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

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would like to report to the House the conclusions of a coroner's inquest that concluded in the town of Kirkland Lake last week in regard to the Macassa mine accident that happened on November 26, where two miners lost their lives. The jurors made 14 recommendations, the first of which was that all persons involved in the recovery operation be commended for their dedication in the adverse and potentially very dangerous conditions they had to work under.

As the member for Timiskaming, I'd like to highlight some of those recommendations. The first group is to the mining industry itself. Mining methods have to reduce the time that workers spend underground in rockburst-prone areas. Also, the rescue training to assist in search operations caused by rockbursts has to be increased. Wherever possible, two accesses to a stope should always be maintained.

Also, as the member, I would like to urge the Ministry of Labour to act upon these other recommendations by the jury: that senior levels of government fund programs to train mine workers, and we need to increase that; that we have continued government and industry financing to study rockbursts beyond the promise of this government of 1995; and also, that a feasibility study on equipping underground miners with homing devices that can assist search crews be adopted by government.

These are very important recommendations and I call upon the Ministry of Labour to bring them forward.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I address this statement to the Premier and to the member for Algoma. The PC northern focus task force toured northern Ontario in an effort to obtain ideas about how a Mike Harris government can provide the best environment for economic development.

When we reached Algoma, we were confronted with an astounding level of resentment for being betrayed by the Premier and the member for Algoma, who proceeded with a $13-million, 40,000-acre settlement with Mississauga natives without any consultation with affected stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders' property rights and livelihoods will be expropriated as a result of this NDP manoeuvre.

After hearing the report from our task force, our leader, Mike Harris, travelled north to meet with the Algoma action group. This group is currently challenging the claim in the courts, because it is widely believed that the NDP has given away far more land than was historically claimed. I find it ludicrous that the NDP would strike a deal of this magnitude before the court has even made a decision.

For the property owners, loggers, miners, anglers and all stakeholders, Mike Harris and the Conservative Party have pledged our undying support for a process which will reflect the needs of all people and will bring these interests to the negotiating table.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Today, I would like to call attention to the inaction of the federal Liberal cabinet with respect to the ethanol issue. People in my riding have been waiting patiently for a sign that the federal Liberal government cares about the economics in rural Ontario.

I have asked repeatedly in this House for members opposite to take a stand and demand that the federal Liberals make a decision. The inaction both across the floor and in Ottawa by the elected Liberals leaves one to wonder what sort of commitment the people of rural Ontario can expect from that party.

The ethanol plant would be located in my riding of Chatham-Kent but the economic impact would be felt across the province. Twenty million bushels of corn would be needed to supply the plant and would translate into a $60-million boost in Ontario's agricultural business.

It appears that the federal Liberal cabinet is stalling the issue until the summer recess in the hopes that it will go away. I've got a news flash for all the Liberals in Ontario: The people of Chatham-Kent will not be satisfied with your promise to "look at the issue" much longer.

The federal Liberal government continues to make its commitment to fossil fuel development projects such as Hibernia while the people of rural Ontario are put on hold. This is not acceptable. Why the stall tactics?

Perhaps it needs to be explained one more time. The economic wellbeing of rural communities in Ontario could hang in the balance. The environmental quality in urban centres such as Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor can be enhanced through such use of ethanol fuels. Just Thursday, Toronto's pollution index was double the acceptable level. Ethanol fuels could help change this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

1340

Mr Hope: I would call upon the federal Liberals and the Liberals of the province to move quickly on the ethanol issue.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the heroic efforts of two Red Lake district Ministry of Natural Resources employees.

On June 14, two Chicago residents capsized their boat on Pakwash Lake, a fairly large body of water just south of Red Lake. At the time, a ministry helicopter came upon the accident and immediately went into action to assist the boaters.

Chris Porter, the pilot, landed on a nearby peninsula to offload his passengers and headed to the accident scene. Upon arriving at the overturned boat, Porter hovered the copter while senior forestry technician Paul Fazekas ventured out on to the skid of the craft. In his attempt to assist the victims, he ended up in the lake with the two fishermen.

Both visitors were in a state of shock upon the arrival of the ministry officials at the scene, and through the expertise of pilot Porter and the strong swimming abilities of Fazekas, the visitors were hoisted into the helicopter and taken to a nearby tourist camp.

It was through the alertness and quick actions of the Ministry of Natural Resources people that a tragedy was avoided. One of the fishermen stated later that, "We were in serious trouble, and I just don't know what would have happened if they hadn't come along."

In bringing this issue to the attention of the House, I do hope we will recognize how fortunate we are to have such skilled, alert and dedicated MNR employees throughout the north.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Housing the concerns from the citizens of London with regard to Bill 120. We trust that the minister will incorporate our concerns as the regulations are drafted.

We were informed by your ministry during public hearings that municipalities can continue to license genuine rooming-houses and expect that the city of London bylaw will be honoured by the government and will continue to be implemented as the city intended.

From a safety standpoint, the city of London fire department has grave concerns about as-of-right basement and attic apartments, garden suites or granny flats. Basement apartments, because of the smaller windows and, for the most part, one entrance in and one entrance out, are, in a working fire, considered to be one of the most dangerous, intense burning blazes faced by crews. Sadly, we in this House have mourned many unnecessary deaths by fire in basement apartments in the last few months.

Doubling or tripling residential units will have a significant effect and strain on hard services such as sewers and water systems not designed to meet extreme demands. Bill 120 also ignores the municipality's requirements regarding parking. Experience tells us that this will unquestionably lead to parking abuses.

In January 1991 the city of London established a home planning advisory service to provide assistance to home owners who wished to create an additional unit in their residence. The city of London official plan already includes policies that promote residential intensification in appropriately identified areas. Our official plan contains policies that will further designate intensification but subject to consideration of neighbourhood planning and adequate servicing.

Municipalities in Ontario do not need Toronto-based solutions to local issues.

ST MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): St Mary's High School in my riding of Oxford will soon have a new home, thanks to the government of Ontario. Jobs Ontario Capital has given the school $8.9 million towards the construction of a new high school.

This represents good news for both students and teachers in my riding. St Mary's has become overcrowded in the last few years, and a new school will considerably improve the quality of Catholic secondary education in the Woodstock area.

The principal of St Mary's was obviously pleased with the announcement. He said that announcement marked one of the best days in his career since coming to the city seven years ago.

The new school will also mark a high point in community cooperation in my riding of Oxford, cooperation between separate school board, public school board and the city of Woodstock, as the new high school will be built on the site of the Woodstock District Community Complex, built with $3 million in Jobs Ontario Community Action funding, funding which highlights the cooperation which exists between municipal government and the provincial government.

This spirit of cooperation does not end in Oxford county. Jobs Ontario Capital has made $620 million available to Ontario school boards. During its mandate, this government has also taken a leading role in developing a national testing program, increased the participation of parents in schools and established a Royal Commission on Learning. The new school building for St Mary's adds to this impressive record, and I am delighted to welcome the project to my riding.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Over two years ago the House supported Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, now awaiting third reading. This bill prohibits cheque-cashing businesses from charging fees to cash government cheques. Thousands of low-income Ontarians are victims of these operations. They lose precious money that would buy food, clothing and other essential items.

The government has done nothing to remedy the situation. It continues to condone this exploitative practice. It pursues fiscally irresponsible policies that do nothing to alleviate the hardships endured by low-income Ontarians. This government has demonstrated over and over again that it is no friend of the poor.

It is also no friend of the taxpayers, because millions of our tax dollars are subsidizing these businesses. That money was meant to help needy Ontarians, not to enrich businesses of dubious nature. But this government is obviously not concerned about improper business practices.

Doing nothing is this government's response to some of the most pressing problems facing Ontarians today. By ignoring the plight of low-income Ontarians, it demonstrates yet again that only the chosen few have the ear of the New Democratic Party.

CHILD AND PARENT PLACE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Children are often the innocent victims in the difficult process of separation and divorce. In my community, Child and Parent Place has offered separated couples and their children the opportunity to visit each other in a safe, neutral setting. Child and Parent Place is based on the philosophy that children benefit from healthy relationships with both of their parents. Its aim is to ensure the wellbeing of children in acrimonious separation and divorce situations.

This is the kind of program which our party has advocated in the Common Sense Revolution when we indicate that we would establish a program of mandatory mediation to resolve many of the tensions and disputes which arise during a separation before these issues reach the courts.

Unfortunately, this safe haven for children, which was started by Lutherwood Community Services in 1988, is in jeopardy of closing if continued funding is not forthcoming.

Child and Parent Place is part of the supervised access pilot project, a program which the Ministry of the Attorney General began funding, along with 11 others across Ontario, two years ago. This program has offered hope and comfort to both parents and children. It would be tragic to allow this program to be cancelled due to a lack of funding. I urge the Attorney General to carefully consider the many positive aspects of this program and to make it a priority for families in this province.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I am seldom angry, but I can assure you that I have received a copy of a letter sent to one of my constituents by the leader of the third party, Mr Harris, that has me absolutely livid with anger.

I can only assume that Mr Harris has been spending too much time with Lyn McLeod, because he too is now writing letters that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I refer to a letter sent to Mrs Marjorie Godin of Twin Elm Mobile Home Estate in Strathroy. The letter refers to Bill 21, Mr Wessenger's private member's bill, the legislation that will protect lease-lot tenants from arbitrary eviction, protect the equity they have in their homes and give them the right to advertise and sell their homes without landlord interference.

In this letter, dated June 10, Mr Harris says that the bill was defeated in this House. Now, that is clearly false.

In light of the problems and abuse that tenants in some lease-lot communities suffer, this legislation is important to many in this House and to thousands of our constituents. But despite the clear need for this bill, the Tory Housing critic has filibustered and stood in the way of this legislation since it went to the standing committee on general government last February. In fact, the Tories have created problems at every step of the way regarding this legislation. Their collective conduct is a disgrace, and now, to add insult to injury, the Tory leader, just as Lyn McLeod did with Bill 91, has sent out misinformation to Ontarians. If it isn't deliberate, then it's simply incompetent. Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

1350

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My statement is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you are aware, the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council has been left to decide the future of optometry in this province. You'll also be aware that optometrists are a valuable resource in rural Ontario. For people who live in rural Ontario, they are the first line of defence in eye care.

The HPLR is now attempting to restrict the profession in the list of prescribed diseases that they can diagnose. My understanding is that optometrists are not trying to expand their scope of practice but merely to maintain the services presently provided.

Minister, you would know that the availability of ophthalmologists is very limited and that in some cases there are none available for many, many miles. Where they are available, the waiting lists are extremely long. Many people in our area naturally use the services of an optometrist first. If their scope of practice is diminished, people will most likely still go to the optometrist for help, only to find that in their situation they must go to an ophthalmologist. This will cost the taxpayers twice for the same service, increasing health costs, and probably delay attention to the eye problem for some time. People who need immediate service for injury or certain circumstances will literally be turned away.

Optometrists are trained extensively to deal with eye care. It seems a shame to me to endanger patient access to eye care and again limit rural Ontario's access to another health care service. I encourage the minister to alleviate the concerns of people in rural Ontario and resolve this situation so that seniors and others can continue to receive good, quality care at their local optometrist.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and seated in the Speaker's gallery some very special visitors, members of the diplomatic corps stationed here in Toronto representing seven countries.

APPRECIATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker, to make a statement. Some 28 months ago I resigned as the Minister of Energy. You will recall that at that time I was accused by an individual of committing a criminal act as a result of a summer job I held well over 20 years ago. After a lengthy police investigation that lasted just under three years, one week ago today I was acquitted of all and any alleged wrongdoing.

Today I rise to thank those colleagues in this assembly who supported me during the past two and a half years. To those members of this assembly, to the residents of Kitchener, to my wife and family, to all who gave their unconditional support, either publicly or privately, I shall be for ever indebted for your acts of kindness and your words of encouragement.

Unless one has been through the kind of allegation and charges and lived with that for each and every moment of over 800 days, unless one has been arrested in front of his wife and kids at the breakfast table early one morning, no one has any idea of the experience and the attendant costs, in both financial and emotional terms.

What has happened to me can happen to any doctor, any lawyer, any teacher, any labourer, any office worker, any journalist and indeed any other member of this assembly. No one person is immune, nor can they predict when a false allegation of wrongdoing may surface against them. It is my hope that we as legislators in this province can all learn from this so that the next time this happens, as it surely will, we will not simply get caught up in the political rhetoric of partisan politics which dominates this House and, under the veil of guilt, prejudge the final fate of any member.

Members should know that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act failed me, failed my family and failed the citizens of Ontario, who paid for this public prosecution and this investigation. I find it simply incredible that ministry documentation that would eventually prove my innocence was withheld from me for over a year and not released until many months after I was charged.

I'm not trying to dwell on the past. Nothing can restore lost time and the possibilities. Little can repair the long-term effects and attacks on one's reputation and the personal attacks directed towards one's family. However, despite all the wrongs that have been committed, the bitterness has passed and I still believe one can create good if one chooses to. If it were not otherwise, then our life's reversals would simply lead us only to despair.

Yesterday is gone for ever. However, I truly believe that one can rise to the occasion by turning the page and putting the past behind them and being the sort of person people will see and hopefully recognize as true and worthy of their continued trust and friendship. I'm committed to seizing that opportunity, to take whatever positive outcomes there can be from this sorry mess and be part of a constructive, helpful voice for my community and for this province.

For me personally and my family, the future does now hold a sense of joy, a renewed sense of optimism and a vigorous, positive outlook. I look forward to contributing whatever I can, using whatever ability and talent I have, as I join with my colleagues in this assembly and work for the common good of our fellow citizens, the common good of our communities and the common good of this dynamic province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I rise today to advise members of our government's plans to reform welfare in Ontario into an active program that will get people off welfare and back to work. Our new system, JobLink Ontario, will fit each person with a set of tailor-made supports that they require to enter today's job market and stay off welfare.

Je suis heureux d'annoncer les plans adoptés par notre gouvernement pour réformer l'aide sociale en Ontario afin d'en faire un programme d'action qui aidera les bénéficiaires à quitter le système d'aide sociale et à reprendre leur place sur le marché du travail.

Notre nouveau système, objectif Emploi Ontario, mettra à la disposition de chaque personne un programme fait sur mesure, réunissant les services de soutien dont elle a besoin pour intégrer le marché du travail d'aujourd'hui et ne plus recourir à l'aide sociale.

We know that thousands of welfare recipients want nothing more than to support themselves and their families. Many have lost jobs because of the changing economy and require new skills to re-enter the workforce. Many single mothers, if provided with training and child care, could and would enter the workforce. Many creative people with their own innovative ideas for self-employment have been stuck relying on welfare because they lack the means or technical knowhow to start their own businesses.

Some rules of the old system have been barriers to independence for self-starters or people wanting to learn skills through volunteer work.

Many people on welfare miss job or learning and training opportunities because they lack access to information about these various opportunities. There is no centrally linked and well-coordinated information system.

Lack of access to some resources that most of us take for granted has been a real barrier to people supporting themselves and their families on below-poverty-line incomes. Things as simple as access to photocopiers, telephones, money for bus fare, or child care while going to a job interview are just a few examples.

JobLink Ontario will turn that system of barriers and entrenched dependence around. JobLink Ontario will map out a route to independence for thousands of good, hardworking people of this province.

I am announcing today an additional $25 million in provincial funding that will enable JobLink Ontario to begin achieving three key objectives: first, to move people on welfare into jobs; second, to transform existing programs into one coordinated system that is focused on the needs of people moving from welfare to work; and third, to make existing training and job creation programs more accessible to welfare recipients.

J'annonce donc aujourd'hui que le gouvernement versera un montant additionnel de 25 millions de dollars, qui permettra à objectif Emploi Ontario d'entreprendre la réalisation de ses trois buts principaux :

(1) aider les bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale à trouver des emplois ;

(2) transformer les programmes actuels pour en faire un système coordonné axé sur les besoins des personnes qui veulent quitter le système d'aide sociale et réintégrer le marché du travail ;

(3) faire en sorte que les programmes actuels de formation et de création d'emplois soient plus accessibles aux bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale.

JobLink Ontario will be gradually phased in, starting in eight communities around the province this year. Expansion of JobLink throughout the entire province requires federal partnership and federal funding. We know our plan makes sense for Ontario, but we believe it could also be a valuable blueprint for other provinces and a model for the federal government's social assistance reform initiatives.

We have submitted a proposal to Ottawa to share the costs of JobLink Ontario. Federal human resources minister Lloyd Axworthy has expressed interest, and we are hopeful that we can reach an agreement in the coming weeks.

1400

Our municipal partners, as well as many community-based agencies, have been on the leading edge of providing an employment focus to social assistance in Ontario. We will continue to rely on their creativity and expertise as we work closely together to implement JobLink Ontario. Building on municipal employment programs will be crucial to the implementation of JobLink.

Over the next several weeks I will announce the eight communities selected to house our first JobLink sites. I would like to take a few minutes now, however, to outline the six main components of JobLink Ontario.

First, our sites will house JobLink resource centres, visible doors through which people can enter and work with trained staff to assess their employment readiness; get information about any available suitable jobs; get information about training or learning opportunities suited to their abilities, interests and local job market realities, as well as other services and supports that they may require, such as child care or computer access or funds for transportation. We believe each resource centre will serve thousands of people every year.

It makes good sense to build on the success of our training and job creation programs that have been getting thousands of Ontarians back to work. So the second component of JobLink Ontario will build in an additional 4,000 new spaces to the existing training offered through the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB. These training spaces for welfare recipients will ensure that they are relevant to the local economy, with jobs as the training outcome. Eventually, JobLink Ontario will be integrated with OTAB and become part of its menu of mainstream programs.

Third, JobLink Ontario will sensibly respond to emerging economic and labour market trends. Non-traditional forms of employment are emerging as a window to the 21st century. Our support system through JobLink Ontario will respond to these trends and provide supports to Ontario's innovators.

JobLink Ontario will include a new $5-million Innovations component. This fund will be available to promote community economic development activities that lead to job creation. We are aware of significant success of similar new innovations in other jurisdictions, and Ontario won't be left behind.

Fourthly, we will also help people on welfare create their own businesses. We will link them with the expertise of highly successful small business entrepreneurs. They will get help with business planning and entrepreneurial training. Through the already existing Jobs Ontario Training community enterprise program, we have seen significant success with people on social assistance starting over 500 businesses. Again, we will build on that success and not duplicate services, by investing an additional $1 million into that program, exclusively to support people who are on welfare. We look forward to serving about 3,000 welfare recipients through the Innovations component and the additional funds to Jobs Ontario Training community enterprise.

Regulatory changes will be in place this fall for employable adults. These changes will make it easier for people participating in self-employment training programs to start their own businesses. We will also implement regulatory changes that make the system more flexible by allowing people to participate in education and training opportunities and to learn job skills as volunteers.

Fifthly, we have begun addressing special employment needs of first nations on reserve. Implementation has begun of 100 community pilot projects which identify employment and training needs at the local level. There has been a $3.3-million investment in the future independence of first nation communities in Ontario.

But we must now also address the special needs of off-reserve aboriginal people who, without question, also want lives of social, economic and cultural independence, away from entrenched poverty and historical dependency. Therefore, a new $1-million pilot project fund will be managed jointly by aboriginal organizations and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and will identify culturally appropriate systems, means and supports needed to begin this essential transition. These efforts will be well coordinated with the aboriginal family healing and wellness strategy announced by my colleague the minister responsible for native affairs yesterday.

