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

December 20, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

AFTERNOON SITTING

EDUCATION FINANCING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

ZEBRA MUSSELS

HATE LITERATURE

EVENTS IN PANAMA

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

SEASON’S GREETINGS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

TAX INCREASES

KATIE HARRIGAN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE SERVICES

CENTRE FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

RESPONSES

CENTRE FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

POLICE SERVICES

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

POLICE SERVICES

MEMBER FOR NIPISSING

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

WORKING POOR

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

SCHOOL BOARD SPENDING

TAXATION

LAC MINERALS LTD

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO WRITERS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EASEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1989

BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989

SUPPLY ACT / LOI DE CRÉDITS

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Mr Ward moved that the following committees be authorized to meet during the winter adjournment in accordance with the

schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs be appointed, in anticipation of a first ministers’ conference on Senate reform tentatively scheduled for 1 November 1990, to undertake a program of consultation on Senate reform; that the committee have authority to meet concurrently with the House and during any adjournment of the House; that the committee be authorized to travel from place to place in Canada; that, subject to the proclamation on or by 21 June 1990 of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1987, signed in Ottawa on 3 June 1987, the committee complete its program of consultation and present its report to the House by 15 October 1990; and that the committee be composed of the following members: Mr Furlong (chair), Mr Allen, Mr Breaugh.

Mr Eves, Mr Grandmaître, Mr Harris, Ms Hošek, Mr McGuinty, Ms Oddie Munro, Mr Polsinelli and Miss Roberts;

Select committee on education to consider life-long learning;

Select committee on energy be appointed, in view of the increasing evidence of the contribution of combustion of fossil fuels to global warming, among other contributors, substantial understanding of the implications of climatic change on the environment and economy of Ontario and on human activity, and widespread public concern regarding these issues, and in view of the fact that energy policy has a direct bearing on these issues because of its impact on the mix, level and efficiency of use of all types of primary energy resources, to identify the extent to which current provincial energy policy affects carbon dioxide emissions, the potential for controlling, stabilizing or reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and the types of public policy or program initiatives to achieve the objectives of limiting the adverse environmental and economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, and to consider (

i) all energy sources, including oil, natural gas, coal, electricity, and alternative energy sources, with an emphasis on energy produced by the combustion of fossil fuels to provide heat or motive power; (ii) in the case of electricity and alternate energy sources, both the direct use of fossil fuels and the economic potential for noncombustion energy sources; (iii) demand management initiatives, including energy efficiency, with respect to their roles as noncarbon dioxide-forming sources of energy; and (iv) all sectors of energy applications, including the industrial, commercial, residential, institutional and transportation sectors; that the committee have authority to meet concurrently with the House and during any adjournment of the House; that the committee be authorized to travel from place to place in Canada; that the committee present an interim report on 19 March 1990 and that a final report be presented to the House in the autumn of 1990; and that the committee be composed of the following members: Mrs Sullivan (chair), Mr Brown, Mr Callahan, Mr Charlton, Mr D.

R. Cooke (Kitchener), Mr Cureatz, Mrs Grier, Mr Kerrio, Mr McGuigan, Mr Pollock, and Mr M. C. Ray (Windsor-Walkerville);

Special committee on the parliamentary precinct to meet from time to time at the call of the co-chairs of the committee to consider matters related to the restoration of the Parliament building:

Standing committee on administration of justice to consider alternative dispute resolution:

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs to consider matters relating to prebudget consultation;

Standing committee on general government to conduct public hearings on and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance, for a maximum of five weeks; that the committee be authorized to adjourn to places in Ontario for not more than six days; that the bill be reported to the House on 19 March 1990; and that in the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House;

Standing committee on government agencies to consider the operation of certain agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider matters relating to the procedures and administration of the House and to freedom of information and protection of individual privacy;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman to consider the denied case of Farm Q;

Standing committee on public accounts to consider the annual report of the Provincial Auditor;

Standing committee on resources development to conduct public hearings on and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, for a maximum of six weeks; that the Bill be reported to the House on 19 March 1990; and that in the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House;

Standing committee on social development to consider the expanding utilization of food banks in Ontario.

Mr D. S. Cooke: There will be considerable discussion on this motion, Mr Speaker. I thought perhaps there would have been some opening statements from the government House leader on this motion, since this is a very unusual and very extensive motion, a motion that for the first time since I have been a member of this assembly introduces in its form closure in committees, which has not been done in this place before.

I might start off by saying that -- I am out of breath because I just ran up here -- this morning was the first time that our caucus has seen some aspects of this motion. There was no consultation. There was no consultation in the wording. Even the motions dealing with the select committees were only shared in their final form, or any form at all, with the opposition parties yesterday. The motion re-establishing a select committee on constitutional affairs to look at Senate reform was shared with the opposition parties yesterday.

Normally with a committee like that, drafts are circulated and shared with opposition parties and some consensus is developed as to how the committee will proceed and the wording so that these committees are as nonpartisan as possible when studying issues dealing with national unity and national affairs.

The same point can be made about the select committee on energy, that there was no consultation and that the motions were first shared with us yesterday. Our critics in those particular areas will have more to say about that later this morning or later this afternoon.

But I specifically want to make some reference to the references and the motions dealing with the standing committee on general government and the standing committee on resources development.

First of all, the reference on standing committee on general government says, “The standing committee on general government to conduct public hearings on and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 68” -- which is the major third attempt on reform of the insurance legislation in this province, as members will recall and as anyone who is watching us on TV today will recall, and is the promise that the government would bring in legislation to lower insurance rates in the province -- “An Act to amend Certain Acts respecting Insurance, for a maximum of five weeks; that the committee be authorized to adjourn to places in Ontario for not more than six days; that the bill be reported to the House on 19 March 1990; and that in the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House.”

This particular aspect of this reference is totally prejudging anything that might happen in the standing committee on general government on insurance. It is offensive to the opposition and it is offensive to anybody who believes in the legislative process and the parliamentary process in this place. It is the first time that this type of thing has ever happened, that before the reference even occurs, before the committee even starts its public hearings, the government is, by motion, bringing in closure in the committee.

It is a bloody shame that this should be happening in this Legislature, and I think people should understand exactly what has happened over the time with the insurance legislation.

We had several consultants who looked at the insurance problem. We had a promise three or four days before the last election that the Premier (Mr Peterson) had a plan to lower insurance rates. Then we had a piece of insurance legislation brought in that failed. We had another piece of insurance legislation brought in that failed. Then we had this legislation that brings in so-called no-fault insurance, which is offensive to many people in this province, not because it is no-fault but because of the levels of compensation and because of the plan that will not lower insurance rates in this province.

But forgetting the specifics of the legislation, the purpose of public hearings, of course, is to hear from the public and not to prejudge what the public will be indicating and not to prejudge what the members of the committee will decide on that legislation. However, the government obviously is saying that it is going to prejudge what the committee will decide, that it is not going to give the committee perhaps adequate time to deal with clause-by-clause and that it is going through the process of public hearings because we on this side forced the government to have public hearings.

Let’s understand that when we first began the process on this particular legislation --

Mr Faubert: Nonsense.

Mr D. S. Cooke: My friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) can say “nonsense,” but the fact of the matter is that the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) indicated, as did the government House leader, that there was no need for public hearings on this bill. They did not even want to have public hearings on this bill. It was my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) and this caucus that forced the government to have public hearings and forced it to listen to the public.

But what the Liberals are really saying now is that it is all going to be a public relations exercise and that anything the public has to say will not be listened to by this government. I think the arrogance of the Liberal government has achieved new heights in this province.

Hon Mr Ward: Read the motion.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have read the motion, and I say to the government House leader that it might have been helpful if the motion had been shared with us before reading it on the business paper today.

I also think one has to look at the reference that deals with the standing committee on resources development as well, which states that it will “conduct public hearings on and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 208,” which we should understand is the rewriting of the health and safety legislation of this province. There was an original piece of legislation that was brought in here, Bill 208, that had a consensus that there was some support within organized labour.

Then, when the bill was actually called for, after months and months of delays because of pressure from the business community across this province, the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) indicated there were going to be a whole series of major amendments brought in which basically watered down, if not eliminated, the major advantages that were presented in the original form of Bill 208.

Now what they are saying is that this bill, which amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, will have a maximum of six weeks; the bill will “be reported to the House on 19 March 1990; and that in the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House.”

Here we are on the last day that the Legislature sits before its break for Christmas, the committee has not even begun to have public hearings on Bill 208 and the government is saying, “There’s no report yet, but we’re going to prejudge the report that the resources development committee makes and the House is going to deem to have received that report before they have even started meeting.”

It is an offensive motion, and I think it is antidemocratic. It is arrogant and it has soured the last several days of this sitting of this Legislature.

When my caucus met this morning and we reviewed these motions, I would say we were outraged by the process that has been implemented, the lack of consultation, the wording, and the assumption and prejudgement of the public hearings of these bills.

We will be talking about this at length today, tomorrow and however long it takes, but this is not the appropriate way to proceed. It is no coincidence that this motion on closure of both of these bills is being brought in on what was supposed to be the last day that the House was going to be sitting.

But I think that it is the wrong way to proceed, especially when most of this session has been proceeding with co-operation and goodwill on both sides of the House. It is unfortunate that this has to happen.

The government does not even need to do this. The fact of the matter is that if there was an assumption or if there was a feeling that the opposition parties were taking too long with legislation, then all they would have to do is bring in the appropriate motion when we come back in March and closure could be brought in.

That is exactly what could happen but, instead, the government has decided to try to do it now when it feels that the opposition parties feel a bit of time pressure and that we would all like to adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

I really think it is offensive and I think that any members, especially Liberal members who have been here for a number of years, will recognize that this has never been done before. But they continue to be upset with the process that was used on such legislation as Bill 162 and the Sunday shopping legislation. If anything, what has been proven with the facts and the issues that were brought out on the Sunday shopping legislation, when public hearings were held at length and when we delayed the process of that legislation in committee, is that we were correct.

