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

September 30, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOMMY HASS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to pay tribute today to a 17-year-old boy in my constituency. The young lad's name is Tommy Hass. He lives in the Eganville area and this is, in a way, a horrifying story. Two young lads walking home from a lake not too many weeks ago were attacked by two pit bulls. One young lad from the area, Rob Breen, was hospitalized with 250 stitches and was very nearly killed in this attack. It is a scandalous story about how anyone could harbour these kinds of killer animals in their midst.

But the real story is that the young lad who was attacked had a friend, a 17-year-old young lad named Tommy Hass, who stayed as these malicious beasts were attacking his friend. Young Tommy went and got some lead pipe and battered one of these beasts into some kind of submission. He stood his ground and fought to protect, I believe, the life of his young friend.

I just simply want to say on my behalf, and I know on behalf of all the members of this Legislature, how proud we are of any young Ontarian who would do this in honour of and in support of his friend, and I hope it gives pause as well to people in this province and elsewhere who would think about keeping these kinds of pit bulls or any other kind of animal whose instinct and training seems to be to kill. If this had been young Rob Breen's younger brother or sister, he or she may very well have been killed. May I say as well that we wish Robbie a full and speedy recovery.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to draw the government's attention to the very serious funding crisis facing the Waterloo Regional Health Unit.

As a result of the provincial government's failure to provide adequate funding to cover the cost of mandated programs and increases in operating expenditures, the health unit is being forced to consider significant cutbacks in staff and programs. These cutbacks are to be announced tomorrow.

The policy of shifting responsibility for the cost of community health services to the municipality, the so-called disentanglement of funding responsibility, is creating a funding crisis for community health units across the province.

I am shocked and appalled by the Ministry of Health's abdication of its responsibility to ensure that community health services are maintained.

The lack of provincial funding will unfortunately hurt the people who rely on these services: the working poor, the elderly, the unemployed and children. These are the people who will be made to suffer as a result of this government's funding policies.

I would urge the government to take immediate action to ensure that the essential community health services in Waterloo region are not eliminated as a result of a lack of provincial support for mandated programs.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House today to speak about an issue that deeply concerns and troubles me. That issue is the government's decision to introduce casino gambling in Ontario.

I am proud of the New Democratic Party, I am proud of our government's progressive taxation policies and I am proud of the work that my party has traditionally done on behalf of poor and lower-income citizens of Ontario. I am also proud of the leadership that my government has given in the areas relating to social policy and workers' rights.

So it is with deep regret that I rise to speak against the government's position on the introduction of casino gambling. Casino gambling is based on the principle of greed. More than this, the profits that will go to the government are based on the certainty that the majority of casino gamblers will lose. Those who gamble are often poor or on modest incomes. It is they who will be further economically deprived by the inevitable losses they will incur.

In my view, the establishment of gambling casinos will only devalue the government's present efforts to help low-income people. My conscience will not let me support the process by which the government is establishing casinos in the province. I will not be supporting this regressive move and I fully intend to be voting against the government if legislation is brought into this House. I hope that more of my colleagues will listen to their own consciences on this issue.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): The two days of hearings that the Minister of Municipal Affairs held in London last week brought home the message that the citizens of Middlesex as well as of the city of London are very much opposed to Bill 75, which will give 64,000 acres of county land to the city, including the entire town of Westminster and thousands of acres of prime agricultural farm land.

In July of this year, the minister met with the county of Middlesex to discuss the county's alternative package, which would annex 24,000 acres to the city of London. This is more than the city requested when the annexation proceedings began in 1988 and represents twice the amount of land that would serve the city until the year 2026.

This is a reasonable compromise that would meet the needs of the city of London and leave the county with a sustainable assessment base, and is supported by the county's 22 constituent municipalities.

At the recent AMO conference, the minister said that the process used in this annexation was unique and that similar legislation would not be presented again. Later in the same speech, however, the minister stated that the sole arbitration process to solve annexation issues is his government's policy. This blatant contradiction has Ontario's municipalities worried, with good reason.

Middlesex Warden Frank Gare met yesterday with London's mayor to discuss the county's alternative package. It is evident that the city and the county are open to discussion on this matter, but the ministry's position is not at all helpful. Why will the minister not respond to the county's alternative package?

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My statement is directed to the Minister of Energy with responsibility for Ontario Hydro. At a public meeting last week, 400 residents packed the Beeton arena to voice their anger at and displeasure with Hydro's plans to build a 250-acre transformer station on prime agricultural land.

My constituents are concerned, because at no point has Ontario Hydro established a need for the creation of massive transmission corridors from Sudbury to Toronto. People are losing confidence in Hydro's ability to plan effectively, especially in light of a recent report from the Ontario Energy Board which criticized Hydro's inability to predict future growth and the woeful performance of the Darlington reactors. Residents in my riding are worried that their health and safety will be jeopardized by the construction of this Hydro project. As well, they have legitimate concerns about the impact this transformer station will have on farming activities and rural life in the area.

It seems ironic that at the same time the NDP government wants to give some $20 million to tender fruit growers in Niagara region in order to preserve farm land. This same government is prepared to turn a blind eye to Hydro's designs on prime farm land in New Tecumseth.

I would strongly urge the Minister of Energy to support the resolution passed by the town of New Tecumseth, which calls on Hydro to take no further action on this ill-conceived project.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): As you know, in Metropolitan Toronto we have an unfair and outdated property tax system that penalizes and rewards people based on where they live. If you live in the city of Toronto, generally you will be rewarded by the current property tax system. On the other hand, if you live in a newly developed suburb, generally you will be penalized by having to pay a much higher rate of tax for the same value of property.

For example, if you live on Eldorado Court, on Kennerly, on Exbury, on Sentinel, on Calvington, on Tavistock, on Dubray, on Downsview Avenue, on Hallsport, on Roding, on Northover, on Giltspur, on Arleta or on Spenvalley, you are paying far higher property taxes than you should otherwise be paying. This is not right; this is not fair.

Even as I speak today, Metro council is debating whether it will proceed to reform this unfair, unequal and antiquated system of taxation. It is my hope that Metro councillors will approach this debate with an unbiased attitude and look at achieving a fair and equitable property tax system for all in Metro.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Once again today, the people of Durham, Peel and York region had to come down to this place to remind the government that what is now going on in terms of finding a dump site is a sham. It is a process that is deeply flawed.

The people who are there during the summer, the people who live on the farms, the people whose land will be affected, now have learned that they're going to have to wait even longer and that they are being left out there and hanging. They don't know what is going to happen, so the lives of all the people who live around those 57 sites are simply left in limbo.

Today, as the representatives of all the different groups got up, people were saying that the process is flawed and that the end result simply makes no sense. In 1992, we don't start an environmental policy by saying we're going to build a dump that is again bigger than the one that is at Keele Valley.

I want to make clear to the minister and to this government that the people of all of these areas are united. We'll continue to fight this until we can make sure that this misguided policy is put where it deserves to be, that is, off the legislative agenda, and that it will not become a reality. We've got to think of the people, the people who are out there today, the people who live in those communities. They do not want this megadump placed where they live, where they farm, where they have their communities. We've got to make sure that the government listens to that message and that in the end there is no megadump.

ROBERT MARLAND

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm pleased to tell the House that Olympic gold medallist Robert Marland, the son of Mississauga South MPP, Margaret Marland, is in the gallery today.

I brought this with me today because I'm sure it's as close as I'll ever get to receiving one.

Rob was a member of Canada's Olympic rowing team in Spain this past summer. Many of us watched the television replay of the exciting men's eight race. We shared the joy of victory, and we listened with pride as our national anthem was played at the medal ceremony.

We remember Rob's emphasis, in his interview after the race, on the achievement of the team rather than the individual. He also said that although it was his gold medal, he won it for Canada, his wife and his family. Robert, you make us all very proud to know that individuals like you represent Canada.

For Rob, winning an Olympic gold medal was the result of hard work and sacrifice. He has rowed for 11 years, seven of them with the Canadian team. Rob and his wife, Jane Forsyth, gave up excellent jobs in banking and teaching to move to Victoria so that he could train full-time for two years.

Rowing, unlike many sports, does not bring its winners fame and fortune. But as we see with Rob, it gives them drive, dedication and a sense of achievement that will serve them well throughout their lives.

I know that Robert's family deserves much credit for his victory. Ken and Margaret Marland have provided the support and encouragement that are vital if an athlete is to become an Olympic gold medallist. Congratulations, Robert. Congratulations, Margaret. Your victory made the summer of 1992 a very special one for all Canadians.

BRITISH PENSIONS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On July 16, my private member's resolution called upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her government to address the grave injustices to British old age pensioners living in Ontario. On the morning of July 16, every seat available to the public in this Legislature was occupied. Those without a seat watched the debate on television in an adjoining room. The concerns of the British old age pensioners were evident by their attendance here that day.

Since that debate, I have been asked by a member of the government of British Columbia to pass along all the detail relating to the resolution in order that a similar resolution can be introduced in their Legislature in BC. I've also received inquiries from the House of Commons in Ottawa about the bill.

Today I wish to advise all the pensioners who came to Queen's Park on July 16 that we are making some headway. I've been advised by the secretary to the Governor General of Canada that my resolution and supporting documentation have been forwarded to Sir Robert Fellowes, the principal secretary for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, for her information. I look forward to hearing positive news from London, England, in the near future and so do all the other old-age pensioners living in Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We have a number of very special visitors in our gallery today, and I would ask the members of the assembly to welcome them to our midst today. We have the Honourable Kenneth McKinnon, the commissioner of the Yukon; the Honourable Vance Amory, the Premier of Nevis; Dr Bernard Yankee, the high commissioner of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States; and a delegation of legislative council members from Hong Kong. Would you please welcome our special visitors.

