for leave to meet again, the government can't unilaterally overrule the decision made by the committee of the whole House. They then must go back into the committee of the whole and ask the committee of the whole not to give them leave to meet again. Is that what you're saying?

The Second Deputy Chair: The committee would decide.

Mr Stockwell: So it's in the hands of the committee of the whole House.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Which is the committee of the whole House.

The Second Deputy Chair: And the House would decide if the committee meets again.

Mr Stockwell: So it would be a vote in the Legislature to see. Okay. Thank you. I will not move that then.

The Second Deputy Chair: We now can proceed. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Runciman: That was an interesting and rewarding intervention and I very much appreciate the member for Etobicoke West, who is very much concerned about the rules of the House and ensuring that the Chair and the members are abiding by the rules as laid out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.

I was talking about the amendment I put forward. Initially this matter was brought to the attention of myself and the member for Lanark-Renfrew because of two significant employers in our ridings of Leeds-Grenville and Lanark-Renfrew. That employer was Shorewood Packaging. They contacted us, Mr Jordan and myself, to express their concerns about the generic packaging elements of Bill 119, and specifically the amendment brought in by the government members on, I think, the last day of the committee sitting.

They wanted to indicate to us that passage of this legislation, and the subsequent passage of federal legislation which would mandate a national program in respect to generic packaging, would result in significant job losses in both Mr Jordan's riding and mine. They were just apprising us of one firm, Shorewood Packaging, which has a plant in Smiths Falls and a plant in Brockville, Ontario.

The plant in Smiths Falls produces cigarette packaging, and virtually 100% of that Smiths Falls operation is devoted --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House to listen to this, and I think it's necessary to hear Mr Runciman speak.

The Second Deputy Chair: Could the clerk check if we do have a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville may continue.

Mr Runciman: I was in the process of indicating to you the significant job loss that would hit both Leeds-Grenville and Lanark-Renfrew in respect to one firm only that I'm mentioning at this point, Shorewood Packaging.

The owners of Shorewood Packaging indicated to both Mr Jordan and I that there would be the loss of 408 jobs because of the closure of Shorewood Packaging operations in Smiths Falls and Brockville.

As I was indicating earlier, virtually 100% of the Smiths Falls --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't believe a quorum's present.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Leeds-Grenville may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Stockwell: You ought to change the colour of the package.

Mr O'Connor: You want to delay it.

Mr Stockwell: Well, then, don't sell it. Stop selling it then, Larry. Stop selling cigarettes.

The Second Deputy Chair: Please, the member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor and is dealing with his amendment.

Mr Runciman: I was talking about one element of this and that was the Shorewood Packaging element in respect to Mr Jordan's riding of Lanark-Renfrew and my riding of Leeds-Grenville: 408 jobs. The owners of Shorewood Packaging didn't pull any punches when they met with us. They indicated quite clearly that the institution of generic packaging would result in the closure of their facilities in Ontario.

I want to put on the record why that is indeed the case, why those jobs would be lost:

"The process involves in-line printing and dye cutting utilizing approximately eight separate print stations to lay down various ink colours in series on to the paperboard substrate to create the finished package. The ink is applied to the substrate via engraved cylinders which carry the reproduction image. Generic packaging would ostensibly require only one colour for brand identification and hence, completely obsolete the existing equipment and skill set used to produce premium tobacco packaging. This would, of course, also suggest no need for the current suppliers' ink manufacturing or cylinder engraving capacity designated to serve the tobacco packaging industry.

"The impact on Shorewood Packaging would be devastating. We would be forced to move our equipment out of the country as it would no longer be required to produce plain, generic packaging. This would affect all of the 220 and 188 people (total 408) employed in Brockville and Smiths Falls respectively."

I want to put on the record a number of other things in respect to job losses. This is just coming together now because of this bill and the fact that packaging firms were not aware of this initiative undertaken by the NDP government and supported by the Liberal Party of Ontario in terms of job losses to Ontario. We're not aware of it.

Not one of these firms appeared before the standing committee before this kind of a decision was taken -- I want to emphasize that point -- not one packaging firm, not one printing ink firm. These kinds of firms were not afforded the opportunity to at least present their own case before the social development committee before the decision was taken, supported by the NDP and Liberal parties.

1650

I want to put a few more facts on the record. Kromacorp Printing Ink Specialists is another company that's going to be very negatively impacted upon by this move to generic packaging. Kromacorp employs 42 people in Prescott, Ontario. Their business depends on the specialty packaging of cigarette packages. We are hearing from all sorts of people employed at Kromacorp, their relatives, their families, their children, their in-laws, who are very much concerned about this initiative and the impact it's going to have on them, their families, their communities.

But all we get here is joking from the NDP benches, joking and laughing about a matter as serious as these people losing their livelihood. It's a joke for the NDP. It's offensive.

Lawson Mardon: I don't have where that company's located but I will get it later.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: It's Mississauga, someone says. It's to lose 130 jobs. Lawson Mardon, 130 jobs, and we're trying to get more information on this as the process evolves.

