Journal des débats 1994-juin-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I would like to inform the House that last Friday evening, June 10, I had the privilege of participating in a wonderful occasion that recognized the contributions of multiculturalism and the building of a better understanding and relationship between Ontarians. It was the 22nd annual graduation exercise ceremony of the Mandarin School, held at the Agincourt Collegiate Institute.

The Mandarin School has been in operation since 1972 and has a current enrolment of approximately 450 students. The program includes instruction in the Chinese Mandarin language and its heritage.

The major objectives of the school are to promote and introduce Chinese culture and heritage and to provide Chinese writing and language training as well as cultural and recreational activities for the students and their families.

The Mandarin School was established to act as a bridge between the Canadian and Chinese cultures by assisting new immigrants to adapt to the Canadian lifestyle and by allowing other Canadians to become more aware of the Chinese culture and customs.

I am pleased to recognize the dedication and hard work of the school's principal, Mary Chan, and her husband, Gordon, and the efforts of all the teaching staff and the many caring volunteers. I salute them all.

CHELTENHAM BAPTIST CHURCH

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I stand in this House today to acknowledge the 150th anniversary of Cheltenham Baptist Church. The congregation celebrated this milestone with two anniversary services on June 5 last.

Located in the scenic village of Cheltenham in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, Cheltenham Baptist Church has been a part of the social and ecumenical tradition of the constituency of Dufferin-Peel since its opening in 1844. Throughout the church's 150-year history, Cheltenham Baptist has been an active participant in building community identity and togetherness.

Churches today play a different role from when the Cheltenham Baptist Church first opened its doors to parishioners in 1844, but through many social changes, the congregation of Cheltenham Baptist Church has been able to offer comfort and leadership within its community.

The anniversary was celebrated with a morning and evening service on June 5, including guest speakers, special music and a time for fellowship and remembrance and a lunch following the 11 am service. To mark this special occasion, the congregation has been able to add a new organ to help in the celebration of music, made the church wheelchair accessible and added a steeple to the church structure. To ensure the anniversary is remembered for years to come, the congregation is also planting 150 trees throughout the community of Cheltenham to beautify and remember.

I would like to wish Rev Hugh Burritt and the congregation of the Cheltenham Baptist Church all the best in their 150th year. I hope you continue the tradition of community support and individual excellence that has characterized your congregation since its opening 150 years ago.

CANADA REMEMBERS EXHIBITION

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate all those who organized and contributed to the Canada Remembers exhibition at the Lansdowne Place Mall in Peterborough. The exhibition was opened by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on June 1 and closed with a brief service which included singing by our own Ada Lee on June 6, the 50th anniversary of D-Day.

There are many veterans and war brides in Peterborough, and the chance to share in the memorabilia they have cherished was very moving for us all. In particular, it allowed young people to share a vivid flashback to the horror and the heroism of those days.

Those people laid down their lives on the line in 1944 to roll back a power that had institutionalized human inequality and punished people with death for simply being who they were, whether Jews, Gypsies, disabled people, non-Aryans or homosexuals. The history of Nazi Germany shows that it is not always right to go with the majority or to obey orders without question. We all bear the ultimate responsibility for our own actions.

I thank the Legion branches 52 and 452 in Peterborough and 402 in Millbrook for the good work they do, and I congratulate them, the RCAF and Mr Michael Day, in particular, for putting Peterborough right in front in our commemoration and celebration of D-Day.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): One year ago today, Conservatives from across the nation gathered in Ottawa to pay tribute to their good friend Brian Mulroney and choose his successor. Forever etched in the minds of Canadians are the memories of the Tory triumvirate -- Mike Harris, Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney -- gathered together to celebrate the accomplishments of the Mulroney government.

Last summer, just one year ago, Mike Harris was ready, willing and able to help re-elect Mulroney's gang. He did everything he could to assist his friends who brought us the GST, free trade, walloping deficits and huge tax increases. From the plowing match in Fergus to the streets of Sault Ste Marie, Mike Harris tried desperately to save a government that was both soft on crime and hard on seniors.

Just one year ago, Mike Harris was a proud Progressive Conservative. How things have changed. Today Mike Harris has forsaken his federal friends and instead is acting like the provincial wing of the Natural Law Party. Stealing a page from Doug Henning, Harris is now promising to cut taxes, chop spending and make the deficit disappear. Unfortunately for Ontario Conservatives, not even 1,000 yogic flyers could make Mike Harris's American revolution work.

As Mr Harris reflects on the year gone by, I would like to offer him and his good friends Mulroney and Kim Campbell this piece of cake with a candle as they celebrate this, the first anniversary of that very important day. Mr Speaker, could I have one of the pages come and deliver this over to the Conservatives? Here we go.

Happy anniversary, ladies and gentlemen. There you go.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I don't suppose I can take part in that birthday cake. I wasn't here at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Hodgson: Mr Speaker, my time's running out here. Will I get my time back?

The Speaker: Could you reset the clock, please, one minute and 30 seconds.

1340

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier are eager to boast to all our global trading partners that Ontario forest products all come from sustainable forests. The Premier is even going to Germany in two weeks to sell this message. The message, however, is wrong and it covers up an underlying truth about our forestry industry in Ontario.

This province's forest management plan calls for 20% of the timber production to come from private forests. That works out at about five million cubic metres per year.

The problem is that Ontario's private forests are in danger. When the managed forest tax rebate program was rescinded last year with no consultation, the Minister of Natural Resources failed to adequately consider the consequences of such a move.

The private woodlot owners depended on the relief offered by the rebate program to justify maintaining their forests instead of clearing their land for other uses. Now the incentive is gone and so are thousands of trees. Sustainability is being sacrificed out of necessity just to keep up with an outdated property tax system that assesses forests as residential property.

Ontario's private forests are home to recreational trail systems that stretch for thousands of kilometres, bringing much-needed wealth and prosperity to hundreds of communities. Private forests are essential to the long-term viability of forestry and tourism in Ontario.

Today, once again, I call upon the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources to reinstate the managed forest tax rebate program. Failing to deal with this issue will only bring hardship for Ontario's forest industry and the hundreds of communities that depend on tourism for their survival.

TAX REFORM

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): Last December the Fair Tax Commission released its report, Fair Taxation in a Changing World. The cornerstone of the commission's recommendations dealt with the pressing need for property tax reform.

The report recommended that education should no longer be funded from the property tax. Instead, the $3.5 billion raised from residential properties as a source of core funding for education should be replaced with funding from provincial general revenues.

At the same time, the report recommended allowing for a local levy at the discretion of local school boards, limited to 10% of provincial funding, to pay for services beyond a provincial standard.

If there is one issue that needs to be addressed by this government, it's property tax reform. The injustice of the current situation is widely acknowledged by everyone. People across the province have told us they believe the property tax system is unfair and our own research confirms this.

The commission's report provides us with a solution that promotes fairness for both taxpayers and students. I call on the government to act now to implement this recommendation of the Fair Tax Commission. We need action now.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This morning I attended a public meeting with several hundred people at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. Members of the administration, medical staff, non-medical staff, union representatives, volunteers, patients, families of patients and friends of Hotel Dieu were unanimous in the rejection and condemnation of a draft report by consultants commissioned by the Ministry of Health.

The report, if implemented, would result in the elimination of 144 full-time equivalent positions, or about 300 jobs; the closing of the Hotel Dieu emergency department; the cutting of another $10 million from the hospital's annual budget; the closing of 60 more inpatient beds; and the elimination of half of the 11-bed intensive care unit, along with the loss of nursing jobs in that essential unit.

St Catharines and the Niagara region cannot afford this cutback in health care service, and the Niagara economy cannot afford the job losses and the loss of funding when economic recession has already hit us so hard.

Hotel Dieu, of its own volition, has already participated in a streamlining and rationalization of services offered by hospitals in St Catharines. It has always been ready to discuss such issues in the years to come.

I call upon the Minister of Health to reject the consultants' report and maintain quality health care services at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

AGRICULTURE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This statement should be of particular interest to the minister of the shrinking Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

In particular, it's directed at this government's growing tendency to ignore northern Ontario. It is very evident to our caucus, which has a task force to tour the north and to listen to the concerns of that rather unique region.

Our caucus, our task force and I, as Agriculture critic, all realize that there is an important agricultural component to the northern economy and that we have to work with northern producers, as well as those in the south and indeed everywhere in Ontario, but I'm afraid this government thinks otherwise.

A few months ago, when the farm machinery show was held at the International Centre here in the greater Toronto area, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- this was before the name change -- operated a booth called a Rural Resource Centre. Food producers who attended the show pointed out to me that the map of Ontario which the ministry displayed did not go beyond Muskoka. Food producers even wrote to the ministry in hopes of receiving an apology and an explanation why northern Ontario was being ignored on that map. But even the letters have been ignored. For this government, Ontario ends at Muskoka.

I said last week that the people who grow our food are very worried about the direction in which the government is heading with its policies against agriculture and rural affairs. This government has time to draft farm labour laws which no one wants, which no one outside the NDP special-interest groups even asked for.

Unlike the government, we recognize that northern agriculture is an important component of the industry and indeed of our economic recovery. I wish the government would realize that.

OPTIMIST CLUB AWARDS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Recently, I had the pleasure of attending an evening which was dedicated to Respect for Law 1994, put on by the Zone 10, Midwestern Ontario District, for Optimist International.

At that evening, I had the pleasure of helping present the awards to some of the people who were there, people like Alan Price from Neighbourhood Watch; Dan Kennedy, the OPP community liaison officer; Joe Kunert; Gordon Griggs; Rhonda Cation; Dave Addicott; Donald Orlik; Judy Harding; Connie Fach; Nicholas Bennett; Tabatha Hudson; Joanne Woods; Debbie Avila; Jillian Stoltz; Drew Ryan; Mike Leduc; Joyce Huck; Cindy Wawryk; Krista Selinger; Edward Shea; and Shawn Floyd.

Thanks to the people such as Tom Kingston and Murray Backus from the Optimist Club of Country Hills in Kitchener; Terry Tosheff and Peter Endean from the Optimist Club of Southwest Kitchener; and Harold Lauber and Craig Findlay, the Optimist Club of Stanley Park, Kitchener.

It seems nowadays the hot issue is the Young Offenders Act. While the media have focused on the young offenders, I'm thankful that the Optimists are truly the friends of youth and are out there making our community a better place to live in.

1350

SECURITY SERVICES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am seeking your guidance on an issue that arose on Thursday, and that was particularly the use of latex gloves in response to the demonstration here.

I'm not pointing any fingers or making any allegations, but I'm seeking your guidance. My understanding is that security in the assembly, at least in part, comes under your authority as Speaker and in part I believe under the Solicitor General.

I have a grave concern about the use of latex gloves in those circumstances. I think it was reprehensible, personally. I've received a lot of expressions of concern from constituents and others. Whether that is a matter of privilege or order, I'm not sure, but I do think it is important that we establish a clear policy on this issue. I think it was seen as targeting a particular group because of being gay and lesbian, and that was unfortunate, a wrong message for this assembly and for each of us as legislators to send.

I would ask your guidance perhaps in referring this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly or whatever committee is appropriate. I hope you will assist me in doing that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St George-St David, first of all, I appreciate the matter which he has brought to my attention. The member will know that it is not a matter of privilege or of order, but if it will be of assistance to the member, I have had an opportunity to look at the item which he has raised this afternoon.

The Ontario Government Protective Service, with whom we have a contract for security, and the Ontario Provincial Police have a regulation, which is a health and safety regulation, which allows the individual officer at his or her discretion to utilize the latex gloves which are provided to each officer throughout the province if he or she has cause to be concerned about their individual health or safety. It is not a matter over which I have any direct control.

Of course, I know the member would not want the Speaker to issue directions which were in contravention of regulations laid down by the Ontario Provincial Police or the Ontario Government Protective Service.

I hope I've been of some assistance to the member. If he wishes to discuss it further, I'd be more than pleased to meet with him in my chambers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LEGAL AID

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, there has been great turmoil surrounding the $65-million deficit in the Ontario legal aid plan. As you're aware, the legal aid committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada is recommending major reductions in the services to be provided, mainly in areas of poverty law, some divorce-related cases and in a number of criminal offences.

Legal aid clinics are in a state of shock, contemplating that they will have to take thousands of cases into their system when they are already very severely overburdened.

Last week, when I asked you a question in this particular area, you indicated that you were very confident that the law society, which is a self-governing profession, would be able to manage this and in fact had the authority to deal with it.

My question to you today, Minister, is this: Do you agree to these cuts and that the law society has a right to make them? If not, where will the funding come from to provide the services that are being contemplated in these cuts?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As the member himself pointed out, this is a report that is coming forward from the legal aid committee to the law society, to convocation. There are recommendations that have been made. There were other suggestions for changes that were not recommended by the committee. I think it would be quite premature for me to make a pronouncement on these suggestions prior to convocation.

There were a great many different suggestions and some were passed with very narrow margins within the legal aid committee itself. So I think there is a good deal of discussion to be held. It would not be appropriate for me to say anything except reiterate my confidence that, in looking at the possibilities, the law society will be very mindful of access to legal services; will be very mindful of the provision that is there in the particular recommendation that the member mentioned: that any effect on the legal aid clinics would be taken into account as part of the changes and in calculating any savings, because there's a clear understanding by the legal aid committee itself that there may be a great increase in the workload for the clinics and that there needs to be an adjustment in terms of funding to take care of that.

Mr Chiarelli: It seems that the minister has two standards. When she has an agenda item which she would like the law society to accept, she will go to the law society and she will use her leverage to get it to agree. But when the law society is considering doing something that will very significantly impact on the public, it's a hands-off policy: "I'll sit back and I'll wait." There's definitely a double standard.

Minister, I'm advised by a bencher of the law society that later this month the law society will be considering a motion to make it official policy to stop cooperating with you in the creation of legal aid clinics, which they see as a counterproductive movement. This would be an unprecedented confrontation with the Attorney General.

Many members of the law society feel you are unduly interfering in their mandate. You publicly announced the African-Canadian Specialty Legal Services Clinic without prior consultation; you used your leverage beforehand with the law society to extract law society consent to the Women's Family Law Centre. You are clearly moving to a clinic-based system, which deprives low-income people of a choice of counsel, which choice is available to people of means. This would create a two-tier legal aid system.

Will you not agree that by not funding the legal aid plan, you are forcing people into clinics, and will you not have to provide more resources to these clinics? You're going to have to pay one way or the other. Which is your preferred way, clinic or supporting the plan?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think it's very unfortunate that the member is making claims about my trying to force the law society to do anything, because that is not the case. Indeed, what we have done as a government, together with the legal aid committee, is look at different ways in which we can offer services in a more effective and efficient way.

As I pointed out in this House last week, our support for the legal aid system has increased by 240% over the last five years. That is hardly any kind of sign of not supporting access to legal services.

What we have said is that we cannot continue, when the legal aid system goes over budget, to simply supply the deficit amount each year, because that is not in keeping with good business practices. We have indicated that we will work together with the legal aid committee to look at ways in which we can streamline the system and we can begin to save in some areas. Indeed, the legal aid community is looking at ways in which that can be done.