If the government had listened to us in that process, we would not be having the chaos that we currently have under the Sunday shopping legislation in Ontario now.

In view of the comments I have made and the feeling of our caucus, I would like to move an amendment to the resolution that is before us. We will prepare a further motion on the standing committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr D. S. Cooke moves that the reference to the standing committee on general government on Bill 68 be amended by deleting all the words after “19 March 1990” in the fifth line.

Hon Mr Ward: I find the comments made by the opposition House leader remarkable, to say the least. First of all, during the course of his remarks he made some references to the fact that this business motion represents, in either one form or another, a closure motion or a time allocation motion. It does neither of those things.

The opposition House leader will know full well that over the course of the past several weeks we have discussed and negotiated in good faith, at both the House leaders’ meetings and the whips’ meetings, the committee schedules for the coming recess. The business motions that are here provide for those times as agreed upon.

It does not prejudge the outcome of any committee. It achieves one thing and one thing only: It puts the debates on those two very important bills back in this House on the first day back. The standing orders of this Legislature provide an opportunity for any bill being reported back from committee to be put into committee of the whole House. If there is a desire for any further discussion, that takes but one member of this Legislature to achieve. It does not prejudge or put a time allocation on any amendment or any motion whatsoever.

Maybe the opposition House leader expected something else in these motions and maybe he thinks they do something else. They do but one thing: They give those two committees the times that were agreed upon to deal with those bills during the recess and they put those bills back here on 19 March to continue the discussion if the need arises.

There are very good reasons for it, if we look at the nature of both of these bills. First of all, we have Bill 68, the auto insurance bill. The member knows full well, as do others, that without some very fundamental changes to the insurance product in this province, motorists throughout the province are going to face very substantial increases.

We do not have the luxury to talk this out for a year and a half unless the drivers of this province are quite willing to accept increases in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent for the coming year. The member knows that. All opposition members know it, as well as government members. The bill has to be dealt with expeditiously and we will have a full debate. There is not one day, one minute, of debate time being denied by this motion, and he is absolutely incorrect.

Mr Mackenzie: Just put back on the jackboots. That’s what you’ve done.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon Mr Ward: I ask members to show me where there is any denial of time. The occupational health and safety legislation, frankly, we need in this province to protect workers, for very good reason.

Mr D. S. Cooke: You don’t want to have any debate.

Mr Wildman: Why the deeming?

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon Mr Ward: There will be as much debate as is required on each and every

section of that bill. There is no time allocation in this motion. There is no closure in this motion. The bills will merely be dealt with in this House the first day back, and quite frankly, given the nature of these bills, that is as it should be.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr Reville: I will defer to the member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: I just want to clarify, since from my remarks the House may not be able to determine exactly what it is I am speaking of. If I understand it, I am dealing with an amendment from the New Democratic Party to delete under the

section “standing committee on general government” the words “and that” and from there on. Okay?

Mr Reville: Yes.

Mr Wildman: The fifth line.

Mr Harris: We are just dealing with that at this time.

Mr Wildman: Yes. We can deal with the others later.

Mr Harris: I want to indicate my support for the amendment and I want to comment briefly on exactly what is being proposed and suggested by the government House leader and why it is totally unnecessary for him to do it this way.

The amendment

part itself -- when we look at the motion, it says “and that in the event the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House.”

What this is doing in effect is prejudging the entire work of the committee. It is, in effect, total and ultimate closure, saying we are going to close it out now, regardless of what the committee finds, regardless of what stage it is at and regardless of whether --

Mr Bossy: Some four months down the way.

Mr Harris: Well, some of the minions in the back row object. What I am saying to the government members is that if they sit on this committee, and they will be sitting on the committee, regardless of what they think come 18 March, regardless of whether the minister says, “Look guys, there are some problems here,” and regardless of the technical drafting of legislation we have seen from the government side, this will be deemed to be finished and out of committee and will be deemed to be passed, adopted and received by the House.

Mr Fleet: It can still be debated. Debate doesn’t end.

The Chair: Order, please. One member at a time please.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. All members who wish to speak will have a chance to speak. The standing orders call for one member at a time. Now, only the member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr Harris: This deeming is a very over-excessive use of power that is not required. It takes away the independence of the committee. It takes away any sense that there is any independent thought on the committee, and quite frankly, the people who should be most offended, absolutely most offended, are those members of the Liberal Party who will be sitting on the committee, because in effect what the government is saying is: “Look, we have the power to do what you want at your bidding, minister, Premier or House leader. We can do all those things, but let’s at least keep the charade that we are sort of independent.

Let’s not upfront, right in the motion, say, ‘You’re not independent; what you say doesn’t matter; what you think on March 19 doesn’t matter. That’s it.’”

There is more than ample power for the committee to close this out any time it wants and to say: “We have had enough and we now understand, through the hearings, where the opposition party is coming from. We totally disagree. We don’t want to listen any more. We’re going to send it back to the House and it can be done any time by the committee.”

We might object at that time if we feel that it has not received a full hearing, but for the government House leader to phrase the motion in this fashion is saying: “Listen, we don’t care what you find. We don’t care how the hearings go. We don’t care what you find in clause-by-clause. We don’t even care if the minister, at that particular point in time, and the officials in the ministry, are not ready to report, because we are prejudging it all right now.” There is absolutely no necessity for that kind of power and, in fact, it is a slight on the committee.

If the House leader, as he has said, is concerned about time lines and the government agenda -- and it is no secret. We know the government agenda is to have this very flawed, overly short-term, politically disastrous bill in place next spring. We understand that agenda. The industry understands that agenda. All of the people directly involved understand. I am not sure the nine million potential victims in Ontario understand that, but all sides of this House and those people who have been involved understand that.

There is nothing the matter with the government’s signalling that intention. There is actually nothing the matter, in my view, with the House leader’s insisting that the committee report to the House on the very first day back. I do not have a difficulty with that. But to prejudge what that report is going to be, to prejudge that it has been passed and this is what it says: “We are deeming things into the future,” is totally inappropriate. It is a very extensive abuse of the power of prejudging and it is totally unnecessary.

We are getting close to Christmas. Things get accelerated and we are doing things in a hurry. The government House leader, in his comments, indicated that we discussed this. Everybody knows what the intent of the government is, and I agree, we have discussed it. We know what the intent of the government is.

As a matter of fact, I do not mind suggesting to the members and putting it on the record officially in the House that the House leaders did make a deal. We did make a deal and we did agree and we gave our word, on behalf of our parties, as to the amount of time that would be spent in hearings, when that time would be spent and the amount of days that would be spent travelling on the road, and I suggest that I do not think that needs to be in the motion either.

What that is saying is: “Well, I know, House leader for the Conservative Party and House leader for the New Democratic Party, we agreed on that, but your words are no good. We don’t trust you, so we are going to spell it out in the motion and we are going to have a vote on it.” I resent that a tad, I tell the members. I resent that a little bit. However, come 1 January, I will not be the House leader for the party, so somebody else can carry that resentment forward at that time.

There is nothing inappropriate about that in the sense of procedural precedence, and I can live with it. I would not have put it in the motion. It is in there and I think it does not belong in the motion, but none the less, it is there and I cannot say to this House that is a dangerous precedent.

But the other thing is that there is no necessity for it. We all know the time line. The committee, particularly given the fact that the government has a majority on the committee, has the power at any time to do what it wants and to report when it wants, and I would urge the government House leader to accept the amendment. If the motion ends that the bill be reported to the House on 19 March 1990, it is stronger than I think needs to be required, but I do not think that deems a whole bunch of things that nobody really wants to prejudge and to be deemed, and the motion is far more palatable that way.

I would prefer that it indicate that the committee report to the House on 19 March the status of the bill. If, in fact, the government has ordered the members of the committee to give up their independence and do what it tells them and it is going to do all this by 18 March, so be it. I just do not understand why it wants that public. I do not understand why it wants to say to the public right now, “Whatever the hearings produce, whatever we get into as we examine clause-by-clause doesn’t matter a whit.” I would have thought you would have tried to carry the charade on a little bit --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: Through you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Third person singular or plural.

Mr Harris: -- that you would have wanted to carry on this charade that there was some sense of independence in the committee.

I suggest to the House leader that, should this amendment be accepted, and there will be another one required on another committee further down, he will have all the power he needs. Even politically it makes much more sense for his party. It is a lot easier for the Liberal members on the committee to go home and say: “Yes, it’s really meaningful. You know, I’m sitting on the insurance committee this spring and it’s really meaningful. I’m going to hear what the public has to say, what the industry has to say, what the various groups have to say and I’m going to be in there.

I’m going to try to make this a better piece of legislation.” You have got a fighting chance to explain that to your constituents if you will accept this amendment. If you do not, you have no chance at all to explain that there is even the slightest hint of openness or of independence on the part of the committee.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all members who will be debating of standing order 22(a), to address their remarks not only through the Speaker but to the Speaker, which means that you do not address other members directly as “you.”

Mr Reville: I think one of the difficulties is that the government motions that have been moved are extremely offensive. I think every member of the House should feel personally offended by these motions and I think that is probably why some of the parliamentary niceties are more difficult to observe on an occasion like this. I am going to try very hard to observe them.

We are all, in one of our personae, intensely partisan creatures. There would be no reason for us to be here if we did not have a world view, if we did not have some ideology. I know my friends in government say that they are a government without ideology, and they seem to be proud of that, but my friends to my left have an ideology; we have an ideology. That is one of the curious paradoxes of this place, that it is sometimes easier for New Democrats to get along with Tories, because at least Tories believe in something. It is not a view that we share, but they have a view. If they want to defend it, by God, we will defend their right to defend that.

I think, however, that as I try to calm the kind of shrieks of impotent rage I feel at this sort of thing and become a little less partisan and a little more small-p political, I want to say to the House that this kind of motion diminishes each and every member of the Legislature.