Roto-Tone Gravure: 25 jobs there.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm afraid once again, Mr Chair, there's not a quorum.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Runciman: I move adjournment of the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: According to standing order 100(a) --

Mr Murdoch: Page 70.

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, page 70. We've gone through this before and I have to rule the honourable member's motion out of order.

Mr Stockwell: I don't think you're reading this properly, Mr Chair, and I'll challenge the ruling of the Chair, sir.

The Second Deputy Chair: A challenge to the Chair's ruling has been issued and therefore we will call the Speaker of the House.

The committee rose and requested a ruling of the Speaker.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Speaker, I beg to inform you that a challenge of my ruling has occurred, and I beg your assistance in this matter, sir.

The situation is that the honourable member for Etobicoke West has asked to adjourn the House. We are in committee of the whole and as such it is not in order, in my opinion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the Chair for his report. All honourable members should know that when the House is in committee of the whole, a motion to adjourn the House is not in order. What is in order is a motion that the committee rise and report. That's always in order and can be voted upon.

The Chair is right. I'm pleased to sustain the ruling of the Chair. You may resume your business.

House in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now in committee, and in my opinion there is nothing out of order.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I certainly don't want to degrade the position of Chair, but with all due respect, and I think the Clerk's table will agree, you didn't actually phrase what my motion was properly, and he had no choice but to rule the way he ruled. I tell you, Mr Chair, that I didn't ask for a motion of adjourned debate. It was a motion strictly with respect to adjournment, and I don't think the Speaker had an understanding of what I was asking for because the phrasing you used was fundamentally incorrect, and I appeal to you, Mr Chair.

1700

The Second Deputy Chair: In my recollection with the Speaker's ruling, he advised the committee of the whole that the only point that would be in order was for the committee to rise and report.

The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville can --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: So the only motion that's in order at this time is a motion to rise and report? Is that what you're saying? Because I didn't hear --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, and I understand the catcalls from across the floor, Mr Chair, I did not ask for a motion to adjourn debate; I did not ask for that motion to be dealt with by the Speaker. I singularly asked for a motion to adjourn the House. The Speaker ruled on the motion to adjourn the House. I want to be very clear about this because I think it's very important.

The Second Deputy Chair: If I recall correctly, I did correct myself and say to adjourn the House and not the debate. I had mentioned debate first and then it did go to the House and the ruling is that it is not in order to adjourn the House. The only thing in order would be to rise and report.

The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Runciman: I was putting on the record the number of job losses that are tied in with the move to bring in generic packaging in the province of Ontario.

I mentioned Shorewood Packaging with 408 jobs; Kromacorp Printing Ink Specialists, 42 jobs. Both those plants would close. Lawson Mardon I'm told is in Mississauga, 130 jobs, a plant closure; Roto-Tone Gravure, I don't have information at hand, but we're trying to get that, 25 jobs; Flexible Packaging, I believe this may be in Etobicoke, 180 jobs and a plant closure. We're talking about 785 direct jobs lost as a result of this initiative that we're aware of at this point.

If you use the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology formula that it uses in respect to every manufacturing job creating three other jobs in the service sector, and not even use that ratio, which is accepted by the government and the government ministry, use a more conservative ratio of two jobs created for every one manufacturing job, we are up to the point of 1,100 indirect job losses as a result of this initiative.

So if you total a very conservative estimate of 1,100 indirect job losses and 785 direct job losses that we are aware of as of today, you're talking about almost 1,900 job losses to the province of Ontario as a result of this ill-thought-out initiative on the last day of committee hearings of the standing committee on social development, without any input from the sectors of the industry that are going to be impacted upon, without any input from the people who are going to be impacted upon who are going to lose their jobs: very fine, high-paid jobs in the province of Ontario.

The Minister of Economic Development and Trade and I gather the Premier would give their eye-teeth to attract those kinds of jobs to the province of Ontario, and here we are saying it's okay to get rid of almost 1,900 high-paying jobs in good, clean industries. The industries in Mr Jordan's riding of Lanark-Renfrew and my riding of Leeds-Grenville are fine corporate citizens. They contribute and participate in their communities, they have environmentally spotless records, they have high-paying jobs, they have outstanding records within their communities and I have to assume that the others that are involved in this that we are aware of as of today -- Lawson Mardon, Roto-Tone Gravure and Flexible Packaging -- have comparable records within their various communities.

An element which both Mr Jordan and I are starting to hear about is, as I said, the personal side of this. We have the efforts at intimidation by government members which we're hearing here today, that we don't care about people dying of lung cancer, which is offensive, at the very least. We in the Conservative Party care very much.

We also know that there's no clear evidence to indicate that generic packaging is going to have a significant impact in terms of reducing the number of young people who are smoking. Certainly there are arguments on both sides of this, but the government in its lack of wisdom and the standing committee on social development in its lack of wisdom have failed to even take a look at this question.

All Mr Jordan and I and the Conservative Party are attempting to do -- and we think it's very reasonable, but we certainly have not had the support of the Minister of Health or her parliamentary assistant in our discussions to this point. We had an initially receptive ear from the Premier, who indicated sincere concern, but he has failed to act upon that expression of concern.