We have encouraged them, and this began long before I became Attorney General, to look at the notion of other ways of serving different communities. That is where the whole area of family law clinics came in. It began a long time ago. The design committee was set up by the legal aid committee. In fact, the whole idea of the full-service women's clinic was not our idea but the design committee's idea. We, instead, insisted that they also test out a staff model.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: So we are looking at a number of different options with them. It would be very unfortunate if the law society were to decide not to go forward with the clinics, because the operating costs of those clinics are to be paid for out of the savings in certificates. It is not to be --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- a question of additional moneys to pay for the clinics at all.

Mr Chiarelli: Under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, you are mandated to superintend all matters relative to the administration of justice in the province of Ontario. Come election time, you and your government will be answerable for the services that are provided or not provided, for the type of legal system, the type of justice system we have. Your conduct is moving us to a two-tier system and you are going to be accountable for that.

Last week I asked you, to change subjects slightly, about the $122-million deficit in the lawyers' insurance fund used to pay clients who win malpractice cases against lawyers. I reminded you at that time that if this were a private insurance company, the province would be forced to close it down. You expressed confidence at that time that the law society would solve the problem. I'm informed that the law society will be considering a motion later this month to impose a transaction fee on all future real estate clients until this $122-million deficit is covered. They will be asking the consumer of legal services in the real estate area to cover the deficit for the law society's past management of this insurance fund, which is regulated by the superintendent of insurance in your government.

My question to you is this: Do you agree or disagree that the superintendent of insurance, who has management of this issue for the government, should permit this to happen? Do you agree that consumers of real estate services in legal offices should cover this deficit? I'm asking you this as Attorney General, responsible for superintending the administration of justice in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I've asked for a full report on this issue. I have not yet received the advice that I require in order to answer the member. As soon as I do, I'll be happy to answer him.

1400

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, last week my leader raised the issue that students who have a summer job with the province are now being forced to join unions and pay union dues. As you know, your bill amending the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act now forces students to be part of public unions and to pay union dues.

The reality of this situation is that young people who are lucky enough to get a job over the summer with, for instance, Ontario Place or Fort William or Fort Henry now face lower wages because they must pay a percentage of their pay to OPSEU or other public sector unions. These are the same young people who now suffer from a jobless rate of 30% and are facing higher tuition fees because of the actions of your government.

My question to the minister is whether it is fair for these young people who have a summer job with the province to now be forced to be part of a union and to have to pay union dues.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do understand, I think, what the member for Mississauga North is suggesting; namely, that the students should be exempt from paying any of the union dues, despite the fact that, in my understanding at least, they get the benefits that accrue from paying those dues. Unless the member for Mississauga North has information otherwise that the students don't get benefits from the dues that they pay, then it would seem to me to be reasonable.

Mr Offer: I think we have to be very clear. As we all know, students already face undue hardship because of this government's policies. They face a one-in-three chance of not getting a job at all this summer. They face annual tuition fees of greater than $2,000, which is more than 40% higher than when this government took office.

Minister, your government rammed through a piece of legislation which cuts the salaries of those students who will get jobs this summer. The question to the minister is, how can you possibly justify taking money out of students' pockets to give it to unions when all your other policies have dealt these same young people such a hard blow?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do understand the fact that the member for Mississauga North doesn't like the idea of people paying union dues to start with. I appreciate that.

Secondly, he indicated in his preamble that the reason there is high student unemployment in the province is directly because of the policies of this government. Nothing could be more ridiculous, and I'm surprised that the member for Mississauga North would clutter up an otherwise legitimate question, at least, with that kind of rhetoric in his preamble, when he knows full well that this government has done more on capital expenditures to create jobs for young people and others in this province than has been done by any government in the history of this province.

So I don't need a lecture from the member for Mississauga North on the policies of this government having anything to do with other than doing whatever we can to help create jobs for younger people and other people at the time of the worst recession since the 1930s.

Mr Offer: Let us be absolutely clear: Last summer and for all summers previous, students who had jobs with the government, summer jobs such as at Ontario Place and the many areas throughout the province, were not forced to be part of a public-sector union and to pay union dues.

This government last December rammed through a piece of legislation which now forces every young person who has a summer job with the province to not only be part of a union but pay union dues. It is bad policy. It hurts young people. They receive no benefit. What we are asking you to do today, Mr Minister, is to commit to change the legislation so that students who have summer jobs with the province will no longer have to be part of a union and have to pay union dues.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I don't believe this is such precedent-setting legislation. It has been many, many years since I was a student working in the summer. I can recall paying union dues when I was a student, and that was some time ago, I must say to the member for Mississauga North. So I don't think he should try and paint this as something that has never been done before; it certainly has. I can tell you that people who receive benefits from belonging to an organization --

Mr Offer: There are no benefits.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course there are benefits in belonging to an organization such as that.

Mr Offer: Students get nothing.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's not true. That is absolutely not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is absolutely not true. That shows how ignorant the member is on the whole question of what people get when they join a union. They get the protection of the union and they get the wage rates that are there now, that would probably not be there if it wasn't for the presence of that union.

The member for Mississauga North can stand in his place and rant all he wants about how evil unions are and how nobody should pay union dues, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, people do get benefits from joining a union.

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, in 1989 the Liberals introduced a bill that would allow the government to seize the value of the unclaimed property of the people in Ontario. At that time you said -- and I want to quote from Hansard; I want to make sure I have this correct -- "There is a sense out there in the financial community that they have been snookered by the government on this bill," and you said that the government had not appropriately consulted. Now, that bill did not become law, but you have resurrected that bill as part of Bill 160, which we'll be debating later this afternoon.

Minister, this morning I met with representatives from the financial community, and I can tell you that they believe they have been snookered by you. They believe that it is impossible to comply with this bill, that this bill has come out of thin air. My question to you is, why are you doing today exactly what you accused the Liberals of doing just a few years ago?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm shocked and appalled that you would imply that I was doing anything that was similar to what the Liberals did back in 1989, because I can tell the member opposite that one reason the former government did not proclaim the bill was that --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): How do you keep a straight face?

Hon Mr Laughren: One reason the previous government did not proclaim the bill was because there was a strong sense that they had not consulted appropriately on the bill, which is why, when we started to look at the bill again, we decided to correct that omission and indeed have already engaged in consultation with the financial sector.

I know the financial sector doesn't like it. I don't expect the financial sector to like the fact that they are no longer going to be able to hold on to basically other people's money, rather than people themselves having access to that.

Mr David Johnson: Minister, there is a difference here between not liking it and consulting. I can tell you that I've met with the investment dealers this morning, with the representatives of the trust companies and the banking people and the retailers' association, and they feel that you have not consulted, that this has come out of thin air.

Minister, this act is clearly brought forward to put money in the provincial coffers, perhaps $30 million. I think that's your target. It's a tax grab of what people don't even know that they own. We are told that in some cases the cost to administer this will be $2 to return $1. By granting the extra authority to the public trustee to be able to investigate for compliance, in effect you're converting the public trustee into a form of bounty hunter. There are so many contentious issues of this bill.

Minister, what I'm asking you is, will you split this omnibus bill in order that we can study these problems and have a fair hearing on it, particularly with regard to the unclaimed property?

Hon Mr Laughren: I just want to clear up one accusation made by the member, and that was that we had not consulted with the industry. That's simply not the case. Ministry of Finance officials met with the industry representatives in March of this year. When the bill was announced in the 1994 budget, we met with them immediately following that, the next day as a matter of fact. We met with industry representatives and then, the day after Bill 160 was introduced, we met with them again.

1410

We've also assured them that we are going to establish a business advisory group that will develop regulations. There's going to be ample room in the bill the way it's drafted for some fair amount of flexibility on the way in which the regulations are drafted.

Finally, we did listen to the complaints that were made by the industry back in 1989 and have rectified virtually all of the problems that the industry had.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How come they don't like it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm glad the member for Etobicoke West asked me that question. The reason that the industry doesn't like it, of course, is that they now keep that money and use it when, it seems to me, it doesn't belong to them. It's unclaimed and it belongs to somebody else. Why should the banks, which are hardly penurious in our society, be allowed to keep this money to themselves when the public trustee should be the one who looks after other people's money? It does not belong to the banks.

Mr David Johnson: They tell me that you have not consulted, and I have to believe them when they tell me that. This has come up very recently.

Minister, they oppose it for many reasons. There are legal problems. The Bank of Canada has problems with it; the federal government for sure will have problems with it. The administration costs are enormous. There are many reasons to oppose this bill.

But let me tell you about an example where a person puts down, let's say, $100 to buy a snowblower with a retailer, a snowblower for the winter that's coming up, and then forgets about it. The retailer has that $100 on account, and retailers are affected by this legislation as well. That retailer could be subject, as an individual, to a fine of $5,000 a day; as a corporation, that retailer could be responsible for fines of up to $25,000 a day for non-compliance with this bill.

Mr Minister, what I'm hearing is it's going to be impossible to comply with this bill. There has not been enough thought.

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

Mr David Johnson: What I'm asking you, Minister, again for the sake of the financial community, the business people who are going to be fined $5,000, $25,000 a day, will you hold public hearings, will you allow the public to make deputations on this and hear why this bill simply can't work?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm surprised to hear the member for Don Mills suggest this bill can't work. This bill works and it is successful in every state in the United States, every single state. Are you telling me that the large, prosperous banks in this province cannot deal with an issue like this? I don't believe it for one minute. I don't expect the banks to like the fact --

Mr Stockwell: God bless America, eh, Floyd?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- that now the public trustee is going to look after the money that belongs to other people rather than the banks holding on to it. I don't think that makes any sense at all.

I would remind the member that money held by the public trustee is held in perpetuity in case they're able to track down the people to whom it rightfully belongs. It's nothing to do with grabbing money from people. It's putting it in the hands of the public trustee rather than leaving it in the hands of the banks. It's as simple as that.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: Again, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I would say that in the United States there's an entirely different system. The states control the banks. But at any rate, we'll leave that. I just hope the minister would look into that.

The Speaker: New question, please.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Minister, my question this time is with regard to your attempt to defend the government's new tax on insurance deductibles. It has come to my attention that the reason last week you had such a difficult time in terms of defending the position on the insurance, on the deductibles for the insurance, is simply that the decision was made and it was announced by the bureaucracy and you weren't informed, that you did not give your approval and that you were not aware of it.

Minister, my question to you is, is that true?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I wonder if I could first answer the first part of the member's question about the banks in the United States dealing with the intangible property. He says that while it's true that it's in place in every state in the union, it's different. It's a different banking system in the United States, so of course our act will be different. But I can tell the member opposite that I see no single reason why other people's money should be held by the banks rather than in trust by the public trustee in this province.

Mr David Johnson: What happened to my question, Mr Speaker? I thank the minister for answering the previous question, but I did raise a question with regard to the deductibles on insurance and I was expecting an answer on that. However, maybe he'll do two answers after the next question.

Minister, the bureaucracy has been directed to find new ways to raise revenue. This was announced in Topical back last November, about the time photo-radar was brought in. The bureaucracy was directed to find any way to raise money. This is exactly what they've done in terms of the new tax on deductibles.

Last Wednesday -- and I'm going to quote you from Hansard again, Minister, for a second time -- you said, "I appreciate the member raising this issue yesterday." This was last week. "Since he did that, I've had some preliminary" -- note the word "preliminary" -- "meetings with people in the ministry."

Minister, preliminary meetings should have taken place before the announcement. Were these the initial meetings that you held with your ministry staff on this issue? I think it's clear that you have not been consulted by the bureaucracy on this major change and you were not informed when this issue was raised in the House. Is this how tax policy is made under your leadership?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wonder if I could address this question that the member now asks. This question was raised by the member for Mississauga North quite persistently and aggressively last week, I must say, and I think appropriately so. There was a memo that went out on, I believe it was, May 16 that indicated a change in the way in which tax was collected on the deductible portion of insurance claims.

The fact of the matter is that there is no new money for the province in the way in which the memo was directed -- repairs and body shops and so forth -- to handle the issue. As a matter of fact, there'd be less money collected because it flowed from a problem with exempt people having the deductible paid for them when there shouldn't have been any tax on it at all in the first place. As a matter of fact, the May 16 memo would have resulted in even less money being collected by the province than before.

There's not a nickel extra of money being collected by the province as a result of that May 16 memo. It was simply to try and clarify the whole distinction of who is the consumer of the service that's being provided here. The memo indicated that the consumer should pay the tax on it rather than the insurer. That's where the confusion came from. It was intended to clear up a matter that was causing a problem with people who were tax-exempt. There was no question that it was done with the right intention, but the fact is that as a matter of fact that memo did muddy the water somewhat.

Mr David Johnson: Minister, I'm going to try one more time. This is the third time. I understand your explanation for the tax etc. I don't say I agree with it but I understand it.

But Minister, the question is, before this new tax -- I'm going to call it a new tax -- came into effect, and this is what I'd like you to address, were you aware that this was being introduced? Your statement in Hansard indicates you were not aware. The information we have is that you were not informed by the bureaucracy that this was coming forward.

This new tax is going to hurt individuals, families, companies. We want to know, did this tax come forward from you or from the bureaucracy? If it did come forward from the bureaucracy and you were not aware of it, Minister, you could withdraw this tax at this point. Were you aware? Will you withdraw it?

Hon Mr Laughren: There are a large number of administrative matters that are dealt with by the bureaucracy in any ministry, and the Ministry of Finance is no exception to that. When it comes to the specific action I intend to take, I think it's only fair that I wait for the question from the member for Mississauga North.

1420

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the minister of financial institutions. Minister, you will know that last week we brought to your attention the tax on insurance deductibles. You know that this tax affects individuals, businesses, municipalities and school boards. You know that the insurance companies don't want this tax. You know that the consumers don't want this new tax. My question to you is, will you repeal this tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Mississauga North. I hope I won't have to go back over old ground that I just finished tilling with the member for Don Mills.

The fact of the matter is that when we went back and consulted with the insurance industry, it was done to clarify the whole question of who is the actual consumer of the service here and should be paying the tax. The reason it was done was for that purpose and also to make sure that tax-exempt persons did not have to have the tax paid on the deductible. It was a well-intentioned move, but one that caused as many problems as it solved, quite frankly. So, yes, we are going to go back to the old system.

The insurance industry has indicated very clearly that it wishes to continue to pay the tax on the deductible, and I am assuming there's no reason to believe it won't keep its word in that regard. To answer the member for Mississauga North directly, yes, we're going to go back to the system in which the insurer pays the tax on the deductible.

Mr Offer: This repeal of the deductibles I think will, without any question, save an awful lot of money for many consumers, but the question that still remains is, how is it that the decision to foist this tax on consumers was made in the first place?

How is it that decisions of this nature are made when the Insurance Bureau of Canada was unaware? How is it that a decision which would impose without question a tax burden on consumers, on business, on school boards, on municipalities was made? The question still remains as to why in fact the decision was made in the first place.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member from Mississauga North is aware that, I don't know how many, but many, many, many tax bulletins go out every year from what used to be the Ministry of Revenue and is now part of the Ministry of Finance. These go out on a regular basis to clarify either the existing tax statutes or a policy or a regulation change and so forth. So there's nothing unusual about a bulletin going out from the Ministry of Finance.

When it came to our attention that this was causing -- and I'll be quite frank and direct with the member -- as many problems as it solved, then it seemed to me that we should go back to the old system, and that's exactly what we're going to do, which the member from Mississauga North has been urging me to do for a week now.

