Journal des débats 1995-oct-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Early in the 1970s property was acquired in my riding of Essex South to build the Highway 3 bypass; 1978 saw the building of approximately 16 kilometres of its planned 24-kilometre length.

Recently, a $200,000 contract for clearing, grubbing and fencing was initiated on the remaining eight kilometres in order to meet a condition of the environmental exemption order. This was done to establish and prepare the right of way for roadway construction and help protect adjacent farm lands from encroachment during construction.

The problem is that this government cannot tell me or my constituents when the final phase of construction will begin. Since this government has yet to present any strategy for economic development and job creation in this province, I would urge the Minister of Transportation to build on the $2.1 million already invested by the government in the Highway 3 bypass.

Minister, complete the project, create some infrastructure and, more importantly, help to create some jobs in Essex South.

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased today to rise in the House to recognize National Co-op Week, which is October 15 to 21 and sponsored by the Canadian Co-operative Association.

This year also marks 150 years of successful work by the International Cooperative Association. The ICA is the world's largest non-governmental organization, and its work has touched people in communities in all corners of the globe.

The Canadian Co-operative Association boasts all kinds of cooperative organizations in its membership, including credit unions, caisses populaires, cooperative housing, workers' co-ops, educational co-ops and food co-ops, to name but a few.

Representing over $12 billion in assets, the co-op sector is vital to Ontario's economy, encouraging community-based economic development. Over two million people are members of the cooperatives here in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I notice the clock is not moving; I just might get some help from the clerks' table.

The theme of this year's celebration is "Cooperation Works," and I want to say that I believe in that profoundly. Certainly at this point in time, when we are seeing that as communities we are more and more removed from the influence of global economics, of global trading patterns, of the global marketplace, it really is important for us to remember that in fact economies are created locally. We need to support those organizations in our communities which can in fact stimulate that kind of community economic development.

As a government, we in the NDP caucus were proud to introduce Bill 134, which passed this House with unanimous consent. Bill 134 gave credit unions and caisses populaires greater powers to raise capital and to serve their members. The new powers for credit unions and caisses populaires allow them to continue the important role they have played.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

Ms Lankin: Are you sure, Mr Speaker? I still read zero on the clock. Okay, if I could just wrap up with one sentence, as I had got distracted without seeing the clock moving, I just want to say that the movement is very important. It has a rich and diverse history in our province. I certainly ask all members to mark the importance of this week and to join us in the celebration of this week by attending the kickoff to National Co-op Week at the reception that's being hosted from 5 to 7 today in the legislative dining room.

TORONTO BEACHES

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I'd like to ask my honourable colleagues to imagine a hot and sunny summer afternoon with children swimming in Lake Ontario along the beautiful beaches of west Toronto. Sadly, I have to ask my colleagues to use their imaginations, because very few people have actually seen such a sight in recent years. It's much easier to remember the no-swimming signs.

This year, for example, pollution kept our western beaches closed for 84% of the summer. That's in spite of the fact that we have the technology to keep the lake clean and our beaches open.

A storage tunnel has been recommended to be used to hold the stormwaters and overflow sewage for incineration. Surely this solution would be better than the dumping of raw sewage into one of our Great Lakes.

But the former government said no. They said it needed even more study. They ignored Toronto city council's request and studies. They ignored Metropolitan Toronto council's recommendations and studies. They ignored the recommendation of the waterfront regeneration trust agency. They even ignored the studies of their own Ministry of Environment and Energy. They ignored the success of stormwater storage tanks which have kept the eastern beaches clean.

They ignored everyone who told them that we already have the evidence: Storage tanks and the tunnels will clean up our western beaches.

The federal government has offered the cash. The time for study is over. Our children deserve a government that will act, because a day at the beach should be more than just a figment of the imagination.

DENTAL HYGIENE WEEK

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): October 16 to 20 is Dental Hygiene Week across Canada. During this week we in the Liberal caucus applaud the 5,479 registered dental hygienists who practise across Ontario. Dental hygienists educate and promote the importance of daily oral hygiene. Preventive dental care, such as flossing and brushing your teeth daily, is very good for your health.

Throughout the week events promoting dental hygiene will be taking place all over Canada. In fact, their motto is "Smile. You Have Access to Dental Hygiene."

On Wednesday morning of this week there will be an MPP breakfast right here at Queen's Park. All members of this Legislature will be able to meet their representatives of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario and the Ontario Dental Hygienists' Association. I would encourage all members to attend this important breakfast to meet the dental hygienists, their representatives, and take the opportunity to discuss the many important issues as they relate to the profession of oral hygiene and dental hygiene throughout the province.

As the motto states, "Smile. You Have Access to Dental Hygiene," each and every one of the members can avail themself of that opportunity to access their dental hygienist this Wednesday morning.

To all those who are celebrating this week, we say congratulations and thank you.

1340

MOTORCYCLE GANGS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Today I wish to address an issue of growing importance to the people of Toronto: the proliferation of biker gang violence in our city.

The people of the Montreal area have lived in fear through a rash of frightening and too often fatal bombings and shootings over the past few years as rival gangs fought for control of the drug trade. That fear turned to anguish when an innocent bystander, 11-year-old Daniel DesRochers, was killed by flying debris from a car bomb.

This summer, similar events in and around Toronto began to take on an eerie resemblance to recent history in Montreal. Attacks and counterattacks on biker clubhouses have spread legitimate fear throughout the neighbourhoods in which these facilities are located.

One of the more frightening incidents happened at a clubhouse in my riding where a grenade ripped a hole through a steel door. Police don't expect that the conflict will end at any time soon. The mayor and Toronto city council have also been grappling with this issue and are committed to working with the police and the province to end this violence. It is incumbent on the province to support them in any way we can.

I urge the Solicitor General to set up without delay a task force specifically mandated to bring an end to this growing threat to the safety and security of our communities. Before a similar death takes place in Toronto, let's take a proactive stance and get a task force together now.

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Please join me today in welcoming to the Legislature the Canadian Co-operative Association and representatives of Ontario's co-ops, and in congratulating them as they celebrate National Co-op Week.

The theme of this year's reception is "Cooperation Works." Since the early part of this century, Ontario's co-ops, credit unions and caisses populaires have shown that cooperation does indeed work.

Today more than two million Ontarians are members of over 1,400 co-ops and 500 credit unions and caisses populaires. In total, Ontario's co-op sector has assets of more than $12 billion.

Co-ops have shown how much can be accomplished when people work together to pool resources and skills to meet common needs. For example, farm supply and producer co-ops help farm businesses remain competitive through bulk purchasing and reduced marketing distribution costs.

Credit unions and caisses populaires, because they are locally based, invest back into their communities. This supports local businesses and helps make home ownership affordable for more families.

Because they are controlled by their members and respond to local needs, co-ops mobilize thousands of volunteers in Ontario who donate time and energy to serve their communities in order to meet today's challenges.

I encourage my colleagues in the Legislature to attend today's reception to learn more about the achievements of Ontario co-ops and their plans for encouraging innovative approaches to meeting local needs and promoting economic growth.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to again bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the crisis in emergency room service in rural areas of this province.

The Liberal caucus has persistently and consistently raised the issue of medical manpower in emergency rooms for over two years. When in opposition the present minister, red-faced and with his neck bulging, forcefully called on Ruth Grier to fix the problem. Ontarians expect hospital emergency rooms to be open.

From Red Lake to Durham, from Bancroft to Espanola, from Marathon to Little Current and Mindemoya, the problems continue. Marathon hospital has just announced it will close its emergency room early next month. The closest alternative for this community of 6,000 people is 100 kilometres away.

Surely seven months after the Scott report, which by the way does provide the answer, the minister will act. The people of this province in over 70 communities want the problem fixed and they want it fixed now. The answer is available now. Will the minister act unilaterally, if necessary, and implement the solution now?

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Today is the first in a series of statements from our caucus regarding Tory staff and Tory appointments. The purpose of these statements will be to congratulate Mulroney MPs, Mulroney appointments and Mulroney hacks back to public life. The Harris government, only days after being sworn into office, started reappointing Mulroney's gang.

Today I have one of the first examples from a couple of months ago: David Nash from London. He was appointed to the Ontario Casino Corp. His past? He was a fund-raiser for Tom Hockin. Tom Hockin was a Mulroney MP and a Mulroney cabinet minister. When the Mulroney government was wiped off the face of the earth, Mr Nash moved quickly to become a fund-raiser for Dianne Cunningham. After being sworn in, the Harris government fired the only Ontario Casino Corp member from Windsor and replaced him with a Mulroney hack, a London Mulroney Tory.

It's been only three months but the trend is very clear: If you were a Mulroney MP, if you were a Mulroney staffer, if you were a Mulroney hack, Mike Harris wants your name. The message is clear: If you liked the Mulroney government, if you liked the Mulroney hacks who worked for that government, they're back and you'll love the Mike Harris government.

LIBRARY WEEK

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): It's my honour to announce the launch today of Ontario Library Week. From now until October 22 public libraries and other libraries across the province will be celebrating this popular event.

For 10 years now this week has served to spotlight the vital role libraries play in the life of their communities. This year's theme is Log.on Ont@rio: Count on Your Library for Access to Information. It is an especially timely theme because for thousands of Ontarians, libraries are the only entry point to the information highway.

Public libraries are a rich source of information through print materials and also through technological advances. Public-access computer technology is available at many libraries throughout Ontario, and I encourage everyone to visit your public library to explore this new and valuable addition.

I know that many libraries are entering into private sector partnerships to advance the goals of public libraries in Ontario, and the government supports these efforts.

This is a week to celebrate our library system and treasure its many and varied contributions to our communities.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege related to standing order 21. I'm troubled to have to bring to your attention what I believe to be a grave breach of the collective privilege of all members of the Legislative Assembly.

On Tuesday, October 10, the Minister of Community and Social Services, apparently on the advice of the Premier, repeatedly stated that the government had made no decisions regarding a redefinition of "disability" as it relates to welfare assistance in this province.

I bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, and to other members of the House, the official report of debates, that is, Hansard, of Tuesday, October 10, pages 172 through 174. Recorded in the Hansard are statements by the minister which repeatedly assert that no decisions have been made.

In answer to the leader of the official opposition the minister said: "We also need a clearer vision as to who these people are and we're reviewing this. At this time, no decisions have been made...."

Then further: "I must say once again that we do need a clearer vision of the people who are disabled. We're reviewing that right now, and no decisions have been made."

Then in answer to the member for Hamilton East, the minister said: "I find it very interesting that the honourable member is talking about a definition that, as I have just stated a couple of seconds ago, no decisions have been made on in terms of what the definition is going to be composed of."

Then further, in answer to other questions by the same member, the minister said: "Clearly, as we've said, we're looking for a clearer definition of what disabled is, and clearly I've said as well that we haven't decided on a definition, regardless of what the honourable member would like to attribute."

Then in answer to my leader, where the member for York South tried to make it as plain and simple as possible, he said: "Are you planning to redefine `disability,' yes or no -- it's a very simple question...."

