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

June 9, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think the government is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Would the Clerk count, please.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today -- and it's interesting that on the day I rise there's no quorum in the House for the government. In any event, I rise to raise a hue and cry against the possibility of this NDP government attempting to stifle speech in this House, the very basis upon which parliamentary democracy is raised.

The backbenchers in the government perhaps don't realize that in fact this may have an impact on their ability to be able to serve properly the needs of their constituents. Thirty minutes now, next week 15, perhaps the week after no backbenchers will be allowed to speak.

In fact one expects to see that only in societies that are repressive, that have the jackboots and the tanks rolling into town. The tanks and the jackboots haven't rolled into town yet, but I wonder if the press, in the days when the jackboots and the tanks did roll into town, remained silent, as it does today, about eliminating or reducing the most fundamental item that's required in a Parliament, the right of free speech.

They're putting limits on this. This in fact is eliminating the effectiveness of all of us in this House, particularly the backbenchers, who now can't speak out against anything, since they seem to rise on every vote as though they're joined at the hip.

WOODLOTS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns what local writers are saying about his proposed changes to the Ontario Trees Act that would take control of farmers' woodlots.

In his column, Harvie's Hats, Harvie Johnstone writes:

"If bureaucrats tried to get away with it during the winter or any off-season, they'd face an awful mess of pitchforks on Queen's Park steps. Few farmers, busy with first haying and other activities, will have a say before the ministry shuts off griping time on June 19."

"Put it this way: Suppose some busybody rapped on your door and announced you had no permit to cut down a tree which you'd earmarked to help keep your family cosy next winter. You'd unchain your hungriest mongrel. 'Sic 'em, boy,' and that would be that.

"Would you have believed 20 years ago -- heck, five years ago -- ah, would you believe even a month ago, that the Ministry of Natural Resources wanted to require you to get a permit to cut down a tree -- on your own property?

"This is the same ministry that earlier this spring launched a giant campaign to encourage land owners to buy 300 saplings for $46 and the ministry would throw in as many more as wanted -- free. A great deal!

"This is the same ministry that a month later announced closure of a couple of tree nurseries, including Midhurst near Barrie. Not a great deal!

"So now this same ministry wants a thumb on those freshly painted trees, as well as other trees on your land. A bad, very bad, deal!

"Beware farmers: Big Brother may require that you get a permit to cut your lettuce next!"

This is a chip off the old block.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of the extraordinary efforts of Mr Jim Green, a resident of Smithville in my riding of Lincoln. Mr Green has been participating in the environmental assessment hearings that are considering a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant, centralized toxic waste treatment facility in my riding of Lincoln.

Mr Green has spent countless hours of his own time at these hearings because he is concerned about the impact of hazardous conditions arising from emergencies associated with the proposed hazardous waste treatment plant. He wants to be assured that all precautions are in place before the plant is started up. He has recently prepared a report for the hearing board that summarizes his research and his findings.

Last week I circulated copies of Mr Green's report to all cabinet members and to the opposition Environment critics. I'm asking them today to read Mr Green's report and to respond to him with their comments.

Mr Green was recently recognized by his fellow citizens of the township of West Lincoln and was named citizen of the year, an honour he clearly deserves.

I agree with Mr Green wholeheartedly that public safety must be the top priority when planning waste management strategies. There is no room for compromise here. As I've stated many times in the past, my position on the OWMC is clear. I oppose the construction of this kind of facility on any scale. I have made a promise to the people of Lincoln and I intend to do everything in my power to see that this proposal is denied.

TIMISKAMING BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): In early March I met with the Timiskaming Board of Education, the Timiskaming Municipal Association and representatives of the teachers' federation regarding the problems the school board was facing in our area both this year and for upcoming years. At this meeting I was asked to set up a meeting for these representatives with the Minister of Education to discuss these problems.

On March 9, 1992, I wrote to the Minister of Education, the Honourable Tony Silipo, to make that request. On April 21, 1992, I wrote again with the same request. So far I have not received an acknowledgement or a date for this meeting. My office contacted his office on numerous occasions, the last time being May 26 of this year. At that time I was told that a meeting would most likely not occur until the fall, but so far still no date.

The Timiskaming board is facing serious financial problems. They have had to lay off 28 teachers' aides, 15 teachers and six office staff. The numbers may not be as great, but the percentages are as great as any of the layoffs in southern Ontario.

The parents are very upset about the lack of action from the minister's office. I have lately received numerous letters from concerned parents on this subject which I will be sending over today to the minister.

I am urging that the minister set up a meeting with the representatives of the school board, the Timiskaming Municipal Association and the representatives from the teachers' federation immediately.

This is a very serious matter. We are dealing with the future of our children. Nothing is more important in this day and age.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): From November 1991 to March of this year I have been distributing, in person, several hundred small business surveys in my riding of Wellington. I've received 161 responses. The results have been tabulated and I think the responses send a clear message that there is little investor or consumer confidence in this government's economic policies.

Of the small business people polled, 98% are against the government's proposal to amend the Labour Relations Act, 98% are concerned about the Ontario economy's ability to withstand additional taxes and 90% are opposed to the concept of employment equity which would allow the government to dictate job hiring quotas within the private sector.

It's time that this government, which prides itself on being a government of consultation, starts listening to the concerns of the small business community, which is such an important component of Ontario's economy.

I'd like to read a few of the comments from the respondents:

"The government needs to do a 180-degree turn to create an awareness that industry is welcome here and that they are on an equal footing."

"The government is putting us all out of business."

"This government is displaying a blatant disregard for fiscal and financial responsibility."

The messages from the small business community in my riding are clear, and I am certain that the mood reflected in this survey mirrors the mood of small businesses all across Ontario. Unless the provincial government changes its present destructive course, consumer and business confidence will be further eroded and there will be no hope for economic improvement and job creation over the summer.

APPRECIATION

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): It is a great pleasure and an honour to be here today and able to stand up and speak on behalf of my constituents of Oakwood. It is a great pleasure also to be able to thank all the friends who helped me through all these 18 very long months, especially members of my family and the members of my party.

I learned a lot during those 18 months and I think I acquired some kind of experience that was missing in this House. Being independent and being able to watch the work of all the other caucuses from outside, and also out of my own caucus, has given me something that I was never able to acquire without going through this personally.

It is with emotion that I want to be able to thank again all the people who elected me, who put their trust in me and who always believed in what I was saying to them. I want to be able to cooperate. As a matter of fact, I was also able to make a submission to a standing committee to change the rules of the House so that any future independent members will be able to represent fully the people who elect them to this place.

I hope I'm going to get the cooperation of all the members of the House. I will be cooperating with my caucus, the government and this House, of course, from now on.

BROCK UNIVERSITY ATHLETES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Brock University has established an outstanding reputation as an academic institution and has now extended that reputation into the field of athletics.

This year, 1991-92, the Brock University men's basketball team won both the Ontario and national championships, the first being held at the University of Waterloo here in the province of Ontario, the second at the civic centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They've brought considerable pride to the city of St Catharines, to the province of Ontario and, of course, to the university system throughout Canada.

The Brock wrestling team won the university's first Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union championship two weeks after winning its first Ontario wrestling championship. Brock wrestlers outpinned the defending champions, the University of Manitoba Bisons, 29 to 24 during the CIAU finals on Friday, February 28, and Saturday, February 29, 1992, at Brock University.

The team qualified eight members for the tournament and seven made the final round. All seven won medals. Richard Deschatelets, who was selected the CIAU coach of the year, was justifiably proud of his wrestling team.

Marty Calder, Luke Collison, Aaron Pomeroy, John Matile, Donovan Young, Brent Beauparlant and Dave Knowles won the outstanding medals in that particular tournament.

Congratulations to Brock University, both teams.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): As members will know, constituents in my riding of Grey are very interested in what goes on in the world around them. This attitude is exemplified by people like Bill Snarr of Durham and Jim Welch of Markdale, who were so concerned about illegal drug use, especially by our young people, that they formed a group called Grandparents Against Drug Abuse.

This association is an offshoot of drug awareness programs started by local Optimist clubs and it now operates in 12 communities in Grey and Bruce. They set up information booths in malls in both counties and thus far have petitions signed by more than 1,000 concerned citizens that ask for maximum sentences for those convicted of drug violations.

I realize that under our judicial system judges cannot receive direction from any level of government. I also understand it is federal, not provincial, crown attorneys who prosecute and present evidence in drug cases. Nevertheless, I feel it is important that both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are aware of the strong feelings expressed by this group and by those who care enough to sign these petitions. They have a deep commitment to address and cure what has become one of society's greatest ills.

I commend Optimist clubs everywhere, and in particular the Grey and Bruce organization of Grandparents Against Drug Abuse, for bringing this concern to public attention and for doing what they can to combat this serious problem.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Last week in my riding I participated in a very important function with students and professionals from across the Algoma district, including Sault Ste Marie. We discussed tobacco and its effects on people and our environment.

This was all part of a larger campaign called Give Kids a Chance. The intention of this campaign is to discourage the use of tobacco, particularly among younger people. They are asking the provincial government and the Ministry of Health for help in promoting their program of not smoking. I have close to 2,000 signatures from supporters of this campaign in the Sault Ste Marie riding. I will personally present them to the Minister of Health.

This group is sending out a strong message to publicly educate us, focusing on children, regarding smoking and its numerous hazards. This campaign concentrates on prevention rather than smoking cessation. We need to look out for our children's future, knowing that smoking is not a healthy choice.

I congratulate those who are taking

part in this campaign and I invite all of you, as concerned colleagues, to support it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION / TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Our government believes that all residents of Ontario have the democratic right to accessible and convenient public transit. Fully accessible transit is our long-term goal.

This means simply that we are working to make all transit systems accessible to people with disabilities and to elderly and frail people. "Accessible" also means making transportation convenient for the passenger.

