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

June 17, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1990-91. The members will find a copy placed in their desks in the chamber.

REPORT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSION

The Speaker: I also beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the second annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1991.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mrs McLeod: In January 1991, the Minister of Community and Social Services accepted a report of a review of safeguards in children's residential programs undertaken by Joanne Campbell. The report recommended actions to enhance the wellbeing of young people in residential facilities licensed by her ministry and the Ministry of Correctional Services. This report was commissioned by the Liberal government as a partial response to allegations of abuse made by former residents of St Joseph's and St John's training schools.

This weekend, new allegations were made by former residents of Grandview Training School for Girls in Cambridge. Women now in their mid-30s say that as residents of Grandview in the mid-1970s they were victims of physical and sexual abuse and assault by guards at the facility.

We are all concerned to determine the best way to prevent incidents such as this from occurring, but there are clearly some steps that this government must immediately take to improve the safety and security of young people in residential facilities. Joanne Campbell has provided us with a blueprint; it is now the responsibility of this government to implement her recommendations.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, in her response to the Campbell report, had one major omission: It failed to address the split jurisdiction over young offenders between the ministries of Community and Social Services and Correctional Services. Recommendation 29 of the Campbell report, that the split jurisdiction be reviewed with a view to consolidating responsibility under one ministry, should be acted on immediately.

CANADIAN LIVER FOUNDATION

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to advise members that I have three visitors today in the gallery. I would like the members of the House to welcome Rachel Whittaker, Alexandra Eadie and Michael Riewald, who were good enough to pay the Canadian Liver Foundation for my services as luncheon host and tour guide.

On 21 May the foundation had an auction to raise money for research and education into all diseases of the liver. I was proud to participate as this organization means a great deal to the two million, or 1 in 12 Canadians, who suffer from some sort of liver or liver-related disease. The foundation, which was established in 1969, donates grants for research, training and scholarship. As well it has set up education programs to inform the public and to encourage prevention of liver diseases.

It holds workshops to bring together experts to promote the development of higher levels of applied research and patient care. It also helps fund the liver pathology research centre, located at the Toronto General Hospital, which assists with the diagnosis of liver biopsies and the study of liver pathology.

I was honoured to be asked to assist this worthy cause. I have thoroughly enjoyed myself while helping those in need and I would encourage other members to do the same.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Ferguson: I want to applaud the Premier's decision to keep the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development in the Ontario cabinet. Accepting their resignations will not serve any useful purpose.

The two ministers admit they broke the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines, but that is not the only issue here. Violence against women and children is everywhere. For years victims have gone unheard. People suffered silently and the abuse continued. For years activists like the minister responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development have fought to give these people a voice and today they are speaking out against this injustice.

Clearly errors of judgement were made by the ministers but they acted from a deeply-felt concern for the welfare of women and children. They did not act for personal gain or profit and they were willing to resign for their actions. Their errors did not warrant the loss of job. The Premier's decision is the right decision.

In opposition this party fought for pay equity, more women's shelters and better programs to combat sexual assault. As a government, these two individuals have defended women's interests and are giving real substance to these goals. The record number of women in our cabinet also demonstrates the commitment of the NDP to equality for women in Ontario. Ontario cannot afford to lose the dedication or the energy or the compassion of the minister responsible for women's issues or the Minister of Northern Development.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Offer: I would like to comment on the continuing failure of the NDP government to tackle the issue of job loss in Ontario. On Friday, Stillmeadow Farms chicken processing plants closed in Elora, throwing another 150 people out of work and into this recession.

The latest Statistics Canada report indicates that while Canada is starting to pull out of the recession, Ontario is being left behind. Across Canada there were 31,000 fewer jobless in May while in Ontario there were 12,000 more in the first month after the NDP budget. The NDP attempt to spend its way out of the recession with a $10-billion deficit has backfired and in fact Ontario is spending its way back into a recession.

