role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 20, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

JOHN LUNAU

GAMBLING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

LEGAL ACTION

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

LABOUR RELATIONS

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

CARLTON MASTERS

BLOOD TESTING

LABOUR DISPUTE

TOURISM

WILL FERGUSON

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

DRIVERS' LICENCES

MINING INDUSTRY

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

DRIVERS' LICENCES

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

GAMBLING

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

GAMBLING

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

CANINDO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ACT, 1993

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Yesterday in the Legislature, Dave Cooke, the Minister of Education and Training, admitted that the government is, first, backing down from his commitment to expend the $33 million left from last fall's promised transition fund, and secondly, he also refused to make the commitment that any of the $99-million restructuring fund also announced last fall would ever get to the boards.

When I asked the minister directly about when boards can expect to receive these moneys that were allocated, his response was that, at this point, "Those dollars are being reviewed and a final decision hasn't been made."

Just last month, the minister distributed to school boards a list of grants they were to receive, yet now this month we hear the minister revoking yet another funding announcement. Some partnership.

This is a critical time for school boards. Many of them are in a financial crisis. Once again, the rug has been pulled out from under them with the minister's disturbing unannouncement yesterday.

School boards are not asking for any new dollars; they are simply asking this minister to keep his commitment and provide stability to them by distributing the dollars that have already been committed.

It is completely unfair to expect local property taxpayers to once again pick up the tab for this minister's offloading on to local school boards. We are calling upon the minister to end the uncertainty and to act quickly to provide the funding that has already been promised to school boards across the province.

JOHN LUNAU

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When the town of Markham woke up on Sunday morning of April 18, it was a poorer town with the loss of its town historian, storyteller, founder of the Markham Museum, a loyal and generous native son, John Lunau, who died at 63 years of age of a heart attack.

All of us who are a part of the town of Markham owe him a great debt of gratitude. First, his personal life in fighting the battle with diabetes didn't stop him from always wanting to contribute and to make it a better place. He was a courageous man. His love of his mother, Aileen, his heritage, his love for Canada, its traditions, our Queen, was an example to all of us. His roots were deep.

His commitment to the history of the community inspired all of us. Would we today have the Mount Joy school serving as a museum? I doubt it, had it not been for John.

He was in the process of developing a 200th-anniversary story of the town for our celebrations in June. He was known as a great sports supporter. He managed the Markham Aces baseball team to a championship in 1952. In 1987, he received the Achievement and Civic Recognition Award for outstanding contribution to our community.

To his mother, Aileen, to the whole community, to all who knew him and to those who didn't, we have lost just a tremendous friend and a great person. May God's peace rest with all who knew him, in his memory.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise again in the House to raise that issue of casino gambling and the ill-fated and ill-conceived attempt by the government of Ontario to bring forth a means of expanding gambling in the province of Ontario.

You know, I've written three papers which I have disseminated among all the members of this House and throughout the province of Ontario, and I have not received -- as usual -- any response to these things I have written. For instance, the last one, which is called Casino Gambling: A Regressive Tax on the Poor, is a paper that was basically written because what the government has tried to argue is that poor people are not impacted by lotteries and by gambling. This is not only a falsehood; it is a damnable falsehood. We see it in terms of the numbers of people who go to gambling casinos, go to bingos, use the lottery system as a means to help themselves to find a better tomorrow.

What I would like to say is that these are the kinds of things that are being offered by a government that no doubt is facing difficult times. But to face difficult times is one thing; to initiate a policy which is going to be regressive, which is going to be hurtful, which is going to cause poverty, which is going to cause more addiction in society, does not make any sense. I would ask the government to come to its senses and stop this policy and begin to move in a more positive way to help maintain the issue of social justice in our communities.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, my statement today is directed through you to the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of Transportation will be aware of recent articles dealing with the safety of Highway 403 between Highways 401 and 5. As the MPP for Mississauga North, I am very familiar with this highway, which runs through my area of responsibility. Recent articles provided alarming reports on the number of accidents which have taken place on that stretch of road. This highway has been the subject of three inquests over the last 18 months. It has been reported that despite accounting for only 10% of all the annual accidents on the seven highways patrolled by Port Credit OPP, this stretch of highway has accounted for 34% of the 75 fatalities over the past five years.

I believe it is imperative for the Minister of Transportation and his ministry to review the highway design and the immediate installation of a guard-rail through the centre of the existing grassy median. I believe that further guard-rail additions should be installed according to previous investigations.

Again, as the MPP for Mississauga North, I would ask the Minister of Transportation to give this matter his immediate personal attention so that safer road conditions will exist on a stretch of highway which is increasingly utilized.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to express my continued dissatisfaction with the way in which the NDP is handling the issue of restructuring in Simcoe county. It is becoming painfully clear that the government is searching for scapegoats for its own failure to move forward on legislation that would facilitate the restructuring of Simcoe county.

The government is using the opposition of myself and the member for Simcoe East as an excuse not to introduce the County of Simcoe Act. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs said the government would proceed with restructuring as long as there was a consensus in place. There has not been any consensus since day one of the process, when the previous Liberal government toldyou Simcoe county to restructure or else.

This message was brought home powerfully to the government in the last municipal election. In a referendum vote, several municipalities voted overwhelmingly against forced restructuring. Much to my disappointment, the government defeated my private member's bill that prevented forced amalgamation, even though the Premier and the NDP member from Simcoe Centre campaigned in the last election against forced restructuring.

But even more surprising than the government's flip-flop on this issue is its attempt to silence my right to represent my constituents. By tying my opposition to restructuring to their legislative timetable, this majority government is attempting to prevent me from doing what I was elected to do, and that's represent my constituents. Instead of making me their scapegoat for dragging their feet, the government should start dealing in honesty and tell the county of Simcoe what its plans are for the county's restructuring legislation.

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, as you know, this is Earth Week. This week is about celebrating the life-sustaining richness of the earth, but it's also about recognizing the fragility and vulnerability of our world and our responsibility to care for it.

There is a risk during a recession that our awareness of the environment will be overshadowed by other concerns. A few years ago, the environment often took precedence over other considerations when people made decisions about buying products and services, and businesses responded by providing products and services that were more environmentally responsible than the existing products.

Fortunately, Earth Week can be used as the occasion to focus attention on the environment. In my constituency of Kingston and The Islands, there are a number of events planned for Earth Week, as I'm sure there are in many ridings throughout the province. For example, the Kingston Area Recycling Corp is holding two composting workshops this week. The Earth Day Ontario organization and the Kingston Global Community Centre are planning events, activities and displays with information about composting and being environmentally responsible both at home and at work, and trees will be planted in local parks.

The thing is that environmental issues can't be deferred, and a lot of the damage that's being done can't be reversed. We have to act now. There are simple things we can all do to save energy, water and trees. We can take reusable bags when we go shopping. We can turn off lights when we leave a room. We can walk or cycle instead of taking the car. We can stop buying products made with toxic chemicals. We can start composting at home and at work. We can reuse single-sided paper.

I urge everyone to get involved in Earth Week activities taking place in their communities and to do something this week to help the environment.

LEGAL ACTION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I read with interest the statements by the Attorney General that she would be seeking a province-wide injunction with reference to people expressing their views in terms of the question of pro-life. I recognize that there is an allegation that these people are causing the subjects of this injunction a great difficulty. However, I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party, which supports unionism and has fought for the right to picket, freedom of speech, the opportunity to express one's view, would take such a draconian position against parties at the behest of one side.

I would suggest that in the tradition of the New Democratic Party, perhaps it should stay out of the entire event and not support either side and allow the people to express their views, hopefully in a peaceful fashion, which has been the case to this point.

I find it really strange that a New Democratic Party would support bringing an injunction against people who are simply doing what unionists do on a regular basis in picketing against companies and in fact causing disturbances with companies, perhaps interfering with their business. In fact, they don't bring injunctions there, nor would I think the Attorney General would do so. She has done it on behalf of a select group. It is a very dangerous process, and I suspect that the courts will reject her application.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who claims that restructuring of north Simcoe county was a locally driven initiative. However, you have imposed

section 33, which allows for the potential review of the boundaries of the cities of Barrie and Orillia. This is directly against the wishes of the county of Simcoe and clearly shows that restructuring is not a locally driven initiative.

This has been a flawed and undemocratic process from day one. The people of Orillia township were never asked if they wanted to be part of Oro township or the city of Orillia. Your government has disenfranchised the residents of these and many other municipalities in Simcoe county.

Minister, yesterday you said you would move with legislation if and when all parties concerned reach a consensus. Minister, that's a copout. Your job as minister is to bring forward the appropriate legislation and then assist in reaching that consensus.

My job, as my party's critic for Municipal Affairs (rural) is to reflect the opinions and views of the affected constituents and provide constructive criticism of that legislation. The member for Simcoe West and I would suggest that you fulfil your obligations as minister rather than looking for someone to blame for your government's flawed and undemocratic agenda.

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): As all members are aware, this week is Earth Week. Earth Week includes the promotion and encouragement of all communities to become involved in cleaning up our ravines and our rivers and all of our green spaces. This includes planting trees, recycling and fighting against pollution.

In my own riding, we have some special activities which are happening through the borough of East York. We will be having special cleanup days on April 24, May 1 and May 8. For more information on where these spring cleanups are taking place, you can contact Christine Chandler at 778-2036.

I would like to encourage all levels of government to participate in this Earth Week and in the promotion of awareness of Earth Week. Finally, I would like to issue a challenge to all opposition members to participate in this week by reducing our amounts of junk mail.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you have indicated in recent weeks, on a number of occasions, that the financial situation of the province is deteriorating significantly, and you yourself have raised the prospect that we could face a $17-billion in-year deficit in fiscal 1993-94 if significant cost containment measures are not undertaken.