Sixthly and finally, JobLink Ontario will aggressively pursue meaningful employment linkages for people with disabilities and provide or assist in securing the special supports needed to accommodate this transition. We will continue to seek input from the disabled community and from our own workers to decide how best to do that.

Nous savons que des milliers de bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale ne demanderaient pas mieux que d'être en mesure de subvenir à leurs besoins et à ceux de leurs familles.

Objectif Emploi Ontario comprend les composantes suivantes :

(1) L'établissement de centres de ressources. Chaque centre accueillera des milliers de personnes au cours de l'année.

(2) L'ajout de plus de 4000 nouvelles places dans le programme de formation.

(3) Un fonds d'innovation de cinq millions de dollars qui servira à promouvoir les activités de développement économique communautaire.

(4) Un soutien aux bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale qui veulent créer leur propre emploi.

(5) Un nouveau fonds d'un million de dollars destiné à des projets pilotes qui serviront à aider les autochtones qui ne vivent pas dans les réserves à atteindre l'indépendance financière.

(6) Une attention plus soutenue accordée à l'emploi pour toutes les personnes qui demanderont de l'aide sociale.

Nous sommes convaincus que notre plan convient tout à fait à l'Ontario, mais nous pensons qu'il pourrait également être un modèle valable pour d'autres provinces et pour les initiatives de réforme de l'aide sociale au niveau fédéral.

In conclusion, let me say that JobLink Ontario will be an inclusive set of coordinated opportunities available to all welfare recipients. We are reshaping the system that yesterday said people with disabilities or single mothers, for example, are not employable. We want to break down the barriers and catalyze the cultural changes needed to welcome people with disabilities and others into full participation in our society, culture, economy and workforce. Ontario must benefit from the intelligence, creativity, skills and abilities of all of our citizens.

All of our ministry's employment programs will eventually be integrated into JobLink Ontario. With this announcement, we are adding $25 million to the already more than $200 million which our government has committed to assist welfare recipients into the labour force. I believe this is more than a wise use of taxpayer dollars; I believe it is a testament to this government's belief in all of the citizens of our province.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I begin by reminding the House of the speech from the throne in April 1993: "The social assistance system is not working. No amount of tinkering will fix it. This government believes it's time for fundamental reform."

First to go was the Ontario child income program, then the Ontario adult benefit program, long-awaited unification of the system. Today we have all that is left of Turning Point, which is this government's answer to welfare reform. Turning Point in a very deflated fashion is being offered to us today.

In July 1993 we were told there were going to be 100,000 targeted educational spaces for social assistance recipients. Mind you, there was no costing provided at that point. Today we are given eight new resource centres, or should I say referral centres or a new set of brokers in eight communities across this province? Even these are not going to be up and running until January 1995, and other centres in other communities across this province are promised over three years with no financial commitment to those other communities. Today's commitment of $25 million is about $50 per person for every person who's on social assistance who's unemployed.

JobLink of 1993 was to include literacy training, ESL training, skills upgrading and apprenticeship. I read and I listened and I've watched; there's not one mention of any of those programs today. So I ask again the questions I've been asking for over a year about JobLink: Is this really a personalized employment plan with all the supports necessary to return to work, as was promised on that hot July 8, 1993, day? How long will the participants of JobLink have access to the programs promised today in these resource centres? Does part-time and occasional work fit into your JobLink scheme? Again, not mentioned. Will this program, and perhaps this is the most fundamental question, shorten the waiting lists for employment preparation programs that are already, in most communities, two years?

Will JobLink be integrated with the Ontario student assistance plan? No mention.

1410

Will decisions regarding eligibility for JobLink be appealable?

Will training programs be put in place for staff -- that's a question many have been asking for a long time -- who will have to implement JobLink, staff who will have to have new skills at conducting assessments, developing employment plans and marketing of their clients to the potential employers.

Is JobLink truly complementary to OTAB and Jobs Ontario and opportunity planning and steps to employment programs that are already in existence?

Is this really a centrally linked, well-coordinated information system, and is that all it is?

The most important question: Will the jobs be there when these participants complete their training?

I close by noting that there have been some good parts to this announcement, because today's announcement talks about self-employment, and the NDP government doesn't seem to be worried now about the word "entrepreneur." They certainly did before.

There's flexibility now going to be permitted for people to learn their trade and to learn job skills through volunteering. That is a new addition which I think is quite meaningful.

I'm very happy that there is attention to off-reserve native initiative, and certainly most happy that there's improved exploration of employment opportunities for the disabled.

I'm very happy to see that there's an intent to continue the partnerships with municipalities, because the municipalities have done some very excellent programming.

But we're left again with uncertainties, with no real commitment and with the communities and the people who are to be served wondering what they are really going to get into.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I believe that today's announcement, the gutting of the commitment of this party for so many years and of the original JobLink commitment, the absolute gutting of $25 million -- they spend hundreds of millions destroying day care spaces by taking the private sector out of day care. There are fewer spaces in Toronto today than there were when this government took office, if you can believe this.

Listening to all the rhetoric of the party, never have I heard a more pompous statement than to say, "This could be an example for the federal government, for other provinces." They're all so far ahead of you that it's a disgrace for you to make such a pompous statement; $25 million. The rest of the world's ahead of you, the federal government's ahead of you, the rest of the provinces are ahead of you, and you make that kind of pompous statement that this is a far-reaching policy.

You lost the battle. The Premier and the cabinet gutted your commitment to welfare reform. Today's announcement is unfortunately a signal that as far as the NDP is concerned, as far as this government is concerned, Thomson, SARC, the welfare reform so badly needed are dead. They're dead.

We had the Liberal Party which did absolutely nothing except make the problems worse in good times. We had pretty good times and they couldn't solve the problem. Now you say times are too tough and you can't solve the problem.

In the Common Sense Revolution we committed $500 million to reforming a disastrous, failed welfare system in the province of Ontario, $500 million to implement the kinds of reforms that are required.

I read through your statement, Minister, and really and truly, I don't know where you get the nerve. I'm surprised you made this statement today. I thought you would have slunk off and hoped nobody noticed the backtracking and the wimping out and the lack of support for real welfare reform in this province. Not only that, but you tell us that if the federal government doesn't cooperate, you can't do it. What absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Harris: When are we in Ontario going to fix our own problems instead of trying to bankrupt the federal government every time we turn around?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, please come to order.

Mr Harris: On page 4 you say, "Our municipal partners, as well as many community-based agencies, have been on the leading edge." They sure have. There is more meaningful training going on by unions in union halls all across this province. They couldn't wait for you. They are doing more than you are. You know what's interesting? They're now inviting Cam Jackson, me, Progressive Conservative members to come to the graduations in the union halls, because they are doing more than you are doing on behalf of getting their members back to work.

As I travelled this province, just last week at a luncheon meeting --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford, please come to order.

Mr Harris: -- in Bowmanville where union members came out, as I talked about the Common Sense Revolution, they said, "Finally, some common sense, some hope that our members will be retrained, that there'll be jobs for them."

You are a disgrace. You are an embarrassment. You ought to resign, and you ought to resign today.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention under the standing orders to rule 23, which says:

"(h) Makes allegations against another member.

"(i) Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.

"(k) Uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

Mr Speaker, I ask you to review the statement made by the member for Middlesex this afternoon, who suggested that my taking part in committee hearings on Bill 21 was "filibustering" etc. I ask you to review her statement and see if it complies with the standing orders of this House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate the matter which she draws to my attention. The member will know that often there's a difference of opinion which will be expressed in the House by members on both sides. Indeed, it would seem to the Speaker that that's in fact what we had, a difference in point of view on the subject matter, and there was certainly nothing out of order about having a difference of opinion here in the chamber.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A new point of order, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I am simply asking you to review, because it wasn't a matter of opinion; it was impugning my role as an opposition member representing --

The Speaker: The member has a concern. I've already ruled on this. There is nothing out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Premier. It concerns the court case against four members of the board of the Van Lang Centre, the non-profit housing corporation in Ottawa West. It deals with the conduct of his Minister of Housing and it's the same matter that was raised yesterday in the Legislature in a number of questions.

I want to refer the Premier to his own conflict-of-interest guidelines, in particular to section 22, and I want to read to the Premier the operative words of section 22:

"In any adjudicative...process by...a provincially appointed tribunal..." -- I want to stop there and indicate that we're talking about a provincial offence, a provincially appointed judge and a provincially appointed crown attorney to prosecute the case, so a provincially appointed tribunal -- "ministers shall not communicate on behalf of a private party in any manner in which his or her position as minister could reasonably be perceived as influencing a decision."

She communicated about the case. She had discussions. She admitted that. Even though she denies saying, "Drop the court case," she discussed the possibility and expressed the hope that the court case might be dropped. That's clear from her own words.

Second, it dealt with private parties. We're talking about four accused people, one of whom is a constituent of the minister.

Third, there's no question, when you're given the nature of the meeting, with representatives from the ministry there, that her position as minister could be reasonably perceived to affect the outcome of this particular case, ie, whether in fact the charges might not even proceed. That was a possible outcome, from the minister's own words, of the meeting she attended.

Premier, I'm directing you specifically to your own guidelines, section 22, the operative words, the facts which are admitted by your minister.

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

Mr Chiarelli: Will you not now admit to the people of Ontario that your Minister of Housing is covered and entrapped by section 22 of your own guidelines?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No.

Mr Chiarelli: I have a supplementary. I want to refer the Premier to section 24 of his own guidelines. I'll quote that. "Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents, ministers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent."

I'm informed by participants in this particular fact situation that all parties have communicated, in one way or another, by letter, phone, with representatives of the minister's constituency office. At least one of the constituents, one of the defendants, the accused, being the subject of these charges, resides in the constituency and is a constituent of the minister's.

I'm basically saying that we now have the minister's constituency office involved with these individuals, one being a constituent, and then the minister moves into a meeting with her ministry officials at which one of the items on the agenda is the charges against four individuals.

I'm saying to you, Premier, that what we have here again is a clear, admitted fact situation which covers the minister under section 24 of your guidelines. Will you tell the people of Ontario that your minister is covered by section 24, based on her admitted facts?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member is quite wrong.

Mr Chiarelli: I can understand the Premier wanting to defend his ministers. I cannot understand why the Premier will not answer questions in this Legislature to the people of Ontario based on the facts, which are very, very clear.

Premier, I want you to listen to the following quote from the Ottawa Citizen in today's paper -- your minister speaking again. I'm quoting from the Citizen today:

"Outside the Legislature Gigantes...admitted one outcome of her meeting might be that Pretty's case against the board would not go to court.

"'I suggested if that were possible, perhaps the board would be willing to back off and think again about an action which they had proposed to bring forward.'"

Again we have the minister involved, using her own words, in a fact situation which is impacting on whether or not charges may or may not go forward. Premier, there's a very real possibility that her conduct would influence the outcome of these particular charges, and whether they would go forward.

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

Mr Chiarelli: This is not a matter that should go forward to committee, as you suggested, and cost the taxpayer between $200,000 and $300,000. It's a clear case where you should accept your responsibility and ask for the minister's resignation. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: No.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Housing. According to an article in today's Toronto Star, a development consultant for Cypriot Homes, a Kitchener non-profit housing corporation, used his involvement with Cypriot Homes to flip land and make a $135,000 profit. This is clearly a private profit made with public dollars.

Your ministry has apparently been aware of this situation for at least three years, so my question to you today is a very straightforward one: Exactly when were you apprised of this issue, and exactly what actions did you take once you were advised?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The situation which has been referred to in the Toronto Star is one in which the Waterloo Regional Police have been conducting inquiries. It came to my attention early this year, and the interests of the ministry in this matter certainly had already been followed up.

Mrs McLeod: Early this year is of course earlier in 1994. I would think that the red flags went up on this project at least in November 1991 when Mr Andres, the development consultant, pleaded guilty to fraud on another land deal. I would think your ministry was seeing some concerns with this issue since the Ontario Housing Corp lawyer, David Fedy, began raising his own concerns about the matter in 1991, and when the legal branch of your ministry apparently was advising that legal action be taken.I would think that there were still red flags going up when that same David Fedy wrote to the Premier in November 1993 detailing the very serious irregularities in the purchase of this land. Clearly, the concerns that had been raised since at least November 1991 had not been dealt with by December 1993.

The Premier referred this matter to you in December 1993. Will you advise us what you advised the Premier at that time of exactly what action was being taken on the matter?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition incorrectly refers to Mr Fedy as an Ontario Housing Corp lawyer. He was not and is not. He is a solicitor with a private law firm and he carried out his own interest in following through on matters of interest to him.

Certainly, the ministry was aware of the situation, and if it's any help to the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell her that by September 1992 a new project consultant, a new project manager, was in place at that particular non-profit organization.

Mrs McLeod: I trust the minister is not discounting the legitimacy of the concerns that have been raised about this particular deal and about the fact that there has been a $135,000 private profit made with public funds on a land flip deal. We simply can't understand why over a period of three years there was no apparent response from your ministry in dealing with what is clearly a significant concern.

We have to wonder when a lawyer who is involved with the issue and clearly concerned about irregularities in the issue, trying to get some action from your ministry and your government, is advised by the ministry that land flips in the non-profit housing industry are a common occurrence.

Some of us today remember the Provincial Auditor's report in which concern was expressed about the fact that in non-profit housing there was higher than market value being paid for land. This would appear to be one of the reasons for that concern. It really is hard to understand why it has taken so long to be able to get action on this very serious concern.

The question today is: What did you do? When did you do it? What action did your ministry take? In fact, was this not even treated as an urgent and serious issue because land flips in non-profit housing are indeed a common occurrence, as your officials have told David Fedy?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm not privy to who Mr Fedy may have talked to, but whoever it was may have been describing past history. I don't know. It may have been a common occurrence under the old non-profit housing schemes which the Liberal government ran in this province.

Let me tell the leader of the official opposition that the public consultation conducted by the Ministry of Housing in 1991, leading to new policy for non-profit housing programs in this province in 1992, which is being implemented through the Jobs Ontario Homes program, includes strict appraisal guidelines which didn't exist before, requirements for title searches of a nature that did not exist before, guidelines for hiring development consultants which did not exist before, conflict-of-interest guidelines which did not exist before and stringent site selection requirements.

Let her ask herself what was the experience of the previous government, and let us tell you about what we've been doing in this government to make sure that the non-profit housing program we're operating is accountable.

1430

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party, the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is also to the Minister of Housing. Minister, you know what really blows us away, not only in this House but in this province, is that you stand in this House -- you are even laughing at this point -- and you make announcements; for example, you announced a $29-million write-off. You seem to think that all you have to do is stand in this House and defend what has been going on. What our questions are simply asking you is, why don't you for once stand in this House and agree that there is a problem?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): There's got to be a question here, you know. Come on, Margaret, give us a question.

The Speaker: The member for Cambridge, please come to order.

Mrs Marland: Most of us of course recall that most of these programs were the Homes Now program under the former Liberal government, which announced 30,000 homes in a big panic after it had already announced 110,000 homes it couldn't fulfil. We realize where the problem started, but the fact is that you've been the government for four years.

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

Mrs Marland: Will you for once agree there is a problem?

Hon Ms Gigantes: From the member for Mississauga South we for ever get loose allegations pieced together from bits of misinformation which, if she followed through on them, she would know don't fit together and are providing misinformation.

The letter that was received by the Premier and by me from Mr Fedy was taken very seriously by both of us. But let me assure the members opposite that in fact the Ministry of Housing not only has looked at the issues raised by Mr Fedy, but also the larger issue, which I wish members here would address themselves to, which is, what is going on in the program design that means we have an accountable program that provides cost-effective administration and makes sure that guidelines on conflict of interest and overlapping interests are not permitted? They are not permitted.

In this particular case, the Waterloo Regional Police are making inquiries, and I don't wish to speak about the particulars, as she will well understand.

Mrs Marland: The only "loose" information in this House unfortunately comes from you as the minister. All the questions we are asking are based on your own ministry audits, and you don't understand that it's your own ministry audits that the press and the media are having to write about every single day in this place and across this province because you will not take action; the fact that you seem to think it's all right for a development consultant to pocket $95,000 using a blank cheque from the non-profit corporation, that it's all right that he pleaded guilty to criminal and fraud charges. If you think that's all right, we simply ask you again, as Minister of Housing, what is your standard for how non-profit housing corporations operate in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's hard to believe this is the same member who was on her feet a few minutes ago complaining that somebody was imputing motives to her. She's now reading my thoughts and telling the world what my thoughts are. It is incorrect, it is absolutely incorrect for her to suggest that when issues are raised about accountability of government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I was raising my voice. It's hard to hear oneself over the babble over there. But let me tell her very seriously, and I hope she'll take my word for it -- she's a reasonable person, and I hope she'll take my word for it -- that we take all questions raised about the integrity of the non-profit housing program in a very serious manner. In fact, in the questions which have been raised today, the ministry has taken action. And in the larger sense, if the member would please inform herself about the changes which have been instituted by this government in the administration of the non-profit housing program, I'm sure she would feel much less agitated than she appears to.

Mrs Marland: You're right, Madam Minister: I'm agitated, and so are the people of this province, because of your incompetency in this place. You do not seem to realize that as a minister of the crown you have to answer to the public about the misappropriation of funds. When you're allocating support for these programs, you're saying it's all right.

I didn't say what your standards were. I wouldn't begin to try to say what your standards were, and I would never try to read your thoughts. Fortunately, they're recorded in Hansard. But I can tell you one thing: Your standards are such that you reappointed Mr Quart to serve another 12 months on the McClure Community Homes board in Hamilton, after he'd already been found to have examples of absolute mismanagement. You reappointed him, you rewarded him. You paid him $60,000 to do it more for another 12 months.

We're simply saying to you, why do you feel so compelled to stand in this House and defend incompetence? Obviously, as minister you are the captain of the non-profit ship -- we are going to rename it the Titanic -- and I want to know, are you going to go down with your ship and resign?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's another example of the wonderful stew that can get served up by the member for Mississauga South when she wants a tasty morsel for the media. She has linked together items which are not in the least connected, and it is absolutely not the case that we do not care about the administration of this program.

We have spent two years in working on a new design in consultation with people who are housing providers across this province, including the private sector, and we have produced a program in which we believe we will find integrity and we believe the public will find accountability.

The member for Mississauga South would prefer to raise issues that are old issues and say that our government doesn't care about them, that our government has done nothing about them. Our government has redesigned the whole program. She doesn't want to learn that, she doesn't want to see that and she will never say it, but it's true.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question's to the Premier. Premier, as we raise case after case of fraud, mismanagement, overspending, conflict of interest and patronage, it is becoming very clear that the problems --

Hon Mr Farnan: Solemn voice now for this question.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Throw that member out, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: It may be greater punishment to stay. I must caution the member for Cambridge. He has been asked before to come to order, and I caution him now to please come to order. The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Harris: It's becoming very clear that the problems in government housing are systemic. They go well beyond the scope of the current minister. This black hole is bigger than all of your cabinet. We can continue to appoint legislative committees to investigate individual matters, we can continue to call in the police, but the bottom line is that the system needs to be fixed.

Premier, given the litany of revelations under your government and the former Liberal government and given that those who need help are not getting it, will you today establish a judicial inquiry into government housing in Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think there needs to be a debate about the issue of non-profit and social housing across the province.

I must say to the honourable member, my concern about some of the rhetoric I hear from him and from his colleagues is that it will lead to the elimination of non-profit and social housing in the province, and that's not something we want to see.