Monsieur le Président, la population de l'Ontario veut et exige des transports en commun fiables. Des personnes de toutes les conditions sociales utilisent les systèmes de transport en commun de notre province. Pour plusieurs, ce service de transport en commun est le seul moyen pour se rendre au travail ou à l'école ou pour emmener leurs enfants à la garderie.

Today I wish to inform the members of the House of the adoption of a new policy to implement fully accessible transit services. We want transit operators to work with us towards our goal of an integrated family of transit services for people with and without disabilities.

I am pleased to announce today that all new transit buses purchased or leased by transit operators after July 1, 1993, must be equipped with both low floors and features to allow access to a broader range of users. Only low-floor buses meeting provincial standards will be eligible for funding from the Ministry of Transportation's municipal transfer payments. Also, all new transit terminals must be made fully accessible to qualify for a subsidy.

These new policies complement our other accessible transit programs. By allowing more people to use conventional transit, we can better tailor other services to those who really need them. A mix of different transit services and vehicles will better serve each community. A family of integrated transit services will put the needs of users first. The services will be designed to integrate people with disabilities into the mainstream of Ontario society at long last.

There is a growing need for integrated transit services, due to such factors as an aging population and an increasing number of people with disabilities, a desire to help people live in their communities with dignity and safety, and a greater awareness of the rights of people with disabilities. We are looking at ways to meet these needs, which were so clearly described in the Action for Access report last year.

For example, low-floor buses make it easier for those with mobility problems to use regular transit services. At the same time, people with small children or someone with a cane will find it easier to use those same low-floor transit buses. Using low-floor buses for conventional transit will mean that specialized transit systems and accessible taxis will be able to provide service to more of the people who require greater assistance, lessening the demand for these more specialized services.

Et ce ne sont là que quelques exemples des initiatives prises par le gouvernement pour améliorer l'accès aux transports. Mais nos exploits ne s'arrêtent pas là. Nous sommes en train d'élaborer de nouvelles politiques visant à souligner notre engagement ferme aux transports en commun et à les rendre encore plus accessibles à toute la population.

My parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, George Dadamo, has been given the responsibility for transit for people with disabilities. I extend my thanks and sincere appreciation to him for the hard and dedicated work he is doing and will continue to do in this important area, in this important dossier. He has made this dossier a mission, and I, for one, have learned long ago not to stand between a person and the goal, the mission. Thank you very much, Mr Dadamo.

This new policy demonstrates the government's strong commitment and support for a transportation system that is accessible to all people. We look forward to working with Ontario's transit systems to make this happen.

I would like to take a moment of the House's precious time to thank my guests, who took the time to come to the Legislative Assembly today to listen to this important statement, for it concerns all of us, but certainly first and foremost the people it serves on a daily basis. Their names are as follows: Lucy Costa, Mary Ellen Casino, Christine Miller, Sam Savona, Mel Posesorsky, Rob Trudelle, Paul Casino, Richard Decter, John Southern, John Feld, and of course from the Ministry of Transportation, Marilyn Lane and Tracey Fawcett-Bell.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise with some concern because earlier today a report and press conference was held on what is substantively something critically important to every member of this Legislature, which is a report, Time for Action, presented to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yet today we have no statement, and I cannot understand why, on this report -- and if you go back to May of 1990, when this was first announced, this is a matter --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I realize this is important. Would the member take his seat, please. Would the member please take his seat.

The member will know that regardless of the importance of the subject matter there is nothing in the standing orders which compels ministers to make statements in the House. Such a practice of making statements in the House to announce government policy is something which this Speaker and my predecessors in this chair have always encouraged. But it is not in the standing orders.

I understand fully the point that the member makes and would ask that we move now to --

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, I respect the point of view you had set forward --

The Speaker: Point of order? The same point of order?

Mr Beer: I want to make very clear that what this House leader --

The Speaker: One moment. Would the member take his seat, please. Would the member for York North resume his seat.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The report was received today. The report was made public today. There's no government policy that flows out of a report that we just received today. When there's government policy there will be a minister's statement announcing the government policy, but the report was just received and it's been released today.

Mr Beer: That makes no sense, and when you put this into context of the kinds of rule changes you want to make to this place, you know that is an arrogant action. It makes no sense.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the member to take his seat.

It is time for responses from the official opposition. Start the clock, please.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just to carry on for a moment on the point made by my colleague for York North: The government --

The Speaker: Would the member resume his seat, please. The member for York Centre: A point of order was raised. It has been dealt with. It is now time for responses to the statement made by the Minister of Transportation. I invite you to take that opportunity.

RESPONSES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I'm pleased to take the opportunity to respond to my colleague the Minister of Transportation's statement. I'll begin by quoting from it. He says in his statement, "Fully accessible transit is our long-term goal." I think the emphasis there ought to be on "long-term," because this statement takes us not very far down the road towards an accessible system, let alone a fully accessible system.

There are a lot of platitudes in this statement but there really are only two issues of any substance. The first issue of substance is a determination to provide no more money to municipal transit systems for the purchase of new facilities -- that is, new buses -- after July 1, 1993, unless they are what is described as low-rise buses.

Other than that, there is virtually nothing in the agreement that is going to further an accessible transit system in communities around the province. The minister talks about old announcements, "$42 million in the past year," and what is going on on an ongoing basis. Surely the minister isn't trying to stand up and take credit for that again.

What is very significant about the announcement is that it comes in conjunction with the budget and the estimates provided just three weeks ago. In that budget and in those estimates the Minister of Transportation takes credit for the fact that capital funding in the province of Ontario for roads, subways, highways and expressways will go down by some $300 million over the course of next year. It's no wonder that the minister is now announcing that he's not going to provide any more money, he doesn't think, for municipal buses if they're not wheelchair-accessible.

I tell the minister, who is from a small community in northern Ontario, that he ought to spend some time travelling around the greater Toronto area. The degree of congestion on our roads, highways and subway system is unprecedented, but there is no rapid transit construction going on in the GTA at this time. The commitments made by the previous government to extend the GO network have been cancelled. There is no highway construction of any significance going on.

It's no wonder: The minister presided over cabinet meetings that decimated his capital budget, and now today he brings forward representatives from the disabled community to participate with him in the celebration of an announcement of a long-term strategy that has two minor points, presented to this Parliament today.

I tell the minister words he used to use when he was in opposition: The minister too could be a hero. The minister could have fought for an enhanced capital budget, particularly when his Premier was up in Ottawa shouting at a government that he described as an absconding debtor, begging for more capital money to build the roads we need so our businesses and people can move around, particularly in areas of congestion, particularly in the GTA.

But that didn't happen. The minister failed in that debate. He failed to provide anything, not just for construction workers; we don't want to provide work just for the sake of providing work.

But it is urgent, and the Premier made the point as eloquently as anyone, that we begin to build new systems in our province right away.

I too noted the fact that you talk about your long-term goal. I have some clippings of some of your election promises, and they say, "New Democrats are committed to retrofit programs to ensure that at least one car on all GO trains in the current system is made fully accessible and that all new vehicles will be fully accessible." I see nothing of that.

To date you've ignored your election promises, but that is typical of this government. You promised that you would spend more on capital programs. We've heard the Premier whining and snivelling to the federal government about the fact that they need money spent on infrastructure, yet as I asked you in a question yesterday afternoon, Minister, you are spending some $310 million less this year on transportation than you did last year. So much for your emphasis on infrastructure.

I view this, in light of the fact that you're not putting new funds through to these municipalities, as more downloading by this government. You've reduced the transfers to 1% this year, yet the cost of these accessible buses is $20,000 more on a typical cost of $195,000. Now I'm asking you, where are the funds coming from?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I think what this Minister of Transportation fails to understand is that the disabled community is a lot smarter than he is. They are not about to be sucked in by this kind of non-statement today, a statement that says all new transit terminals will be made fully accessible. Well, how many new transit terminals are being built, for goodness' sake?

They list all the issues that have been addressed and begged for on behalf of the disabled community for the last five years and say, "We are looking at ways to meet these needs." Mr Speaker, we need more than a government that's looking at ways; we need action. It's time that instead of talking about these things, which are identified year after year in the report by the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped -- nothing they talk about is ever being done.

I challenge this Minister of Transportation to take a ride as a disabled person does in my city, the city of Mississauga, and try to get to downtown Toronto. First of all, they have to change Trans-Help vehicles three times, and that's if they're lucky enough to have them meet at the border, the big border between the city of Mississauga and the city of Etobicoke. They can't even interconnect timewise, and sometimes those disabled people in the winter are left sitting, waiting for the bus to come so they can transfer on to another bus.

The bottom line really is that if this government were really committed to the disabled community in this province, it would do what I've been asking it to do -- and the Liberals before them for seven years -- that is, to declare the Trans-Help and Wheel-Trans and all the other disabled transit services in this province an essential service so they do not have the right to strike and hold the disabled people hostage in their own homes, which we have had examples of in the last five years a number of times.

So don't talk about your commitment to the disabled. Do something about it, and declare their transportation system an essential service.

CORRECTION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I made statements in the Legislature which actually were erroneous, and I would like to correct that record. Yesterday, in Hansard, I said that the calendar provided that the House was to come back on March 8, and in fact the government delayed this by four weeks till April 6. When I checked, Mr Speaker, I found that March 8 was a Sunday; in fact, the calendar provided that March 9 was the date that we came back, and it was delayed by four weeks from that time.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I always appreciate it when members rise to correct their own record and not someone else's.

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): If I might, I have been asked on behalf of the Premier to table six copies of the report from Stephen Lewis, the adviser on race relations, with the House today and to indicate that the Premier will be giving a full response to the report on Thursday.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the matter the House leader has brought to my attention.