In answer to that, the minister said: "But we also said that we need a clearer vision in terms of who the disabled really are, and we're reviewing this. I indicated already to the Leader of the Opposition, also again, that we are reviewing it and no decisions have been made at this time."

That is the end of the quotes from Hansard, and yet on October 13, in that edition of the Toronto Star and other media here in Toronto, it was made clear that the government had already passed a regulation redefining "disability" prior to the minister's assurances in this House that no decisions had been made. As a matter of fact, according to press reports the government was having to change its regulation because tens of thousands of permanently unemployable welfare recipients would have been removed from the rolls as a result of the one-line change in regulation that was already in place at the time the minister made his comments here in this House to the effect that no decisions had been made.

1350

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you wrap up your point of privilege.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I refer you to Erskine May, the 21st edition, which says that the House of Commons "may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of a grave contempt."

I ask you to review the situation to determine whether or not the minister was deliberately misleading the members of this House when he said no decision had been made, despite the fact that a regulatory change had been made and, if indeed he did do that, is that grave contempt of the privileges of the members of this House?

Further, Mr Speaker, you will recall the exchange between my leader and the minister and the Premier when my leader began to ask his questions in which my leader said, "I know he's" -- that is the minister -- "getting instructions from the Premier," and the Premier turned and in fact did instruct, it appears, the minister. If that is the case, I would like you to inquire on behalf of all members of this House if indeed the Premier did counsel the minister to make misleading statements in this House, and if so, then I believe our privileges have been grievously injured.

The Speaker: I will review that.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): No, Mr Speaker. On the same point --

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Mississauga South, on the same point of order.

Mrs Marland: I'm making a point of order. I think that was a point of privilege by the member opposite.

Mr Wildman: Yes, it was.

Mrs Marland: Not in speaking to the point of privilege, but I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to ask the member for Algoma to withdraw the unparliamentary language by using the word "misleading." "Misleading" has always been considered unparliamentary language in this House.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the member who just spoke, but I would remind you and other members of the House that I was rising on a point of privilege and I was specifically asking you to review the situation to determine if the minister did in fact mislead the members of the House and thus abridge the privileges of the members of this House and, if he did do that, to then take action. I was not suggesting that had happened, I was suggesting that it appeared it might have, and I'm asking that you in fact investigate the situation. I do not believe I have anything to withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. The leader of the third party, did he have a point of privilege?

Mr Rae: On the same point, Mr Speaker: I think we're entitled to a response from the minister on the face of it. I have a copy in my hand of the regulations as filed, proposed to be gazetted on October 14, filed with the registrar on September 28, 1995, in which subsection 2(5) of the regulation is revoked. That subsection provides for the eligibility of persons who are described in the regulations as permanently unemployable persons and describes them as being eligible for an allowance.

I specifically asked the minister questions on this subject on Tuesday and was told that no such decisions had been made, and I now find by looking at a copy of the regulations as filed with the registrar on September 28 that that's not the case. I think I have a prima facie case which has been set out by the member for Algoma. It's the clearest case I can remember in recent memory where something that a minister said is directly contrary to what the published record of government business would indicate, and I think we're entitled to an explanation for that.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Further to that point of privilege, Mr Speaker, you will be aware that this is the second time in which we have risen in this House to ask you to investigate the possibility that a minister knowingly misled the members of the Legislature. I think you will agree that if this House is to function effectively in the public interest, it is absolutely incumbent upon ministers of the crown to give, to the very best of their ability and their knowledge, accurate information in response to questions. I would ask that you seriously investigate the concern that has been raised by the members of the third party.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Rising on the same point, Mr Speaker: To the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Algoma has alleged that I counselled somebody to misrepresent. This is totally in error. This is an accusation that has been made. I would suggest if there's anything to be reviewed, that you review the language and the allegations, which are totally false and ridiculous.

Secondly, the leader of the New Democratic Party says he's entitled to an answer. He is, and if he asks a question in question period, the minister would be pleased to answer.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In response to the point of order raised by the Premier, I would just say to you that if indeed the Premier is stating here that he did not give such counsel, I'll accept that. That does not take away from the main part of my question of privilege as to the actions and statements of this minister. I would again ask you, Mr Speaker, to review the situation to determine whether or not the minister gave misleading information to this House.

The Speaker: If the member for Algoma is saying that the minister gave misleading information, I would ask him to withdraw that.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I am asking you to review to determine whether or not that occurred.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 12th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances for the year 1994-95.

ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Before beginning our deliberations today, I would like to address the House on the subject of question period and decorum in general.

We have now had seven question periods in this Parliament, and I feel it is important that I take a few moments at this point to convey my views and expectations with respect to that proceeding for the coming weeks.

Prior to my election as Speaker, I heard an overwhelming wish on your part and also from the public for a more efficient use of question period and for improved order and decorum in this House. Since accepting the honour you bestowed upon me, I have been striving to this end; however, it is only with the cooperation of members that a Speaker can assure the orderly conduct of the business of this House.

Today I seek your help in two areas.

The first has to do with interjections. While I'm certainly aware of the fact that, to a certain degree, interjections are to be expected, my concern is that on occasion heckling rises to a point where the person who has the floor is unable to clearly express himself or herself and the Speaker and other members cannot hear what is being said. If I, as Speaker, am unable to hear what is said, I cannot maintain order in this place. Members who persist in interjecting to this extent will be asked to leave, and if they do not, they will be named.

I hasten to add that I have been a member for a number of years and I undertake, as my side of the bargain, to do this in an impartial manner, taking into account the mood of the House. The Chair certainly does not wish to hinder the expression of good humour, and I know from experience that emotions can sometimes run high on certain issues. I undertake to bring some perspective to these situations, but I would ask honourable members to help me in this regard.

The second matter on which your cooperation is requested has to do with addressing your comments in the House to the Chair. This is not a difficult technique to master but one that would bring an important improvement to decorum. Remarks are to be made by addressing the Speaker directly, while referring to other members in the third person. This technique is a tradition in British-style parliaments throughout the Commonwealth and has the benefit of depersonalizing the comments made, thereby keeping the level of direct emotional involvement down.

Question periods to date have been successful in providing the opportunity for 13 to 15 questions. This is an improvement over the past, mainly because preambles have been shorter, as have been the answers. I will continue to monitor the situation daily and will meet again with the whips if that was deemed to be useful.

I thank you for your attention.

1400

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On October 11, 1995, I stood in my place on a point of order with respect to the comments by the member for Fort York. They were read into the record at the time, as he was the member who had the floor and was speaking.

I understand, Speaker, sometimes it's difficult both to hear and comprehend what the members are saying in their speeches, but it was very clear when reading the Hansard from that particular day that I asked in the point of order that the member withdraw the statement that he made that day, which was, "I think it's parliamentary enough to say that they are not telling the truth on this matter." I rose and suggested that that's in fact what the member said. Your response at the time was: "I did not hear anything out of order. Continue."

I put it to you very clearly, Mr Speaker: This is in Hansard. The comments were made by the member for Fort York. I personally think they're out of order and unparliamentary. I ask you once again, considering the fact that they're in Hansard, considering they're before you today, and although you may not have heard them on the day they were uttered, you in fact can read about them today, is that kind of comment in order? If it is in order, I suggest you're taking a very large step down a very slippery slope, because if you can now suggest that members in this Legislature or parties in this Legislature are not telling the truth, it seems to me you're suggesting they're lying. I would ask you to make your recommendation, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I will take it under advisement, what the member has said, and I'll report back to him.

LOTTERY FUND-RAISER

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, on a separate point of order, I need your advice. I want to quote from a copy of a newsletter called the Ontario Legislative Highlights that makes a point that I have been able to confirm, and I want to quote: "As a fund-raiser, provincial Tories in Frontenac-Addington recently sold tickets on a draw for $1,000. The winner was none other than the MPP from Frontenac-Addington." So he won the $1,000.

The point that I want to make is more important than the fact that he bought a ticket -- and the Minister of Agriculture might laugh. I have talked to the election expenses office this morning, and I want to quote from the guidelines: "Lotteries and games of chance: The Criminal Code of Canada makes lotteries and games of chance illegal unless sponsored by specific organizations." Then, underlined, "Political organizations are prohibited from holding lotteries or games of chance." When I contacted the election expenses office this morning, I was told that I should not file a complaint with them; this is a criminal matter.

Mr Speaker, I want to know what I should do. A member of this Legislature's riding organization obviously had an illegal lottery and the member won and pocketed $1,000 from that lottery, a member who is not only collecting his MPP's pay but also collects a $40,000 MP's pension.

I want to know how I proceed. How do I file a complaint when this is a criminal matter and the election expenses office says it would be inappropriate to communicate with them? How do I get an investigation? I think it's particularly appropriate since their report is before us today.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I will take the member's comments under advisement and I'll report back to him at a later date.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. For some time now we have heard this minister say that he was going to cut health care now and reinvest it some time later. We have seen him cut $107 million from the operating budget of the Ministry of Health and we are still waiting for the full details on how that $107 million is going to be reinvested.

We have said repeatedly that the time for reinvestment isn't some mythical time in the future; the time for reinvestment of our health care dollars is now. Today we see more clearly than ever the need for that reinvestment, when we see the story in the Toronto Star, as reported this weekend, that cardiac care waiting lists are growing to crisis proportions. As of July there were over 1,200 people on the waiting lists for heart surgery across this province.

The minister himself acknowledged this problem in the House last week. According to Ministry of Health officials, you, Minister, are planning to make cardiac care a priority for reinvestment of the funds that you've cut. You've told us where about $40 million is going. That leaves about $67 million that you've already saved and which you can now reinvest. Would you tell us today how much money you will be reallocating to cardiac care and when that funding will be available?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Thank you for the question. This government certainly takes very seriously the question. I think I was the first one in this Legislature to make members aware that there is very much a need for reinvestment in cardiac care services in this province.

The honourable member will know or should know that just a few days ago this government -- I as Minister of Health -- received from the provincial adult cardiac care network a set of recommendations. We are currently reviewing those recommendations and developing our reinvestment strategy at this time.

Mrs McLeod: What I have heard this minister repeatedly say is that they want to make the savings first and then do the reinvestment. It would surprise me that his ministry and he himself were not being made aware of waiting lists for heart surgery that were growing to the point where we have 1,200 people now on those waiting lists.

I suggest to the minister that this is not something where he can take some abstract amount of time for review, because this is not a theoretical problem. We have cardiac waiting lists that are too long. We have patients who are dying on those waiting lists. We have families and patients who are living with the fear that they're not going to make it to surgery before they get off that waiting list. Those kinds of problems are happening right now and they require this government's and this minister's attention right now.

Minister, you have a responsibility and an obligation to reallocate those dollars now; not next month, not next year, not as you have liked to say in this House "in the fullness of time," because those cardiac patients don't have the fullness of time. You can relieve a great deal of the anxiety of patients and their families if you will tell us today when the dollars are going to flow. When can people on the waiting list, people who are literally living in fear for their lives, expect to see the benefits of your promised reinvestment?