Premier, you yourself have also invested a great deal in what you have chosen to call a "social contract," which you and your government are endeavouring to negotiate not just with your partners in the direct Ontario public service but within the broader Ontario public service as well. I was interested yesterday, Premier, to hear your chief negotiator in these social contract talks say rather directly to a couple of journalists that he wasn't exactly sure and could not personally define what the "social contract" meant.

My question, Premier, is, given the extremely serious financial situation in which your government now finds itself, and given the importance which you yourself have attached to this exercise which you have described as a "social contract," would you tell the House, your partners in these talks and the province beyond what you intend and what you, Bob Rae, Premier, mean to intend by the term "social contract"?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Perhaps the simplest way to introduce the member to the concept is to say that it's the one way that this government can see of saving jobs and essential services in a time of really tremendous economic restraint. That's the basic framework which we are presenting to all of our partners in the broader public sector.

I think it was Mr Little, the reporter for the Globe and Mail, yesterday who in his

article on the subject of the debt in Ontario made the comment that the legacy of the three-year government of which the honourable member was such an active member was to create a public sector which could only be sustained if the economy was running flat out. Well, I think we all understand that this has not happened to the economy in the last three years. Therefore, there have to be significant adjustments made in the public sector.

We made decisions that we would essentially try to carry the problem ourselves, as a government, at the peak of the recession, and we made that decision. It is now clear that as the recovery comes on there is a real need for us to make a significant adjustment this year and that this adjustment has to be made in cooperation with all our partners. The existing contractual relationships between employees and employers we don't think are sufficiently broad, take enough things into account, in order to allow us, with our partners, in cooperation with our partners, to make this adjustment.

Mr Conway: Mr Premier, we are apparently about a month away from the Finance minister's 1993 budget. Anyone who knows anything about competent government would know that at this late point in that cycle, the executive council, certainly the Premier and the Finance minister, would clearly have worked out their fiscal framework in which the budget will sit, assuming that we are going to get a provincial budget within three, four or five week's time. Assuming that is a reasonable point, I ask the Premier this question.

Yesterday, some of his partners in this critical dialogue around the new social contract essentially said: "We are not prepared to talk about a broad, ethereal framework. We want, Mr Premier, to know much more of the particulars of what your contract intends, and we don't intend to discuss in generalities."

Given that time is passing --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the honourable member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: I noticed you were prepared to give the Premier a very considerable latitude, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the honourable member take his seat, please. I would like equal opportunity for both sides, and the member will know from watching the clock that to date that's what happened, but I'm asking both sides to be brief in their questions and their responses.

Mr Conway: I was watching the clock; that's why I made my comment.

I want to say to the Premier, will you tell us today, and your partners, not just in the Ontario public service but in the hospital and school board and community college and municipal sectors, what specific intentions you have and what specific directions you have given to Mr Decter, who has admitted as recently as yesterday that he doesn't know exactly what the social contract intends?

Hon Mr Rae: I think perhaps some of Mr Decter's sense of irony was lost on the member, but I don't think it was lost on the reporters. Let me just say directly to the honourable member, this information will be shared with the people at the negotiating table and with the general public very, very soon indeed, and I would say to the honourable member that his account of the perfect knowledge that former ministers of finance and former first ministers had prior to a budget doesn't exactly jibe with every piece of anecdotal and other information I've heard over the last 15 years.

Mr Conway: What we know is that it is the Rae government which has been in charge of the finances of this province for two and a half years. It is the Rae-Laughren team which has brought the province and the public service of this province to the brink of this precipice. Let there be no confusion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: It was not that long ago that the Ontario Labour Relations Board said the following, and I quote, "Surface bargaining is a term which describes going through the motions or preserving of the surface indications of bargaining without the intent of concluding an agreement."

Will the Premier, as leader of this NDP socialist government, give his partners in the direct and broader Ontario public service a commitment that he is not engaged in surface bargaining and that in fact his negotiator and his government will meet their partners in good faith as they go forward in these discussions?

Hon Mr Rae: My answer to his question is quite simply yes. My answer to his lengthy

preamble is that if he is standing in this place and saying that, as a member of a government which in a time of unprecedented economic good times still managed to raise the deficit by over 33%, he is pointing the finger at one particular political party as being solely responsible for the situation in which we now find ourselves as a province, I would say to the honourable member that I don't think that kind of comment has any credibility with anybody whatsoever.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: A second question, Mr Speaker: I'll tell you, I'll be saying to the public servants and the citizens of Ontario, "You judge your condition in 1993 under Bob Rae and you compare it with the Liberal administration of 1985 to 1990 and you decide."

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

Mr Conway: I'll ask the nurses and the teachers and the public servants if they think --

The Speaker: Could the member place his second question.

Mr Conway: -- life in Bob Rae's Ontario is better or worse than in David Peterson's Ontario, and they will agree with the electors of Don Mills and St George-St David that Bob Rae --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. Was the member placing his second question?

Mr Conway: My second question is to the junior minister of Health. To the minister, yesterday the press reported that the Premier intends that we should all share in the sacrifice and the burden which the social contract will impose upon Ontarians. My question is to the junior minister of Health, and that is the member for Perth.

The Speaker: The member raises something which I've given some thought to, but it's unclear as to whether or not a member without portfolio can answer a question with or without the agreement of the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the members to come to order. I'll entertain a point of order once I'm finished. I would direct to the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member raises a serious point, one which I would appreciate an opportunity to reflect on and come back to the House with a ruling. In the interim, I will say that it is appropriate to ask questions only of ministers of the crown. You may wish to -- point of order?

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Mr Speaker, I find it very strange. I don't want to challenge the authority of the Chair, but there is recent and constant history in this House, certainly in the administration of the Liberal government, where we had ministers without portfolio who regularly were asked and answered questions. There's nothing unusual about it at all. We had several and on a regular basis they were asked questions. No one raised any objection to it. It was a matter of course. I'm sure if you check with the table officers, you will find that is quite in order.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to comment on the point of order raised by the member opposite. Ministers without portfolio should not be answering questions in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, that's not only a precedent in this House, but it's also a precedent that is supported by precedents at Westminster.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. A serious point of order was raised. It's incumbent upon the members to listen respectfully to those who are seeking to advise the Chair. I would ask members to have some basic respect for those who are attempting to assist the Speaker. I would ask, since this is a procedural matter, that if the members could be brief in their comments, I am quite prepared to add some time to the clock to continue. But I would ask for the members' cooperation and respect for one another in this chamber.

Hon Mr Charlton: On December 12, 1991, the Speaker ruled on a point of order raised by the member for Carleton on November 27, 1991. That ruling disallowed any questions to the member for Niagara South, both by virtue of a role as Minister without Portfolio and by virtue of a role as chief government whip.

That ruling is very much in keeping with Erskine May, which states that questions to ministers must relate to matters for which those ministers are officially responsible and, further to that, it is not in order to question a minister for something for which another minister is more directly responsible.

Ministers without portfolio have been specifically assigned responsibilities for which they have sole carriage, such as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues, have been asked questions in this House. However, the current ministers without portfolio do not have responsibilities assigned specifically to them. While many of the ministers without portfolio are associated with a ministry, there is clearly in all cases a different minister who is actually responsible for the ministry in question and who can be asked a question on that ministry by any member.

The Speaker should, in keeping with earlier rulings in this House and in the British House of Commons, rule any questions to ministers without portfolio out of order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I think if the Speaker will check -- and we're quite prepared to give him time to do that -- he will find that there have been numerous examples, both with respect to the previous government and the government before it, where ministers without portfolio in this very Legislature routinely were asked and answered questions.

With respect to the comment just made by the government House leader, the Premier has said -- and I'm sure we can get you the press releases and the newspaper clippings -- that these ministers indeed do have real responsibility and real duties, that they're not just sham, that they do have real responsibilities that each and every one of them is responsible for.

The member for Renfrew North is simply directing a question to a Minister without Portfolio who is quite properly referred to as a junior minister, because the Premier has designated her thus, to answer a question within her jurisdiction that the Premier has given to her.

I would also point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Education and Training was just quoted, either yesterday or the day before, in the media as saying he indeed needed two ministers to run his huge, new supereducation ministry and five parliamentary assistants, and he went on to say that they each have duties that he has delineated to them for which they are each responsible.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you will check the record, the point that the government House leader makes about the member for Niagara South is quite appropriate. I would point out to you that the difference in that case was that the member for Niagara South had no ministerial responsibilities whatsoever besides being the whip of the government party, and you quite properly, I would submit to you, ruled that particular question out of order because she had no delineated responsibilities. But these ministers, as the Premier's own words say, definitely do, and they should be able to answer questions for matters which they are responsible for.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I find the statement by the House leader of the government very strange. If it is indeed true that the ministers without portfolio do not have any responsibilities specifically assigned to them, then surely why are they being paid a special salary and why are they given ministerial privileges such as a car, salary and extra staff?

In short, and I want to make this very brief, you're speaking to a person who was a Minister without Portfolio for multiculturalism and for disabled persons. Therefore I routinely answered many times question after question from these people across the seats, including the present Premier.

Consequently, we would request -- nay, demand -- that ministers without portfolio come here and answer questions that are assigned to them, specific or not specific. That's their responsibility and duty to this House.

The Speaker: I appreciate the contributions from the different members who have spoken, particularly the House leader from the third party, the House leader from the government and others who have spoken. It is a matter which requires some deliberation. I'm very pleased to do so. I will try to get back to you as quickly as possible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the members in the interim to ask questions only of ministers of the crown and I will endeavour to come back to the House as quickly as possible.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am standing on a point of order because I attended the swearing-in of the current cabinet. I sat there and witnessed the oath that was taken by every one of the members that are now known as ministers or associate ministers. I would like to place that on the record. If there was any differentiation between those cabinet members at that time, it was not addressed at their swearing-in ceremony.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's contribution. Table, would you add 10 minutes to the time.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there's an important distinction to be made between the previous ruling of the Chair and this particular case. I think it's very, very important that members of the Legislative Assembly that are not part of the executive council have the parliamentary opportunity to question ministers with regard to their activities.