LEGAL AID

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. The Ontario legal aid plan currently owes lawyers $65 million for work they have done on behalf of the legal aid plan. This is the amount of the deficit. Can you explain how you intend to pay these lawyers for the services which they have provided to the plan if you don't have the money?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The calculation of $65 million is not, as the member states, something that we owe lawyers in quite the way that he's stating it. Indeed, it's the shortfall between what the legal aid plan calculates that we would owe them and the amount of money that we have given them less the amount of money that is always there in terms of cash flow. That has increased and that is of great worry because lawyers are not getting their accounts as quickly as they have been wont to do. That is certainly causing hardship for them.

The situation is, as we've talked about in this House a number of times, there is indeed a shortfall from the calculations that the legal aid plan makes in terms of what it will cost them this year to provide services unless they make some changes. They've come forward with some recommendations on changes; there may be others that are forthcoming as the discussion goes on. We continue to work with them to try and deal with what is a very serious problem.

Mr Harnick: Minister, the problem is that even with the $21 million in proposed spending cuts, the plan will still be over budget. The lawyers have done the work, certificates have been issued, and you owe them money. What will you do to stop the bleeding within the plan, for which you have the ultimate responsibility?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is wrong. In fact what we are talking about is a calculation on this year's budget of what it is anticipated to cost. As the year goes on and as we see what the actual case is, we will do what we have always done and work together with the Law Society of Upper Canada around how to deal with the problem. There are a number of options that at this point in time have been rejected by the legal aid committee. They may need to reconsider some of those options.

What we have said is that, given the enormous increase in the legal aid budget over the last few years, we are unable to keep increasing it at that rate and that we are going to maintain it at a set rate. We need to work together to find some way to live within our means.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is to Tony Silipo, Minister of Community and Social Services. Recently dozens of economically disadvantaged people marched in downtown Guelph and they were protesting cuts and freezes to programs that people survive on. They were concerned with the erosion of the federal and provincial social services.

The protest was organized by the Onward Willow community development project, which is funded by your ministry. They're concerned about getting out of the social assistance cycle and into the workforce, retraining for older workers, day care for parents who want to work. They're afraid that the clamping down on welfare fraud will make scapegoats of vulnerable people. The mayor, John Counsell, and I met with these protesters, and we promised we would do something.

Can you tell me what the government is doing to make sure that welfare fraud initiatives will not burden or disfranchise my constituents?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I know the member will recall the discussion I had with him and members of the Onward Willow community back in January. I can tell the member that certainly he can pass on to his constituency that the initiatives aimed at welfare fraud are just that and are not ones aimed at putting people across the system in jeopardy.

In fact we believe very strongly that the vast majority of people who are on social assistance are there because they legitimately require those benefits. I can assure him that as the measures are being put into effect, we are keeping that very much in mind as our guiding principle.

More important than that, I can also tell the member that as we continue to do some of the other pieces of work to both better manage the social assistance system and bring about some of the improvements to the system, particularly under Job Link, which is the whole array of services that we want to put into the system to help people who are on social assistance to be able to get training and education and connection to jobs, those are also initiatives that will put people where they need to be, which is to get the kind of support they need to be able to exit the system where they wish.

Mr Fletcher: The march was indicative of the people's anger at how the government is clamping down on welfare fraud. My good friend Andrea Robinson says she's heard of some heavy-handed tactics that are being used against the people who feel defenceless when confronted with allegations. Another friend, Gary Zuber, who also works there, points out that everyone knows what most of these cuts and changes entail, but they have done nothing but strike fear and despair into the hearts of many people: "Why are you after single moms? Why are you going to force them back to work?" When I asked the people at this rally, "How many of you volunteer your time to community projects and community work?" more than 90% raised their hands. I think it blows something out of the water in terms of what the Conservatives are talking about.

When you last visited my riding in January, you did meet with the social service agencies and the Onward Willow people at the Family Gateway centre, and we heard their concerns first hand. What is the message -- and I have to be able to go back to my constituents with this message -- that I can take them? Are they going to be defenceless?

Hon Mr Silipo: The short answer is no. We are going to continue to work. Members of the Onward Willow community and other community organizations will very much have a seat at the table as we continue to work through these issues.

Let me say to him that on the social assistance side, one of the measures we are putting into the system is better practices through a statement of principles that will be applied both to workers in the system and which will outline rights and responsibilities that social assistance recipients have. That will be helpful also, together with some training we want to do, to clarify the relative roles that everyone has and to ensure that people indeed continue to be treated with respect.

On the social services side, which I know is another area that community continues to be quite interested in, we want to build upon exactly the kinds of things that are happening in the Onward Willow community, which is one of the special projects we have across the province; to make some changes to the restructuring of our social services system, in fact building on the kinds of things that we know have been working in that community and making those more the example right across the province.

1430

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I'd like to return to the issue of the new TVOntario building.

What I want to know, Minister, once and for all, is whether or not TVO is going to build itself a new building with the taxpayers' money. Your boss, sir, the Premier, said just two weeks ago that there was no new building in his plans. We all watched his lips as he said, "No new building." Yet TVO continues to plan for a new building. According to the Toronto Star, TVO is looking currently at at least three sites that we know of.

All we want to know is, was the Premier right or not? Will there be a new building or won't there be a new building for TVO?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): In the absence of the leader of the official opposition, I'd like to respond to the member for Mississauga West. I have been following this issue with some interest since it was raised a couple of weeks ago.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is Bernie still there?

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

I think what the member for Mississauga West is referring to is the fact that there was a request for proposals to come back in for some ideas in which TVO could be more efficiently and appropriately accommodated, and what he's referring to is the fact that those proposals are now coming back in. I believe some of them include a new building, but not all of them do.

Mr Mahoney: What I'm referring to is that the question was indeed asked by my leader, and it was asked of the minister, who stood up and gave an answer that would appear to endorse TVO's proposals of going out and looking at how to build a new building. The Premier was asked, outside of this place, if he supported that, and the Premier -- let me be very clear -- said no new building for TVO.

Let's be clear. They're looking at three sites currently -- we've seen that reported -- and two of them would require a new building. The last time your government dithered while another government agency played around with the idea of a new building, we wound up with the $180-million Simcoe Place by the Workers' Compensation Board, without cabinet even giving approval or being asked for approval on the decision.

No, sir, don't you point over here. That was your cabinet's decision to allow that to go through and for the WCB to move ahead. I would have thought that waste of $180 million would have taught you a lesson. Obviously, it hasn't.

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

Mr Mahoney: Minister, the question is, you, sir, are the minister who writes the cheques around here. The Premier has said no new building.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Mahoney: TVO is continuing to pursue it. Will you assure this House today that there will be no money granted by you, the Finance minister, for TVO to build a new building in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't remember disagreeing with the Premier since he ran for the leadership back in 1982. I did listen very carefully to the minister, as well as the Premier, and I heard the minister say that what she was seeking was the best and most cost-effective accommodation for TVO, and that's the way it should be.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, that's what I'm saying to the member for Mississauga West, that the best deal for the taxpayers will at the end of the day be the one that's signed.

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, the Majesky report, that famous unsolicited, untendered, unnecessary report, which had on its panel four government employees, including three from your own ministry, the MTO, working on it, cost the taxpayers some $200,000. That's not including the cost of the MTO staff.

It's offensive to the private sector that Mr Majesky, the former union boss, was awarded a contract to produce a report which was blatantly anti-private-sector and full of offensive cartoons and had the following statement under the subheading of "Corruption and Patronage":

"The overwhelming evidence shows that the more the public officials deal with the business community, the more taxpayers suffer -- through graft, kickbacks, overruns, overcharges and poorer services and quality of work."

Minister, how can you justify spending taxpayers' money on a report which vilifies the private sector?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I just wish to say, with respect to the member opposite, our critic, that it was $170,000.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You mentioned, and I'm quoting verbatim, the sum of $200,000, and I only wish, with respect, to set the matter straight.

For the first time in the annals of the province, an opportunity was given to people doing the work, to labour unions. The government sought their input. We're studying their recommendations. We saw nothing that is vehement, nothing that is out of the ordinary. It's a serious report, and the taxpayers indeed got value for money, so we will be meticulously reviewing the report line by line and then we will act on some of the recommendations.

Mr Turnbull: I certainly would like to retract if indeed it was $170,000, but I suggest the minister might want to add in the supplementals, which take it to around the $200,000 mark. But let's please apologize for that inexactitude.

Minister, I've got a copy of this report, and if you think it's okay for taxpayers to be funding a report which depicts the private sector as people in outhouses, I think you're wrong, and I think the voters of Ontario think you're wrong.

On February 10, 1993, you stated, "We believe working with the private sector is the best way to improve our transportation network." Minister, how do you square working with the private sector and the kinds of quotations and rude cartoons that are in this report? The Ontario Motor Coach Association has asked for an apology, and I ask you the same: Will you stand up today and do the honourable thing and say that you misappropriated the taxpayers' money and that you apologize unequivocally to the private sector for this travesty?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, I would prefer, with your permission of course, to deal with the substance of the report. If the member opposite finds a cartoon somewhat offensive, the cartoon does not deal with the substance. We didn't draw the cartoon. We asked for a report, and we got a report.

Mr Turnbull: What about the taxpayers?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Mills, please come to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the risk of sounding repetitious, we've commissioned a report --

Mr Turnbull: You always sound repetitious. You never answer the question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: If the recommendations in the report avoid one legal work stoppage, one strike, one confrontation, the relatively small amount of money will indeed have been well spent. I invite the member opposite to stress the negative as opposed to going on a continuous witchhunt, trying to impute motives on the members of the labour movement. It has no place in this assembly.

Mr Turnbull: Read the report yourself. It's disgraceful, wasting taxpayers' money on this kind of --

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, please come to order.

Mr Turnbull: It's very hard when he's wasting taxpayers' money on this insulting crap.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to please come to order.

1440

INCOME TAX

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question to the Minister of Finance that has arisen out of the concerns of many of my constituents who have children about the unfairness of our income tax system.

The federal Income Tax Act discriminates at present against those who wish to have children. A couple with children is essentially penalized for their family status, since the full child tax benefit can only be claimed at a relatively low income threshold. At a time when the Canadian birth rate is declining and leaders in this province and elsewhere claim to respect family values, it would seem appropriate, by means of a modest incentive built into the tax system, to encourage people to have children.

Minister, what is your opinion of the way in which the current taxation system provides a child tax benefit? Do you think this provision needs to be reformed?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from the member for Simcoe Centre. We do have some problems with the federal child tax credit benefit program for the simple reason that it does not provide adequate support for low-income families and the working poor with children. There's no question, in my view, about that.

It also doesn't provide additional benefits to a family whose income drops during the year, which of course is not an unusual thing to happen, which is one of the reasons Ontario provides the assistance it does to low-income families with the Ontario tax reduction program. That program provides $395 per child under 19 years of age. Also, there's a $50 child supplement in the Ontario tax credit system.

Yes, we do have some problems with the federal system, which is also one of the reasons why the Minister of Community and Social Services is having ongoing negotiations with the federal government: to make sure that Ontario, for a change, will get its fair share.

Mr Wessenger: There is a second aspect of my question I'd really like answered.

Take a normal, middle-class couple composed of two childless income earners. They pay the same tax as a middle-class couple who might have three or four children. It seems unfair that there's an added burden in our federal tax laws placed on people of modest, middle-income-tax income.

Minister, I wonder if you would take this issue up with the federal government and urge the federal government to re-examine the whole tax benefit provisions to try to reinstate something into the income tax to have a more effective incentive and more fairness with respect to those families who have children and those who do not.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are quite prepared, and as a matter of fact, are engaging in those kinds of conversations on a very regular basis. The federal Liberal government, as you know, has informed Canadians of its intention to reform the social security system by 1996. Those talks are ongoing, and certainly the whole question of the child benefit program will be part of that discussion. I know the Minister of Community and Social Services will be taking an active role, in fact a leadership role, in trying to make the system fairer.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Since the Deputy Premier is on his feet, I'll put a question to him with regard to the thousands of young people who are coming out of school now without any jobs. What is your job program of getting them jobs for the summer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I wonder if I could refer that question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The government this year, in terms of talking about summer jobs specifically for students, is spending the same level of dollars that we spent last year in the province. Because of some changes in the way the money is being administered, there are actually more jobs being created for young people in the summer this year under the provincial jobs than there were last year.

Mr Curling: That's not what I'm hearing. There are more jobs being created, but are there more jobs being offered to these young people? As you know, about 20% of the young people are out of jobs; the unemployment rate for young people is that high.

Your government increased the tuition fee. Your government also cut back on the OSAP loans; as a matter of fact, eliminated all the grants. Your government had also put enough taxes on the parents. Now they are burdened with that, and fewer job opportunities are there.

I want you to tell me specifically not only of the summer programs, but tell me about those young people who are graduating. My daughter is graduating tomorrow and she has no job. Hundreds of her friends are saying the same thing: There are no job opportunities for young people coming through.

Tell me more specifically, what are you doing about those young people whose opportunities are being lost because there are no jobs for them?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member should do some research. I'd be glad to provide him with the information that obviously Liberal research hasn't provided him with.

We in fact have continued with the Jobs Ontario Youth program and maintained the levels of funding we had last year. We've got the Environmental Youth Corps program, the northern Ontario training opportunities program, the Futures program. There are jobs under the Jobs Ontario Training program, and a significant number of them go to young people. There's the youth ventures program.

Those programs were all announced in the House a few months ago. We've set up a central hotline this year in order to have students come in to one phone number to get all the information about jobs that the provincial government has created this summer for young people.

The fact is that we are doing more than has ever been done in the history of this province in terms of job creation for young people. The dollar amounts show that. No matter how many times you want to say different, that happens to be the fact. We'll stack our record up against yours any day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I don't think either of the governments has provided summer jobs for students.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, I think it was last July that you responded to a question from my colleague from London South on the issue of raised pavement markers on Highway 407. You have certainly stated and have proven through your own policies that you're interested in safe roads in Ontario. We're all aware, and you are as well, I know, of the raised reflective pavement markers often called cat's-eyes and of how effective they are, especially for driving in the evening, especially for seniors and during fog and rain. Even some of your own studies dating back to 1981 recognize the merits. So I have a couple of questions, given the time that you and I have.

There's a feeling that we've been talking too much about this. Although 407 was supposed to be part of the pilot, you should know that between Woodstock and London, there's some construction going on now. My first question is, would you consider using that piece of the highway as part of this project? You did say yes, it would be a good idea for 407, but it's taking such a long time.

My second question has to do with some information I've received from people who work in this particular industry.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: I will, Mr Speaker. Time's running out, so I will.

Would you agree with me that it would be important for you, yourself, to meet with members of the industry, who sometimes feel that some of this information is not being directed to you in the same way they would like it to be?

Two questions: Would you consider the Woodstock-to-London piece for a pilot of some type soon? Secondly, would you meet with members of the industry so they could explain their position?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Raised markers on highways are not a new phenomenon. Many motorists who have had the opportunity to travel, mostly in the southern States, can acquiesce, will attest that the raised markers keep the drivers alert. They're a reliable guidance, a reliable ingredient in making the roads safer.

We have a motto at Transportation Ontario: We wish to make the roads of Ontario the safest in North America. We're on our way to achieving just that. In fact, we're spending more money on highways than ever before, even during these difficult but certainly not impossible times, at Transportation.