I would say to the honourable member that it is crucial for the accounting and for the efficiency of the program to be improved all the time. We had some valuable advice from the public accounts committee yesterday, which advice I think is going to be very helpful to us, and it already has been. We are already putting in place measures which we believe are going to improve the accountability of the system.

1440

But my concern has been if you look, for example, at the fact that in community and social services there are 7,000 agencies which receive public funds and which are run by non-profit boards; in the area of housing we have hundreds of such boards and in health it's a similar situation. I think we have to come to terms as a province. If you want to eliminate these programs, the impact will be serious. If you want to eliminate volunteers, the impact will also be serious.

I would say to the honourable member, we constantly need to be reviewing and trying to improve the system. We have to improve accountability. We have to make sure that measures are in place.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We have to ensure that people are advised and informed and able to deal with it.

With respect to the particular question the honourable member asked, I don't happen to believe that a judicial inquiry is the route for us to go. We referred it to a committee once; I'd be happy to refer the general subject to a committee again. It's still in public accounts. I think that's where it belongs in terms of letting the province see what the issue is.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: If we have hundreds, indeed thousands of volunteer agencies, we have to find the accountability mechanisms that allow this to work, but I, for one, don't want to see the elimination of non-profit housing across the province, including in Scarborough.

Mr Harris: Ontario's government housing industry is the biggest boondoggle this province has seen. In fact, it may be the biggest government mess North America has seen. I tell you that it certainly rivals HUD, the Housing and Urban Development scandal in the United States. I think we're dealing with more misspent taxpayer dollars in fraud than the HUD scandal of the States. "Non-profit housing" has become a dirty word. Corruption, waste and mismanagement in the affordable housing industry have tainted ministers from Chaviva Ho_ek to Evelyn Gigantes.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, please come to order.

Mr Harris: It was partially responsible for the fall of the last government, as the root of the Patti Starr affair. Premier, it is time to put a stop to the HUD of the north.

I ask again, will you appoint a member of the judiciary to head up an inquiry into the massive sinkhole that is government housing in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I think we should be relying on the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee for advice. I would say to the member, just because he's getting advice from American consultants who are preoccupied with the experiences of the Republican Party in the United States and with the experiences of the Reagan administration in the United States and with the campaigns of Ollie North and all of his friends down in the United States, don't ask me to get on your Ronald Reagan bandwagon. I will not get on it; it's not the way to go. What we need is a good system of public accountability where we have help from the Provincial Auditor. I think that's the best approach to take. Perhaps we could lend the American flag to the leader of the third party.

But I want to tell the honourable member, if he wants to have a serious discussion about this, that's fine, but his level of rhetoric, the inflamed level of rhetoric that's there, is completely out of proportion to what in fact we are facing in terms of public administration.

Mr Harris: Premier, every day you delay, the situation gets worse. Six years ago, on December 5, 1988, even before the Patti Starr fiasco, as Housing critic I raised this issue. I warned the former government that there was fraud, that there was abuse, that 100% government dollars was leading to a massive ripoff of taxpayer dollars.

Premier, you say the auditor is the way to deal with this. Two years ago the Provincial Auditor revealed massive problems. He revealed that by 1995 operating subsidies alone will cost $1 billion a year. Taxpayers are on the hook for billions of dollars in mortgages for units that, at the end of the day, taxpayers won't own. It is in everyone's interest to clean up the mess.

As an interim measure, will you immediately freeze all existing and all new projects until a new government can scrap the program and bring in shelter subsidies that will truly help people who need help? Will you at least do that?

Hon Mr Rae: Now we see what the real agenda of the new right is. The agenda of the new right is to eliminate non-profit and social housing altogether. That's the agenda of the new right. I say to the honourable member that's a subject that's worth discussing and we can continue to discuss that. I will tell you, I was last week at a housing project in Hamilton, and there were disabled kids there with better access to decent housing, better access to good care --

Mr Harris: Fraud, mismanagement, conflict of interest, patronage. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Crooks.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- better access to decent shelter than they ever had under a Conservative government --

Mr Harris: Patronage, fraud, mismanagement, incapable ministers, a cabinet that doesn't understand what's going on.

The Speaker: Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that would shut down non-profit housing and would shut down social housing. That is not a step I'm prepared to take.

Accountability, yes; your new right, Tory agenda, no. We're going to have better accountability. We're not going to shut down the program. That's exactly what we're going to do.

Mrs Marland: You have some gall to talk about disabled children. Don't ever talk about disabled children in this place.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Mississauga South please come to order.

The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: Again to the Minister of Housing, we have asked a question in the Legislature and we are asking for an answer. This is not a question about the NDP's grand design for social housing; it is not an invitation to a debate about the appropriate role of non-profit housing. It is a question to a minister who pursues non-profit housing so exclusively and with such blinders on that she refuses to hear the questions, let alone to answer them.

This is a very specific case. It is a concern about a private profit made with public dollars on a land-flip deal to a non-profit corporation. It is a concern about a case which is clearly unacceptable and which your ministry knew about for at least three years. The question is a straightforward one: What have you done and when did you do it?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The specifics of the case are not open for me to raise in this House and not to raise at all, in fact.

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: The police are involved in inquiries around the case --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It would be very foolish, as the leader of the Liberal Party knows, the leader of the official opposition, and it would be unethical for a minister to talk about the specifics of a case which is under police investigation. It can very well jeopardize what is going to happen in the police case, so I'm not going to do that.

Mrs Marland: You don't talk about it even when it isn't under investigation, for crying out loud.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: But I will repeat to her that in fact the allegations that have been around for some time are allegations which have led to a change in the non-profit and have led to the installation of a new project management firm at the non-profit, and that dates back to September 1992.

1450

Mrs McLeod: Minister, there does seem to be something of a double standard in the House today, because you considered it quite appropriate in a case in Ottawa with a court case pending not only to comment but in fact to meet with the parties. Today in the Legislature you will not respond to a very legitimate question in an area in which you clearly have responsibilities as a Minister of Housing. That is not acceptable. I say to you that it is not acceptable to attempt to defend the non-profit housing system, to which you are clearly committed, unless you are prepared to deal quickly and decisively with clear evidence of abuse. It is clearly unacceptable to have a private individual make a profit of $135,000 on a land-flip deal.

I ask you, if you consider that unacceptable -- and I trust that as a Minister of Housing you consider it completely unacceptable -- what do you believe should be done in such a case, and are you doing it in this case?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Liberal leader is trying to get me to say that something happened. I don't know that something happened. Perhaps she was here earlier when one of my colleagues pointed out very clearly that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The issues that have been raised are serious issues, and they deserve to be dealt with in a serious manner. To compare what is happening here with my conversations with the non-profit board last week, these are totally different kinds of questions. In one area, I was attempting to mediate a dispute among board members; in another area, I have responsibilities as a minister, which I intend to execute in the way I think appropriate and which she would agree is appropriate if she were being straight.

INVESTIGATION OF CROWN ATTORNEY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It pertains to an article that was in the Globe and Mail this morning dealing with a police probe of a crown lawyer dealing with sexual allegations against a Thunder Bay prosecutor. The article indicates that police have known of the allegations against this prosecutor since last August.

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us when the regional crown attorney first learned of this, when her ministry first learned of this and what steps the ministry has taken since that time.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): In -- and I believe it was -- August of last year, the police in Thunder Bay promptly brought to the attention of the ministry the allegations that had been made. We followed our usual procedure at that time. We encouraged a thorough investigation. We advised the police that a senior crown attorney, not in the region and not connected with that particular office, would review any legal issues that the police might have.

The police advice at that point was that although they were concerned, they had no corroboration for the allegations. However, it did prompt a human relations investigation. There was some disciplinary action taken at that point in time. Similarly, when additional allegations were brought forward, a similar prospect was done. People were encouraged to thoroughly investigate and to follow the same procedure.

Mr Harnick: My understanding is that this investigation continues to this day. In fact, there is some idea that the police are going to forward the results of their investigation to your office for a determination as to the next step.

I'm quoting the article, when it refers to the crown attorney stating that "he holds a position of the utmost public trust. He has access to police records and evidence, and decides whether to prosecute those suspected of committing crimes." These allegations that have been made against the crown attorney are very serious allegations. I wonder why, during the course of an investigation and knowledge by the ministry for at least the last nine months, this crown attorney has continued actively prosecuting cases pending the completion of this investigation, and is that status of this crown attorney going to continue?

Hon Mrs Boyd: There was an investigation of the initial allegations, and it was determined that there was no further action going to be taken by the police at that point in time. One then obviously is faced, in a human relations sense, with the appropriate disciplinary action.

I can assure the member that there was disciplinary action taken, that the cases assigned to the crown attorney were carefully chosen to ensure that there was no conflict of interest in the particular area in which the investigation occurs.

The member is well aware that this is not an isolated case. There are other issues where crown attorneys are accused of a number of things. Certainly, as soon as charges are laid, there are reassignments made to prevent someone from having any position where they might have undue influence over the administration of justice.

In this case, as the member points out quite clearly, the investigation is proceeding and it would be inappropriate to comment about further action at this point in time.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Many school boards in my riding have had difficulty dealing with their budgets. While they recognize the province does not have a lot of money, they are concerned that there must be a recognition of the special needs of the north as there are higher heating costs, transportation and other isolated costs.

Minister, do the grants that your ministry gives to school boards take into account the extra costs faced by northern boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member. This ministry does recognize and accept the fact that for smaller schools and smaller boards there are additional costs, especially in northern Ontario. In the GLGs, the general legislative grants, there were in fact $93 million included in the 1994 GLGs that specifically went to small schools and small boards, most of which went to northern Ontario.

Mr Wood: The administrator of the Kapuskasing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has recently stated that students in the board received only $5,000 in funding, while the same students in Toronto received $9,000. Minister, is this true, and if so, why is this unfair situation allowed to continue?

Hon Mr Cooke: The administration at your board would understand that grants that come from the ministry are based on the wealth of the board. In Metropolitan Toronto, the comparison would be that there is no GLG money that goes to the public boards. In your area it's several thousand, and the expenditure per pupil is $7,300 at the Kapuskasing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

I should also point out that because of the differences, capital grants are also directed to boards that need them the most. In your particular area, your school boards received $38 million in capital grants in the most recent capital announcements that our ministry made on behalf of the government. None of that money goes to Metropolitan Toronto's public board. You got $38 million because of the good work that you do, but because your board needed it as well.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last December, during the work of my task force on cancer care, we heard stories of unacceptable delays in the special approvals process for certain cancer drugs. We heard from cancer specialists who were particularly concerned about the eight- to nine-week delay for approvals for GCSF, which is a drug that's used to help chemotherapy patients fight life-threatening infections, obviously a drug which gives cancer patients the maximum chance of fighting their disease.

You told me when I raised those concerns in the Legislature that you believed the system for special approvals was working but that you would undertake to make sure there were not undue delays.

1500

You're aware that a news conference was held today by AECCO, Access to Effective Cancer Care in Ontario, which is a coalition. They determined, through information they got under freedom of information, that the average waiting time for this drug between June 1992 and December 1993 was 61 days. That is still almost seven weeks.

I think we have to be clear about who this particular special approvals process affects: it's for those who are on drug benefit plans, so it is the poor and the elderly, and they are waiting an unconscionably long time for a drug that they need immediately. Minister, do you consider this to be a system that's working?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this, because I don't recall when it was the Leader of the Opposition had raised it, but certainly it is an issue with which I've been concerned and I'm delighted to be able to tell her and to tell the House that yes, indeed, as the people who had the press conference this morning indicated, between June 1992 and December 1993 there was an unnecessary and, in my opinion, unacceptable delay for the availability of this drug. I said I would look into it, and I'm glad to be able to tell her the problem has been fixed. In fact, between January 1994 and April 1994, our information is that we're looking at seven or eight days.

What we did was to indicate that urgent requests for this drug be treated on a priority basis, and we have a commitment to physicians that we will respond to those requests within seven days. That's happening, the system is working and the problem is no longer in existence.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I'm not sure if you gave the data on the average length of time to the coalition that had the press conference this morning. They've tried for some time to get information so that they could be absolutely fair in raising their concern after what has been a long period of time to get information on the average waiting time for this drug. They did indicate that they believed anecdotally, because they couldn't get the information on the current statistics, that there had been some improvement, but that there were still inconsistencies in the length of time that was needed to get approval, and there were also very real inconsistencies in terms of who did get approval for the use of this drug and who did not.

It's also been made very clear that the time frame for response should be 48 hours, that people need this drug very quickly, and that in other provinces they have brought about a turnaround time considerably better than the time in Ontario. Alberta's is answered within a week; in Saskatchewan, they've managed a three- to four-day turnaround; in Quebec, in New Brunswick, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, it does take only two days to get an answer to a request for this particular drug.

Clearly, Minister, you would agree that it is absolutely unacceptable that cancer patients in Ontario should have to wait a needlessly long time for a drug which they need so desperately. Will you tell us whether or not you can get the response time for this drug down to within 48 hours, and that there will be a consistent process for approvals so that people know who will get it and that they will get it quickly?

Hon Mrs Grier: My understanding is that there is a consistent process for approval, and as I said in response to the first question, we've reduced the time from 61 days to seven days. Let me say to the member that on some occasions when the oncologist can give advance notice of the intent to prescribe the drug, we can in fact move that up. The commitment is that we do it within seven days. There are many occasions when it is less than that, and obviously if you're going to make that kind of a commitment, you have the commitment to do it as quickly as possible. That's what we've achieved, that's what we're doing and that's what cancer patients deserve.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General, who disappeared but her books are still on her desk.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there some other minister to whom you wish to address the question?

Mr Harnick: I suspect she hasn't gone far, and after all, question period's only one hour in length.

The Speaker: I'm afraid I can't be of help to the member, other than to invite him to place a question to some other minister or allow his colleague to ask a question.

Mr Harnick: To the Minister of Housing: a question. Minister, do you think that it's appropriate -- oh, here's the Attorney General. May I take that back, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: We're all so congenial today. Of course.

Mr Harnick: Thank you. My question is to the Attorney General: Do you think that it is appropriate for a minister of the crown to ask a private citizen to withdraw a charge that that private citizen has laid in a court in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, the member is obviously trying to draw me into the questions that have been asked of the Minister of Housing, and I'm not prepared to participate in that game.

Mr Harnick: You may not be prepared to participate in that game, but you are responsible for the administration of justice in this province. That's number one.

Number two, you, as the chief law enforcement officer, more than anyone in this province should know that it's highly improper, it's most improper, for a minister of the crown to pressure a private citizen into withdrawing a charge that citizen laid. You know that and every minister in your government including the Premier knows that. Now, get up and acknowledge it or you shouldn't be the Attorney General.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Obviously if that were to happen it would be improper, but the Minister of Housing has clearly denied that's the case.

Mr Harnick: If it were to happen, it would be improper?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would remind the member, who had a histrionic display in this Legislature not very long ago about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, that we believe in the presumption of innocence on this side of the House.

Mr Harnick: If it happened, it's wrong? Well, it did happen.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

ACCESS TO FORESTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Recently, I met with a number of anglers and hunters in my constituency office. They are extremely upset, to say the least, in regard to the current policy when it comes to the resource access road policy that the ministry currently utilizes.

As the minister would know, what happens is that a forest company, in order to be able to harvest timber in a particularly sensitive area that might be near a tourist outfitter's lake, builds a road in order to get that timber out. When the harvesters are out of there, the road remains and the ministry posts a sign saying that you can't access it.

What can the minister say to the anglers within the riding of Cochrane South, and I would say generally in northern Ontario, who face these signs, are extremely upset and would like to see them taken down?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The question is a good one and it's very important across northern and central Ontario. The reality is, the Ministry of Natural Resources tries to manage crown lands with a variety of interests and a diversity of values in mind.

When forest access roads are built, the Ministry of Natural Resources, through the timber management plan, tries to get all the various interest groups to attend open houses, to review the timber management plan and to focus their attention upon where roads are going and what other resources other than forest resources may be accessed.

The use of timber management planning and the use of open houses to draw public attention and focus public attention on fishery issues and other wildlife issues is not always successful, and I acknowledge, as the member has indicated, that it creates a lot of controversy.

We are trying, through the new Crown Forest Sustainability Act, to find another method of focusing public attention on the diversity of values and issues that need to be resolved.

Mr Bisson: I think most people would agree that what we really need to do is to find a way to involve those people who utilize the forests from all sectors, not only the harvesters of the timber but also those people who access forests for recreational use, at the very beginning so that we can find a better way of trying to deal with these issues at the beginning. If we're able to come to terms with that, possibly we're able to eliminate some of the conflict that arises afterwards.

I wonder if you can explain for the constituents of Cochrane South and those people interested how the sustainable forest initiatives would deal with that current situation and alleviate possibly some of those problems.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is quite right. As the system exists now and has existed for some time, the perception is that the Ministry of Natural Resources makes all the decisions as to which roads can be used, which ones must be closed and which ones must have some restrictions. That's not a fair representation of the issues, but that is certainly the public perception.

What needs to happen is, we need to provide a system where local citizens and interest groups actually become involved in the decision-making. Under the new legislation, we propose to have local citizens' committees. Those committees would be struck to analyse all of the resource use issues and would be required to work at finding resolutions to some of the disputes and trying to overcome some of the local conflicts.

The end result is that people will be more involved in the decision-making, they will be more responsible for the decisions which are the eventual outcome and, in the final analysis, Ministry of Natural Resources officials will not be blamed for decisions which will always involve a compromise or a consensus.

1510

NEW WCB HEADQUARTERS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, if I could have his attention. Last September I raised the issue of the Workers' Compensation Board -- actually that American flag would be appropriate for this question; you might want to hold on to it -- choosing to buy a flooring system for its new building, Simcoe Towers, from a company in the state of Michigan. They chose the American manufacturer over a company right here in Oakville which manufactures a cheaper system of equal or better quality.

To share with you and remind you, this is a sample of the elevated floor system that's made right here in Oakville with a wood core, the Canadian product with a wood core. The American one has a concrete core. Studies have shown the Canadian floor to be more flexible, longer lasting, equal in strength and half a million dollars cheaper, with five times the warranty of the American product. It's been installed in numerous government buildings.

What is new, Minister, is that your own staff who write the specifications for government projects prefer the Canadian floor system. The distributor who got the contract prefers the Canadian floor system. But the Workers' Compensation Board thinks it knows best.

It's not too late. The contract has not been let yet and given to the American company. Will you review this ridiculous decision by the Workers' Compensation Board and give this contract to the company in Oakville to save Canadian jobs?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Because of some of the words the member used in his question, I can't respond in the way the member might expect. I will look into the matter the member has raised and get back to him with regard to the matter. But the member should choose his words a little more carefully in his questions, if he would like a straightforward answer.

Mr Mahoney: I don't understand what words seem to upset this minister. There's a Canadian product manufactured in Oakville. The WCB has chosen to buy a product that has clearly been demonstrated not to be as effective, with a lower warranty, and costing half a million dollars more, from the United States. I don't know what you're offended about.

Let me give you an example. You, Minister, have installed this Canadian product, or you are installing it, in the new Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs building in Guelph, the Ministry of Natural Resources building in Peterborough, the Ministry of Transportation building in St Catharines, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation building in Niagara Falls, the Ontario Provincial Police building in Orillia, the Ontario lottery headquarters in Sault Ste Marie. It appears to be good enough. It's even got a stamp of approval from the Ministry of Housing. It appears to be good enough for all your projects, but it's not good enough for the Workers' Compensation Board.