We have all been sent here because our constituents thought we could go and do some kind of a job representing them. The time at which the representation happens in this place in the most meaningful way is when the public is invited to come before a committee of the Legislature and share with that committee its views on a matter of important public policy.

My experience has been that each member who has been assigned to a committee wants to take some pride in the work that he or she will do on that committee and that he wants to feel that no matter what the line is of his particular party, he will in fact listen to the arguments that are put, and if somebody makes a particularly compelling argument, each and every member of that committee would want to feel as though he could listen to the compelling argument he has heard and perhaps take action on it.

What I think this kind of motion means is that the members of the Legislature, in spite of protestations that the ordinary member should have more power, will in fact have even less. In a sense, this is the hardest news for backbench members of the government, because it means that they will become mere spear carriers for their minister or for their premier.

It makes me feel somewhat grateful, in that connection at any rate, that I am not a backbench member of the government, although of course it is the fondest wish of those of us in opposition that we will one day be a member of the government, and obviously we hope that that day will be sooner rather than later, but at least the members of the opposition will be able to express their disagreement in a more important way.

I think what this kind of motion says is that a committee will become a mere complaints department, that in fact the public will come and say what it has to say and the committee will be able to do absolutely nothing with those views. It is perhaps one of the most painful situations, in which the committee will be seen to have responsibility but will have no authority.

I have had the opportunity to serve on many of the standing committees. I have watched, for instance, my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) when he was chair of the standing committee on social development and my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), who is currently the chair of the standing committee on resources development, work very hard to ensure that members of the public were treated with respect and with dignity, and they worked hard to juggle the pressures of the agenda to make sure that members of the committee had a chance to ask questions and to in fact pose contrary views if that was the case.

I know from having talked to those particular members at length about this how much they value that part of the parliamentary process, the part where the public is invited and welcomed, apparently, to come and say, “We disagree with the policy of the government” or “We agree with the policy of the government” or “We would recommend these changes or that change.” We like to say, all of us, that public participation is what our view of democracy is about.

Yet what the government is suggesting is that, yes, we will go through this routine of inviting the public in, and regardless of what the public may have to say, regardless of what ministry officials may be ready to do or may not be ready to do, at some point we are going to pretend that the process is complete and we are going to send it back here, where in fact, as anyone knows, we put on this theatre, it is on television, but nothing really happens. I make a speech, someone else makes a speech, but movement is not going to happen in here.

The kind of “Roll up your sleeves, let’s try to figure out the best way to solve this problem, given that we have differing views of the world, given that we have competing ideologies, given that we are on different people’s sides,” those kinds of things often do get sorted out in a clause-by-clause process in a committee that is really trying to come to grips with the different approaches to problem-solving that there always are.

But once it gets back into here, it becomes so ritualistic it becomes a kind of mating dance, and we know who the dominant partner in that dance is always going to be: It is going to be the one with the 94 votes. The search for an appropriate remedy will not be as good a search. The solution that is found will not be as complete a solution, because in fact it will edit out those competing views.

When this place works the best, and it has at various times over the years worked extraordinarily well, is when there is no fear of accepting an idea from some wild-eyed New Democrat if in fact that idea in the end will make public policy more fairly implemented or more completely implemented.

We have seen occasions, in obviously less big-P political situations -- I mean, one of the dilemmas here, and I risk kind of slipping into a partisan mode here, is that basically the government has done two things in the last little while and it has now created an artificial situation to ensure that the two things it has done happen according to some kind of time line that it needs for its political purposes. As it happens, these happen to be two issues which are controversial and they are issues on which there are very starkly opposing points of view.

My hope is that the government will reconsider its approach to trying to time its agenda. I do not blame the government for trying to do that, but I think it would be a terrible shame if the government missed out on the benefit that the public process can achieve. I hope that has happened even as we speak.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to briefly reaffirm the comments and support the comments made by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke) and by my House leader.

I find this so-called closure motion a little too offensive, since we advertised that we will have public hearings and the purpose of the public hearings is to hopefully seek input from the public. We have even allocated time for the committee to travel, and it travels around the province encouraging people to come and make presentations on what they think of Bill 68 and the impact; yet we tell the committee that regardless of what it hears, if for some reason the committee fails to report the bill, it does not really matter because it is deemed to be passed by the committee, reported to the House and adopted.

What really is the purpose of the hearings? Why encourage people to make presentations when there is a very strong possibility that it will not make one iota of a difference?

Why do we need the time allocation? Why can the bill not simply come back to the House on 19 March and at that point in time then take the appropriate action, but if the committee has some reason -- God knows, maybe the Liberal members on the committee will feel that it is not time to report. Maybe the chairman will not be around. Maybe he will abscond to Africa or someplace. We never know what will happen in the future. Why prejudge it? What is the urgency?

Now the government House leader has indicated that if it is not reported back by that time, if it is not passed, then we are responsible for a 30 per cent increase in insurance rates. That is pretty close to a threat. I think that possibly the House leader has overreacted in his eagerness to have us leave the chamber today.

I would strongly support the amendment that has been placed before the House. Hopefully the government can give consideration to the fact that we do not need a closure of this type.

M. R. F. Johnston : J’aimerais dire quelque chose concernant ce problème. I think it is important from time to time for members to refer back to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice when we start to look at changes and the evolution of our system.

Over the last number of years I think we have seen a lot of proposals put forward by the executive councils of this administration and of the preceding administration to make the Legislature more efficient, if I can put it that way, in the executive council’s view of things. In so doing, I think we have had a bit of a curtailment of the rights of the minorities, something which, as a legislator of some time here now, really concerns me, because we can never look at what goes on here just at the moment but rather in terms of what this institution is and what the democratic principles of that institution are.

When I see this historical development of closure and time allocation from the days of the Corn Laws in England, the problems around Parnell and the Irish question and look today to see where we are at now, it was brought in first of all as a matter of national crisis for a government where there was the probability of a major Irish rebellion. That was the first time closure was ever brought in. These days it comes in like this, without notice; it is dropped on us overnight with a whole new concept of deeming brought in, which we have seen now mostly in this last year and a half.

I just say to members that this is a very dangerous road to go down. The evolution in our parliamentary democracy should be slow and considered. It should not be precipitous and only meeting the needs of the executive council.

What I want to do is remind members that Erskine May deals with this at some length concerning the rights of standing committees and what is expected of them. I refer members to pages 678 through 681 of Erskine May. Essentially, it says the following:

“It is the duty of a standing committee, as of all committees, to give the matters referred to it due and sufficient consideration. The chairman of a standing committee will not therefore normally accept motions in pursuance of which the committee would conclude its deliberations before it has gone through the bill committed to it.’’

It has a similar position for select committees as well.

What it does say is that there are provisions for time allocation, but they are brought in by the committee itself and by the mover of the bill, generally speaking, usually at the stage where it is believed “that the committee do not proceed” or cannot proceed further “with the bill.”

Instead, this is a pre-emptory strike. This is a presumption that a bill will meet that kind of impasse and, in advance of ever going to a standing committee, which has the right to order its own business and the right to decide whether or not it wishes to bring in its own form of time allocation or closure, that the executive council will foist that on to the committee itself. That is a very dangerous concept.

When it comes to the

section on allocation-of-time orders, Erskine May also talks about this going through a procedure where the committee gets a chance to look at that time allocation to decide what it thinks about it, how it goes through the subcommittee process and then the committee itself makes some decisions on it.

I suggest to members that is a far better way of going. It respects the committee process much more fundamentally than does a deeming by the executive council of what the timetable and outcomes of a committee will be, and that is where we should be putting the onus, especially -- and I do not want to be too cynical -- when one realizes what a massive majority the Liberal government has in the committees if it really wished to bring in closure at the appropriate time.

Just recently in this House I raised questions where the bureaucracy ignored the results of a standing committee. It presumed that a Catholic would want to give his money necessarily to support the Catholic separate school system, which is not necessarily the case constitutionally. Although a change had been made in the standing committee, the bureaucracy and the government were going ahead with information that was incorrect and that was all based on second reading.

I see this deeming motion as being a way of actually ensuring that a government never has to listen to the standing committee, and if it wished to, with its majority, it could make sure that the committee never would come to a resolution; therefore, the deeming process would have to go through and the bill, as it was reported at second reading, would be the obvious outcome. That fundamentally then takes away the powers of the standing committee and its own viability in terms of operating as a major organ of this House.

I think there is some agreement being achieved between the House leaders on this point and that the deeming will not be brought forward, but I just say to members that there is the danger of looking at democracy and democratic institutions like this with an efficiency model rather than a democratic-procedure-and-rights model in mind. The more we swing into the presumption that the needs of the executive council are what this place must serve fundamentally, and not the needs of representation and the people as a whole, the greater the danger is to our democracy.

Mr Velshi: I listened carefully and I would like to just comment on some of the things I have heard this morning.

The member for Windsor-Riverside started by saying this is a closure motion. When we met in committee, and I am on this committee, the impression I got was that this was an arrangement made between the three House leaders, that we would be meeting for five weeks, that we would travel for no more than six days and that we would be going to four centres other than Metropolitan Toronto. That was the understanding between all members of all the parties that were sitting together at that meeting.

So when I listened to the member for Windsor-Riverside, I started wondering to myself, “Has my House leader changed the ground rules somewhere between then and now?” Then I heard the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) stand up and state that what has been done by my House leader is just that the verbal agreement reached between the three House leaders has now been put in writing. I think the member for Nipissing mentioned that he takes offence by the fact that he has not been trusted and that what was discussed verbally between the three House leaders is now being put in writing.

We are looking at two different questions here: Is it a closure, or is this something that the three House leaders have agreed the committee would meet for five weeks and report back on? To me that is the crux of the matter. This particular resolution, or whatever it is, is not going to change what my committee is going to be doing. We are still going to proceed as planned; it is not going to make any change for us. One member suggested that when we start discussing this matter in the House it is some sort of a ritualistic dance because we are in the majority, but I must state that we are also in the majority in committee. So where do we talk?