What we're saying is that the committee, at the very least -- certainly at the outset the government should have instituted a very thorough investigation of the implications of this kind of initiative being undertaken by the government in the health care field and its impact on young people being attracted to smoking. Clearly, there should have been some kind of objective analysis.

We shouldn't have had this from the lobby groups we hear from on a regular basis who are against smoking, and for the most part I support those people. We shouldn't have had the research being done by those people, because they are certainly not objective. They have a message to deliver, and I think that colours any kind of analysis they would undertake.

We certainly couldn't have supported some kind of analysis or study undertaken by those on the tobacco side of the equation, because again we know they come from a particular perspective with a bias, which we all can appreciate and understand, if not sympathize with.

What the government should have undertaken is an objective assessment through joint ministry effort, I believe, through the Ministry of Health, through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and perhaps some other measure through one of the Premier's councils related to job development and job encouragement in this province.

But no such initiative was undertaken. Not even lipservice, as we can understand it, was given to the question of job loss and the implications for the Ontario economy. Almost 1,900 jobs ain't chicken feed. This is not chicken feed. We're talking about very important jobs, well-paid jobs. These people are making $40,000 to $50,000 a year, some of them, and the jobs lost are going to have a significant detrimental economic impact on the areas which they will affect. Mr Jordan will be putting some of these on the record as we proceed.

We are of course not wishing to proceed with this quickly, because we want the government to take heed of our concerns. There's been no recognition of that to date. I tried to ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade in the House today, and what did she do? She tried to fob it off to a minister who had no relationship whatsoever in terms of the job question and who appears -- I could be wrong on this, but certainly it appears so -- to be a zealot when it comes to this question and falls back again on this whole issue that we're jeopardizing the lives of innocent Ontarians etc, which is a red herring. There's no clear evidence to substantiate that claim, and certainly the committee did not hear, or give opportunity to hear, the other side of the argument.

Both Mr Jordan and I have asked to appear before the federal committee which is taking a look at this legislation so that we can at least have an opportunity to convey our message there, but we're not certain that's going to happen, because now industry representatives, people affected, are aware of what's going on, as they were not aware of what was happening at the Ontario level. They're now aware. We're told the committee looking at this at the federal level now has something like 45 people who wish to appear before it on a waiting list. Mr Jordan and I, the member for Lanark-Renfrew and I, may not have the opportunity to even appear and express the concerns of the people we represent because of the lineup of people now who want to appear before the federal committee.

Certainly many of those people would have liked to have had the opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development in Ontario if they even had been told, even had been aware of what they were going to do. But that initiative, that undertaking -- there was no effort to apprise these people of what the government had in mind.

1710

I know we're going to hear that a member of our caucus was complicit in this effort and supported this effort, and he has since indicated that he thinks that was unfortunate in the way it was approached. He may not change his opinion in respect to generic packaging, but he thinks the way it was handled by the committee was inappropriate and certainly did not afford an opportunity for the people who are going to be impacted upon or the public at large to really have a significant input into this whole question of generic packaging.

I have a letter from Kromacorp Printing Ink Specialists, from a woman who works for the plant, Printing Inks Corp of Canada. She's 33 years old, a married mother of two daughters. She's asking the following question: "What right do our elected politicians have to tell intelligent Canadian citizens whether or not a package of cigarettes should be red, blue, or white and black?"

She indicates: "This is a democratic society and it worries me that my job, along with approximately 500 people just in Leeds-Grenville and Lanark, could be lost because of this. I would like to know what compensation package has been put together when our industry is lost, wiped out because of the ill-thought-out decisions of politicians.

"When I was a young teenager living in a home in which both parents smoked, it was my personal decision based on my own personal beliefs and the information given and taught to me that I decided I did not wish to take up the habit of smoking. I guarantee you it had nothing to do with the colour of the cigarette packages. To this day, I have held firm on that decision.

"The federal and provincial governments that are in power today were put there because they had plans to put people back to work. As a person who spent this past weekend lobbying her friends, neighbours and anyone who would listen, I can guarantee that if this decision goes through, the company that I helped establish 13 years ago, which is the parent company to branches in Toronto and Smiths Falls, will move to the United States.

"If someone had told me the government would force me to humiliate and degrade myself by going to the streets of my home to try and save my job, I would never have believed them. However, I now know that it can and may happen.

"We currently export 60% of our business to the United States. Of the remaining 40%, 90% is tobacco related. It is not economically feasible to keep a Canadian company open just to sell ink to the United States.

"If this decision is made, it would change the way in which the cartons are printed and therefore eliminate the printing jobs as well as jobs in printing ink manufacturing. The bottom line is that it is not a question of whether smoking is legal or not, but a question of whether the government is able to infringe on the freedom of expression and creativity and to put approximately 500 local people out of work, not to mention the domino effect to the province if those people lose their jobs."