Sometimes in government we get a chance to actually do something. The contract has not yet been awarded to the company from Michigan. A simple change order will ensure that the company in Oakville gets this contract, that a Canadian product is used, and 50 to 75 --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- Canadian, Ontario, Oakville jobs will be saved. Will you now instruct the Workers' Compensation Board to buy Canadian?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite has loaded his second question with another pile of assumptions and the member across the way has no understanding of their necessary validity. Both of the products in question, the Canadian product and the American product, happen to be excellent products. There is no question about that. I've not seen the technical specs that were sent out in the building design for the Workers' Compensation Board, but the member opposite has absolutely no expertise in this field either, and his knowledge of the applicability of the two products, I will look into and report back on.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to Bill 163, in which the residents of York, Durham and Caledon have specific interest as to the superdumps that have been created in these three areas or are being suggested be created in these three areas.

Minister, the policy statements you set out in Bill 163 try to protect agricultural land. They try to protect the supply and efficient use and conservation of water. Bill 143 on the other hand allows the Interim Waste Authority and your government to build superdumps on agricultural land, on aquifers. These two bills are in direct conflict. How can you justify this contradiction?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is no conflict, as I pointed out in the House when the Minister of Environment and Energy was unable to be here. The most comprehensive, rigorously tested, engineeringly sound system to protect the environment was in fact initiated in the site selection for the dumps.

I can tell you there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever, and I think if the member wants to ask another question to the Minister of Environment, the minister would be happy to go through that with him.

Mr Tilson: You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and you know that, because the fact of the matter is you're building superdumps on farm lands, and yet Bill 163 says that you're going to try and protect farm land. You're going to protect the sources of water. You're doing the very thing, with Bill 143, that Bill 163 says you can't do. I say you're setting up two sets of rules. You're setting up one set of rules for developers and land owners, and a second set for agencies of your own government.

Minister, you don't have any credibility, and when it comes to protecting farm land, why don't you simply admit defeat and can these three superdumps that you're building throughout the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Philip: The lack of credibility is with the Conservative Party. They're against all the environmental provisions included in the Planning Act that we've just introduced, and against open government. They want closed doors and no environmental protection. That's what they've said in the debate on the bill.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for allowing me to get my question on. It's been of concern to my constituents since we made the announcement because they want to know about the fruit lands --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom?

Ms Haeck: Sorry, to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I'm so excited about being able to get my question on that I forgot who it's for.

The Niagara fruit land protection program, which we announced probably about six weeks ago, has been of great interest to my constituents. We've had a lot of calls about the process, and in light of some comments by a regional councillor, I gather there was some concern on the part of my constituents as to whether the region was going to be able to put the money in place to make sure the program was going to fly.

Obviously, that's an extremely important issue for a lot of farmers in my area and I would like to ask the minister, since I'm aware that he has been in discussions with the local community, what was resolved.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member from Niagara raises a good question. A number of the farmers who wished to access this new program to protect tender fruit lands are concerned and would like to know when they can get on with it.

We have an advisory committee that is working with the ministry in designing this program so it's user-friendly, so that farmers can access it and understand it. That committee has had, I think, two meetings to date, and there's another meeting coming up, I believe it's this week, with staff to design the program, work at setting benchmarks, which will be the amount of money farmers might receive in return for putting an easement on their title. That is being worked out, so we will have a process. I hope it will be up and running for the fall and that applications will be available hopefully by September or October.

The other point the member raised is about the regional government. They are putting in some money as well, and I think the member has heard from some of the regional councillors that they haven't voted the money yet. I'm confident that the regional council down in Niagara will in fact find the necessary money to fund this program.

1520

PETITIONS

CAMPING FEES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that's signed by thousands of people in my riding, mainly the scouting and guiding groups, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government has levied a fee for camping at group campsites in provincial parks; and

"Whereas the scouts and guides are children, with leaders and assistants being volunteers;

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

"To remove the levy charge from scouting and guiding groups camping at provincial parks."

Our people feel very strongly about this, and I would like the government to consider it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition from Elmira Pentecostal Assembly, Rev James Gibson. It's been signed by approximately 56 people:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, will be given to same-sex relationships if any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' as a grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation.'"

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by many people in the London area:

"Whereas the right for workers to refuse to do unsafe work is an essential component of health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the threat of sending coworkers home without pay during a work refusal constitutes significant peer pressure to continue to work in unsafe conditions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario to bring private member's Bill 157, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, before the Legislature for third reading."

I've affixed my signature to the petition in support.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I keep on receiving petitions from my constituents from Manor Park, and the petition reads as follows:

"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've affixed my signature.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government has recently slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country;

"Whereas this reduction in coverage will affect all Ontarians but will have the greatest impact upon seniors, many of whom travel south of the border for important health reasons and who will be forced to absorb a tremendous hike in their health insurance premiums;

"Whereas the government has justified its decision on the basis of not wanting to pay exorbitant hospital costs, even though currently out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals;

"Whereas the reduction in out-of-country hospitalization coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act;

"Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party makes the preservation of medicare a priority in its Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"Therefore, we petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair and just manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and immediately restore out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

That's signed by many signatures from Elmvale, Fergus, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Mississauga, and I have attached my name to it too.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here. It's signed with 142 names, plus my own. It's the Grimsby seniors regarding automobile road testing for senior citizens 80 years and over. The petition reads:

"That one day each year be designated by the Ministry of Transportation in the town of Grimbsy as a road driving skills testing centre for those licensed holders who are 80 years of age and over."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by over 200 constituents of mine who are tenants of Cliffwood Manor at 4000 Don Mills Road in North York. That's in the riding of Oriole. They say:

"We, the undersigned, tenants of the above building, respectfully petition Your Honour to suspend temporarily the enforcement of the Housing ministry's policy with regard to geared-to-income rent increases from 25% to 30% over a five-year period.

"We, the seniors on old-age security and other tenants on geared-to-income rent request Your Honour to review the impact this policy will have on those tenants least able to afford the rent increase.

"We would greatly appreciate being consulted before Your Honour proceeds further with the implementation of this policy."

I affix my signature to this petition and think that their request to be consulted and for consultation to discuss the impact of the policy is a very reasonable request.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from the Leeds anglers and hunters to Ontario Premier Bob Rae and Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm affixing my signature in support.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"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 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 the plain packaging of tobacco products at a national level."

I'll sign my name in support of this.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in St Catharines and Thorold concerned about the possible consequences of a consultant's report on Hotel Dieu Hospital. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, refuse to accept the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital emergency department and the reduction of available hospital beds. We strongly urge the hospital boards and the Niagara District Health Council to crush the consultant's report. The Hotel Dieu Hospital board has already taken this position. Implementation of the report would have disastrous consequence for the people of our community. We are committed to keeping two emergency departments in St Catharines and beds open."

I support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

1530

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the citizens of Ontario, agree that clear dealings between the present justice system and the public establish a positive relationship for all concerned;

"Whereas one building block for such a relationship is a fair and accurate way of dealing with habitual child sex- offenders;

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

"We believe that one way of dealing with convicted habitual child sex-offenders upon release that his/her photo and address be made available to the public for a minimum of seven years in whatever area of the province he/she takes residence."

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. To shorten it down, the member for Durham-York read most of it, but I'll go down to the bottom:

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly 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."

These are from St Catharines, Niagara Falls, Fonthill and the Niagara Peninsula. There are 11 names here. I would appreciate if I could get from the Clerk the last petition that Mr Bradley read out so that I am able to respond to some of the signatures that are on his petition.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Canadians 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 the 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 other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

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

That's signed by over 50 of my constituents. I've also signed the petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This petition is signed by hundreds of my constituents and it's opposed to the mandatory nature of junior kindergarten. As you know, our Common Sense Revolution also makes that recommendation, that junior kindergarten should not be a mandatory program. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards, while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have here a petition from Herbert Enns:

"We, the undersigned members, in adherence of the W-K United Mennonite Church in Waterloo, Ontario, affirm that our country is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity of each person, the importance of the family and the value of community. We strongly disagree with the government's proposed legislation to include same-sex relationships as having the same rights, privileges and benefits of the God-ordained male-female family unit."

That has been signed by many people in the city of Waterloo and throughout the community.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

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

"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 riding 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 public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

That's signed by 15 people from Orillia, Beaverton, Keswick and Lindsay. I have affixed my name to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

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

Bill 179, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 179, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Hansen, do you have any brief remarks?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Yes, I have a couple of brief remarks. This Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act is crucial to the long-term viability of Ontario's trucking industry and to the lifespan of our highways. It would create shared responsibilities between shippers and motor carriers -- namely, truckers -- for compliance with Ontario's laws governing allowable truck axle weights.

Right now, some drivers are being told by shippers to simply take a load or leave it for someone else to haul. This is because shippers do not have to comply with current legislation respecting allowable truck axle weights but truckers do. That's not fair to the trucking industry and it's not fair to Ontarians who have to pay big tax dollars to maintain our efficient and expensive highway system.

The NDP government has studied this issue for five years and it is now about time we did something about it. A government industry weight review committee comprised of shippers, carriers, owner-operators and government was established to resolve this long-standing issue and its key recommendation was to have this legislation brought forward as soon as possible. That's what I've done here in my private member's bill, which is officially titled the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1994.

Truck axle weight laws may not seem to be of great significance to some, but the wear and tear on our highway system can be impacted to a great degree by the level of compliance with these laws. I think both shippers and truckers should share responsibility for complying with axle weight laws. It's good for all of us.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to let the member know that when I ask for brief remarks, I mean it in the real sense of the word -- brief.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

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

Bill 180, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act / Projet de loi 180, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any brief remarks?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yes, Mr Speaker, they're brief. The bill provides for a maximum fine of $10,000 for those persons convicted of operating a business without a licence contrary to a bylaw of the metropolitan council or the metropolitan licensing commission.

The council may refuse to issue, suspend, revoke or impose conditions on a licence where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant or licensee will not carry on their business in accordance with the law. A condition of a licence may be that the hours of operation of the business be restricted. The refusal to issue the suspension or the revocation of a licence of the imposition of conditions on a licence may be appealed to the Divisional Court.

PLANNING AND MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE ET LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes relating to planning and municipal matters / Projet de loi 163, Loi révisant la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement du territoire de l'Ontario, la Loi sur les conflits d'intérêts municipaux, et modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la Loi sur les municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois touchant des questions relatives à l'aménagement et aux municipalités.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There is an understanding that there will be a deferred vote. This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1541 to 1546.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Philip has moved second reading of Bill 163, An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

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

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

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Crozier, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 60; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? To which committee shall it be sent?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): To the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: To the justice committee? Agreed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will give a chance to leave the House for those members who wish to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

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

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Parliamentary assistant, you had a request?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'd request that we allow staff on to the floor and to move down to the front row.

The Chair: I believe the member for Leeds-Grenville had the floor when we last debated.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): We want to make sure that we're procedurally correct, that the table has all the amendments I've put forward in respect of Bill 119, that they're all in order, and that they have sufficient copies as well.

When the debate adjourned some time ago -- in fact, I forget how long ago -- the government and its friends in the lobbying industry had tried to indicate that Mr Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, and myself have been the sole causes of delay, and in effect suggested, implied, in the advertising in my daily newspaper and in Mike Harris's daily newspaper that we were perhaps going to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of young people in the province of Ontario, a very irresponsible attempt to intimidate members of the Ontario Legislature and one that certainly Mr Jordan, Mr Harris and myself very much resent.

In any event, we'll move on from that. We want to talk again about Bill 119 and specifically the concerns that Mr Jordan and I have about this government's rush to endorse and implement and effect generic or plain cigarette packaging.

Mr Jordan and I, since this matter was discussed in the Legislature, travelled to Ottawa and appeared before the federal health committee dealing with the issue of generic packaging, and again conveyed the concerns of our constituents in terms of the significant job losses that would occur in both Mr Jordan's riding and my riding from firms involved in the packaging industry, and also, in respect of my riding, a firm involved in the production of specialty inks, Kromacorp Inc.

There are other firms in various other parts of Ontario that would also be impacted negatively: a reduction, a loss of well over 1,000 good jobs in Ontario. These are well-paid jobs, jobs with significant benefits attached to them, and all of these industries are making very significant contributions to the communities in which they're located, and to the surrounding areas, and the economies of those communities and areas as well.

The implications, from an economic perspective, are there for everyone to see if indeed they want to take the time to look at them. Up to this point in time we've been met with nothing but reluctance from provincial officials in respect to their preparedness to eliminate this one section of the legislation, which these amendments are trying to achieve: Simply pull out the generic packaging elements of Bill 119 and we can get on with speedy passage of the bill.

To suggest, as some people have, both within government circles and outside of government circles, that those of us who are concerned about the economic implications of Bill 119 don't care about the health of Ontarians is, at the very least, misleading. I could use stronger language, but I won't. I don't want to see this debate degenerate.

In any event, I want to have some responses from the parliamentary assistant in respect to what's happened at the federal level. As I'm sure he is aware, there's indication now -- I'm not sure if it's been confirmed. There was going to be a committee report tabled this week. All of the press indications were that the committee, contrary to the original suggestions, was not going to come out with a strong endorsement of the federal government moving into plain packaging legislation, that it was going to urge caution and that any final decision be delayed until the results of, I think, at least two tests, two studies that are currently under way, one being conducted by I believe the University of Toronto, and I'm not sure what other organization or body is conducting the other one.

I think those studies are expected to be available by the end of this calendar year. They would -- the hope is in any event -- deliver a message with respect to what impact plain packaging would have on the consumption habits of the smoking public.

I'll sit down at this juncture and simply ask the parliamentary assistant's staff what the response of the Ministry of Health in Ontario is based on. What we know at this point are the recommendations flowing from the federal committee in effect saying: "Let's not move on this. Let's not be precipitous in terms of coming forward with a plain packaging recommendation. We know there's a very strong economic downside, and on the other side of the ledger the health benefits are very much in question. Let's find out if indeed there are health benefits that can be unquestioned before we undertake this kind of an initiative."

I'll turn over the floor.

1600

Mr O'Connor: One thing we certainly heard as we went through the committee hearing process on Bill 119 was, over and over again, people coming before us and suggesting that the Ontario government should be moving forward with plain packaging. I've tagged quite a few of these that have come forward. There's one here from the Ottawa-Carleton Heartbeat committee; one from the medical officer of health of the services department of the Niagara regional government; the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Lambton health unit -- the list just goes on and on.

One thing that's important is that as we went through this process, right from the very beginning when we put our discussion paper in January 1993, we went out to the public and we included other areas for discussion, and in those other areas of discussion included the move forward in the area of plain packaging.

As we went through the committee hearing process, which was a very open process -- we heard from over 200 representations -- we ended up in clause-by-clause. One of my colleagues, the member for Carleton, moved that section 5 of the bill be pulled out and strengthened, and to strengthen it on the plain packaging element. We had a very good discussion in the committee hearings.

The question that the member for Leeds-Grenville is asking here is, do we think that the federal government is still looking at moving forward in this area? I've got a clipping here, and Diane Marleau, the federal Minister of Health, says, "Plain Butts Wrapped to Go," and it's from a report in the Toronto Sun saying, "'The Liberal government will recommend that the government go ahead with plain packaging of cigarettes to deter smoking,' the Sun has learned."

It's obvious that the committee in Ottawa has made a commitment to move forward, and this government and all the committee members who sat on the committee hearings had that same sense of strong commitment, that we wanted to offer as much support as we can. Though the member from the third party came to the committee and wanted us to move on it tomorrow, there was a commitment made by the government that we would work with the federal government on this. Just days before the member for Leeds-Grenville made his presentation to the federal health committee, I myself made a presentation to the federal health committee and had staff join me. We made a presentation to this committee with information about plain packaging.

I appreciate his concerns and I have heard the concerns about the job loss, and I don't think anyone in this Legislature is saying that if we don't move forward with this bill tomorrow, young people are going to die. No, it's an addiction that over a period of time kills 13,000 Ontarians every year, yes, 13,000. If we were to break it down riding by riding, that means 100 deaths in my riding attributed to early death because of tobacco.

The point here is that we have to move forward. There could be some job loss here. We know for sure there are 100 deaths attributed to it in my riding, and over my very first term in office that's going to add up to about 500 people, and God knows how many more as time goes on, the longer I sit as a member. I want to see that change. I want to see that trend change so that as we move forward, those deaths are going down.

The whole focus of trying to keep young people from becoming addicted is the intent of the plain packaging, and that's what's been presented to the federal government over and over again, and we actually support the federal government in this.

I'll leave it at that and I'll probably hear some more discussion about that, but I just want to point out that the federal government, according to the clips I've seen here from June 2, just this month, just a couple of weeks ago, is committed to going forward with plain packaging.

Mr Runciman: I'm going to try and get some clarification on that during this afternoon. It's my understanding that is not the case, but we'll certainly make a quick call, if necessary, to determine what in fact is the case in respect of the federal committee report.

It was my understanding it was going to be generally supportive of the concept of generic packaging, that at least a majority of the government members of the committee would support that, but that there was going to be a reservation, if you will, incorporated into the report that would indicate that, prior to the government introducing legislation, it would wait for the results of the, I think, two studies that are now under way to determine whether or not generic packaging has any impact on the numbers of people who are tempted into smoking.

Of course, when the parliamentary assistant makes his comments, there's always the assumption built into his comments that indeed it is going to be effective in reducing the number of smokers in Canada. That's an assumption that I'm not prepared to accept because there's no concrete evidence to support it at this point.

I have said from the outset that I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of plain packaging if it can be shown that it is going to have a dramatic effect on the numbers of people who are attracted to smoking; I personally suspect it will not. Most people I talk to, ordinary citizens, when you ask them, "What do you think of the idea of plain packaging and its impact on consumers of those products?" simply do not accept that it's going to have any meaningful impact. I think that's a change for the people who have been fighting smoking in this country.

I'm a non-smoker and have been for many years, and I've undertaken numbers of initiatives, certainly in my role as a municipal councillor, to try and dissuade people, discourage people, from smoking and from taking up the habit. I'm not here as a defender of anyone who smokes or anyone who promotes the habit. I think it is indeed an unfortunate habit and it has very significant health risks attached to it, but the question we're talking about in respect of this debate is whether generic packaging will discourage people from purchasing cigarettes.

That's the big question, though the primary concern for Mr Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, and myself is, we know indeed that there is going to be significant job loss if indeed the government proceeds along the current course in moving to plain packaging because of the packaging producers in our riding and the special inks that are used in the production of the current packaging for cigarette products in this country.

The parliamentary assistant mentioned another thing which is misleading, at best, as well, and that's to do with this process. He makes reference to over 200 witnesses when Bill 119 was before the standing committee of the Ontario Legislature. What I've tried to emphasize during the course of this, in trying to be fair in terms of how we approach our concerns in this legislation, is that he didn't go on to spell out that the component that most concerns us about this legislation, the detailed amendment that was brought in during clause-by-clause in respect to plain packaging by the member for Carleton, had no public hearing process attached to that. That was done during the clause-by-clause process, Mr Chair, which you know is at the end of the committee hearing process.

The witnesses who appeared before the committee, and there may well have been 200 -- I don't know the number -- were not aware of this significant amendment, which is a very detailed amendment in terms of how the Ontario government can proceed in respect to plain packaging. There was a modest reference to plain packaging in the original bill and that did not cause this member or the member for Lanark-Renfrew or the producers of packaging in our ridings any great concern. We're prepared to live with that and we're prepared to see the original legislation proceed.