We also have seated in the gallery a former member of the assembly, Mrs Margaret Renwick. Welcome to our assembly.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also like all members to join me in welcoming our 10th group of pages to serve the 35th Parliament of the Ontario Legislature: Gwen Broda, Don Mills; Raigan Burns, Etobicoke West; Lindsay Core, Lambton; Timothy Dawson, York East; Michael Derzko, York Mills; Noah Deszca, Waterloo North; Jeremy Dupuis, Essex South; Peter Fraser, York South; Haley Freedman, Hamilton West; Brittany Gullick, Peterborough; Lorraine Hudson from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings; Arleigh Johnson, Simcoe West; Joshua Kyrzakos, Mississauga West; Karen Lepper, Eglinton; Clare McLean-Wilson, Grey; David Mollison, Halton Centre; Marie Morin-Strom, Nipissing; Nathan Pfrimmer from Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Lawrence Philadelphia, Cambridge; Andrew Price, Ottawa-Rideau; Lesley Robert, Durham West; Natalie Sarjeant, Mississauga North; Grant Scholes, Scarborough Centre, and Gladys Yam from Scarborough North.

Please welcome our pages to our assembly.

SPECIAL REPORT BY OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I also beg to inform the House that on Monday, the 17th day of August, 1992, a special report by the Ombudsman was tabled with the Clerk's office to the Legislative Assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: People say, "Where is the text?" This is the text we have. We'd like to just table that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses? It is time for oral questions and --

Hon Mr Rae: If the House would permit, I don't have a written statement, but I'm certainly prepared to make a brief comment on the accord. If that would be in the interests of the House or the House would be interested in having that for a few moments, I'm certainly quite prepared to do that and to encourage further public discussion.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It's my understanding that there would be a request for unanimous consent for all three party leaders to speak to the constitutional proposals in the House this afternoon.

Hon Mr Rae: Okay, that's fine.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: I take this opportunity, then, and I want to start by saying to my colleagues that I feel we've made substantial progress since I last had the opportunity to report to the House after the meeting of July 7.

As I pointed out to the House at that time, the agreement we had reached then was an agreement between nine premiers, the federal government; and the aboriginal leadership was represented, as well as the territorial leaders. What we have now is, in my view, a truly remarkable achievement, and that is the additional agreement of the government of Quebec to the Charlottetown accord, which, while it has some of the features and bases itself to some extent on the agreement of July 7, in fact represents a very substantial advance over where we are.

Many things will be said, and we'll have an opportunity later on, I think very soon, to have a fuller debate and discussion in this House with respect to the Constitution. I look forward to that discussion. I look forward to a full debate with the leaders, and not only with the leaders but with members of the House also being able to participate. Of course, in the event that we are successful in achieving a substantial Yes vote across the country, we will then have yet another opportunity to be debating a resolution which will be based on the Charlottetown accord negotiated on August 28, 1992.

I've had occasion over the last while -- and I'm sorry the member for Renfrew North isn't here, because of all the members in the House he could be the one to correct me most quickly.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for York North won't do too badly either if he listens carefully and hears me making mistakes.

Members will no doubt recall that, prior to the remarkable events of 1867, there was a dramatic moment in the Legislative Assembly of the two Canadas that were together at that point, Upper and Lower Canada, when rivals suddenly came together and formed what became known as the Great Coalition. I don't have to go over all the debates that took place between 1841 and 1862-63, but there were some of the most bitter, divisive, difficult issues, in which governments came and went very quickly, in which personal antagonisms were built up over a long period of time and were based on a very different sense of interest.

The vision of Canada that was held by George Brown was very different from the vision of Canada that was held by George-Étienne Cartier and very different in turn from Taché, very different from Galt, very different from Sir John A. Macdonald.

After governments came and went and fell, there was a critical moment when George Brown, who was the leader, I suppose, of the Reform-Liberal forces in Upper Canada, in Canada West, as it was then called, initiated a process of discussion in which all the parties that were then represented would come together to form one government and, in so doing, they would strive to create a federation.

That was the critical moment, which then proceeded to drive the discussions in Charlottetown in 1864, in Quebec in 1865 and of course in London, England, itself in 1866 and 1867; a critical moment in which the leadership of the Canada as it then was came together and said, "There are issues which transcend party, there are issues which transcend differences, and there is a moment and a time for us to think of the common good and to put all our political and partisan differences behind us and unite together in the creation of the federation called Canada."

It was that spirit which drove this country towards Confederation 125 years ago and, I believe, in its own way, the spirit of Charlottetown of 1992, with the incredible moments in which people of very different points of view -- I mean, let no one pretend that the vision of Canada in its pure form that is held by Premier Wells in his views, by me in my views, by Premier Bourassa in his views, by Ovide Mercredi in his views, taken in their abstract are the same; they're not.

What drove people to come together was a constant determination and effort to keep our eyes on the prize, to keep our eyes on the objective, and the objective is a home in which we can all live, a home which will have enough variety and diversity in it that all of us can feel at home and at the same time make it something that is ours.

Le gouvernement du Québec : le premier ministre Bourassa lui-même a répondu. Il a toujours agi avec une énorme dignité et avec une remarquable sagesse. Oui, il a fait un énorme travail remarquable, fort pour sa province, le Québec.

Il a gagné dans ce sens, peut-être plus qu'aucun autre premier ministre dans l'histoire de la province de Québec, une reconnaissance de la spécificité distincte du Québec ; plus de contrôle sur certains programmes qui n'ont pas toujours été reconnus, dans le sens le plus clair, dans le domaine exclusivement provincial ; reconnaissance dans la clause Canada, à travers la constitution, que nous devons trouver un nouveau fédéralisme qui est à la fois flexible et qui offre la stabilité à l'oeuvre économique et à l'oeuvre historique du Québec. M.

Bourassa nous a appris, à tous les Canadiens, qu'on peut être bon Québécois et bon Canadien à la fois.

It's up to all of us now to try to do something which in itself is quite difficult; that is, to try to get the Canadian public, through this referendum process which is now under way, to in a sense share in the give and take that led to the Charlottetown accord. A federation by its very nature depends on people being willing to set their own absolute number one priorities alongside others and learn that everyone has to give a little and learn that there has to be a sense of give and take, that there has to be a sense of flexibility.

It's important for us as we talk to Canadians and Ontarians and as we engage them in a very constructive and positive dialogue, which I encourage all members to do, to point out to everyone what's in the accord, why the Canada clause is such an improvement, in my view, over what was in Meech Lake because it includes so many at the same time as it deals with the issues that were raised by Meech Lake, why the social charter represents an enormous advance for all of us, why the economic union represents an enormous advance for all of us, why for us as a nation to recognize the inherent right to self-government allows us to say as Canadians that we're helping to set the way, set the pace, set the path.

There will be ample time today for there to be criticisms and comments and partisan attacks and assaults. We all expect that on the opening day of the House; certainly I do. I'm ready, eager and willing to participate in it.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): We all are.

Hon Mr Rae: As are we all. But I want to say that none of that should obscure the central fact of what has taken place and what is taking place in Canada. We are a meeting place where people from different lands have made their home. We are a meeting place where no one ethnic group has dominance. We are a meeting place where we have learned over the years the price that is paid by linguistic or religious intolerance or bigotry. We are a meeting place that knows something of the need to create common institutions that allow each part of the country to see the very real advantages to what we are pulling together.

I believe very profoundly that what Canada at its best can truly be is a light and beacon to the world, that we are doing things that other countries have not been able to do.

Oh yes, I know there are times and places when we say, "We're not so good as other countries at this," or, "We're not so good as others at that." But if you look at what we are doing here, if you look at what's happening in Europe and compare what's happening here, with our abilities to allow people to come from all over the world and create a new society and create a climate of tolerance and understanding, what other country is making the advances we are making with respect to the relationship between, if you like, those who came and settled 300 or 400 years ago and those who have been here for thousands of years?

These issues are shared by a number of countries around the world, and we have a chance to make some real progress and some real advances.

In my approach to this accord, I must confess that I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of the effort that's been put into this by this province. I'm proud of the work that's been done by the select committee, by the contribution that's been made by the public servants, by the contribution that's been made by members of the opposition and members of the government. I'm very proud of the people of this province who, in my view, have consistently taken a positive, fundamentally optimistic, creative, imaginative and yes, at moments, a courageous position.

I believe profoundly that this is the basis for unity in the country. It is the basis for a new passion for Canada, a new passion for what it is we are creating here on the northern half of the North American continent. I think we have to try to convey something of that passion, something of the give and take, something of the imagination that went into the forging of this document.

There's always going to be room for cynicism in a society, there's always going to be room for people to say, "You could have done this," or, "You could have done that," or, "You shouldn't have done this," or, "You shouldn't have done that." The task for all of us now, I believe, regardless of party, is to remember that at its moments of greatness, indeed at the very forging of the country itself, it was a determination by practical but also creative and imaginative women and men who said, "No, we're going to set aside the demands for perfection on the spot and we're going to build a practical home, a real home, a living home for Canada." That's what happened 125 years ago and that's exactly what we can do in 1992.

Thank you very much.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate an opportunity to offer a perspective on this issue, an opportunity which for a moment I thought was about to vanish.

Hansard will record that I have been very brief in my responses to the periodic reports that the Premier has brought to this House on the progress of the negotiations. I was brief in anticipation of the time when the completed accord might in fact be tabled in this House. It's my intention to be somewhat fuller in my response to those proposals today.

I appreciate the commitment the Premier has made that there will shortly be an opportunity for other members of my caucus and other members of this assembly to offer their views, their perspectives on these proposals as well, because I believe the manner in which these constitutional proposals have been and are being considered by the members of this assembly, free from partisanship and indeed open to all points of view, underlines the critical importance of this accord to all Ontarians.

I have always believed that there are some issues which must be dealt with beyond partisanship. To my colleagues on all sides of this chamber I say, let us make sure this issue is one of those. The stakes are too high and the consequences are too far-reaching and too long-lasting for consideration of political gain or loss to be a factor in our response.

Let me stress, however, that non-partisanship is not the same as unquestioning acceptance. There are legitimate concerns about the accord and these need to be expressed. The people of this province are entitled to all the information that is available, presented to them in the fullest and fairest way.

Let me begin the expression of my own perspective by saying that as an Ontarian I'm proud of the fact that once again this province has played a bridging role. Through three separate constitutional negotiating rounds, under three premiers of all three political parties, Ontario has offered reason rather than rancour. We have been willing to set aside a preoccupation with our own interest to hear and understand the perspectives, the concerns, the needs of other regions and communities of people.