Hon Mr Wilson: I agree with most of the comments just expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a serious matter and one that we're looking at. I visited with Dr Willy Keon in Ottawa, the very well-known heart specialist there, just last Friday, to seek his advice and assistance on how we would reinvest dollars in that area of the province.

There's some debate out there as to what the extent of the problem is. Members will note that Dr William Shragge of Hamilton was expressing the fact on October 16, today, in the Hamilton Spectator, that he didn't think the problem was as big as perhaps Dr Tirone David expressed in the article written by Lisa Priest.

We will be reinvesting in this area and I'm seeking advice from those front-line providers who know best how to target those dollars.

Mrs McLeod: I do find it a little unbelievable that the minister would respond to this very serious question and very real concern by suggesting there is a debate about the need. There is a provincial network that is set up. This is surely not a question of mismanagement or greater efficiency. This is a matter of demand and increasing demand that everyone knew was going to come and surely is an area which should be a high priority for the reinvestment of funds that this minister keeps talking about and that his government promised.

It is relatively easy to find out what the problem is and what the need is. We called Sunnybrook hospital this morning. For this year they're receiving funding to do 695 cardiac operations; they need funding for at least 775 operations. The problem is pretty clear. When you have a hospital that had five people die waiting for surgery and they say they need more funding, I think you have to take that problem seriously and not get into some abstract debate about what the need is.

You have $67 million that you can reallocate, because those are savings you have made now. While you sit on that money, people's lives are literally at stake. I ask you today, instead of simply lecturing the House, why don't you just get on with reallocating the money to Sunnybrook hospital and to other hospitals across this province before more tragedies strike people on waiting lists?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm not sure how else to put this. I agree with the comments expressed and the concern expressed by the leader of the Liberal Party. I am actively in the field, getting advice on how to reinvest those dollars. I am also actively, as I have been over the past 15 or 16 weeks, going through line by line in the ministry to continue to find savings so that we can reinvest that money. That's our commitment; that's what we're working on.

This is an issue that's very dear to my heart and my own family. One of the world leaders in cardiac care is my uncle, Dr J.K. Wilson. This is not a new issue. I remember over the years discussing it many times and I remember the member for Oriole having to discuss this issue in an earnest way in this Legislature. It's time to bring some better management to the network and it's time to bring some new dollars to the network, and that's what we're going to do as part of our reinvestment strategy.

1410

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I believe that one of the hallmarks of this government has been its very conscious decision to inflict its cost-cutting measures on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. I want to return to that area today.

On October 10, Minister, you were asked whether you were planning to change the definition of "disabled" to reduce the number of disabled people on welfare. You replied, as has been pointed out in this House today, "At this time, no decisions have been made." You repeated that answer several times.

In fact, 12 days earlier you had signed off on a regulation which did just that. On September 28 you signed off on a regulation that states very clearly that benefits would be cut off for people who are considered permanently unemployable. According to your own ministry's figures, the impact of this regulation would be to reduce benefits for approximately 115,000 disabled people and their families, a saving of some $787 million to the government.

Minister, why did you say on October 10 that no decision had been made on a redefinition of "disabled" when in fact a decision had been made on September 28 to slash the benefits for 115,000 disabled people?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): In relation to the question, clearly this was a drafting error, and as soon as this drafting error was brought to my attention the regulation was corrected.

Clearly, there was no intention here. In fact, there was never intention to affect anyone's cheque; no cheques were changed. In fact, there were no changes to the computer program as well. Quite clearly that was a drafting error. It has been corrected. There was no intention ever, because had there been any intention the computer program would have been changed, which it was not. No one's cheque was affected, nor was it ever intended to be so.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, you're going to have to help me understand the response the minister has just given to this House, because on September 28 he issued a regulation, a regulation which has the force of law, that clearly revokes disabled benefits for approximately 115,000 people. On October 10 the same minister told this House that he was still working on defining what it means to be disabled.

Mr Speaker, I suggest to you and through you to this minister that you cannot change laws by mistake. You, as minister, signed off on that regulation. Did you simply forget about it, did you forget you'd signed the regulation or are you telling the people of this House and the people of this province that you just did not understand what you were signing that day?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've clearly answered the question with respect to intention. I've clearly given an explanation of what happened once there was a drafting error. That's my answer.

Mrs McLeod: If ministers sign regulations that change the laws of the province and then stand up here and call it a drafting error, what other kinds of horrendous mistakes are we going to expect from the ministers of this government? That is truly unbelievable.

Let me suggest something else. I suggest that this minister knew very well what he was doing when he signed off on that regulation, I suggest that this minister was quietly trying to get away with breaking this government's commitment to protect the benefits for the disabled of this province and I suggest that now that he has been caught breaking the government's commitment, he is trying to reverse himself.

I repeat, you cannot change the laws of the province by mistake. I say to this minister: Come clean. Will you not admit that you have changed your mind because you got caught?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe that the leader of the official opposition is clearly off base with this remark. I have answered the question. I have clearly indicated -- in fact, I've even indicated that had there been any intention, there would have been changes in the program. No cheques had ever been changed. Believe me. We've clearly stated the intention. I believe the leader of the official opposition is out of order with that remark.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, on a point of order, and I will not delay question period: We have a copy of today's Gazette in which the regulations that become the law of the province are gazetted. That regulation is here. It still has the force of law. This minister not only made it law, but he has not withdrawn it.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Perhaps the minister could explain to us how it would be that a regulation of this importance would be gazetted, and perhaps he could explain the process by which this mistake was made, if it indeed was a mistake.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The original draft of the regulation contained several provisions, several provisions had to be sent back for correction, and the explanation I have received is that certainly there was a drafting error. I will repeat that again to you: That was clearly what happened; it was a drafting error.

Mr Rae: I'd like to ask the minister again if he can just explain it to us. As I recall, from my experience, regulations of this kind come to cabinet in some form or other. I take it then that a recommendation was made to cabinet by the minister, which included this regulatory change? I don't know; I'm asking.

Was there a package of changes referred to cabinet, and was that package then referred back, and this item was supposed to be dropped and it wasn't dropped? Is that what the minister is telling us? We need to know the process, because last week the minister told us that there's still now a process, which is apparently under way, in which the fate of literally tens of thousands of people who are now receiving benefits is going to be affected.

I think the minister and the government are discovering what all of us have discovered in our working lives, and that is that these things are a little bit more complicated than the rhetoric and BS of the CSR. That's what the minister is coming to terms with and having to confront.

I'd like to ask the minister, can he confirm that what took place is that the recommendation to drop the whole category of permanently unemployable persons was in fact put before cabinet, that the cabinet looked at it and said, "This is not something we're ready to do because there's all sorts of other changes coming," and you're waiting for those other changes? Is that true, and, if that is true, can you confirm that and at least be candid with all of us so we can understand exactly what this process is?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, as a result of an error, that was a drafting error. Clearly we've stated before, we're committed to protecting the system for the disabled of the province. I've clearly answered the question, I believe this is the sixth time, and I'm not going to change that answer.

Mr Rae: If the minister isn't prepared to answer these questions in here, he's going to have to answer them out there, and they don't have quite the same rules that we have in here. I was hoping to make it a little easier for you, and let's try and answer it here.

I want to come back to this point. I can't recall a time when through a "drafting error" the fate of over 100,000 people was suddenly wiped out in terms of what their benefit structure would have been. The minister is listening to the 200-pound briefing note sitting in front of him.

I wondered if perhaps what he would care to do is carefully and clearly respond to the questions which I am putting to him. Who made this mistake and how would it be possible that a "mistake" of this magnitude would be made by the cabinet in the course of discussing regulatory change as it relates to welfare? What else can we now expect with respect to regulatory changes affecting people on welfare?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've already indicated earlier on that I've already signed a new regulation to correct the error. It was clearly an error. I have to repeat this, but no cheques have been affected to anyone. It was never the intention to affect the cheques of anyone and once again, the computer program had not changed. No one was affected.

1420

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

Mr Rae: To the same minister: I now want to turn to a form which was left in all the GWA and FBA offices by the Ministry of Community and Social Services that says: "You need to know, on October 1, 1995, there will be changes to social assistance rates. Rates for people who are disabled or aged and their families will not be affected."

A young woman by the name of Dawn Cooper has written to a number of us and her case indeed has been discussed in the paper today. She says: "As a family we are one mom with two developmentally delayed children. The girls are both on Ritalin to help them maintain control over their behaviour. Amanda is 16 years old. She's on drugs for epilepsy. Both girls require constant supervision." Her benefits have been substantially slashed. Indeed, her benefits have been cut to the point where she's not sure she can care for her own family any longer.

I'd like to ask the minister: Is this another example of a drafting error or is this a deliberate policy of the new government of Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As you know, I can't refer to a specific case. However, our government recognizes the needs of special and handicapped children and we do have a couple of programs, the special services at home and also the handicapped children's benefit program, which have not been reduced. We are helping parents meet the needs of their disabled children. We're protecting the funding for these programs to help parents with the cost of raising a disabled child.

Mr Rae: This family has been cut in terms of their benefits by hundreds of dollars a month. The facts have been documented at great length by the woman in question. Indeed, the local member for Huron has, on September 15, written to the minister indicating the costs and indicating the problems. The children in question are over the age of 16 so they wouldn't be covered by some of the minister's answer.

She writes that she requires a car. She lives in the country. She's living on her own with her children and the cost difference in the cuts is a difference of some $723.27 on a monthly income. She says: "I hope this will help you to view my situation realistically. I don't understand the common sense in any of this," writes Ms Cooper.

I'd like to ask the minister, can he explain the common sense of cutting benefits by some $723 of a single mother who's raising two children who are suffering from a medically determined illness which causes a disability?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The handicapped children's benefit program and the special services at home are programs which are supplemental programs which were specifically designed to help parents deal with their disabled children at home. Once again, the funding for these programs has not been reduced. We are keeping our program to disabled families, by providing $37 million to over 10,000 individuals to ensure that these families can take care of their disabled children at home.

Mr Rae: There has been a cut to this family. The cut is undeniable. It's a fact of life now for Ms Cooper; she has to live with it. The cut is of such a dimension that your own member, when confronted with the facts of an individual situation, when confronted with the real world of circumstance, as opposed to the ideology of the Common Sense Revolution, says, "Can't we do something in this case?"

I'd like to ask the minister: When the document went out, posted in all the offices, that says rates for people who are disabled or aged and their families will not be affected, and we now find that in fact families are being affected, is this another example of a drafting error on the part of people in the ministry, or is this now something where the minister is prepared to admit that there are unintended harsh, cruel consequences to the ideology which you are now putting at work among the needy people in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to refer once again the leader of the third party to these two programs, which are clearly intended to supplement the income of families. Special services at home is clearly a very good program, which I once again indicate is involved with about $37 million.