Our concern has to do with that detailed amendment and the fact that these people had no opportunity whatsoever -- and I don't have to be concerned about being challenged in respect to what I'm saying here. Those people were not aware of that amendment, and they had no opportunity to have input in respect to its implications on them and on their communities and on the Ontario and Canadian economies.

That's all we're asking for in respect to this amendment. We've said: "Pull that one particular element out. Send it back for public hearings." At least do the same thing that the federal government has been prepared to do and listen to people who have very legitimate concerns about the economic implications of plain packaging, and questions as well being raised about how effective plain packaging will be or can be in respect to deterring especially young people from taking up the smoking habit.

1610

Again, I hope my colleague has been out trying to secure additional information in respect to the federal committee report, because I'd like to raise that before we complete our deliberations today.

I want to raise one other issue and question the parliamentary assistant on this element. I received a copy of a report, a study conducted by --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe there are about nine members in this House right now. I think that if this is important business, as I believe it is, a quorum should be present.

The Chair: Would you please verify if we have a quorum.

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

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

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

Mr Runciman: I had referred some questions to the parliamentary assistant. I was looking for a response and I believe he has some additional information.

Mr O'Connor: First of all, to try to clarify, the discussion paper that went out in January 1993 clearly said right in it, on page 9:

"Areas for Further Discussion

"Plain packaging may make cigarettes less attractive to children and adolescents. It would also make health warnings more visible. Plain packaging needs to be addressed at the national level. We have therefore written to the Minister of Health and Welfare Canada asking him to take leadership on this issue" -- "him" at the time.

From that we went through a consultation process in the spring of 1993 and then from that we found ourselves with Bill 119. We started the committee hearing process. Before we even got to Bill 119, we had already heard 34 oral presentations, 200 written presentations to people within the ministry, and then went out to the public with Bill 119. When we did that there were a lot of things. I'll give you an example of one that somebody had presented to us in Sudbury, I believe it was.

They pointed to the plain packaging, and it would negate what's used as sponsorship ads. The colour in this ad here is the colour of the cigarette package for du Maurier. This is not in contravention of the federal law today, because it allows for sponsorship, but it's a form of advertising, and that's what people pointed out to us.

I could go through all the people who made presentations to us through our standing committee hearing process who said that they wanted plain packaging to be addressed. But one of the difficulties that the member must take a look at is that in the process of plain packaging what we don't see is, will that process be white or a buff package with one colour of print? Or could it be a couple of colours of print? Could it be a series of evolving messages that would change as we move forward: the message that smoking is addictive, smoking will kill you, increased smoking will increase those chances -- whatever message needs to be put on that package?

There could be a series of these, so in fact when the member argues about the jobs, that's rather a moot argument, because he doesn't know exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about the jobs. We're not talking about the plain package that could be just black and white. We're not talking about the colourful packages there today; when we're talking plain packaging, yes, that's what we're trying to see.

Let me use an example here from the Council for a Tobacco-Free York Region. "Young people are especially aware of inconsistencies in messages that tell them not to smoke. Smoking is still allowed in most public spaces and workplaces in York region. Cigarettes, prominently displayed through exciting sponsorships and attractive packaging...." That's the message. That's what we're trying to address here.

The member uses the argument of jobs. I think it's a false argument, because we don't know exactly what will be the process, and there could be many stages added to the process that's used currently today, so the marketing element might be a little bit different.

I'd like to table this information so that we can circulate it among my opposition members who are concerned about this issue today. It's a news release that has actually been sent out, dated today, from the House of Commons standing committee on health. It has tabled its report towards zero consumption of generic packaging of tobacco products. "This report is based on the oral testimony of more than 40 health and tobacco industry groups as well as 150 submissions received during April and May." Of course my colleague has said that he was one of those presentations. I myself was one of them.

"According to the committee Chair, the Honourable Roger Simmons, the recommendation to include plain packaging in a comprehensive strategy reflects the committee's primary concern for the health of Canadians. 'Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in Canada and any step, however small, that will prevent or reduce further harm to Canadians must be taken.'"

I'd ask a page to take this down to the table and have some copies made and circulate it among my critics.

The announcement was made. It's official. Here's a copy of a press release sent out from Ottawa from that committee, and I read the pertinent portion to you and allowed my friends across the floor a chance to read that.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. At the outset I want to express my disappointment and frustration that the process here has effectively prevented this bill from passing and becoming law in this province. I have some problems with the bill but, by and large, I think it's good public policy.

I appreciate that the Conservative members should be given the opportunity to raise their concerns on behalf of their constituents, and I think they have done so very effectively, and I for one would like to move on with this bill.

I want to speak to some of the issues raised by my Conservative colleagues. With respect to the process, it is quite true that the bill, prior to being amended, did not contain a provision dealing with generic packaging. The question I would ask, is it not the function of the committee to hear the recommendations from the various presenters during the course of the committee hearings, to then give some thought to those recommendations and then amend the legislation accordingly, based on the public input we receive?

I counted in our summary recommendations that over 45 individual presenters recommended some form of plain packaging. Truthfully, we did not hear from many scientists, people who are experts in determining precisely what the impact of generic packaging would be, but I heard from a lot of people in whom I would store a great deal of faith.

I heard from parents, I heard from teachers, I heard from people who have expertise, I would say, in the area of young people. What they told us was that the cigarette package is, in essence, an accessory for young people. I'm talking about people who have not yet begun to smoke, and that of course is what we're targeting here in Bill 119. Once you're hooked, then that's a whole different kettle of fish and we've got an entirely different problem on our hands, but the focus here is to ensure that kids don't get hooked in the first place.

1620

What these parents -- and I guess we heard from a public health nurse and some teachers -- were telling us is that for a young person a cigarette package is an accessory in much the same way as a pair of earrings or a belt or the latest jeans or running shoes, sneakers, those kinds of things. A cigarette package is something, at least at the outset, that you want to be seen with. It's something that will somehow enhance your image. That's why, to my way of thinking, I think generic packaging will have a significant impact in reducing smoking among young people who are thinking of starting, because a great deal of the appeal or the lure will be lost if you are dealing with a plain package rather than an attractively designed package.

It is my understanding that the federal government has conducted some hearings into this matter and that the federal Minister of Health, Diane Marleau, is now awaiting the outcome of a study. I gather that study will be completed by the end of the year. I think that is responsible.

I think this raises another good point. The provision that's contained within the bill does not mandate, require or compel the government to go ahead and enact or pass some regulation requiring generic packaging beyond cigarettes sold in this province. It does not do that. It is merely permissive. It says that the government may do so.

I personally have no problems with that provision. I expect that the government would act responsibly, that it would await the results of the federal study and that if at the end of the day when all the evidence was in it confirmed my own suspicion that generic packaging is an important component in a young person's decision whether or not to start smoking, if the government concluded that it's important to enact generic packaging, it would do so. I would much prefer to see that done at the federal level, frankly, because I think there are going to be some very practical problems associated with regulating cigarette packaging within a single province, a federation, but if that's the case, then that's the case.

But even in that event, I think it would be incumbent on the government of the day to ensure that we can somehow marry the need or the requirement for generic packaging with the jobs concern raised by my colleagues. That can be done by mandating a variety of options with respect to generic packaging. It can involve redesigning packages or warnings from time to time. I just fail to see why, when we haven't even got down to what we're talking about specifically, my Conservative colleagues make the assumption that generic packaging would automatically mean a loss of jobs. I just don't see that. Those are the comments I have for now.

Mr O'Connor: I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the floor. As we wrapped up our committee hearings, a commitment that I had made in the committee hearings process -- and I appreciate that not all members can attend every committee hearing in the place, because quite often we have many committee hearings taking place at the very same time -- on behalf of the Minister of Health of the province of Ontario was that we weren't about to move forward with this portion of the legislation, that we wanted to work with the federal government.

In fact, the day after we finished the committee hearings I remember the front page of the Toronto Sun, because I talked to one of the reporters there and I explained the process, what we'd gone through, and I explained that we weren't about to move this unilaterally, that we wanted to work with the federal government. I think that's the concern my colleague has, that we're going to move forward ourselves without the concerns that he has.

The front page said that the province had moved forward on plain packaging, but then the content of the article itself explained quite clearly that the Ontario government wasn't about to move unilaterally. We want to work with all the other provincial ministers of health, with the federal Minister of Health.

My colleague across the floor raised a good issue, and I hope he received a copy of the press release. It says right there, at the bottom of the press release:

"Other considerations relevant to plain packaging were also assessed during the inquiry. The committee therefore cautions the federal government to exercise care in designing generic or plain packaging. In particular, the design chosen must be mindful of the need to minimize contraband, job losses in the tobacco industry and legal problems at the national and international levels."

The key here is that they recognize that it should be done at a national level, but by and far if the people who had the opportunity to come to our committee had a choice of something that they would like to see in place -- I could go through them all, and I've got quite a few red tags here from the 45 that were mentioned -- they put quite eloquently the case why they felt that generic packaging was important to reducing the consumption by young people.

I don't think we've ever had a quarrel in the Legislature about that genuine concern that all members of the Legislature have. So I just want to reassure my colleague across the floor that we're not about to move unilaterally on that. That's not our intention. You could see, even in the press release that you have a copy of now, that there is some caution, that the federal government is taking a look at this, taking to mind the genuine concerns that my colleague across the floor has raised.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I just would like to point out to the committee and to the government that really we're not in any way against Bill 119 as it's drawn up, with the exception of this one amendment, the generic packaging. Even with your recent press release -- sorry?

Mr O'Connor: The press release is from Ottawa.

Mr Jordan: Yes, from the federal government. It states that no action will be taken until later this year. They are not confident that they have statistics to back up the moves that they've been contemplating.

Even after the study they've done and the work that has been put into it and the many people they have heard from, they are saying, "We're going to be cautious here because we really don't have any statistics yet that would prove that generic packaging is going to be as successful as we had earlier believed relative to the health of especially the youth and the young people starting to smoke."

My question to the parliamentary assistant would be: Would the government consider proceeding with Bill 119 without this amendment and/or putting everything on hold until we hear the results of this study, because the committee is very much dependent on it and very much dependent, regardless of which way the study goes, on how they might be designing the packages in the future?

Mr O'Connor: There are a couple of points that have been raised. First of all, would we consider standing this down? No, I don't think that's the intention. For all the members who went through the committee hearings process, I don't think anyone at any point in time had suggested that we stand down the legislation and not move forward this very important piece of legislation.

But you did raise a very important point just the same. You asked about this portion of the legislation. I just want to again refer to the press release that the federal government has sent out today. "The committee takes the position that plain or generic packaging could be a reasonable step in Canada's overall strategy to reduce tobacco consumption." I think this bill is an important step in doing that as well. The next sentence goes on, "It therefore calls on the federal government to establish the necessary legislative framework for generic packaging."

1630

To me, the important thing with our bill, with our legislation, Bill 119, is that we've included that legislative framework. When the federal government is asking for the legislative framework, we're going to Ottawa and we're saying: "Okay, we're part of that. We have our legislative framework in place." The other provinces will come on line and the federal government will enact it, and we want to be at the table. We want to make sure that when they ask for that legislative framework, we have it. We have it in place now, and we have it in place as a result of a very large consultation process.

During the social development hearings we heard from over 200 presentations. Before that, when the ministry did its hearings on the draft legislation, we heard from over 200 people in written presentations and another 34 oral. It certainly has been discussed in far more detail than actually what the federal government does, and that's because we went into other areas.

But one of the things I see mentioned in here is that legislative framework, and we want to make sure that's intact in there.

Mr Jordan: The point I was trying to make with the parliamentary assistant is that his framework, the provincial framework, coming ahead of the federal framework is not required at all.

Where's your framework going to be should the studies show that the statistics relative to generic packaging are not relative to the lifesaving causes they have put forward at the present time? The federal committee is very concerned that the information it has to date is not conclusive. They really want to hold back their framework of legislation until they do have something they can really be confident with and show that they are in fact moving towards the betterment of the general health of the people of Ontario. Mr Runciman and myself and many others have appeared before that health committee in Ottawa, and you could almost feel the people beginning to have a broader view and a different understanding that the spinoffs of this legislation are much more and much different than they had ever expected. This was something they hadn't taken into consideration.

This thing of saying, "Let's go ahead with it, because surely it'll have some effect," let's know how much effect and let's not be guessing, because we do know there's between 400 and 500 jobs right in our ridings and I understand up to 2,000 jobs -- 1,900 and some -- when you take into account the other related industries relative to the ink and so on that go into this manufacturing.

Again I'm asking the parliamentary assistant, why not proceed with Bill 119 without this amendment until such time as they hear from the federal government study that yes, there is solid information there to prove that we must have generic packaging?

Mr O'Connor: I appreciate the concerns that are raised. The key here is that we're trying to keep young people from taking up the smoking habit, addiction, one that isn't going to affect them now. That's the point the teachers made to us, and some of the young people who came before us. They were the ones who came to us and talked about the attractive packaging. As my colleague from across the floor mentions, it's like a fashion accessory. That was the way it was presented to us.

When we talk about the legislative framework, which Ottawa is talking about right now, yes, we're going to have in place that legislative framework. Yes, Ontario is going to have that legislative framework in place, so that when the studies are completed and the federal government is ready to move forward, we're there and ready to move forward with it.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: If the member for Downsview has a problem with holding a quorum in this House, then I suggest you have a bigger problem than we --

The Chair: Would you please check for a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Chair.

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Chair.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant.

Mr O'Connor: To sum up this area of concern for now, back in February of this year there was a clear move by the federal government at the time. The Liberal government in Ottawa decided that we have to tackle smuggling. They decided the way to do that was to reduce taxes, but they couldn't just go out there and say, "We're going to reduce taxes," because they know the price of tobacco products is going to have an effect on consumption.

So they went out there with many other elements to it, and part of what they had included back on February 8 was a commitment to move forward and to investigate the effectiveness of the packaging and whether that had an impact on young people taking up that addictive habit, the one that kills 100 people in the riding of each and every member of the Legislature every year. That doesn't happen when they're a young person; it happens when they're an old person and have been addicted to tobacco products for a long time.

The federal government realized that there's probably a little bit of shame in reducing the taxes like that -- to concede to the Liberals in Ottawa and across the border into Quebec -- so they made a commitment. They started the committee hearings and from those committee hearings -- they're rather clear. The committee takes a position that plain or generic packaging could have reasonable steps in Canada's overall strategy at reducing tobacco consumption.

The government of Ontario is taking a large strategy. Part of a recent ad campaign put out by the Ministry of Health, by the government of Ontario, and one that I think every member of the Legislature should take a little bit of pride in, is that not always have parents had the material, the resources, to sit down and talk to their children when they first try that first cigarette to make them look cool. There are now resources out there and it's important that we go out there and we talk to people about this and we give parents the resources that are needed.

That's what the overall strategy is about. It isn't just the government coming in, "We've got Bill 119; it's going to solve the problems," and then all of a sudden those 13,000 Ontarians who are dying prematurely -- they aren't going to happen again. There's an overall strategy.

The media have a role to play in it. The community has a role to play in it. When we went through the committee hearings and we heard, from the community, presentation after presentation after presentation calling for us to move forward and to support a move towards -- plain packaging was one of them. The size of the tobacco product, the package: The kiddie packages referred to are something that was brought to the committee. There was a whole host of things brought to the committee. We had people from the community coming forward to the committee and saying, "Not only do you have to do that, but support us back in the community, in small-town Ontario, because when we go to our local council, we need to have a little bit of support."

In our legislation there is support for the community, for those small municipalities. It's not just a little piece of legislation that affects a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It's a large piece of legislation that's a part of our complete overall tobacco reduction strategy, and it's one that I think all members should take some pride in. It's one that I don't think runs contrary to what they're doing in Ottawa and we want to support them. We want to make sure that our legislative framework, the framework we've designed and put into place, which even members from the third party helped to design as we went through that clause-by-clause process, we keep intact so that as we're about to move forward, we can do so.

1640

Mr Runciman: There's a very clear and apparent contradiction with what the parliamentary assistant is saying in respect to his concerns about Bill 119 as a total package. He's expressing concerns about all of the positive elements of Bill 119, and for the most part our party and our caucus don't agree with that contention. He says, "We want to get this through quickly so we can start dealing with all of the problems," and he mentions things like 100 people dying in our ridings per year because of tobacco-related illnesses.

At the same time, he told me in this House, in a brief discussion about this element of the legislation, that this was not likely to come to fruition for at least five years. Even if the federal government proceeded with legislation and we had to develop a national program, we'd have to get a federal-provincial conference together. We're looking at perhaps up to five years before this could become a reality.

We're saying that if indeed you have such legitimate concerns about all of the other elements of this legislation, which will have, in many instances, a very clear, profound impact on at least the availability of products, let's move ahead with them. But why do you have to be so rigid and inflexible in respect to this one amendment when it can't, in any event, come to fruition for at least five years? Why not at least give the people who are going to be impacted upon very clearly in a negative way an opportunity to be heard?

The Liberal member for Ottawa South is being critical of us in respect to holding up this legislation. We're quite prepared, as I said, to move ahead with the other elements of this legislation quickly. All we're saying is, give these people a fair hearing, an opportunity. They have not had that. I would ask the member for Ottawa South: How many packaging producers in this province appeared before the committee to testify about plain packaging? How many of them were even aware of the job loss implications to their industries?

I'll give you the answer to that: Absolutely none of them. They didn't know there was going to be this wide-ranging and comprehensive amendment brought in during the last days of the committee hearing process, during the closed element of the hearing process as well, the clause-by-clause consideration, so they simply did not have an opportunity. What we're talking about here is fairness.

We're concerned about the health aspects as well. We want to see this legislation proceed quickly. But pull out this other element, which can't have any beneficial impact, if indeed there is a beneficial impact, for a significant number of years. Why do you have to hang tough on this at this point in time? Obviously it's for political reasons. It's not for health care concerns, because this can't proceed that quickly in any event. Let's pull it out, take a look at it, give the Ontario people who are going to be impacted upon by this in a negative way an opportunity to sit down with the government and opposition members and officials within the bureaucracies and let their case be heard. Why is the parliamentary assistant not prepared to do that?

Mr O'Connor: I guess sometimes we can get tied up into, "We didn't have enough discussion," or, "We had too much discussion." I would like to place the case. From January 1993 everyone who was concerned about the health of Ontarians who was going to be affected by tobacco use made an effort to come forward. In the early part of 1993 we heard from over 200 people and 34 oral presentations. No, we didn't hear from the tobacco industry. It was clearly in there, it was mentioned, the plain packaging element. I read it out for the Legislature. I don't know why the industry didn't come forward. I don't know why the industry felt, "This isn't going to have an impact," or, "It is going to have an impact," and why it didn't come forward.

Then we went into committee hearings on Bill 119 and, again, we heard from everyone who had a concern about the health of Ontarians, but why didn't we hear from the manufacturers that had a concern maybe about some job loss? I would suggest that maybe the reason is because they didn't have any concrete information. The reason they didn't have concrete information was because through that process -- and section 5 wasn't one of the ones that was amended through the committee hearing process -- they couldn't pin down whether there would or wouldn't be job loss. If they'd wanted to make a presentation, they had ample opportunity.

Mr Runciman: You're not answering my question.

Mr O'Connor: The member opposite says I'm not answering his question. The point is that we've had a request. The federal government says they want to have the legislative framework included in there. We've got a package that includes that legislative framework and we want to keep that intact.