What is the Premier's answer to the loss of jobs that is devastating the province? More punitive ill-conceived policies and an attitude which best displayed itself in an interview with Emilia Casella of the Hamilton Spectator. The Premier was asked, "Are you optimistic you can bring some of those jobs back?" The Premier replied, "The question there really is, what more can we do to give a sense of pride and a sense of patriotism to industry?"

Jobs are leaving the province because of the NDP policies of heavy debt, heavy taxes and heavy-handedness. But the Premier seems to think it is because industry is not patriotic enough. How many jobs does the Premier plan on creating with this new sense of pride and patriotism? Or is the question, how many more jobs can the province afford to lose as a result of the Premier's policies?

MISS VICKIE'S POTATO CHIPS

Mr J. Wilson: I rise to inform the House of yet more steps the NDP government is taking to drive jobs out of the province. Last week, this government refused Miss Vickie's potato chips the right to buy Ontario potatoes. Miss Vickie's is a popular Ontario company that has become so successful that it has plants in Quebec and British Columbia. In my riding of Simcoe West, Miss Vickie's employs some 100 people and uses over six million pounds of potatoes annually.

The NDP government now says that Miss Vickie's will no longer buy Ontario potatoes but must import from Florida and the Carolinas. Ironically, Vickie's plant in Quebec can purchase all the Ontario potatoes it wants, but here in NDP Ontario Vickie Kerr is breaking the law if she buys potatoes grown by her own husband.

Bureaucracy and red tape have reached unbelievable levels here in Ontario. The previous government and now the NDP have created rules that can only be met by multinational processors. Smaller processors such as Miss Vickie's and Randy Guzar in Hamilton are being forced out of business by this government's policies.

As a resident of Ontario, Vickie Kerr wants to buy Ontario potatoes whenever possible. An inflexible government bureaucracy will not let her. One hundred jobs and a successful business in Simcoe county are at stake. It is time for the government to take some overdue steps to allow Miss Vickie's to buy Ontario.

PELHAM HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Mr Hansen: I would like to inform the House that the Pelham Historical Society Resource Centre in Lincoln riding, located at 495 Canboro Road in Fenwick, is open to the public this summer, weekdays from 1 to 4 pm.

Members of the public are encouraged to take advantage of this valuable source of local history. Materials include municipal records, maps, photographs and artefacts. Many people enjoy using the fairly extensive geographical file in order to trace the history of their ancestors in Pelham. The society also invites the public to come in and see its exhibit of a working telephone switchboard from 1900.

The society has acquired letters written by Henry Giles who came to Fonthill in 1840. One letter even suggests that it was Giles himself who proposed the name Fonthill. Thanks to the generous donation of Leo Giles, these letters will be published by the society and visitors to the resource centre will be able to get an accurate account of what it would be like to live in Pelham in the early 1900s.

In addition to the resource centre, I would suggest that visitors take the opportunity to visit our local wineries which are second to none in the world. There are many attractions in the area, including the Jordan Historical Museum, which offers the opportunity to step back into the past and experience a bit of history. The many attractions, coupled with the natural beauty of the Niagara Escarpment, provide for a wonderful experience in our area of Lincoln.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr H. O'Neil: The warm weather is now upon us as we enter the beginning of Ontario's busiest tourist season. This should be a prosperous time for our tourist operators who look forward to receiving visitors from all over the world who come to see what Ontario has to offer in the way of its vast park system, clean lakes and rivers and our cosmopolitan cities and small towns.

Tourist operators in Ontario, however, are suffering from a government that seems determined to put them out of business. This year's NDP budget only brought tax hikes on alcohol, gasoline, cigarettes and small businesses. These tax hikes only serve to reduce the competitiveness of our tourist operators. The budget did not address the concerns of our border communities whose hotels, restaurants and retailers are losing business at an unprecedented rate to the United States.

The new Sunday shopping legislation has also added another level of bureaucracy and cumbersome criteria that tourist operators have to meet in order to be able to open on Sundays. Last week, during the budget hearings that we held around the province, I was told by one of the large tourist operators that his business from the United States has dropped from approximately 47% down to 3%.