You're right. We have a pilot project. It's almost finished. We have to go through one more winter of maintenance to assess the replacing cost factor. Let me quote to you, while I value the question --

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- a quote from the Common Sense Revolution: "$300 million will be trimmed from the Transportation ministry's capital budget."

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm very happy to recognize that the member opposite disagrees with this kind of not-so-commonsensical revolution. We're spending the money and we're waiting for the pilot project. When we have digested, assimilated the data, we might or might not, depending on our database, implement raised markers.

1450

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): A point of order, Mr Speaker: I really feel that my rights have been violated, and also the rest of the members' in this House, because of a piece of literature, false propaganda that the leader of the Liberal Party has sent out, especially in the rural ridings. This thing is so full of false propaganda that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of privilege and he knows that. What material is distributed by members is entirely at their choosing. It has nothing to do with the House.

Mr Hayes: It's taxpayers' dollars, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member will know he does not have a point of privilege.

PETITIONS

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I've received a petition signed by some 500 residents of Ontario. These people are very concerned about the lack of available and reasonable insurance coverage for motorcycles. In particular, they're concerned about the impact of this situation on the motorcycle dealerships and the motorcycle industry in general.

They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I'm pleased to present this petition.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"In this, the International Year of the Family, we, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services to support and strengthen families in Ontario by significantly increasing the funding allocation to the special services at home program.

"This most cost-effective program provides essential support to children and adults with disabilities so that they can remain with their families in their homes.

"This could be accomplished through a redistribution of current resources and this could create the equivalent of over 1,200 full-time jobs in the province of Ontario."

I have hundreds of these petitions signed by the people in my riding and in Ontario.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of driving experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching a public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance program."

I think that's a great idea and I affix my name to this.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on the Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region; and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Canada was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles which recognize the importance of marriage and family;

"Whereas the redefinition of 'marital status' will extend to same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage;

"Whereas this redefinition will further increase the likelihood that children will learn to imitate homosexual practices;

"Whereas there is evidence that there will be negative financial, societal and medical implications and effects on the community with any increase in homosexual practices, the redefinition of 'spouse' and 'family status' and policies concerning adoption of children by homosexuals;

"We request that the House refrain from passing any legislation that would alter or redefine marital status."

This petition is signed by hundreds of people from the city of London and the county of Middlesex.

CASINO GAMBLING

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

"Whereas the issue of legalized casino gambling is a sensitive issue;

"Whereas we believe the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is a broadbased public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

There is a total of 101 names, and I'll affix my signature to this petition.

CARABRAM

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

"Whereas, Carabram, the annual Brampton multicultural festival is to be held July 8, 9 and 10 in Brampton; and

"Whereas this event has grown over the years from four pavilions to the 20 featured this year; and

"Whereas this event has attracted over 80,000 visitors from all over Canada and the United States; and

"Whereas this successful event is the result of the hard work of up to 2,500 volunteers; and

"Whereas the entire event is run without support from any tax dollars; and

"Whereas, for about the price of a theatre ticket one can savour the sights and sounds of Arabia, Canada, the Caribbean, China, Croatia, England, Germany, Greece, Hawaii, España, Holland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Scotland and the Ukraine; and

"Whereas since 1985 a reception has been held to thank representatives of those pavilions, hosted by the leader of the Liberal caucus; and

"Whereas the reception is to be held today in room 351, commencing at 5:30 pm; and

"Whereas each and every member of the Legislature is cordially invited to attend between 5:30 to 7 to savour a small sample of this event;

"Therefore, the undersigned hereby petition the Legislature to not only attend the reception in room 351 commencing at 5:30, but also the full festival on either July 8, 9 or 10, 1994."

It's signed by several voters, including myself.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to ensure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

1500

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition as well, similar to the one that was read out by the last member, regarding the serious concern about private insurance companies "exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage."

This petition is signed by about 20 people who are constituents of mine, and they ask:

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I'm sure they congratulate the efforts of my colleagues from Lincoln and Kitchener-Wilmot who have been leading the battle on this issue.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have been sent a petition by a number of concerned citizens who live in Niagara Falls, Thorold, St Catharines and area who have asked me to read this on their behalf, and I am pleased to do so:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the issue of legalized casino gambling is a sensitive and controversial issue; and

"Whereas 'this government has said it will not put a casino anywhere there is not overwhelming support' (written statement by NDP MPP Margaret Harrington of Niagara Falls presented at the September 2, 1993, public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs regarding Bill 8); and

"Whereas we believe that the city council of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is a broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the protection of human rights is a fundamental principle of international law and is an overriding responsibility of all governments; and

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario has introduced Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994; and

"Whereas we are very concerned about the elimination of discrimination against gay and lesbian relationships; and

"Whereas any further denial of these basic human rights in Ontario is unconscionable;

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

"To actively support relationship recognition for lesbian and gay citizens of Ontario by showing leadership on this basic human rights issue and voting yes to Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, and asking your colleagues do the same."

This has been signed by almost 200 individuals throughout the city of London and throughout counties extending beyond Middlesex.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition signed by 212 members of the congregation of St Gregory's, the great Roman Catholic church in Picton, expressing opposition to the proposed extension of spousal benefits to same-sex couples. It may seem redundant; however, it was requested that I read this petition into Hansard, so therefore I will proceed:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, in our opinion, a majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas for our government to use our tax money to furnish contributions for the propagation of practices which we sincerely believe to be morally wrong would be a serious violation of our freedom of conscience; and

"Whereas redefining 'marital status' and/or 'spouse' by extending it to include gay and lesbian couples would give homosexual couples the same status as married couples, including the right to adopt children; and

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to the demands for equal treatment by persons with deviant sexual orientations other than the practice of homosexuality;

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

"We request that the Legislature not pass into law any act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status for couples in Ontario."

I do not support this petition and will not be signing it.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage, no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that the Minister of Health follow the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

That petition is signed by several dozen of my constituents and by me.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas this bill will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex'; and

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

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

"Whereas the NDP government has indicated it will force private-sector employers to pay same-sex spousal benefits; and

"Whereas redefining 'marriage' and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to withdraw consideration of private sector spousal benefits for same-sex couples and refuse to pass the Liberal private member's Bill 45."

I have signed my name to that.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and among the signatures are board members of the London-Middlesex unit of the Canadian Cancer Society:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul R. Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 134, An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

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

Shall Bill 134 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF LAMBTON ACT, 1994

On motion by Mrs MacKinnon, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr113, An Act respecting the County of Lambton.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT (SMOKING BY-LAW), 1994

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

Bill Pr101, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 29:

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1994, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'll make a few very brief comments today in support of the motion that I've put before the House. As you know, the standing orders for this assembly set out the option in the last two weeks of both the spring and fall sessions for the House to, by motion, sit late, till midnight, in order to attempt to complete its business by the end of the calendar as is set out in those standing orders.

I must suggest that although during the course of this spring session we've probably made better progress during the regular part of the session leading up to the last two weeks than in any session since the last election, I also have to remind myself and the rest of the House that in most of the sessions since that same last election in 1990, even with the use of the late-night sittings, we've sat considerably beyond the normal adjournment date in June, usually till the end of July, and last year even a few days into August. Members begin to understand the consequences of that kind of legislative schedule in terms of its impact on both the legislative agenda itself and on them as individual people.

We inevitably, as you well know, have a number of matters around legislation that we've dealt with during the session on second reading that get referred out to committees for public hearings during the intersession between the spring and the fall session and similarly in the intersession between the fall session and the new spring session each year. If you will recall, in both of the last two summers, in 1993 and in 1992, because the House sat till the end of July, and last year actually a few days into August, the committee hearings got compressed into five or six weeks and then the House is back in late September.

Not only did the legislative work of those committees over the intersession get hampered to some extent by that compression of time, but a lot of members on this side of the House and on the opposition side of the House found themselves with very little time during probably the most important time of the year for members to get home and spend some time at home, because their children are out of school and so on and so forth, to accomplish that time at home, because they spent most of that time either here or on the road with one of the legislative committees.

I think it's in the best interests of everyone in this House that this year we proceed in a more orderly fashion to get the session over with by the end of the regular calendar that's set out in the standing orders, which would be June 23, a week from this Thursday, two weeks from last Thursday, and that we use these two weeks of late-night sittings to substantially finish the Legislative agenda for this spring so that members can spend some time in their ridings and with their families during the early part of the summer and we can still have plenty of time in which the committees can deal with the public hearings and clause-by-clause study of the four or five pieces of legislation that will be referred by this session to committees over the course of the intersession.

I think it's important that we deal with this motion this afternoon. I think we've done a good job, the three House leaders, of moving the agenda forward this spring, and for the first time in three years we're within reach of finishing the spring session on target. I think it's incumbent on all of us to work together to see that happen and to get on with the business that the committees will then be involved with during the intersession.

I encourage all members of the House to support this motion so that in fact we can have a more orderly conduct of business over the course of this year -- at least more orderly than it's been for the last several years -- and the members can find themselves in a much better position to deal with what becomes difficult for members, their very personal, private and family lives, because we've kept them locked up here in Toronto for, on some occasions, far too long.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I understand that the sections of our standing orders were designed to make the business of the House go in a more orderly fashion. I understand that it has been seen as of necessity that we sit till midnight during the last eight scheduled sitting days of the session. While it is interesting to try to shove the last bit of business through in extended-hour sittings, in my view it doesn't necessarily help the debate level whatsoever to force people to be here till 12 o'clock on those last eight sitting days as the schedule is set by our calendar.

In any event, the way the calendar is set hardly has any real effect on us here anyway since we never use the calendar that much. We leave late on most occasions, we come back late on a lot of occasions, and in many regards the standing orders themselves have become largely irrelevant by the government's use of its large numbers to bypass what is usually considered to be the traditional method of doing business here. We have never seen, I think, in this House ever -- in fact, we never have -- so many times when motions are brought forward which are designed to outflank the provisions of the standing orders of this House in a way which prevents almost all of our attempts to do business in a realistic and businesslike fashion.

We have in this place 130 members. As you know, the Speaker never joins a debate, cannot join a debate and cannot vote on any of the votes here unless he or she is required to break a tie. So there are in essence 129 members who should and would like on a lot of occasions to speak on any of the particular bills that are brought forward to us.

1520

We know that not everybody is going to want to speak to each of the bills, that there are certain important issues which come our attention as local members, that come to us as people who have perhaps been advocates for a particular point of view, advocates for a particular set of policy frameworks which we would like to see implemented in the province of Ontario.

But the way this government has worked, they have prevented most members from participating in debate in any real fashion. They have prevented most people from coming in front of our committees and delivering as lay people, so to speak --

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Oxford just woke up again. Every time that I get a chance to speak, the member for Oxford sits back in the back row next to the exit door and starts yapping. I wish he would let me deliver a speech once where I didn't have to listen to his nattering on all occasions. But in any event, Mr Speaker --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I feel that way about the member for Etobicoke West.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Durham West, please.

Mr Elston: It's tactics like those as well which are designed, I guess, to make sure that we never really get a chance to debate in this place either.

But here's our problem: We can't get the time to do business on almost every occasion that a controversial issue comes in front of the House. "The members would like to speak on Bill 40," we indicated to the House leader of the day, and we were time-allocated. We wanted to speak on Bill 91, the matter which was designed to make the farm sector subject to labour organization, and we were time-allocated; time after time after time. We now understand that unless we take some steps to do the exceptional, no debate will ever occur around here.

That is what is kind of galling about the fact that this motion is being brought today, under the auspices of the standing order, to say it's regular business now to sit till 12 o'clock on the last eight days. There is no regular business in this place. There is no regular debate in this place. There is no time for us to debate the issues that cause the people of this province great concern.

The reason we have this chamber, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, is to let the public in on the debate about important changes in public policy. The democratic institutions throughout the world are the alternative to the conflict which used to rage and establish the might as right. Here the voice is all that we have to assist in coming up with some kind of a consensus. The speech, good or bad, is all we have to help our society understand the direction that is being taken by the executive authority. As long as this voice is allowed to be heard in this chamber, there will be an opportunity to help consensus come about in the broadest sense throughout the province of Ontario. If people believe they cannot be heard, if they believe the dissent cannot be raised, then they will have really no respect for the chamber whatsoever.

In relation to Bill 91, the farm labour bill, we suffered probably the greatest defeat of freedom of speech in this province for some time. There, the time allocation motion was not just to limit the debate, which of course time allocation is in any event, but it basically shut off all second reading debate at the end of the debate that we had. It then said, "There will be no committee," and everybody knows that committee is the only stage at which our bills have a chance to be spoken to by the general public. "There will be but one hour of time to consider the amendments," and there are amendments from the government benches, because they made a mistake when they introduced the bill in the first place. "There will be but one hour in committee of the whole for that," with all of the problems associated with Bill 91, and then after we finish putting all the questions for the amendments, "There will be but one hour of third reading debate."

That type of activity, the shutting down --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Bill 167 --

Mr Elston: There he is. The member for Oxford woke up again. I don't understand what his big problem is, but I can't tell why he has to keep interrupting me every time I speak.

I think it is important for us to know that a bill which removes a traditional exemption of the farm workplace from the Ontario Labour Relations Act was not allowed to go to committee, was not allowed to have on the public record, in the Hansards of our committee activity, the wise observations of those people who happen to dissent. In fact, it's important to know that at no time on the record around Bill 91 in this Legislative Assembly's time with which we deal with that bill will there be any kind of words from the people who helped to negotiate the deal that fixed that issue. That really is rubbing it totally into the wound of those people who are in dissent against that, because the people have a right to have a public record from those people who support and those people who oppose legislation like the farm labour legislation.

If we had a chance and we knew that we would be able to speak more freely and more fully about some of the policy changes, I don't think we would be offended as much about this now "routine" motion.

It's unfortunate that in fact the motion even got put, because it seems to me that had we been able to have more faith in the likely prosecution in a real way of our business here by allowing more people to speak at length on some of the bills which were most, most problematic, then we could probably even do our business inside the general timetable for this place. What conspires against us doing that type of thing is, first, the number of bills which come in; second, the manner in which they come in; and third, the general uncaring attitude of the government towards those people who dissent.

It is from my observation a real concern that so much rationing of time in considering public policy is taking place here. It has been an unfortunate new tradition established by this government, the New Democrats, of dumping before us omnibus bills. So that they don't have to introduce a series of bills, what they do is they cloud them all in some kind of a general principle and say, "We're going to introduce one bill," so that when we debate one bill, we end up having but three days on second reading, and then we get time-allocated by the people over there, and then we can't really determine what is good or what is bad.

On three different occasions now, particularly with respect to budget-oriented things, we have been confronted by bills which at the end of the day were very bad indeed, and in fact we had some agreement with respect to that by the government, as it unbundled parts of their omnibus nature and allowed us to proceed with some very specific parts.

The trend continues. We had Bill 29, we had Bill 81, both of which now have received some unbundling, and now we have Bill 160, which is the one which we will continue with in this evening's debate when we get to that stage of the day.

Bill 160, just so the people of the province will know why we are sitting from 1:30 till 12 today and the same for the next few days, actually amends 16 bills and creates one new bill. Sixteen pieces of legislation are going to be debated, or parts of them are going to be debated, under the ambit of one act, and a 17th act will be established under this omnibus bill. It hardly sounds credible that we are going to be able to give enough real good time to Bill 160 and all its parts when it is bundled together like this.