I continue with this letter from a lady working for Kromacorp Printing Ink Specialists:

"In years past, it was a degrading and demoralizing experience to have to ask the government for help and accept welfare. Today, in our social environment, children feel that there will be so little choice for them and that the government makes it so easy to be on welfare, it is in actual fact the best way of life: no work, no boss, no stress, few bills.

"I've always been proud of being a working Canadian. It makes me sick to my stomach to see so many young Canadians on the welfare system. With decisions like the one I have outlined in this letter being made on our behalf, will I too soon become another statistic? When will the government learn? Stop playing God. Do the job that the people of Canada and Ontario voted them to do.

"Government officials are voted into office by the people, for the people, not to do what they feel is best. Before making a decision on our behalf, perhaps you should look at the end result. Effective advertising of the effects of tobacco are far better at changing a person's mind on what is right for them. There's nothing worse than telling a child they can't or shouldn't do something. But then again, that is not what you are saying. You are saying if it's in a white box rather than a red box, they won't want to buy cigarettes. We say one has nothing to do with the other.

"Put your efforts towards education rather than eliminating my job. You will have a more economical and perhaps more effective health result in the long run.

"The government caved in to pressure to lower taxes on cigarettes, so this is your next step. If my job and others associated with it are lost, the tax base will be extremely lower as well. In the end, how is the government going to support everyone they put on welfare?

"Please see your way clear to re-evaluate your stand to take on the tobacco industry. They are not the only industry involved. Myself and the Canadian parent company which we are all so proud of need clear-thinking and progressive politicians to return the sorry state of the Canadian and Ontario economies to their once powerful and much-envied status. If we go out of business, the economical loss to the surrounding areas could be devastating."

I want to put another letter on the record. This was from another employee. This is someone from Kroma Printing Inks Corp of Canada, addressed to me, writing in respect to the black and white tobacco packaging which will be enabled through Bill 119 and which my amendments to the bill address.

"Dear Bob,

"I am writing you in regard to the potential legislation of generic tobacco packaging. I am currently employed by Kroma Printing Inks Corp of Canada. The majority of the product produced at our facility is supplied to the tobacco packaging industry. Our company consists of 50 employees, 43 that are based in Prescott, Ontario.

"I am not writing you as a representative of the company but as a representative of my family. I am married and have a five-year-old son, mortgage on a modest home and the usual working stiff debts.

"The two most popular methods of printing used today are the gravure and lithographic methods. Tobacco product packaging is currently printed by the gravure process. This process employs the use of an eight-unit gravure printing press, one unit for each colour, an image printed on any given package.

"If generic packaging is legislated, there would no longer be the need for an eight-colour printing press, and all the packaging designs will be transferred to the lithographic process. The transfer to lithographic does not mean there will be a major creation or transition of jobs and personnel in the lithographic industry. It only means that the current jobs and personnel in the gravure industry will become redundant.

"We are only a gravure ink manufacturer and do not possess the technology or equipment to produce lithographic ink products. Even if we did, what would our chances of survival be, producing only one colour? The gravure printing industry itself will be affected, as will the suppliers of gravure-grade pigments, resins, solvents and additives. The total jobs affected would number in the thousands.

"The proposed generic packaging is black and white. I have observed that one of the most popular colour combinations among today's youth is black and white. Is this legislation intended to promote or deter smoking? I believe that this may promote the purchase of the more colourfully packaged imported brands and that smokers will be smokers, no matter what. They may have to adjust to reading the labels on the package, instead of recognizing the design.

1720

"Advertisement and packaging is the freedom to express or promote a product. Pushing this legislation due to personal preference is far from democratic. How far do the politicians in Canada intend to go before we lose all freedom of expression and resolve to the fact that we are practising socialist government tactics?"

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that, given we have a socialist government in Ontario, supported by a quasi-socialist Liberal opposition.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We're really on their team, you know.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, we know that.

Mr Mahoney: But you're the guys who voted with them on the social contract.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor, and he is debating his amendment.

Mr Runciman: Okay, I want to continue the quotes.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Chair, while I take very seriously the member's comments, I very much appreciate being called a socialist.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: The end of this letter makes reference -- I'm finishing off the letter and I'll provide this to Hansard -- to the increase of cholesterol. I think this is an appropriate question related to this amendment and this whole question of generic packaging and where it leads us. The final comment in the letter from the employee of Kroma:

"The increase of cholesterol due to the consumption of butter can have an adverse effect on one's health. Where does it all end? Does the government intend to shut down the dairy farmer next?" That should be a special concern of yours, Mr Chairman. "We need to fight this! I don't smoke and I enjoy my freedom to choose not to."

Again, I want to point out the fact that throughout the course of this debate, in case people are viewing through the parliamentary channel, the Conservative Party is attempting to delay this legislation not because we disagree with the basic intent or thrust of the legislation; in fact, we have been supportive. This was a last-minute amendment to the legislation by the government, with no opportunity for input from the public in respect to this amendment. This was brought in during clause-by-clause consideration.