There is still time for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to get after the Premier and the Treasurer and to jump-start that tourism business and bring some of these people in from the United States to a business that needs help.

SEXUAL ABUSE

Mr Eves: A number of weeks ago I made a statement in the Legislature commending the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for unanimously endorsing the recommendations of the task force report which proclaimed an absolute intolerance for sexual abuse of patients by doctors.

Most important was the recommendation that stated the college adopt the philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse by doctors and then change many college procedures and policies to be more effective and sensitive to such abuse. I have also previously stated that the recommendation that changes in the legal and legislative systems to correct the bias against sexual abuse victims be adopted.

This afternoon I will be introducing a private member's bill that will address this very issue. As the college recommended in its report, I am today introducing amendments to the Health Disciplines Act to provide that where a member is guilty of professional misconduct constituting sexual abuse, the act be changed to empower the discipline committee to (

a) revoke the licence of the member and withdraw any recognition of specialist status; (

b) prohibit reapplication for a licence, and (

c) impose a fine.

I think it is about time we moved in this very important area.

MARION MCGEE

Mr Fletcher: Today I would like to recognize Marion McGee, one of my Guelph constituents. Marion has won the International Single Parent of the Year award. This award is given by the organization Parents Without Partners. It recognizes individuals like Marion who have excelled in their involvement with their families, communities and professional life.

Marion, who is seated in the members' gallery, was chosen for this honour from parents across Canada and the United States. She has long been recognized in Guelph for her activities. She has raised two children, taught elementary school for 23 years and has worked tirelessly for a number of organizations. She is past-president of the Wellington County Women Teacher's Association and she has also served on a number of committees and boards, including the University of Guelph Alumni Association and Harcourt Memorial United Church.

I first met Marion on the opposite side of a bargaining table. After serving as a negotiator for my own union and as labour council president, I found myself sitting as a school board trustee and negotiating against Marion, who was representing her fellow teachers. I learned to admire her fair and evenhanded approach to things and we became friends. In fact, I thank Marion, who is a member of our provincial riding association, for nominating me to run in the last election.

Marion has many friends and colleagues who know her to be a dedicated and also warm and caring person who is always ready to do more than her fair share and who rarely has a negative word to say. Marion has finished a year's sabbatical and she becomes a teacher again in September at Brant Avenue Public School.

I extend congratulations to Marion for the recognition she has won. It is well deserved and long overdue.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ÉQUITÉ D'EMPLOI

Hon Ms Lankin: This government is committed to full equality in the workplace. We are also committed to making the Ontario public service a model workplace, one where there is fairness, access and full participation for all employees.

Yet today there are groups of people in this province who are under-represented in the OPS as a whole and within certain job categories as a result of barriers in recruitment, training and promotion. These groups are aboriginal people, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women.

We have listened to the concerns of these groups. Their criticisms are borne out by the results of the employment equity program to date. Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities are seriously under-represented in the ranks of the OPS; francophones still encounter workplace discrimination; racial minorities are still scarce in executive ranks, while women remain clustered in lower paying occupations.

These people have made little headway in the OPS despite the fact that an employment equity program has been in place since 1987. This is because several key components and the funding necessary to achieve employment equity were missing.

We will dedicate $10.9 million this year to accelerate the employment equity program for the Ontario public service. This will allow us to (1) supply resources and support mechanisms to ministries to ensure policies are implemented; (2) introduce accountability measures for achieving results, and (3) receive direct input from those most affected, both inside the OPS and outside it.

As part of this activity two major programs will be announced in detail later this year. Workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, as well as accommodation in employment for persons with disabilities are important vehicles for securing barrier-free working environments.

To identify barriers to employment equity and reform hiring and promotion practices, each ministry will be required to involve its employees in a review of its employment systems.

Guidelines are being drawn up that will clarify when direct intervention in hiring and promotion is necessary.

Nous serons ainsi en mesure d'atteindre les objectifs de l'équité d'emploi. Ceci est particulièrement important pour nous permettre de réaliser des changements importants au niveau des cadres supérieurs de la fonction publique de l'Ontario.