Just to give an idea, these programs are intended to assist people with relief at home, certainly to assist them in other ways, but they make the choices. The parents are allowed to make the choices once they have these supplements in their hands. So clearly there are ways in which people can supplement their income and it's clearly intended to assist disabled families.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You stated several times in the House today and the past few weeks that disabled and their families would not be affected by your cuts. We've seen again today by the example that this is not the case.

Mr Minister -- through you, Mr Speaker -- I would bring to your attention the situation of the Glowka family in London. Their three-year-old daughter, Agata, suffers from chronic respiratory failure. As a result, the child requires 24-hour-a-day care by the parents.

As a result of your $300-a-month cut to their benefits, this family may be forced to readmit their daughter into London's Victoria Hospital intensive care unit at a cost of $30,000 per month -- that figure given to us by the hospital -- in comparison to the cut of $300 you've made to their benefits.

Mr Minister, perhaps this is why the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, Helen Johns, wrote to you on September 15 on another case and said, "The cuts in family benefits and general welfare are not supposed to affect the disabled or elderly, but they are going to affect the disabled children of Dawn Cooper."

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr Agostino: This is not from a member of the opposition; it's a member of your own government.

Clearly, Minister, you can't have it both ways. I put it to you as simply as I can: Will disabled children such as the ones mentioned today be protected from your cuts?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's unfortunate sometimes that questions are prepared ahead of time, because obviously that was my answer to the prior questions. But once again I refer the honourable member to the supplemental programs which I spoke about. These are clearly intended to assist families to purchase services for their disabled children at home and to give them some degree of control over what services they do purchase.

Mr Agostino: I'm astonished by the fact that the minister clearly does not understand the impact your cuts are having on disabled children across this province. You don't understand how you've betrayed the vulnerable children in this province. You don't understand how your government's election promise to protect them has gone by the wayside.

Mr Minister, there are numerous examples of situations where what you have told this House has not been consistent with what is happening out there in the real world. You were wrong when you said the disabled would not be affected by your cuts.

Mr Minister, what do you say to the tens of thousands of people out there, children and disabled adults, who believed when you told them you were not going to affect their benefits? In a sense, you've misled them. You've told them something that is not the case today. Mr Minister, you have told this House a number of times that they're not going to be affected. Once again, what you have told this House is not consistent with what has happened.

The Speaker: Order. The word "misled" is not appropriate in this Legislature. Would you withdraw it?

Mr Agostino: Mr Speaker, what the minister has said in the House and what he has said today is not consistent.

The Speaker: Order. Will you withdraw it?

Mr Agostino: It is not consistent with what he has said.

The Speaker: You won't withdraw the word?

Mr Agostino: No.

The Speaker: If the honourable member is not going to withdraw the word, I have no alternative but to name the honourable member. Sergeant at Arms?

Mr Agostino left the chamber.

1430

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Last Wednesday, October 11, I had a question for the Minister of Transportation regarding road conditions and winter standards, and this is what the minister expressed in answer to my concern: The minister said he was committed to the highest possible highway standards during the winter season.

Some have received some disturbing, very disturbing indeed, documentation. I have in my hand a memo from the ministry addressed to the district engineer and the road supervisors across Ontario. This is what it says:

"Attached are the Q&As which were prepared for briefing cabinet ministers on the proposed changes for winter 1995-96. As most of you already know, the changes have been agreed to by Management Board but must still go to cabinet" for final blessing, so that Father Harris can give his okay. "A communication strategy is being developed by" so-and-so; "I trust that these Q&As will be of some assistance."

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Could I have the question, please.

Mr Pouliot: Further digging unravelled the following: The Ministry of Transportation is proposing cutting road patrols across Ontario from 24 hours to 16 hours per day. That's a 40% reduction.

The Speaker: What's the question?

Mr Pouliot: But each patrol will cover 190 kilometres instead of 115. Sand and salt spreaders will be reduced by 12.3%.

The Speaker: Would the member put the question, please.

Mr Pouliot: The number of plows -- picture this -- will fall by 10.8% --

The Speaker: Order. You've been two minutes asking a question. Would you put the question quickly.

Mr Pouliot: Someone, either the minister or the ministry, is being most economical with the truth. Someone is shying away from the truth here. Lives are at stake. What will the minister do: say one thing on Wednesday and have the motorists of Ontario, all seven million of them, live in a climate of anxiety --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Mr Pouliot: Are you going to assume your responsibility and ensure the motorists of Ontario that there shall be no cuts?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to reiterate the words I did say last week and assure the member that public safety is our number one priority. Our standards have not changed. How we deliver those standards has changed. We are looking for the most economical and cost-effective way to deliver those safety standards. We are going to hire for average and contract out for the peak periods, but we will maintain the standards Ontario has been used to.

Mr Pouliot: The minister should be aware that winter conditions are somewhat like -- and I think the analogy has some validity -- a forest fire: When those catastrophes strike, you don't question, you just go. The documentation from his own ministry that the boat of Transportation is leaking big-time proves the opposite.

What is the minister waiting for, that we take some motorists straight from the highway to the bag? Will he carry the guilt or will he go and twist the arm of his buddy Mike Harris for a few dollars more so that we can go to medical appointments, can go and earn a living?

Safety is a primary concern. It's not a matter of money; we're talking about potential lives here. The minister should give the House and the people of Ontario the assurance that, yes, he will stand up and do whatever he can to make sure that the standards that were acquired over the years become the order of the day, each and every day this winter.

Hon Mr Palladini: We are still spending over $130 million on winter maintenance in this province. I would again like to emphasize to the honourable member that this ministry is going to do the job that it's going to have to do in order for our roads to be safe. So that commitment will be there.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Recent media reports have speculated that the Ministry of Labour will be cutting the number of health and safety inspectors by up to 20% in order to meet its financial goals. The minister has stated many times that health and safety are a priority for her and that she cares about workers. In light of these media reports, can the minister tell us today, will the Ministry of Labour be reducing the number of its health and safety inspectors?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): First of all, yes, since assuming the responsibility, our government has indicated that we are committed to workers and we are committed to the safety of workers. Despite the fact that there has been tremendous media speculation regarding the reduction of health and safety inspectors, I would like to assure the member and all workers in this province that we will not be eliminating or reducing the number of health and safety inspectors. In fact, we are doing exactly the opposite.

Shortly after I assumed this position, I put in place a review team to look at health and safety in this province. We have a 100-day review; at the end of that time, on December 20, I hope to receive recommendations from the team indicating proposals that will give us the best health and safety system possible, that will be of benefit to all workers.

Furthermore, in dealing with the Kells fatality, our ministry has also appealed that particular decision, and we are going to proceed with the decision made by the justice of the peace in that case.

We are committed to workers. That is my first priority, and we will do everything possible to ensure that workers are protected.

Mr Newman: I've received a number of letters and phone calls in my riding of Scarborough Centre from members of unions that this government is sending a message that it does not support the rights of workers and that it is simply a government that is acting on the wishes of the business community. Minister, let me ask you now, does this government support the rights of workers in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, we are committed to the workers in this province. In fact, the very reason we repealed the Bill 40 provisions was to ensure that we would take down the barriers to job creation. That is what has happened, because unfortunately Bill 40 gave out the message that this province was no longer open for business. So not only have we repealed Bill 40, but we have also put in place measures that are actually going to promote and enhance the rights of the individual workers in the workplace.

For the first time, workers in this province, all of them, whether it's the third who are unionized or the two thirds who are not unionized, will have the opportunity, through a secret ballot vote, to determine whether or not they want to join a union. They will have an opportunity, if they are unionized, to vote for strike action, vote through a secret ballot for ratification, and for the first time they will also have an opportunity to decide if they want to decertify.

Our actions to date, whether it's in the area of workplace health and safety, whether it's in the field of Bill 7, are all designed to promote job creation, jobs for workers.

1440

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister has been in the past a strong supporter, and I'm sure she is to this day, of second-stage housing and the kind of services that second-stage housing provides to vulnerable people in our province.

Your government has now eliminated funding for Bethlehem Place, a project that helps people break out of the cycle of drug, alcohol and welfare dependency. Bethlehem Place serves victims of domestic violence, mental illness, head injuries or substance addiction and has the support of a wide cross-section of our community, including many supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party in St Catharines.

Minister, with your own record of concern for second-stage housing and for the counselling provided in this kind of housing, how can you possibly accept the decision of your cabinet to cut funding or, in this case, eliminate funding for very vulnerable people in our society?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I and I think all members of this House support women who have been victims of abuse, in any way we can. I'm not aware of the situation at Bethlehem Place. I would like to discuss this with you.

You did mention in your comments that we took away the funding so that they would not -- I think you said this -- receive the shelter portion, that they would not be welcome to that shelter. I'd like you to stand upon that, if that's the case.

I will say that we have supported core funding for shelters and second-stage housing in the province of Ontario, but we have taken away some of the support services in the second-stage housing programs. The reason for that is that our main objective is to allow and support women and members of society in Ontario to get jobs so that they can be self-sufficient.

To that end, we want to balance our budget. We have to take a look at every line of every program. We are in the business of supporting core programs so that women can become self-sufficient, get jobs and be employed.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Supplementary? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On October 5, the minister stated, "We will not be cutting any of the core funding to that second-stage housing."

There is an organization called Harmony House, a second-stage housing organization in Ottawa, which is the only one in all of eastern Ontario. I have been informed personally by letter, by telephone -- I've spoken with the executive director -- and I've been told by the staff that they have lost all of their funding from Community and Social Services and therefore they will have to close their doors as of December 31. If the minister is asking for some information, we will be happy to provide it. They can no longer continue: They've lost their counsellors, they've lost their security staff. This goes against what the minister promised. What will the minister tell the Harmony House staff and what will she tell the women who are in need of a safe haven in eastern Ontario?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I can only say that I'm not aware of the specifics at Harmony House. I am aware of the fact that there are some first-stage housing and second-stage housing projects that are closing. I should tell you that the intent behind the ones I have been made aware of was that they would be closing because of the irregular funding coming from three different levels of government and because the way they have been providing these shelter services has not been efficient.

With regard to Harmony House, I would be happy to meet with the representatives, and I'm certain my colleagues involved would as well. It does make me concerned to think that a house on its own would find itself closing. But I can assure you that the core funding to Harmony House has not been withdrawn.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week there were several questions asked in the House about the Social Assistance Review Board and the fact that Evelyn Dodds, twice a Tory candidate in Thunder Bay, was appointed; that Dan MacDonald, who ran for the Tories in the 1987 Hamilton by-election, was appointed; and after question period on Wednesday we learned that a third out of four appointments was also a Tory candidate, Maeve Quaid. Maeve Quaid, a Trent University professor, ran for the Tories as a candidate in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce against Warren Allmand in the 1993 federal election.

The appointment process to the Social Assistance Review Board was dramatically changed in 1985 so that it was no longer a senate for defeated Tories.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Question, please.