I want the public who are viewing this and people who are concerned about speedy passage of this legislation to understand that this amendment was brought in by the government, not by an opposition member. This amendment was brought in by the NDP government members on the standing committee on social development during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 119. There was no opportunity to have input. As I said earlier, not one of the affected industries that we're aware of today, and we suspect there may be even more, had any opportunity whatsoever to put their case forward. Those are the employers we're talking about, let alone the almost 1,900 people who are going to lose their jobs in this province as a result of this ill-thought-out initiative which I think is pure lunacy.

We have over half a million people on the unemployed list in the province of Ontario. We have over one million people on social assistance, I believe it is. If you take that into effect, close to 20% of the Ontario population is out of work, and here we have 1,900 good-paying jobs that this government is prepared to flush down the toilet without even listening to the people affected. I hope the people listening to this program understand, because I've been heckled today by government members who are suggesting that the Conservatives don't care about a health issue. We care deeply.

Do these people understand the implications on health of a person losing a job and not finding another opportunity? There just aren't that many opportunities around, Mr Chairman, as you and I know and those people should know. We have two million people out of work and they're prepared to flush these other people down the toilet. I want to say, what are the health care implications for those people, the stress?

Mr O'Connor: What about the 13,000 who die?

Mr Runciman: That's the sort of idiocy that we're hearing from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. It's totally offensive when he says we don't care about 13,000 people dying of health-related issues. I said we'll pass --

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Give me a break. Ban it if you're so concerned. Ban smoking, big talker. Ban it then. You don't care about people dying.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: Obviously, especially to Mr Jordan and me, who are aware at this stage of the very dramatic negative impact on our ridings -- other members are just starting to be aware because there's recognition growing of the impact of this legislation. This was something that was snuck through in the dark of the night, in effect, by the committee during clause-by-clause, without any consideration and any care --

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: -- any care or consideration.

Mr O'Connor: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Just to clarify the situation, "snuck through" started in January. A discussion paper with this issue in it, January 1993 --

The Second Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr O'Connor: That's what you call "snuck through."

The Second Deputy Chair: That's not a point of order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: I think that we have taken a very responsible position in the Conservative Party. We are prepared to expedite the passage of Bill 119, with one very responsible proviso, we feel. The one very responsible proviso is that the government hold back on the elements related to generic packaging, refer them back to the social development committee for full public hearings; get on with Bill 119 and the health care elements that we were concerned about.

They talk about stalling tactics. The reality is, the amendment brought in on the last day was not part of Bill 119 as it was originally tabled by the government. It was not part of the bill, so why is there so much concern about referring that back now so that people who are impacted upon can have an opportunity to appear here and state their case? That's all we're asking for. I think it's eminently reasonable. Instead, we get this heckling from the backbenchers who have nothing better to do. That's what they're paid for, I gather: to sit in here and heckle the opposition when they have really legitimate concerns about almost 1,900 people losing their jobs.

On occasion, sitting as an opposition member, it's extremely depressing to try and make your case and try to be fair, and when you do lose your composure, which I have done on occasion -- but I think that anyone watching this cannot hear the heckling, cannot hear the interventions by the members of the government side. I think Mr Jordan and I are supporting a very legitimate option here. We want to see this legislation move ahead as quickly as possible. We simply want this one element to be looked at because it was not looked at by the committee. This was brought in -- I have to re-emphasize this -- in clause-by-clause, the last day of the committee hearings, no opportunity for testimony, no notification to the interest groups; none whatsoever.

I wonder if a page could get me another glass of water, please.

1730

I have to wonder about how the government members can justify the position they're taking on this. The Liberal opposition, although a member expressed concern about my identification of his party as in support of this particular amendment, the fact is that that's the case. They're ready to speed through third reading, including this amendment with its significant job losses. That's the position of the Liberal Party. That's the position of the NDP. It's only the Conservative Party that's standing up and expressing concern about the loss of 1,900 jobs in the province of Ontario; only the Conservative Party.

People watching this through the parliamentary channel may be wondering about some of the tactics you're seeing utilized here today. Well, there are very few options available to members of the opposition to delay because of the procedural changes brought in first by the Liberal government and the NDP to cut off opposition debate. That's the reason why. So we have to take advantage of the few opportunities available to us as an opposition party to try and delay this.

Clearly, it's our view that this has to be delayed in the hope that we can persuade the government to take another look at what it's doing here and the job losses as a result of this ill-thought-out initiative and to start to hear the appeals from all of the people who are being impacted upon.

I suspect if one of these industries is located in an NDP riding, we may start to hear a different song being sung over there. I don't know; I'm not sure. Some of the backbenchers don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude even to stand up on behalf of their own ridings. That's the regrettable truth, and we've seen that happen on a number of occasions with respect to the NDP. They're certainly whipped into submission, most of them, even on matters impacting upon their own ridings. It's certainly one of the things that the public at large are turned off about in terms of the whole political process.

That's why we have do what we have to do. There are a very limited number of options especially --

Mrs Haslam: It was Norm Sterling who brought in the amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Are you serious?