Nous aiderons les chefs de service et le personnel de la fonction publique à promouvoir et à réaliser l'équité d'emploi en élargissant les programmes de sensibilisation et de formation dans ce domaine. La formation sera de nature pratique et particulière, et elle visera principalement à modifier les pratiques qui auront été identifiées dans le cadre de l'examen des politiques d'embauche.

In addition, to ensure the success of these measures, we are clearly defining management and ministry accountability. Employment equity principles will be built into all management decisions, and managers will be responsible for achieving employment equity results. We will openly report all the results.

In the summer of 1992 we will issue the first public report on the Ontario public service employment equity program. It will document the progress of the program, both centrally and by ministry. The public will be able to monitor and measure our success.

To get the job done, we need the help and knowledge of many others. Work has been done with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and OPS employees from the designated groups. We are making a commitment to strengthen these ties and are forging partnerships that will provide us with the insight and feedback we need to make the program successful. These partnerships will include external community organizations representing the interests of the designated groups.

The OPS, as an employer of 90,000, has an obligation to lead the way in employment equity policies and programs. The government intends employment equity to extend to the private sector. As members know, my colleague the Minister of Citizenship will be bringing forward -- after consultation -- legislation for all sectors in the province.

Our experience and expertise will serve as a role model and resource for other employers. For example, we can share the outreach recruitment directory, employee tracking systems and processes for undertaking employment systems reviews.

We believe employment equity is not just a matter of social justice, but one of good business. If Ontario is to remain competitive, it cannot afford to exclude or underutilize segments of its labour force.

By embracing these measures, the government of Ontario is investing in this province's greatest resource, its people.

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to announce details about funding of $10.5 million for programs to assist laid-off workers to upgrade their basic skills. This funding is part of the $25 million that was previously announced by my colleague the Minister of Labour and is in addition to the Ontario basic skills funds announced last week.

It is important to look beyond recessionary times. We must be creative in helping workers to plan for new jobs. We must foster a society in which economic change signals new opportunities for people and their communities.

This funding is intended to enhance existing ministry programs in providing services to workers in areas where there have been plant closures and layoffs. There are four program areas which will receive additional funding to assist laid-off workers.

First, $4.4 million will be provided to adult basic education programs. These programs improve workers' chances of finding jobs or preparing for further education or skills training by providing basic skills training through local school boards.

Second, literacy and basic skills training programs will receive $4.8 million. This training is provided by colleges of applied arts and technology and local community groups. Training assists workers to upgrade communication, reading, writing, basic numeracy, science and basic computer skills.

Third, counselling and vocational assessment services will receive $1 million. These services are available for the 15-to-24-year-old age group through the youth employment counselling centres.

Fourth, the independent learning centre will receive $0.3 million. The centre offers distance education courses for adults who want to upgrade their basic skills and/or to complete high school.

Workers will receive information about these programs through their local labour adjustment committees. Labour adjustment committees have been set up in firms faced with layoff or closure. These committees consist of representatives from labour, management and government. They are responsible for ensuring that laid-off workers receive the vocational counselling and access to academic upgrading they need to help them find new jobs.

Our goal is to ensure that the people of the province have the education and training necessary to maintain their standard and quality of life. I am pleased to be a part of the movement's comprehensive plan to assist laid-off workers.

ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE / PROGRAMME D'AIDE POUR LA RÉGION D'ELLIOT LAKE

Hon Miss Martel: For some time I have told this House that Ontario Hydro has a clear obligation to Elliot Lake and the communities of the North Shore. After consultation with the provincial government, Hydro has delivered on its promise.

This morning my colleague the Minister of Natural and minister Resources responsible for native affairs; Marc Eliesen, chair of Ontario Hydro, and myself were in Elliot Lake. I am pleased to say that we were joined by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the federal member of Parliament for Algoma. On behalf of the government I announced a comprehensive adjustment and diversification package for Elliot Lake and area communities.