On the same or a related matter, the member for Bruce?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, on a different matter, Mr Speaker. I rise to ask for unanimous consent to have the Minister of Community and Social Services provide us with a statement of material which she delivered to the public press today downstairs. I would ask that all members give her unanimous consent to advise the House of the nature of her statement.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr Speaker, the member opposite is mistaken to say that I delivered something. In fact, the advisory group that was put into place by the previous government in May 1990 gave its final report to me today, and we were receiving that report. It is the report of the advisory group. It has taken a lot of effort on their behalf and they deserve the congratulations of everyone in this House for the work they have done.

This government has taken no position on the recommendations that are included in that report at this time. We will continue to work, as we are currently, with the municipalities around disentanglement, which is a major portion of the work that committee was asked to do in terms of looking at how to put the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act together into one cohesive system with one cohesive deliverer, and we will continue that work. As we make progress I will be reporting to the House.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I ask, Mr Speaker, for unanimous consent for our critics of both the opposition parties to be able to respond to that statement by the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Unanimous agreement for a response? No? There is no agreement? We do not have -- would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Should I place the question again?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): We certainly would agree to unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Do we have unanimous agreement for a response from the two opposition parties? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to say at the outset, Mr Speaker, that I welcome the fact that the minister has told us that this report has been received. I quite recognize that the committee presented it.

My concern and the reason we felt it so important that there be a statement today is that we recognize that the government, as with ourselves, has not had time to digest the whole report, but over the course of the last five or six years I think all members in this Legislature have addressed this question of social assistance reform as being one of the most critical we deal with, because we know that out there today is a political climate which makes it very difficult to deal with these issues and all the more important then to build a cooperative working relationship as we set forth to deal with this report.

I want as well, on behalf of our party, to congratulate Professor Moscovitch and all those who worked with him. We spent a good deal of time some two years or more ago thinking about the need for such a committee, particularly to put something in place that was going to bring the two major pieces of legislation together. That had been recognized in George Thomson's report Transitions. Those who were working on the committee saw that as being critical and I was pleased to note at the press conference, in answer to a number of questions, that those on the committee underlined very clearly the importance of moving ahead now with that legislation.

I would only add, as I went back yesterday and looked at the debate that had ensued when we first announced the setting up of this committee back in May 1990, that there was a lot of concern expressed by the minister's colleague, the now Minister of Colleges and Universities, about the two-year timetable that was put in place to develop this report and to develop the legislation. I am interested to see that, in point of fact, the committee needed that time in order to come up with what appears to be a very thoughtful report and one on which I think all of us in this House are going to want to spend a good deal of time and thoughtful consideration.

The one thing I would want to leave with the minister as she goes forward in considering this report is that the fundamental problem I think all of us have in elected life in dealing with the question of social assistance is finding the balance, that sense of equity that everyone has in our society in terms of who receives assistance. Anyone who has spent any more than even a little time as Minister of Community and Social Services comes to recognize very quickly the depth of the problem out there and the number of people who really need help.

But we also recognize that that view is not necessarily accepted by large segments of the population, so as we move forward we have to be very conscious not only of those who require social assistance but those who are what we now term the working poor. How do we balance off the ways in which we are providing support to those who are not eligible for social assistance but who none the less are facing a very difficult time? Certainly in a recession we see that all around us.

I think one of the things the minister needs to be conscious of and needs to bring to her own government, to the Premier and to the Treasurer, is the importance, therefore, of getting the economy moving, because all the training programs in the world for those on social assistance won't work if there aren't jobs. We can train people, we can provide all kinds of new skills, but if those jobs aren't there, then those people are not going to get the jobs they require to start earning income and get off that social welfare cycle.

I would hope the minister will take this report and recognize, as the authors themselves have said, that it is time for action, that we do need to move. I think if we clearly debate the issues, if we set out what the problems are there and the fact that we end up spending money through our correctional systems, through a whole series of other mechanisms if in fact we don't make our social assistance system work in an equitable manner -- if we don't do that, then we are going to be spending increasing amounts of money, and people out in the communities are going to say: "Why are we doing this? Why is our tax money going there?"

We have a tremendous obligation. The members of this committee, I think, have assisted us in setting out what those issues are, and I want to say to the minister that we intend to work very closely with her and her colleagues in trying to make sure we have a fair and equitable social assistance system that helps the people who need it and is fair and equitable to the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I too would like to put on the record our concern that this is yet another example of a social assistance announcement where this government has lacked the courage to come to this House and deal with the issue in the presence of all the House, in the presence of the media and in the presence of the public through the television network.

The truth of the matter is that the SARC reforms have been widely circulated and discussed by all three political parties and were the subject of a considerable number of promises in the last provincial election. In fact I recall, with my colleague the member for Hamilton West, undertaking a review of the concern of the growing need for food banks and a whole litany of promises that were contained in the then government-in-waiting to poor people in this province.

I must take the minister at face value when she says, "This was just a report we've received; we haven't taken a position on this report." I ask the minister, if you say publicly you haven't taken a position, why is it that in the March 31 treasury board document which was circulated in this House the day before the budget, on page after page are references to cuts to this program for the poor in this province, cuts to this disadvantaged group?

Mr Moscovitch and his committee have spent considerable time and deserve better of a government than to have to open the front page of the Globe and Mail and read about cut after cut from a leaked treasury board document.

To refresh the memory of the members of the House, what was contained in that document was a cut approved by the minister as a member of that treasury board, that $8 million was placed on holdback pending review of options to offset a revenue shortfall related to first nations Back on Track initiatives. All the while, Mr Moscovitch and his committee were developing this report for first nations Ontarians.

It goes on and talks about a decrease of $12 million for the social service employment program. On the next page: "Approve a decrease of $5.8 million related to SARC initiatives that have not yet been implemented." On the next page: "An increase of $198,000, including $28,000 in salaries and wages for one staff, to support the development of new social assistance legislation" -- not approved by you in treasury board. "An increase of $1.5 million to develop strategic directions in children's services" -- again cut by you in treasury board. "A net increase of $1.4 million for special child care programs" -- again cut by you in treasury board.

You would have us believe that you and your government have taken no position on the poor in this province. What have Mr Moscovitch and his committee been doing if you're prepared to make these kinds of cuts and slashes to the poor of this province in this critical time during this recession?

It goes on -- that was just the tip of the iceberg -- "Approve a decrease of $138 million in social assistance." Yet you did approve an additional 450 FBA staff employees. You're going to hire 450 people to assist with all these cuts, I would imagine. It goes on to say you've approved new computers to upgrade the computers for FBA.

Minister, it's very hard for us to take seriously your statement that you have taken no position on the poor in this province as it relates to social assistance reforms. The tragedy for far too many families and children living in poverty is that they're right up there on your priority list with Sunday shopping and auto insurance and all the other promises you've broken.

But the cruellest promise to be broken is to those children sitting in poverty situations who can't afford the accommodation they're living in and are denied access to day care because of your ideological approach to ensure that your made-in-Cuba day care plan works in this province while you've shut down thousands of day care spaces.

Madam Minister, it's hard to take you seriously, if not honestly, that you've taken no position.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It's time for oral questions.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would ask for unanimous consent for the Attorney General to make a statement to the House with relation to the policy announcement he made today on legal aid.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement for the Attorney General to make a statement to the House? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): No.

The Speaker: No? There is not unanimous agreement.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday and previous days and through the Globe and Mail, the House leader of the New Democratic Party's government has provided for us a sense that the Legislative Assembly has not been dealing with the business of this place. How is it that we can be asked to deal with business that is not justifiably brought before us so we can examine these and comment critically or favourably thereon from time to time?

It bothers me a great deal to be accused of holding up legislation, when indeed we have had no introduction of bills in this House between the dates of April 30 and May 26, when in fact we have passed a goodly number of pieces of legislation, but of the 17 bills that have been introduced by this government, a full 13 of 17 have been introduced since May 26 of this spring sitting.

If we are not able to comment on the business of the House and the business of the government by having its statements, its public pronouncements, brought here to the chamber in time set aside for us, when is it, I ask you, that you are going to be able to protect the rights of the minority in this Parliament to provide a critical analysis of the public business?

Mr Speaker, under the standing orders --

The Speaker: Does the opposition House leader have a further point he hasn't mentioned previously?

Mr Elston: I was about to get to it. As I tried to say, under the standing orders the obligation of the Speaker -- and I put it as obligation because that's how the standing orders speak of it -- is to protect the rights of the minority.

I understand that you are unable to make the Treasurer attend the question periods. You are unable to make the Premier attend the question periods, as today. You are unable to make them give us truthful answers. As you have often said, it is not your business, you say, to delineate truth from untruth. You have told that to us from time to time as we stand to get the right story. In fact the member for Brampton North just last week stood to ask what he does when his version of the facts as written to him by a minister are different than the Minister of the Environment answered to her colleague in the House.

Mr Speaker, how is it and how can it be that your job as Speaker can be carried out fully and appreciatively if you are not allowed to deal with the business that is put before the public in a place other than the Legislative Assembly?

I ask for you to think about how you can protect the rights of the minority elected officials here in this House and here in the province. Although this is our meeting place, our entire province is our jurisdiction. The privileges of the members extend much beyond this place, and if we are to be protected against being overridden by the majority and being blindsided by a House leader who is intent on ramming stuff through this place, then we've got to know what role you have in guarding your obligation to protect us as a minority against the attacks that have been levelled at us, through the public press, by the House leader of this New Democratic government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Guelph. The member for Essex South is asked to come to order as well.

To the member for Bruce, the House leader of the official opposition: He approaches an old topic in a new and interesting way. Indeed I believe I've made a statement in this House on a number of occasions that it is preferable in a Parliament to have government policy announced here first. That assists in the orderly discussion of public business. I believe also that my predecessors who had the privilege of occupying this position have made similar statements and requests. Unhappily, they can be only requests because there is nothing in the standing orders.