But the job is not finished; it has just begun. Before Ontarians cast their ballots on October 26, all of us who support the constitutional renewal owe it to everyone in this province to provide them with the answers to their questions. I believe it is vital that those of us who support this agreement articulate the reasons for our support firmly and positively. It is not enough to say, "Let's just get it over with."

Ce n'est pas assez de dire, «Finissons-en». La question est trop importante pour être simplement mise de côté. Nous devons, au contraire, souligner les avantages que l'entente procure au Canada et à l'Ontario.

For me, there are two significant and positive reasons for supporting the accord. The first advantage is one that we have been enjoying for 10 years: a patriated Constitution in the hands of Canadians with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not new, but in a way it is a fundamental element of this package. The reason that all provinces and the federal government began this constitutional round was to carry forward the work that was only begun 10 years ago and to make sure that this time all parts of the country are included.

This agreement shouldn't be viewed in isolation. Let us remember, if Quebec had not been represented by a separatist government in 1981, if that province had been represented by a government that was willing to negotiate, does anyone believe that the Constitution that emerged would have been exactly the same, word for word? Surely it would have been quite different in some ways.

This constitutional package reflects those differences, differences that would have been incorporated 10 years ago if Quebec had been represented then by a government willing to work for Canada. Now that all provinces have governments prepared to work for Canada, doesn't it make sense to finish the job we started back then? That, in my mind, is one positive reason to vote Yes: to complete a process of change which Ontarians have always supported.

There is another important reason. You can see it every day on the currency markets and in the stock exchanges and you can hear it in the business centres of the world. In the current economic environment, Canadians must have confidence in their national institutions. Canadians must feel secure about our country's stability so that we can focus our energies on rebuilding the economy. In a volatile world, stability is not just a valuable asset; it is essential to our economic life.

Honnêtement, je pense que les négociations constitutionnelles n'auraient pas dû dominer à tel point la scène nationale ou provinciale. Nous aurions pu continuer à progresser simultanément sur plusieurs fronts, et plus particulièrement sur celui de la reconstruction de notre économie. Mais je ne vais pas chicaner à ce sujet maintenant. Ce dont il faut se souvenir, c'est que notre niveau de vie dépend beaucoup de la façon dont nous allons résoudre nos disputes constitutionnelles.

I had a brief opportunity this summer to visit New York and Washington to meet with some of the decision-makers in international investment and in the business world, and the question that was most often asked was, "What is happening in your national unity debate?" Those same people, the people who every day make decisions that affect investment in our country, are going to be watching for the results on October 26. They will be joined by people in London, Frankfurt and Tokyo, in every other major financial and political centre in the world.

We must demonstrate that Canada is ready to stop arguing over issues left over from the 19th century and start dealing with the challenges of the 21st century.

We may feel that this has been a long, anguished debate of uniquely Canadian nature, a debate that no one else can understand. That is probably true. But whether people outside Canada understand what we are doing or not, the world is certainly going to watch the outcome. On October 26, we have our chance to say, "We're ready for the world," and we have to grasp it. We have to stop arguing about what we were or thought we wanted to be and embrace a new vision of what we can be.

A Yes vote on October 26 will be seen as a sign of political maturity and economic security. It will be seen as a positive step into the future. A Yes vote means governments will have no excuse for not dealing with economic priorities that demand attention, priorities that have been too long ignored. To me, these are two strong reasons for supporting the constitutional package. It will finish the job we began years ago and it will give us a chance to start a job we should have begun years ago: the job of building an economy for the 21st century.

I believe this accord does provide a sound basis for our future governance. It is obvious that in drafting this constitutional package the lesson of Meech Lake was well understood. The lesson at Meech was that this round of negotiations had to be a Canada round. Canadians in every part of the country had to be given the chance to see their clear stake in the outcome. The provisions in this accord reflect each province's readiness to respect the others' concerns. The Canada clause puts us all at the table as equals.

Senate reform demonstrates that this was a round for all Canadians. It addressed western Canada's fear of being frozen out of national decision-making. But at the same time, Senate reform was accompanied by an increased representation for our province in the House of Commons, more accurately reflecting our population and giving the people of Ontario a fairer say in that decision-making body.

Native self-government demonstrates that this was a round for all Canadians. It would be unthinkable if an agreement reached in 1992 had not recognized the determination of native peoples to step out from under the Indian Act and determine their own future.

These are some of the specific provisions that we can indeed be proud of. But just as it is the duty of all of us who support the constitutional amendments to put forward our reasons, it is also incumbent upon us to respect the concerns of those who are opposed. Those concerns spring from conscience, and that is why we will be having a free vote when a resolution does come before this House.

In this assembly and outside, legitimate concerns and questions will be raised. For those of us on the Yes side, it is not just a matter of silencing the objections or even simply rebutting them. Our responsibility is to answer them. The ball is in our court and we cannot lob it; we have to aim it. We have to put forward a unified, coordinated message that expresses the positive reasons for voting Yes.

My party is ready to work with the Office of the Premier and the leader of the Conservative Party to ensure that the Yes campaign in this province is one that we can all be proud of, a campaign that impugns no one's motives and responds to everyone's questions. But we also have to recognize that not all of the i's have been dotted or all of the t's crossed. There are details left to be determined. The important thing is that they can be determined in an atmosphere of calm rather than one of crisis. Our work will be more productive because it can be undertaken in a stable environment.

One of the details which I would like to see subjected to thorough study and debate is the process for electing this province's senators. As I mentioned, Senate reform is one of the positive changes that this package offers and we have a responsibility to make sure that it could work here in Ontario.

I've already indicated my strong personal objection to the use of quotas to achieve equity in the Senate. Quotas, in my mind, do not advance the principle of equity; they violate it. They carry an implicit assumption that as women we are unable to compete on the basis of our skills and experience, and I categorically reject that assumption. As a woman, I argue that we don't need guaranteed access; we need open access. That is true of women and of all minorities. Provide truly equal opportunity and we can make the most of it.

I reject guaranteed quotas for women in a Senate to be elected as well, because it would block access for others. I believe, for example, that any method of choosing senators should ensure fair representation of the regions of the province, but any method of selection that included quotas would make balanced regional representation difficult if not impossible.

It would be naïve for me to suggest that there would be no problems facing women who would seek election to a Senate. There would be unfair disadvantages in fund-raising, in networking and public perceptions, but instead of trying to fix quotas, we should try to fix the problems.

I would suggest, for example, that one innovation we might want to consider would be a form of preferential voting in which people would indicate their preferences among the candidates from first to last, with victory going to the candidate most acceptable to the majority. This method worked to elect a woman president of Ireland. Maybe we should examine whether it would work here. I believe that the select committee on Ontario in Confederation should be reconstituted to look at creative approaches to Senate elections.

The campaign we have just entered may be one of the most crucial that any of us has taken

part in. We must deal with all the specific constitutional proposals, but we cannot lose sight of the package as a whole. We have always known that Canada is more than the sum of its parts, and so is this constitutional accord. It provides a reasonable working basis for governing ourselves, and that is the start we need, but from there it takes the will to make it work. You can't stand for ever on a corner waiting for a bus marked "Perfection."

I'm convinced that the likely alternative to this constitutional package would not be a tighter or more centralized form of federalism but a much looser and more decentralized one. The alternative, whether it should be separation or sovereignty association or some alternative as yet unthought of or undefined, could well be one in which many issues and many people would be lost in the process, and that would be a tragedy, because one thing we have evolved in this country perhaps better than anyone in the world is a system of government that respects people and their needs.

The special qualities that allowed us to grow as one nation are something to be proud of, something to maintain and not to cut short. A Yes vote, I believe, will allow that to continue and to flourish. I believe that we need to recommit ourselves unequivocally to this country and what it stands for. This commitment may be seen to be based on intangibles, but these intangibles offer a great many tangible advantages. A lot of investment is here, a lot of jobs are here, a lot of people are here because Canadians and Ontarians have a reputation for being able to work together.

This constitutional accord that is before us, in my view, reflects the capacity for understanding, for tolerance, for compromise, that truly is our essence as Canadians. Reaching an agreement that binds together a nation as diverse and as complex as Canada is indeed in itself a significant achievement. We should endorse it and we should step with pride and confidence into our future.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I believe that for far too many years Canada has been engaged in an intensive process of constitutional self-examination, and I also believe that once again we have arrived at a moment in time when we have an opportunity to finally complete a round.

For many in this country, the process of repatriation has never been completed. I believe that is a significant aspect of the agreement at Charlottetown and a significant difference between what some of us may want in the future out of our Constitution as opposed to what is there.

This process started in earnest in the 1970s. Repatriation technically took place in the 1981-82 round, but it has never been completed. The Charlottetown accord, to me, is the cumulative result of the most intensive and extensive process of self-discovery ever conducted by a country.

To vote Yes in the October 26 referendum, in my view, will substantially bring to a close what can only be described as an era of national uncertainty. Certainly there will be continuing discussions and negotiations, first of all to bring into effect that which we have agreed to and that which we may wish to pursue in the future. This is not the end of constitutional discussion but this, I believe, will bring an immediate end to a sense of uncertainty both within and outside of Canada over whether we can move forward, all Canadians, and arrive at a consensus on anything.

In the October 26 referendum, a Yes or a No vote is the right of every citizen. That hasn't been talked about very much today and I want to talk about it. If politicians do not believe that what they propose can stand up to public scrutiny, they should not then pronounce it finished, nor should they attempt to bully others into agreement. I have great confidence in the Canadian people; I've great confidence in Ontarians.

I believe that if 5 or 10 or 15 years, perhaps some of us will wish 20 years from now, we get into further constitutional discussions, we should look at the amending formula and a process of allowing Canadians an opportunity, with or without their politicians, to participate in that review.

For my part, I will vote Yes in the referendum. Quite frankly, you all know, and it's a matter of record, that this is not the deal I would've sought to negotiate. My caucus knows that; the Premier knows that. The Premier and I have different political philosophies which come into play in the constitutional discussions as well. We often disagree, but I respect that this is not entirely the deal that the Premier, could he sit down and write one himself, or his cabinet or his caucus or his party, would've wanted either. Neither is it the deal that any single participant to these discussions sought.