This Premier has decided to reconfigure his cabinet in such a manner where he has, shall we call them, senior and junior ministers. That is the choice of the Premier, and I don't challenge his ability or his right to do that. I think every Premier should have that right. But the balancing part of this equation, in my humble opinion, is that if a minister is sitting as part of the executive council and in fact has some responsibility to the people of Ontario as a cabinet minister, surely members of the Legislature have the right to question that minister with regard to his or her responsibilities. Surely that's a very, very basic part of our parliamentary system.

For instance, if the Premier of Ontario said, "I will be the only principal minister in all of the government and everybody else shall be junior ministers," we would not be permitted to ask anyone other than the Premier questions. If you wanted to take it to that extreme, then by that exaggeration I think you show the principle that a Premier can cover his exposure with regard to a number of issues by limiting the number of senior cabinet ministers.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that your ruling before stands in good stead in terms of parliamentary procedure, parliamentary tradition, with regard to the reforms which this Premier has taken unilaterally to reconfigurate his cabinet. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's thoughtful contribution. He makes some good points which I naturally will consider.

Hon Mr Charlton: On a couple of the points that have been raised in addition since I made my first comments, Mr Speaker, it should be noted that I said in my first response that ministers without portfolio who have specific assignments where no one else is responsible have traditionally in this House answered questions. On the other hand, the minister in each of the ministries, the primary Minister of Health or in any other ministry, is the minister responsible to answer questions in this House.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The rules say nothing about primary ministers. Read the rules. You are the House leader; read the rules. That is not in the rules.

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

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, parliamentary assistants also get assigned specific work tasks in ministries but they don't answer questions in this House. There is one minister responsible, as the accountable minister, to answer questions in this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member and, before recognizing the member for Renfrew North, would you reset the clock to 49 minutes and 4 seconds. I recognize the member for Renfrew North. Based on what he asked before, he may wish to ask a new question or redirect his question, and he may wish to start over.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I will ask the question and, quite frankly, the government can decide whomsoever it wishes to answer the question, because my concern is today not a parliamentary one, it's a financial one. We all know that times are tough and that, as the Premier says, we all have to do our share and, to quote the Premier from yesterday's meeting, that the government will lead the way and will do its part.

My question then to the Minister of Health─

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Whoever it is.

Mr Conway: -- to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore: What is it, given these tough times and this walloping deficit that the government has and the need to have unprecedented social contract negotiations with your partners in the public service to talk about freezes and rollbacks and program cuts -- against the backdrop of all of that, Minister, can you tell the hard-pressed taxpaying public of Ontario what it is that the junior minister of Health, the member for Perth, does to earn her $75,000 salary and to have six political assistants and to have a budget of over $400,000, with a car and driver to boot?

What is it that the member for Perth and the junior minister of Health does for the beleaguered taxpayer that she, the Minister of Health, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, does not or cannot do, or her two parliamentary assistants do not do in the normal course of events?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, the Premier will respond to that question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, what can I do? What can I do? What can I do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, they complain when I'm not here; they complain when I'm here. It seems to be a common refrain.

I don't want to say anything, Mr Speaker, with respect to the questions which are now before you, and any decision which you make, sir, will be entirely accepted by the government. But I do want to say to the honourable member that he may not agree with the approach that we've taken; however, it does have many parallels in other governments. We decided to reduce the size of the cabinet and at the same --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, the number of ministries has been significantly reduced. There was at one time in the administration of my predecessor, of the people who are laughing, opposite, so hard, when there were well over 44 deputy ministers. There are now 30, 31 deputy ministers in the government. We are carrying out and we will be carrying out in the course of this preparation for the budget a very, very significant reduction in the size of government in this province, which will include all levels of the government.

So I want to say to the honourable member, the purpose of having larger ministries, of having ministers which in other governments are called ministers of state or associate ministers or ministers delegate, which they are in France or in Germany or in England or in any other place you want to look at, the determination was to have a cabinet which would be smaller, that is to say 20, but a ministry which would be made up of the ministers who are there.

The ministers without portfolio who are working within ministries are working in association with the minister. They are taking --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's one of the PA's jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite shouts and says, "That's a parliamentary assistant's job." It is in part, but it is a position that carries with it, obviously, more experience and in which it is possible for that minister without portfolio to carry on a significant job for the government.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, there are many people with whom I've discussed this matter who think that the kind of reorganization which we are carrying out in fact takes us to a better and wiser point than we were before.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Conway: My supplementary is that on February 3, 1993, Premier Bob Rae reorganized his cabinet and he reduced the cabinet by increasing the number of ministers from 25 to 27. The New Democrats reduced the cabinet by increasing the number of ministers from 25 to 27.

I understand the political science of this, but I come back to the overwhelming concern of taxpayers in Ontario today and the overwhelming concern of your partners at the famous social contract talks, and that is the financial situation in which we find ourselves.

My question to the Premier, my supplementary, is this. Having regard to the fact that each of the new junior ministers is going to cause the expenditure of an additional $400,000 minimum, because they must have a staff, and their salaries -- the junior minister of Health is getting a salary, all told, of over $75,000.

We know that those junior ministers can't answer questions in the House, and we know they can't go to cabinet meetings, so the question for the taxpayers, who are being asked to restrain as never before, is: All things considered, what benefits, what particular benefits in these times of restraint, do these junior ministers bring that a minister and a parliamentary assistant could not bring?

Hon Mr Rae: In all the facts and figures which the member opposite has recited, he has neglected the one basic fact which I put before him, and that is that the cost of this ministry, including ministers without portfolio, is less than the government of which he was a member. That's the fact which I put before him, in terms of the overall size of ministerial salaries.

And so I would say to the honourable member, when you look at what we're trying to do, you've got several combined departments. You've got a Ministry of Health with a budget of over $16 billion.

You have literally dozens and dozens of delegations that are seeking to meet the minister and seeking to see the minister.

You have many, many requirements in terms of meeting with the public and meeting with delegations and being involved in the administration of the department.

It's our view, as it has been the view of the government of the United Kingdom, as it has been the view of many, many other governments in western democracies, that it's a wiser course to have a smaller cabinet but a ministry overall which is capable of dealing with the task of public administration and a ministry, as I would repeat, whose ministerial salaries total less than those which were part of the previous Liberal administration.

Mr Conway: History will show that the Rae government will be the most expensive government this province has ever had to endure, by any measure, by any calculation.

I want to say to the Premier, as a final supplementary, that we have today, in these extraordinarily critical times, times which by his own admission confront this province with unprecedented fiscal pressures and challenges, a Minister of Health and her full panoply, we've got a junior minister and we've got two parliamentary assistants looking at that department alone, and I could use others.

That I submit at the political level is more expensive in terms of the politicians than any Ministry of Health has been at the political level in the history of Ontario traditionally, and I think if you look at the record, the record will show a Minister of Health and one, maybe two parliamentary assistants, although I can't remember a situation where there were two parliamentary assistants at Health. Today, in these tough times, as you get ready to freeze, to cut and to roll back, you've got the most successful Jobs Ontario program for your own cabinet and your own caucus.

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

Mr Conway: You've got them all at the trough. They're all earning additional salaries, and to what end? A Minister of Health, a junior minister of Health and two parliamentary assistants. That, for example, is costing the hard-pressed taxpayers --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: -- hundreds of thousands of additional dollars. What do you say to your social contract partners when they look at the bloated political arm which you now represent, as you look to cut programs, freeze and roll back salaries?

Hon Mr Rae: When you ask me through all the rhetoric and many of the statements and allegations which have been made --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Bombast.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the kind of bombastic exchange which I suppose the member's now specializing in, I would say to the honourable member that what I say to all those who are participating with us in the social partnership is that we are all of us going to be affected by this adjustment. There isn't a part of government that won't be affected by this adjustment and it will affect all of us, if I may say so, as it already has, because I come back to the point which the member has so carefully ignored. The fact of the matter is the cost of this ministry is less than the cost of the previous ministry.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question as well for the Premier, to follow up on the cost and the size of this government and the bureaucracy, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in support staff for 27 ministers of the crown.

I don't know whether the total figure is less than the biggest bureaucracy we ever had in the history of government in the western world that the Liberals had or not, but I do know this, Premier, that when you downsized your cabinet from 25 to 27 you said in your press release that you were giving assignments for ministers without portfolio, something for them to do to justify the staff they were going to hire, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in perks that will come over and above being a backbench member.

I would like to ask you this, Premier. We've heard that the Speaker doesn't know, we've heard that your House leader doesn't think that the assignments are substantial enough that they should be answering questions. You've referred to other jurisdictions such as France and England where there are junior ministers. In fact, there are junior ministers in Ottawa where they routinely answer questions.

Hon Mr Rae: Because they're in the cabinet.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's right.

Mr Harris: Oh, they're in the cabinet. Your cabinet ministers aren't in the cabinet?

I would like to ask you this, Premier. When you set up these assignments, when you gave them the extra money as junior cabinet ministers, did you think that the assignments would be such that they should be accountable to the public for what it is they're doing through question period in the Legislature? Was it your intention that they should answer for what they're doing in the Legislature and answer questions?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, this matter is now before you, sir, to determine, so I just want to say that whatever determination the Speaker makes is up to him. But I would say very directly to you and to others that whatever ruling you make, Mr Speaker, this government is accountable, the cabinet is accountable collectively and we are accountable and ministers of the crown who have responsibility for particular portfolios are responsible for those portfolios and for that spending and for those decisions within this House. That tradition of accountability is very clearly one which we all subscribe to and certainly I subscribe to.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, yesterday, Premier, your Minister of Education and whatever else he's responsible for said this: "It is impossible for me, quite frankly, to stay on top of every issue before the ministry." That's why he needed the member for Port Arthur or Fort William or wherever she's from --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Port Arthur.