Mr Runciman: I'm going to make this as simple as possible. I asked the parliamentary assistant, I thought, a question that should be easy to respond to. He told me in this House that we're looking at five years at least before this could become reality. If that is indeed the case, and he's concerned about all of the other elements of Bill 119 which can have an impact immediately, why is he not prepared to remove that one particular element which cannot have an impact for at least five years, so we can provide these people an opportunity to be heard? That's what I'm asking him. I'm saying, why in the world can we not remove this one element which cannot have an immediate impact and let the others proceed, which can indeed have an immediate impact?

Mr O'Connor: I apologize for not addressing that in my last go-round. One thing we don't have control of in this Legislature is what happens in Ottawa. I agree that I spoke to the member opposite and said it could be a matter of time before it is addressed by Ottawa. Some of us made presentations to that committee in Ottawa. We have no idea how long that process is going to take place, but that doesn't mean we should throw that section out of the bill. We don't need to have that legislative framework in there and go through this time-consuming process. The process we're going through right now is very time-consuming. We're using up valuable time to discuss an important matter, I agree. At the same time, why should we throw that out? "Let's just throw that out the window because we don't need to deal with it now because Ottawa isn't about to move forward."

Mr Runciman: You don't mind throwing a thousand jobs out.

Mr O'Connor: The important thing here is that we can get tied into the rhetoric that this could cost thousands of jobs.

Mr Runciman: It's not rhetoric, it's fact.

Mr O'Connor: This could affect jobs. What we don't know is the process around what is generic packaging. It could be --

Mr Runciman: Could be, could be; we want facts.

Mr O'Connor: Generic packaging could very well be a process that includes a series of warnings and messages. The important thing here is that we agreed we want to work with the federal government. We heard from people right across the province. I've seen petitions being presented all around the House saying, "Okay, Ontario government, work with the federal government on this area because we know it's important." We've seen from the federal government -- you know the concern he raises, we see the federal government addressing it; in particular, the design chosen must be mindful of the need to minimize contraband, job losses in the tobacco industry and the legal problems, nationally and internationally.

They know there could potentially be some job losses so they're willing to work with the tobacco industry. We didn't hear the tobacco industry come forward and say, "We got some suggestions," because what suggestions would the tobacco industry in all reality bring to the social development committee hearings in saying that we want to reduce the consumption of tobacco products sold to young people?

Why would the tobacco industry come forward and tell us, "We want to reduce consumption to young people"? Why would they? Of course we didn't hear from the tobacco industry on this. I submit that the focus has always been young people and, yes, the hundred people who are dying in our ridings each year from tobacco-related illnesses aren't those young people. We didn't hear from the tobacco industry.

We have, though, a commitment to work with the federal government. We have a legislative framework that the federal government is asking us to keep intact, and I think that's important.

Mr McGuinty: Again, I want to emphasize something that I think is important. The authority that is given to the government of the day in Bill 119 relating to plain packaging is permissive in nature only. It doesn't mandate, require or compel the government to pass regulations regarding plain packaging. It simply says, and I'm just looking at section 18:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(c) respecting the packaging requirements," and so on, and then it goes on to subsection 2 and it says,

"A regulation made under clause 1(c) may,

"(a) impose different packaging requirements," and so on. So it's entirely permissive.

1650

I have no difficulty in giving that authority to the government of the day. I attached a number of conditions which I think I reasonably implied:

First of all, that the government will consult before it acts, and in particular it will determine the impact this will have on jobs.

Secondly, that it will not act unless and until it receives conclusive evidence that generic packaging will work. It is my own instinct and it is my own assessment, based on the hearings we went through, that generic packaging will work in deterring young kids from getting hooked on smoking in the first place.

Thirdly, the government would only act if there was no reasonable prospect that the federal government wouldn't act. If the feds are going to act, then surely that is the appropriate jurisdiction to deal with this kind of an issue. However, if for some reason or other they refuse to act, then I think it's incumbent on this province to act if we have that conclusive evidence.

Fourthly, if the government of the day does act with respect to generic packaging, does mandate that a package has to be produced in a certain way, look a certain way, then it should do so, when it acts, in such a way as to minimize job losses, and that's something I referred to earlier and something the parliamentary assistant referred to. We shouldn't be making the assumption that generic packaging equals job losses. We don't know what we're talking about specifically when it comes to generic packaging, and I don't see why we couldn't be coming up with some kind of design or approach that is labour-intensive and that minimizes job losses.

I think the other element, just before I take my seat, Mr Chair, is that we shouldn't overlook the symbolic value of this province, after having conducted hearings specific to the problem of smoking and having debated this issue, sending a message to our federal government that we believe we ought to be able to resort to, plain packaging based on our hearings and our conclusions and our debates.

Mr Jordan: I think the point that we're attempting to make here is that we're rushing ahead with this legislation, especially the section regarding generic packaging, without due cause.

First of all, it's hardly a year ago that they shut down these industries to retool, to put on the package a good, strong message that now takes up about a third of the package. That hasn't even hit the market yet. The packages are available at the plant and they may be coming out -- I see the minister over there seems to have one that has the new message on it. But the point is that there hasn't been any time for this new design to be measured as to its effect on the use of messages on the packaging or anything to do with packaging.

At a meeting we had that the chamber of commerce called in Smiths Falls on Saturday past, it was an all-round discussion of the people at the plant, the manufacturer itself, and the youth were saying to us, "How come you haven't asked us, does plain packaging or the packaging that we have now have much influence on our use of the product?" They were telling us on Saturday, the message that I was getting: "If I want cigarettes, I'm not usually introduced to them for the first time by going to the store to buy them; I'm usually introduced to smoking through a friend who already has them. So if I decide that it's something I want to do and it's pleasant for me to smoke, then really where I get the cigarettes would not be that important, or whether they were in a package or not."

If you look back a number of years ago, the cigarettes were bought in a package and then they were transferred to a cigarette case, and people had different forms of cigarette cases, and in that case there might be homemade cigarettes, there might be Player's cigarettes, there might be any of the different brands. But it was a plain gold- or silver-coloured case. It had nothing to do with the package that was on the shelf.

The young people and the users were saying to us loud and clear that their desire to smoke and to purchase was not influenced by the package, by the colour of the package or anything else. The people who have the tobacco and the cigarettes on their shelves are naturally going to be able to decorate the shelves. Even if you have a plain package and you want to attract attention to the shelf, if you feel that has an influence on the marketing, that section of the shelf could very easily be coloured and decorated to whatever extent free marketing would wish to do it.

I really think we're grasping at straws here. The federal government moved quickly and now it's trying to back off and reassess its position. They're very clear in saying, "We're going to wait until we get the results of further statistics on the issue of generic packaging."

Again I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant if they can't seriously sit back and reconsider their position on Bill 119. I don't see that it's that important in that they're not going to implement it until after the federal government at any rate. Why not also be privileged to the extra information that the federal government is waiting on and all the other complications of the trademark and so on that could come forward? I would suggest that it would be smart governing to go ahead with the bill and leave that section removed.

Mr O'Connor: My colleague across the floor says to just pull it out and don't bother doing it right away. We didn't say, and we haven't said, and I've never heard anyone from the government say, that we're about to move on this tomorrow, that it's going to happen and that's the way it is.

What you have heard, and I'll repeat for you, is a commitment to work with the federal government. What the federal government is requesting is that we have that framework in place so that we can work with the federal government. When he requests that there be some studies into it, we've got a commitment from the government in Ottawa that there will be studies done on that. The commitment is there to work together with the federal government.

The commitment isn't there so that by passing this bill, we're going to move on plain packaging tomorrow, that the date the bill is proclaimed, this government is about to move forward on generic packaging, because you never heard it from this member, and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health I don't recall ever hearing it from the Minister of Health, so we talk about making an issue of a non-issue.

This is an important part of the puzzle. When the federal government says it wants to build that legislative framework, we want to be there and to work with that federal government for that framework, and we want to keep that part there. We're not about to move forward and cause a lot of job loss, and the federal government recognizes there could be some job loss.

What we do know is the true impact it has on the health care system. We know that smoking costs this province $3 billion a year. We know that.

We heard in presentation after presentation that the key importance here is to try to keep young people from starting the habit, the addiction of smoking that leads them down the road to being one of the dying 100 people in your riding and my riding.

I think it's worthwhile to keep that intact and keep that in place so that we can move that forward when the time comes.

1700

Mr Runciman: The parliamentary assistant's been saying there's a theme throughout this, and his Liberal supporter from Ottawa South is suggesting the same thing, that we should, in effect, trust the government to do what's right, that we shouldn't be overly concerned in respect to this amendment because, "We are going to do what's right." I think the member for Ottawa South was saying, "Well, we assumed, or we inferred, that the government was going to consult before it acted."

I just want to draw an analogy here with respect to auto insurance, and this applies to both the Liberal and NDP governments. I remember David Peterson promising that he had the answer to auto insurance that was going to result in lower automobile insurance rates. Well, what it resulted in was chaos. Then we had Bob Rae saying that he had the answer through government-run auto insurance. What happened? We know that did not come to fruition.

We could go through all sorts of examples where governments have made solemn pledges and promises to the people of Ontario and then have failed to fulfil those promises. That's one of the reasons people are so down on politicians today. What the parliamentary assistant is saying, and his supporter from the Liberal Party, is: "Put all that aside. Let's trust the government to do the right thing."

Mr Jordan and I have a pretty big responsibility here in terms of we know for a fact that significant job losses are going to occur if they go ahead with plain packaging. The parliamentary assistant gets up and says, "We're going to do generic packaging that is going to incorporate all of these kinds of processes, and we can assure you," blah, blah, blah, "that no job losses are going to occur."

If the parliamentary assistant and the government are feeling so strongly in respect to this element of it, why don't they introduce an amendment to the legislation which is going to speak to that, which is going to say, "We will not move ahead unless these kinds of protections are built into the measure that ensure no job losses will occur in the province of Ontario"?

I had a letter from the Minister of Economic Development and Trade just this week -- I don't know if I can find it immediately, and it's good to see the minister in the House -- dated June 9, saying that we shouldn't be concerned about job losses in the packaging industry. Essentially, she's talking about the rotogravure process, that we can feel comfortable that this process is going to be part of any move to generic packaging.

I'm asking the parliamentary assistant to address that particular concern. Rather than going on these sort of bland assurances that people don't have to be concerned, that "We're going to do what's right," why doesn't the government table an amendment during the committee of the whole process that will ensure that these kinds of concerns do not have to be there in respect to potential job losses, the impact on the communities, the erosion of tax bases, the impact on small businesses and suppliers etc, which we have and if necessary we'll go into detail a little later on? These are some very basic questions before we get into those kinds of details which perhaps the parliamentary assistant can address that will make it unnecessary to get into those kinds of details as the evening progresses.

Essentially the basic question I'm asking him right now is, why can you not, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, table an amendment that is going to recognize the concerns about the negative impact on the economy and job losses and ensure that the government will not proceed with any move, any initiative towards generic packaging that will result in job losses in Ontario?

Mr O'Connor: I appreciate the concerns that are raised, and I apologize to my colleague for not addressing one other element that he mentioned earlier about the kids: Why don't we ask the teenagers about smoking and the packaging?

There were studies done. There were studies done in Australia and New Zealand that did just that. The Canadian Cancer Society did a study as well. Here in Ontario we undertook some research to learn a little bit more about the packaging. Some of that we shared with Ottawa when we went to Ottawa. It talked about that tobacco package, the cigarette package worn as a badge. It gives them kind of an identity. The blue pack means you're cool or whatever.

There are also other studies under way. The Centre for Health Promotion at the University of Toronto has a study that's due in the winter of 1995, and the health protection branch of Health Canada has a report that's expected in about a year's time. So we'll see as we progress.

There's been a commitment made. We hear about the job loss and a request for a commitment from me as the parliamentary assistant to deal with the job losses. The key here is that, yes, we want there to be some job loss. We want to see tobacco consumption reduced. We want to see less tobacco products sold in the province of Ontario and in the country of Canada. We want to see less people dying from the effects of tobacco products. Talk about job loss. Yes, I've got no problem with some job loss being there.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Don't worry about job losses.

Mr O'Connor: It gets rather frustrating at times, because as we're having a very serious discussion about that 13,000 Ontarians who are dying prematurely every year from tobacco use, all of a sudden we get into a story about auto insurance, "Well, the NDP didn't keep its promise about auto insurance." This is not what this speech is all about. This is not what this debate is about. This debate is about real people dying of cancer and other tobacco-related illnesses every year. It's about the 100 people who are going to die prematurely in your riding and my riding, that's what this is about.

Yes, there could be some job losses. I think it's well overstated by not only the industry and its spokespeople. I think we've had a good discussion on this.

With that, I move that the committee of the whole House not proceed any further with consideration of Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others and that the committee report back to the House at this time.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't have the relevant section of the standing orders. I know that in effect standing order 47 relates to a closure motion, and in effect what is happening here is that the government is introducing closure through this motion and cutting off debate.

There are all sorts of elements of this debate that I wanted to put on the record and that my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew wanted to put on the record in respect to counterfeit packaging, in respect to smuggling, in respect to health impacts, which the government is apparently not prepared to deal with.

I'm simply asking you, Mr Chair, if indeed this motion is in order and what options are available to the opposition members in respect to getting the concerns of their constituents on the record.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We do have a precedent to a motion like this back in 1982. However, it is a debatable motion, I want all members to know, and we are prepared to further debate the parliamentary assistant's motion.

Mrs Marland: It's really ironic that since the end of routine proceedings this afternoon I had to call for a quorum twice in this place because twice the number of members in attendance was down to about nine, and what is really ironic is that when the strong arm of the government wants to come in and cut off debate, this is what happens. They don't have any trouble finding members when they want to close down the opposition. They want to shut down the opposition.

1710

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It's not a point of order.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, would you like to instruct the minister of industry, trade and development that I'm not speaking on a point of order, and also the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Ms Lankin: Economic Development and Trade.

Mrs Marland: I think by the time you've been here four years, you should know the orders of the House. If you were listening to the Chair, the Chair just said "further debate."

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): What's your excuse, Margaret? You've been here longer than anybody.

Mrs Marland: You make such a farce of this procedure. You make an absolute farce of this procedure. You come into this House, you have no respect for this House, you have no respect for the Chair, you did not even listen to the Chair say "further debate." We are now into further debate on the motion by your parliamentary assistant. I am not rising on a point of order, and if you cannot follow the procedures simply because you're not interested enough --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You're supposed to address the Chair.

Mrs Marland: -- and the only thing that you're interested in is shutting down the opposition's right to speak on behalf of their constituents, then you make an absolute farce of this whole process.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Don't take it that way.

Mrs Marland: I think, personally, it's a disgusting disregard for what this place is about.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You know we don't mean it. Let's get to the vote.

Mrs Marland: Interjections are not even in order. We can hardly even hear because they come in, these ministers included, and it's rather interesting, because right now we have more ministers than we do backbenchers, which in itself is quite significant. In these last two weeks we certainly have had more ministers in this House for votes than we have had even for question period.

I think this motion that has just been placed, which shuts down this debate after less than one hour of discussion in committee of the whole, is absolutely disgusting. It's tremendously interesting, of course, that this kind of tactic is levelled on the opposition by this particular government. I've been here long enough that I remember what this particular New Democratic Party was like when it sat on this side of the House in opposition. Indeed, when it sat here, if we as government or the Liberals even as government had placed this kind of motion, there would have been an absolute uproar about the removal of the democratic right of opposition members to represent their constituencies.

I would suggest that the motion the parliamentary assistant has just moved is doing just that. It is removing the democratic right of the opposition to represent their constituents, but then of course we know that this socialist government of Bob Rae is not interested in either the democratic right of the people of this province or even listening to their concerns about any particular issue.

Mr Chair, I think the question of whether or not this motion is in order you have confirmed in terms of the current procedures of the House, the current rules of order for this House. What is really unfortunate is that this government chooses to use it. If we had had this debate going on for five or six hours even, I could understand it, but this current debate in committee of the whole House has gone on for less than one hour, and after less than one hour, the parliamentary assistant stands in his place and says: "That's it, folks. We don't want to hear any more. We don't want any more opinions on this bill. We do not want any more comment. We just don't want to hear any more. We want to proceed down this road with our blinkers on. We don't need to listen to the opposition."

I'm simply saying, whether or not this government wants to listen now, it will certainly have to listen at the next election, and we know after the next election, thank goodness, we won't have to listen to a socialist government any longer in Ontario.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'll be very brief, but there are a couple of things that I have to say in response to the member for Mississauga South and the comment she's just made. She started out by pointing out, the member for Mississauga South, that the motion which was put and the precedent which she cited around its use in the past was in 1982 in an administration that the member for Mississauga South was a part of; so I would think it's fair to say that the member protests a bit too much about the use of this technique tonight, because it's a technique she's been involved in personally before and is well aware of.

We have a legislative process here which has been hijacked by a handful of members in this House. Both of the opposition parties in large part support this legislation, and the reason we've moved the motion that we've moved and the reason why these motions have been allowed in the past is because the tactics of the members opposite are designed to ensure, because this session is coming to an end, that the bill would not be back in the House for a vote of the full House -- the democratic process that we all like to talk about.

We've moved this motion here today in order to get this matter back before the whole House before the end of the session so that we can deal with a piece of legislation that's extremely important to the people of this province, especially to the young people of this province who haven't become victims, like so many of us, of the bad habit of smoking. This is a procedure that's clearly set out in Erskine May and in the precedents of this House, because of the time that remains in this session and the deliberate attempt on the part of certain members to ensure that this bill doesn't reach completion by their tactics.

I'd just encourage members to understand the process that's occurring here so that we can get this bill back before the whole House to be dealt with before this session ends.

Mrs Marland: In rising to speak to this motion, I would like to confirm for the government House leader that I was not a member of this Legislature in 1982 and I have not ever, unfortunately, sat -- I sat as a government member for six weeks. I did not, however, sit as a member of a government that invoked this particular tactic, to use the government House leader's own word. I find it really interesting that the government House leader just invoked this tactic. It is a tactic, and my position on this bill may or not be reflected by my objections to this "tactic" -- to use the government House leader's word -- that he has just invoked this closure motion. I think what is absolutely unconscionable for any government is to say, after one hour in committee of the whole, "We do not want to hear any more."

I'm simply saying that whether or not we agree with the opinion that opposition members still want to raise on behalf of their constituents, they have a right. They are elected to do that.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Oh, come on now, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: Maybe the government backbenchers who are currently now interjecting and chipping away would do well to get up on their own feet and speak on behalf of their constituents instead of sitting back and the only contribution they have to the procedure and the debate in this House is to enter into interjections. If they had something to say that was worthwhile, they would be up on their feet speaking --

Mr Hope: If you had something to say worthwhile --

The Chair: Order.

Mrs Marland: -- but they choose not to do that. I simply say for the member for Chatham-Kent, who seems to have a propensity for interjections, that he may not like the fact that the opposition members have an equal right in this province to represent the people who elect them. It's a right which we cherish.

I will tell you that I will fight to protect the right of every member in this House to speak on behalf of their constituents. This motion presently before us on the floor, placed by the parliamentary assistant, frankly takes away that right totally. It is absolutely unreasonable after less than one hour in rotation, which means 20 minutes per party in this House.

I say to you again, Mr Chair, that this is a totally unacceptable motion at this time in this debate.

1720

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The Legislature is the one place where elected members have an opportunity to debate issues that are brought to the House through the normal legislative process. That is something that is the right of the democratic system, a right that we have guarded and cherished for the years in which the Westminster model under which we operate has been established.