But this is a deal which was unanimously agreed to and, as such, is something that I believe we can all live with and work with. I will vote Yes because I believe it is the best deal possible at this particular point in history. If I were to vote No, I would be saying with that vote that it's possible to negotiate something else with unanimity, something more to my liking, something better that will not only be better from my point of view, but will also be better if unanimously agreed to across the country.

I am absolutely convinced, from my involvement inside and outside, looking and listening and talking to Canadians, actively, certainly, since 1981 when I was first elected, that there is not a better deal waiting out there, with unanimity to be had, anywhere in this country. There may be logical reasons why some will vote differently than I plan to vote, but I do not believe that anybody with any experience in discussions across this country can say there is a better deal and that this is the reason why they are voting No.

There are some aspects, I've said, that I as an individual do not particularly like. Those are a matter of record, and I want to comment briefly. I believe this must be examined as a whole; I believe very strongly in that. When we are dealing with a Yes or a No vote, we're not dealing with the negotiations of individual aspects; we're now dealing with the package as a whole.

Second is something that isn't talked about very much and that I want to reiterate today. I think of aspects that I encouraged the Premier to talk about: property rights; the economic union; the dropping of interprovincial trade barriers, which leads to the lowering to consumers in this country of $6 to $10 billion in prices and which increases our companies that want to compete outside of Canada by $6 to $10 billion. I believe these economic discussions are crucial for us, and we achieved no gain in this round in the Constitution to that.

However, I believe very strongly that where there is a will, we will accomplish these. We will drop the interprovincial trade barriers and we will forge a new economic union, whether it's in the Constitution or it's not. I believe, for those who look at individual aspects and say, "Explain to me what's in this for me," "There's a country in this for you. If you were looking for something in the Constitution individually, you were looking to the wrong place. That's not what a constitution is for."

For those who seem concerned about social programs or national social programs, I say to you, and I believe this 100%, that if there is the money and if there is the will today, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 25 years from now to have a program, we'll have it. If there is not the will, we won't -- I don't care if it's in the Constitution or not.

When we look at individual aspects that may concern us -- there has to be at least one that would concern every Canadian and he or she would say, "Well, that's not my first choice" -- I ask people to put it into perspective. I ask them to consider, as I have always mentioned in these discussions, other countries which have marvellous constitutions but no will to uphold them or enforce them, or they don't have the money to do so, and they do not.

I've asked them to consider countries like Great Britain where the last written word was in the 13th century, the Magna Carta. Never yet have I found people from Britain who didn't have disagreements, somebody from Scotland or Ireland or Wales, but they always knew what it meant to be British, they always knew what it meant to be Scottish. They didn't have to write anything down. They didn't have to have a written document to have a sense of country and what it meant.

I believe that if Canadians and Ontarians will look at this package as a whole as opposed to each individual item, and if they are looking at individual items that they will put it into the context of how important is a constitution anyway to achieve that individual objective that they're looking for, you will find that it is people themselves, the will and the determination of the people elected and non-elected at any given point in time, that will determine social programs, barriers interprovincially and economic union. If there is a will for natives to have more say over their lives, we will give them that whether it is in the document or it is not.

If this then is examined as a whole, if we look at the individual aspects that way, I agree with the leader of the Liberal Party that it's most important that we give both the straight facts and how important each aspect of it is to Ontarians to help them make up their minds. They have a decision to make; we've given it to them. I think that's as it should be. They need the information. They also need to know what isn't there.

I was distressed to learn a number in British Columbia have a sense they want to vote No because they disagree, as I do and as the leader of the Liberal Party does, with achieving gender equality by a quota. That's not in this deal. If you disagree with that, if you disagree with the Premier's stand on that, take some comfort that I don't think by the time the vote comes he'll be Premier.

Take some comfort that it's not written in the Constitution. Take some comfort that it will be the Legislature of the day when the vote finally takes place for the election of senators. That can change with the political party of the day and with the will of Ontarians of the day. There is nothing in this Constitution that suggests that is how we will elect our senators. I do say that the first vote for senators, in my view, will take place after the next provincial election. We can deal with issues like that at that time. Let's be honest and upfront and straight and make sure Ontarians understand what's not in the deal and not confuse the issues with those.

As a whole, this package will bring us further forward than any previous negotiation ever envisioned. It is a much more far-reaching document than Meech Lake. It truly represents the interests of all provinces, of the territories and of the peoples of Canada. It does not meet all the needs of any one group in our society but it does, as a unanimous document, attempt to meet some of the needs of all Canada.

It has been said that it was the Canada round. This agreement has a number of benefits and improves upon our existing Constitution in many, many ways.

It includes the Canada clause, which says who we are as a people; it includes a social and economic union that says what we expect from our nation and its leaders; it brings Quebec into the fold, and it reforms the Senate, replacing a mothballed, decrepit institution more fitting for a museum than a government with an elected chamber responsible to the people. It clarifies the relationship between federal and provincial governments. That's what a Constitution is to do: set out a framework for how we'll operate, federally and provincially, who has what jurisdiction, who has what powers.

It recognizes that our aboriginal people did not automatically relinquish their rights as a people when the Europeans landed. The most practical advantages to all citizens of this agreement is that it will help bring the uncertainty to a halt. The political efforts of a generation have been spent now to reach constitutional agreement, and these are efforts which would have been, I believe we would all agree, better spent working on our economic growth, on education, on jobs, on our future, on our social wellbeing.

With this agreement it once again becomes possible for our political leaders to turn their attention where it is needed: the day-to-day operation of this country. The larger benefit, as Professor Peter Russell has pointed out, is that it "consolidate(

s) the will of Canadians to continue together under constitutional arrangements that recognize and accommodate the fact that they are a truly federal people marked by deep diversity."

Hopefully, we can stop our self-examination and get on with being a country and get on with securing a future for all Canadians. That is why the referendum vote, which I have fought for since 1990, is indeed important. During the Meech Lake debate, Clyde Wells of Newfoundland stated, "The Constitution belongs to the people of Canada -- the ultimate source of sovereignty in the nation," the people of Canada. It's their Constitution. Finally, the people have the right to accept or reject their Constitution.

When the Fathers of Confederation put forward the BNA Act, it was a document not of the people but of the British Parliament. In 1982, when Canada's Constitution was patriated and the Charter of Rights was added, consent was not sought from the Canadian people or the provincial legislatures. The final ratifier, as in 1867, was the British Parliament.

Through this vote on October 26 if it's endorsed, and I believe it will be, the Constitution of Canada will truly then become a document of the people, not of any one political party or politician. I think that is very important as well for Canadians to understand, that they now have an obligation. They are not voting for Lyn McLeod, Mike Harris or Bob Rae, or Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien or Audrey McLaughlin. They are voting for this, their Constitution. That is an obligation of the people of this province. We must encourage them to pick up that obligation and make the most informed decision they can.

I believe the Charlottetown agreement is the best next step available to Ontario in Confederation. Not just for Canada -- I think it's also the next best step available to Ontario in Confederation. It goes without saying that I believe it is the best step for Canada.

Whether or not we choose to take that step forward is now up to the people of this province. It is up to our fellow citizens all across Canada, because now we all have an equal and a direct say. Every Canadian, every Ontarian eligible to vote has an equal and direct say in where we as a country and Canadians as a people go from here.

So, Mr Premier, and to the leader of the Liberal Party and to all Ontarians, I want to say that, for me, a Yes vote is a step forward, and I say that we can and we should take that step forward together as a country.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent of the House to recognize the contribution of the former member for St George-St David?

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

IAN G. SCOTT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Politics takes unexpected turns at times, as I think we all know. Ian Scott did not expect to come into government when he ran in 1985, and I certainly did not expect, as I watched a new government take office at that time, that I would be rising in the House one day to recognize the contribution to that new government of one of its newest stars.

But, Mr Speaker, Ian Scott came to epitomize for me almost the spirit of that new government, and I know you will understand a certain bias if I describe the essence of that government as being one of intelligence, progressiveness, readiness for change, bringing a commitment to human rights, to civil rights, concerned about people.

I believe Ian Scott was exactly the kind of person we want to attract into politics: a person who was ready to set aside a successful career in order to make his contribution to public life, a person who was constantly engaging the depths and the demands of the most complex public policies, but a person too who cared genuinely about his constituents, a person whose interests ranged from the concerns of Cabbagetown to the other realities of Rosedale.

Perhaps this is what I most appreciated about Ian Scott when I joined the government in the cabinet in 1987. Mr Scott's record of achievements on major issues is well known, but very few people saw the kind of attention Ian gave to virtually every issue that came before the cabinet. There was absolutely nothing that was too minor to escape Ian Scott's questioning. There is no doubt that the former member for St George-St David believed absolutely in the responsibility of cabinet, and he was prepared to scrutinize and to debate every issue, sometimes just to be sure that a debate had indeed taken place.

Ian Scott, I think it can truly be said, was indeed our caucus's best critic, even when he was in the government.

Some people, seeing the hard work of the former member for St George-St David, seeing the responsibilities he was asked to assume when in government, seeing the breadth of the initiatives he introduced, have tended to call Ian Scott the minister of everything. Most would probably think of him primarily in his role as Attorney General or as a constitutional adviser, but I think of Ian Scott most often as minister of native affairs, responsible for the first land claims settled in Ontario in 150 years.

The former member for St George-St David was perhaps the best kind of politician: an idealist without illusions, with a capacity for vision as well as for practical management, and bringing always to it all a constant sense of humour. We are grateful for his contribution, we are truly sorry to see him go, and we will not let him get very far away.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party. I for one am not surprised that Ian is not here this afternoon. Ian is the type of individual who never sought publicity or notoriety, but it always seemed to find him, one way or another.

I have some different recollections, perhaps, from the leader of the official opposition of Mr Scott, both in and outside of government. As I recall, Mr Scott was initially a member of a rather prestigious NDP law firm, named Cameron, Brewin and Scott, which did a lot of work in labour law in the province of Ontario. Somewhere along the way, he had a conversion to the modified socialist party in the province of Ontario, and seemed to be successful in at least his political endeavour in that regard.