Mr Harris: -- to assist the junior minister.

Hon Mr Rae: They will like that up in Thunder Bay.

Mr Harris: Well, I think they're both about as effective. But anyway, that's why he said he needed the junior minister: "It is impossible for me, quite frankly, to stay on top of every issue before the ministry."

Given that, and given that the responsibility's there and he's counting on her to deal with issues that he can't stay on top of, can you explain to me why we and the public, through us, shouldn't be entitled to ask questions of the junior minister from Port Arthur?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think it's a really big deal one way or the other. We'll let the Speaker make a ruling, but I would say directly to him that when the minister is in the House and has an overall responsibility for that ministry, when he's been attending all the cabinet meetings with respect to that activity, it would seem to me that would be the person to whom you would want to address the question, unless you had some other kind of point that you wanted to make.

Mr Harris: Premier, what I want to do is ask you -- we've heard what your House leader thinks. They shouldn't be exposed to the public, they shouldn't be exposed to the opposition to answer questions. We've heard that. We've heard him beg and plead with the Speaker: "Please protect these junior rascals. They're not capable of answering questions." We've heard him say it's the Premier's intention to shelter them from having to answer questions about the responsibilities they've been given.

I want to know what you think. I want to know, did you give them responsibilities that justify their cabinet position, their salary, their staff -- therefore, we should be able to ask them questions -- or did you not? If you did not, will you fire them today? If you did, will you signify that you think they should be able to answer questions?

Hon Mr Rae: The quick answer to the member's question -- the latter part of his question, obviously -- is no. But I just want to say to him, their responsibilities are, it seems to me, ones that are parallel to those in a great many other places in which the decision has been made to go to a smaller cabinet and one in which the ministry would extend beyond the cabinet, and that's exactly what we've done here. Those are precisely the steps that we've taken. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it's a tradition which I think is wise.

He talks about the size of the cabinet. I can remember --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: His colleague from Mississauga says she sat in at the swearing in. I can remember sitting in at the swearing in here in 1985 when the member for North Bay was first made a minister of the crown, and there were 34 members of Frank Miller's cabinet -- 34 members.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Okay, 33. Thirty-two? Okay, we'll determine it. There was a whole bunch. There were more than you could shake a stick at.

Mr Harris: And every one of them answered questions in the House, every one of them.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh no, no. No, he's wrong. They didn't answer questions in the House because they didn't call the House back; he called an election. We all know what happened that day.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): A point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order?

Mr Eves: Maybe the Premier would like to check history. I was here answering questions. You have a poor memory.

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, what is out of order?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): What's out of order --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can't hear you. Would you just wait.

Mr Ruprecht: I think that this is such a fundamental issue to the workings of this House and democracy that you should adjourn this House until you make a ruling on this issue.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. I recognize the member for Parry Sound with the second question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Then the member for Mississauga South.

CARLTON MASTERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Attorney General said that it was on October 5, 1992, that the government received the report of the investigation which concluded that Carlton Masters had sexually harassed seven women in his employ. But according to Mr Masters in November: "The Premier said I had his full confidence. In fact, he hugged me."

At some point, the Premier considered making Mr Masters his senior economic adviser. Later, Mr Masters was offered a less senior job on the condition of only a simple apology. Premier, why did you offer Mr Masters another job when you knew that an independent inquiry had found that he had sexually harassed seven women?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To be fair to the honourable member, she will know full well that I answered that question when she put the very same question to me on Thursday last week. My answer would be exactly the same, and that was quite simply to give, in all the circumstances surrounding the case, an opportunity for rehabilitation, based on the simple principle that Mr Masters apologize and recognize that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I've answered the question, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Marland: The minister responsible for women's issues last week said in this House that what the government tried to do was to reach a settlement that was going to (1) protect the complainants and (2) be fair to the accused person in the case.

In light of the comments made by Mr Masters, Premier, I suggest to you that perhaps you have not succeeded in either of those conditions of your government in dealing with this very difficult issue. Would you like to tell this House what you have done to protect the complainants and what you have done to be fair to the accused person in this case, who says he has not been treated fairly by your government?

Hon Mr Rae: This is not an easy situation and I wouldn't for a moment assert that it is. I would simply say to the honourable member that we responded immediately to any suggestions of a complaint through the secretary of cabinet at the time, that an independent process was established, that it was nothing to do with anything said by any member of this government that had to do with any comments about complainants being made public, that we tried throughout to protect the identity of the complainants and that we attempted to find a settlement and a solution which would be fair to everyone concerned. That's exactly what we endeavoured to do.

The member opposite may not agree with the decisions that the government took, may not agree with the fact that an offer was made to Mr Masters and that the offer was rejected for the reasons which are very clear to everyone. That difference is there. I stand by my judgement that these are issues that have to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity, and it's not always easy to succeed in a perfect outcome because of all the controversy and publicity surrounding this matter. I regret that personally, but I think it's something that we simply have to weather.

Mrs Marland: It's very difficult for us to understand how offering this particular employee another job deals with the sensitivities of the complainants. The complainants are wondering, if perhaps the case were reversed, whether this government would be paying $75,000 of their legal bills.

I ask you, Premier, now that we have police in this province investigating civil servants who have been charged with sexual harassment, if you're happy with the message that your government is sending out on this subject. Because if you don't deal with this particular example in a little more equitable way than you have dealt with it up to now, which is simply run and hide, we're going to have a situation in this province where complainants and accused of sexual harassment will not know where to go, what to do or what position your government will take if they happen to be in its employment.

What is your position in the future cases, other than people who are friends and appointments of yours?

Hon Mr Rae: I just would say to the honourable member, if she would look at the facts in terms of how this issue was dealt with, as soon as there was the suggestion of a problem, there was established an independent investigation. There was established right away an independent investigation. Mr Masters was suspended from his responsibilities, taken out of the particular place in question.

I would then say to the honourable member that the independent investigation took place and that, as a result of that investigation, there was an offer of other employment at a lesser rate of pay, without being a deputy minister, on condition that there be a clear recognition by him of the fact that there clearly was a problem. That was the condition that Mr Masters could not accept, and as a result of that he left the employ of the government.

I think the message from the government is very clear. We're prepared to take steps to act right away, to act as sensitively and as fairly to all concerned as we possibly can and also to accept the fact that whatever you do, you're going to get criticized. That's one of the things that I certainly accept in this matter.

BLOOD TESTING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question today is to the real Minister of Health who, like her predecessor and her predecessor before that and her predecessor before that, needs no junior minister to stand in on her behalf.

Minister, on Thursday last I asked you what your intentions were with respect to those individuals who had contracted the HIV virus as a result of delays in the blood screening program in the early 1980s. The minister's response to that question was, "Later on today, I will be talking with my colleagues in other parts of the country."

I'm asking the minister if she will tell the House today the results of those discussions and what decisions she has reached regarding Ontario's position as a result of those conversations.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm unable to give the member a definitive answer today. No conclusion has been reached on those discussions.

Mrs Sullivan: Well, the minister responded in a very different way on Thursday afternoon because, subsequent to my questions to her in the House, I understand that the minister, in a scrum, warned people across Ontario that if they had had blood transfusions or had received blood products before 1985, they should be checked for the HIV virus. The minister did not limit her warning to the period of time between 1980 and 1985, which experts see as the threshold period for concern, and she made the warning in an informal, off-the-cuff way in a scrum.

In fact, the careful, considered approach to this entire issue has been left to the hospitals and others. This government has let Nova Scotia take the lead in providing compensation at the provincial level to those who received tainted blood before 1985, when appropriate screening was not done.

When, I ask the minister, will this government take its responsibility? When will this minister sit down at the table and negotiate a settlement so that HIV-T people can get on with their lives and live in peace?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are two issues that the member is addressing, and I think it's really important that we be clear about both of them. One is that anybody who suspects that he or she may in fact have received blood that could be tainted has a responsibility to talk to his or her family physician to receive counselling and to have a test. That has been the position of this ministry for many years. It has been a position that has been put forward by community groups where we have funded education. That goes without question.

The other issue the member is raising is the question of compensation for haemophiliacs who may have received blood that was tainted. That is an issue that has been discussed by ministers of health across the country, where an agreement had been reached that the federal government would compensate these people where court cases are pending and where all the provincial ministers of health are still discussing what their response should be now that one province has agreed to move on compensation. It is under discussion, and as I said in response to the first question, I am not yet in a position to give the member an answer.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday I asked the Chairman of Management Board to explain why the Treasurer, the Minister of Northern Development, the former Chairman of Management Board and the member for Sudbury had intervened in a labour dispute between OPSEU and Sudbury Youth Services, a private, non-profit agency in Sudbury. I had no answer. The Chair of Management Board wasn't aware of that.

I wonder, Premier, if you could tell me today why members of your cabinet would interfere in a labour dispute in a way that, as the arbitrator says, "utterly compromised the next set of negotiations" and "usurped the prerogatives and the bargaining rights of management." Can you explain that, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll defer that to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): The leader of the third party raised this question yesterday, and I gave him an undertaking that I would take a look at the matter. I've reviewed the arbitration decision that the member referred to yesterday in his question. It says very much what he reported yesterday. I should point out, though, that this arbitration board report was a result of a submission by the union in an arbitration hearing and based on that exclusively. Obviously, I've also had discussions with my colleagues.

We had a situation where there was a strike in the fall of 1990, a strike that had been going on for some nine weeks, where ministers acted to find funds to see that a settlement occurred. We don't concur that there was meddling in the collective bargaining process.