For years the Elliot Lake area has been dependent on a single resource -- uranium -- and that dependence has led to the kind of economic instability which is all too common in northern Ontario. During the last number of months in particular, residents of Elliot Lake and the North Shore have experienced even more uncertainty regarding their future while negotiations with Denison, Rio Algom and Hydro were under way.

Le gouvernement est parfaitement conscient des difficultés qu'ont causées ces mois d'incertitude. Malheureusement, nous avons dû attendre la fin des négociations confidentielles entre Ontario Hydro et les compagnies d'exploitation d'uranium pour établir les détails de notre programme d'aide.

En tant que dernier acheteur de l'uranium extrait des mines d'Elliot Lake, et compte tenu de son rôle important dans la croissance et le développement économique des collectivités minières de la région, Ontario Hydro doit assumer les responsabilites qui lui sont propres à l'égard des collectivités de la rive nord. Hydro aidera cette région à s'adapter aux nouveaux liens contractuels qui existent entre elle et les compagnies minières de l'endroit, Denison Mines et Rio Algom Ltd.

I have said in this House before, and I would like to repeat it again, that a renewal of the Elliot Lake uranium contracts would force Ontario Hydro to pay a premium of about $1.4 billion over the next decade. That is the equivalent of a subsidy of about $113,000 per year for every mining job. The province felt that this expenditure could not continue.

Therefore, in consultation with the provincial government, Ontario Hydro is winding down its extremely expensive Elliot Lake contracts. This was a tough decision, but one which makes good sense for the province's electricity ratepayers. It also makes good sense for the long-term viability of North Shore communities. Hydro will help fund their transition from a precarious dependence on uranium to a more diverse and dynamic economy.

I am pleased to announce the creation of a $250-million adjustment and diversification package targeted to that goal.

Le programme économique que nous avons présenté ce matin à Elliot Lake est le fruit de la collaboration des ministères du Developpement du Nord et des Mines, de l'Énergie et des Richesses naturelles et d'Ontario Hydro en consultation avec les collectivités de la rive nord, dont Elliot Lake, Blind River, la première nation Serpent River ainsi que les cantons de Shedden et de North Shore.

In order to meet community needs for short-term adjustment and long-term diversification, Ontario Hydro will contribute $65 million to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. This money will be held in trust for North Shore communities. The heritage fund, of which I am chair, will oversee the allocation of these funds.

I would like to point out that a portion of this funding has already been allocated; $9.6 million will be set aside for short-term job creation. These jobs are directed at miners laid off last fall.

Another $8 million to $10 million will be used to reduce the municipal debts of Elliot Lake and Blind River. This will give these communities the fiscal stability they need to take advantage of future development opportunities.

After consultation with regional representatives, the remaining funds have been directed to a number of important initiatives which include (1) a major business development fund to help stabilize and expand local businesses and attract new ones; (2) support for essential community services and social programs, and (3) assistance to offset municipal costs that may arise as communities make the transition away from uranium dependence.

Les collectivités de la rive nord nous ont indiqué clairement qu'elles avaient besoin de temps pour s'adapter à tous ces changements. Elles ont besoin d'emplois sûrs dans le secteur minier pendant qu'elles diversifient leur économie et créent de nouveaux emplois.

We have listened to the communities and responded. Ontario Hydro will continue to purchase uranium from Rio Algom until 1996. The revised contract with Rio Algom, finished just last week, will create approximately 75 new jobs. That means there will be up to nearly 600 mining jobs at the Stanleigh mine for almost six years. This will give the North Shore the breathing space that it requires to diversify. This new agreement will cost Ontario Hydro an estimated $160 million in premiums over and above current market prices.

Our provincial utility has also earmarked $25 million for a number of energy initiatives in Elliot Lake and area. These include a local energy efficiency program, developing co-generation potential and accelerating consultation and environmental planning with a view to development of hydraulic potential in the Patten Post area on the Mississagi River. After consultation with the province, Hydro has also agreed to accelerate its discussions with first nations and other local groups about the planning process that could lead to this development in the Patten Post area.

The development of hydraulic potential in this area could involve $300 million or more in additional economic activity in the region. Ideally, construction could begin in 1994 pending completion, review and approval of an environmental assessment.