1530

Why shouldn't we have a separate piece of legislation on the Co-operative Corporations Act? There are some good things in that. I don't think there is much to be hidden by putting it in an omnibus bill. Why shouldn't we talk about the Education Act? There are some good parts that would be, it seems to me, reasonably quickly dealt with.

Why wouldn't we be dealing with some of the things on the Game and Fish Act, because I know that the commercial fishery has agreed to fees being raised? Why do we have to hide it under the cloak of this omnibus bill? What about the Ontario home ownership plan? Good news for a lot of people, a well-received portion of this year's budget, why does it have to be in this omnibus bill?

The answer to that question and others comes when you take a look at things like the Unclaimed Intangible Property Act, because that is controversial. It is not well regarded by people in industry. It may be well regarded by the people in Treasury, because of course it would mean that they would get some more money. The merits of that issue ought to be determined outside the ambit of this big omnibus bill.

The same thing with the public service employees union act. That is a very interesting piece of legislation, because here, formally, we establish a separation of the pension funds that apply to the Ontario public service union employees. It seems to me, the new piece, which is really quite concerning, is that the active people go off in one plan while the retireds stay in another. Why shouldn't that, for instance, be determined and understood and studied separately? In fact, why shouldn't that be studied separately during the daylight hours, so to speak, when people are sharper?

It goes without saying, in my view, that as we sit longer and longer in this place, when we start debating at roughly 3:30 of the clock, as we are today, and when we finally finish by 12, there will not be the same degree of exercise of the debating skills as there would if we were taking this in two-and-a-half or three-hour snippets during the regular daylight time.

These two at least, and those other items I mentioned, while not controversial, are all important. The public, it seems to me, would be better respectful of this place if they thought that the points which were causing concerns were actually being addressed in a real and serious way.

I have no complaint with the circumstances which make our business difficult to allocate time towards. This is a busy place, and the busier government is, the fewer and fewer valuable moments we have for actually taking on our responsibilities and duties as elected representatives to thoroughly study every piece of legislation. We rely in many ways on the outside public to raise and bring to our attention the issues which are most troubling for them.

We have just finished in committee, for instance, Bill 134, a bill which had some issues which needed to be searched out and fine-tuned. In fact, it was one that attracted, as I recall, 127 government amendments and a few amendments from those of us who were in the committee who thought that there were issues worthy of raising again for discussion purposes in the committee format.

Anybody who knows this place very well understands that you don't get a lot of discussion in the Legislative Assembly. You get some speeches, you get to point and counterpoint here, but you really don't get the interchange of ideas around particular issues. The committee is very valuable for that purpose, and so we raised some issues and we actually found ourselves fortunate enough to be able to pass the odd amendment, where we determined that there were problems with either the wording, the placement or the expression of interest of some of the sections.

Those changes were in general, I think, well received. In fact, if they hadn't been well received by the government, they wouldn't have passed, as anybody who can count would well understand. But in regard to a lot of the issues, Bill 134 is a little bit of the exception. It wasn't an issue that had a lot of problems associated with it once a lot of discussions were held around its meaning and terms.

But I can tell you that at least it got to committee and we were able to have the exchanges of ideas which prevented some very serious problems from continuing on in the legislated form that the draughtsman had originally provided to this place. That, in my view, is not going to be the circumstance with a bill like Bill 160. It probably is not going to be the situation with a couple of other bills, because we are going to be using the late night hours to push on our examination of those items.

It is critical for us in this Legislative Assembly to start studying the issue of the omnibus bill. From time to time we send items off to the Legislative Assembly committee, where sometimes they re-emerge but, in my view, issues around omnibus bills like Bill 160, where there are 16 existing acts amended and then there is the creation of a new one -- not only issues in this past year's budget but even issues from a prior year's budget are all contained under the cloak of this omnibus bill.

How in the world can we be expected to study so many issues under one bill? I don't mind the fact that we can have omnibus bills in education, where the Education minister, in making one or two changes, has to move forward and address issues in two or three statutes that have some bearing on the issue. But why should we in this Legislative Assembly be forced to consider basically the entire 1994 budget, plus two or three additions from the 1993 budget, in one bill?

It doesn't make sense. This is the expenditure or the raising of moneys by the government of the day. Heaven knows, we hardly get any budget debate time. As my friend the member for York Mills, Mr Turnbull, raised on a couple of occasions, we have I think seldom, if ever, in this Parliament, in this Legislative Assembly, voted finally on a budget. That's unfortunate, and now we're being asked to vote on one bill which basically encapsulates most of the provisions of the 1994 budget.

It's not all bad. As I said before, a lot of it is good and it should be seen in that light. But now we are getting an entire budget plus others in one bill and we have no opportunity to speak to these individual items, even to suggest changes or amendments which might very well not be accepted. I understand that, everybody understands it, but at least we have the opportunity to put the case, to show the cause.

We're being told, because we get to the last eight days of this calendar schedule, that we will not be allowed to have very long, if any, committee hearings whatsoever on some of these bills because some of the issues are extremely important to the government to have passed right away.

I can imagine things like the Employer Health Tax Act. That's a good program, establishing a holiday for some employers and creation of new jobs. They will have a holiday from paying the tax. The extension of the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act would have some good results. But you know something? We will never get a chance to understand in detail what is going on.

I'm not the critic for the Finance area of our party. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Gerry Phillips, is, and he does a wonderful job, a very good job indeed. But you know, he could have an hour and a half to speak to 160 as it starts off. If I wish to speak to Bill 160, and I do wish to speak to parts of it, and I wanted to speak to the whole of it, I would have 30 minutes to talk to 17 statutes. That's then two minutes per statute if I was going to cover them all, and it would seem to me to be a very, very large restriction indeed on my ability to put my public representative's case for my constituents.

1540

We changed the standing orders and limited speech here to 30 hours -- 30 minutes; it just seems like 30 hours on some occasions -- by other than the leadoff speakers on every piece of legislation. We did that because we thought there was too much speaking. I think most of us thought that 30 minutes was enough time to deal with most of the business of the House, but that was before the advent and use on a regular basis of the omnibus bill to prevent us from actually prosecuting our analysis of legislation.

It's an actual travesty. If we had known, for instance, that we were going to get only 30 minutes to speak to 17 different statutes under the cloak of one act, most of us would probably have said, "No, no, no, none of this 30-minute stuff, because we would wish to have some time to speak to each of these." We don't have much time to speak to each of these.

In that regard, the standing orders themselves do not protect the right of the minority to speak. It doesn't protect anybody. If, for instance, someone over there on the government benches decided that they didn't like some of the material that was coming through on Bill 160, they likewise would be allowed only 30 minutes to speak to some 17 statutes which are being changed.

It's interesting too that these are not, in many ways, minor changes. There are substantial items being carried out here and they're not really consequential, one change to another. These are isolated items under each of these statutes which are being changed under either the 1993 or the 1994 budget. That's what is so evil about this and that is what makes me stand on this occasion to speak a little bit longer than I probably would, had we the ability to actually speak out in this Legislative Assembly on bills that are brought forward by the government.

I actually sat for a while this afternoon and considered what steps might be taken to outline even more fully some of the problems associated with this type of activity. I came to the conclusion that there aren't that many people who would really be that interested in the complaints of someone who wants to speak a little bit longer on some of the bills. Heaven knows that the general public thinks perhaps that we talk too much now on some of these items, except if you happen to be the person or the group of people who are in opposition to a piece of legislation. Then you want the voice to be heard.

What happens if you don't want to see the severance of active employees of the Ontario public service union moving off to their own pension plan? What happens if you happen to be one of the retireds who gets left with the other pension fund? Maybe you don't like that. The opportunity is quickly coming to an end when you will have a chance to marshal your opposition.

It's interesting as well that we have, initially, only one day scheduled for the debate of this item. Not that there aren't a number of hours; I think the government House leader has said that we can debate Bill 160 from the end of this debate and the vote until the end of the day at 12 o'clock. It sounds like a lot of time.

But you know, in terms of marshalling your forces and your cause, if there is but one day for people to consider your issue, it's all over in one day. It's difficult to marshal your support and the interest of those of your colleagues who may not be as thoroughly versed as the leadership of an advocacy group might be around a particular piece of legislation. It is almost impossible to respond on that one day only. You need a couple of days to get things moving as the interest in a debate starts to rise.

That's why the omnibus bill has become a useful tool for the New Democrats. That's why I think the Legislative Assembly should take a very close look at the use of the omnibus bill to cloak a whole series of separate pieces of activity by the executive council in this secretness.

I think that despite the continual use of heavy-handed moves by the government in time-allocating those bills that are most contentious, in spite of the fact that there are shenanigans designed to lure people into believing there will be a debate when the debate has not occurred, despite the fact that the government protests that it has talked to everybody it needs to talk to, and whatever else could be done here or said in committee by the people on the street who come to visit us in committee, it has done it all and it is not needed, our institution will have a chance not long from now to revitalize itself and its internal operations so that we again can have some really good debating time available to bona fide people who wish to speak to an issue.

I'm not talking about people who want to speak just to cause a delay; I'm speaking about those people who asked to be heard because their interests have not been heard in the original draft of a piece of legislation. That's our job here. People who are members of the opposition have to express that position from time to time and it's important for me to know that my standing orders will allow me to do that.

I think it's also important to understand that the use of numbers during this Parliament has been such that very little is left to do on a consensual basis among the party people here. If there is a disagreement on one day about the number of hours left in a debate, the next day we are served with a notice for time allocation. That, in my view, is not very healthy; it causes an awful lot of high blood pressure when we could have avoided it.

It seems to me that when you move to use that type of an instrument to get around going into a recognized portion of the institution like committees, there should be some intervention from the neutral third party, the Speaker's chair, to say you can't do that type of thing; that if you're going to time-allocate, there has to be some reasonable time made available at each of the stages; that if time allocation is to occur, then there ought to be a reasonable amount of time available for public input from a person who is not a member here; that if there is to be a time allocation, there has to be some reasonable amount of time in committee of the whole; that if there is going to be time allocation, there must be some reasonable time on third reading; that in fact time allocation itself cannot be used to avoid any of the sections of our legislative process, that each section must be represented in a reasonable amount of time.

I make this declaration believing that it could very well be against our interests as a political party. There is an election coming. At some stage there will be an election coming, and there is a good chance that the Liberals -- a good chance it could be the Conservatives, there's a third party available -- there's a good chance that either of the two opposition parties will actually establish a government.

But I think the changes ought to be made so that this place can function at all of its stages when a time allocation motion is moved. If they aren't, then it seems to me that we are preventing the type of work that this institution is designed to do from being carried out. This is the place where dissent has to be expressed. This is the place where a review of the executive council or the executive council member who sponsors a bill has to be checked. This is the place where the work of the public service is publicly exposed to the light of an analysis by outside eyes. That's why I think the workings of this place must be reassessed, and we have to get back to allowing this place to actually air out those public issues.

This motion I wish was able to be debated for a long time. I'd line up a whole series of my colleagues to talk this through past 6 o'clock, just to make the point that we could do that and that we could avoid now sitting till 12 o'clock, but of course the standing order is written to allow only a two-hour debate.

1550

I am not going to take up the full two hours, but it is interesting to me that we will do an awful lot of work from the hour of 6 o'clock till 12, six hours an evening, for eight days, probably more debating time made available then than we've had even up till now. I didn't count up the number of days we've sat; Mr Wilson, the whip for the New Democrats, may very well know, or one of my other colleagues may know how much debating time we've had till now. But the extension by six hours of our sitting day, it seems to me, will collapse the public debate on a lot of these issues into such a small period of time that this institution cannot be expected to carry out its legitimate and very much necessary and important task of airing the public policy and the issues which are being brought before us in this House.

I've spoken about Bill 160, but the same might be very well said about Bill 174, I think it is, the good management bill or something like that; that's not its precise name, but it's an amendment of several statutes. It was introduced by the Attorney General not because she's intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of government, except in her department, but because the government couldn't decide who else might carry it because there are some things that apply to treasury board, there are some things that apply to Management Board, there are some things that apply to another statute. You know something? We are going to be asked to deal with that bill in very short time frames as well.

All we have to do, in fact all we've been doing, two or three people in our caucus since we got the bill last week, is try to decipher what in the world is going on. When I approached some people on the government side saying: "Listen, what are you doing with this bill? You've got to give us some more time," we were told, "You can look as hard as you want, but there's not going to be anything out of line in this bill."

Well, I took that with a grain of salt. We had two or three really good examples of bills that were drafted with no problems evident, at least according to the ministers, which ultimately came back to us as being totally off the mark. I just name a couple. The farm registration bill, as it's called now, in its first form was totally unacceptable, not only to all the people in the opposition benches but to most of the people who represent farming areas on the NDP side of the House.

They didn't want that bill at all. They didn't want the $2,000 fine that the executive council had approved by way of draft form of the bill, the form in which it was introduced in the first reading. So it was scrapped, it was taken away, and a different bill was brought back some months later after all the fuss was raised here in this House and out in the public.

There are provisions as well around the current Bill 91. It is not a bill that was reflective at all -- I shouldn't say "not at all." There are some parts that were reflective of some of the discussions about it. Most of Bill 91, the farm labour bill, is not reflective of the substantial amount of work done by the public committee that was settled, by way of membership from farming communities and labour organizations and the government, to draft the bill.

The Minister of Labour brought in his own version, largely, I suspect, at the behest of his advocates for labour legislation in his own organization. We found out that in fact 11 express conditions of the final report of the consensus committee were either overlooked or were overruled by the minister and his cronies when they brought that bill forward. Now we find that we're going to go to committee of the whole. We can't go to committee because we've been time-allocated out of that. When we go to committee of the whole, all of those 11 oversights will be remedied by amendments. "Trust us," he says.

We don't really trust him all that far. We will wait to see what the committee of the whole does. All we can do is wait to see what the committee of the whole does, because we are time-allocated away from doing the real work that should be done in the full committee, the standing committee on resources development probably, that would look, piece by piece, at the existing legislation as it was introduced, the existing Bill 91, and then re-examine the intentions as expressed by way of amendments that are going to be introduced by the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary assistant in the committee.

This place needs to be rejigged. This place needs to be run an awful lot better. This place needs an overhaul. In some ways it means going back to letting more time circulate around the determinations made on public policy matters.

All members don't want to speak on all items. You might well observe this afternoon, Mr Speaker, that there doesn't appear to be a great amount of interest in the current debate, and that's okay.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Where are all your colleagues, Murray?

Mr Elston: All my friends are here. It's pretty interesting to note that most people are resigned to the fact that there are but two hours to spend on this issue, and basically they're off doing other important things. And there will be other important things to do. Heaven knows we all get telephone calls, we all get letters, and all of that is important.

But the more and more that we press this place into some kind of stopwatch-type activity, a rubber-stamping of the executive council's determinations, the more irrelevant this place gets and the more difficult it gets to convince the people who elect us that there is something real being done here.

It's very distracting to see the way things have changed since I came here in 1981. There was one change which I was quite in support of: The move by the Liberals to government in 1985 seemed to be a very important and positive step, but other than that, a couple of other problems, it seems to me, now appear.

One of those problems is that this place is not used in the same manner for good debate. It is not used in a manner which allows us to exchange back and forth, by way of examination, ideas on whether the public policy is good or bad. Sometimes our speeches are not that particularly good, but in most cases when a person stands up here it is to put forward an idea he or she has that may assist in making the public policy work a little bit better.