Mrs Haslam: Am I serious? I've got the Hansard here.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, with all of this heckling from the government members, I would move adjournment of the debate.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member has moved adjournment of the debate, and the Chair's ruling has to be the same as it was some time ago: that indeed it is not in order to move adjournment of the debate when we are in committee of the whole.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Some time ago I listened with great interest to the debate that the member for Etobicoke West had with you on this very subject, and I would have to agree with the member from Etobicoke, so I would have to challenge your order.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Grey-Owen Sound has challenged the Chair's ruling, and we therefore must call for the Speaker.

The committee rose and requested a ruling of the Speaker.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Speaker, sir, we are in committee of the whole on Bill 119. A challenge to my ruling on adjournment of the debate, which was moved by the member for Leeds-Grenville, who had the floor very legitimately, has occurred from the member for Grey-Owen Sound. We are asking for your ruling, sir.

The Speaker: The House would know that when you are in committee of the whole, a motion to adjourn the debate is not in order. The Chair was right; I've sustained the ruling of the Chair. You may continue with your business.

House in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair: We shall now resume debate in committee of the whole on Bill 119. The member for Leeds-Grenville had the floor.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would just like to seek clarification. Can the member for Leeds-Grenville then pass the floor to the member for --

The Second Deputy Chair: We will proceed with the normal rotation.

Mr Stockwell: But the member for Leeds-Grenville is not giving up the floor; I'm just asking if that can be done.

The Second Deputy Chair: Will the member for Leeds-Grenville resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Runciman: I wanted to again review the point that we in the Conservative Party are not attempting to delay Bill 119 as it was originally submitted to this House and as it was originally submitted to the standing committee on social development. Our caucus discussed Bill 119, debated Bill 119, and supported Bill 119. We supported it in committee.

What we are concerned about, and what this is all about, for the edification of the viewing audience, if no one else, is that in the last day of the committee hearing, the government brought in an amendment in clause-by-clause which was bringing in, in effect, generic packaging.

Mrs Haslam: Norm Sterling moved an amendment to bring in generic packaging.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Perth will have her opportunity. Please. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, it's difficult to continue, given the efforts of the government not to even listen to our concerns and the heckling that is forthcoming, but I think the message is a very simple one: We are very much concerned about the question of 1,900 job losses in the province of Ontario, at least four plants being closed --

Mrs Haslam: And 13,000 deaths, 4,000 young people a month --

Mr Runciman: I hear the red herring being thrown across the floor of 13,000 people. I assume that is deaths related in some way, shape or form to smoking. That's a red herring to justify the lack of any effort whatsoever to look into the implications of this generic packaging, not only in the jobs, but there's an assumption on the part of the government members, apparently, to justify their position on this and their lack of caring and lack of consideration on this, that generic packaging is somehow magically going to have an impact on those numbers of people who have health-related illnesses as a result of cigarette smoking. There's nothing to substantiate that in an objective way that we're aware of, and certainly nothing has been done in respect to the job implications.

1740

Mrs Haslam: It prevents young people from starting. It's proven in studies. Look up the research. It's about young people; it's about not letting young people start smoking.

Mr Runciman: It's difficult, Mr Speaker, to focus when one particular member with a very -- it reminds me of a shovel going along the pavement. It has the same impact on me, that particular voice. I won't mention the member's name.

There's a story about assumptions that I want to put on the record, assumptions the government members are making. The assumption that government members are making is a faulty one, we believe, in respect to health care, although we're prepared to hear that argument, we're prepared to listen to it, and we're prepared to make a decision following that opportunity being provided to everyone who has a view in respect to that issue. We are open to that. We in the Conservative Party are open to hearing that, but we are also open and receptive to hearing what the impact is on job losses, and I think we should and indeed could expand that.

When we take a look at the job loss implications, which as of today total up to 1,900, we should also have people in to testify before the committee about the health cost implications related to people losing their jobs, people who have had solid positions in the community, who have been able to make a contribution to their community, not just in an economic sense but in a social, cultural way, who will find themselves in a very difficult economic situation in the province of Ontario because of no fault of their own, because of an arbitrary decision taken by a provincial NDP government and a federal Liberal government, a decision taken by two governments without even taking the time to listen to their concerns, to take any understanding or appreciation of the implications.

I'd like to put at least one other letter on the record today with respect to this matter, perhaps a few more as the process evolves. This is from a doctor, and the member for Perth may be interested in listening to this if she can stop heckling long enough to listen.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): If it is a doctor.

Mr Runciman: Yes, it is a doctor, a Dr Bukowskyj, who is a doctor of respiratory and internal medicine. We're talking about tobacco packaging here. We're talking about smoking. This could not be more topical in respect to the subject at hand. This is from a Dr Bukowskyj of Kingston, Ontario. This is a letter dated April 11, 1994, and it's addressed to me.

"Dear Mr Runciman:

"Despite the fact that I am not a member of your riding, I am a physician and it has come to my attention that you are not supporting the rapid passage of Bill 119."

He goes on to indicate the question of lung disease, and he makes no reference to any evidence being on the record that plain packaging will have an impact on the question of youth smoking.