Mr Cooke: Can the minister tell us today what he's prepared to do to restore the faith in the Social Assistance Review Board that he has destroyed by making it the senate for defeated Tories once again?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I detect a question there someplace.

Clearly, we've made decisions on the appointments to the Social Assistance Review Board on the basis of qualifications. First of all, one of the candidates the honourable member spoke about was a councillor who had some experience dealing with the social assistance area. Two of the individuals had sat on the Immigration and Refugee Board, and the final candidate is a lecturer and has dealt extensively with human resources. So we're making the selection on the basis of qualifications.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It's just a coincidence that they were all Tory candidates. It's a drafting error.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole is out of order.

Mr Cooke: Since this question was asked last week and he couldn't give us an answer, could the minister confirm for us today, now that he's had a chance to check, whether or not the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board was involved in the selection of these four candidates?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I understand the honourable member is probably referring to some extent, I believe, to an article that was in the newspapers in which the chairperson had indicated that there were not four vacancies. Clearly, there were four vacancies. Whether or not there's a difference in procedures in terms of appointments to the Social Assistance Review Board from the prior government, I think what really counts here is that people with qualifications have been selected.

EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. With the government's intent to repeal the job quota law, I ask the minister to please provide some guidance about how employers may use workforce survey information that was collected under subsection 6(13) of the Employment Equity Act and regulations.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Under the job quota repeal bill that I introduced last week, we will be requesting that all personal information that was collected for the purposes specifically of the Employment Equity Act be destroyed.

Mr Tascona: Obtaining workforce survey data was sometimes a time-consuming and expensive task for many employers. I would like to ask the minister to consider whether employers will be able to keep the data collected under subsection 6(13) so that these data may be applied to the non-legislative equal opportunity plan and to non-employment-equity uses such as in cases where such information is required for addressing human rights issues or human rights tribunals.

Hon Ms Mushinski: In response to the honourable member's question, there's no doubt that indeed the data collection process that was going to be required under the Employment Equity Act was a very expensive piece of legislation, and that's one of the reasons we are recommending getting rid of it.

With respect to the rest of the honourable member's question, we obviously can't do anything about the resources that have already been spent, but repeal of the act will ensure that no further resources are wasted in complying with the legislated quotas.

Employers must still collect personal information under certain conditions. For example, if the collection and use of the data is in compliance with other Human Rights Code regulations or the federal contractors program, we will not require them to automatically remove that from their files.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, I hope you have better advice than your ministry officials have in trying to allow people in Ontario, from Kenora to Cornwall and places like New Liskeard -- in asking them to deal with your ministry's proposed cuts.

1450

If they're cutting snowplowing, they're reducing sanding, they're reducing salting, they're even taking away an eight-hour shift for road patrols, what advice would you have for the people in Thunder Bay or New Liskeard on how they could drive safely on Ontario highways in light of the cuts you're going to make right across this province?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the honourable member for the opportunity to clarify something. These particular hiring practices that the honourable member is mentioning have already been in place in Kingston, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie and even parts of Highway 401, so they are not new procedures. This is our way of delivering better to Ontarians for a lot less.

Mr Colle: I'm just wondering, did I hear that correctly? Is he saying his way, the Tory way, is to improve our road safety this winter by reducing sanding, reducing salting, even eliminating an eight-hour shift? Does the minister believe that it only snows for 16 hours, that by some miracle it's not going to snow? Or is the minister going to do what they suggest here, and that is put more money into communication and maybe set up a 1-800-SNOWJOB number so people can phone when it snows?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like again to inform the honourable member that we are going to be monitoring our roads. We will have the opportunity to react, especially in snowbelt areas. Again, I would like to say that we are going to be spending over $130 million, and safety on our roads is our commitment that we will deliver.

CHILD CARE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This morning I heard the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, on the radio. She said a number of things, among them that all of the folks complaining about child care funding are all Toronto folks; that non-profit child care is not an issue outside Toronto; and that urban folks ought to adopt an attitude towards child care that's more in line with the small town, whatever that means.

For example -- and what appalled me most, I believe -- she said that she was concerned that such things as fire regulations could obstruct the use of church basements for child care. I would like to ask the minister, does he agree -- because he is responsible for the Day Nurseries Act, and that of course governs child care standards -- that fire standards are some sort of urban misconception?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, I'm not quite sure exactly what the honourable member is getting at here. Clearly what the intention of our government is right now is to increase the opportunity for child care. We have an obligation to ensure that the standards are met. That's clearly the answer.

Ms Churley: I believe it's the other way around. I don't believe that the minister understood my question. Perhaps he didn't hear his colleague on the radio this morning while she was bashing the people of Toronto who are concerned about safe and quality child care for their children when they go to work. The minister said that she didn't support, on the whole, regulated day care, that we should go back, it sounds to me, to the 1950s and that people in Toronto should do as the folks do outside of Toronto.

But I heard her say very clearly that we should be looking at fire regulations to see if we can --

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to inform the House that at no time have I said that I do not support regulated, licensed day care -- at no time -- nor did I give the impression that we shouldn't have safe environments.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Finish your supplementary, please.

Ms Churley: I think what the minister responsible for women's issues said this morning around fire is indeed to be taken very seriously. I don't think anybody in this House would want to see our children being placed in situations in basements where they could be in danger of fire.

Should this be something we see as the equivalent to bicycle helmets, where the standards only apply for persons of a certain age?

I would like to hear the minister tell us here today that he will have a chat with the minister responsible for women's issues and make sure that at the very least, whatever kind of child care we have, we can be assured that the standards that we now have in place to protect these children will be kept in place.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm sure the honourable member is sincere in her question. However, I wish she wouldn't be so selective in her facts. Anyone in this House cannot dispute the fact that our honourable member Dianne Cunningham has the best interests of children at heart, has always been fair and has the best interests of this province at heart. Clearly our government is in favour of strong standards. Our government's in favour of the welfare of children.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Mr Minister, recently you announced the repeal of Bill 91. Many Ontarians know the devastating effects Bill 40 had on our economy, but not enough know the danger posed to farm operations by the son of Bill 40: Bill 91.

The need to preserve labour-intensive agricultural industry in my riding of Norfolk is critical for its social and economic vibrancy. Given that the present Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, exempts farm operations from strikes, some critics have been claiming that by repealing Bill 91 we are now leaving farmers out on a limb and exposed to strike action.

Minister, I ask you, can you clarify what protection farm operations will have from strike action once Bill 91 is repealed?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): To the honourable member, Bill 91 will be repealed because that is what the agricultural community has asked us to do. It's important to note that Bill 91 allowed farm workers to organize. It did not allow strikes or lockouts, and therefore created a very, very rough situation where communications could break down and then both sides would look for a mediator.

The removal of Bill 91, being replaced by Bill 7, will guarantee no strike action on farms. It will guarantee that the crops will indeed be harvested when they're due and it will also exempt agriculture from labour relations legislation. That's what farmers want, and we are delivering.

Mr Barrett: Mr Minister, preservation of labour-intensive agricultural industry in Norfolk is based in part on harmonious labour relations. We know that unionization of the family farm does not make sense. You cannot hold a farmer by the throat and dictate labour demands while his animals are neglected or his crops rot in the field. However, Minister, criticism has been raised about health and safety of farm workers if they are not in unions. In the wake of Bill 7, what measures are in place to address health and safety in the farm workplace?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Farms -- family farms and all farms -- are very dangerous places in which to work. We have a Farm Safety Association which has been in place for many years and is working quite well, is providing information to both farm workers and owners of farms -- family farms and what have you. All accidents are being reported. The Farm Safety Association, an independent body, continues and will continue to work hard to provide a safe workplace out in rural Ontario.

1500

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. On Tuesday, November 10, the minister inferred that the opposition did not think that agriculture was important. Obviously the minister was not listening in the House as I personally have made members' statements about the crucial contributions agriculture has made to Ontario. Again, in my throne speech response I opposed any cuts to Ontario's second-largest industry, cuts that you're poised to make. I have posed questions to the minister in letters to his office, but it seems he doesn't think agriculture is important enough to warrant an answer.

One of my first acts as co-critic to Agriculture was to request budget information and other materials, required to represent my constituents in the agricultural community, by phone and by letter. Upon receiving no response to this request, I wrote to the minister to request this same information once again. This was on August 28.

To date my office has received nothing: no information, no response, not even recognition that we were calling or bothering you.

The Speaker: The question? Put the question, please.

Mr Hoy: It seems that the minister is too busy seeking validation for the cuts which he promised he would not make. My question to the minister: Will you tell me now, before this Legislature, when I will receive this information which is vital to my riding and the agricultural community of Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank the honourable member for Essex-Kent for his question and his concerns, as I have concern for the agricultural community. I want to remind the honourable member we've announced that 75% of the farm tax rebate will be received by our farmers, and I signed that document about a month ago. Our safety net programs remain in place. The farm tax rebate and the safety net programs remain in place.

Yes, $13 million in savings was found within the ministry, unused money primarily, unused money in the farm tax rebate. I want the member to know that indeed, whenever we were travelling the province of Ontario, we were advised by some 1,400 rural agricultural people as to where their priorities are and we are putting in place the suggestions that we've received from them.

Mr Hoy: My supplementary is also to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I have written on various occasions to the Minister of Environment and Energy regarding raised-bed septic tanks and received no response.

I took the lack of response to mean that the MOEE was too busy to worry about problems which affected rural Ontario, so I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on September 13. I requested that he urge his colleague to look into the matter. Here we are a month later and there has been no response from either ministry.

As rural development was one of your party's chief points, it is an affront to all rural communities that you've turned your backs on them now. You are in office on an issue that affects all of the rural development. Minister, why has your office decided that you will not answer inquiries, and you didn't answer my first question in the same regard?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I can assure the honourable member that if he has not received an answer, he is about to receive an answer. But he has to remember that we are correcting 10 years of indifference from a Liberal and an NDP government. We are now correcting those inequities.

In conclusion, not only were these previous governments, both of them, ill advised in the spending that they did; we are now attempting to correct their overspending, as they did like drunken sailors, and we are attempting at the same time to bring confidence back to the economy.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to know what the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is going to say to a number of people who work very hard on the Great Lakes of this province and elsewhere when he refers to the cliché about sailors. Perhaps he'd like to reflect on that.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): At least sailors have been known to spend their own money.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier today I rose in this House to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation. Not only am I dissatisfied with the answer given, but furthermore, I have yet to receive an answer. Therefore, I have filed the proper documentation and would appreciate an opportunity to debate further. I'm calling for a late show.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege: Last week, in an answer to a question, the Minister of Community and Social Services said the following: "We need individuals on the Social Assistance Review Board who will take tough stands on welfare fraud."

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): And your point of privilege is?

Mr Silipo: My point of privilege is that I believe that constitutes interference with the workings of a quasi-judicial body. As such, I believe it impugns and it affects the privileges of every member of this House, because it diminishes our ability to be able to raise points in an impartial manner, in a manner that will be balanced. As long as it is allowed for the statements that this minister made to remain on the record and for the attitude that's behind it, which is that he can direct the work of the social assistance board, which is a quasi-judicial body, I believe that has direct implications on the responsibilities and the privileges of myself as a member of this Legislature and indeed every single member of this Legislature.