The second problem that has come is that the more and more we advance the demise of this place as a debating institution, as a place where the public can come to put their cause, the more we see that there is very little interest actually in this chamber. The interest is now focused only on the members of the executive council, and heaven knows they need a little bit of interest expressed in all the work they do. I understand that; you understand it.

The interest is in my colleague, my friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the people she deals with as advocates, the Ontario Jockey Club, for instance, or the people who deal with gambling, but the results of the work here, the work that is done on behalf of the people of this province, is largely ignored, with the exception of the digested version of the input the minister has received and the pointed views of the advocates whose points have been rejected or otherwise. The debating, as a result, doesn't occur around here so much as it occurs around the boardrooms in her offices.

It's not a problem. That has always been the case, that the executive council member has had the responsibility for initiating these types of debate. But for the broadest public interest to be raised in the issues, that public debate has then been repeated at least in some measure in this forum, where we have Hansard, now electronically recorded with the assistance of handwritten notes, but it is recorded so that everybody can understand what has gone on. Now all we understand that is coming out of the deliberations at the minister's office are her version and her views of what is good for the public and some views as expressed through newspapers or through faxes or letters or telephone calls to our offices as independent members of what their view or version of the facts is. The broader public deserves, in my view, this forum to take a much more active role in that debate.

1600

Mr Speaker, I'll sit down now and leave those words for your speculation, for your thoughts, because I really believe that there are a couple of very serious problems which imperil a continued, vital existence of this chamber as a good place to debate public issues. The more contentious the issue, the less time we're given. The more contentious the issue, the fewer people from the public we hear from in our committees. It seems that is running exactly contrary to what we should be doing. The more important the issues, it seems to me they shouldn't be being decided by debate from 10 o'clock till 12 o'clock; that if we normally sit from 1:30 till 6, that's the time our business ought to be done, that we ought to be assuring everybody that their public issues will be considered during the light of day as well.

While the world grows tired of our onerous responsibilities, we should look forward to sitting till 12 of the clock for the next eight working days. For those of us who will be here monitoring that, it will be, I'm sure, a very happy and most lucid debate around some of the most important issues. And I'm very serious about the issues, because 160's important, 174 is an important bill and several of the others are as well. I just hope that the people get their money's worth in our consideration of those bills as they come before us.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This motion is to authorize the government to, for the next two weeks, extend the days that we sit in this place from 6 o'clock until 12 midnight.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I know you wanted to do that to get a little overtime.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, I, as you, sir, have been sitting in this place since 1990 and it's getting more and more difficult to understand the workings of this place, even from day to day on the order paper.

Mr Elston: Getting older, not wiser.

Mr Tilson: I get concerned even from day to day looking at the order paper, the topics we're going to discuss on each given day, and most of the time that changes almost within five minutes. A very strange place, and if any business were run like this place, it wouldn't survive.

The rules of this place, specifically the standing orders that authorize this motion, start on page 6 of the standing orders with order number 6 and go through a number of pages. But the main one we're dealing with today is with respect to the sixth order.

A calendar is set forth, that we're to sit for a certain period of time, and it's done because presumably we can do the business of this place. Yet it seems, going back to 1990, every time a session ends, for some unearthly reason we extend the hours. If you read the order that talks about these extended hours, it's discretionary, in other words, the word "may" is used, and yet it seems to be the order of the day.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Shall.

Mr Tilson: He's right. We might as well change the word "may" to "shall" because it's happened every time, which means we can't do the work in this place unless we sit for at least two weeks from 6 o'clock until midnight to deal with a number of pieces of legislation, more pieces of legislation than are dealt with normally. I, for one, want a sufficient amount of time to debate on different bills that come to this place, and I think we all do. Yet I think we're short-changed when we start to ram through pieces of legislation from 6 o'clock until midnight.

I look at the overall process and whose fault that is. It may be all our fault for allowing these rules to come about, because we never seem to know from one moment to the next what we're doing, what we're debating; even a piece of draft documentation -- at least it's entitled "draft" -- which indicates the pieces of legislation that are being proposed, presumably by the government House leader, to be debated in the next two weeks. I'll get into those in a moment.

When you start looking at what we do as provincial members of the Legislature, many of us have to do things back in our ridings. Many of us can't because of the long distances that are required, but I live about an hour and a half to two hours' drive to my riding and occasionally I go back to my riding and I partake in events at night.

Mr Perruzza: It takes me an hour, and I do it every day.

Mr Tilson: And you're a good guy for that too.

I'm simply saying that we've got other events to do. We have committees. Someone coming to this place right now, for example, would see very few members sitting in this House, and the reason is that we're all in committees.

Yet all of a sudden the pace of passing bills is going to accelerate. We're going to be putting through more and more pieces of legislation in the next two weeks. I don't think that's a good way of doing business. We should be able to debate for and against pieces of legislation. For example, the long-term care bill is set for Wednesday, the 15th, and three hours is being set. That's for second reading. Long-term care: three hours.

The rules of this place enable the critics from each opposition party to debate, and I suppose the minister technically could come up and speak for an hour and a half, but that rarely happens. Generally speaking, the critic of each of the parties speaks for an hour and a half. Particularly on this piece of legislation, the long-term care legislation, I cannot believe that the Liberal critic and the Progressive Conservative critic won't take an hour and a half each to debate that bill. Well, that adds up to three hours, which means that the rest of us -- and I realize this is a draft document and hopefully the House leader will come to his senses and change this draft, but the way it's scheduled now, long-term care is scheduled for three hours on Wednesday. That means two people in this House will debate long-term care. Many of us on all sides of this House want to debate that issue, yet we'll be precluded because of this resolution.

The way things are thrown at us all of a sudden by the House leader -- it may well be that others know, but I had no idea that, for example, the time allocation with respect to the farm legislation, the unionization of the farm, was going to be sprung on us the way it was. I also didn't know why. I didn't know why when all kinds of people in my riding, a semirural riding, want to discuss these issues. We're not going to have any committees discussing that.

As a result of that time allocation motion, we're going to have one hour in committee of the whole, in which case I understand there are a number of amendments that are going to be put forward -- one hour. Then on third reading we're going to have another hour, and that's it, that's the end of it. There will be no travelling around the province on a bill such as this, a bill which cries out to have people heard. The various agricultural organizations in this province will not have an opportunity to voice their views. That's the end of it.

I look at that and I look at these other pieces of legislation. Tonight, for example, if all goes the way it should, and generally it doesn't, Bill 160, which is a budget measures bill, is going to be debated this evening. It has a whole bunch of things that people want to speak about, yet I see it that we're being allowed to debate that tonight and that's it, and many of us wanted to speak.

As the member for Bruce commented earlier, that's the trick of this government: to put a whole group of measures into a piece of legislation, some of which we in the opposition may be in favour of, most of which we're opposed to. But the point is, we do not have an adequate time to debate it. In this particular motion that we have before us tonight, it is deemed -- and I suspect the government House leader's going to be most annoyed if we are not able to finish off Bill 160 tonight.

But who says? Why, when you get these various contentious issues, should we not be allowed to debate those issues? Why? Why shut us down? Why shut members of the government down? Why shut members of the opposition down? If we want to speak on these various contentious issues, particularly when there's a number of them in these omnibus bills, we should be allowed to speak.

1610

Tomorrow, it's scheduled in this little agenda that's been put to us -- and I suppose that could change as of five minutes from now, if it hasn't already. But tomorrow at least, in the draft documentation that's been given to me, we're going to have committee of the whole on the retail sales tax, Bill 138. Then we're going to have private bills; that probably won't take too long. But then we're going to talk about Bill 165, which is amendments to the workers' compensation legislation and also deals with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That is a very contentious piece of legislation. You may be in support of it, you may be opposed to it, but why would so little time be allowed to debate that legislation? That's for second reading.

Normally in this place when you have pieces of legislation such as this, we're allowed to go on for a considerable period of time, more speakers than not. For example, I can't believe the Liberal Party critic isn't going to spend an hour and a half on that. I can't believe the Progressive Conservative critic isn't going to spend an hour and a half on that. That's three hours. If you subtract that from the amount of hours that are being allocated, we'll have very little time to debate a very contentious bill.

Then we get into Wednesday, and there's a whole slew. I've already mentioned the long-term care legislation, which the two critics alone will spend three hours on. There are only so many hours in each day. Then we've got third reading to a number of other pieces of legislation. We've got the employer health tax, which I have spoken on at second reading and had hoped to be able to speak on at third reading, because I think it has a major effect on the financial operations of our health system and with respect to the business community, the deductions that employers are being obliged to make, and it's unfair. But we won't have an opportunity to do that because, as well, Bill 138, third reading, which is the retail sales tax; Bill 146, which is -- and these are all budget bills, but they are all contentious and we all should have the right to debate those -- the Corporations Tax Act; Bill 113, which is the Liquor Control Act. This is all for one day. This is all from roughly 3 o'clock to 12 o'clock at night. Then, of course, we're going to have Bill 161, which I think is revenue and has to do with the Liquor Licence Act, second reading for that.

Mr Perruzza: The best debates happen when we're working overtime.

Mr Tilson: Well, you can come forward with smart heckles. I'm simply saying to the members of this place that we be given sufficient time to debate these pieces of legislation. It's as if we take the number of pieces of legislation that this government wants to pass on its agenda when it starts each session, and then it crams them all into the final two weeks.

There is a certain amount of time in which we as members in this place, for or against, would like to consult with our constituents. We would like to meet with people to talk about whether they're for or against pieces of legislation. When you ram all this stuff into two weeks, sitting from roughly 3 o'clock or 3:30 to 12 midnight, how in the world can we as members of this Legislature properly do our job, which means consulting with our constituents to find out whether we should be opposing this legislation or speaking in favour of it? We don't even have time to do that. It simply doesn't make sense.

So that's what going to happen Wednesday.

Thursday, there are scheduled two pieces of legislation: most contentious, most important pieces of legislation. There will be what I assume is a second reading of Bill 163, which is a number of the implementations of Mr Sewell's recommendations on the Ontario Planning and Development Act and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Again, there's a lot of omnibus things in that piece of legislation. Some of us may be in favour of them, but I know darn well there are going to be a number of us who are opposed to others. I think we all like time to debate on those things. In fact, I would like time to debate on each individual item. The trouble is that the government's putting a number of these issues into one bill, which precludes me, from the time that's allowed under the rules of this place -- unless you're a critic, you're allowed half an hour to speak -- to properly debate those various pieces of legislation.

Then finally, on the committee of the whole for the tobacco bill, Bill 119, the way I assess this place, I think that generally speaking the majority this House will be in support of that legislation, but many of us have concerns and wish to speak on it.

All of these things, these two issues are, if you look at Bill 163, more than one just one issue. There are a whole number of issues, again, being crammed into, according to this note, nine hours. We have a number of people in this place who would like to debate it and they're going to be precluded the right of debating it.

Then next week we look at what the House leader has planned for Monday: second reading of the forestry legislation, which is the Crown Timber Act. Again, the critics can kill three hours. I don't mean "kill"; I mean, take up three hours. They have an obligation to and they have a right to provide their party's position on these various pieces of legislation. There will be third reading of Bill 134, which is the credit unions act, another contentious piece of legislation. This is all one day.

Then there's Bill 91 of course, and that's already been settled. That's going to be committee of the whole. There's only one hour there. The government's fixed that one. They fixed that one earlier last week when they decided through time allocation that we would simply be allowed one hour for committee of the whole and one hour for third reading. That's all.

On the unionization of the farm, I can't believe I'm saying it, I can't believe that somebody's even thought this up, but we won't have a time to debate it. Worse yet, we won't have the right to go out into the country -- when I say "the country," outside of Toronto, outside of Queen's Park -- to hear what the people of this province want to say on that piece of legislation. We won't have that right and the people outside of Toronto won't have the right to make their submissions. It's all over. The member for Bruce is quite right when he says that the rules need to be changed.

We get into the Courts of Justice Act, which is Bill 136. I think, generally speaking, that will carry. But then we get into the Ontario Loan Act, second reading of the loan act, which is An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is always interesting, particularly with the whole borrowing issue of this province.

I was going to run down the rest of the days, but we're even precluded from debating this issue. I can't even adequately debate this issue as to why I think the whole process is faulty, because there's a limited amount of time and all members of my caucus and other members of this place wish to speak. I can say that this resolution, this process is unfair and quite frankly precludes me the right to properly represent my constituents and put forward the views of my constituents in a way that I think is adequate and that needs to be done.

1620

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise on this motion today which allows the government to bring in extended hours in the last two weeks of each session. As has previously been mentioned, it seems quite apparent that the government should read the House rules as "should" bring in this motion rather than "may." The fact is, here's a government that doesn't listen to the opposition in any shape or form. I suppose that probably, to some degree, all members of all parties who've been here in opposition have had the same complaint about the government of the day. But the fact remains that other governments have not closed down debate as often as this government.

I took the trouble of looking out how many time allocation motions this government has made in its three and a half years in office -- coming up soon it will be four years -- and in that time it has made 16 time allocation motions. That compares with the previous government which had four in its five years in office, and then the Conservatives before that, going all the way back to 1982, had three. Three for the Conservatives compared with 16 for this NDP government.

This is a government which really does not like the opposition, and the opposition, let us remind you, is the people who represent the 62.2% of the electorate who voted in the last election but didn't vote for the government.

The way that our system of government works with first past the post, they legitimately have a majority, and I'm not denying that for a moment, but there is a requirement for the government, particularly a majority government, to acknowledge and accept the legitimate right of opposition parties to be able to represent the spectrum of opinion that exists other than the party that was elected to govern. When we have 16 time allocations, we have to seriously question the interest in the government in letting this expression come forward.

I'll just go back to the last time allocation motion, which was on June 8 of this year, and that was on agricultural labour relations where they allowed one hour for committee of the whole and one hour for third reading of a bill, a very controversial bill, a bill that was widely reviled by the agricultural community.

We go back to April 19, Bill 120, which was the residential property bill, and we had one hour for third reading of that bill and one sessional day for committee of the whole. I would say on that issue that there had been a standing committee examining that bill, and there were an enormous number of amendments brought by the opposition parties and in fact by the government, and yet they had hardly scratched the surface of the amendments but the government decided that it was going to have time allocation, and one sessional day for the rest of those amendments, and then they were ruled to have been read and were voted on, even though there was no debate about them.

We go back. We've got the Ottawa-Carleton act, once again one hour for third reading; Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, two hours for third reading; Bill 80, construction labour relations, two hours; Bill 100, regulated health, two hours, and so it goes, the casino, photo-radar, social contract, OTAB and 164, insurance.

Mr Stockwell: And the beat goes on.

Mr Turnbull: As my colleague says, the beat goes on.

The fact is that Parliament doesn't work very well. You only have to look at some of the controversial bills the government brings in and look at the fact that there is absolutely no opportunity for opposition parties to be able to have their views reasonably expressed.

I suppose one could demonstrate and do all kinds of outrageous things, but the interesting thing is that this is the government which changed the House rules so there are very few blocking tactics used.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, we followed your federal example.

Mr Turnbull: No. As a matter of fact, you started it.

Let's just have a look at one of the first events that we saw in this erosion of democracy. There was a change by this government to reduce the amount of debate from an unlimited debate, which had a way of working its way out -- the majority of bills didn't have a lot of discussion but controversial bills were under great scrutiny -- but this government changed it so that the lead speaker for the opposition parties would have 90 minutes of debate, and then all of the other members 30 minutes. That isn't very satisfactory when you have something of a substantive nature.