My first contact with Mr Scott actually was as a practising small-town lawyer in Parry Sound. I had negotiated a contract. I wouldn't exactly call it a labour contract, but it was a contract for the commissioner of the Ontario Junior A hockey league. During the course of those negotiations, we had insisted that we receive independent contracts with each of the 12 owners of the teams.

Matters being what they were, this individual ran into some difficulty and dispute with the owners, who wanted to retire him rather not so gracefully, and we had to act upon suing the individuals who had guaranteed his contract, including the illustrious Mr Ballard from time to time. We sought a lawyer who was renowned in defending people's rights and knew something about employment standards and labour practices: We sought out Mr Scott, who brought the case to a most gratifying conclusion for all concerned, including himself, I might add.

Ian served as the Attorney General for the province of Ontario for some five years, and he was the minister responsible for native affairs. I don't think there is any member of this chamber who will deny that Mr Scott was indeed one of the great attorneys general in the province's history and did a lot for aboriginal rights. Mr Scott was also responsible for introducing and taking some landmark steps with respect to pay equity, freedom of information and protection of privacy, and family law reform.

The Ottawa Citizen -- although I'm not so sure the member for Carleton would agree that anything the Ottawa Citizen had to say was a compliment -- called him "the workhorse of the Ontario government."

Unbeknownst to me, Ian also had a great academic, or teaching, career. He taught in the faculty of law at the University of Toronto for more than 15 years. He even took a year's leave of absence and became a full-time faculty member of the faculty of law at Queen's University. He's been the Goodman lecturer at the faculty of law at the University of Toronto. He's been the Cunningham lecturer in business and law at Queen's University. He served as counsel to the Berger commission and to the Grange commission.

He is an elected fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, he was also very involved in community activities. He's been a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Environmental Law Foundation, and the United Way of Metropolitan Toronto. He was the founding president of the John Howard Society of Metropolitan Toronto.

Some of us will miss Mr Scott more than others. I won't miss him a bit on occasions, but we will always miss his wit.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Ian Scott has been a friend of mine for nearly 20 years. I know that my colleagues who have only met Mr Scott since we formed the government would find it hard to believe, but Ian was my teacher in law school. He was a very firm supporter of mine when I first ran for Parliament. I have the cheque stubs to prove it, and I more than occasionally threaten to remind him of that.

He comes from a very distinguished political family. I think it would be his great-great-grandfather, Richard Scott, who was one of the leaders of Confederation and was the person who moved the legislation which established public support for separate schools in the province of Ontario, Upper Canada at that time.

Ian's contribution to the province and to Canada is truly remarkable. When I was at law school, he was just going from being the counsel to the Berger commission to being counsel to the Lysyk commission. He was somebody who had an enormous feeling for the whole country. Of course, he worked very hard in a very distinguished firm, the firm of Cameron, Brewin and Scott, which at that time was a very eclectic firm; it had people from all political persuasions, and was a very lively law firm. I articled with a rival firm.

I've heard Ian Scott argue in court. I've heard him argue before the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional cases. He is a brilliant advocate, one of the great advocates in the appellate courts in the country, and would be so regarded by anyone in the profession.

As a teacher, I just mention, he was tough, he was critical, he was iconoclastic and he helped me learn something of labour law. So when we get to talking about labour law, I'll be glad to tell you some of the views of Mr Scott, which perhaps he shared with you privately, with respect to how really dramatic the legislation is that we're bringing in.

He cared deeply. Perhaps I'm projecting a bit, but in terms of when he decided to retire from politics, I think the thing he felt most strongly about was saying goodbye to his riding, which I think is, for all of us, perhaps the hardest thing to do. I know when I ceased being the member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood, I felt I was losing part of my body in not still being the member there. I think Ian's feeling for his constituency, for all of its parts, really is quite genuine and is something he was able to represent very effectively.

We got to know Ian politically, many of us, through the negotiations on the accord in 1985, where he was one of the negotiators on behalf of the Liberal Party. Those were exciting times, for some a little less exciting than for others, but for us it was exciting. I can remember that the Premier-elect or the Premier chosen, as it were, Mr Peterson -- there was a brief time there when we did get consulted regularly -- asked me directly who I thought should be the Attorney General. I told him very directly, "There's only one candidate, and that's Ian Scott." I say that without offence to any of those on the other benches who might have aspired to the position.

Ian was and is a relentless partisan. People talk about how he might have been a CCF or whatever. He is a very determined Liberal who felt very strongly about the role and obligation of the Liberal Party. I think it is fair to say he also felt very strongly about the role and obligations of a member of government and the role and obligations of a member of the opposition.

As a member of the opposition, he was tough, relentless. I would use a number of other adjectives, but I see the member from Scarborough has now taken his seat; there's an extraordinary change in the volume level from the seat which Mr Scott used to occupy.

I'm sorry he's leaving partisan politics because I think he had a feel for it and had a lot to contribute to it. I think he was, if I may say so, a bit frustrated to be out of government and felt he'd had his time as the Attorney General for five years, where the accord allowed him to do a lot of things he wanted to do and where I think he was most suited to being able to do them.

As I've said on other occasions, Mr Scott has had some very harsh things to say about me in the House. I'm sure there would perhaps be times and moments when I might have had some harsh things to say about him. Such is partisan politics and such is partisan life.

But Ian, while he was in political life, played it to the full, and I think all of us who have both worked with him and, yes, worked against him, been the object of his rapier wit as well as his abrasive incisiveness, recognize very much that he was in his good days a gentleman, but always a player, and somebody whom I think we have learned -- I certainly have learned -- to respect. I've learned a lot from Ian Scott, as a student, as a politician and as a colleague.

I just would say to honourable members that I think it's perhaps important as we enter into yet another session that we reflect on the fact that there is life beyond: before, during and after politics. The way in which Ian left office, writing me a personal, very kind note saying all sorts of things which he would never dare say publicly, and certainly never say in this House, both about me and about our government, allows me the opportunity to reflect on some of the things that are said here and how they have to be put in a certain degree of perspective.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I too will miss the honourable member for St George-St David. Your kind and thoughtful comments will be forwarded to Mr Scott.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We must now turn to the one question that could lead this session of the Legislature, because it is the one question above all others that people across this province are asking. It's the question that's based on the fact that Ontario's unemployment rate now stands at 11.3% and that 609,000 people in this province are out of work. It's the question based on the fact that as the St Catharines Standard says today, 547 people a day are losing their jobs in this province.

In light of these facts, will the Premier now acknowledge that he has no real job creation policies and that his policies in fact are putting more people out of work? Will he acknowledge that his government is offering no help and virtually no hope to the people who are out of work in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can say without hesitation that this government is doing everything it can. We are mobilizing through the Jobs Ontario fund, through the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, through the youth training funds, through the work that we're doing with the private sector. We are working very hard to deal with what is a very difficult situation. The recovery in the American economy, the European economy and the world economy has not happened to the extent and to the degree that was anticipated and hoped for. That is a reality.

The member spoke earlier about how we live in an international society. That's exactly right. When practically 35% of our GDP depends on our trade with the United States, and when we see the economic conditions that exist in the United States, it is literally impossible for this province to avoid the impact of that kind of recession around the world. We've gone through a difficult structural time. I want to say to the member that she knows that perfectly well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: She also knows that companies are in fact making decisions to invest in this province, that we are continuing to attract the massive proportion of investment in this province compared to other parts of Canada and that we are doing whatever can be done to deal with the impact of this recession in this province. She knows that perfectly well.

Mrs McLeod: I have to say, with a real degree of sadness, that it seems to me that the only jobs that have been created by the Premier's job creation programs are for the PR firms on Bloor Street. I'm asking the Premier to respond to the realities of people across this province. During the course of this summer, 33,000 more Ontarians lost their jobs. Stelco, as he well knows, has just laid off 1,000 people. Today we have learned that TRW Vehicle Safety Systems will lay off 194 people in Penetanguishene and General Motors will lay off 400 people from jobs in its Windsor plant. It is becoming a daily occurrence.

This government said in its spring budget that it would create 125,000 more jobs. Mr Premier, your predictions were wrong. Your answers don't respond to the realities of thousands of people in this province out of work. How can you possibly keep talking about the success of your job creation programs when more and more people are losing their jobs?

Hon Mr Rae: Let's look at the real world. You cited two examples. Among others, you cited GM and Stelco. If you talk to people at GM and Stelco, what do they say? They're not looking simply to an Ontario market; they're looking to a North American or world market. That's the reality.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): They're losing their jobs. They're saying: "Am I going to have work? Am I going to have a job tomorrow?"

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: There is a structural change going on that we are affected by, as are others.

You then say, "What's happening?" GM's a good example. They are in fact investing more here than they are elsewhere. Ford is investing nearly $2 billion here, in contrast to what's being done elsewhere. Chrysler production of the mini-van and of the new cars is happening right here in Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition may want to make a profession of preaching doom and gloom, but I can say to the honourable member that in a difficult time and in a difficult world, this province and certainly this government are doing whatever we can to keep people working, to put people back to work: $4 billion of capital investment being put into the economy by this province, by this government. The member knows that. Those are the facts she's not telling people, those are the facts she's not releasing in her questions and those are the facts she ought to be sharing with the people of the province of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: If this Premier were really ready to talk to and listen to business, he would hear business say to him, "We are investing in this province in spite of your government's policies." I suggest to the Premier that although he has not created any new jobs, he has certainly kept very busy looking at at least 63 new ways of taking money from Ontarians, from making farmers pay for licensing fees for their tractors to having northerners pay their motor vehicle licence fees again. It's hard to believe that this government hasn't realized that more taxes mean more lost jobs. Premier, can you simply tell us here today how 63 new taxes are going to put out-of-work Ontarians back to work?