What I would like to ask you, Mr Speaker, is to look further into this matter and to come back to this House at your convenience with a ruling more particularly on this point, taking also into account the fact that our own standing rules, under section 23, while dealing with matters that are the subject of a proceeding before a tribunal or a quasi-judicial body, clearly say that any minister, indeed any member, of this House is to be called to order when dealing with matters and when making statements that "would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings."

Although there was not a specific proceeding that the minister was addressing, I believe that adds to the intent of the rules, and certainly under parliamentary convention, that a minister should not at any point interfere with the proceedings of a quasi-judicial body. I believe at the very least that's a matter of privilege that, as I said, impugns and affects negatively my privileges as a member of the House, aside from whether it constitutes a breach of any other piece of legislation which certainly I, for one, will continue to pursue.

The Speaker: Your privilege has been noted.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a separate matter of privilege, Mr Speaker -- I would actually ask you to bear with me and perhaps be of some assistance; I've never stood on a point of privilege before and I might need your assistance in terms of how to formulate it: I feel it's important that I bring to your attention that I believe, in reviewing the record, there has been a grave breach of the collective privilege of the membership of the Legislative Assembly. This is a matter related to an earlier point that you were asked to rule on. You did provide a ruling, but I wish to raise another issue with respect to it.

On October 3, the Minister of Community and Social Services, at page 67 of the Hansard, in response to a question placed to him by the leader of our party, responded that he "had some research done to indicate how and whether or not someone who is a sole single on benefits or a single parent with a child" -- this is with respect to social assistance -- how they could continue to exist. And they've actually provided a budget here. He says, "I have it here in this binder," and he went on, as I'm sure you're aware of the record, to indicate that he would make that available.

Mr Speaker, on October 4 and in the official record of Hansard at page 102, the leader of the official opposition rose on a point of order to you and she reiterated the comments of the minister from the day before and asked you to look into whether or not, given that the budget document had not been made available, that minister had misled the House yesterday.

1510

Then on October 5 you did provide a ruling on that, and that's at page 136 of the Hansard record of the day. In that, you indicated -- and I know this to be a consistent ruling with previous Speakers -- that you in fact have no authority to compel a minister to provide such material, and I understand that point.

On that same day, on the 5th, the leader of the official opposition clarified for you her point of order, and that can be found at the same page 136 of Hansard. In that, she indicated to you that it was not her request that you seek to compel the minister to provide the documents, but that you clarify whether or not the House had been misled. In my review of the record of Hansard since then, I'm unable to find a ruling from you on that point. I want to raise this point with you because the leader's office of our caucus has on several occasions attempted to deal, with respect to this matter, directly with the minister's office, and we on the 4th and on the 5th made phone calls. You may recall that the minister was absent and away, ill, from the House on October 4, and I think he was absent from the ministry on the 5th when we called. He was still off with doctor's orders, some might say spin doctor's orders, but doctor's orders in any event.

On the 4th when we called, we were informed that in fact staff were preparing the budget to send over and it simply awaited the minister's signature and approval of the budget that was being prepared at that point in time.

My colleague from Algoma referred earlier to Erskine May, and I won't take the time of the House to repeat that quote, but to refer you to the 21st edition and the 1963 precedent, which talked about a finding of a misleading of the House as a grave contempt of the privileges of the members of the House.

Similar to the matter of privilege that was raised earlier, I am asking you to review the record on this. I assure you we still have not received these documents from the minister, whose quotes are very clear in the references I gave to you, that this documentation would be provided.

The information we have received from the minister's office is that the information he said was in his binder was in fact still being prepared, and here we are a week and a half, two weeks, later, and we have still not received that.

Mr Speaker, I hope I have made the points clear that I wish you to review and will look forward to hearing your response to this and to the point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition on October 5.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, I have two motions.

I move that notwithstanding standing order 96, private members' public business not be considered until Thursday, October 26, 1995, and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 to 4, inclusive.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, not to go on at length about this, but normally the government shares copies of their motions with the opposition before they move them. I wasn't given a copy of this motion, and therefore we should either stand it down, so that proper procedures are followed, or we can table the motion and call it under orders of the day.

Hon Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I'm sure we can have copies provided within a minute. In fact, I'm advised they're on their way at the moment. Hopefully, that will meet the member's concerns. I apologize, Mr Speaker, for procedure not being followed.

Mr Cooke: Then I'd ask the acting government House leader to either withdraw the motion until another day or put it on the order paper -- it wasn't given ahead of time -- or we'll debate it.

The Speaker: Do you want to do that?

Hon Mr Runciman: Well, Mr Speaker, if the choice is debating it or withdrawing it, we will withdraw and deal with it another day. I assume, Mr Speaker -- I've been handed these responsibilities today and I'm not sure if the opposition House leaders were provided with a copy of the second motion at an earlier date, so I'm looking for guidance as to whether or not I should proceed with this motion.

The Speaker: You read the motion and we will determine whether we'll accept the motion.

Hon Mr Runciman: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 8(a), the House shall meet at 1:30 pm on Thursday, October 19, 1995.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I think the two motions are related. The motion's been moved and the motion is before the House. I'd like to just make a couple of comments on the motion. It relates to private members' hour, and I think that we haven't had a discussion in the Legislature for quite some time on private members' hour. I think it would probably be appropriate to have a debate on it. I wasn't aware that these motions were coming forward and I think that there are a lot of things around here that need to be debated since the government doesn't seem to want to have public hearings across the province on major changes to the Labour Relations Act.

Therefore, I would move adjournment of the debate.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1548.

The Speaker: Mr Cooke has moved the adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour of that motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays, 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

PETITIONS

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from a number of people in the Niagara Peninsula. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the conduct of all crown and law enforcement officials/employees at all levels involved in the investigation of Karla Homolka, and in particular the circumstances of the negotiation of the plea bargain arrangement. We also demand that all day passes and other privileges be revoked and her full 12-year sentence be served in its entirety."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "Whereas the PC government of Mike Harris, under the influence of corporate special interests, has introduced Bill 7, which would roll back rights of workers that have been achieved over several decades;

"Whereas this legislation is part of a pattern of cutting back protection for people in Ontario who don't have power or influence, including reduced welfare payments, cuts to health and safety training, a cap on pay equity wages for low-paid women, gutting of the wage protection program, a freeze on the minimum wage and lower workers' compensation benefits;

"Whereas the effects of Bill 7 would be felt in every workplace across Ontario, from Windsor to Cornwall to the Manitoba border;

"Whereas the people who will be affected by this legislation have a natural right to be heard by MPPs before such sweeping changes are rammed through the House;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold public hearings in at least eight cities in all parts of this province and listen to why Bill 7 should be withdrawn."

I add my name.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have today some 570 names on a petition concerning the Karla Homolka plea bargain arrangement. The petition reads as follows:

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have a number of petitions signed by many people:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I've affixed my name to this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas Ontario has enjoyed an unprecedented period of labour peace under the labour reforms of the New Democratic Party government, including a record low number of days lost to strikes, an absence of the picket line violence that once marred labour relations and a boom in job-creating private investment;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, listening only to business special interests, is pushing legislation called Bill 7 that would legalize strikebreakers and inevitably cause strife and conflict when men and women see their jobs being taken away from them;

"Whereas people in all parts of Ontario have a democratic right to be heard on the massive changes contained in Bill 7, which covers 132 pages rolling back hard-won rights of working men and women;

"Whereas the government carried out no consultation at all, except for checking with corporate lawyers and" pawnbrokers or "powerbrokers" -- same thing -- "maintaining total secrecy until Bill 7 was introduced in October;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct full public hearings across the province on Bill 7, so that people in all parts of Ontario have a chance for their voices to be heard on this destructive and regressive legislation."

I sign my own name to this petition.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"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 that this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and 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."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Walkerville. I call on the member for Windsor-Walkerville. He's up three times now. Does he have a petition?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It's Port Arthur, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. Port Arthur.

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The very proud member for Port Arthur, Mr Speaker, has a petition signed by a number of early childhood educators in Thunder Bay and a number of concerned parents in relation to cutbacks. They've asked that the Conservative government, through the Legislative Assembly, stop the funding cutbacks that will affect the availability of professionally run child care programs, resource centres and services for children with special needs.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Stuart Deans of Ottawa joins Glenn Rothwell, who's from Smiths Falls, and 10 other very concerned citizens in petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in the following manner:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have a fundamental right to have their voices heard on legislation that could make this province a less attractive place to work, live and invest;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government drafted its Bill 7, stripping workers of their rights, without any public consultation whatsoever, listening only to the special" --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mr Pouliot: Could we quiet the jackals, Mr Speaker, or must I start over?

-- "listening only to the special interests who favour lower wages and are against empowering workers;

"Whereas travelling public hearings across the province would give all Ontarians, both union and non-union, a chance to explain to the government why Bill 7 threatens the labour peace our province has enjoyed in recent years, especially since the New Democratic government," ourselves, "outlawed strikebreakers;

"Whereas there is no good reason to rush this right-wing, American-style labour law through Parliament without listening to the people of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned," the dozen very concerned citizens who see themselves under a state of seige, "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the PC government to have public hearings in communities province-wide, and then either withdraw Bill 7 or bring in amendments to make the legislation fair and balanced" for the workers of Ontario.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition signed by a number of people who are very concerned about justice in Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I add my name to this petition.

1600

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I also have a petition signed by several individuals from Ottawa to Mississauga, Kitchener, Smiths Falls and various other places in the province, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas labour legislation from the Conservative government, Bill 7, would strip public sector workers of successor rights, meaning that workers whose jobs are privatized could either lose their jobs or be cut back to the minimum wage;

"Whereas Bill 7 would also make a mockery of the essential services provisions of the existing law, by allowing the Mike Harris government to use strikebreakers to perform any work in the Ontario public service, regardless of provisions in an essential services agreement;

"Whereas many workers who are currently union members would have their union rights taken away by Bill 7, without any opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted to remain in a union;

"Whereas this legislation will affect Ontario public service employees in communities all across the province who have had no opportunity to have their voice heard in the drafting of this bill;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct public hearings, including evening sessions, in communities across the province, with a full opportunity for participation by public sector workers who would be hurt by this law."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the PC government of Mike Harris, under the influence of the corporate special interests, has introduced Bill 7, which would roll back rights of workers that have been achieved over several decades;

"Whereas this legislation is part of a pattern of cutting back protection for people in Ontario who don't have power or influence, including reduced welfare payments, cuts to health and safety training, a cap on pay equity wages for low-paid women, gutting the wage protection program, a freeze on a minimum wage and lower workers' compensation benefits;

"Whereas the effects of Bill 7 would be felt in every workplace across Ontario, from Windsor to Cornwall" to Kapuskasing "to the Manitoba border;

"Whereas the people who will be affected by this legislation have a natural right to be heard by MPPs before such sweeping changes are rammed through the House;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold public hearings in at least eight cities in all parts of this province and listen to why Bill 7 should be withdrawn."