Mr Harris: Ministers of the crown, without talking to the employer who was being struck, decided selectively to find some money and to intervene without talking to management. We all know, Mr Minister, the real reason. The real reason the government ministers stuck their noses into a labour dispute where they had no business sticking their noses was because the Premier was to attend the opening of the new Northern Development building in Sudbury as well as a dinner honouring his Treasurer, and OPSEU threatened to picket both events if the strike wasn't settled.

So, based upon that embarrassment, to see this Premier for the first time on the other side of a picket line, your cabinet ministers intervened inappropriately.

Let me ask the minister this, and through you to the Premier, should you wish to refer it: Have the ministers apologized for compromising Sudbury Youth Services, have they apologized for intervening where they shouldn't have, and what procedures are in place now so this will never happen again?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me deal with two aspects of this issue. The first one is that the leader of the third party has been on his feet in this House on innumerable occasions demanding government intervention in precisely situations like this. So it is just a little bit farfetched to hear him now saying what he's saying.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, I'll point out yet again that the comments in the arbitration report are comments made as a result of a presentation by the union to an arbitration hearing long after the fact, I might point out, that had nothing to do with the discussions that went on at the time of a nine-week strike.

TOURISM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Niagara Falls is gearing up for our spring and summer tourist season. In fact, Mr Speaker, I would like to invite you and everyone to the beautiful Blossom Festival Parade on May 8 in Niagara Falls.

I will be meeting next week with Team Niagara Tourism -- that is an enthusiastic new team we have in Niagara -- to plan for this coming tourist season to enhance new ways to serve our tourists. We want to be part of the new reservation system. My question to the minister is, what progress has been made with the new Ontario tourist reservation system?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd like to thank the member for her question, as well as to thank the member for the tremendous efforts she's been making to promote tourism in her riding and in fact in the Niagara region as a whole.

This government has committed $2.5 million of our Jobs Ontario capital to develop the central reservation and information system through the development of its informational infrastructure base. This means that tourists in fact will now be able to phone, or will soon be able to phone, 1-800-Ontario to be able to both get information, including about accommodations, as well as to make reservations then and there at the same time. That means that on behalf of the tourism operators, the deal will be able to be closed at the same time that the tourist is seeking information.

We are now about to launch the pilot for the full system in eastern Ontario effective the end of this month, but already that $2.5 million that this government has invested in the development of the infrastructure system is now benefiting tourism operators in the Niagara area as well as around the province. It's allowing our information centre to answer 62% more calls and it's also providing the Niagara travel information centres with the computerized database they require to provide tourists with more information.

Ms Harrington: Niagara Falls and Niagara region, because we have the four bridges from the United States, is a key entranceway to Ontario for all US tourists. Because of this, we want to upgrade our services and treat our tourists with the utmost in service. What other new initiatives are coming this year for Niagara?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, $360,000 is now being invested by this government to upgrade the Niagara Falls travel information centre by allowing it to improve its highway signage, by allowing it to provide display cases for local industry to display its products, also by allowing access by tourists to a user-friendly computer system to obtain individually tailored travel information, and finally, this is creating an additional 10 jobs in the Niagara area in June 1993 to do this work.

WILL FERGUSON

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Premier. On February 13, 1992, the member for Kitchener resigned his cabinet portfolio. On March 8, 1993, he resigned as parliamentary assistant. We have learned that the member for Kitchener, on four separate occasions, refused the opportunity to be interviewed by the OPP as part of the Piper investigation. May I remind you, Mr Premier, that only a week earlier that same member for Kitchener was complaining to the press that the police had not yet spoken to him about the Grandview investigation.

Does the Premier condone members of his caucus refusing to cooperate with the police? Will the Premier please tell this House what reason the member for Kitchener has given to him for his refusal to cooperate with the police investigation in which he was obviously a principal source of information?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm reluctant to engage in too active a commentary on all this, because as you well know the Grandview matter is still under investigation, except to say that an individual person is entitled to be interviewed or not to be interviewed by the police. I certainly have no other comments or views to express on that.

Mrs O'Neill: That's a very difficult standard for the province of Ontario to admire in a Premier. In his March 8 letter of resignation to the Premier, the member for Kitchener says, "I apologize for any grief my action may have caused you, the Premier or the government." On March 29, 1993, the member for Kitchener, to quote you again, Mr Premier, made a very brief statement apologizing to the caucus. That's all. "The matter's now closed." You said, Mr Premier, "The matter's now closed."

The other people in this province, the residents of Ontario and the victims of abuse, do not think the matter's closed.

On April 14, in response to a question from my leader, the Premier said that the member for Kitchener had, and I again quote the Premier, "apologized to me, and I think to the people in question." I've been able to confirm what the member for Kitchener has already admitted to the press, and did that very afternoon, that one of those people in question was not Judi Harris, a victim of abuse, I remind you.

I ask the Premier, how can he possibly justify his caucus colleague's deplorable omission of an apology to a victim of abuse, and the many other victims of abuse who now hesitate to come forward, in any shape or form, with their complaints? When, Mr Premier, will you instruct the member for Kitchener to apologize to the real victim, to the real victims of abuse in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member that she says the matter is now closed. I would say to her that as far as the very basic legal issues that are involved -- and I think, Mr Speaker, there are rules in the House that deal with these questions -- there is a civil action that's taking place, about which I will not comment and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, and there's a criminal investigation under way that's been ongoing for some time. I think the member knows that full well, and any other comment by me would be inappropriate and I suspect if I were to say anything she'd turn around and criticize it in the end.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I will ask the Treasurer the following question: I and many people were very disappointed when the Minister of Agriculture and Food was appointed as the chairman of a committee, a very crass political committee, doing an investigation on NAFTA, of all things. Some $300,000 was spent on this very crass political committee.

Mr Treasurer, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food suffered a 10% reduction in its budget last year. Do you not feel that if indeed you had to spend some money which you don't have, it would have been better to spend it within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food instead of on a crass political committee?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from the member for S-D-G and East Grenville. I would urge him, though, to not mix up the apples and the oranges here. The minister of agriculture is doing, I think, an admirable job, given the constraints this government faces, and I know the member opposite appreciates both the problems that the government has in terms of its fiscal situation and the problems of the agricultural community. He has been most outspoken, and I think appropriately so, on the concerns of the agricultural community.

However, I would expect that he would defend the North American free trade agreement. That is the Tory way in this land, just as it was with the US-Canada free trade agreement, but I don't think he should clutter up the debate by implying that money that's spent on trying to defend Ontario citizens from what we think is potentially a very bad agreement -- with the priorities of the minister of agriculture and this government's commitment to agriculture in this province.

Mr Villeneuve: The government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food have agreed that they would not change their stand on opposition to NAFTA regardless of the presentations that were made to the committee, after spending $300,000.

Mr Treasurer, the facts are that in 1992 the agricultural exports to the United States increased by $500 million -- these are Ag and Food statistics -- in 1991 they increased by $140 million over the previous year, in 1990 they increased by almost $500 million over the previous year, and yet our exports to the rest of the world have gone down. Do you not think there's a message there, Mr Treasurer? Do you not think there's a message there when our exports to the US go up in the last three years, and to the rest of the world they go down? Do you not think this money was absolutely thrown away and spent on a crass political committee which has nowhere to go?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. I would remind the member that while he talks about the increased exports, he conveniently forgets the fact that during the recession this province lost about 300,000 manufacturing jobs, and if you think there's no relationship between the US-Canada free trade agreement and the loss of jobs, then you're not plugged in to what most Ontario citizens believe. You cannot run and hide from the fact that federal Tory policies on a high dollar, high interest rates and free trade were major components in the fact that we're in the kind of recession we're in right now.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Earlier this year there were three young Guelph students aged 16 and 17 who were killed when their car went off the road. They're not the only young people in Ontario to be killed because of inexperience behind the wheel of an automobile, and many people, including myself, believe that perhaps a system of graduated licensing may save some young lives.

I'm wondering if the minister and the ministry are moving towards the implementation of graduated licensing, and if so, when? Can you give us some time lines as to when the implementation of this graduated licensing will be brought into effect? As everyone knows, the number of people we can save through graduated licensing with novice drivers is so much better for this province.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): All members will share in the sorrow each and every time that an Ontarian loses her or his life on our highways; a thousand people, a thousand less Ontarians each year.

There are 6.8 million licensees in the province of Ontario. New and young people between 16 and 25 make up 15% of the 6.8 million licensees, and yet they're involved in fully 30% of the fatalities.

We're looking at very serious proposals to revise the current system, proposals that may well include a zero level of alcohol, tougher multistage, the accompaniment by an adult for three or four years. We have to respect the balance between mobility and safety, and we do hope indeed to have an announcement soon.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. First of all, I'd like to review some of the facts and I must say that these are not encouraging facts when it comes to the mining industry in Ontario.

Revenues are down some $2.2 billion since 1989, from $7.3 billion to $5.1 billion, and that's something the Treasurer will certainly be interested in. Investment in the industry is not happening in Ontario but is flowing to other provinces and other countries where investors are feeling so much more welcome. As well, the government-mandated costs are skyrocketing to a point that the industry is finding it tougher and tougher to do business in Ontario. These, along with other barriers to the industry such as the uncertainty of land access, Bill 40, the uncertainty over environmental legislation and regulations, are just making mining in Ontario extremely unattractive.

Madam Minister, I must ask you what you are doing for the mining industry in this province to ensure that its contribution will be recognized by the Treasurer in his upcoming budget?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member will know that in September of last year the ministry released an incentives paper that we asked our stakeholders in the mining community to come forward with, with respect to public hearings around what would be the best kinds of incentives that we could offer the industry.

We have come to a consensus with respect to which types of incentives we think are the most important. We have put that forward to the Treasurer and we are reviewing that very matter with the Treasurer now.