Hon Mr Rae: Now we have the truly goofy economics coming from the side opposite. They say: "We want you to spend more money. Spend more money on job creation. Certainly do that." Then the second thing they say is, "Get your deficit down." That's the other thing they're saying. Then they say, "But whatever you do, don't raise any taxes and don't raise any revenues." That is the party that left this province with an $8.2-billion structural deficit. That's the Liberal Party. That's the price we paid for those years of Liberal misrule. You have a nerve talking to us about fiscal responsibility.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: When you have no defence, you try to mount a phoney attack. It has absolutely no ring of truth and the Premier himself can't keep a straight face when he uses the line. That's an issue we will continue to return to on virtually a daily basis during the course of this Legislature until we start to see people in this province getting back to work.

LANDFILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Today it's important for me to turn to another issue which is of tremendous concern to a group of people I spoke to outside the Legislature over the noonhour. These are the people who are very concerned about the minister for garbage's handling of the landfill site issue.

I ask the Premier to address this question because, with all the concerns these people have been trying to make the government hear, we now hear that the Interim Waste Authority has announced that the short list of the potential landfill sites is going to be delayed until the end of November. It's important the Premier understand that at the same time that announcement was being made the minister was publicly stating that the short list would be released at the end of September. Premier, who is in charge here? What do you say to all those people who now have to put their lives on hold for another two months while they wait for some kind of decision?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm happy to answer the question and to inform the Leader of the Opposition that this government is in charge of a waste management plan for the entire province that has an emphasis on waste reduction -- this happens to be Waste Reduction Week; let me draw it to everyone's attention -- a plan for waste reduction and waste management that is working across this province.

With respect to the decision of the Interim Waste Authority to delay the announcement of the short list of sites for the greater Toronto area, I have to say to that member that as I'm sure she's aware, the response to the first list, the long list, that was put out was enormous. There was a great deal of concern and very genuine and sincere worry on the part of the people whose property was identified by the Interim Waste Authority as a potential landfill site or who lived in the vicinity of that property.

When I met with those groups, they asked for more time and they also asked for a very careful evaluation of their comments. That evaluation of their comments is taking longer than I had hoped and longer than the Interim Waste Authority had anticipated, but I agree with its decision that it's important that what people have said be taken into account. It's critically important that the job be done fairly and correctly.

Mrs McLeod: If this minister was in fact in charge, if anybody is in charge in this absolutely atrocious situation, she would surely be ready to acknowledge that the release of the short list was delayed because the criteria that were used in the selection process were not evenly applied to each site. Minister, will you acknowledge that the site selection process has been badly botched, that you now have to repeat a sizeable piece of work at an additional cost of some $7 million, all for a policy that didn't make any sense to begin with?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly am not prepared to confirm that. The Interim Waste Authority's criteria have been well debated, challenged and discussed, and that is what the environmental assessment process requires. I remind the member that our government is putting new landfill sites under the Environmental Assessment Act. The previous government was opening new sites without an environmental assessment. It perhaps takes longer, but it does mean that when the final decision is argued before the Environmental Assessment Board, a fair and open hearing, all of those issues will be canvassed and a fair environmental decision will be made.

Mrs McLeod: This minister has consistently tried to distance herself from a mess she herself has created. Let me assure this minister that the people who are outside the Legislature today are here to protest the way in which you personally have handled the landfill site issue. You cannot distance yourself from the incompetent way in which the Interim Waste Authority, which you yourself set up and which you appointed three assistant deputy ministers to be part of, has handled the issue.

Minister, I ask you very directly, how can you explain to these people why your Interim Waste Authority took aerial photographs of farm land in the winter and then told farmers this was not productive farm land and could be used for dump sites? And can you further explain, Minister, why you would even be considering sites that have already been ruled out as environmentally inappropriate?

Hon Mrs Grier: For a member of the previous government to say that the problem with waste in the greater Toronto area began with this government is completely insupportable.

The history of decisions with respect to waste, not just in the greater Toronto area but across the province, beginning with the government of the party that is now in third place in this House, continued by the party opposite, is a legacy of political interference short --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to address briefly the issue of the use of agricultural land, which I know is the issue that the people who were here today are very concerned about, as indeed are people throughout the province. I want to say I'm very proud of the record of this government in dealing in a holistic way with the issue of how to protect agricultural land. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food has done more than any of his predecessors to do that.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs is dealing with the issue of how to stop the sprawl over agricultural land and with the question of the weight to be established for agricultural land, protected environmentally sensitive lands, access to transportation, proximity to development. All of these issues will be weighed, will be argued, will be evaluated for a very fair and open hearing on this particular issue at the end of the day.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier on his job-killing labour legislation. Premier, let's face it: Regardless of the posturing by the Minister of Labour, you know you have no intention of making any significant changes to Bill 40. Your public hearings, in fact, have been a sham. Even your own NDP committee chairman admits there will not be substantial changes. That is what he publicly told the groups appearing before it this summer.

Everyone who is in a position to create jobs in this province is telling you that this legislation will kill jobs and will kill investment.

Premier, you've had the summer to do your homework. I would ask you if you have finally done an impact study. If so, will you share it with this House today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I just want to say that the whole assumption in the member's question -- his description of the legislation, first of all, even his description of the process in which we as a government have consistently shown, through the consultation process, a willingness to listen, a willingness to change the legislation from what was originally put forward in discussion papers to what was then put out by the government in the next discussion paper, and today the minister is announcing in the committee a number of changes which we are in fact going to be making to the legislation, which relate to concerns that have been raised both by business and labour, as well as a number of technical amendments.

So it's very hard to credit the kind of questions which are being put forward by the honourable member when they're based on such really very faulty assumptions.

If he's referring to the studies that have been cited in the various advertisements that have been out, the so-called 295,000 figure which has been thrown about by various corporate lobbyists out there, I want the member to know that's based on a survey done prior to the introduction of the legislation in which questions were asked about proposals which were never in the law put forward by this government. That is what we are having to deal with in terms of the kind of misinformation about this law that's being spread about by the friends of the member from North Bay.

Mr Harris: Because it was paid for by a previous government, that means you should cover it up and not release it; is that what you're trying to tell us? Premier, by your own admission, I say to you, you should be ashamed of yourself to come back to this Legislature today without an impact study of your own. You do impact studies on everything from bicycle trails to wildlife to ants to a fish in Lake Nipissing, and you will not do an impact study on the most important issue facing Ontarians today.

Premier, I have 1,300 letters here addressed to you, individual letters. A page is right here. I'm going to ask if he will take those over. Tell your Mom you'll be on TV tonight, Josh. Some 1,300 letters. One of the letters I have right here says:

"Dear Mr Rae:

"Enjoy your last two years in office. Please don't tighten the noose much more, or there will be no companies to pay the unions and there will be no taxes to pay you."

Premier, will you listen to what Ontarians are telling you? Will you scrap this plan before we lose any more investment and jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I am of course saddened but I'm not surprised that the leader of the third party would be voicing the rhetoric of pessimism and fear, which I think, frankly --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Having spent some time in opposition, I can tell the honourable member that if there's one sure way to continue to be seen as a source of negativity, of pessimism, of simply criticism and not of any constructive advice, it's to persist in the way in which the member is going.

We are listening to people, we are reforming, we are adding to the legislation, we're making it better all the time. I don't happen to think legislation that permits people to organize and permits people to express themselves in the workplace is something that any employer or any business should fear or should worry about or should see as a threat. It's not any of those things; it's a positive, effective way to encourage more participation, more democracy, a better deal for women, a better deal for minorities, a better deal for people who've been left outside of our economy for far too long. That's what this legislation represents.

Mr Harris: The majority of those 1,300 letters come from Ontarians who either do not have a job or who are concerned about losing their jobs.

Premier, the fact of the matter is that the wealth creators, the investors, those who can create a job -- their opinions are what is important. You and Bob White are not investing five cents of your own money to create a job. What you think does not influence who will invest the money and who will create jobs in this province, and you'd better soon understand that.

You won't listen to those who came to the public hearings. You won't listen to the wealth creators. You won't listen to the investors. You won't listen to business people. Maybe you'll listen to a leading business publication outside of Canada. Forbes magazine has just told the world that Ontario is not a good place to invest. I didn't tell them; Forbes magazine is telling them. They're saying in a recent

article that it's "A Lose-Lose Situation." Forbes magazine, to be circulated worldwide this week and next week, is saying: "The economy in Canada's most industrialized province is in bad shape. A new labour law promises to make things worse." Premier, in this

article they're saying it is not a good idea to do business with this province because of your disastrous policies and the labour legislation. This is a magazine that goes to all the wealth creators and potential investors around the world.

We are at a crisis point. Premier, I ask you this: What more will it take for you to listen and realize that you are killing jobs and killing investment every day you persist with this disastrous policy in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm afraid I don't agree with the honourable member. He asks, "What are you doing for the wealth creators?" In my view, everyone who works for a living in this province is a wealth creator. That may well be where the member and I have a difference. I say it's the obligation of government to listen to everyone, not just to those who have the money to put the ads in the newspapers, not just to the people who have the money to put the ads on the billboards. Our obligation is to listen to all the people and our obligation is to provide a degree of balance in the workplace. George Drew understood that.

Leslie Frost understood that. John Robarts understood that and Bill Davis understood that. You've taken the Tory party in this province so far to the right that it doesn't even know which way to turn and so far away from the sense of creating a balance in this province. There's no threat to jobs in this legislation; everybody knows it.

Mr Harris: Premier, I want to say to you, as a preface to my second question, that you are no George Drew, you are no Leslie Frost, you are no John Robarts and you are no Bill Davis. You are destroying this province. They built this province. Those were builders. Those were premiers who brought people together.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his second question.

Mr Harris: You are a destroyer, a job destroyer and a wealth destroyer and you are destroying this --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party place his second question, please.

Mr Harris: The Premier says he has an obligation to listen to all the people. Premier, I've been travelling around this province for the last two months; I've been listening to the people. I can tell you this: The people's agenda in this province is jobs, yet your priorities have nothing to do with jobs for the people and have everything to do with giving greater powers to the unions and to the NDP. Premier, you campaigned on the Agenda for People and I've been out there listening to them and their agenda is jobs. Can you explain to me why this agenda for the people over two years has shifted to an agenda for the unions and an agenda for the NDP?

Hon Mr Rae: I have been reliably informed by the various ministries that in the last year and a half more than 100 companies have announced more than $5 billion of new investment in Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: They don't like the good news. They don't want to hear it.