Indeed members of the Assembly may wish to consider that if at some point they are discussing the matter and related matters in the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, which would be an appropriate place to address concerns with respect to procedures. It is something I think all members may wish to reflect on and may wish to deal with in that committee. I very much appreciate the member's approach to the matter and I certainly appreciate the way in which he has brought it to my attention as well.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Another point of order? The leader.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, in reference to your last point, though my House leader had asked for unanimous consent of this House to have the Attorney General make a statement on an issue that is of extreme concern to all members of this House, I would ask for your ruling as to whether or not we do indeed have that unanimous consent.

The Speaker: To the Leader of the Opposition, I had placed that before the House and there was at least one dissenting voice, so there is not unanimous agreement, and it is now time for oral questions.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Another point of order, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I have just a very brief point of order arising from the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'd be very pleased to be able to hear the point of order that the member wishes to bring to my attention.

Mr Sorbara: The point of order is just very brief. I noted that the government House leader tabled the report by Stephen Lewis today and made a statement to the effect that the Premier might be here on Thursday to make a statement about the report. I wonder who, in the absence of the Premier and in the absence of the Treasurer, is the Deputy Premier. Is there an acting Deputy Premier in the House who could have made a statement today on the making public of the report by Stephen Lewis or is there no acting Deputy Premier in the Legislature?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. I ask the member for Essex South to come to order. To the member for York Centre, I would like to be of some assistance to him. However, what he raises is not really a point of order. There was a statement made by the government House leader with respect to the report to which he refers and an indication that -- I believe he said -- the Premier would be addressing this matter on another occasion. It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

A point of order? The member for Parry Sound.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a bit more of a non-partisan and lighter note, I would like to honour four of our esteemed colleagues who today are celebrating the 15th consecutive anniversary of their election on June 9, 1977. They are the member for Carleton, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for St Catharines and the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would like to point out that I'm not naming them in my order of popularity or effectiveness but rather in the alphabetical order of their ridings.

I think that all too often we forget how tenuous a position this is and I believe there are only nine members of this assembly who have served that length of time or longer consecutively. I would like to have added you in that group, Mr Speaker, but the annals of recorded history prevent me from doing so.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order about the powers of the Speaker and get a direction from you, if not today then at some convenient time.

You have ruled consistently that you prefer a minister who has to make a statement to make it in the House. I understand the importance of that ruling. On the other hand, you are a Speaker who is elected by the House. This is the first occasion, I think, on which a Speaker in this chamber has been elected by private ballot of all members in the House. You have said that you prefer members of the government to make a statement in the House.

Yesterday, because we knew that the Attorney General would be making probably the most important policy statement of the year today in Ottawa, I asked in his presence and in the presence of the Premier if he would make it in the chamber in deference to your wishes. He did not respond at the time but we now know that he did not take accord of your wishes, the popularly elected Speaker of the House.

Mr Speaker, the question I have for you is, how you can expect to serve in the chamber as our delegate when a minister of the crown, the Attorney General no less, refuses, in the presence of the Premier, to defer to the opinion that you have expressed consistently? It seems to me that to allow yourself to be placed in that position is to allow a serious abuse of your capacity to take place. I'd like you to make a ruling on that point. This is a contempt of Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I appreciate the member for St George-St David's respect for the Chair and the position the Speaker holds, I can assure him that I will discharge my duties to the best of my abilities. My duties include attempting to enforce the rules and the standing orders and the procedures. The matter to which he speaks is not something which is included in the standing orders. But I will make every attempt to enforce those standing orders to the best of my ability, obviously with the cooperation of all members.

Finally, to the member for Parry Sound, indeed, although --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: Why would you want to serve with him?

The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David come to order, please.

Mr Scott: He paid no attention to you.

The Speaker: I asked the member to come to order.

Mr Scott: I withdraw. But Hampton won't do what the Speaker's asked him to.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for St George-St David to please come to order.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Parry Sound, indeed it's an important occasion on certain anniversaries to draw to the attention of members the special events that occur. I, at least, am one member in this House who understands the lack of job security in this profession. But I would like to add my words to those of the member for Parry Sound, that indeed to have survived political wars for 15 years is something about which all members who achieve that can be most proud. No matter what side of the House they sit on, they continue to serve the public to the best of their energies and abilities.

It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I say that I appreciate your patience. I'm sure from your impartial position in the Chair of this House you can appreciate the frustration we feel when so much important business is in fact conducted outside this assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GLOBAL WARMING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask a very specific question about what we consider to be this government's absolutely disappointing environmental record. In this particular case, my question is about the failure of this government to respond in any way to the impending threat of global warming caused by the continuous emission of greenhouse gases.

About three years ago, Ontario was actually in the position of taking a leadership role on this very issue. People in the private sector and in environmental groups were working together with a view to looking at how there could be agreement reached on effective ways of reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, which as the minister well knows is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect.

There was to have been a white paper released in December 1990, which was to outline the kinds of initiatives that could be taken in transportation and in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in these areas. There has been absolutely nothing seen of any of these initiatives since then.

I ask the minister why she has ignored the progress that was being made on this important issue of global warming. Why has she failed to act on any subsequent reports that have urged her to develop a comprehensive policy in this regard? Why has this whole issue been simply put on a back burner?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Mr Speaker, I disagree profoundly with the Leader of the Opposition. A number of ministries in this government are dealing with the issue of global warming. The lead ministry is the Ministry of Energy and my colleague the acting Minister of Energy will respond.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): The leader of the official opposition has raised a question about global warming and about nothing having been done. I can't disagree more profoundly with the leader of the official opposition. This government has taken the approach that to sit around and continue debating, as the federal government has chosen to do, targets and theoretically the ability to reach those targets, is a waste of time.

We've proceeded to implement a whole range of programs which are targeted directly at reducing emissions, making electricity conservation Ontario Hydro's number one priority, expansion of the Energy Efficiency Act in the Ontario Building Code, the phase-out of CFCs in Ontario, public transit initiatives that have been announced by my colleague the Minister of Transportation, and restrictions on electrical heat use in social housing in Ontario. Mr Speaker, that list is a lengthy one that goes on for several pages here. This government has taken aggressive, specifically targeted action on global warming and will continue to do so.

Mrs McLeod: The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy may both wish to profoundly disagree, but it was just at a news conference this morning -- incidentally a news conference that was legitimately held outside the assembly -- that the Ontario Global Warming Coalition announced that it was cutting off its consultation with this government, because of its inability to take action in setting a target for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.

The minister has begun to read into the record the list, which I understand his government is circulating, the 15-point list which outlines the kinds of initiatives that they say the government is taking on global warming. But as the coalition itself noted this morning -- this is the coalition speaking and not me -- a number of those initiatives were not the initiatives of this government; they were the initiatives of the previous government. The Energy Efficiency Act, the Let's Move transit program, which has already been referenced today, the CFC reduction initiatives, were not the initiatives of this government, even though they form a part of your record.

The coalition notes that other items that are listed in this list of actions from this government are either of debatable significance or simply don't have the kind of CO2 reductions that are contended. So having asked the Minister of the Environment why she has completely failed to address this very critical issue, I would ask the same question of the Minister of Energy. Why have you completely failed to follow through on any of the initiatives which were begun? Why have you completely failed to provide any kind of policy to address the issue of global warming?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is just fundamentally wrong. I'm not going to put some kind of analysis on the coalition's reasons for its comments this morning, but I should make a couple of interesting points to the official opposition.

First, the Ontario Global Warming Coalition was in fact commissioned by this government to do a report. Now the coalition has put out a press release saying it will refuse to consult with us on the specifics of that report and its implementation. If that's the position the coalition wishes to take, that's perfectly appropriate. Unfortunately, in the report we commissioned from them and which they delivered to us, they did not prioritize the actions which they listed, or cost them. We are proceeding to consult with others and to have work done on the implementation of those measures.

Further, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, for example, the Energy Efficiency Act, which the opposition party when in government implemented, but it forgot to put in place the standards in the regulations, which this government has proceeded to put in place over the course of the last 18 months.

Mrs McLeod: This government is going to be in increasing difficulty if it won't even consult with those whom it chose to consult with in the first place.

If the minister does not want to deal with the statements made by the coalition this morning, I would take the minister back to the statements that were made by his own party at an earlier time. I'd like to quote from the New Democratic Party social paper of June 1990 entitled Greening the Party, Greening the Province, in which it is stated: "Since one third of Canada's carbon dioxide emissions originate in this province, Ontario" -- not Canada -- "must take the lead in fighting global warming." It was during the election campaign of 1990 that the NDP wrote to environmental organizations and promised to cut carbon dioxide emissions in Ontario by 20% by the year 2005 should it be elected.

I would simply ask how this government after stating so boldly and so clearly its intentions to deal with global warming and carbon dioxide emissions can simply retreat from all those promises.

Hon Mr Charlton: To put the answer as simply as I possibly can, again the Leader of the Opposition is just fundamentally wrong. This government has done more in terms of specifically targeting emissions that affect global warming than any other government on the continent. Second, on every single initiative that the coalition on global warming has proposed, this government has either already taken some action or is pursuing initiatives, developing initiatives around it. This government at the end of this decade will have by far the best record of any government in Canada in the fight against global warming.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): There are so many avenues these questions might well take that I don't really know where to start, but let me start by asking, why does the Premier decide to leave this place so often? Why is the Deputy Premier not here, but --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom are you directing your question?

Mr Elston: Let me ask a question to the acting Deputy Premier, the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: When we speak factually in this place the New Democrats like to yell us down. That's the way business gets done here. I want to ask --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Bruce could place his question to the Chair and identify to whom he wishes to direct his question.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, last Thursday you will have noted that the government party dropped on the House two pieces of business, one which we knew was coming through the public press, that being the Ontario Labour Relations Amendment Act; the second piece of business was tabled without our knowledge and that deals with the changing of the rules.