Mrs Haslam: He supports the bill.

Mr Runciman: He is certainly very supportive of Bill 119, there's no question about that, and he would like to see the bill passed without delay. I will put that on the record. Again, I have said earlier today during the course of this debate that we as well believe Bill 119 should be passed quickly. We believe it should be passed quickly in its original state, the state in which it was introduced, the state in which it received second reading and the state in which it went through a complete process of public hearings. That is the state of Bill 119 which we will support today. We will support speedy passage.

The one fly in the ointment is the fact that on the last day of committee hearings, not a public process --

Mrs Haslam: The fly in the ointment is your grandstanding.

Mr Runciman: I hear that kind of language from the member for Perth and it's terribly offensive. We hear this sort of thing floating across.

Mr David Winninger (London South): The truth always hurts.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order, please. The member, go ahead.

Mr Runciman: To suggest that we're doing this for reasons other than that we care about the impact on our ridings and that we care about what's happening across this province is mean-spirited, to say the least.

I can't speak for other members impacted upon by this, but I can say for the member for Lanark-Renfrew, Mr Jordan, and myself that we've met with employers and we're hearing from employees and their families. We're hearing pleas from the families to do what we can to try and stop this legislation in terms of the element of generic packaging.

We're hearing pleas from families. We're hearing pleas from mothers-in-law, from mothers, children, people who are very concerned about their futures. All we're getting is scoffing and heckling from the NDP members, and ridicule and questions of our sincerity, which I find deeply offensive and I'm sure the member for Lanark-Renfrew finds deeply offensive.

We have every right as members of this Legislature to do what we can in a limited way as members of the opposition to try and make the government understand the concerns of people in our ridings and right across this province. They are legitimate concerns, they are deeply held concerns and they are valid concerns, which this government apparently is not even prepared to listen to.

All we say, and I'll reiterate, is: Take the offensive section, which was brought in on the last day of committee hearings and take it out on a temporary basis. Take it out and move it back to the committee for full --

Mrs Haslam: Your party had an amendment for generic packaging.

Mr Stockwell: He withdrew it.

Mr Murdoch: Listen to what he's trying to tell you.

The First Deputy Chair: Interjections are out of order. Members, come to order.

Mr Stockwell: He withdrew it, and you put a new one in. You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Murdoch: Ask Sharon. She said she was there, but she didn't hear --

Mr Stockwell: They don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Stockwell: It's hard to believe. Get the shoe out of your mouth; maybe we'd hear better. You don't know what you're talking about. He withdrew it and you put a new one in.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, is that not right? You want to bet?

Mrs Haslam: He brought in his amendment after the generic packaging --

The First Deputy Chair: The member for Perth, come to order.

Mr Murdoch: It's about time she comes to order.

The First Deputy Chair: All interjections are out of order. Would the member continue, please.

Mr Runciman: It's going to be interesting as this process evolves. I've been critical. I've been pleading, in effect, with the government members, the parliamentary assistant, the minister. The member for Lanark-Renfrew and myself met with the minister briefly. We briefly discussed this with the parliamentary assistant today, who took a rigid approach, as has the Minister of Health, an inflexible approach, unwilling to deal with our concerns in a meaningful way.

I tried to raise a question with the economic development minister in respect of the role that her ministry plays and that she plays around the cabinet table in terms of the preservation of good, well-paying jobs in this province. It seems to me we have a Jobs Ontario program which this government and its backbenchers are lauding at every possible occasion, and here we have a situation where almost 1,900 -- and I want to qualify that in the sense that that's what we are aware of as of today. More information came in today in respect of job loss and plant closures, and I suspect even more will be coming to our attention as days go by, as more and more people become aware of this very negative situation.

1750

We're going to do what we can as members of the Conservative Party, but I was getting to the point that I think it's going to be interesting, as this evolves, when we know what the government position is. We will hear that from the parliamentary assistant and I don't think there's going to be any flexibility. He certainly hasn't shown any up to this point in the debate today or any indication of same. It's going to be interesting to hear from the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Ontario.

I described earlier that we're dealing with a socialist party and a quasi-socialist party.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: The Minister of Environment and Energy was quick to praise me for describing his party as socialist. I just remind him of the last election when his leader was less than enthusiastic about describing himself and his party as socialists.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): He evaded it.

Mr Runciman: He evaded it, right. The member for Simcoe East is quite accurate that the current Premier was very evasive during the election process as to whether indeed he was the leader of a socialist party or not, but now that they're in government, clearly there's no question in anyone's mind that we have a socialist party in power.

The other question is that I have described the Liberal Party as a quasi-socialist party. Certainly we saw that there was great comfort in the two parties during the 1985-87 period when they linked arms together in the socialist accord of 1985-87 which put Mr Peterson in power with Bob Rae pulling a lot of the strings and getting his friends like Elie Martel, Donald MacDonald and others appointed to significant, important government positions.