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

Interjections.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, are you tired of sitting?

The Speaker: I need the exercise. Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: The other aspect of our agenda that again I think we want to stress is that this year, in the face of a very difficult fiscal climate, which we're all aware of, this government has increased its funds for training by some 24%. We're now spending nearly $1 billion as a government on training. We're spending more on training and opportunity for workers, for working people, than any government in the history of the province.

This is the contribution. This is what we are trying to do. We're trying to direct investment into the future. We're trying to direct investment by getting people to get together. We've had labour, management, business people, government people, university people working creatively together on the Premier's councils. We have them working creatively together sector by sector, example by example.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Do you get it? There's food banks in universities, Bob. It's not good out there.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the member, the kind of exaggerated rhetoric he is allowing himself to participate in today doesn't add to the credibility of the discussion at all, not at all.

Mr Harris: I want to get back to An Agenda for People. Surely the Premier would agree with me, if he has done any travelling this summer, or if his cabinet has or his caucus colleagues have gone to their ridings, that the agenda the people are asking for is an agenda for jobs.

Your labour bill gives greater powers to the unions. You talked about training. Your whole training initiative is to give more power to the unions to decide where the training dollars will be spent. You're planning to force farmers to join a union. You gave the NDP greater control at Ontario Hydro. You want to expand the public service union. You placed your NDP friend David Agnew in charge of the civil service. Not one of these creates a single job. It has to do with the NDP agenda, and, Premier, I suggest to you in the strongest terms that is not an agenda for the people. They are concerned about their jobs.

I suggest to you as well, Premier, that you should have come into this House today with an economic plan to get Ontario back to work. That's what Ontarians told me they wanted me to come and fight for. That's the agenda they are asking for.

Premier, if you don't have a plan, I suggest you should move aside so that we can get somebody in charge in this province who will bring forward an agenda for people, an agenda for jobs, a plan to get Ontario back to work. Do you have a plan, and if so, why aren't we seeing it today?

Hon Mr Rae: When I move aside, the Deputy Premier will be taking over on the days I'm not here.

Again, you look at what this government has done in terms of its budget. You look at the proposals that are contained there on training. You look at the proposals that are contained there with respect to the future. You look at the proposals that are contained in the studies that are presented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to industrial policy.

We have been more successful in the last year in bringing people together from all walks of life on the Premier's Council, in recognizing the need for all of us to invest in the future. That's exactly what we're doing. Those are the plans that are under way and those are the things that we're trying to do.

I say again to the honourable member, I don't think anything is gained by running the province down and by running our current situation down the way you are doing, the way you have consistently done in the House today. I don't think that contributes one iota to the creation of a single job in Ontario.

Mr Harris: Let's be very clear. I would never run Ontario down. I would never run her people down, past, present or future, which I think is brighter than many people give us credit for.

Run you down? You betcha that's what I'm doing. Run your policies down? You betcha that's what I'm doing, because you have presided over this province during a time when we have seen more job losses, more people on welfare, more food banks, more need for food banks, 500 full-time jobs disappearing every working day -- today we heard over 500: 200 in Penetanguishene, 400 in Windsor -- nearly 300,000 more people without work today than when you took over two years ago, over 60% more people receiving welfare than when you took over, yet you come back here today with no plan to get Ontario back to work.

The only plan you have, the only agenda, is a self-serving plan to increase unionization, to increase the NDP coffers, to increase the control of the NDP and the unions in how affairs are going to be run in this province, and every day you've done that so far, we've lost 500 jobs on average. Every day.

Premier, don't you understand that the first priority for the people, their agenda, the agenda for the people that they are asking for, is jobs? They can debate later whether it's a union job or not --

The Speaker: Could the leader complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: They want a job so they can argue about it. It's jobs. When are you going to give them an agenda for the people instead of an agenda for the NDP?

Hon Mr Rae: Where the member and I differ is that I think that's exactly what we're trying to do.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, you will be aware that during our hearings on Bill 40, a great many individuals, groups and associations came before the committee with some serious and significant concerns with how the bill will affect the way in which they are able to carry out their responsibilities in this province.

Over and over we heard that workers should have the right, the freedom, to choose whether they want or do not want to be part of a union, that they should be able to do this free of coercion, free of intimidation, and that the way in which this can be accomplished is through a secret ballot vote with full protections in the Labour Relations Act.

My question to you, Mr Minister, is whether you will be bringing forward amendments on Bill 40 which will incorporate those concerns and which will give to the workers of this province the right and freedom to choose in a secret ballot whether they do or do not want to be part of a union.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm surprised that the member doesn't realize that for some 30 or 40 years now we've had a system that gives workers the right to apply for a decertification or to object to a certification -- that is not being changed other than the change in the petition procedure time -- and that we are bringing in amendments to the bill. They'll be in the House and committee this afternoon and the member will see what the amendments are at that point in time.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Offer: I am not satisfied with the response by the Minister of Labour, because that minister did not spend one minute in the committee over the hearings to listen to the people and the concerns that were brought forward.

So my question to you by way of supplementary, Mr Minister: Would you please tell the members of this Legislature and those watching the proceedings why you are against giving workers in this province the right to choose whether they wish or do not wish to be part of a union, free from intimidation, free from coercion? Please tell us why you are opposed to giving to the workers of this province the very basic democratic right that all take as a given.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member should know that I'm not opposed to it. I think they already have the right to decide if they don't want a union, and you have a process that you have to go through and a certification process that you have to go through. That's still there, and I can't understand why the member is raising an issue that's probably one of the lower priority issues raised before the committee.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Markham.

Mr Harris: Freedom and democracy.

The Speaker: Order.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY SPENDING

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Ontario is in a recession and the Treasurer has told all government ministries to cut costs, yet the Interim Waste Authority has been spending indiscriminately, all in the name of getting selected communities to like the idea of having a megadump. I'll tell you, people don't like a megadump and they don't like the megadump process. We like it even less when the Interim Waste Authority wastes our money.

The Interim Waste Authority spent $100,000 on a TV broadcast that was never aired. The Interim Waste Authority spent money on printing a short list that was never released. They allocated $750,000 on participatory funding, which is nothing short of blood money. They have spent millions of dollars on consultants who cannot get it together. For what? Bad service, delays and no answers. How can you defend such shameless spending?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): By responding to the question, let me categorically state that the

preamble to it is grossly inaccurate in many ways, but there is no doubt that finding a landfill, finding a disposal site, is expensive. It's expensive if it is to be done in a way that involves the people affected as much as possible, which is why we were prepared to offer participant funding, something that is not normally done and that is different from intervenor funding, which comes legally at the time of a hearing, which is why we believe that it is important that there be offices located in the communities.

As the member has known, the citizens have taken full advantage of the information that has been made available and participated in it. It is not a cheap process, but it is very important that it be a fair and an open process and a process that leads to a good environmental decision at the end of the day.

Mr Cousens: Garbage is all your response is and you are truly the minister of garbage. Today is Zero Garbage Day and you, Madam Minister, are in violation of it.

Time and again I have asked for a cost analysis on the dump selection process and so far you have not provided the cost to property owners, the cost to farmers, the cost to communities, the cost to construct the sites, the cost of expropriation and the cost behind the delay. I ask again, how much more money are you going to sink into this sham, the IWA, and how much is this delay going to cost?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can't respond to how much the delay in the release of the short list is going to add to the cost, but I can certainly confirm, as the member has been told on many, many occasions from the committee hearings into Bill 143 to debates ever since, that the estimated budget for the Interim Waste Authority for 1992-93 is $17 million. That is a great deal of money, but it is also the kind of money that is required to do a full environmental assessment throughout the GTA. But I do want to respond to his accusation --

Mr Cousens: It's not a full environmental assessment. Come on. You know it's not a full EA. You know it's not true.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: It is not.

The Speaker: The member for Markham, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: This week is Waste Reduction Week and I want to say to the member --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to add to the point of costs that of course the cost of construction and preparation and going through the process will be recovered by the tipping fees. The member knows from the figures he is well familiar with that there is a lot of money to be made from garbage and that in the case of the site search by the Interim Waste Authority, that money, that revenue from tipping fees, will not only cover the cost of the site and the construction of the site, but also pay for very aggressive 3Rs activities within the GTA.

When he says that in Waste Reduction Week we are not dealing with the 3Rs, he does his citizens of the GTA and the municipalities of the GTA a real disservice because the progress that has been made and the targets that are being achieved throughout the greater Toronto area are something to be proud of in Waste Reduction Week, not to criticize.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): A lot of members here didn't realize that Monday, though we were scheduled to sit, there was a rally out front. Similar to the rally we had out front today, there was a rally Monday. Constituents from Georgina were here and while they were out front they gave me a petition that I'll present at the appropriate time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr O'Connor: When they were out there, one of the organizers, the president of GAG, as it's called, Georgina Against Garbage, asked a question about our consumptive lifestyle and when we are going to do something.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham-York will have the opportunity to place a question, and I would ask that he first identify the minister to whom he is addressing his question.

Mr O'Connor: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I was presented with this petition on Monday at the rally, the demonstration that took place out front. They talked about waste reduction, they were very concerned about it, and when they came down they brought excessive packaging. In the address by the president of GAG, as it's called, Georgina Against Garbage, he talked about the consumptive lifestyle and that the bottom line of we do has got to be waste reduction. Minister, this is Waste Reduction Week, and I hope you can answer this plea from my constituents.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm glad to answer the question and to deal, as I had in my previous answer, with the fact that this is Waste Reduction Week, and to say that I very much appreciate the emphasis that those people, who are very concerned about the search for a waste disposal site, are putting on what is the most important component of our waste management program, which is waste reduction.

I'm delighted to be able to tell the member that he can tell his constituents that the government of Ontario has a waste reduction plan. It's a plan that's fair, that's environmental, and that's showing results.

In 1992, more than 75% of the households in this province are participating in the blue box program, 55 municipalities across the province are now composting leaf and yard wastes, and almost 500,000 homes have backyard composters, 50% of old newspaper is being recycled, and 40% of the scrap tires that are disposed of are being recycled. Those are very real results from our waste reduction programs.