I note for the government House leader to whom I'm going to pose a question that in the interim communication strategy associated with the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the consultation going on last year a leaked document indicated quite clearly that there were going to be pains taken to "neutralize the business opposition." I can ask the government House leader why it was he chose also to try to neutralize the dissent in this House with respect to the Ontario Labour Relations Act by bringing in these new and stifling pieces of standing order amendments, particularly at precisely the same time as the labour act appeared in the public.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I think it's been very clear over the last number of weeks that progress in the Legislature has just been very difficult to proceed with. I find it a little strange that the opposition parties would talk about the fact that they weren't given advance notice or anything like that about rule changes. I've been talking to the opposition House leaders about the possibility of rule changes for weeks, in fact months.

I didn't get any advance notice from the Conservative Party last week that it was going to hijack the Legislature all last Thursday as it did with its introduction of private members' bills. They didn't give any advance notice. They sure didn't give us --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What about when Kormos spent hours?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Cooke: They didn't give any advance notice last year when they did that for weeks on the budget at thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of expense to the public.

It's quite obvious that the Legislature is not working very well. All one had to do was to look yesterday. When I tried to lead off the debate on the rule changes I was shouted down and not allowed to speak. Then we were entertained by two hours of a speech from the member for Renfrew North, which was the most personal attack on members of the Legislature ever in the history of the Legislature.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): It was an attack on you, not on the Legislature or the other members, and deserved.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: I just lost my notes, but that's okay; a lot of this stuff is etched in my mind. We have gone through listening again to how this House does not work. In the government House leader's own press release, this press kit which came on the spur of the moment, well-orchestrated over several weeks and months, he has said they want to introduce up to 121 pieces of legislation.

There is nobody who prevents anybody from introducing legislation. I have here, for everybody to see, the 17 bills that were introduced by this group of people since April 6, 1992. As I said, 13 of the 17 pieces of legislation have come since May 26, very late in the session, which by our calendar is now known, obviously, to end on the last Thursday of June.

How can the government House leader stand in his place and condemn any of us for not doing the government's public business when in fact they won't introduce it so that we can consult the public that needs to be consulted about the ramifications concerning their business? Why has the government House leader chosen to lead the public to believe facts that are not correct?

Hon Mr Cooke: The facts are very clear. If you want to take a look at some of the pieces of legislation we've dealt with in this Legislature, when we came back last fall, in the first six weeks of the Legislature not one piece of legislation passed. We came back this year, several weeks went by and no legislation passed. The opposition wouldn't let us pass tax bills from the 1991 budget until this year.

There's no way the opposition parties can make any case other than that they obstructed the progress of this place. It's the determination of the government -- not to do anything out of the usual: We're bringing in rules that are in line with the other provinces in Canada and with the federal Parliament. There's nothing radical. Even Liberal governments in other provinces have brought in rules just like this.

Mr Elston: I might well remark, for the public's interest, that the last time unilateral activity was taken with respect to the standing orders was by Brian Mulroney, with whom I know the current Premier, Bob Rae, has been spending a lot of time recently and is obviously learning the same skills that His Highness in Ottawa has foisted upon the public Parliament there.

I ask the government House leader how he expects us to believe in his word with respect to the conduct of public business, when we had assented to establishing an ad hoc committee -- one representative from his party, one from our party, the member for Mississauga West, and one from the third party -- to conduct an analysis of the rules, which would then be sent out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for vetting before they come back to this House.

How does the government House leader expect us to have any trust in anything he puts in front of this House when he usurps the very strategy which was put in place agreeably among the three House leaders just in April of this year?

Hon Mr Cooke: I first raised this whole matter with the opposition about how we could proceed to review the rules of the Legislature and introduce the idea of parliamentary reform last fall. I've had to deal with three or four different House leaders for the official opposition, which has made it somewhat difficult, but then we finally came to this idea that there was going to be an ad hoc committee, one from each party.

There has now been an attempt on three occasions to have meetings -- the representative from the Liberal Party knows this -- and those meetings have been cancelled because they haven't been able to be attended by one of the members of the committee. I don't know what the message to anybody else is, but it's clear to me that the opposition parties are not interested in trying to proceed with parliamentary reform.

We are going to proceed with parliamentary reform. We're proceeding with parliamentary reform which will finally bring the Ontario Legislature in line with the other legislatures in Canada and the House of Commons.

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

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Despite attempts by your government House leader to bury the issue of the labour legislation with the diversion of draconian rule changes, let me tell you, Mr Minister, that no one in this province I have been talking to has forgotten last Thursday's disastrous, one-sided bill you introduced into the House.

Least of all, it seems, has your own party forgotten this. I have a copy of the most recent NDP propaganda mailout on this very issue. It says, in bold print, "In tough times, a government has to stand up for fairness." This is part of your propaganda document.

I'm wondering, Mr Minister, if you can tell me how scaring investment and taking away the jobs of thousands of Ontarians is somehow or other standing up for fairness.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the comments of the leader of the third party are totally ridiculous. We're not scaring thousands of jobs away at all. What we're trying to do, very clearly, is make it clear that the working people in Ontario also have some input into the decisions that are made that affect them.

Mr Harris: This minister has tried to make this House and Ontarians believe he was actually working with someone other than Bob White when he drafted this bill. But Mr Speaker, I would ask you and members of the House to listen to what his New Democratic Party is saying outside of the House. They say: "Big business lobby tactics are scare tactics. They've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on phoney studies."

I wonder if the minister could tell me if it was the Ernst and Young study, a firm his government has hired on numerous occasions, not the least of which was to settle the Kapuskasing mill affair. Could you tell me, is that the study you are saying was phoney, or is it -- I guess the only phoniness we've seen so far -- the fact that you refused to do any studies?

I would ask you this, Minister: If you think all the studies that have been done, independent and otherwise and by business groups and coalitions, are all phoney, why is it you haven't done one of your own?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The coalition campaign that was on, early on, was based on the early Burkett report, which was not the direction of this government. I think the leader of the third party knows that by now, but from the way he keeps repeating the question I'm not at all sure. If he doesn't believe in my position of trying to improve labour relations in the province, I can't help him.

Mr Harris: The only phoniness is that you've not done one study on job loss across this province and you attack everybody who has. You say their studies are phoney. No matter how well your highly paid spin doctors try to package this, the bottom line is that this legislation will kill jobs, destroy investment and close factories.

Minister, you say as well in your propaganda piece that government, business and labour have to work more cooperatively together. We all agree with that. Do you think this malicious NDP anti-business propaganda attack on the business community is going to bring business and your government closer together?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are clear indications that much of the business community does understand exactly what we're trying to do now. I think the comments from the leader of the third party are unfortunate, because he's doing more to hurt business in the province than anything that's in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Mr Harris: Don't put words in my mouth. These are your party's comments, Mr Minister. This is what your own party is saying, these malicious attacks.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Does the leader of the third party have a second question?

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I understand from my colleague the member for Simcoe East that as many as 21 employees of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre have received layoff notices. These employees are considered front-line workers in a maximum security facility that houses high-risk patients.

Can the minister explain these layoffs after workers were assured, when they ratified a 1% and 2% agreement for two years, that no front-line workers would be laid off? Can you explain these layoffs right on the heels of that and can you assure us that neither patients nor the community will be at risk as a result of 21 fewer employees?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I can assure the leader of the third party that the kind of cost-constraint exercise we are undertaking within the ministry, very similar to what we have asked our transfer partners out in the community to undertake, is one in which we are trying to work with front-line workers and managers to find all ways of eliminating waste before we affect direct services.

With regard to the notices of layoff, I want to correct him in his indication; at least I think he implied that these people had in fact been laid off. Layoff notices have been received, but under the collective agreement which he referred to they will be provided with opportunities of redeployment, and we will take every step we can to try to minimize any displacement and find appropriate replacement work.

With respect to the provision of maximum-security services in this area in terms of psychiatric hospitals, I want to assure the member that we have gone from about 300 beds to 120 in the Oak Ridge area. We are at this point expanding forensic services in other parts of the province. The highest-priority need we have, however, is for medium-secure beds. Within the next six months we will be expanding in a number of areas and there will be transfers of further patients who are now inappropriately housed in maximum-security beds to those minimum-security beds.

Mr Harris: The bottom line is that once again the brothers and the sisters -- this time in OPSEU 307 -- have had to turn to me and my party to speak on their behalf.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party with his supplementary.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, while these 21 layoffs were being announced last weekend, I understand the minister had an opportunity to visit Thunder Bay. It seems she had a busy weekend speaking to the province's mental health advisory boards, some from Penetanguishene.

According to my itinerary, out-of-town delegates had their travel and accommodation costs picked up by your ministry -- the same budget envelope that is laying off 21 workers -- for three days, Madam Minister. That in itself is not my complaint, but conventioneers, according to my copy of the agenda, went wining, dining, shopping and cruising.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how much this weekend in Thunder Bay cost, and how does she justify that at the same time as 21 workers are being laid off at the Penetang hospital?

Hon Ms Lankin: The leader of the third party is incorrect to suggest that I attended the conference and spoke there. He may be looking at an early, proposed agenda, I'm not sure. However, I wasn't in attendance. What I can tell him is that the conference was held for members of the community advisory boards to psychiatric hospitals. There were approximately 130 delegates, who are local community members, volunteers who work very hard to advise CEOs and administrations of psychiatric hospitals with respect to their programming and their relationship to the community.

In terms of costs, I can give you a preliminary response, and I don't mind giving you more detail if it's required. I can tell you that, following on various instructions that had been given to the ministry to attempt to keep costs down, excursion rates with respect to flights were achieved for people attending. It was about $211 per seat for the individual delegate attending, which is considerably less than most flights to Thunder Bay that were arranged. Accommodation was at a standard rate.