Now, Mr Speaker, as you well know, the vast majority of members have no desire to speak longer than half an hour, but there are times when there is a pressing need to put certain things on the record. But this government has said, "No, 30 minutes are enough."

They've also turned the committee system into a joke, where ministers typically do not attend for the introduction of their bills, do not defend their bills. I have been at committee hearings where there have been highly controversial bills and the minister hasn't turned up at all, they've sent their parliamentary assistant, which brings me to the question of question period.

Having discussed the debate process within question period, the attendance of the ministers of this government is appalling. This Premier pretends that he has reduced the size of government by reducing the number of ministries. What he doesn't say is we have more ministers but less ministries. What they did was, they took the number of ministers they had before, and there were a lot of them falling by the wayside who weren't managing to do their jobs, so he made them into ministers without portfolio, whatever the new term was that he coined for this, and basically it was a minister with a chauffeur and a limo and a credit card but nothing else to do.

You would expect that during question period, if the minister who had portfolio could not attend, then the minister without portfolio attached to that minister should at least be here to answer questions. But that doesn't happen. By some strange coincidence, whenever the minister is absent, the minister without portfolio -- you know, the one with the credit card and the chauffeur-driven limousine -- cannot attend either. It shows that they have a lot to hide from or, alternatively, they have incredibly bad day-timers so they get confused as to the fact that the minister's not going to be there.

We have these ministers, one more minister than we had before -- but the government says they've reduced the number of ministries -- still spending on their credit cards and not attending during question period. It leaves a member of the opposition questioning, really, what do we do here? It takes me back to just shortly before the last election when somebody had suggested that I run and I decided to come here and sit and watch --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In looking at the rules, the member referred to the attendance in this place of ministers. I can tell him that I sit here every day and --

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

Mr Perruzza: Well, it is. It's in the rule book.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no, this is not a point of order. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: That's an interesting interjection. We've got a two-hour time period to debate this motion and the most that the member for --

Mr Stockwell: Downsview.

Mr Turnbull: -- Downsview can bring --

Mr Stockwell: Or Yorkview.

Mr Turnbull: Or Yorkview, whatever. They're interchangeable, I guess. The most he can bring to this debate is the fact that I've commented on the poor attendance of ministers. I didn't name any of them. I just said that the poor attendance of ministers leaves the opposition in the difficult position of not being able to ask questions, and the number of times that we find ourselves having to reschedule at the last moment because a minister isn't attending is scandalous. As I say, they could send their minister without portfolio, the one with the credit card and the chauffeur-driven limousine, but they don't see fit to do that.

This government has limited the amount of debate time. They have --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is impugning the motives and the responsibilities of the junior ministers.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Mr Perruzza: I would like to know that --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat before I ask you to leave.

Mr Perruzza: That's what I'd like to know. No foaming at the mouth.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: It certainly raises the suggestion that perhaps we should contract for the listening skills course for the members of the government, because if the member had paid careful attention, he would have heard that when the ministers were not there, neither were the ministers without portfolio. Get somebody to read Hansard to you tomorrow and you'll maybe understand the point I've just made.

1630

Let's just look at some of the things the government has done where there should have been a debate but there wasn't a debate, like the awarding of the 407 contract. We were told by this government that it was going to award the biggest contract in roadbuilding history in this province, for $1 billion, and it was going to do it a new way.

Instead of the normal tendering process, which has been in place since the 1950s, a process that was put in place to make sure everything was absolutely aboveboard and clear, what did this government do? They said, "We can't have the normal opening up of tenders in public. We've got to put together consortiums, because these are the only people who would be able to raise $1 billion to build this road," because it was going to be private sector funding.

Guess what? At the last moment, they changed their mind. They said, "Government can raise money at a better rate than the private sector." If that's what it takes for government to understand that, we'll come over and read to them each day to explain how this works. As you may have gathered, we're quite keen to form the next government and we believe we would do a competent job of it, and we're happy to share our knowledge now.

The fact is that the government suddenly arrived at this decision about two or three weeks before it awarded the contract, after many contractors had been turned away. "No, you can't tender for a piece of this road. You've got to be in a consortium, because you couldn't raise the $1 billion."

That would be a useful debate for us to have, but we're not allowed to do that. Instead we have a timetable of what is going to be debated during this last two weeks, where we're going to midnight sittings, and we have absolutely nothing relating to the awarding of this huge contract, which at the very least I would suggest smells a little bit, from the perspective of the private sector.

We're not having enough budget debate. We're in the peculiar position, and you may recall that I made a lengthy point of privilege on this matter a few weeks ago, and I know it took some three weeks for the Speaker to rule on the matter, but we had the peculiar circumstance that we had two budgets before us for debate. We'd never had a vote on either of them. Having arrived at the situation that now we have two budgets before us with no vote being taken, you have to start questioning the erosion of the political process.

In debating this motion today, we're not suggesting that we should work less hours. We're saying that the hours we work should be more meaningful and it should be issues that allow the public's concern about the runaway debt of this province to be adequately expressed so that the opposition members, who represent the 62.2% of voters who didn't vote for these wretches across the floor, have their opinion heard. But that isn't what we're talking about now. We're talking about pushing the government's lunatic agenda through in these last two weeks.

I just thought I would contribute that little diatribe to the debate.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to enter the debate. I'll be very short. I understand there are some other people who want to speak.

Up till now I wish we'd had some debate here in this Legislature. I want to say that since I've been here we've continued to have a runup to the night sittings. We sit and do nothing for the few weeks until the bill comes through and then we rush through here and then the debates come through at midnight when no one is around.

I look at the bills that are put together, the famous omnibus Bill 160 that has been put together. For the last three or four weeks that we've been here, we have done virtually nothing. We are not talking about what is important to the people of this province.

I had wanted to get up and talk about some of the big issues of the day, the taxation, the government spending, to talk about some of our solutions in the Common Sense Revolution, some of the things that we've put together over a period of time to help improve the job situation. We don't get any chance to do that. Then, at the very end, we rush through with these night sittings, where we have the debates late at night and where all the individuals involved don't get a chance to hear what we're saying.

I want to tell you, I've become discouraged since I've been in this Legislature, when I see exactly what goes on here. There are so many problems. We have, right now, the taxation issues that are killing this province; we have high government spending; we have overregulation. When I look at the bills that have come through here, none of the bills here are relevant to the average person. I suspect, if you ask the average person, with the exception of maybe last week where there were some issues that people will remember, there aren't too many people who could even remember what we were debating here.

The reason I'm concerned with that is, what we are dealing with in this House so often is irrelevant to the people of this province. With all the problems we've got out there -- the 500,000 people who are jobless, the 1.2 million people on social assistance, the health care problems, the problems in education -- we see over the last little while this government has not dealt with any of these major issues. In many respects I'm pleased that has happened, because with some of the crazy ideas that they had when they were opposition, as I've said all along, if they do nothing it'll be better than some of the crazy things that they've wanted to implement over the last little while.

But even the budget had no vision of where they want to go. They're basically in a holding pattern, waiting until the next election to be defeated. There is no agenda left for this government. They have no vision of where they're going to go. The Premier of this province, who I give the responsibility for the major problems, has no agenda of where he wants to go and to take this province in the last year of his mandate. He's the one, in my estimation, who has botched this whole situation.

Here we are at the end of the session now and we're going to rush through all these bills. This Bill 160 is a very substantial piece of legislation, and instead of having debate over the last little while on this, it gets rushed through in the last wee hours before it has to be tabled and no longer will be valid for debate. I want to talk very quickly about that bill, because I want the people to understand some of the major changes that are put together.

Instead of having debate over the session the way we should have done it, legitimate debate on all these bills, what we simply do is throw them all together in the last minute. This bill deals with 17 different statutes. It deals with the corporate filing fee. My colleague from Wellington and I spent a great deal of time going across this province on our small business task force, and people are angry, they are frustrated and they are discouraged with this government not listening to them. One of the big things they're upset about is the corporate filing fee. People see that as nothing but a blatant tax grab. The anxiety and the feelings out there of the people towards this government are unparalleled. I have never seen people as angry and as upset with this government.

I suspect the members opposite know that, having gone back to their ridings, and here they table this bill, throw everything in together so that we can't have legitimate debate on it. It changes the method of allocating education and property taxes paid out by the public and private sector corporations. That's very substantial in terms of the education funding. Why did we need to leave it until the very end of the session before we dealt with something as important as that?

This particular bill will also deal with the employer health tax. It will give a tax holiday. Before the last budget, we called for that, and for that we're pleased that this government is at least listening, and we put that together in our Common Sense Revolution plan of what we would like to see. We're pleased to see it, but they wrap it up in this big omnibus bill and put it through in the last wee hours of this legislative sitting, with no chance for public debate on these very pressing issues.

There'll be major amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act that will happen in this bill. There'll be the creation of the dedicated fine surcharge to finance victims' assistance fund accounts, something we've been calling for for two years. But this gets all lumped together in what is called the Budget Measures Act.

One of the concerns I have about this government and the process, putting aside even what they're doing and debating on the issue, is the whole process. We have spent the last three weeks dealing with issues that I believe are not relevant to the people of this province. Then at the very end we throw this one bill together and they say: "Time's running out. We don't want to sit over the summer. The big reason is, we don't want to face question period every day about our record, so we want to wrap up the end of the session. We have nothing of any substance in terms of agenda, so we'll throw everything together in one big bill and try to get it pushed through without debate."

1640

I don't blame a lot of the government members, even the cabinet ministers, for this. I think what has happened is that we've got a lot of bureaucrats who at the very last minute are saying: "Hey, wait a minute. We've got to get some of these things through, and here's how we'll do it."

I don't think it is right. I don't think it is right for the people of this province to not have debate on these issues. I know the members opposite think some of the debates aren't helpful, and while we aren't maybe as constructive all the time as we could be, in most cases our staff and ourselves spend a great deal of time preparing to put some of this information forward on behalf of the various groups that come to us, because they don't just lobby the government. When we debate on these bills, it's because we believe a lot of the things that may be brought forward are wrong, and that's the process to make these bills better. This whole process of having these late-night sittings where we cram everything through at the last minute is not right for the people of this province.

In addition to that, I also believe one of the problems that come about as a result of this is that we don't have any process. What we're told is that if we debate too long on any of these bills, we'll stay longer in the summer and we won't recess early. Quite frankly, that doesn't matter too much to the members of the opposition, because we aren't the ones who take the flak every day in question period.

Now we're going to have on Bill 160, as a result of the changes, about 30 minutes to speak on a bill that changes 17 statutes here in the province. We can't even get into a legitimate debate in the 30 minutes we have on a bill as big as this. One of the reasons is because this government has totally mismanaged this House from day one. This House doesn't work unless there's cooperation, and I believe the government has set the agenda right off the bat and created so much hostility in this place that it's made it very, very difficult for us to have debate.

What are we going to get on these night sittings, the reason we're debating this motion right now? We're going to get six hours extra a day for eight days to try to cram things through at the last minute. Now we're going to crunch everything through in two minutes, and all because this government has mismanaged its mandate in this House.

I had wanted, over the past little while, to talk about some of the concerns out there on behalf of the constituents of Oakville South and the Burlington portion of my riding, because people are suffering out there. My friends, I really believe this does not have to be. The problems out there are not so great that if we had the right type of plan, a real vision and the type of strong leadership we need in this province, we couldn't turn it around.

I wanted to get into some of the things that I believe the people want to talk about, the tax issue being number one. Right now we're one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in all of North America. Our plan for the Common Sense Revolution is we're going to cut the provincial income tax rate by 30%. It will give us the lowest income tax rate here in Canada and take us back to levels not seen since 1976. We're going to get no occasion in this Legislature to debate an issue which I think is at the forefront of what people are concerned about. We are not going to get any time to debate our ideas and strategies on what needs to be done.

We have not had a debate on the budget in many years. Everything has been pushed through. We spent a great deal of time on the finance and economic committee putting together minority reports that nobody reads, and we don't even get a chance to throw ideas forward. You might not always like them, but I believe the House is the place where we should be able to articulate our ideas and put them forward on behalf of our constituents.

Some of them you actually do listen to. As to some of the things we called for in our first New Directions period in terms of cutting back on the spending, had you listened to us in 1990 we wouldn't have had to go through the problems we went through with the social contract. You spent and you taxed and you borrowed like there was no tomorrow, and we told you in 1990 it shouldn't be done.

So some of the things we bring forward are the result of some constructive and dedicated people putting their minds together. In our Common Sense Revolution, we have laid out a plan to cut 20% of non-priority spending. We're going to exclude health care, in-classroom funding and law enforcement. We list right through, from page 13 all the way through, where the cuts would be made. We talk about cutting the bureaucracy. We talk about cutting MPPs, getting rid of pensions. We talk about major welfare reform. I submit to you, on pages 10 and 11 of our Common Sense Revolution document, there are more facts and figures on what needs to be done for social assistance and the welfare system in Ontario than have ever been brought forward. We did it in a constructive manner. We don't suspect you're going to like everything we put in there, but we did it in order to make some of the changes we've been hearing about.

But there's going to be no debate on that. There's going to be no debate on the welfare system or social assistance here in this Legislature, even though now it's gone to $6.2 billion. One in nine people in the province is now on some form of social assistance, and we will have no debate on it in the Legislature.

Mr Wiseman: Yeah, thanks to Tory federal policies.

Mr Carr: I say to my friend the member for Durham West, the things we've put together here are things you might not agree with, but we spent a great deal of time putting together our plan.

We also talk a bit about education reform. We did that in our document called New Directions, Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. We talk about trustees. We talk about tuition fees. We talk about junior kindergarten. We talk about the number of school years. We talk about scrapping the Jobs Ontario Training program. We talk about cutting subsidies to businesses in the provinces. We talk about tax cuts. We talk about reform in housing. We talk about reform to legal aid. None of that gets debated in this Legislature. In total, we have cut about $6 billion in non-priority spending in Ontario.

When cuts come about, they're never debated in this House. What happens is that the Treasurer gets his deficit forecast and runs back and tells all the ministries to cut whatever percentage it takes to get the deficit to stay around $10 billion, and there is no debate on the floor of this Legislature about what should be done.

Instead, we are debating some of these other crazy bills we've debated over the last few weeks in this House. I want to tell you, this place -- and we're all to blame -- is out of touch with what the average person out there wants and expects from this Legislature.

The people on this side of the House have continually told you, as we go out and speak to the people on our small business task force, that the people out there are telling us what's important to them, and politicians in their wisdom come in and continue to push their own agenda. I've seen that over the last little while. It's little wonder that the people of this province are very upset and discouraged with this government.

The debates that will go on now on some of these bills I believe are important. The members of the government quite often don't pay too much attention to what the opposition has to say, but I tell you, in most cases we're attempting to be constructive in terms of putting forward some of our ideas and what we see needs to be done. There are days, when that happens and we put them forward and we get no response, that you wonder why you do all the work preparing ideas for this government, because it doesn't seem willing to listen.

On the motion to sit at night, most of the members will spend a lot more time away from their families down here in Toronto. I'm one of the fortunate ones who gets back at night, so I don't have too much of a problem compared to some of the members. But I say to the members of the government, this didn't have to happen. Had you managed properly, we could have been able to have some good, honest debate in this House, we could have had some bills passed and we could have got on with the business of the day. But typical of this government, it mismanaged this House the way it's mismanaged this province.