I've affixed my name to the petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris Common Sense Revolution campaign document said `not a penny' of health care funding will be touched;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `We will not cut health care spending, it is far too important';

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `There will be no new user fees';

"Whereas the first financial activity of the Harris government has been to actually cut $130 million from the health budget;

"Whereas the Harris government has announced they are actively considering new user fees;

"We, the undersigned, demand a public apology from the Harris government for breaking their election promise on health care and putting our treasured health care system at risk by cutting health spending by $130 million."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition signed by 10 very concerned resident of the province of Ontario, ranging from Ottawa to Toronto and to Windsor. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario has enjoyed an unprecedented period of labour peace under the labour reforms of the New Democratic Party government, including a record low number of days lost to strikes, an absence of the picket line violence that once marred labour relations and a boom in job-creating private investment;

"Whereas people in all parts of Ontario have a democratic right to be heard on the massive changes contained in Bill 7, which covers 132 pages rolling back hard-won rights of working men and working women;

"Whereas the government carried out no consultation at all, except for checking with corporate lawyers and powerbrokers" and pawnbrokers, "maintaining total secrecy until Bill 7 was introduced in October;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct full public hearings across the province on Bill 7, so that all people in all parts of Ontario have a chance for their voice to be heard on this destructive and regressive legislation."

I agree entirely with the petitioners and I have signed my name to this petition.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have a fundamental right to have their voices heard on legislation that would make this province a less attractive place to work, live and invest;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government drafted its Bill 7, stripping workers of their rights, without any public consultation whatsoever, listening only to the special interests who favour lower wages and are against empowering workers;

"Whereas there is no good reason to rush this right-wing, American-style labour law through Parliament without listening to the people of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the PC government to have public hearings in communities province-wide and then either withdraw Bill 7 or bring in amendments to make the legislation fair and balanced."

I affix my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of the following bill:

An Act respecting the establishment of an inquiry into the effect of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act: on employment and, in particular, employment opportunities for women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native people, youth and workers over the age of 45; on investment and, in particular, investment in new plants or the retrofit of existing plants; on entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial environment; on competitiveness and, in particular, the competitive tax position of Ontario companies; on productivity and, in particular, the potential for lost time due to strikes, lockouts, layoffs and complete or partial plant closures in the crude petroleum and natural gas industry; the furniture and fixtures industries, including the wooden household furniture industry, the upholstered household furniture industry, the office furniture industry, the bedspring and mattress industry and the hotel, restaurant and institutional furniture and fixture industry; the printing, publishing and allied industries, including the commercial printing industry, the business form industry, the platemaking, typesetting and binding industry -- does this all sound familiar over there? -- the book publishing industry and the newspaper, magazine and periodical combined publishing and printing industry; and the electrical and electronic products industries, including the small electric appliance industry, the major electronic appliance industry, the lighting fixture industry, the electric lamp and shade industry, the record player, radio and television industry, the telecommunications equipment industry, the electronic parts and components industry, the electronic computing and peripheral employment industry, the electronic office, store and business machine industry; the wood industries, including the shingles and shakes industry, the sawmill and planing mill products industry, the veneer and plywood industry, the prefabricated wooden building industry, the wooden kitchen cabinet and bathroom vanity industry, the wood preservation industry, the particleboard industry and the waferboard industry; the leather and allied products industry, including leather tanneries, the footwear industry and the luggage, purse and handbag industry; the textile products industries, including the carpet, mat and rug industry, the canvas and related products industry, the household products of textile materials industry and the tire cord fabric industry, the sweater industry; the food, beverage, drug retail industries, including grocery stores, specialty food stores, liquor stores, sin stores, beer stores, pharmacies and patent medicine and toiletries; the transportation industry, including the scheduled air transportation industry, the airport operations industry, the aircraft rental industry, the aircraft servicing industry, service industries incidental to railway transportation, the freight and passenger water transport industry, the ferry industry, the main towing industry, the ship chartering industry, the marine cargo handling industry, the harbour and port operation industries that operate in the greater Toronto area, including the regions of York, Toronto, Peel and Mississauga, including the cities and towns of Mississauga, Brampton, Toronto, Bolton, Orangeville, Caledon, Woodbridge, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Newmarket, Aurora, Markham and Sutton.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, if I may, a comment in introducing this new bill:

I would point out --

Interjections.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): He is going to ask for brief comments.

Mr Christopherson: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): No, I've two copies of the same act.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. It'll be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1620 to 1625.

The Speaker: Will the members take their seats, please. The member for Cambridge will please take his seat.

Mr Christopherson has moved the motion of the bill. All those in favour, please rise one by one.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick	Curling, Alvin	Martel, Shelley
Boyd, Marion	Duncan, Dwight	McGuinty, Dalton
Bradley, James J.	Gerretsen, John	Morin, Gilles E.
Brown, Michael A.	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Caplan, Elinor	Hampton, Howard	Phillips, Gerry
Castrilli, Annamarie	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Christopherson, David	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Churley, Marilyn	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Sergio, Mario
Colle, Mike	Lankin, Frances	Silipo, Tony
Cooke, David S.	Laughren, Floyd	Wildman, Bud
Crozier, Bruce	Marchese, Rosario

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.
Baird, John R.	Hardeman, Ernie	Pettit, Trevor
Barrett, Toby	Harnick, Charles	Preston, Peter
Bassett, Isabel	Hastings, John	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Beaubien, Marcel	Hodgson, Chris	Ross, Lillian
Boushy, Dave	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Brown, Jim	Jackson, Cameron	Shea, Derwyn
Carr, Gary	Johns, Helen	Sheehan, Frank
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Bert	Skarica, Toni
Chudleigh, Ted	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Clement, Tony	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Cunningham, Dianne	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Danford, Harry	Klees, Frank F.	Sterling, Norman W.
DeFaria, Carl	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
Doyle, Ed	Leadston, Gary L.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Ecker, Janet	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Fisher, Barb	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Flaherty, Jim	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Ford, Douglas B.	Munro, Julia	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Mushinski, Marilyn	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	Newman, Dan	Wood, Bob
Galt, Doug	O'Toole, John	Young, Terence H.
Gilchrist, Steve	Ouellette, Jerry J.
Grimmett, Bill	Palladini, Al

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32, the nays 70.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Further introduction of bills.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Mr Cooke has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it --

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Point of order.

The Speaker: No, Mr Cooke has moved the adjournment of the House. You can't have a point of order on that.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1630 to 1700.

The Speaker: Will the members take their seats, please? Order.

Mr Cooke has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until they're all counted.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 25, the nays 74.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DROP THE PENNY ACT, 1995

Mr Tilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 9, An Act respecting the rounding of the Penny in Cash Transactions.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1704 to 1709.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Gerretsen, John	Palladini, Al
Baird, John R.	Gilchrist, Steve	Parker, John L.
Barrett, Toby	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Bartolucci, Rick	Grimmett, Bill	Pettit, Trevor
Bassett, Isabel	Guzzo, Garry J.	Phillips, Gerry
Beaubien, Marcel	Hardeman, Ernie	Pouliot, Gilles
Boushy, Dave	Harnick, Charles	Preston, Peter
Boyd, Marion	Hastings, John	Pupatello, Sandra
Bradley, James J.	Hodgson, Chris	Ramsay, David
Brown, Jim	Hoy, Pat	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Caplan, Elinor	Hudak, Tim	Ross, Lillian
Carr, Gary	Jackson, Cameron	Runciman, Bob
Carroll, Jack	Johns, Helen	Sampson, Rob
Castrilli, Annamarie	Johnson, Bert	Sergio, Mario
Chiarelli, Robert	Johnson, Ron	Shea, Derwyn
Christopherson, David	Jordan, Leo	Sheehan, Frank
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Silipo, Tony
Churley, Marilyn	Klees, Frank F.	Skarica, Toni
Clement, Tony	Kwinter, Monte	Smith, Bruce
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Snobelen, John
Cooke, David S.	Lankin, Frances	Spina, Joseph
Crozier, Bruce	Laughren, Floyd	Sterling, Norman W.
Cunningham, Dianne	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Danford, Harry	Marchese, Rosario	Tascona, Joseph N.
DeFaria, Carl	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Doyle, Ed	Martel, Shelley	Tsubouchi, David H.
Duncan, Dwight	Martin, Tony	Turnbull, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Villeneuve, Noble
Fisher, Barb	Maves, Bart	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Flaherty, Jim	Munro, Julia	Wildman, Bud
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Wood, Bob
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wood, Len
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Young, Terence H.
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 101; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I think one of the things we have all agreed about in the last number of years is the amount of bureaucracy that business people across this province have had to encounter. It's a simple matter with respect to the penny, I think, the issuing of change, simply the weighing down of our pockets with change.

We believe this bill will save on transactions, it will do away with bureaucracy, it will make good sense. As well, it costs about two cents to make each penny.

The purpose of this bill is to create a new business practice respecting cash transactions by requiring cash amounts for goods and services to be rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of five cents. Persons owed money are required to round the total amount owing in each cash transaction, including all taxes, to the nearest multiple of five cents. Transactions with financial institutions are exempted from the requirement.

The Speaker: I think you've --

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, if I could just finish a couple more comments, I would make it quite clear that persons who notify the public, by posting a sign or otherwise, that they do not round out cash amounts are exempted from the requirement.

The Speaker: The time for introduction of bills has expired.

Mr Cooke, is it a point of privilege?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): No. Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member was not in order. My understanding is that in order to get the floor, you have to have either a point of privilege or a point of order, and you had neither one. You got up on another motion to move the adjournment of the House, which in my understanding is incorrect.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, if I might, I didn't call for a point of order, I didn't call for a point of privilege; you recognized me because I was standing. I didn't ask for a point of order, I didn't ask for a point of privilege; you recognized me, as I was standing. Therefore, under any other circumstance, if I'd called "point of order" or called "point of privilege," I think you would be correct. But you recognized me as a member. I specifically did not say anything, and therefore I believe the motion --

The Speaker: I recognized you on either a point of order or a point of privilege.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I did not call for a point of order or a point of privilege. I understand the point you're making, but, Mr Speaker, you recognized me and I moved the motion to adjourn the House, and I believe the motion is in order --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I'd like to inform the member that the motion to adjourn is not in order. This is my instructions, and I will now call for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Are you challenging the Speaker's ruling?

Mr Cooke: No, I'm not. If I could, I would, but the rules have been changed and I can't.

Mr Speaker, I have grave concern about what you just said, and that is that you said you have your instructions. Now, Mr Speaker, I think that is clearly on record and that you said that. I think that is a very serious issue, for the Speaker to indicate that you made a ruling that I disagree with and say: "I'm sorry, your motion is out of order. I have my instructions." Now, what did you mean by that, Mr Speaker? I think that's a very serious thing for a Speaker to say.