Overall, I believe the cost of the conference to the ministry was about $38,000, which in comparison to previous years is a substantial reduction in the cost of bringing people together to try to promote and empower community involvement and input into government processes and delivery of service.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, I am truly disappointed the minister wasn't there, because the one thing I thought may have justified this conference was an opportunity for the advisory committees, the 120 of them across the province, to pass on their views to the minister. However, now you tell me even that didn't take place. That now leaves the agenda for the delegates: a welcome ship cruise, then a luncheon without the minister where they enjoyed trout meunière and blueberry pie, they dined on the Voyageur buffet at Old Fort William, and when the seminar

schedule got too gruelling they jumped aboard hospital vans for a little shopping trip.

Minister, how can you condone this spending spree of mental health dollars when hospital workers, such as 21 in Penetang in the riding of the member for Simcoe East, are losing their jobs?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the leader of the third party does an injustice to the large number of community volunteers who are involved in this process, who dedicate many hours over the course of the year and have come together for what I understand was a very productive conference in terms of reviewing a number of issues that are outstanding with respect to the administration of psychiatric hospitals and their relationship to community programs.

I understand that in fact the delegates worked very hard. The conference resulted in a number of recommendations from the community advisory boards that will assist in the development of mental health reform. I look forward to being in receipt of all of those recommendations, and I'm sure that when I share those with the leader of the third party he will see that the kind of work these people are doing is of great value to the province and that the cost we have paid for this conference is certainly a real bargain when you look at what we get back from these people over the course of a year.

LEGAL AID

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Since the Attorney General refuses to enlighten us about the statement on legal aid which he made outside the Legislature today, I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. According to what the Attorney General announced today, the government is considering setting up pilot family law clinics, which would mean family law clients could not choose their own lawyer. As the minister is aware, over 70% of legal aid family law clients are women and children, often financially vulnerable, abused and powerless.

We have a situation where what the government is proposing is to set up a system where murderers and rapists have the right to choose their own lawyers but women and children do not. This is the government that, first of all, purports to defend the interests of women. This is the government that says it stands for freedom of choice. This is the government that said it appointed 10 women to cabinet so they could speak for women, and yet we have this policy.

My question for the minister responsible for women's issues is, what have she and her female cabinet colleagues done to ensure that the Attorney General is not trying to save money from the legal aid system on the backs of the women and children of this province?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member is quite well aware, I am sure, that over many years the women's movement has had a great deal of difficulty with the issue of the provision of legal care and assistance, particularly to abused women and their children, and that one of the major thrusts of the work that has been done is an attempt to improve the access of women to legal aid. Part of the problem is that many lawyers do not accept legal aid and that in fact those who do very often find their case loads growing at an enormous rate and are unable to provide the kind and level of service that is required by women in these circumstances.

There have been many proposals put forward over a large number of years by women's groups suggesting that one of the possibilities in areas where there are very few family lawyers who will accept legal aid might be the possibility of a clinic specifically for those family law issues. There is no question but that some of the opposition that is currently against this is based on the level of choice. In the discussions we have had we are convinced that, whatever the pilot projects happen to be, they will not interfere with the basic right of choice.

It is the issue of not having a choice because lawyers are not available that makes us want to support this as a pilot project to see what happens.

Ms Poole: I can't believe I just heard that answer from the minister responsible for women's issues. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers for women to choose from if they can get that legal aid certificate. Many of them are female lawyers who are in the family law bar, so to say that is simply not correct.

What we have here is an Attorney General who, on the one hand, has said he's going to save money on the backs of women and children. I read to you from the press release. The ministry is interested in "legal aid pilot projects in family, refugee and young offenders law." What three groups could you find more vulnerable: women, refugees and children? Sure, why not experiment, why not let them be the guinea pigs? Not only assaulted women's shelters but also the family law bar and judges have spoken out and said this will discriminate against women. Is this minister going to stand up with her cabinet colleagues and defend the interests of women in this province once and for all?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is simply not correct when she says the choice of private practice lawyers will cease to be possible. It will certainly continue, and in fact part of the Attorney General's announcement included an announcement that we will be increasing the family law legal aid tariff. That has been one of the barriers to family law lawyers from going ahead with this program. In effect, what we are providing is more choice. If people have access to a lawyer whom they trust and who will accept legal aid, they will be able to choose that, but there now is an additional choice -- a choice of those who choose to practise family law in a clinic setting.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is important for us to recognize that this whole notion of having a clinic specifically geared to offer the kind of support that women require when they're in this kind of situation is one that is favoured by many women's groups. Yes, there are some women's groups who do not favour it on the ground that they think it would become a total system that would forbid them choice. That is not our intention. Our intention is absolutely to increase the choice.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, you and your colleagues have consistently argued that your package of changes to the Labour Relations Act are nothing to be concerned about because they exist in other jurisdictions. However, the fact is, in no other jurisdiction are the labour relations laws so heavily slanted towards unions. In no other jurisdiction are all of these provisions found in one package.

Minister, the entire package of changes you have announced will tilt the delicate balance of economic power between labour and management towards unions. Can you name a single jurisdiction in which the complete package of pro-union measures which you introduced last Thursday exists?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Everything that's in the package exists in the federal authority or in one province or another. All together, no. It is a very important package, put together to improve the relations between business and labour in the province of Ontario, and that's exactly what it will do.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, that is a story you have been spreading throughout the province.

I'd like to point out to you that despite your best efforts to convince the media and the public that there is nothing new in this package, the reality is that there are several provisions in this bill, which you introduced last week, that do not in fact exist in any other Canadian jurisdiction: the provisions regarding protection for union organizers, the purpose clause giving the Ontario Labour Relations Board the mandate to encourage union formation, organizing and picketing on third-party property, the rules for automatic certification in cases of unfair labour practices, combining part-time and full-time bargaining units in a single bargaining unit, just-cause protection for striking workers, and contracted services.

All of these do not exist in any other Canadian province.

Minister, will you finally admit that the complete package you introduced is unprecedented in any other jurisdiction and that, indeed, some of your reforms giving unions the kind of sweeping powers which your bill will give them are not in existence elsewhere? Will you finally come clean with the public?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the honourable member that we've been up front and clean with the public on this issue right from the beginning.

I think it might be advisable for the honourable member to stop and think of the kind of slam she's constantly giving to workers in this province. What's wrong with workers having some input in the decisions that directly affect them?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. The member for Oxford.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted with some degree of anxiety that the Minister of Labour basically suggested the member for Waterloo North said things that were not what she'd said at all. He's leaving the impression that she is putting forth a position that is not correct. She is not endeavouring to put down workers in this province.

How can members protect themselves against assaults like that when they lose the opportunity to respond to that type of activity by this minister? It happens all the time and it's one reason our privileges are being violated.

That member is not of my caucus but her position is my position, that we should be fairly treated by ministers of the crown. Just because they have the last word on a question shouldn't allow them to allege certain states of events and facts which do not exist. This government has been doing that far too much.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. As always --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Bruce, as always, I listened very carefully to both the question and the response. There was no unparliamentary language used. There was nothing which was out of order. There certainly was a difference of opinion on both sides of the House. I understand the member's concern and that concern is voiced often on both sides of the chamber. Other than there being unparliamentary language or language which leads to disorder, members will choose the words they wish to use.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you know, Ontario's library community plays a very important role in many communities throughout the province, including in my riding. The role of libraries has been changing over the last couple of years. Particularly during the recession, the use of libraries is up substantially, over 20%, and people are turning there as a cheap, effective resource centre.

Madam Minister, I don't need to tell you that if libraries get a cutback in their funding, this may mean layoffs and branch closures. Some libraries are already looking at that. Can you please tell the House when the libraries will know what their transfer payments are going to be, and will there be an increase?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I can. I have no trouble giving the information. I agree. I think our province is extremely lucky in having a resource like libraries. The member for Oxford has picked up a very important fact: People do turn to libraries to help them look for jobs and to research employers.

We at the Ministry of Culture and Communications do recognize this need. In answer to the member's question, there will be no cutbacks to libraries. In fact, they haven't been affected at all by the budget constraints: 1,400 provincial libraries will get a 1% increase to annual transfer payments. That totals $32.1 million in library expenditure operating funds. Grant recipients include public libraries, first nations libraries and county libraries.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You haven't paid them yet. You're five weeks overdue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Regarding cheque releases, the operating grants will be paid in one instalment so that libraries receive the funds within the next two weeks.

Mr Sutherland: Madam Minister, there's also a concern about the smaller libraries being able to keep up in automation. Of course, in terms of providing a level of service throughout the province, this is very important for smaller libraries that exist in my community. What I'd like to know from the minister is, when will the ministry recognize that small libraries are just as important as the large ones?

Hon Mrs Haslam: We do recognize that small libraries are very important in the system. Small libraries, like the larger ones, carry out work within their communities and contribute to this government's province-wide initiatives to improve access and remove barriers.

The Ontario Library Consortium, which is made up of a number of county libraries, will be receiving a $300,000 grant to finish the final step in its automation plan. As I mentioned, this will affect 18 county and public libraries in southern Ontario with over 200 service points. This new system will give members better control over their books and provide users with better access to all of the collection.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On April 14 I asked the Minister of Labour why the Workers' Health and Safety Centre decided to use the Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake as the site for its retreat. It had come to our attention at that time that the Ministry of Labour's Workers' Health and Safety Centre had sent almost its entire staff on a two-and-a-half-day retreat at the Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that on May 27 I rose on a point of order wondering where the minister's reply was, because in reaction to my first question he had said he would get back to me. Now it is June 9 and still no response. I wonder what has happened. After two months, can the Minister of Labour tell this House why the staff at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre took an all expenses paid trip to Niagara-on-the-Lake when at that time there were perfectly good facilities available in Toronto for those meetings?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I apologize to the member. When I checked it, after he raised it a second time in the House, I thought the question was being prepared to be sent to him. I thought myself that I had responded to it. But I can tell the member that almost a third of the workers who were at that conference were not from the Toronto area. They were from around the province of Ontario. They had done costing for the conference and found that the price was as cheap or cheaper in Niagara-on-the-Lake as it was here in Toronto. They made that decision and it was their right to make that decision.