The only good news is that as each session closes, we get one step closer to ending the great socialist experiment in the province of Ontario. It will end when the next election comes, and I'm going to be a part of ending that government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Stockwell: Split it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I will split it, but before I start, I think we should have a quorum, don't you, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Is a quorum present?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1650

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Mississauga West may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Mahoney: I think the public should understand a little bit about what's going on here. The government has a number of tactics, I guess you could call them strategies, that are available to any government when it's unable to get its agenda put forward. One of them we debated last week -- closure, time allocation, whatever you like -- and this government, as I pointed out, has used 14 closure motions since it was elected in 1990, which is unprecedented in number.

But another one they have used is to roll things into an omnibus bill, to take various issues that are not even related, in many cases, and put them into an omnibus bill. The bill we're going to be debating once we've finished talking about whether or not we should sit here until midnight -- and I might add that I don't think the public has a lot of sympathy for the fact that we're going to be here till midnight, nor should they, but they should understand why. As to the bill we're going to be debating beginning at about 5:15 or 5:30, Bill 160, here's a list: There are 17 amendments or changes to legislation wrapped into one omnibus bill.

What that means is that issues like the Corporations Information Act, the Education Act, the Crown Timber Act, changes to the Employer Health Tax Act -- it goes on and on -- the Game and Fish Act, the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act, the Public Lands Act, the Retail Sales Tax Act, the Small Business Development Corporations Act, unclaimed property, the public service employees union act, 17 of these changes in one bill will not see the light of day unless the opposition members do what is our job, and that is to speak about each and every one of the 17 acts that will be amended, because the government won't speak to it, that's quite clear.

It's quite clear by their silence even in this debate, by not participating in this debate, that the government is just sitting there saying they've been given orders by the whip, they've been given orders by the government House leader: "Sit in there. Sit there as long as you have to. It's okay if they don't have a quorum. You can sit in the other lobby and drink coffee and do whatever, return your phone calls. If they call a quorum, go on in and just fill the time."

The reality is that there are a lot of things that are very important that have not been dealt with by this government and now we're down to the last two weeks of the calendar. So what happens? They bring in a motion. You can roll your eyes if you want, but the reality is, you haven't dealt in the past couple of months with the issues that are of concern to the people in this province, so now you've got to jam it all in, be here till 12 o'clock at night. You're not going to get the analysis of the issues that we should have. You refuse issues to go to committee when they should be going. Look at tomorrow. Probably the most --

Mr Sutherland: The Liberals did it.

Mr Mahoney: We did it twice, let me tell the member for Oxford who continually chirps. Why don't you speak? I don't understand this. Why do you sit there and just interject and chirp? Why don't you have the guts to get up and talk to the people in Oxford about bills that are of concern to them? Because you've been whipped, you've been given orders by the whip in your caucus just to go and try to disrupt the opposition, just chirp and do whatever you can, but don't put anything substantive on the floor.

We have two hours to debate. It's just like throwing two hours away, but we in opposition have such limited opportunities to bring the real issues to the people because you changed the rules when you got elected. You put limitations on the length of time people are allowed to speak. You brought in more closure motions than any government I can think of in recent history. So we have to use every opportunity we have to try to speak about the issues that are of concern to the people.

Tomorrow, we're going to deal, after we have -- how many hours? -- seven hours of debate on Bill 160, with this budget. I don't know if we're going to allow this to go to committee; I'm told we're not. I'm told that the House leader has decided that this budget debate -- and you think about it, we've had two budgets passed in this place since you people took office -- three, actually -- without debate on any of the substantive measures in those budgets. It's fascinating. When you go to House leaders' and whips' meetings and you sit there and you go, "I've got a really novel idea. Why don't we have a debate on the budget? Wow, wouldn't that be bizarre?" they don't even do that. We don't even vote on the budget because the government just brings it in and does it. Everything is retroactive.

They've got the hammer. They shut us up. They close down debate. They close down meaningful opportunities at committees, whether it's on this bill, on Bill 160 -- think about the kinds of constructive things you might learn if you were to take 17 acts to the finance committee and invite people to come in and talk to you about them. I guess you don't want to hear from the public in the province of Ontario.

We had a debate last week on Bill 91, the agricultural bill. No, we're not going to take it to committee either, even though farmers all across this province have asked you to take the bill to committee to allow them an opportunity to have input. You don't want to do that.

Tomorrow we're going to have a debate on Bill 165. Even though I don't agree with the Premier's -- and you'll note tomorrow that it's not the Minister of Labour's reforms although technically he is the sponsor; it was the Premier who introduced the reforms in this place, usurping all powers and authorities vested with the Minister of Labour, virtually neutering the existing Minister of Labour and taking it unto his own bosom to impose on the people in this province. That's what the Premier did.

So we're going to have a debate on Bill 165 and I don't trust this government to put even that out to committee. We're going to have to ensure that we have our members here, that we man the barricades so we can ensure the proper debate takes place at committee in the intersession to allow for the business community, for the labour community, for advocates who work in workers' compensation, for injured workers, for everybody involved, to have an opportunity to have input.

Our party has been more open on changes to workers' compensation than this government could ever even think of being and we're going to have to be sure that we have, between the two caucuses over here, 12 people here at midnight so we can force that item to go to committee.

There are forestry items on the agenda; credit union items on the agenda; we talked about Bill 91; the OLRA; courts of justice. It's not like we haven't got a lot to do. Why are we here, with less than two weeks to go until this place is supposed to rise -- we don't know if they're going to prorogue. Are they going to wind up the session? This could be the longest single session without a throne speech, without any kind of a message, unless we get lucky. I have a feeling that, just maybe, we're heading towards an election call in the fall.

Why would I think that? The Premier's never here; the Premier's out on the campaign trail. Today in this place there were 10 cabinet ministers --

Mr Sutherland: Where's Lyn McLeod?

Mr Mahoney: -- you're the government -- who weren't here. We have a process every day where --

Mr Sutherland: Oh, so Lyn McLeod can go out and campaign every day.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Quit chirping. Mr Speaker, I move for unanimous consent that the member for Oxford be given half an hour to speak to us in this place about what he really thinks. What do you think -- unanimous consent?

Mr Stockwell: He won't need half an hour.

Mr Mahoney: He won't need half an hour; he couldn't fill half an hour. Don't just sit there and chirp. If you want to make a speech, I say to the View Brothers, to the member for Oxford, to any of the cabinet ministers who might like to decide to come to work in this place, go ahead. The people at home would love to hear from you, instead of having you muzzled by the Premier and the whip, which is exactly what's happening.

We've got tons of work to do around here. We've got the Sewell commission. How about that? That's pretty important stuff. What's going to happen? On Thursday, they're going to set up eight hours of debate that'll go through to midnight on the Sewell commission. We think there need to be more committee hearings on that. We think we need to give an opportunity for municipal planners and politicians and the people at large to come in and comment on massive changes to the way things operate in our municipalities. No chance.

The tobacco debate? We think that's a huge issue. There's revenue bills. There's the -- well, that one won't happen. They had scheduled some time for third reading on Bill 167. Fortunately, that bill was defeated, so that one's not going to come. We've found ourselves a little bit of opening in here.

1700

But it's really quite remarkable that this government always, in the way it has operated -- and I agree with other speakers who said the good news is that we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, the Premier will have the courage to call an election, to go to the people. He's telling everybody in the press these days how you're all going to be re-elected. I've got to tell you something: Good luck to you. I think the ship is going down. The hole in the side of the Titanic is as big as it could be. You guys are in deep trouble. That is the only good news that we and the people of this province can look to.

I'm going to wrap up and allow my colleague in the third party to be, I think, the final speaker on this particular debate. Of course, we have no choice. They're going to go to midnight sittings. We'll be here manning the dike, so to speak, trying to stop these guys from putting through anything that can damage this province any more.

Mr Stockwell: It seems rather curious that a government that has major changes made during the initial period of this particular Legislature could absolutely botch up the legislative agenda as much as it has. They changed the speaking arrangements so members can speak for only half an hour, they changed it so that the leadoff speakers can speak for only an hour and a half, they changed it so there's far less participation from the opposite side of the House, in hopes of having more time so they could manage the agenda of the Legislature, so they could put through more legislation.

You know something? With this opportunity and a series of omnibus bills that they've brought forward that carry a number of pieces of legislation within them, they have in fact accomplished less than previous governments that worked under far more difficult standing orders with far fewer omnibus bills. The most telling sign of all is that even with the advantages that they've dealt themselves in this stacked deck of cards they're dealing from, even with those distinct advantages, they still have to move closure some 14 times during the life of this government, 10 times more than the previous government called for it, and I'm certain they're going to use it more as we come closer to the election some time next year.

What the legislative agenda really says to me and to a significant number of Ontarians is that they've botched it and managed it much the same way they've managed the economy. The economy and the legislation and the debates that go on in this place have been so brutally manhandled and butchered that we have to sit late for two weeks at the end of every session and deal with probably the most important pieces of legislation that we deal with within that particular session.

I can say to you specifically, Mr Speaker, and I know across the floor are members who have some municipal experience -- and I look to the member for Downsview, for example, who does have municipal experience, who knows full well that Sewell report is probably one of the biggest powder kegs that this government is dealing with, with respect.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Oxford: Sir, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. It is a complete and absolute usurping of the local municipal responsibility for the planning process.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Cochrane says I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll tell you, I think I do. I think the people who talk to me in the municipalities that are going to come under the plan of the Sewell report equally know what they're talking about. The absolute intrusion that this is going to make into the decision-making of duly elected politicians in local jurisdictions is absolutely, categorically uncalled for and absolutely intrusionary.

That kind of piece of legislation, that kind of documentation put before this Legislature should have a long, wide hearing right around this province, because everybody from township to municipality to city is going to be affected by Mr Sewell's vision of Ontario -- a vision, I might add, that is not particularly shared, in my opinion, by the vast majority of Ontarians or elected officials.

If you're going to bring in legislation like that, which changes the decision-making at municipal councils -- which, I will add again, are duly elected -- then you must at least have the responsibility to go out to those people and ask what they think of this legislation, how it will change the direction of their municipalities and how it will change the standards and lifestyles that they've chosen to live within in jurisdictions around this province.

The argument that this government has brought forward, the defence that this government has brought forward, the defence to that very understandably democratic approach is some eight hours of debate in this place after 3 o'clock when it is very unlikely you'll finally yourself with a quorum, let alone an insightful, topical debate that needs to take place, and that's one of the downsides to sitting late. I will say this: If I could guarantee myself that this government would stop moving closure motions, I'd sit late every week. Why? Because closure motions are the very thing that rides in the face of the democratic process.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It's easy to talk. Let's see you walk the walk.

Mr Stockwell: With respect to the Sewell report, when you bring down a piece of legislation as comprehensive and as far-reaching as this, I say to the member from Scarborough, who has limited experience in this field, then you should give the opportunity to those people who have experience in this field, give an opportunity to those people who have to meet with the constituents, who have to live under this kind of a jurisdiction, to tell you what's right about your piece of legislation and to tell you what's wrong.

When you don't give them that opportunity, when you allow for eight hours of public debate in this place, and you don't consult and you don't hear and you don't have them come in and tell you, then you end up with one thing: You end up with bad legislation.

I will say to you, Mr Speaker, and to this government, this Sewell report, in its present form, with its nebulous, less-than-clear recommendations is fundamentally flawed, bad legislation and you will hear it not just from me. You will hear this from local elected officials throughout this province, because it takes away their right and their obligation to represent the people who elected them. This is where the crunch comes. This is where I think the difference between this government and previous governments is coming to a head, right on this very point.

This government simply doesn't care what elected officials or citizens would like to make when they want to make comment on their legislation. They just don't care. And how do you know why they don't care?

Mr Owens: Because they've got all the answers, like the council of the city of York. They've got all the answers.

Mr Stockwell: The council of the city of York? What does that have to do with it?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Stockwell: It's an insightful point made by the member for Scarborough Centre. He was insightful as usual and I think you should give him time to speak; it will get us all votes on this side of the House.

What I will say is what it comes down to is this: When you write legislation like this and you don't consult with those people, it leaves the impression that you don't care. With a piece of legislation like this, with the debate that won't take place with this type of legislation, it just means that you've moved closure on us.

And you know what? It doesn't matter that you don't care what we think, because I know you think we're just being obstructionists and opposition, and I understand that. But when you stop caring about what people in this province think about your piece of legislation, what municipal elected officials think about your legislation, you end up writing bad legislation because all you have is your input and the input from a group of bureaucrats who don't have to live under the terms and conditions of this particular report.

We're debating today whether we should sit till 12 o'clock, and I will say I will support this just because we'll be allowed to have a good eight hours of debate on the Sewell report. But what I will say to this government is that this legislative agenda and what you've loaded on with respect to the omnibus bill from the Minister of Finance, which is absolutely a travesty -- 17 separate pieces of legislation, very complicated, without airing, very difficult for the average citizen to understand -- you've encapsulated in that one piece of legislation, an omnibus bill, you're going to have 17 pieces of legislation adopted within that bill and you're allowing a few hours of debate on such comprehensive, complicated legislation.

You see, you leave the impression again that you don't care, and if this side of the House decides to stand up and express the opinions of the people in this province that we've heard as we travel around this province, you become frustrated that you don't care so much that you move closure.

You can tell me that closure was a necessary part of your job. Closure may be necessary on a very important piece of legislation or on a select piece of legislation, but please, 14 closure motions since you've been elected? How do you defend that kind of bringing the hammer down on opposition and debate and full public hearings? I don't know how you can tell me that you can say it's important that we bring in 14 closure motions.

Mr Owens: What about reading every lake in Ontario?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, there's cackling from the other side of the House.

The sad part about it is, the real sad part about this is, we lose our opportunity to speak to pieces of legislation. The sad part about this is, when this House leader for the government side meets with our House leaders, the first thing this House leader says is, "I don't have anybody on my side who's going to speak."

What does that tell you? That tells you that you people across the floor, your rights are the first to go. You give up your rights at the very first meeting, because you're not allowed to speak to these pieces of legislation, and I'm certain, on the Sewell report, with the history in that caucus of municipal councillors and municipal educators, that you know full well there are some valued bits of information you could offer this Legislature. But you don't get to offer it, because the first sacrificial lamb is your opportunity to speak to legislation before your constituents and the people of this province.

Mark my words, backbenchers on that side of the House: We're not the only ones who lose by this. You lose, and ultimately the big loser -- other than the member for Oxford, who wants to speak, I can tell, by his nature, but can't -- is the people in the province of Ontario, because legislation is passed without full public hearing, without full public airing of the issues, and people get bad legislation.

When you adopt these kinds of pieces of legislation, such as the Sewell report, you're going to discover how bad it is, because its support is practically none and the level of trust by the people who elect us drops dramatically, because when they want to make simple comment on thoughtful legislation, you shut them out.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 29.

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.

Call in the members; a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1712 to 1727.

The Acting Speaker: We are now dealing with Mr Charlton's resolution to have this House sit beyond 6 o'clock.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion will please rise and be identified by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Carr, Chiarelli, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 62; the nays are 28. I declare the motion carried.

Report continues in volume B.

13 juin 1994