If this is not being put in writing and if this is being objected to by the two opposition parties, then I must question the reason for their objection. Is it that they do not want to abide by the original agreement reached between the three House leaders and that they want access to the position that they may want to extend the committee meetings? If that is the case, then I think it is a job for the three House leaders to sit again and discuss and then not leave it until the committee stage for us, as members of the committee, to decide that.

All of us have agreed that we will do what is necessary in five weeks. We have decided when we will report back to the committee. We have decided on when to report back to the House here. I am just wondering what games the opposition is up to right now in terms of objecting to what already has been agreed upon by the three House leaders.

If my House leader now wants to make any change in the wording of this particular resolution, I will go along with that, but I must say that the intent of this is strictly what was decided upon by the three House leaders in the first instance and there is no game being played; there is no charade. As members of the Liberal Party on that committee, we are quite serious about what we are planning to do, and I think it is wrong for the opposition members to say we are part of a game that is being played. If this was decided by the three House leaders, whatever happens lies squarely at their feet; it is their responsibility and has nothing to do with any charade that they think is going on.

Mr Mackenzie: This is one of the occasions when I really wish I had the education to put into words my feelings about my reaction when I read this first thing this morning. I can say honestly that I have some difficulty in controlling --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Only the member for Hamilton East has the floor.

Mr Mackenzie: I have some real difficulty in controlling what amounts literally to rage in this House. I want to make a couple of arguments and will try to do them in a calm and collected way, but I want to read once again the motion to the members of this House. It does not matter which of the two bills we use. Obviously the one that is my main concern is Bill 208.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me a second. Order, please, member for Nipissing. There are many private conversations. The Speaker would like to listen to the member for Hamilton East, who is the only one who has the floor.

Mr Mackenzie: If I can read the motion once again; I will take the second one, but it does not really matter which one we use, the one from the standing committee on resources development or from the standing committee on general government, “to conduct public hearings on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act for a maximum of six weeks; that the bill be reported to the House on March 19, 1990; and that in the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to the House and the report shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House.”

It does not take a university education to understand what the government was doing. Maybe they did not understand what they were doing; I hope that is the case. But if they did understand what they were doing, they were posing one of the biggest threats I have ever seen to what we call our democratic process in this province, and I was offended and enraged.

Surely the members of this House understand that when we have bills as controversial as some of the bills we are dealing with in committee and in this break, they have a clear, absolute majority on those committees; they can move closure at any time they want, if that is the route they are going to go.

But when we have a bill as important as Bill 208 -- and I was not going to get into it, but incidentally, a bill that deals with the health and safety of workers in this province, where this year now we are running at a record rate of 339 death claims in the workplace; and 227 workplace injuries every singe hour -- surely to goodness they understand that by passing this kind of motion in this House and then sending this bill out for hearings around this province, what they are clearly saying to all of the submitters -- they are saying it to their own backbenchers, but it obviously does not matter if they have their marching orders -- is that it does not mean a damn what kind of arguments are made before that committee.

Let me tell members that as it stands, if this motion ever got to the people who were making the submissions, I can say right now that the immediate response would be, “Why in blazes is the Legislature of Ontario going through this absolute con game of holding hearings when it has decided what it is going to do in advance and when we have deemed exactly what we are going to do, regardless of what kinds of arguments, good or bad, are made by the submitters?”

It is almost unbelievable that we would have seen this kind of motion before this House. I hope the people of Ontario clearly understand that if this kind of action is what this government means, we are moving from not just a large and obviously very arrogant majority in this province but to the kind of absolute disdain for the process that marks a tinpot dictator, a Romanian Ceausescu or some of the drug lords. I am not kidding. I could not believe what I read this morning. I myself feared sending this kind of message out to my own colleagues in the trade union movement. The reaction would have been immediate; it would have been disbelief; it would have been uproar.

Who is calling the shots in this government that we get this kind of motion on the floor of this House when it is obvious the government already has the majority and it can do it any time? Forgive me for saying it, but at least let us go through the charade, if that is what it is, of the hearings; let’s not say that they do not matter before we even start. Surely to goodness this cannot be allowed to happen in this House.

Is this what we warned about as we started getting more and more closure measures in Ontario, which has been the pattern over the past few years and strangely enough, in most cases, from huge majority governments? Is this what we are to expect, to see this kind of absolute disdain for any input from the people of the province?

Change it drastically. I think it needs more than just moving out the deeming in this particular recommendation. I ask the government members to understand clearly that they may have their marching orders, but if they did have a semblance of independence and wanted to do something at some of these hearings or even to accept some of the arguments that may be made by some of the submitters, they have gutted themselves as well as gutting the opposition in this Ontario Legislature.

I do hope we are seeing some major changes. This, I think, was unconscionable, and I hope the people of Ontario also will take a look at the little episode that has taken place here this morning in this chamber.

Hon Mr Ward: Under questions and comments. I guess --

The Deputy Speaker: There are no questions and comments.

Hon Mr Ward: There are not? If I may speak to the remarks that were just made by my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr Mackenzie) --

The Deputy Speaker: The problem is, you have already spoken, and there are no questions and comments.

Hon Mr Ward: Okay, I tried.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Laughren moves that the motion as amended be further amended as follows:

“That the reference to the standing committee on resources development on Bill 208 be amended by deleting all the words after the word ‘House’ in the fourth line and inserting thereto ‘on 26 March 1990.’”

Mr Laughren: It is with some reluctance that I even move this motion, and I do it because I see it as the only possible compromise to save any kind of dignity for the committee system in this place.

It is completely and absolutely unacceptable to say to a group of legislators: “You are members of a committee and you are going to hear public hearings. When those public hearings have been concluded within a time frame agreed to, whatever you have been talking about will be deemed to have been completed and sent back into this assembly.” I understand that when it comes back into the assembly it can go into committee of the whole House. That surely is not the point.

Let me be very specific in this example. The resources development committee, of which I am chair, had agreed that we would hold five weeks of public hearings and have one week -- four days basically -- of clause-by-clause debate by members of the committee. During those four or five days of clause-by-clause debate it was our hope that, having listened to the presentations all across this province for five weeks, there would be some amendments we might want to make.

However, at the end of that four or five days we not have completed the clause-by-clause; as most members know, we are talking about a bill that rewrites the health and safety legislation in this province, so it would be quite optimistic to assume that at the end of four or five days we would have completed our deliberations on the clause-by-clause debate. There was a real hope that if we did not finish in four or five days, then with the assembly coming back for the spring session on 19 March, we could continue the debate in our regular meetings in the afternoons when the House was in session. I think that was the best solution.

There was absolutely no indication from anybody, certainly in the opposition, that there was going to be any kind of filibuster on this debate. I think this demeans the committee process by saying: “You must not do that. You must send it back to this chamber.” I think that is truly offensive and unnecessary. I think it was downright foolish to do.

Let me give an example of another time when the resources committee debated the subject of mining health and safety. There was a real concern about the number of deaths in the mining industry.

The resources committee was given the responsibility of examining the problem of health and safety in the mines all across the province and presenting a report to this assembly. We did that. When we came to make our recommendations, I can tell the House that -- and I do not fear contradiction from government members here either -- the committee sat down and hammered out a series of recommendations. As I recall, there were about 50 recommendations in that report.

We worked extremely hard as a committee. Everybody in that committee made compromises, and we came up with a report that was unanimous. If members think that is easy to do on a matter of health and safety in our mines then they do not understand the nature of this place. The committee worked extremely hard and we came up with what I think was a good report.

If the House leader and the rest of the cabinet decide they cannot trust the committee system to do what is best, then I think they are saying something pretty profound about the committee system, and I really find that very offensive.

I do not want to assume that other people have the same values as I have, but there are many of us in this assembly who get our satisfaction in this place from the committee system. If you come into this place in question period, you see the high rollers at work. You see the two opposition leaders, the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the cabinet, and that is their platform. Other members of this assembly are more like props during question period.

It is in the committees that the real work goes on about changing legislation and about hearing from the public. If you take that away from the committee system you are taking a great deal away from ordinary members of this assembly, the ordinary backbenchers in this place. If I was a government backbencher, I would be even more offended than I am now as an opposition member.

I was hoping that a government member would stand in his or her place and defend this process. I know that is difficult here, but that is another indication of why the committee system can do things that this assembly cannot do. In committee, it is not at all unusual to have government members expressing a view that is in opposition to what official government policy is.

For example, if we are debating a clause, such as in Bill 208, it would not be at all unusual to have a government member say, “I don’t like that particular clause, and I think we could amend it in such and such a way.” That means, of course, there is at least an element of independence in the committee system.

There is no element of independence in this assembly. Once again, if the government House leader presumes what the committee is going to do by automatically referring a subject matter back to this assembly, he is demeaning the committee system in this place, and I regret that very much. If I was a government member, I would be most angry about what the government House leader has done to them.

Another point is, why was this motion not presented to the committee for debate of the committee? Why in the name of heaven is this laid upon this assembly this morning to be debated this morning? The government House leader should tell me why this motion, even if it was drafted in this form, could not have been presented to the resources development committee when we have been meeting in the last number of weeks. I do not know why, and I can see that other members on the government side do not know why either.

Why could this not have been presented to the resources committee so that we could debate it? Perhaps we could have saved some of the agony of this morning if the resources committee, among ourselves, had been able to say to the government House leader, “This is unacceptable,” because I believe this is unacceptable to government members as well. Whether they stand in their place this morning and say so, I do not know. I do not really care, to tell members the truth, but I tell them it is fundamentally wrong.

At least I have moved an amendment that says that nothing is deemed to have been done, that we will deal with this in five weeks of public hearings, at which point it will be referred back to this assembly on 26 March -- not 19 March but 26 March.