Over and above that, with respect to the question the member has raised, he will know that at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada I announced very clearly that the Ministry of the Environment is moving to change the regulation with respect to Bill 220. That will ensure that liability is not assigned in the way it was under the Liberal bill, and we expect that regulation to be drafted and passed in the next number of weeks.

He will know that we had a major advertising campaign in southern Ontario for six weeks last year to raise public awareness about the importance of mining in this province. It was very successful. We have asked our partners in the mining industry to come back with ideas about how to run a second sort of campaign in the province.

He will know, for example, that we have just finished developing our educational kits, which will go into the primary and secondary schools in the fall, so that we can ensure that our children recognize the importance of mining and are interested in important public policy.

He will also know that at the PDAC, this government committed itself to participate in the Whitehorse charter initiative, and we will be holding public policy forums around those major initiatives --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before you reveal the entire government policy, we have run out of time. The time for oral questions has expired.

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just very briefly, there was a bit of a hurly-burly earlier in question period around your --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I know. It's a peculiar business, this. God, did I hear that from the minister who dumps, speaking of hurly-burly.

My question is, when do you intend to rule on the matter of the junior ministers, their role in the scheme of things, and whether or not you might be able to ask the government House leader? Because he was more helpful I think than he could imagine. He seemed to have prepared text from which he was reading and I just wondered whether you might ask the government House leader if it were possible to get a copy of what appeared almost to be a government statement in respect of this matter which is now before you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May I say to the honourable member that I realize this is an important matter, of importance to both the opposition and to the government. I will endeavour to reach a decision as quickly as possible, and if at all possible, it will be tomorrow. I do appreciate the contributions made by the members. Indeed, in addition to anything which you've said, if you wish to give me anything in print, I'm more than delighted to read it. But I will do my utmost to review the matter and be back tomorrow so that everyone's clear as to what we can or cannot do.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, before you enter into your deliberations, I would like to make a few small points with respect to this issue.

Firstly, I'm referring to the Hansard of December 12, 1991, which the government House leader referred to, wherein you ruled -- I think quite properly so, re-reading your ruling -- that the member for Niagara South was not to answer a question relating to her duties that related to her party, seeing as how she had no specific responsibilities as a Minister without Portfolio.

You quoted at length -- I don't think there's any need for me to do the same again -- from both Beauchesne and Erskine May on this particular topic. If you re-read your ruling and the quotes you read therefrom, I think you will rapidly come to the conclusion that indeed these ministers are different than a Minister without Portfolio who has no specific ministerial responsibilities and who is merely the party whip, ie, a partisan political party duty, and I think you quite correctly ruled on that matter.

I would also refer you to the Executive Council Act of the province of Ontario. We heard the Premier in question period today saying that these cabinet ministers are not cabinet ministers. That is what he said. They're cabinet ministers but they're not cabinet ministers. They can't come to cabinet. Well, Mr Speaker, they are by very definition members of the executive council, and how we define cabinet ministers here, I suppose the Premier could say a banana is not a banana, but just because the Premier said it doesn't make it so.

We also heard the Premier say that his deficit would be $9.9 billion and it ended up being $17 billion or in excess of $12 billion. So we know that doesn't make it so.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it says right here in the Executive Council Act of Ontario that these junior ministers are indeed members of the executive council of Ontario, and therefore, whether the Premier likes it or not, are indeed cabinet ministers, just like junior ministers of state in Ottawa are indeed cabinet ministers.

The Premier himself alluded in an earlier question today, I forget whether it was to the member for Renfrew North or the leader of my party -- he said that other jurisdictions such as France, England etc -- I noticed he forgot to mention Ottawa, but indeed the federal government in this country does have junior ministers, the same way he has created junior ministers; indeed they're called ministers of state in Ottawa. They are responsible for certain specific duties, as indeed his are, as outlined in his own words in his own press release, which I shall get to in a moment.

I would also like to point out to you that these ministers of state in Ottawa are junior to other senior ministers, the same as they are here. We have, pointing this out, the Premier himself on February 3, 1993, where he says in his very own press release:

"Premier Rae also announced the following assignments for the ministers without portfolio: Richard Allen in Economic Development and Trade" -- the Premier has said that Richard Allen, a junior minister, has responsibilities, in his own words, for Economic Development and Trade -- "Shirley Coppen in Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Karen Haslam in Health" -- which was the very point made very well by the member for Renfrew North -- "Allan Pilkey in Municipal Affairs; Shelley Wark-Martyn in Education and Training, and newcomer Brad Ward in Finance."

Now those people, Mr Speaker, their responsibilities have been defined and iterated by none less than the Premier himself. They are members of the executive council, as defined in legislation, and now we have the Premier saying, "Oh no, they are cabinet ministers, but they're not cabinet ministers."

They are indeed cabinet ministers. They are paid a salary as defined by the Executive Council Act, they're by definition members of the executive council and therefore, whether the Premier likes it or not, they are indeed cabinet ministers in the province of Ontario. If he wants to fire them, then he should do that. If he wants to call them parliamentary assistants, he should do that. But I can tell you as sure as I'm standing here, they are indeed cabinet ministers in the province.

They are paid as cabinet ministers without portfolio, as defined by the Executive Council Act of Ontario, and they indeed are paid by the taxpayers of Ontario as such and have budgets as such and they have responsibilities as he has outlined as such.

As the Minister of Education and Training has so eloquently stated -- I don't have his news clippings with me -- but he has eloquently stated that his junior minister indeed has specific responsibilities for a part, I believe he said, of the ministry. In fact he went so far as to say that his five parliamentary assistants are each responsible for a part of the ministry because he couldn't possibly keep on top of this huge new superministry that the Premier has created to give to him.

So I would ask you to take all of those, including the precedents in Ottawa, and your very own ruling of December 12, 1991, into account before you respond to our points of order.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much. I don't intend to go on, but I would like to say a few things.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Listen, I know, I know. There's a part of me that says, "Who the hell cares any more really," and that part of me is getting bigger all the time, but I'm paid to be here and I'm going to be dutiful. My interest today was financial. This is a parliamentary question and it should be, I think, looked at.

Let me be very candid. I think the member for Parry Sound raises some good points. I remember the day when I think we probably tried to ask Shirley -- the member for Niagara South -- a question. If I were Speaker, I would not allow a member of the Legislature to ask a whip a question, because the whip, as the member for Parry Sound rightly observes, has no departmental responsibilities. We've tried that over the years. It hasn't been done too often.

I know the Minister of Housing was here with me in the days when Bud Gregory, for example, was in the cabinet; Bob Eaton. I remember the day David Peterson got up and asked -- and you do too, Mr Speaker; it was a very unvarnished question -- "What do you do to earn your additional salary?" He was Minister without Portfolio and chief government whip.

There is a fairly well established practice that I think is understandable in this place, that if a Premier chooses to include the chief government whip in the broader cabinet as Minister without Portfolio, I have no problem -- quite frankly, I think it's one of the rottenest jobs in creation and the person, whoever -- Fred's got it now and he'll go straight to heaven for doing it. I think there's no problem in that person being Minister without Portfolio, and maybe even more, and I think your ruling was correct in disqualifying probably one of my colleagues from asking a question. If I had been in your position I would have done that exact same thing.

As I said earlier today, I understand the political science of the reorganization. I understand it entirely and I personally believe, very strongly believe that cabinets have gotten too big in this province. I was in two: one was bigger and one was smaller. The smaller one was small of necessity. I'd better not say the next part of this. Well, we had 48 members -- hard to make a 33-member cabinet when you've got 48 members, because you don't have very many left to do the important work outside of the executive council.

I personally believe that cabinets should be reduced and I'll be perfectly honest: I think there's an element of this reorganization that I like. If I had my way, cabinets should be down to about 16.

The Minister of Housing and I came in here when the famous Darcy McKeough was Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. He was the power and the glory of the Davis government in a way that Bob Macaulay was the minister of all talents in the Robarts-Frost era.

I think McKeough had one parliamentary assistant, maybe two, and it was a very considerable sign of your upward mobility if you were parliamentary assistant to the TEIGA minister. I well remember Keith Norton who, many of you will know, was -- when we were first elected, the Minister of Housing and I, Norton was not in the cabinet but he was on his way. He was the parliamentary assistant and he routinely, as I remember, spoke for the minister and quite often in the House answered as parliamentary assistant for the Treasurer.

My point is that as you contemplate your decision, I think we have got to seriously consider this new category, because it's true we've had ministers without portfolio before. One of the most powerful people ever to sit in this assembly, one of the most enormously powerful people in the history of Ontario politics, Adam Beck, was never, as I recall, anything more than Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and he had more power than most of the premiers with whom he served.

But we now have a new category of junior minister. Some of my less charitable colleagues refer to them as baby ministers. I wouldn't say that, but the concept of junior minister is well established in Great Britain. The member for Parry Sound pointed out that in Ottawa they have developed a junior minister who is essentially the Minister of State for whatever. I think McDermid from Brampton is one who comes to my mind.

It seems to me that as you deliberate, we have to now deal with this new category of junior ministers with responsibilities, not without portfolio but a junior minister responsible for certain departments. Today I was struck by the fact that the government House leader was all set and had a statement. He read a statement, because I know the government was anticipating the question and I'm sure the Speaker and Clerk's office were as well, but I thought I heard the government House leader -- and I'm going to check against Hansard, because I thought I heard him read from his prepared text something that suggested that these were people without responsibilities.

I certainly have the impression from listening to the Premier and others -- and the member for Parry Sound rightfully pointed out and the February 3 press release speaks to these individuals, these junior ministers, with specific responsibilities.

It's not that Brad Ward, our friend from Brantford, was assigned as just a general Minister without Portfolio, because according to this he has responsibility for Finance, just like McDermid in Ottawa is the Minister of State, I think, for Finance and Privatization. I'm not going to re-read the list.