Mr O'Connor: That sounds really great, but it seems the onus is always on the consumer, or rather the conserver. In fact, the group is so responsible that when it left it gave me the fine paper off the side of the trucks because it doesn't have the capability of recycling it up in its municipality, so I'm going to recycle that here.

But what they really want to know, Minister, because they brought a lot of excessive packaging down with them, is when you are going to act on the initiative that the people who produce this excessive packaging -- when are you going to get them to show that they've got a role in this as far as product stewardship goes?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member and his constituents are perfectly correct: The responsibility and the activity with respect to waste reduction has primarily, up until now, been the responsibility of individuals and of home owners. I'm glad to be able to tell him that as a result of the Waste Management Act, the regulations are well along in being prepared, and the consultation is completed with respect to regulations that will require industries, commercial institutions and institutions of all kinds to make their contribution to waste reduction.

We're seeing, for example, from the oil companies the kind of partnership agreements, such as the one I announced last week, whereby the purveyors of motor oil are now going to be taking back that oil for recycling; a very real willingness on the part of industry to do its part and to make sure that not only do we reduce the amount of waste we create, but we certainly reduce the amount of waste that's going for disposal.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development today. As my leader earlier pointed out in the first round of questioning to the Premier, we all are aware that the Ontario economy is in very sad shape; in fact, the consequences are very tragic for the workers of Ontario.

Every time this government is criticized for its lack of economic leadership, training is put forward as one of the remedies required to rebuild the economy. I agree with that. Training is very important.

When asked what it is going to do about retraining the workers of Ontario, the government touts the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board as the remedy, as the solution for this training problem in Ontario. But it has been nearly one year since this minister announced the beginning of OTAB, and we still don't have OTAB established, let alone up and running, helping the workers of Ontario. Minister, when will you start getting on with the job of retraining the workers of Ontario?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): There are some fairly straightforward answers to that question. Just very recently a $34-million training agreement with the Ford Motor Co was put in place which levered a several-billion-dollar investment in that industry. With regard to a range of other programs we have in place, we've been working with laid-off apprentices, a $6-million program. We've got trades updating, free programs going on all across the province to upgrade the skills of technologists and people training technologists.

With regard to the OTAB question, members opposite seem to think this is a kind of mechanical operation, where somehow you wave a wand and one day you have it suddenly in existence. This is a very interesting process which, through the course of these last eight months, has seen the following happen: For the first time, a province-wide business trainers reference group has been established to tackle the agenda from the business point of view; labour likewise; trainer education community likewise; visible minorities likewise; disabled community likewise; women likewise.

The whole network is now at a very interesting stage of development, where the nominations are coming to me for an interim governing structure. We'll be into the legislation this fall, and we'll be getting on with the formal structure of OTAB. But in the meantime, this government has not in any respect relaxed its efforts to promote the training of its citizens and its workers all across Ontario.

Mr Ramsay: As the minister is well aware, there are 609,000 Ontarians who are out of work today in Ontario. You know, if you're not on social assistance, you don't qualify for Jobs Ontario Training fund, and that's a real problem with this government right now because there are a lot of people out there who aren't yet, fortunately, on social assistance who don't qualify for these training programs. Every three days we have a plant layoff here, and unfortunately 400 more people laid off today in Windsor. That's a shame.

When is the minister going to admit that OTAB is not working, that the plan you had to establish this partnership is not working because you're not getting the nominations for the establishment of that board of directors of OTAB because the goals aren't clear to the partners you've brought on side? When are you going to start to rethink this whole process and get down to work and get training available for the workers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Allen: I like the way the member wiped out all the social assistance recipients, as though we didn't have to worry about putting them to work. I like that.

The Jobs Ontario Training fund is working in every community across this province through community brokers, who are now linking existing jobs and existing employments with social assistance recipients and giving them jobs. In Guelph, for example, 231 jobs in one plant alone: people who weren't working are working now with the Linamar industry there.

Again, I repeat: There's nothing broken about the OTAB process. There's a very good discussion happening.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Allen: There are two or three disagreements, and they're being worked on. That's understandable. People who have never worked before on the training agenda will have some disagreement about how to get it in place. But the whole process is very much in sequence. It's very much on target. The legislation is coming. We're discussing it this very week with the stakeholders I just mentioned in the previous part of my answer to the member's question.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The people of Ontario were completely shocked this morning to learn of the resignation of Mr Holt, or the leaving of Mr Holt, as president of Ontario Hydro.

The people of Ontario, and especially the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, are looking for some direction, some certainty of supply and certainty of cost, but here we've gone through three ministers of Energy, we're looking at the third chairman of the utility, and now the president of this large corporation is leaving.

I have here a letter of six pages to the Premier explaining to the premier that Mr Al Holt was the most qualified of all the applicants inside and outside of Ontario Hydro.

My question to the minister is, did your ministry give any direction? Did you have any input to the board regarding Mr Holt leaving the corporation at this time?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The answer to the question is, very simply, no.

Mr Jordan: I wonder if the minister is aware that Mr Holt is leaving. The first thing this minister has to understand is that he supported Bill 118 and that he has to accept the accountability and the responsibility that goes with that bill, including issuing directives to Ontario Hydro.

Why else would Mr Holt, a 36-year veteran of Hydro, suddenly decide to leave? On September 18, Mr Holt spoke to the 25-year club of Ontario Hydro and explained to them the changes that he had in mind to make it a more businesslike corporation. He said, at that time, that he would be back next year to tell us, hopefully, about a better picture for Ontario Hydro.

Again I ask the minister to tell this House what communication he had with the board of directors and why the board of directors has changed so much since a year ago, when it sent this letter to the Premier.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member refers to directive power and he refers to Bill 118 and the amendments, to the process that started last year and the bill we passed earlier this year in June.

He should know, because he was part of the process of seeing that legislation through this House and through committee, that the directive power that's set out in that legislation is a directive power that requires the government to act through OIC, order in council.

Section 6 of the Power Corporation Act, which Bill 118 amended, very clearly sets out the responsibility of the Ontario Hydro board to deal with the question of the president of Ontario Hydro. The decisions that are being made now are decisions that are decisions vested in the board of Ontario Hydro. This minister and this government have not directed any of those actions.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order. The member for Durham East with a new question.

STUDENT BUSING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Education. In my riding of Durham East, I have a very fine school, Durham Knox Christian School. Those folks who send their children to that school pay the full shot, sometimes as much as $10,000 a year. They also pay the full taxes on their tax bills to support the public school system. In addition to that, they pay about $80,000 a year to transport their children to their school along the very same route that the public school buses go, and those buses are half empty all the time.

My question is, is there any way we can influence the local boards of education whereby they can relieve the financial burden on my constituents in so far as school transport is concerned and let them hop on the bus and get off of the bus while they're en route to the public school?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The solution that's being suggested perhaps sounds simple at first blush, but I think the underlying point we need to remember is that of course the school the member mentioned is a private school and that any form of assistance with respect to busing of students to private schools would be a form of public funding for private schools. That is something we as a government do not support. Obviously, we believe it's important for us to continue to provide funding for public schools.

Parents have the choice in whether they send their children to publicly funded schools or private schools, but once they make the decision to send their children to private schools, then they are responsible for all of the funding that's associated with that decision.

Mr Mills: I appreciate that answer, Mr Minister. What I suppose I'm going to ask is, do you see in the future any possibility that we can look into it or offer any changes to the act? Is there anything on the horizon that these people can put out their hand and hope for?

Hon Mr Silipo: If there is anything on the horizon, I'm certainly not aware of it. I think I would just say no, that there is no intent on our part to change our policy, which has been there for years and which we certainly continue to believe is appropriate.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, you will be aware that today there was a large demonstration outside this building by a whole group of citizens, many of whom are farmers in the regions of Durham, York and Peel. You will also be aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has come out in support of those groups fighting against the imposition of an unnecessary megadump in York region. Indeed, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Roger George, spoke today in support.

Minister, would you please tell the House, Mr George and the residents of York, Durham and Peel what specifically you're doing to ensure that not one acre of good farm land is turned over to a megadump?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Certainly, I'm aware of the concern of the farmers in the three regions the member has mentioned. Over the last summer we have conducted a review of how we might protect farm land. As I've answered the question previously in this House, currently we have the Food Land Guidelines, which in fact are just that: guidelines. They very often end up being challenged on one side or the other at Ontario Municipal Board hearings.

The prospect of having a megadump in one's backyard or at a neighbouring farm is obviously something that concerns farmers in all parts of the regions that have been named. What I have personally been doing is making the case that farm land is a valuable resource in this province. The Interim Waste Authority has a process in place where it is going to identify sites. It's unfortunate, I believe, that it's taking some time to come to the short list.

It's causing a lot of aggravation for farmers and other people in those regions, but I am assured by the Minister of the Environment that there will be hearings and that every effort will be made to make sure that those farm lands that are viable and very productive can be protected in the future.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

(1) Mr Christopherson be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn, and

(2) Mr Scott be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and all members of the Liberal Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

"To oppose the building of a secondary high school in the Kenora school district."

That's signed by approximately 700 people in the Kenora riding.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is one of a group of thousands that I'll be tabling over the next several days from the people of Georgina, and on their behalf I present this petition from the People of Georgina against Garbage and representing many of the people in York region. For your information, Mr Speaker, I have affixed my name to this petition and agree with it wholeheartedly.

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We absolutely reject the notion of the establishment of a garbage dump for Metropolitan Toronto's waste in Georgina and York region.

"We, the residents of Georgina and York region, request that our elected representatives and our provincial Minister of the Environment:

"

(1) Repeal Bill 143 in its entirety;

"

(2) Consider all alternatives to site selection in York region;

"

(3) Directly consult with all of the residents of Georgina and York region with regard to their wishes, possibly by referendum; and

"

(4) Immediately cease the process of site selection in York region for a garbage dump."

I present this and trust the government will take it under serious consideration, which it hasn't till now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I trust the honourable member has signed the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament:

"Amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act promise wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter" -- that's 51 per year -- "from the definition of a legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have the signature of 200 families on this petition and I affix my signature to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I affix my name to this particular petition in agreement with it.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I hav