I must say that, given the nature of this bill, we know there is going to be a lot of interest in it as we travel the province. What the government House leader is asking the committee to do, in the dead of winter, if I might put it that way, is travel throughout the entire province, including more exotic locales such as Dryden, Fort Frances, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Timmins, holding hearings.

Now if we are going to hold hearings in all of these places and hear representations, some people will be for the bill and some people will be against the bill. Surely to goodness we want to feel as committee members that when we are listening to those people it is actually sinking in and that we are not just there sitting in front of a presenter and pretending to listen, that we are absorbing it and we have full intentions of listening in a way that could lead to amendments to the bill.

It is terribly important that we feel this ourselves and that the people who are making presentations have the confidence that they are not just going through the motions. Nothing will undermine the public participation process more than if people have a sense that it is all a charade and that we are really not out there to do anything but use up some time, to give it a pretence of public participation. That really is offensive to people out there and to us as members.

I think most of us have better things to do with our time than play a game of charades during recesses of this assembly. Most members work very hard on the committee system and anything that takes away from the legitimacy of that work surely should be resisted mightily by those of us in this assembly.

I do not want to go on at length. I simply conclude by saying that I think this motion is regrettable and was unnecessary. If the government does not have the confidence in the political system and in the committee system in particular, then stand in your place and say so and do everything in this assembly, because that is what the government is asking us to do. It is asking us to go through the motions of holding hearings and then come back here and let the assembly decide what amendments should be put, and that is fundamentally wrong if it wants the committee system to work in this province.

If the government takes away the committee system, what does it do to public participation and public hearings on controversial legislation?

I think the government has made a mistake. I understand my amendment will be accepted -- I am pleased by that -- but I can tell the government that I do not move this amendment with any sense of victory or of accomplishment even. As a matter of fact, it is with great reluctance that I even accept this kind of compromise because it really does compromise the political system and the committee system, and it takes away from what most of us try to do when we go out across the province and listen to presentations by people who care very much about the presentations they are making.

Those of us who have sat on hearings all across the province know that people put a lot of work into those presentations. They care very much about what they are saying and what they are doing, and if they get the sense that it is just a charade and that we are there to listen and then toss it back in the laps of the majority here in the assembly, then I think that is a sad change in the way we will be perceived in Ontario.

I have moved the amendment because I think that it removes the deeming process, makes it somewhat less offensive than the original motion and also gives the committee an extra week to deal with clause-by-clause.

Mr Harris: I will not be too long on this one because we are dealing with a similar amendment to the one I spoke to on the amendment we just passed on the standing committee on general government. It will not surprise the House then that I would take exception, particularly on behalf of all members of the committee and, indeed, for the precedent of deeming provisions in the motion that we are going to delete, to deeming that things have been passed.

As we have had discussions as House leaders I, in fairness, believe that the drafting of the crafty House leader’s staff was perhaps tighter than even the House leader intended. It is, indeed, their job to close as many loopholes as possible, as they see them, and tie down the time lines as much as possible. I suggest in their drafting they did that all right. In effect, they closed out debate not just in the committee, by the way, but saying “deemed to be received and adopted by the House” means that, regardless of what comes back from the committee, there is no debate, it is deemed to have been accepted.

We cannot even debate it back in the Legislature, which is far in excess of the power that any government in this country. I think, provincially or federally, has ever asked for in advance.

Many times closure is brought in, many times they say, “Enough is enough, we’re going to close you out,” but to preclose you out in the committee and then to prejudge and close out any debate in the House -- and in fact, as House leaders, we discussed this in looking for a more acceptable compromise to meet the intent of what the government was saying, in effect the setting of precedence whereby the government was going to accept whatever came in, was going to accept that report regardless of what was in it.

I think there is an awareness that that was a very dangerous precedent as well for the government and for the ministers of the crown and for the Premier, because what they were saying is, “If perchance we can’t control the majority on the committee at some particular point in time, we’re already saying we’re going to accept that too.” I agree that is unlikely, given the performance that I have seen over this period of time.

We will support the amendment, obviously, and I think there is a consensus that the amendment makes it a better referral motion. The 26th will provide for a more logical time frame when we come back, and I want the House to understand that, even after the amendment, in effect the government is closing the committee out. They are saying, “You are going to report on the 26th whether you’re ready to or not and you’re going to report the bill; you’re not going to deal with the bill any more.”

We object to that and are not in favour of that. However, we do not find that nearly as offensive as that in addition to that we have deemed it to be passed and we have deemed it to be debated and we have deemed it to be accepted all the way along the line.

To avoid repeating any arguments I made in the last little debate on the motion on the standing committee on general government, I will conclude my remarks there.

Miss Martel: I will not speak long on this particular issue, but there are some things that I want to say because I am particularly incensed by what has happened here this morning and I think all members of this assembly, regardless on what side of the House they sit, should be too, especially if they take any pride in the work that they do on the various committees in this House.

It is not often, because of the numbers, for Liberal members in particular to make an impact on this place outside of the committee system, but what has happened here today by the two government motions that were moved in terms of the auto insurance bill and in terms of Bill 208 has really undercut especially the work Liberal members will do on committee. If the members do not see that, then there is something dramatically wrong here.

Let me go back and give two reasons why I am particularly unhappy with what has happened.

If I go back to the original motion, which of course said halfway down that the bill must be reported to the House on a particular date and that in the event the committee fails to report the said bill on the date specified, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee -- meaning, in fact, that anything that has been done will have been deemed to be passed and we will prejudge what work the committee will do, prejudge any amendments, prejudge anything that has gone on from the hearings and the consequences and the results and the changes that should have come out of the hearings -- if I look at that, I really have to consider that the government is being extremely hypocritical when I go back and look at some of the things that happened around Bill 162 and some of the things that were said about the so-called importance of committees at that point in time.

I remember clearly when we came back last October and we started in the first week to call for public hearings on Bill 162, the former Minister of Labour sat in his place and day after day after day said the committees will decide; the committees will decide if there will be public hearings; the standing committee on resources development will decide when, where, how long and where we will sit, and on and on and on about how important the committees were and how those individual members, the 10 of them, would have the right to negotiate, compromise and come up with some kind of decision because their work was important, committees were important and people on those committees should have those kinds of rights.

I remember during the course of the public hearings themselves even the Liberal members telling presenters not to worry, their views would be taken into account, when we came back to this place and started the clause-by-clause and went through it their concerns would be heard and we would make the changes to make the bill better.

There was no discussion about how that debate was going to be limited or how the government House leader was going to prejudge what the committee would do, but in fact the Liberal members tried to assure all of those presenters that their views would be taken into account, we would respect what they had to say, the time they took to say it and the effort they made to come and say it and we would make some kind of changes to accommodate their concerns and make the bill better.

What has happened today with the motion moved by the government House leader is to undercut that whole process and to say to committees and to say to the public: “We don’t give a damn what you say when you come to public hearings, we’re going to decide how the bill is going to look. It’s going to come back into this place at a particular time, and as committee members, muzzle yourselves, because you’re not going to have the chance to respond to the concerns you heard, you’re not going to have any chance to make the changes.

We’ll come and we’ll do it in the House, and all those committee members who spent time on the road travelling, listening to people, dealing with them, well, their views and their opinions are for naught because it’s going to be decided in this place, in this assembly, and never mind the kind of work you do as members and never mind what your input and participation should be.”

It is the hypocrisy that I see here today that offends me, as an honourable member of this House and an honourable member of committee in this House as well.

The second thing that really disturbs me today is the view of the committee process itself as described in this particular motion, in the kind of motion we are seeing.

Most of us come here and feel that we can probably make a greater impact in committee, because if we are not the leader or the House leader or people who are up every day in question period, then where we think we are going to make some of our impact is in the committee system itself.

What I see here is a fundamental change in the view of the importance of committee, and I do not care if there is a precedent and it has been done on Bill 47 or Bill 147 or whatever, it was wrong then and it is wrong now. We should never be moving in this House to cut the legs out from under committee members by saying: “We don’t care where you are in the process. By 19 March or by 26 March, that bill is coming in here. We don’t care where you are in committee, we don’t care what other changes you’d like to make, we don’t care what you have to say, it’s coming back in here whether you like it or not.”

I am offended by that. I think that is a disgrace. I think if Liberal members sat down and thought seriously about it, they should feel like they have been taken to the cleaners too, because basically, what all of you have been told is that your input is for nothing. The government House leader says: “We want this bill back in this House by a particular date. You people shut it down. Keep your mouths closed. Get it through and get it in here.”

I, for one, came here thinking that I had a contribution to make on behalf of the people I represent and I resent being told when it is going to be shut down and how it is going to be, and I think Liberal members in the back bench should feel that same way.

There are two things that really bother me in terms of the motion: the deeming process that I talked about earlier, that it will come back here, we are going to prejudge what the committee has to say and it is going to come back here and we are going to deal with as a whole, regardless of what the committee members want to do with it or want to say about it; and second, the timing.

As I said earlier, it may have been done before. It was wrong then. It was wrong to set that precedent and it is wrong to continue with that precedent now. We should never be moving to shut down committee members in that kind of way, and I find it even unacceptable for me to accept the date of the 26th, because I still think what it does is tell honourable members: “We don’t care where you are or what you have to say or what you want to contribute. The fact of the matter is the government House leader and a few other people want it in here and that’s the way it’s going to be. If you don’t like it, too bad.”

I think that is a total undermining of the committee process. If people do not understand that, I am not sure what is wrong, because we might as well just say: “Never mind committees, never mind public hearings, never mind public input. We’ll come in here and we’ll debate everything and every piece of legislation day after day after day in here as members. We will not allow for public input and we will not allow for change and we will do it here.” You might as well take the committee system and scrap it, because by those two motions that is exactly what you do.