When people elect members to the Legislature, they have a sense that those members are going to be dedicated to the purpose for which they're elected, and that is to make sure that there is free speech, that opportunity by which members from all parties will be able to debate and discuss issues fully and completely.

Sometimes we take the wrong side on issues. It's hard always to be right. But it is very much one of those absolutes that we should guard and protect: that in this House members have a continuing responsibility and right to speak on issues.

I think sometimes people who are not following the legislative process can be very quick to criticize. They say, "Did you speak on that issue?" Then, if you haven't got something in Hansard, what you do is you say, "My representative from our caucus spoke on it." The member for Leeds-Grenville will have addressed the issue and I will accept his statements as him at least being the spokesperson for our party.

There have been many times when, over the years, we want to make sure that the views that come out of our caucus -- and we're never always united on all issues, but we'd like very much to make sure that our representative spokesperson, the critic for a responsible job, has the opportunity to make their views known in the House. That's been something of the give and take of the parliamentary process, an opportunity for full and free speech on matters. I happen to believe that it's been one of the great strengths of this place.

Our last speaker on this particular motion by the government to close off debate was the member for Mississauga South. I have to believe that when the honourable Margaret Marland, who is our critic on Housing, speaks in this House on Housing matters, it's clear, lucid, intelligent debate, and she offers something that represents very much my thinking. When we sit down in caucus, we will be able to come out of that and I'll know that when she speaks it's very much the kinds of things I'll wish I'd said. I don't like to give her that credit in the House at the present time, but it's true, Margaret, and I commend you for the excellent way in which you have presented these things.

The honourable Chairman of the committee of the whole House, which we are in now, Mr Noble Villeneuve, when you speak on behalf of the agricultural community, I listen, because there is a person who, when he's standing up for the needs of the rural, the farmers, the agricultural community, speaks with wisdom. If anyone wants to cut you off, I'll be there to protect and defend your right to speak.

Mr Hope: Not for long, you won't be.

Mr Cousens: That's true, not for long. This might be my last time to speak in this Legislature.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Look, Randy, as long as I'm here, you're stuck with me. I have a responsibility to stand up every chance I have.

This is a democratic right. When we are elected, we as elected members see this as an obligation. Then what happens is that if anyone ever takes that for granted, the parliamentary process is thwarted, free speech is thwarted.

I look across from me and I see the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. If there's anyone who got people angry a few years ago, it was Mr Kormos. He stood in this House for the longest period of time and he didn't bore us once.

Mr Runciman: Well, maybe once.

Mr Cousens: Maybe once. He stayed awake, so we stayed awake. But he spoke for -- was it five days, Mr Kormos?

Mr Runciman: It was 17 hours.

Mr Cousens: Seventeen hours. It was an incredible performance of democracy where this member, who may have differed with the government of the day, had the opportunity to stand in this House and make his points known, and he did so.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The difference is that the government hasn't changed.

Mr Cousens: Isn't that true? I don't want to defend you on that one; we don't agree. I'm agreeing only with process at this point. That's what we have to continue to fight for.

When Mr Rae's government was elected on September 6, 1990, it was quite a day and so began an era in Ontario's history that really has seen the erosion of democratic rights in this House, because what the government has done is change the rules of the Legislature so that in fact we don't have the right to debate motions and issues as we once did. Everything now has time allocations.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Well, except the motion I'm on right now, which has no limits because on this motion to defer and to delete and to cut off debate, it's the kind of motion that though they've changed the rules of the Legislature, there is nothing to stop me in the committee of the House, as long as I have the floor, to hopefully bring some sense to the heart and mind of the honourable House leader of the New Democratic Party to reconsider the motion he has that would prevent further debate on these amendments, which I will come to in a moment.

If there's some way in which that honourable House leader is able to remove from the bill certain sections that have cause for alarm and concern on the part of other honourable members, such as the members for Leeds-Grenville and Renfrew, then we would be in a much happier position to allow the debate to continue.

All I really want to do is draw to the attention of the House and of people who are watching this scene that something is happening in Ontario: What is happening is the removal of the rights of legislators to do their job. Their job is not only to represent their constituents, but to represent a point of view and to make sure that point of view is presented to the House, that people then have an opportunity to react to it, that there can be honest and fair debate. We're in that kind of a structured environment where you have the adversarial presentations, you have opposition. If on occasion we are able to support government initiatives, we will support them. I've done that, not as often as the government would like me to do, but I have.

For instance, Highway 407: As I look across, the honourable Minister of Transportation has done an excellent job in keeping 407 alive to the present time. I just hope you continue to. As long as you're doing the right things and keeping that significant transportation corridor being built, it is going to be as significant to York region, Peel and other areas as the railroad was to Canada; it will be to our areas in the greater Toronto area.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr O'Connor's motion doesn't refer to transportation, to the honourable member.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chair, indeed it doesn't, but it is an example of where, when the government is doing it right, I am prepared to compliment them and to support them, as is our caucus. Responsible opposition requires us to, and to acknowledge that the government can on occasion do something right. But on this motion, they are not. In this motion, in removing the opportunity for continued debate on this, they are in fact thwarting; they are removing from the opposition that right.

We are very, very concerned about this. This Bill 119 has many ramifications to it. We realize there are some who would like to get out of the House this Thursday, on June 23, and that every moment counts between now and then, but we're anxious that we also not remove from ourselves that opportunity to participate in debate. That really was the point being made by the member for Mississauga South and I want to reinforce that with my own comments and believe, through my opportunity now to speak to this motion that's been presented by the government, that the government will reconsider that motion.

If there is some way in which their House leader or representatives of the government would indicate some moderation, some removal of certain clauses from the bill that do not have to be included with it right now in this process in committee of the whole, we would then be able to have a working out of a satisfactory compromise.

1730

The best option that we have, though, is that the House continue a full and proper debate on the amendments that have been prepared and presented by the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Lanark-Renfrew. As we do this, we are given an opportunity to represent views that are very important to us. If these amendments are going to be removed from further consideration, it means that the government just takes Bill 119 as it is and passes it without any opportunity for the opposition to have made any representations whatsoever. That is what's wrong. We call upon the honourable House leader to reconsider his motion and to look at another way in which he can keep the opposition happy.

I have to say that if this House were being run by a minority government, you wouldn't have the government coming through in the last few days of the House trying to ramrod, railroad, push through certain specific pieces of legislation without some kind of dialogue that takes place behind the scenes. What we have always looked for is that kind of participatory involvement in all forms of activity within the Legislature, but when a government has a majority, as this government has -- it's so seldom it operates with a free vote -- we end up having to fight for every inch and every possibility. We are prepared to continue this fight, because we believe that our rights as members are being removed when the government presents for quick passage a motion that will remove further debate of the amendments.

The amendments really are significant. I understand that, but that's true with pretty well every bill that comes through the House. We bring forward amendments with the hope that in presenting them there can at least be some possibility that those amendments will be considered and that backbenchers might think for themselves rather than being pushed around by the whip of the party and that others from within the NDP caucus or government caucus --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You shouldn't compare us to the Tories.

Mr Cousens: It's not just the NDP; any government seems to operate this kind of feeling of doing it its own way and not listening to the opposition.

We believe, however, that it is imperative that the opposition have the right to speak and to be involved in this process. As I see it now, it's just consistent with the actions of this government. When Bill 143 came through -- and how many of us know Bill 143, the bill that was brought in for the Waste Management Act around the greater Toronto area? -- the number of amendments that both the Liberals and ourselves brought in during that committee process were all turned down. What we've ended up with is a bill that is still unworkable.

The Interim Waste Authority is a mess and there hasn't been any effort taken by the government to correct the problems that were seen right from the beginning. We made every effort to get the government to make changes to it, but it wouldn't do it and proceeded down the path to try to force megadumps in York, Durham and Peel and proceeded with the spending of over $100 million on that ugly process. This government would not begin to look at other options such as rail haul to the north. They would not look at the option of even considering for an environmental assessment the possibility of having incineration. These amendments, which we put forward then, were ruled out. When they voted on them, they voted them down. At least we had the chance to present them. We can go back to Hansard and show how the government failed to pay attention to what we were trying to do at the time.

Today we're doing the same kind of thing with Bill 119. Our members have brought forward responsible amendments and are trying to get the government to at least look at them as a possible way of dealing with a problem. The government isn't prepared to look at them. The government wants to end debate. They want to just close off debate. They're trying to put closure in again. That is not what we are willing to accept. We want to have the opportunity to speak on these issues.

I'll never forget when the government brought in the social contract. There was an example when the Liberals, in their own wisdom, decided to have no amendments and they brought forward no recommendations. They decided they didn't want to be part of the social contract in any way. I was the Finance critic at that time for the Ontario PC caucus and I brought forward, on behalf of our caucus, 29 amendments that we presented in this House. Though none of those amendments carried, I at least had the chance to present other ways of going about the kind of cutbacks the government was looking for.

We made suggestions; we brought forward thought processes; we brought forward a number of ideas that were included in the 29 amendments that we had. We went through a process, as painful as it was -- and it still stands in my mind as one of the most painful things as an MPP that all 29 amendments that our caucus brought forward were voted down, every one of them. I think that we would have had fewer problems in the province of Ontario had we considered more seriously the kinds of amendments that our caucus had delivered to the House through that debate. But at least the government was prepared to listen to us, and in listening to us, they at least gave opposition the chance to present another point of view.

That's what the public wants. The public at large wants to see their members work through, agonize through, the issues, and out of that -- it's like a crucible -- will be the development of maybe a new idea. Maybe there can be a compromise and a little give and take, and maybe then there can be some kind of new idea that comes out of it.

In fact, isn't that what Hegel talked about? When you talk about the whole idea of the thesis, you deal with the thesis and then you have -- what is the opposite of thesis? -- antithesis, which comes up with the synthesis. So those are the three workings through of the Hegelian dialectic.

When you're stretching it, and you know you've got to go for another two or three hours, it's important that we educate the House leader on what's going on in our minds.

What we're thinking about is the fact that our rights as members are being removed, and that in order to keep the debate alive, we hope the House leader is going to come up with some way of appeasing the very legitimate opposition concerns that Mr Runciman and Mr Jordan have presented, and that if you're in a position to consider their concerns, there may well be a happy compromise where you're able to remove from the bill certain sections that are very, very problematic to us.

You can bring them back in the fall when the House comes back, if it comes back, unless you call an election between now and then. And that seems to be a possibility in the minds of some. If Mr Rae decides that he's climbing in the polls and things are looking better and Audrey McLaughlin is no longer a threat to him and he's got things going well and the caucus is really united, then he may not need the Legislature any more. Maybe by not bringing the House back until November, they're saying, "Well, why have the House come back on schedule?" I mean, we're supposed to be coming back on September 26, isn't it?

Mr Runciman: September 23.

Mr Cousens: It's September 23. It would appear now that the government may well not call the House back until November, removing again the opportunity for free speech, and that is something I'm concerned about with the government motion now. We want very much to have the right to bring up our amendments, have them debated, have them considered and in that process make sure that the government has not missed some of its opportunities to do other things.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Don, this could be your swan song.

Mr Cousens: I know; it's some swan song. I think they're going to pluck me before I'm finished.

The amendments that are now being ruled out of order by virtue of this motion -- and should this motion be allowed to come to a vote, if I or other members of our caucus sit down and allow this to come to a vote -- what you're really doing is removing our right as responsible members of the opposition to have a full and complete debate.

The amendment that is now before the House, is it not this one, Mr Runciman?

Mr Runciman: Yes, it is. That's right.

Mr Cousens: It's a very straightforward amendment. What has been moved is that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted: "Packaging to bear information." In other words, "No person shall sell or offer to sell tobacco at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose unless the package bears or contains a health warning and other information in accordance with the regulations."

1740

What we're really trying to touch upon with this amendment is the need to continue to remind smokers of the peril of what they're doing to their health. There are even yet people who have no understanding of the dangers of smoking either to their own health or the secondary aspects of smoking to other people.

By virtue of recognizing this, we're saying there will be a continuing need for people who are hooked on this habit -- I realize how habit-forming it is. We understand the importance of having some way in which those people who are buying tobacco products will need to be reminded of what it is they're doing. But the people who are selling it also have a certain kind of promotional or marketing thing to help identify their product from another product.

I think the intent on this one is very clear, that we are supportive of the need to educate people on what it is they're doing but it's not for us to decide for them. If they're grown-up, mature adults and are old enough to buy and spend their money so inappropriately, then at least let them be reminded and make sure that they're aware of the consequences. It is not for us to try to run everything in people's lives, and that's in fact part of the reason we want to change Bill 119, to leave options open. That's part of the New Democratic way. The New Democrats want to have it their way or no way at all. What we're really seeing --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You're picking up your marbles and you're going home.

Mr Cousens: Now, now, Mr Cooke. I still have a few marbles left, maybe. We'll just see. We won't count them now in public.

I lost my train of thought. I'd better go back over that whole motion again, so that you can suffer it through; I think I really should. I will read that motion again, so that you're --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I didn't hear it, Don.

Mr Cousens: You didn't hear it. I wouldn't make you suffer that much.

The other amendment that we want to make sure is debated fully is, again, to be moved in committee, and what has happened is that the government House leader is removing it from consideration by suggesting that this motion be tabled, and when it's passed by the majority of the New Democrats, it sure wouldn't get any support from the PCs. The Liberals, we don't know what they'd do. If they wrote a letter on it, we would have a better sense for it, but I have a sense that the Liberals would not -- do you know what they're -- well, there aren't enough votes between us and the Liberals anyway.

The NDP won the election in 1990 with 37% of the vote and they have control of this Legislature. We are concerned that this control should not be abused and that we should have the right as opposition members to debate this bill fully and completely. With the passage of this motion by the government, it's removing that from us, and we have great concerns about it.

The second motion is another very carefully prepared motion by Mr Runciman and Mr Jordan and again it has to do with Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to regulate its Sale and Use by Others, moving that clause 18(1)(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted, that is respecting the health warning and other information referred to in section 5.

Again, it's allowing the manufacturers of tobacco products to have unique packaging for their product, again consistent with the guidelines and regulations for health warnings, but at least not removing their right to have some freedom to develop their own packaging for their products.

Then the other motion, which again allows us to deal with subsection 5(1), the earlier motion, is striking out other clauses that pertain to it and likewise 18(3). So the motions all tie in to the concern that packaging is to bear certain information.

We know that packaging for tobacco products has to contain certain key information and health warnings. We want that. There hasn't been any objection to that at all, but we are concerned that the government is trying to change everything so much in the New Democratic way, that everybody has to just have this plain, ordinary packaging that's going to be their new approach to tobacco packaging. It's not going to do anything to reduce or remove the elicit trade in tobacco products. It's going to do more to remove the jobs of those people who are in the printing industry who are preparing and printing the packaging for tobacco products.

I sincerely hope that the honourable House leader is giving serious consideration to ways in which he can deal with the problem that is now created in this Legislature, that in fact the Legislature has a problem. The problem is that the House leader, who has become very cantankerous in his job, has become very vicious and mean-minded in trying to remove from opposition members the right to freedom of speech.

He has quickly forgotten in four years what it was like when he was in opposition and was such a bellicose -- is that a fair word? -- belligerent person himself, and now that he is in such a senior office, as government House leader, he feels that he knows best. That is not the case. He doesn't know best. He will never know best unless he at least listens to what the opposition has to say.

What is happening in this House right now is that the government is removing the right of opposition to make their views known. If the motion before the House is allowed to be considered, we know it will pass, and then this bill will go through, and there will not have been consideration of the amendments that have been prepared by Mr Jordan and Mr Runciman from their respective ridings. Why should that be allowed to happen without some kind of fight?

I have not yet seen any kind of movement from the government House leader, and this surprises me, because he is as concerned as anyone that I am running the clock, and as the clock goes, the motion is just sitting there, and therefore time is being lost.

It would be very appropriate for all members if we could get on with the very important business of the House, if there was some compromise on the part of the government House leader, just some small particle of hope that there is going to be a way in which certain sections of the bill could be temporarily removed from consideration for now and that come fall or another time the House can then go back to it.

Hon Mr Charlton: The last acceptance.

Mr Cousens: Well, we're prepared to accept whatever you suggest, any method that could be used to postpone the inevitable on this bill so that the sections that we would like to review --

Hon Mr Charlton: You can't postpone the inevitable.

Mr Cousens: Well, we could do that with unanimous support of the House. Anything can happen in the Legislature if the majority of members of this House were to decide, "Let's go and pass the entire bill with the exception of these few sections that are contentious and worrisome to members of our caucus." At that time, then, the government could bring them forward separately under another bill, and we would agree that there would be a certain amount of time allocated to it, and then it would be processed. In the meantime, you would get most of your bill passed today, the large part of it.

These other sections that are worrying us aren't going to become effective right away -- we don't want them to become effective at all -- and so what you would have done is accomplish some kind of happy compromise, a compromise in which you got most of what you wanted and we got something of what we wanted. Now, isn't that good government? Some give and some take. We're prepared to give you the rest of the bill if you will allow us to remove from consideration those sections that are before us that you're trying to remove further debate on.

All we can say is that probably the largest frustration to opposition is when you come into this House and you have the expectation that you're going to make a difference. Mr Smith went to Washington, really expecting to shake up Congress, and there he was and he went with all the idealism and the hopes and aspirations of someone who was going to change the world. There isn't one of us who, on our first day and week and month and year in this House, didn't think we were going to have some influence for good to make it a better place.

So in my final gasps as a member who isn't going to be around here after October 1 --

Applause.

Mr Cousens: I know, the applause builds -- I continue to beseech in earnest some kind of responsible backing off on the part of the government. We won't call it a retreat. We won't call you names. We'll say it's at least a minor victory for the opposition that though we didn't have a full and complete debate on these sections today, there will be another day in which we can come back and deal with them separately, and the government will have been able to have the rest of the bill dealt with. That's called working it out together.

What has happened now is that while we're sitting here in session the government has brought forward a motion that would just end debate. We do not want to stop debating this bill. Our caucus still has more to say about this bill. The spokespeople on behalf of our caucus, Mr Runciman and Mr Jordan, are both ready to carry on a full and complete debate on this bill. So as a result of that, we look forward for the chance to speak.

1750

Don't handcuff us. Don't try to remove that right. Yet it's something that happened when the government changed the rules of the House. They have now done it so that opening remarks are limited to 90 minutes by members at one time, and then subsequent speakers on a bill from a caucus are only allowed up to 30 minutes.

We were referring previously to the member for Welland-Thorold, when he spoke for 17 hours. It was an impressive, long debate. The NDP used that time to bring out their point of view on automobile insurance very effectively, and having used it successfully, they know how good it was, because it caused people to sit and think. So now what happens is the government, having seen what can be done through members speaking in the House, removes that right from us.

We ask the honourable House leader to rethink his position. We ask him to consider again this motion. We ask him for the opportunity to debate fully and completely Bill 119. We have motions prepared. They're ready to be debated. What the government has done is bring forward a motion that removes that possibility. All we ask is that there be some consensus for a give and take.

It becomes very difficult to keep this delay tactic going, inasmuch as I don't see any moderation on the part of the government House leader. He is not even paying attention. I think he has turned a switch, which means maybe by 10 o'clock tonight, if I am still going, he'll be able to say, "I'm willing now to think about it," because by then we might have made an impression.

There is a concern, and our concern will not go away without some kind of working through of this crisis in democracy. The opposition has to have the right to speak out on issues, to present its view, and if the government's closure motion, which would end debate now, is allowed to pass, it would mean the amendments that have been prepared by our caucus will go no further.