So while I accept entirely your ruling of some time ago about the inappropriateness of asking a genuine Minister without Portfolio, somebody who has clearly no responsibilities other than being chief government whip -- I think your ruling is entirely sensible and supportable, but I have to believe that the House has a right to question ministers who have assigned responsibilities in so far as at least the departmental arrangement of the government is concerned.

I may not like it if the member for Port Arthur says, "I appreciate the question. I thank the honourable member. That question should properly be answered by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside," but I would be hard pressed to accept a ruling that with this new reorganization, with junior ministers assigned to specific departmental responsibilities, the House could not properly put a question to those ministers, leaving entirely open to the honourable ministers how they chose to respond to the question.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, if I might just for a moment on the same point of order, I would like to put a contrary view to you for your consideration. It seems this point has developed a life of its own during this sessional day, and the argument seems to revolve around whether or not these ministers who were appointed or these junior ministers or baby ministers who were appointed on February 3 by the Premier really are cabinet ministers. You've heard I think some very interesting but technical arguments from the member for Parry Sound to the effect that these members of this Legislature are indeed ministers.

I would like to argue to you, sir, for your consideration prior to your ruling, that whatever else they are, they are not ministers in the cabinet. They are not really members of the executive council, notwithstanding that they've been sworn in, notwithstanding that they receive very significant salaries and the same salary as a real cabinet minister, notwithstanding that they have staff which cost the taxpayers significantly and notwithstanding that they have access to cabinet minister-type vehicles with cabinet minister-type chauffeurs.

In a very real sense, if you look at the facts of the matter, they're not cabinet ministers, and the reason why they are not cabinet ministers is because they are not allowed to attend cabinet meetings.

A cabinet minister's salary doesn't make you a cabinet minister. These seven people admittedly are getting a cabinet minister's salary. The fact that they're identified on our seat list here as honourable members is another indication of being a cabinet minister. But the reality of the matter is, cabinet ministers, what they really do is participate in cabinet meetings. They go to the meetings that have the power to determine virtually every aspect of public policy in the province of Ontario, and in that one important indication they're not cabinet ministers. They don't get to go to the table.

So the fact that they cost the taxpayer in total and in the aggregate several millions of dollars, with their staff and their chauffeurs, I don't think should be a strong enough argument to sway you to say that they should be treated as cabinet ministers in this Legislature. I and my colleagues, the member for Renfrew North and others, had the honour of participating and serving in a cabinet for a number of years. All of the peripheral stuff that we did, the titles that we had, the cars that were made available to us to transport us around, didn't make us cabinet ministers.

What made us cabinet ministers was our right under the Executive Council Act to sit in council with the Premier and the chairman of cabinet and the Attorney General and the other ministers appointed in council making regulations under the rules applying to regulations and making firm decisions on matters of public policy.

Cabinet solidarity has a great tradition in this province. Cabinet secrecy has a great tradition in this province. To be able to count yourself among those members of this Parliament who sit in council and have the protection of cabinet secrecy and the discussions of cabinet and the protection of cabinet solidarity -- cabinet speaks as one voice is the way in which it's described -- determines who it is who is in cabinet.

So I would say that, sure, they're getting the salary of a cabinet minister. Well, that costs the taxpayer quite a bit, and if you had asked me, I would have said that Bob Rae should have asked these seven simply to step aside, that in times of restraint he ought not to have created this middle level of cabinet management, these quasi-ministers. I would suggest to you that the best you could say about them is that they are quasi-ministers.

Certainly the fact that the one real indication of a cabinet minister is a member of this Legislature who can sit at the cabinet table. Given that the Premier has given them the salary and the cars and the staff but has prohibited them from sitting at the table would suggest to me that while they wear all the trappings of cabinet ministers, they are not cabinet ministers. I think they should be done away with, but certainly I would argue that you ought not to rule that they are real ministers in the province of Ontario.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just very briefly, the member for York North's dissertation was very interesting, but I think the record should show and the public of Ontario should know that the ministers without portfolio in this administration or any other administration do not get the same salary as a cabinet minister.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order.

The Speaker: To the same point of order? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, if you could do me the favour of also looking into the fact that when the member for Renfrew North put the question to the junior minister of Health, there was no immediate response from the government that they were not going to allow the junior minister to answer the question. What happened was that you, as Speaker, popped up and suggested that in fact the question was improperly put.

I guess the point that I would like to make to you, Mr Speaker, is, subsequently hearing from the Premier -- and his response was, "I don't care whether the junior ministers answer questions or don't answer questions" -- this may well have been resolved if you had allowed the debate and the question to simply flow forward. But since you came forward and suggested that it was improperly put, which I'm not sure why you did since no one appealed to your Chair to make a ruling, maybe you could investigate that and check Hansard to see whether or not it was in fact proper for you to come forward and suggest the question was out of order.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Etobicoke West, indeed it would have been irresponsible of the Speaker to have allowed the government to decide whether or not it wished to allow a certain person to answer a question. That's why the House has a Speaker.

I want to first thank the member for Parry Sound. As usual, a thoughtful presentation, well researched and extremely helpful.

To the member for Renfrew North, again, his drawing upon the history of this place will assist me greatly.

To the member for York Centre, he has in fact identified the centre of the difficulty. That's probably the place where I need to start with respect to my deliberations, and, as I mentioned before, I will do my utmost to have a decision ready for tomorrow so that the House will know as quickly as possible what the status of this is.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I just ask you to clarify, then? What you are suggesting is it's now your decision whether or not junior ministers can or cannot answer questions.

I ask you: If the government is then prepared, regardless of your decision, to allow junior ministers to answer questions, would not this appeal or debate through you, the Chair, be in fact wasted, if the government is then prepared to say, "Yes, junior ministers are allowed to answer questions"? So in essence, what you responded to me is by saying it would be imprudent of you not to come forward and not to allow the government to decide who can and cannot answer questions.

Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you categorically that with junior ministers it is absolutely and undeniably the decision of the Premier and cabinet and government as to whether or not ministers can or cannot answer questions, particularly junior ministers with all the rights and privileges of a cabinet minister.

So again I put my point to you, Mr Speaker. It seemed to me to be imprudent on your part to just come forward before any appeal was made to you by the government or opposition members to determine whether or not the ministers, being junior ministers, could or could not answer the questions. I also ask that if the Premier doesn't seem to care one way or the other, would it not be the decision of the Premier to determine whether or not the junior ministers that he appointed to his cabinet, who have all the privileges and perks of a cabinet minister, should therefore be allowed to answer questions? If the decision is yes, then is not your decision then moot?

The Speaker: I think perhaps, for the member for Etobicoke West, when the ruling comes forward he will better appreciate the difficulty that has been presented. We have been presented with a unique situation this afternoon, and it was my decision that until we could clarify who is allowed to ask questions and who isn't under a new situation in the House, it's best to simply not allow questions to particular people. As I told the member earlier, I will do my best to have a ruling for tomorrow.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business:

Ballot item 1, N. Duignan; ballot item 2, D. Poole; ballot item 3, D. Tilson; ballot item 4, G. Mills; ballot item 5, J. Cleary; ballot item 7, B. Huget; ballot item 8, R. Callahan; ballot item 11, H. Daigeler; ballot item 13, P. Wessenger; ballot item 14, B. Grandmaître; ballot item 17, T. Murphy; ballot item 20, G. Sorbara; ballot item 23, C. McClelland; ballot item 25, M. Morrow; ballot item 26, S. Mahoney; ballot item 29, F. Miclash; ballot item 32, J. Fawcett; ballot item 34, R. Marchese; ballot item 35, M. Kwinter; ballot item 38, B. Sullivan; ballot item 41, R. Eddy; ballot item 44, J.

Poirier; ballot item 47, S. Offer; ballot item 49, G. Bisson; ballot item 50, T. Ruprecht; ballot item 53, R. Chiarelli; ballot item 56, G. Morin; ballot item 57, E. Witmer; ballot item 59, J. Sola; ballot item 62, L. McLeod; ballot item 64, G. Malkowski; ballot item 65, H. O'Neil, Quinte; ballot item 67, G. Phillips, Scarborough-Agincourt; ballot item 69, M. Brown; ballot item 71, D. McGuinty; ballot item 73, E. Caplan; ballot item 75, J. Henderson; ballot item 77, J. Bradley; ballot item 79, C. Beer; ballot item 81, A. Curling; ballot item 83, Y. O'Neill, Ottawa-Rideau; ballot item 85, D.

Ramsay; ballot item 87, M. Elston; ballot item 89, S. Conway; ballot item 91, J. Cordiano.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on the motion, it wasn't my understanding that we would go through the entire length of members and renumber them all. It was my understanding that caucuses, among themselves, would arrange to exchange places with other members, as we have done in the past. I have no objection to it being done this way, but I just would like to alert the government House leader that we may indeed have some further changes ourselves at a future date.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is normal practice, if there are additional changes, that there may in fact then be another motion at another time. Provided there is unanimous consent, then of course those changes are made.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows -- I believe I have to seek unanimous consent to move this motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Ms Akande, Mr Chiarelli, Mr Curling, Mr Duignan, Mr Harnick, Ms Harrington, Mr Malkowski, Mr Marchese, Mr Mills, Mr Murphy, Mr Tilson and Mr Winninger.

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Abel, Mr Arnott, Mr Bisson, Mr Carr, Mr Elston, Ms Haeck, Mr Jackson, Mr Jamison, Mr Lessard, Mr Mahoney, Mr Ramsay and Mr Rizzo.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mrs Caplan, Mr Carr, Mr Cousens, Mr Ferguson, Mr Jamison, Mr Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Mr Kwinter, Mrs Mathyssen, Mr North, Mr Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Mr Sutherland and Mr Wiseman.

Standing committee on general government: Mr Arnott, Mr Brown, Mr Dadamo, Mr Daigeler, Mr Fletcher, Mr Johnson (Don Mills), Mr Mammoliti, Mr Morrow, Mr Sola, Mr Sorbara, Mr Wessenger and Mr White.