The Speaker: I have ruled that the member does not have a point of order.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We will now proceed with the divisions and we now will proceed with the vote, a deferred vote on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session. We'll have a five-minute bell to call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1719 to 1724.

The Speaker: All members take their seats, please.

The first question to be decided is Mr Rae's amendment to the amendment to the motion. All those in favour of Mr Rae's amendment to the amendment to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hampton, Howard	Phillips, Gerry
Brown, Michael A.	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Castrilli, Annamarie	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Churley, Marilyn	Laughren, Floyd	Silipo, Tony
Colle, Mike	Marchese, Rosario	Wildman, Bud
Cooke, David S.	Martel, Shelley	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Martin, Tony
Duncan, Dwight	McLeod, Lyn

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Harnick, Charles	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Baird, John R.	Harris, Michael D.	Ross, Lillian
Barrett, Toby	Hastings, John	Runciman, Bob
Bassett, Isabel	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Beaubien, Marcel	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Boushy, Dave	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Johnson, Dave	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Klees, Frank F.	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Fisher, Barb	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Flaherty, Jim	Munro, Julia	Vankoughnet, Bill
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Guzzo, Garry J.	Pettit, Trevor
Hardeman, Ernie	Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays, 76.

The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the motion lost.

The next question to be decided is Mrs McLeod's amendment to the motion.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hampton, Howard	Phillips, Gerry
Brown, Michael A.	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Castrilli, Annamarie	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Churley, Marilyn	Laughren, Floyd	Silipo, Tony
Colle, Mike	Marchese, Rosario	Wildman, Bud
Cooke, David S.	Martel, Shelley	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Martin, Tony
Duncan, Dwight	McLeod, Lyn

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Harnick, Charles	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Baird, John R.	Harris, Michael D.	Ross, Lillian
Barrett, Toby	Hastings, John	Runciman, Bob
Bassett, Isabel	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Beaubien, Marcel	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Boushy, Dave	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Johnson, Dave	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Klees, Frank F.	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Fisher, Barb	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Flaherty, Jim	Munro, Julia	Vankoughnet, Bill
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Guzzo, Garry J.	Pettit, Trevor
Hardeman, Ernie	Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 34; the nays, 76.

1730

The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the motion lost.

We will now come to the motion of Mrs Fisher. All those in support of the motion of Mrs Fisher will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Harnick, Charles	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Baird, John R.	Harris, Michael D.	Ross, Lillian
Barrett, Toby	Hastings, John	Runciman, Bob
Bassett, Isabel	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Beaubien, Marcel	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Boushy, Dave	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Johnson, Dave	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Klees, Frank F.	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Fisher, Barb	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Flaherty, Jim	Munro, Julia	Vankoughnet, Bill
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Guzzo, Garry J.	Pettit, Trevor
Hardeman, Ernie	Preston, Peter

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hampton, Howard	Phillips, Gerry
Brown, Michael A.	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Castrilli, Annamarie	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Churley, Marilyn	Laughren, Floyd	Silipo, Tony
Colle, Mike	Marchese, Rosario	Wildman, Bud
Cooke, David S.	Martel, Shelley	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Martin, Tony
Duncan, Dwight	McLeod, Lyn

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 76; the nays, 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a Member of the Order of Canada, Knight in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, doctor of laws, bachelor of laws, bachelor of arts, Honorary Colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, Honorary Colonel of 429 Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Honorary Captain of the Fifth Canadian Maritime Operations Group at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): As previously agreed to, there is a deferred vote on opposition day motion number 1 by Mrs McLeod. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1738 to 1743.

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

We're dealing with the motion in Mrs McLeod's name. Would the members in favour rise one by one.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick	Duncan, Dwight	McGuinty, Dalton
Boyd, Marion	Gerretsen, John	McLeod, Lyn
Bradley, James J.	Gravelle, Michael	Morin, Gilles E.
Brown, Michael A.	Hampton, Howard	Patten, Richard
Caplan, Elinor	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Castrilli, Annamarie	Kwinter, Monte	Pouliot, Gilles
Christopherson, David	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Pupatello, Sandra
Churley, Marilyn	Lankin, Frances	Ramsay, David
Colle, Mike	Laughren, Floyd	Sergio, Mario
Cooke, David S.	Marchese, Rosario	Silipo, Tony
Crozier, Bruce	Martel, Shelley	Wildman, Bud
Curling, Alvin	Martin, Tony	Wood, Len

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Harnick, Charles	Preston, Peter
Baird, John R.	Harris, Michael D.	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Barrett, Toby	Hastings, John	Ross, Lillian
Bassett, Isabel	Hodgson, Chris	Runciman, Bob
Beaubien, Marcel	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Boushy, Dave	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Brown, Jim	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Carr, Gary	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Dave	Skarica, Toni
Chudleigh, Ted	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Clement, Tony	Jordan, Leo	Snobelen, John
Cunningham, Dianne	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Danford, Harry	Klees, Frank F.	Sterling, Norman W.
DeFaria, Carl	Leach, Al	Stewart, R. Gary
Ecker, Janet	Leadston, Gary L.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Elliott, Brenda	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Fisher, Barb	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Flaherty, Jim	Maves, Bart	Turnbull, David
Ford, Douglas B.	Munro, Julia	Vankoughnet, Bill
Fox, Gary	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Froese, Tom	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Galt, Doug	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Gilchrist, Steve	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Grimmett, Bill	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Hardeman, Ernie	Pettit, Trevor

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays, 77.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Fifth order: second reading, Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Point of order, the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, I move An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- and to promote economic prosperity --

The Speaker: Order. I've recognized the member for Waterloo North, but we have a point of order?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Yes. Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Under standing order VII, section 22(1)(b), I'd like to move that the member for Windsor-Riverside who had risen in his speech be now heard.

The Speaker: Order. My understanding is the member for Windsor-Riverside is out of order at this time.

The member for Waterloo North.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure -- you'll have to explain to me in terms of the procedure that's allowed here. I understand that there's no challenge to the Chair's ruling, but I'm wondering if you could explain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine on a point of order.

Ms Lankin: I am wondering if you could explain the reasons for your ruling. As I read section VII, 22(1)(b), it says, "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker's opinion, rose first in his or her place." I understand that in your opinion the member from Waterloo rose first. However, it goes on to say that no debate is permitted on your decision, which I understand, "but a motion may be made by any member," that member being myself at this time, that the member who had risen at the same time, that being the member for Windsor-Riverside, "be now heard" or "do now speak."

As I understand it, that is a motion that is in order, it's a motion that is non-debatable and it's a motion that should be put to the vote of the House.

The Speaker: It may be a motion that's in order at another time, but this motion on the orders of the day is the one on the floor, and that's the one that we will deal with.

1750

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could you just help us out here in telling us exactly, when you say the motion would be in order at another time, when in fact there are two members who stand at the same time, how it would be appropriate at another time? Mr Speaker, I think it's inappropriate --

The Speaker: Order. I have called order.

Interjections.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, if you're going to have peace in this House you're going to have to give at least an explanation --

Interjections.

Mr Cooke: You owe that to the opposition; there's 82 of them and --

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

Mr Cooke: I'm asking for an explanation.

The Speaker: I have recognized the member for Waterloo North first.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, it's not enough if you simply say --

The Speaker: No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Only a minister might have the floor at this time to move the motion which I recognized, and that has happened. I would call on the Minister of Labour to proceed with orders of the day.

The member for Lake Nipigon has a point of order.

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Avec respect j'aimerais, Monsieur le Président, tirer votre attention sur le Règlement des débats.

Vous serez sans doute au courant que ces règlements, au fil des ans, ont été mis sur pied afin de ne pas placer les membres de l'opposition, dans ce cas des deux partis, dans un état de siège. Or mon collègue, notre leader parlementaire, s'est chargé de vous rappeler précisément les lois gouvernant les débats sur l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Moi-même, j'ai été surpris, habitué en quelques années à écouter méticuleusement, à ne jamais interrompre et surtout à donner une chance dans notre démocratie aux partis de l'opposition.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There can't be a point of order when there's no motion on the floor.

Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, with great respect, I'm seeking a clarification on the rules of debate. I think you will find this on page 14 of the standing orders. All members have been the recipient of the standing orders. I await your clarification and I thank you, Monsieur le Président.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. We're now into debate, orders of the day.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I'm sorry that the member for Carleton is so upset about the members of the opposition attempting --

Hon Mr Sterling: Well, you're out of order, you know.

The Speaker: Order. My understanding is that you cannot move a point of privilege or a point of order until we get into debate, and we have not started the debate yet. We are moving points of order and points of privilege before we're into debate. So I recognize the member for Waterloo North.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 7, An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity.

This legislation is designed to bring about positive changes in our economy, create jobs and introduce democracy to the workforce.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Waterloo North take her seat, please. The member for Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe a point of order can be brought at any time in this House, that there is any time at which a point of order may be brought because these rules state the orders of this House and these rules can be raised and brought before you at any time. That is my point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that all of us, as members, have the capacity to raise with you where and when and whether and how these orders apply to the House.

So I have a bit of difficulty understanding how I, as a member of this House who is to obey the rules of this House, can only raise orders at a certain point of time. I believe I can raise a point of order at any time in the proceedings of the House. The first question I have, which is the substance of my point of order, is, I believe a point of order can be raised at any time.

My second point is, I'm simply referring to the clear language that is written on page 16 of the rules of order. Page 16 says that when a member rises and puts a motion that a member be now heard, that member "do now speak"; that is not a debatable motion.

That's my only point. It seems to me that the clear language of the rules is there. If the clear words do not mean what they say, I would ask you for an explanation then of what they do mean. If we cannot rely upon the clear meaning of words in the English language, then I think we need an explanation in this House as to what they do mean.

The Speaker: I haven't heard what your point of order is, so I'll ask the member to proceed.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, as a member who has served in this House for some 20 years, I do not understand how you can rule that a member cannot raise a point of order to deal with the rules of the House. You are telling us that it is not in order to raise a point of order at this time. Would you please explain when it is.

Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I guess one of the concerns that I have and I think that members are expressing frustration about is that when you make a ruling on a particular point of order that any of us raises -- and you know, you've been here long enough to know that there will be points of order many times. I get a kick out of the angst that's being expressed by some members of the Conservative Party. They wrote the rules on how to disrupt this place in the last five years.

Hon Mr Sterling: Because you're out of order.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cooke: We saw them, the bills that were introduced all the afternoon in the name of Mr Harris, so don't lecture us.

Mr Speaker, when you give a ruling in the House, I think it is appropriate that you give a full explanation of why you are giving a particular ruling. The concern that all of us have this afternoon is why you've given this particular ruling when the rule says very clearly that, "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker's opinion, rose first in his or her place; no debate is permitted on the Speaker's decision, but a motion may be made that any member who has risen `be now heard' or `do now speak.'"

Your response was simply --

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

The House adjourned at 1759.

16 octobre 1995