That is not why we are elected. We are elected as members to make sure these views that we have, whether you agree with them or not, are allowed to be tabled and placed on the legislative floor for full and complete debate. That is being removed from us today, and we object to that. We object to it strenuously, and we sincerely hope the government will begin to understand that it has a problem on its hands, and the problem has to do with again removing our rights.

I've seen this done before. It's not something I've been proud to see done, but it's the kind of thing that's become very frequent in this place. As we begin to deal with an issue, if it's the least bit contentious, then the government says: "Oh, we don't have any more time for it. Cut off the debate." They bring in closure. That happened with the basement apartment legislation.

Mrs Marland: Yes, 120.

Mr Cousens: Bill 120. The member for Mississauga South valiantly fought the battle to try to bring some reason to it, brought forward tremendous ideas from her riding and from Peel. The whole province was seeking some kind of compromise on that bill, and then the government, when trying to deal with it, decided, "End the debate," brought in a motion of closure. We spent two days ending the debate. We could have at least have had further discussion and debate on it at that time.

I haven't got a list of the number of times this government has closed off debate in this House, but it just comes so easy to them. If someone is just taking up too much time, end the debate.

That is really a tragedy to democracy. Democracy encourages that freedom of speech. It encourages people to be able to have that give and take and dialogue that allows opposing points of view to be presented, and then, as you go through this process, there can be some kind of development of a new way of doing things.

Unfortunately, since probably September 6, 1990, there has not been that free debate. It has been the government's way or no way. It has been very, very seldom that members of the opposition have been able to persuade this government to do anything differently than what they were going to do.

It reminds me of the person who tried to describe what is an NDP. An NDP is really more like a religion than it is a political party. It works on the belief system. "If you don't believe the way we do, then you're not really part of it." They don't have that ability to give and take which I think is part and parcel of a good political process, to the extent that a friend of mine whose sister was in charge of admissions of the Saskatoon General Hospital describes an NDP in this way: She said, "It really is a religion." She has this experience to describe how the NDP, when they're coming in the hospital -- this lady's in charge of admissions at the Saskatoon General Hospital and she says that 25% of the people who come into the hospital give their religion as NDP.

Now, that tells you something. If you're going to be NDP, don't get so religious about your viewpoints that they're so sacred and special that you're not able to have some give and take. All we're asking in responsible opposition is that you not only allow it, but we're insisting that there be some way in which the debate can continue on the amendments that are before the House.

I notice that my friend from Leeds-Grenville is prepared to say a few remarks, and I will pass it on to him with the hope that maybe shortly the government House leader will back off from his motion and allow us to remove certain sections from Bill 119 that are problematic to us and allow those sections to come forward in a bill at a separate time. That would mean the rest of the bill could proceed and we would have a future occasion in which we could deal with these very serious issues.

They are serious enough that our party and members from our party, Mr Runciman and Mr Jordan, feel strongly enough that we are most anxious that the government back off from this heinous, horrible motion of closure that will not permit us to debate it any further.

We sincerely hope that the government will listen to our concerns and allow some compromise to take place that will permit the rest of the bill to go through. I trust that the government House leader will acquiesce.

Mr Runciman: I was hopeful that a government member might stand up and make some contribution towards this debate other than the non-answers we were receiving from the parliamentary assistant.

This effort to cut off the debate is disturbing. You cited a precedent, Mr Chair, going back to 1982. I assume that the 1982 precedent is the only other time that this has been imposed. That's the most recent use of this draconian measure. I admit that it was during -- and I'm not questioning the Chair_apparently this was used during a Conservative government, and that is unfortunate indeed because it's a totally inappropriate measure.

I can't recall the circumstances surrounding that or how much debate had preceded the motion by the government; I suspect considerably more debate than what has occurred here, because we have had very little opportunity to have input into the implications of this legislation. We are essentially concerned about one element of this legislation, and that's the generic packaging part of it.

We wanted to deal in length with these implications because we think they're important and they should be on the record. We're not going to now, if this motion proceeds, have the opportunity to do that.

One of the things that I wanted to get feedback on from the parliamentary assistant was his contentions about plain packaging. I have a picture here which shows a package of cigarettes with a skull and crossbones on it, a black-and-white package, and it says: "Tobacco seriously damages health. Death Cigarettes."

This pack, we're advised, is selling like hotcakes among teenagers in the United Kingdom, and the skull and crossbones is the international symbol for a toxic substance. Even the name "death" leaves no doubt as to what will ultimately happen and there are four separate warnings on the package. It can't be made any more explicit. As I said, this is a black and white plain package with the skull and crossbones and the word "death" on the package, and it's selling like hotcakes, with four explicit health warnings also incorporated.

1800

Those are the kinds of things we would like to have had the opportunity to explore in more detail with the parliamentary assistant. We certainly don't expect the Minister of Health to be here. She's never made any effort to participate in this debate, if you will. In fact, as I said earlier on, they've closed off all opportunities, never initially afforded any opportunity, for package producers, specialty ink producers, the communities affected, to have any input into the implications of this legislative change. Now they are also closing off, by this motion, the opportunity for their elected representatives to go into detail in terms of implications, in terms of questions we have, that are really questions that are held by the members of our constituencies, to have this kind of interchange with the government's representative, the parliamentary assistant, and get answers for our constituents. Unfortunately, that opportunity is not going to be presented to us.

Another element we wanted to go into some detail with: The parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Health have tried to use tactics that I would describe as scaremongering in respect to the health implications and the fact that we are delaying passage of this legislation and we are in effect jeopardizing the health of thousands of Ontarians when, by this headlong rush into passage of this initiative, without taking a look at any of the implications -- set aside the economic implications; let's just take a look at the health implications.

I don't know if even the federal study is going to take a look at these implications. Apparently, as I understand their mandate, it's to go out and take a look at plain packaging versus the current packaging and see if plain packaging will have some detrimental impact in terms of its appeal to young people, young consumers of tobacco products. Apparently that is all they're going to look at.

That's unfortunate, because there's a study completed recently by the firm Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville. This is a company of forensic and investigative accountants, and they've done a comprehensive study on counterfeiting and the counterfeiting of tobacco packages. I want to tie this in to health implications because what happens, of course, if we go to plain or generic packaging, is that it becomes much easier and much less expensive for a counterfeit product to be produced.

As we've talked about earlier, you know the current packaging producers in Ontario use a very sophisticated, high-tech process to produce their product. They use very specialized ink products as well and it's extremely difficult to effectively counterfeit this kind of package. What we're talking about now, in this move to generic packaging, is a packaged product which is going to be fodder to organized crime elements in this country and outside our boundaries, a further opportunity for the organized crime elements in our society.

Putting that whole question aside, let's take a look at the health impact of the easy availability of a counterfeit product. This company has investigated this question, and they've looked at copycat cigarettes. What it involves is an analysis which indicates that tar content was significantly higher in copycat cigarettes versus the genuine product. Filters were of substandard quality, not as efficient in the filtering process. As I said, tar content was higher, and they use a much lower and less expensive grade of tobacco leaves.

As all of us know, or I would hope all of us know, the manufacturers of genuine tobacco products are required by the federal Department of Health, Health Canada, to report their levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide, and they have to do that on a quarterly basis. The average combined percentages are then printed on the package face. So if you are out buying a package of du Maurier or Player's, you can feel confident as a consumer in terms of the quantities of tar, of nicotine, of carbon monoxide that are contained in that product.

What happens when we move to a counterfeit product is that we are making these young people more vulnerable to a significantly increased health hazard.

I don't even see the parliamentary assistant in the House any longer to listen to these concerns. Mr Chairman, we may have a quorum here, but I'm going to ask you as a point of order if indeed we do have a quorum.

The Chair: Please check if there is a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is present, Chairman.

The Chair: The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Runciman: I suspected there was a quorum present, but the fact is that the government is closing off debate on this important piece of legislation and I'm raising concerns we have not had the opportunity to even discuss, have feedback from the parliamentary assistant --

Mr O'Connor: They've all been heard.

Mr Runciman: They have not been heard.

Mr O'Connor: Two hundred hours of hearings.

Mr Runciman: Completely and utterly false; the parliamentary assistant making a comment like that. I'm talking about the health hazards of a counterfeit cigarette and he's telling me that kind of testimony was heard before the committee. Stand up here and substantiate that. I know that is utterly false, and he shouldn't be making those kinds of interventions. He is, after all, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

We're talking about an issue here dealing with deaths of people as a result of consumption of tobacco products and he's been expressing concern about that, and here I'm saying that by moving to generic packaging, we are very much significantly increasing the health hazard to consumers. He's not even prepared to listen to that. In fact, we get this kind of interjection which is a complete distortion of the facts.

I want to reiterate how strongly I feel about this, that this kind of question should be looked at in depth, and by the government's efforts to close off debate, we're simply not going to have that opportunity.

Mr Jordan, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, and I have talked about job losses. We've travelled to Ottawa to appear before the federal committee to express our concern about the job losses in our ridings that will come about if the federal and provincial governments move jointly to generic packaging.

I've talked about the health implications which obviously should be explored in depth, but we're not going to have that opportunity to even have a response from the government representatives.

I talked about Shorewood Packaging in Brockville which employs 220 people; Kromacorp Inc in Prescott, a specialty ink producer, which employs 42. Those are extremely important industries in my riding, Mr Chairman, as I'm sure, with the kind of riding you represent, you can appreciate. Those industries are very important to me. The Smiths Falls plant, for Mr Jordan, is extremely important, to the Smiths Falls people and the surrounding area, to the small business people, to their suppliers, to the municipal corporation that will see its tax base significantly eroded by the closure of these plants and the jobs lost to this province and to this country.

But again, all we have are bland assurances from the government, no willingness to even consider our concerns and the concerns of all of these communities and employees by making some effort to address them through the bill itself. We could have had an amendment.

I was quoting from a letter that I recently received from the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, dated June 9. In the last two paragraphs of this letter, she's saying -- this is a question about the downsizing and job losses -- "Further reassurance should be taken from the fact that the actual printing process which is presently used for packaging will not change regardless of the type of package requirements introduced. I understand that the labour-intensive rotogravure process currently used will still be necessary, as any other process results in tainting the product, and this government is committed to preserving and creating jobs in the province."

1810

Well, contrary to the parliamentary assistant, who said earlier that he wasn't interested in preserving jobs --

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Well, he said that quite clearly. It's on the record.

"I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to Ruth Grier, Minister of Health, for consideration, and she will follow up."

Again, these are assurances from a minister of the cabinet. Why is the government not prepared to incorporate this kind of assurance into the legislation? Why is the Minister of Economic Development and Trade not joining in this debate and providing her assurances? Why is she not supportive of an amendment which would recognize and address the concerns of many people?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It's not needed.

Mr Runciman: She interjects that it's not needed. Well, I mentioned earlier that the people of this province, and indeed this country, have been significantly disillusioned in the past by promises and assurances by governments and government officials and politicians of all political stripes saying, "You don't have to worry; we're going to look after you." Then, when reality hits the wall, we find out that in fact those assurances were very hollow, those promises were very hollow indeed. We can cite example after example at the federal level and at the provincial level.

So I don't think the people of Prescott, the people of Smiths Falls, the people of Brockville, the families of the employees affected by this legislation are going to accept those kinds of assurances as their salvation, because they simply don't have any faith in the promises of public servants and elected officials, and I don't blame them.

I want to continue participating in this, but I want to ensure that my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew has an opportunity to participate as well.

Mr Jordan: I would like to go back, if I could for a minute, to the point that we were trying to make earlier: that we are not against Bill 119; we just want that one amendment removed from that bill so that if it has to come back it would be based on sound statistics.

I would like to read again -- I don't know if my colleague Mr Runciman read from your letter, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, regarding this issue. She says, "Only should enough evidence be accumulated that establishes that tobacco packaging has a material impact on consumption will it be necessary to pass regulations," only if that should happen.

Now, this is your minister, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, who's saying that only if the statistics that the federal government is now trying to establish --

Hon Ms Lankin: This is enabling legislation.

Mr Jordan: Then if it's enabling legislation, let the other legislation go forward ahead of it, based on the fact, just this one section of it. I thought I found that little part in Lanark-Renfrew that you had a soft spot for.

Hon Ms Lankin: I do, and I'll work with you on job creation.

Mr Jordan: Job creation? We have 500 jobs. We're trying to maintain them. I'll be the first one to give up 500 jobs if they produce these statistics that in fact the colour of the pack is going to start my son or daughter smoking, because I know how they start smoking: the same as I did; a friend gives them one and they start and it goes on from there. But going into the store to buy something and saying, "Well, I like the colour of that pack; I'd like to know what's in it; I'm going to try it," when I met with some of them on the weekend, they just laughed at me and they said, "You know, you just don't understand." They were embarrassed that I would be asking such silly questions.

Really, when you think about it, we're spending a lot of time here on something that shouldn't even be in Bill 119, because we do not have the studies done to back it up. The report from the federal government today, from the committee, states very clearly: "Other considerations relevant to plain packaging were also assessed during the inquiry. The committee therefore cautions the federal government" about moving ahead on this issue.

What we're saying to you today is, don't move ahead with this bill with that amendment in it.

Why would the government be so strong on moving ahead and making those families that I speak on behalf of so restless and concerned about their future? It's hard to realize those parents' minds now as we discuss this bill. Certainly they're not going to be as directly concerned with their teenaged children smoking as they are with no money coming into the household. That's the reality of it. I'm sure these parents we speak on behalf of, if I could go back to the riding and say, "There are the statistics proving that you buy cigarettes because of the colour of the pack," would be the first ones to say, "As tough as it may be, we're going to have to accept the fact and hopefully the Ontario and federal governments will have alternative work for the industry where we're employed."

It would seem that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, in her statement, understands that only if enough evidence be accumulated that establishes that tobacco packaging has a material impact on consumption -- remember that -- will it be necessary to pass regulations introducing strict packaging requirements -- only if that should be. All I'm asking for is, let's wait and see the results of the studies that are now being done. We seem to have got the cart before the horse here. Somebody ran out and put in the legislation before the studies were done.

I'm sure that when it was introduced to cabinet, they also had health as number one on their mind. Although the Minister of Economic Development and Trade does a good job trying to create jobs I'm sure that at that time she was either outvoted or something, because jobs were never really, as far as we can find out, part of the consideration that was made at that time.

Again, I ask the parliamentary assistant to put forward a motion that would remove that amendment to Bill 119. I think in doing that we can quickly pass Bill 119 and get on to legislation where we do have research done, where we have the correct information to make a decision, because when we're making these decisions and only considering a possible impact on health, it's just not fair to those 500 to 1,000 people -- 1,500 when you take the spinoff industries into account -- to say, "In a year or so you will not have a job because this type of packaging will be extinct." They did the same thing in the dairy industry with butter. How long were they telling us: "Don't eat butter. It's not good for you"? Now they've changed again. They've done further research and decided that margarine is not good for you; maybe you should eat butter. It's all connected with my health.

Having five children from the age of 24 to 34, I'm certainly as concerned about smoking as anyone in this Legislature. I'm going to tell you it's time the parents took some responsibility, and the schools, for the education and self-discipline of the students relative to smoking or any other use of a product that's detrimental to their health. If we think we can stand in this Legislature and legislate the life of people to the extent that we're going to have them as your ideology thinks human beings should be, it's just not going to work. It's got to come back to the person, their own responsibility, the responsibility of the parents. It all boils down to self-discipline.

1820

To think we are speaking here tonight on what we think might be a problem with the youth and their health -- and we're willing to give up up to 2,000 jobs in eastern Ontario, one of the areas in this province that has lost more jobs in the last three years than any other section of Ontario. The problem with eastern Ontario as my colleague and I know it is that we get lumped in with the city of Ottawa, which is quite well substantiated through federal government positions. But eastern Ontario as we know it is completely removed from Ottawa and we're very dependent on the small industries that employ 200 and 300 people, especially high-tech industries such as Shorewood Packaging, which not only employs high-tech people but has a sound, real, comparable payroll.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to maybe take five minutes and talk about her letter, where she states that this would not become legislation unless there was substantive evidence to prove that generic packaging was damaging to health.

Hon Mr Charlton: The members opposite I think have done a particularly good job of making the point that I was attempting to make earlier. With the exception of a couple of very minor interventions by some of their colleagues, the two members have now consumed well over five hours in committee of the whole and are now complaining that they have not had a chance to say all the things they wish to say and bring to the attention of the House about this piece of legislation.

It's obvious that their intention is clear, and they've stated it publicly, that they don't intend to allow this bill to finish in committee, to be reported back to the House, to be passed by this House in the best interests of the future health of the citizens of this province.

For those reasons, I move that this question be now put.

The Chair: Mr Charlton has moved that the question be now put. When I look at the number of people who debated the issue, it's more than seven people.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: before your ruling on this motion, I want to make a point of order and express my concerns. They're related to standing order 47, which deals with the motion for closure and indicates, "Unless it appears to the Speaker" -- or the Chair, in this case -- "that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith...."

I make the argument that the motion being put at this time is an infringement on the rights of the minority. I make that case on the basis of the fact that I have tabled a number of amendments to the legislation. We'd only dealt with one when we had the motion by the parliamentary assistant to not further consider the bill. Now we've had about an hour of opportunity on that motion, and we've had four members I think participate in that debate in our party, in our caucus.

The government House leader is suggesting we have not had an opportunity to say what we want to say. I don't think that was the point we were trying to make in the debate on the parliamentary assistant's motion. Our concerns were that we were not going to have the dialogue with the government members and the opportunity to ask questions and have responses and to try to deal with all of these amendments in detail and at length.

I make the argument that indeed this is an infringement of the rights of the minority. I think it's quite fair, if you look at past precedents, and even the one cited by the Chair of the committee of the whole who was sitting in the chair prior to your arrival. He cited an 1982 precedent. If you took a look at that precedent, and that related to the original motion, I think you'd find that there was considerably more debate allowed by the government of the day prior to that motion being brought forward by that particular government in 1982.

I'm simply urging you, Mr Chairman, to afford the opposition members, who have very legitimate, valid, serious concerns about the implications of this initiative on our ridings, an adequate opportunity to make sure that their constituents are heard. They were not heard by the committee; they were not afforded the opportunity by the standing committee of this House. I think they at the very least deserve the opportunity to be heard in this assembly.

The Chair: I have listened attentively to your comments and I --

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. I have listened to your comments, and I realize that already seven people have spoken on that motion and you had ample time to debate it; therefore, I will come to the decision that the question be now put.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could you advise me whether it is in order for a speaker to rise and speak on the motion, make comment on the motion and then ask that the question be put?

The Chair: There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr Charlton has moved that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1828 to 1858.

The Chair: Mr Charlton has moved that the question be now put. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until you're counted.

All those opposed to the motion?

The ayes are 56; the nays are 28. I declare the motion carried.

We now have another vote. It's the motion introduced by Mr O'Connor: That the committee of the whole House not proceed further with consideration of Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others and that the committee report back to the House at this time.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Do you want the members to be called in? Do you agree that the members be called in?

Call in the members; this will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1900 to 1902.

The Chair: We'll now be voting on Mr O'Connor's motion. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until you are counted.

All those opposed will be please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 70; the nays are 13. I declare the motion carried.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Mr Charlton moves that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Shall I call in the members, or should it be the same vote? Same vote.

The ayes are 70; the nays are 13. I declare the motion carried.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The committee of the whole House begs to report that it has decided not to proceed with the consideration of Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others, but to report it to the House at this time.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Report continues in volume B.

21 juin 1994