[Applause]

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to hear that the members of the government side have applauded that type of response. The Minister of Labour has again not responded to my question. I'm wondering, if the work by the centre was so important that it had to have been done at Niagara-on-the-Lake at the Queen's Landing, why, according to our information, were these hearings, these particular consultations, these meetings cancelled for the Wednesday session of the two-day conference so that the centre's executives could play golf?

I am wondering, Mr Minister, whether you can tell the House whether you consider the cancellation of the centre's full afternoon session of a two-day conference so that public officials could play golf a good use of the taxpayers' dollars.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the member very clearly that the word I got back after raising the question he raised in the House was that it was an excellent conference, of value to the people who were involved. I think it's important that we bring these people together and not insult them when they're trying to do a job for the health and safety of the workers in Ontario.

LAKELANDS TOURISM GROUP

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The Lakelands Tourism Group is an umbrella organization composed of four active tourism associations representing the vibrant and concentrated tourism regions of Grey-Bruce, the Georgian triangle, Huronia and Muskoka. But according to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Lakelands Tourism Group does not even exist. Lakelands Tourism Group has been excluded as a listing for the public in five important ministry publications, including Travel Ontario.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation spends approximately $27 million in marketing efforts to promote Ontario tourism locations, yet in its directories there is no contact listed for one of the most important tourism regions in the province. The Lakelands Tourism Group is not asking for funding from the ministry. Collectively, this group spends over $1.65 million in marketing without provincial government assistance. The Lakelands Tourism Group is only asking that it be included as a contact in ministry travel publications and that it receive ministry information in a timely way.

Would the minister please tell me why Lakelands Tourism Group is not listed as a travel consultant in these five ministry publications?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Last year, during the course of the year, there was a choice made by the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association that it no longer wanted to be part of the Ontario Travel Associations' program, and with that would go the funding and the types of resources the member has talked about.

We continued to have discussions with the groups that are within the Georgian Lakelands group and tried to work with them to continue to support in any way we can, through our consultants and through our ministry, their efforts in tourism in this province. That commitment has been made by our ministry and will continue to be made by our ministry, and we hope that in the future we can have an association there that will be part of the Ontario Travel Associations' program.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I find the minister's answer quite curious. Minister, you've met with members of the Lakelands Tourism Group who represent the tourism operators in the Georgian Lakelands and the Georgian triangle. You know the lakelands association exists because your May 14 press release, which launches a campaign to promote Ontario to US markets, features one of the lakelands area attractions, and the press release says, "The world's longest freshwater beach isn't in Australia, it's at Wasaga Beach," which is in the lakelands catchment area.

Minister, simply because the Lakelands Tourism Group has refused to play your game, your response to date has been to take your ball and go home. You've not been cooperative with that association. You've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars printing up five brochures. You mention "Area 3 Lakelands" in the brochures and then you leave them blank. In a couple of the brochures you mention "Lakelands" and you put, "Contact not available."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Jim Wilson: When my constituents call your 1-800 Ontario tourism line, they're told Wasaga Beach doesn't exist. You go to the bother -- final point, Mr Speaker -- of spending several hundreds of thousands of dollars --

The Speaker: Would the member place a supplementary?

Mr Jim Wilson: -- advertising Wasaga Beach in US publications, newspapers and magazines, but you refuse to tell people where they can get a contact.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please? I have asked the member twice if he would place a supplementary.

Mr Jim Wilson: Very quickly then, Mr Speaker, my question is, Minister, will you agree today to stop playing games and restore the reference to the Lakelands Tourism Group in all your ministry's promotional brochures, or will you continue to play ball without one of your key players?

Hon Mr North: I'm disappointed in one of the statements the member made. I find it factually incorrect and I would appreciate it if the member would relate that this probably is factually incorrect, and that is that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has not cooperated with members of the industry in that area. I find that factually incorrect.

As I said earlier, we continue to try to work with groups all over the province that are involved in the tourism industry. We work through the Ontario Travel Associations' program, which is a program that was set up by travel associations and the ministry across the province. It's something that has been a cooperative effort both with the travel associations and with the ministry across the province for some time.

There has been a choice made in this particular area that these gentlemen speak of that is contrary to what the program is at this time. As I said earlier, we continue to try to work with all members of the industry in the province. It's our job as an advocate for the tourism industry to try to promote all parts of the province.

The member across the floor noted that we speak of, very clearly, Wasaga Beach. When people ask us, "Where's the beach," we tell them where the beach is. It's at Wasaga. We continue to work to try and answer the questions that need to be answered around this issue to try and work this out.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the minister responsible for the GTA. As you know, my riding of Durham West is the home --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could barely hear myself. I'll have to start all over again.

My question is for the minister responsible for the GTA. As you know, my riding of Durham is the home for millions of tonnes of Metro garbage at the Brock West landfill site, the Brock North landfill site, and on the boundary of Pickering and Scarborough there is also the Beare Road landfill site.

Last Thursday my constituents in north Pickering received a list of candidate landfill sites. They are painfully aware that they are not the only community that has received this dubious pleasure. They are still reeling from the shock of seven candidate Durham sites and one candidate York Metro site all identified within extremely close proximity of each other.

Under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee the decisions were made behind closed doors to arbitrarily pick a site known as K1 to accommodate Metro's garbage. SWISC cut off the people's right to participate in the process. My constituents voted in September 1990 to put a stop to that. Now there are eight proposed sites around Whitevale.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Could the minister explain what is different about this process? My constituents are having a great deal of difficulty understanding, as it appears to them that this is in fact worse than what they were threatened with before. Also, could the minister assure my constituents that these sites will have a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The process that has been put in place by this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The rules prescribe an order for questions to be placed, a rotation. That rotation includes both sides of the House. Every member recognized by the Speaker to place a question will have the opportunity to place that question, and every minister to whom the question is directed will have an opportunity to respond. I would ask for the cooperation of the House so the backbench member for the government side can place his question and the minister will have an opportunity to respond.

Hon Mrs Grier: The process that is being put in place by this government to establish --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- a landfill site within the greater Toronto area is very different from the process that was in place before. We've established an independent crown corporation, the Interim Waste Authority, to go and seek these sites according to criteria that are developed very publicly and very openly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask again for the cooperation of the House so the minister can respond. Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: What's primarily different about the process is that it's fair, it's open and it's independent.

I recognize, having said that, that it is no less painful for somebody who finds that one of the farms or areas in his particular neighbourhood is designated as a candidate site. But in response to the member's question, it is under the environmental assessment process, which means every alternative site will be examined, will be weighed and there will be every opportunity for people to participate in that review, to have the ability to review the technical documentation that has gone into the decision --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That's not true, Ruth. It's under Bill 143. It's not the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and I know very well that all his constituents and this member, who has served them so well, will take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do --

Mr Sorbara: Tell them to tell the truth.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. Perhaps in a quiet, more reflective moment, the member for York Centre would have selected different words than what he just used. I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Sorbara: What remark was that, sir?

The Speaker: The member knows full well what he just said. You cannot accuse another member in the House of not telling the truth.

Mr Sorbara: The Minister of the Environment said the assessment would be done under the Environmental Assessment Act and that is simply not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The volume was such that unfortunately I did not hear the words. If the member did say, "I withdraw," I didn't hear that. I would ask the member if he would withdraw the remark.

Mr Sorbara: What I said was that the minister said the assessment would be done under the Environmental Assessment Act. I reiterate that that is not true. It will be done under Bill 143, which is a different piece of legislation.

The Speaker: I must caution the member that --

Interjection: Throw him out.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection: No respect for the House.

The Speaker: I ask all members in the House to come to order. I ask the member for York Centre -- he will know that he has used unparliamentary language. I would ask the member to reflect for a moment, a member of long standing in the House, a member who I know respects Parliament -- I would ask him to withdraw the remarks which were deemed by the Chair to be unparliamentary.

Mr Sorbara: I cannot withdraw -- I'm perfectly willing to leave the chamber now, but I do not consider it unparliamentary to say that what the minister said in her response is not true. I'm not accusing her of anything else. I'm just saying the statement is untrue. I've said that in a million speeches -- not in a million -- in several speeches in this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre: As your Speaker I will try to be helpful, but I must tell you that what was said by yourself was that the minister was not telling the truth. The Chair cannot determine the veracity of statements, but the Chair must not allow unparliamentary language.

Mr Sorbara: I will withdraw the comment that the minister was not telling the truth. I will replace it with the comment that what the minister said --

The Speaker: No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the member withdrew the remarks. The member for Durham West with his supplementary?

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My --

The Speaker: A point of order?

MINISTER'S COMMENT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's an important point of order because several of us over here heard a remark from the Minister of Health, who is also the minister responsible for the anti-drug-abuse campaign of this government. In chastising one of our members, she suggested he should get some new drugs. I think that's a totally inappropriate remark. They're laughing on that side of the House, but when one of the ministers of that government stands up and criticizes this side, and we have a minister responsible for the anti-drug campaign in this province making a comment like that, I think it's totally inappropriate and should be withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Leeds-Grenville, the member will know that language --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David, please come to order.