Finally, I am concerned about the timing of the motion. I find it interesting that the committees never saw this before, and what chance they would have had to deal with it, given that there are six Liberal members on it in a majority. We can all appreciate it would have gone through in there too, but at least some of us may have seen it before it appeared on Orders and Notices today.

I find the timing a little bit more than coincidental that here we are trying to finish in a spirit of some kind of co-operation and these two things hit the fan today and we are expected to say: “Well, it’s too bad. We would all like to get out of here and we’ll accept it.”

I am not happy with the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague. I do not accept it. My House leader knows that and I said that to him, because I think it is a terrible precedent that has been set already. We should not be continuing with it, and anyone who cares anything about the committee process in here should not find it acceptable either.

Hon Mr Ward: I think the honourable member may get to have closing remarks if it is his amendment.

I just want to indicate to the members of the House that in the spirit of co-operation spoken about by my colleague the member for Sudbury East, the government will be supporting the amendment, but I do want to speak very specifically to some of the points that the member tried to make and I think some points that were reinforced by the House leader from the third party.

All of us here have spent a lot of time over the years in committee. Looking around the Legislature, I see many members who work very hard and diligently on not only government bills but on other issues within committee and I just want to point out that there is one thing in the original motion that I think is fundamental and is being overlooked by members of the opposition. It is that the report of the committee shall be deemed to be received and adopted by the House.

I think my colleague the third-party House leader pointed out in his remarks that it basically gives an unbridled authority to the committee in that it says that what the committee decides will be accepted and adopted by the House. That provision is being deleted because, as I said in my opening remarks, I had one intent and one intent only, and that is that on these two very important bills they be put out for committee, for hearings and consultation during the recess.

On 19 March, this Legislature reconvenes. Without question, those are two very important pieces of legislation and they will be dealt with in this House by all members of this House, but I totally reject the argument that there is anything in the original motion that undercuts the authority of the committee. It merely says: “You have the recess to deal with these issues. At the conclusion of the recess, they will dealt with in the House by all members of the House.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): Before I proceed, I will look for direction to the House leaders to ensure that we have a proper understanding of the process that is taking place. If I am incorrect, please speak up to make sure that we all have an understanding. Speaking to Mr Laughren’s amendment to the motion, is it agreed it be carried?

Motion agreed to.

Mr Allen: Speaking to the motion with respect to the establishment of the select committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs, I want to say first of all that our party indeed supports the establishment of this committee, but I want to ask a question, which is, where is the motion that was inherent in the select committee’s initial report which was adopted by this House concerning the Meech Lake accord and the companion resolutions that were part and parcel of that report?

Members will remember that in accepting it, this House also accepted a motion and a recommendation of that committee that a standing committee of constitutional and intergovernmental affairs be established in light of the obvious likelihood that there was going to be a whole series of constitutional issues rising in the subsequent months and years, of which the Meech Lake debate was only part, and which would lead us on to a succession of highly important matters that related to the Constitution of this nation.

The first item that was to be addressed, of course, under the Meech Lake accord was the matter of the Senate. But we all knew that the question of aboriginal affairs and native self-government was highly central in the mind of the nation among many organizations and groups, not least of all the native peoples themselves, and that we were going to have to address that question.

If I might add, there has been some loss inasmuch as that standing committee was not appointed and is not even now being appointed, because we have seen a debate proceed in public with respect to the Meech Lake accord in which numerous matters that were addressed by the committee have been, from my perspective and from our party’s perspective, fundamentally misunderstood. Those misunderstandings pervade through a public media that did not always understand the intricacies and complexities of some of the constitutional questions involved.

A standing committee would have been in a position to assist the government in responding adequately to those issues. Because if there has been one problem that has afflicted the debate around the Meech Lake accord, it has been that those who officially were its proponents -- in the first instance, the federal government and in the second instance, the signing parties, the other provinces -- let the whole issue proceed as though the elements of that accord did not need any further explanation or any further public defence or debate.

In the course of that, a public attitude was generated which certainly has developed into a different kind of posture vis-à-vis that accord than this Legislature endorsed when it accepted the findings of the past select committee.

I regret that a standing committee was not put in place, but I might say better late than never and better a select committee than none. Certainly it is important that this House now grapple with the emerging issues that arise out of the public debate around the Constitution. We know that in the impasse one of the elements that may be of some significance in securing a break in the logjam would be the fact that the provinces that are signatories to the accord and the federal government as signatory to the accord moved to address the concerns that have arisen around the problem of the Senate and further constitutional reform on that subject.

I simply want to say at this point that our party has had an historic position with regard to the Senate, namely, that we think we can get along pretty well without it. This province appears to have no need of a second chamber. We have seen a second chamber that has been historically and remarkably irrelevant to the national process of public debate, with a few minor exceptions.

Our sense is that the concept of a triple E Senate is certainly one that we would not want to endorse. To have two national constitutional bodies that are equally elected by the same electorates, equally effective and equally powerful at the national level, is a sure formula, from our point of view and from my point of view, for a national stalemate. But at the same time, we recognize that some provinces, in particular Newfoundland and others, have got a significant stake in getting into that debate and seeing if there is not some important progress that can be made nationally on it.

We are certainly willing to engage in that debate and to look at it, which will be of course the first business of this committee.

May I say in conclusion, because I do not want to take the time, which is passing very quickly, in which we have to deal with a number of matters prior to rising at noon, that our party certainly supports the creation of the committee and looks forward to its work in the subsequent months.

Mr Eves: It is a pleasure, I think, to rise and speak to this motion this morning. I am speaking in favour of the motion to create the select committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs. However, I would point out that I, as my colleague has indicated, had the privilege of sitting on the select committee on constitutional reform, which reported back to this House in June 1988.

One of the recommendations we made at that time was that a standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs be created. We made that recommendation for several reasons, the most basic being that everybody on the committee, regardless of political stripe, was in agreement that the process we had seen with the Meech Lake accord, so-called, was not one that we were happy with or pleased with.

We would hope that the province of Ontario would take the lead, as it often has throughout our nation’s history, in leading the way with respect to a select committee that would listen to the people and listen to the concerns of the people, as indeed we did about the Meech Lake accord, for further constitutional changes.

There were some other recommendations that were made by that committee as well. There was also a minority opinion, which my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) and I put forward. One of the concerns that we had at that time was the very reality that we are dealing with now with respect to acceptance of the Meech Lake accord by all the provinces in Canada.

We pointed out several areas of major concern that we felt at that time could be best dealt with by some sort of parallel accord or some sort of a procedure by which those concerns could be dealt with at the same time that the Meech Lake accord was ratified. It would appear that is the path that Canada is eventually going to go down now anyway if there is any hope that the Meech Lake accord in any form is going to be adopted by June 1990.

It is unfortunate that we have wasted a great deal of time when we could have come to that conclusion. In fact, some of us did as early as June 1988. I think that this committee will serve a useful purpose, although I note by the wording of the motion itself that we are more concerned about consultation on Senate reform than we are about the Meech Lake accord.

I would have preferred that the committee would have had some very real input by this time, before this time, over the course of the past year or more, with respect to trying to do Ontario’s bit to try to solve the roadblocks with respect to the existing Meech Lake accord and the concerns expressed by several provincial premiers about that.

I do not for a moment, of course, take away from the first minister of this province’s duties and obligations with respect to constitutional reform, but I really thought that we had reached a consensus that was unanimously agreed to by every member of that committee, that we as legislators should have some very real input into constitutional reform in the future.

We could have started that procedure in July 1988, and had we done so, I think we might be a lot closer to consensus with respect to ratification of the Meech Lake accord in some form, perhaps with a parallel accord addressing the concerns that have been expressed by those provincial premiers. So although I am in favour of the motion, I am somewhat saddened by the fact that it does not cover everything that I think it should have covered, namely, dealing with the Meech Lake accord first and going on to Senate reform later.

Having said that, I say to the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio), I look forward to serving on this committee. I think it is indeed a very important one and I think I will find the work very interesting and hopefully rewarding.

Hon Mr Ward: Just very briefly, I very much appreciated the interventions of the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves).

The member for Parry Sound made some references to the concerns that we all share relative to the Meech Lake accord and the tremendous work that has gone on, I believe, by all the premiers of the provinces in this country to bring about a national reconciliation on constitutional issues. The one point I would make is that, frankly, I do not think any province in this country or any Premier in this country has worked harder to achieve the kind of consensus that is necessary for that national reconciliation over constitutional matters.

The matter being referred to the select committee is a matter that is tentatively scheduled for discussion on 1 November 1990. All of us will recall some of the concerns about the ability of legislators and other Canadians to have input in those very difficult and sensitive negotiations that are necessary on these matters. I think this province is showing tremendous leadership in creating a mechanism by which there can be some input and some consideration by the people of this province at large, in advance of those very important meetings.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Ward moved that with the agreement of the House leaders and the whips of each party, committees may meet during the winter adjournment at times other than those specified in the

schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the assembly to consider matters referred to them by the House or to consider matters designated pursuant to standing order 123.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr Ward moved that committees be authorized to release their reports during the winter adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Mr Ward moved that the following substitutions be made to the membership of committees:

Select committee on education: Mrs Marland for Mr Villeneuve.

Special committee on the parliamentary precinct: Mr Villeneuve for Mr Sterling.

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Cousens for Mr Eves.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr McLean for Mr Runciman.

Standing committee on general government, Mr Runciman for Mr McLean; Mr Wiseman for Mr Cureatz.

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Sterling for Mrs Marland.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Cureatz for Mr Sterling.

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Harris for Mr Villeneuve.

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Harris for Mr Wiseman.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1144.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

EDUCATION FINANCING

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order under routine proceedings, I would like to remind the members that on Monday of this week the honourable member for Scarborough West brought to the attention of the House what he perceived to be a question of privilege affecting the Legislature as a whole.