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Bradley, Ms Carter, Mr Cleary, Mr Frankford, Mr Grandmaître, Ms Harrington, Mr Mammoliti, Mr Marchese, Mrs Marland, Mr McLean, Mr Waters and Mrs Witmer.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Farnan, Mr Hansen, Mr Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Mrs MacKinnon, Mrs Mathyssen, Mr McClelland, Mr Morin, Mr Owens, Mr Sterling, Mrs Sullivan, Mr Villeneuve and Mr Wessenger.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Abel, Ms Akande, Mr Drainville, Mr Henderson, Mr Martin, Mr Miclash, Mr Morrow, Mr Murdoch (Grey), Mr Ramsay, Mr Rizzo, Mr Stockwell and Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Callahan, Mr Cordiano, Mr Duignan, Mr Farnan, Mr Frankford, Mr Hayes, Mrs Marland, Mr Murphy, Mr O'Connor, Mr Perruzza, Ms Poole and Mr Tilson.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Eddy, Mr Fletcher, Ms Haeck, Mr Hansen, Mr Hayes, Mr Johnson (Don Mills), Mr Jordan, Mrs MacKinnon, Mr Mills, Mr Perruzza, Mr Ruprecht and Mr Sola.

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Conway, Mr Cooper, Mrs Fawcett, Mr Huget, Mr Jordan, Mr Klopp, Mr Kormos, Ms Murdock (Sudbury), Mr Offer, Mr Turnbull, Mr Waters and Mr Wood.

Standing committee on social development: Mr Beer, Ms Carter, Mrs Cunningham, Mr Eddy, Mr Hope, Mr Martin, Mr McGuinty, Mr O'Connor, Mrs O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Mr Owens, Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands) and Mr Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows: Standing committee on administration of justice -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I think I also have to, Mr Speaker, seek unanimous consent to proceed without notice of this motion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: This is a motion that sets the committee schedules.

That the following

schedule for committee meetings be established for this session:

The standing on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on social development may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; and that no standing or select committee may meet except in accordance with this

schedule or as ordered by the House.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that the following

schedule for committee meetings be established for this session: The standing committee on administration -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The final motion, Mr Speaker, and I think I also need unanimous consent to move this motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that for the remainder of the third session any divisions required for private members' public business on Thursday mornings, under standing order 96(f), shall not be deferred and taken in succession but be taken individually, and the division bells shall be limited to five minutes each.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that for the remainder of the third session any divisions -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to say it would be helpful, when we're asked for unanimous consent, that if we're clear about what the motion is that's going to be made ahead of time, we can give that with a clear heart and conscience. It's very difficult to give carte blanche and not know precisely what is being recommended.

The Speaker: I sympathize with the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Indeed, our practice is a chicken-and-egg question. Unfortunately, to date we've never been able to resolve it, but I appreciate the dilemma that it places the member in.

PETITIONS

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition from the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is signed by myself, and there are 129 names on it. It says:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario and residents in the county of Simcoe, object to the imposition of junior kindergarten by the year 1994;

"We would ask the Minister of Education to consider a moratorium of a duration of at least two years or until there is some obvious improvement in the economic climate of this country.

"Funding arrangements, as proposed in Bill 88, while of some value to taxpayers initially, will leave the ultimate responsibility for all future funding with the municipalities. Many of these municipalities are already hard pressed to collect taxes as levied to date.

"We understand the proposed program may be of value to some. However, the majority cannot, at this time, afford any further tax increases."

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Transportation demonstrated its good intentions by proposing a system of graduated licensing that would require newly licensed drivers to adhere to certain conditions and restrictions which would be removed as the driver gains driving experience,

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

"To make immediate action to revise the law, specifically the Highway Traffic Act, to include a graduated licensing program for novice drivers.

"As concerned parents and citizens of Ontario, we believe now is the time to take action to protect our young and novice drivers and, in effect, our very future."

I have over 1,300 signatures, and I affix my name.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have here a petition of 31 names, mostly from my riding, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. After a long series of whereases, it says:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I have affixed my signature, sir, and I submit a draft to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here. It's from a Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario, and you've asked me to read this petition. It says:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing, the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes's conduct is not in conformity with that of a free and democratic society;

"Whereas the conduct of the minister is generally found in countries under the rule of anarchy and dictatorship;

"Whereas she has not replied to my reasonable and valid letters from mid-1992;

"Whereas the letters were labelled number 24, 25, 26 and 27;

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

"Remove the minister forthwith from office and have her replaced by a minister with the understanding of democracy in Canada. Also, permit me to address the proper legislative committee where I, in a participatory manner, can show how I was treated and how people should be treated."

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again I add 200 names to the thousands of people who have protested casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the new Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'm very pleased to affix my signature hereunto.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have another petition. It's from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the individuals of the province of Ontario must be treated within the principles of a free and democratic society;

"Whereas it is a must for a government to be open, to be accountable and to provide reasonable information when requested by the individual;

"Whereas the former Solicitor General has since July 1992 engaged in a manner which is not acceptable in a democratic society and has sidestepped my relevant questions;

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

"To order a minister to provide without delay a valid and clear reply to my letters. Should a minister not be able to do so, have a minister replaced with a more competent servant of the people. Also permit me to address the proper legislative committee where I, in a participatory manner, can show how the people are treated and how the people should be treated."

GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 86 members and adherents of the Knox Presbyterian Church of St Catharines. The church is just around the corner, actually, from where I live, and the members are requesting that a gambling establishment not be set up in the Niagara region. Their petition states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. We believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular.

"I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By our signature here attached we ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

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

Bill 3,

An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc / Loi prévoyant l'accès aux renseignements concernant les activités des Services d'information foncière Teranet Inc.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This bill was introduced the last session. I'm simply reintroducing it a second time, so no comment this time.

CANINDO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr36,

An Act to revive Canindo Development Limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate 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.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Members will recall there was an agreement to divide the time equally three ways. We left off with the official opposition. I would now recognize the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It is unfortunate that for the most part, this throne speech was merely a regurgitation of old promises. It lacked any message of hope, economic renewal or action and it contained no ideas as to how to tackle our high unemployment, our high debt or our slow economy. Instead, what happened in this spring throne speech is that the same old proposals and the old promises were trotted out, proposals and promises such as pay equity, employment equity, an environmental bill of rights, Ontario investment fund and commodity loan guarantees, just to name a few.

Instead of taking action and dealing with a growing public dissatisfaction with our school system, the NDP has once more vacillated and it has set up yet another education commission. Many people across the province are saying that this is just an excuse not to make the decisions that should be made right now, at the present time. This committee, unfortunately, will not be making any report until at least the end of 1994.

We don't need another expensive education study. This is the fifth one since 1986. We had the Macdonald commission in 1986, we had the Radwanski report in 1987, we had the select committee on education, which provided four reports between 1988 to 1990, and we had the Premier's Council, people and skills in the new global economy, in 1990.

Indeed, I would suggest that the NDP government could have saved a tremendous amount of money if it had taken the time to read the Ontario Progressive-Conservative Party's forward-looking plan of action called New Directions. In fact, I would suggest they still do so. Our volume one deals with jobs and the economy, and volume two deals with education and training.

Our party believes that the suggestions contained in our education and training document would result in a well-educated and flexible workforce that is able to attract new investment and new jobs -- jobs that are so desperately needed for people in this province. Indeed, I would invite all the taxpayers in this province to get a copy of our New Directions policy discussion papers on jobs and the economy, and education and training. We would certainly look forward to their input on these papers.

Another reason that there's no need for another expensive study on education at this time is because if you listen to people on the street, if you take a look at the editorials, if you listen to people in their homes and at meetings, you know, and there is agreement that people care about excellence in education. There is a growing awareness of the importance of education as the indispensable key to unlocking the door to Canada's future prosperity. There is growing recognition that Canada is losing control of its economic future as it is menaced by a highly competitive global economy.

Unfortunately, we have been slow to restructure our industry so that we can compete in a changing world that exploits high-tech knowledge. Thus, now, as we race towards the year 2000, education is targeted as the fundamental instrument to ensure a positive redirection towards a brighter tomorrow for all of us. As a result, the public is demanding a stronger results-oriented culture that aspires to excellence. We also need to make a commitment to universal life-long learning with close ties to the working world.

The message from the public is quite clear. They have indicated what it is that they want, and yet this commission on education, with its mandate only to study curriculums, to study the number of school boards and to study the amount of administration in the system does very, very little, if anything at all, to respond to the public demands that we act decisively and purposefully when a changing economic environment is demanding changes in education.

The mandate for the Commission on Learning is also disappointing because it suggests that we can cut costs by restructuring or merging school boards. Yes, we could realize some savings at the school board level, but the commission has totally overlooked the fact that the real source of overspending and unaccountability is the Ministry of Education itself.

If this commission on education is to truly play a valuable role in the examination of our educational system and its importance to our future economic wellbeing, its mandate must be expanded beyond what is there already, and broad and meaningful consultation must take place, not the type of consultation that this government has engaged in in the past couple of years when partners throughout the province make presentations but none of the ideas are incorporated into the final bill.

We need to ensure that adequate resources are available to provide universal literacy so that people will have the tools to flourish in the new economy. We need to re-examine the goals, to clarify the roles of the respective partners, parents, community, labour and business, and we really need to take a good look at how we organize and deliver education so that we are able to provide excellence in an affordable way in order that we can be accountable.

I'd like to now take a closer look at the public demand for accountability and quality control to determine if this throne speech does anything in the area of standardized testing to respond to that demand. As we all know, debate as been raging the last number of years over the use of standardized testing as a tool for helping to improve education and to provide a measure of accountability to our education system. Although few people in this province want to return to the depart