I did not hear the alleged remark. As is my practice, I would invite the Minister of Health -- if indeed she believes she made such a remark she has the opportunity to withdraw it if it has offended a member on the other side of the House.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): Mr Speaker, I'm not sure whether you're indicating that it was unparliamentary or you're just offering me the opportunity to withdraw if I've offended the member. I think the member who rose and spoke perhaps was offended. The member about whom I made the comments suggested that he doesn't need new drugs, that the ones he has are fine. However, if my comments have offended anybody, I will withdraw them.

The Speaker: It's nice to know everyone's trying to assist the Speaker.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In this lighter moment I would like to return to the question of landfills. My constituents are particularly concerned about all the issues around landfills. Tomorrow, a joint meeting of the Metro Toronto works committee and the management committee will meet to discuss tipping fees at the Keele Valley and Brock West landfill sites owned and operated by Metro. They are considering lowering their tipping fees. Some members of the public believe the province sets tipping fees.

I would like the minister to clarify who sets tipping fees, the role of the province and the likely implications of these lower tipping fees in terms of recycling and the whole program of waste reduction.

Hon Mrs Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm happy to clarify the jurisdictions for the honourable member and other members. Municipalities are responsible for delivering waste management programs in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take her seat, please. I once again ask for the cooperation of all members in the chamber so the minister can make her response to the question.

Hon Mrs Grier: If a landfill site or a facility is owned and operated by a municipality, such as Keele Valley or Brock West, those municipalities set the tipping fees for those facilities. The province, through its policies, encourages the municipalities to set the tipping fees at a level that will provide an incentive for waste reduction and cover the costs of waste reduction as well as reflecting the true costs of disposal.

As I have indicated in response to questions in the House before, what is needed in the province is a comprehensive waste management system that will deal with where their power ought to lie and what the financing of our waste management system should be. That kind of consultation is part of the work the waste reduction office is doing and part of the consultation papers that have been initiated. We hope to have a comprehensive look at the province as a whole in the financing for our waste management later on this year.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been on my feet several times today with respect to the announcement of government programs and policy decisions here in the Legislative Assembly. On many occasions they have not been announced here and we have taken issue with the government.

During question period, a time when a member is able to rise in his or her place to ask questions of pressing, important business of the day, you have allowed the member for Oxford to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Communications. It allowed that minister to make what amounts to a government statement with respect to county library consortiums and the fact that they will be receiving some $300,000 as grant money and that there are cheques in the mail which will arrive in the constituency in some two weeks' time from today's answered question.

It seems to me the minister could have stood in her place and provided that by way of statement as opposed to reading her reply to the question by the member for Oxford. I only ask that, if these people are going to announce the things they are doing for the public in this province in these surreptitious -- that's easy for you to say -- backhanded ways -- I am a little bit confused because I am a little bit upset with the way this business is proceeding.

I have not stood in my place very often, although from time to time I have stood in my place to remind the people that the public business is to be announced and done here, so we can do certain things in a critical and analytical way which allows the people of the province to know that this House is dealing with public business.

We have announcements of government things outside this place. We have announcements of government policies and programs by way of answering questions of their members.

I am beside myself as a result of the assault on the opposition by the member for Windsor-Riverside yesterday and by the written materials which appeared in the Globe and Mail on a couple of occasions which suggested that we were holding up business, when in fact neither the Premier nor the Deputy Premier seem to wish to be here very often, when in fact the ministers choose to be outside this place and make announcements, when in fact the Attorney General, the member for Rainy River, made his announcement in Ottawa and was here in this House in time to make a statement to us with respect to important government business, all because they will not allow us to be critical.

Mr Speaker, how are we to have our rights protected and how are we to believe that important business of the day will be allowed to be questioned in this House through the members' question period when you allow ministers of the crown to make important announcements in answers to the backbenchers? I am frustrated by being criticized by that man the member for Windsor-Riverside.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce --

To the same point of order, Minister?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not make policy statements. I did not make any major granting statements. I made statements regarding the budget that has just come down and the fact that --

Mr Elston: You said the cheque would be out in two weeks and that they're getting $200,000.

Hon Mrs Haslam: No, no. This was in the announcements that went out about my budget. I announced that there was a 1% increase to all the library operating grants; that's what the member asked me. He asked me about operating grants for the libraries. They have been held up through the process. I answered his question and said to them that the operating grants were now final and that the cheques were in the mail.

The Speaker: To the House leader of the opposition and to the Minister of Culture and Communications: Both of you have spoken to a matter which I made a statement on a little while back, and I believe in that statement I mentioned the fact that it is virtually impossible for a Speaker to determine whether or not a response to a question is an announcement of new government policy or a change in policy. I listened very closely, as I always do, and this time to both the question and the response. I could not detect from that response that this was an announcement of new government policy.

The member for Bruce may recall that in the earlier statement I made I indeed invited ministers to choose the opportunity of ministers' statements as the time to make policy statements, but I must say to the member for Bruce again that it is virtually impossible for the Speaker to determine at an instant whether a response to a question is an announcement of new government policy. But I am certainly mindful of the point which he brings to my attention and I appreciate the explanation which was offered by the Minister of Culture and Communications.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today in question period, in response to a question by my House leader, the government House leader implied that the reason changes to the rules were submitted in the fashion they were submitted was that a committee had been struck consisting of a member of his caucus, a member of the Tory caucus and myself. That committee's role was to get together and discuss some form of parliamentary reform. That was not a standing committee or a special or select committee or anything. It was simply -- I would think Mr Sutherland would agree with me -- a voluntary committee the three of us would get together.

The unfortunate problems we all experienced with regard to scheduling led to two or three sessions that had been scheduled having to be cancelled, primarily due to the

schedule of the member from the Tory caucus. I don't say that in any form of criticism; it was just simply unavoidable due to other duties and responsibilities. We all know that members of this House have very onerous duties and responsibilities and that meetings continually have to be rescheduled.

The House leader for the government -- this point was raised yesterday actually -- has suggested that, as a result of the inability of that committee to get together and meet and have some informal discussion about parliamentary reform, he has now found it necessary to unilaterally introduce amendments to the rules in this place. Where I believe that my privilege and the privilege of all members, but specifically mine as a result of his reference to me being a member of the parliamentary committee he referred to -- he's implying that it's due to that committee's lack of activity or ability to meet that he's had to bring in these changes unilaterally.

Where I think he has clearly violated all our privileges is that if you look on page 42 of the standing orders of this place, under

section 51 it says, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day." So at 5 pm on Thursday you would lay with the Clerk on the table the order that would then be printed on Monday.

Then if you go to

section 53, it states, and please bear with me, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader" -- not some member of the government; the government House leader specifically -- "shall announce the business for the following week."

What actually happened is this: It's clear that he has lived up to the letter of the standing orders, because the government House leader submitted the notice to the Clerk before 5 o'clock on Thursday. You will recall, sir, that the House extended sittings to 11:45 that Thursday, at which time Hansard shows that the government House leader rose and said, in effect: "I'd like to announce the business of this House for next week.

On Monday I will tell you what we're going to be doing on Monday, and on Tuesday we'll deal with the opposition resolution" -- which we will deal with shortly -- "Wednesday, Thursday etc." He announced the business for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but told this place that he would tell us what we were going to do on Monday when we all arrived here on Monday. We, of course, found out with our early edition of the Globe and Mail that in fact he had tabled with the Clerk these reforms to the rules.

My point, sir, and where I think my privilege has been violated as the member named for our caucus as the member of that parliamentary committee which has yet to have an opportunity to meet -- through no one's fault, I suggest -- is that I believe what the House leader has done is he has simply snuck the order on to the Clerk's table and intentionally failed to tell the members of the House. If you go to

section -- I believe it's 23, which refers to the traditions in this place -- it would be very clear to me that the tradition and the reason for

section 51 under the standing orders would be so that members are informed of the business that is to come before the House in the following week -- not the Clerk, not the staff, with respect, not even the Speaker, but the members. He failed to do that and he's trying to suggest that the failure of our committee to meet was why.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. There are essentially two points and I'll deal with them both very quickly, the first point being the committee to which he referred, and that is a point of information. Obviously the member is indicating that he was prepared to meet and the meetings did not occur.

The second point is one which he raised in this chamber previously and it was ruled upon by the Acting Speaker. Upon consultation with the Speaker and the Clerk and others, the Acting Speaker, of course, delivered the correct ruling, and the Chair was absolutely right. I simply reaffirm that there is nothing out of order.

Last, I will say that, aside from the alleged point of privilege, I think I may have mentioned to the member previously that I believe the Legislature functions best when it operates without surprises, but there is nothing that happened which was out of order.

It is time for motions.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that the order of the House of Wednesday, April 22, 1992, referring the matter of the appointment of the Provincial Auditor to the standing committee on public accounts, be amended by striking out "June 8, 1992," and substituting "September 28, 1992," therefor.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have a total of 26 petitions that comprise 390 names, the vast majority from the riding of Prescott and Russell.

"Whereas child care is not an essential public service;

"Whereas the proposed child care reforms for Ontario do not address the rights of the child;

"Whereas these proposals realistically eliminate choice of child care for the majority of parents;

"Whereas these proposals dilute parental control and responsibility for the wellbeing of their children;

"Whereas these proposals strongly and unfairly favour, without just cause, working parents over a parent who stays at home to care for their children;

"Whereas the government is increasingly unable to fulfil its current financial obligations to existing essential services, for example, health care and education;

"Whereas the profit status of a child care service is not indicative of the quality of care given;

"Whereas these proposals are not financially sound or justifiable;

"Whereas these proposals limit the ability of parents to obtain child care which will reinforce their social and cultural heritage,

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

"

(1) Enhance the current child care system by concentrating the available resources for low-income families;

"

(2) Abandon initiatives towards a universal child care system;

"

(3) Guarantee that future child care initiatives will give equal recognition to traditional child care options, for example, a stay-at-home parent or care by a relative."

I have signed these petitions and I'm glad to congratulate Mrs Lauren Forgie and her team from Orléans for having collec