He maintained that disrespect had been shown this chamber by public servants acting in a way that disregarded amendments made to a bill before it became law; that is to say, the public servants had prepared their action on the basis of the original bill and not on the basis of its amended form. Furthermore, the member objected to the fact that public servants were acting upon legislation before it had passed all the steps in the legislative process.

I have studied the representations made to me in the House on Monday, and after having considered them carefully, I must come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with here is an administrative error and not a contempt for this chamber. It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly once the bill becomes law. It goes without saying that if the bill is amended during the legislative process, then the public service must take note and act accordingly.

In the case before us, I am satisfied that the public service has indeed now taken note of the amendment that concerns us and has corrected any administrative error that might have flowed from this oversight. Therefore, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege, as there seems to be no evidence of contempt. However, I do thank the member for bringing this to my attention.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Grier: Every year, the Ministry of the Environment issues a report on how the industries of the province that discharge their waste water into the province’s waterways are complying with the rules of the Ministry of the Environment. This report is awaited with interest because it provides a factual yardstick against which the performance of this government, as opposed to its public relations, can be measured.

In 1987, the report came out on 26 October; in 1988, on 16 November. Earlier this year, during discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, I asked when we might expect the report and was told, “Any day.”

Today in the Toronto Star, we find a report that says that according to this awaited report on industrial dischargers, in 1988 only 122 of 168 industries had waste water that was under the province’s annual average pollution limits, and just 77 were able to meet the government’s requirements in monthly tests, while 91 exceeded the limits at least once.

We, of course, asked the minister’s office for a copy of the report, and guess what, Mr Speaker -- it is not available today. It is going to be available tomorrow, and tomorrow it is not anticipated that there will be a question period or a meeting of this House. So we are not going to be in a position to hold the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) accountable for this very important action. Contrast that with the announcement last week by the Premier (Mr Peterson) that Ontario’s fresh lakes were going to be a tourist area. Fresh they may be, but polluted.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr Villeneuve: On 9 November this year, my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock) met with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mrs McLeod) and others who were concerned about the infestation of the zebra mussel. I was to learn, following this meeting, that the Minister of Natural Resources was not willing to take a lead role to find a control for the zebra mussel.

I now see in a letter to the township of Osprey dated 13 December this year that the ministry is co-ordinating Ontario government efforts to address this problem. It would be appreciated if the minister could inform the members of this House just what these efforts of co-ordination are.

Another concern is that the minister informed the member for Hastings-Peterborough that reports of zebra mussels in Cornwall were unconfirmed. I remind the House that this meeting took place on 9 November. Mr Speaker, imagine my surprise to read in the Standard-Freeholder of 8 December that the ministry first confirmed mussels in Cornwall back in September, at least one month prior to the meeting with the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

I wonder if the minister has confirmed and informed the municipalities in the Cornwall area of the zebra mussel find and the financial implications. As an example, the cost to Monroe, Michigan in October of this year ran $50 million to replace water intake pipes. Now, only two months later, in December, the water flow has been reduced to a point where schools are shut and the fire department is unable to draw water from fire hydrants. This is a very real and important matter. It should be looked into.

HATE LITERATURE

Ms Oddie Munro: I am in receipt of correspondence dated 6 December from Local 794 CUPE, Hamilton Civic Hospital’s union, Pat Whitfield, president, in which she draws to my attention the reprehensible hate literature distributed by a Hamilton group calling itself Youth Action.

In speaking with the union by telephone on Monday of this week it was confirmed that members had, in fact, removed many circulars containing discriminatory and inflammatory messages posted in the geographic area, including the Hamilton Civic Hospital, and that subsequently members of the local had instructed their executive to write, demanding an immediate investigation of this organization to determine the extent of violations of existing human rights legislation and related provincial guidelines and policy.

I have therefore brought this incident to the attention of the minister responsible for race relations and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Mr Wong) and to the attention of the Attorney General (Mr Scott) and the Solicitor General (Mr Offer).

Hatred-reinforced behaviour should not be tolerated in our society. It does untold damage to innocent peoples and reinforces attitudes and actions which are totally unacceptable to our community, province and country. Each community must deal appropriately with incidents and organizations who overtly or covertly reinforce supremacist philosophies. Far from being an alarmist reaction, such investigation ensures consistent review by authorized individuals or bodies. What we want is a peaceful resolution of questionable activities which may contravene the laws of the land.

EVENTS IN PANAMA

Mr R. F. Johnston: I rise to decry the invasion of Panama last night by the American forces. It is one thing to dislike drug-runners; it is one thing to dislike criminals, but it is another thing to violate the sovereignty of a nation with military power. It is a very interesting thing that at this stage, when the other major imperialist nation is starting to withdraw its military forces and its influence, tyrannical as it has been on its sector, that the Monroe doctrine is alive and well in the hands of Mr Bush, the President of the United States of America.

It would be almost farcical if one thought about this in the abstract of, in the middle of the night a call to a presidential candidate that he was going to be appointed president and be sworn in by a judge who was found in the middle of the night, and then an invasion to be called shortly thereafter.

Why do we not have this kind of process started for Mr Ceausescu? Why do we not have him indicted in a Miami court and then go and have an invasion of Romania to make up for the terrible things that have been taking place there? Why is it that Mr Pinochet was not indicted in the same fashion and not removed years back? Why was the Guatemalan president not removed in exactly the same fashion? Why is it that the United States of America feels it has this right to invade a nation? Why should any other nation in that sphere feel secure, and how can we now, as members of the Organization of American States, be complicit in our agreement to this kind of process?

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

Mrs Cunningham: My statement today is directed to the Minister of the Environment. On 15 February he met with representatives of the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association, the organization which represents the 200,000 Metis and aboriginal people living off reserves in Ontario. OMAA expressed an interest in establishing an environmental co-ordinator position to assist OMAA’s communities in understanding how government-sponsored or private sector initiatives might affect their traditional lands and resources.

The minister invited them to submit a written proposal, which he received in April. After further discussions between his ministry officials and OMAA, OMAA was told that his ministry’s funding program excludes ongoing salaries.

The Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association operates on an extremely limited budget and has no funding for developing proposals. The association took this proposal very seriously; obviously the minister did not. He did not have any intention of funding this staff position and he led them to believe that, by submitting a proposal, he would. Why does he not return their phone calls and explain his ministry’s action? The organization should have been informed at the beginning of these discussions that it would not be eligible for funding. This is just another example of this government’s inability to communicate with Ontario citizens.

SEASON’S GREETINGS

Mr Faubert: In keeping with this Christmas season, I have a story once told to me by my father, but recently published by Dr Spencer Johnson. Once there was a little boy who, at this time of year, asked his father what he was going to get for Christmas. His father told him then about the precious present. “It is a present because it is a gift,” he said, “and it is precious because anyone who receives it is happy for ever.”

The little boy wished that someone would give him this precious present for Christmas, but he did not receive it. As the boy grew into a man he always wished for, but never received, the precious present, and he was disappointed. He travelled the world, acquired wealth and fame, searched for but never found the precious present. He then returned to ask his father, but his father had passed on. He was saddened by this loss, but also felt now that he would never learn the secret of the precious present.

But he remembered what his father had told him, that it was wise to remember and to learn from the past but not to live in the past, that it is wise to think about and plan for the future but not to live in the future. He then realized the simple secret of the precious present. It was just that, not the past, not the future, but the present -- the precious present. And he knew he really had his family, his friends and his life to enjoy now, in the present. He finally understood that he had received the precious present and he was at peace with himself.

Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you and all colleagues on both sides of this House best wishes in this happiest and blessed of seasons and wish that all may this Christmas receive the gift of the precious present.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Charlton: The release yesterday of Ontario Hydro’s preferred plan, I think, aptly demonstrated the contention that a number of us have made over the last number of years that Hydro is not really seriously interested in energy efficiency and conservation in the province of Ontario. The predecessor to the Minister of Energy, in the role of minister, stated on a number of occasions that he was not satisfied that Hydro had done enough to bring energy efficiency into its planning process and, ultimately, into the electrical energy system in the province of Ontario.

I would ask that the current Minister of Energy proceed to determine whether she is satisfied, in consultation with her predecessor on the views that he held, as to whether Hydro has done the job properly, understanding that although it has changed the numbers slightly, Ontario Hydro has not increased its estimates of its ability to enhance the system with energy efficiency in Ontario. The only changes in the numbers are as a result of extended time lines in the plan that was tabled yesterday.

It is time that this government started providing the leadership and the direction to Ontario Hydro in order to accomplish the things that ministry studies show are possible.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Pope: As the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) manoeuvres this province into complicity with the federal government in the administration of tax policies and the collection of taxes from the people of this province on a joint administrative basis, I find his comments in the Globe and Mail yesterday rather revealing.

As reported in today’s Globe and Mail, Mr Nixon “repeated his call for Mr Wilson to exempt municipalities, school boards, hospitals and universities from the GST. Nor is the province happy about the application of the GST to new housing, which Mr Nixon said would make it more difficult for people to afford to buy a new home.”

If Mr Nixon is so concerned about the tax burden on transfer payment recipients, then perhaps he could have exempted municipalities, hospitals, school boards and universities from his own employer health tax, something he has refused to do despite the repeated requests from the opposition.

As to the negative impact of the goods and services tax on the affordability of housing, the Ontario Treasurer should be reminded that his own government increased the land transfer tax, increased the sales tax rate and broadened the sales tax base and will implement a lot levy program which will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home. Given the record of this administration, it is difficult to see what more this Treasurer can do to make housing less affordable to the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Turner wants to lead a tax revolt because of 32 tax increases at the federal level since 1984. This government has had 32 tax increases since 1985 and has ripped the taxpayers off for more than the federal government ever could.

KATIE HARRIGAN

Ms Poole: Today, I would like to introduce a young constituent of mine who is present in the members’ gallery today. Katie Harrigan is a grade 5 student in north Toronto. Several months ago, in a contest I sponsored at the north Toronto fall fair, she won, and so today she acts as the junior MPP for Eglinton. The only trouble is, if she does too good a job, l am sure my staff will be eager to have her replace me.