It's going to be interesting. One member of the Liberal Party took offence at me describing them as quasi-socialists and the fact that they support this measure which is going to cost almost 1,900 jobs in Ontario that we are aware of. What's going to be interesting as this debate evolves is to see if any Liberal member even participates in this debate on this particular amendment.

Mr Bisson: If you give them a chance.

Mr Runciman: We'll give them a chance, don't worry about it, but I suspect that if they do take up the opportunity to speak, they're not going to speak in support of my amendment. They're going to speak in support of the government NDP amendment which is going to bring generic packaging to Ontario and is going to result in at least 1,900 lost jobs; good jobs in clean, environmentally sound industries, industries that contribute to their communities and play a significant role in their communities.

Perhaps I shouldn't jump to these kinds of conclusions in respect to the decisions taken by the Liberal Party of Ontario. They are making some strange sounds lately with an election on the horizon, even moving into some areas that were previously the sole purview of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Strangely, we see the leader of the Liberal Party trying to infringe on some of those areas now to try and moderate the image of the party so it's not so clear to Ontario voters that they're dealing with a socialist and a quasi-socialist party. She's trying to muddy the waters, in some respect, but I don't believe it's going to be effective.

I want to put a few other matters on the record and I want to apologize in respect to Dr Bukowskyj, just to make sure the record is clear, that he is indeed very supportive of Bill 119 and wants to see speedy passage as do members of the Conservative Party if indeed we are given any consideration in respect to our concerns about job loss.

All we're asking for is that we be given an opportunity to discuss this fully with members of all three parties in the Legislature and that the people who are going to be impacted upon have an opportunity in terms of time to make their case in respect to this matter and then bring the measure back to the House.

If the government and the Liberal Party are still convinced that this is the way to go, I'm sure that we in the Conservative caucus are prepared to say that we will not hinder the passage of that initiative at a future date, if indeed full public hearing opportunities are provided. We will not hinder that if it comes back to the House in much the same form that currently exists. We will oppose it, we will speak to it, but we will not in any undue fashion try to delay the measure at that point in time being incorporated because we will have had an opportunity, the public will have had an opportunity, the industries affected and the people affected will have had an opportunity to state their case.

If the government doesn't want to accept their case, if the Liberal Party doesn't want to accept their case, if both of those parties are not concerned in any significant way about the major job losses that are going to occur and the impact on the people affected and the economy of Ontario, so be it. So be it; that's the case.

Our concern at this juncture is that no such opportunity has been afforded or is being afforded or being suggested or being offered. In fact, we're being told by the parliamentary assistant and by the minister: "We're inflexible on this. We're going ahead on this with the blinkers on, in a zealot-like fashion. We have only one goal in mind and that's to try and appease," I assume, "some of the people who were upset about the reduction in taxation on cigarettes."

They're trying to appease those people who are significant lobbyists around this place; let's accept that. The people losing their jobs and the industries that are being closed don't have paid lobbyists running around the halls of Queen's Park. The people on the other side of this issue do, we know. Even when I raised concerns about this issue a couple of weeks ago there was immediately a missive in the mail expressing concern about any delay that we might cause in terms of speedy passage of this bill. There were phone calls made and I'm sure I'm not the only member of the Legislature who received a message from people who lobby this place on a fairly regular basis.

The people we're talking about, the folks who are going to be losing their jobs, the people who are going to see their industries close down, the municipalities that are going to lose a significant chunk of their tax base and have their welfare rolls expanded upon, those people don't have lobbyists around here. They don't have people to twist arms. They're not contributing to political campaigns. They are honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizens doing the best for themselves and their families and their communities, and this government and the Liberal Party are not even prepared to listen to them.

I want to tell you -- I don't want to mislead anyone -- I think the House leader perhaps on the government side did not appreciate the depth of feelings in the Conservative Party on this issue.

Mr O'Connor: You wait till we bring out about your years of inaction.

Mr Runciman: We're talking about jobs here and I don't care if you bring out -- you can bring out comments and I'm sure you will. You'll play that game, and that is a game. That's a game with people's lives that you want to play. You want to play a game with people's lives. That's what you're doing.

Mr O'Connor: People's lives are important. You don't care; you're delaying it. You're in here delaying it.

Mr Stockwell: Why did you lower the taxes, then, Larry? Why did you lower the taxes on cigarettes if you were so concerned?

The First Deputy Chair: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Why did you lower the taxes?

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Mr Runciman, this may be a good time to break off your remarks.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Mr Runciman, this would be a good time to break off your remarks.

Mr Runciman: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I'm really having difficulty and I would encourage my own members as well as the government members to give me an opportunity to hear you.

The First Deputy Chair: Seeing it is almost 6 o'clock, this would be an appropriate time to break off your remarks.

Mr Runciman: What's the appropriate procedure here? I want to ensure that we're procedurally correct in respect to this so that we don't --

The First Deputy Chair: If you could take your seat, the minister will move adjournment.

Mr Runciman: I'm not giving up the floor, am I?

The First Deputy Chair: No.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report progress.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Charlton has moved that the committee of the whole rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

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

The House adjourned at 1802.

12 avril 1994