[Applause]

Ms Poole: I notice the opposition claps loudly for that one.

Katie is here to discover what it is that a politician does by living a day in the life of an MPP. She has explored the government buildings. She has gone down to the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs and participated in a staff meeting. This afternoon, she is going to be active in question period and then pay a courtesy visit to the Premier.

We hope it will provide some interesting and meaningful insights into the world of politics. Maybe we have even found ourselves a future leader. I would ask my colleagues to join me today in welcoming Katie Harrigan to Queen’s Park.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE SERVICES

Hon Mr Offer: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce today the introduction of a bill which represents the first comprehensive review of policing legislation in Ontario in over 40 years. The Police Services Act represents a cross-roads in policing. It embodies a new vision in government policy, policing practices and community attitude which stresses the value of police service over police force.

Making our streets and communities safe and secure by enforcing the law remains a vitally important function of the police, but it is now recognized that crime prevention, education and community-oriented services are as much a part of policing as law enforcement. For example, in the areas of sexual assault and spousal assault, police act not only as law enforcement officers but also provide much-needed assistance to victims.

The men and women of Ontario’s police forces also reach out to our communities to provide education ranging from traffic safety, drinking and driving to drug awareness. These are extremely valuable services which the police perform. They are all part of the contemporary concept of community policing, with its emphasis on provision of service.

The role of Ontario’s police has evolved to meet the challenges of today’s policing environment, but their legal framework, the Police Act, has fallen behind. And so, as stated in its title, the new Police Services Act reflects the changing role of police.

The act is founded on a declaration of principles which recognizes the need for close working relations between police and the community; providing safety and security of all persons; sensitivity to the multiracial and multicultural reality of Ontario; respect and sensitivity for victims of crime, and provision of policing services consistent with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

This emphasis on service reinforces the government’s determination to ensure the highest quality police service to all citizens of Ontario. Members will note that when enacted, the Police Services Act will also provide a framework to accommodate recommendations and directives which have already been announced.

These include the implementation of mandatory employment equity programs in all police forces; a special investigations unit, and provision for a regulation on police pursuits. In addition, this bill will provide for a province-wide public complaints system applied to all police forces, which provides recourse to a civilian complaints commissioner.

This act is designed to strengthen police services by providing police officers and chiefs of police with clear direction and a more precise definition of their roles and responsibilities.

As members will be aware, a crucial element of policing in a community is the local board of commissioners. This commission will now be known as the municipal police services board and will become mandatory for each municipal police service in Ontario. The legislation will, for the first time, provide a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of these boards in setting guidelines and establishing policing policy in the community. As well, these boards will ensure that policing meets provincial standards.

This act will further strengthen police service by providing, for the first time, uniformity in standards and effective guidelines to let the individual officer know his or her rights and responsibilities.

Through this legislation we are recognizing the value and importance of our system of law enforcement and the contribution which the men and women of our police forces make each day to maintain safe and secure communities.

The bill which I am tabling today is the product of an extensive process of review and consultation by my ministry together with the policing community, the Ministry of the Attorney General, other government ministries and the work of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force.

The Police Services Act is legislation for the people and the police. It will support and encourage their partnership.

CENTRE FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am very pleased today to join with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) in announcing a community health-centre devoted to women.

The new community health centre will serve women living in the Metro Toronto area. It will provide them with basic and specialized health care services in addition to health education and promotion and counselling services. I am pleased to inform the House that the Centre for Women’s Health will pay special attention to immigrants, teens, disabled and older women. The clients of the centre will be actively involved in developing the programs.

As members will know, the Ministry of Health believes that it is important to place emphasis on health education and on promotion so that people can make knowledgeable healthy lifestyle decisions. We have a health care system in Ontario which we know is second to none. As we move towards the 1990s, towards that vision this government and the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy have articulated so well for us, I want to stress that our vision will be achieved with the goal of quality assurance and appropriate care for everyone in this province.

We know that health care is not just the treatment of illness. It is a combination of elements involving not just hospitals, not just physicians, not just nurses and other health care professionals, but the people, individuals and patients as well. In Ontario, research tells us that approximately 80 per cent of services provided within the system are appropriate, quality care. Probably, because we are human and fallible, we will never reach 100 per cent, but one of the things we did in the past year was to focus on striving for continuous improvement in the delivery of health services.

Members have heard me say this before: We want to make the Ontario health care system incrementally better for every citizen and to do it, first, by concentrating on the challenges of the pressures on the system and, second, by doing this with the full co-operation and partnership with everyone involved in health care delivery. Last year we concentrated our efforts on many health care initiatives identified by communities, and this women’s centre is another important example of our commitment.

Operations at the centre will be phased in over three years. The Ministry of Health is providing the Centre for Women’s Health with initial operating funds of $160,671 and one-time funding of $397,000 for startup expenses. An annual operating budget of about of $1.9 million is expected when the centre is fully operational.

The centre will also provide consultative services on women’s health issues to family physicians and to the existing network of community health centres in Metropolitan Toronto. We are confident that the centre will be a valuable resource for women, for health care professionals and for other service providers.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to get this centre started. Because change is so challenging, I would also like to thank everyone providing services in the health care system, thank them sincerely for their dedication and for their efforts over the past year.

The centre’s steering committee is looking for a site for the centre. Doctors, nurses, health promotion workers, outreach workers, social workers and a nutritionist are among the staff to be hired. It is estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 women per year will use the centre when it is fully operational. I would also like to inform the House that the Metropolitan Toronto district health council supports this initiative. Community-based care is an integral part of our health care system. There are now 30 community health centres approved in Ontario; 23 of those are in operation and they are expected to serve about 100,000 people next year.

In August 1987 our government committed itself to doubling the number of people served by community health centres over a five-year period. I am pleased to report to the House today that we are already more than 90 per cent of the way to achieving that goal.

The Speaker: The Minister of Education, Colleges and Universities and Skills Development.

Hon Mr Conway: Must you, Mr Speaker?

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hon Mr Conway: I am none the less pleased today to release the Review of Ontario Education Programs for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students, a review that I know my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston), among others, will read with great interest.

This report contains the findings and recommendations of two committees. The first, an internal review committee, included representatives of school boards and of the provincial schools for the deaf; the second, an external review committee, was comprised of experts in deaf education and other educators not employed by the jurisdictions under review.

This committee was ably chaired by Donald Rutledge, former associate director of the Toronto Board of Education, and was composed of the following members, three of whom are themselves deaf: Dr Gary Bunch, associate professor in the faculty of education at York University; Joseph McLaughlin, principal of the Alberta School for the Deaf; Dr Carol Musselman, associate professor in the department of special education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education; Dr Michael Rodda, professor in the department of educational psychology at the University of Alberta; Dr Roslyn Rosen, dean of continuing education at Gallaudet University.

Washington, DC, and Dr Richard Stoker, director of the Central Institute for the Deaf in St Louis, Missouri.

Among the major recommendations are the following: that the Ministry of Education begin a pilot project to investigate the use of American sign language as a language of instruction; that teacher training for deaf education be transferred to one or more of the Ontario faculties of education; that affirmative action programs be developed to increase the number of deaf and hard-of-hearing persons who are qualified teachers of the deaf.

I am inviting those with an interest in this special field of education to examine and to react to these recommendations put forward by these two committees. The Ministry of Education will begin immediately to give careful consideration to these recommendations. The ongoing input of individuals and groups, including parents, educators, organizations representing the deaf community and school boards, will assist the ministry in developing an action plan in response to the review. I expect that the first steps in this response will be in place by September 1990.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the individuals and groups that contributed in any way to this very important review. Special thanks should go to the members of the internal and external committees, who devoted so very much of their time and energy to this most important undertaking.

I would also like to thank the representatives of organizations who served as members of the advisory committee and the 13 school boards from across Ontario that participated.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) and her staff at the Office for Disabled Persons.

The Ministry of Education has also conducted a separate review of programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students with a French-language background. As well, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has reviewed educational opportunities for deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the post-secondary level. It is expected that the reports of these reviews will be available in the new year.

The report that I am tabling today is the product of a comprehensive study that brought together a wide spectrum of those involved in deaf education. Indeed, I believe that such a thorough review of deaf education programs and services has never before taken place in Canada and I am confident that the review will lead to improved educational programs for the deaf and hard of hearing.

RESPONSES

CENTRE FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH

Mr Reville: New Democrats applaud the announcement of a community health centre devoted to women. We deplore the continued refusal of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to require that the discussion of the future of Women’s College Hospital be both public and participatory. Even as the minister announces an important new health opportunity for women, Women’s College Hospital is in grave peril: Give with one hand, take with the other.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr R. F. Johnston: It is with some delight that I respond to the Minister of Education’s finally tabling at this late date -- we hoped for it in September -- of the reviews that have been done on deaf education. It was on 5 May 1988 that I introduced the resolution which got this under way. I must say we often do not see the fruits of our work here so quickly and I am delighted with it.

I might say that in the gallery today we have many deaf and hard-of-hearing people who participated so well in this process and made it have the very positive results that it has today, and on that I am also delighted to see them all here.

I think it is important to say that there is a great difference between the internal review and the external review. I will not characterize the internal review, but I will say that the external review is incredibly progressive and very exciting to see and I hope that is where the majority of the government’s reading takes place.

I want to say that the minister made it sound that like all that was recommended was a pilot project for American sign language. In fact, what has been advised here is that by 1991 American sign language be a language of instruction. I think that is a wonderful recommendation.

There is also a great recommendation for a centre for deafness studies and another one on an Ontario board of deaf education so that finally families and children in the system will have some say and control over the schools for the deaf in the province. I think this is a wonderful step forward and I encourage those in the community to keep up the pressure so that we get the changes that are advocated here as quickly as possible.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Kormos: It probably does not come as much of a surprise that the announcement regarding the new Police Services Act