Discussions with affected aboriginal communities will be carried out within the political framework of the government's new statement of political relationship with the first nations.

Avant que ne soit décidée la réalisation de ce projet, Ontario Hydro et le gouvernement se sont engagés à prendre l'avis des autochtones concernés. Toutes les questions seront analysées et résolues à la lumière des retombées eventuelles de ce projet.

J'aimerais aborder brièvement le processus de consultation qui nous a permis d'offrir l'ensemble de mesures d'aide auquel je faisais allusion plus tôt. Au début d'avril, le groupe de travail d'Elliot Lake et des environs a été créé. Ce comité est formé de représentants des collectivités locales concernées, des premières nations, des Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, du Conseil du travail, du monde de l'enseignement, du monde des affaires et du gouvernement.

Within six weeks, the working group put together a thoughtful and impressive submission of proposals and priorities. This was used as a guide for the package I have described. The Elliot Lake and Area Working Group will continue to play a significant role in the implementation of the adjustment and diversification package.

I have touched on the efforts of the provincial government and Hydro to assist the North Shore communities at this crucial point. But the provincial government, Hydro and the working group cannot do it alone. We need the co-operation of the federal government if these communities are to have access to all the support programs they require.

Therefore, I have written a letter to the Honourable Tom Hockin, Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and the federal minister responsible for northern Ontario and a letter to the Honourable Jake Epp, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have stated that Ottawa has an obligation to participate as a full and active partner as North Shore communities strive to diversify their economies and take advantage of opportunities now before them.

In particular, this government will be pressing the federal government to accelerate the process of proper mine decommissioning at Elliot Lake. This will meet the goals of environmental protection while preserving jobs for local workers. The Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada is responsible for ensuring timely and effective decommissioning at those uranium mines which have closed. The AECB must also ensure that the mining companies have provided financial guarantees where required to cover the cost of mine decommissioning at Elliot Lake.

I would like to say a word about the miners of Elliot Lake and their union, the United Steelworkers of America. They have borne the brunt of job losses in the mines and have had to deal with uncertainty for far too long. They are showing great resilience as they work with their North Shore neighbours to build a viable community for their future.

J'espère que l'initiative que nous prenons aujourd'hui contribuera à transformer les collectivités de la rive nord en des collectivités fortes, saines et dynamiques. Nous continuerons de collaborer avec elles afin d'assurer leur prospérité et le maintien de leur croissance.

RESPONSES

ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE

Mr Brown: I am responding to the statement by the Minister of Northem Development in my capacity as her critic and also as the member for the constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin representing Elliot Lake and the North Shore. The first thing I am compelled to point out is that this is not the minister's promise. She promised quite clearly on a number of occasions that she would purchase 100% of Ontario Hydro's requirement from Elliot Lake, and this is not it. Therefore we are not very happy.

Second, I am compelled to point out that the minister came to Elliot Lake and announced the last 700 miners are being laid off, and that is what this is about.

Third, the minister or Hydro has decided -- and I am surprised the Minister of Energy did not make this announcement, because it is all Hydro's money -- Ontario Hydro is providing $250 million for this. We are happy about that, but we are not happy that the government seems to think the crown corporation can carry the load for all of what is going on in Elliot Lake. I think we know the provincial governments were involved in the decisions taken in Elliot Lake over time and that the provincial government is responsible for what is going on. We are looking forward to the creation of some new permanent jobs. There is not one word in here about new permanent jobs.

Fourth, we are concerned about public policy. We are concerned about how the minister decides which Hydro projects are taken out. Which ones come out? As the minister knows, there are a number of Hydro projects in the 25-year plan along the North Shore and she has chosen one. We are interested to know how the minister chose that one and why not some of the other ones. Those are questions we will be pursuing because we think there is far more opportunity for employment along the North Shore than the minister has given us.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs McLeod: We can appreciate the programs that have been announced today by the Minister of Education and the kinds of benefits that those programs will bring to laid-off workers, but we continue to be concerned about the fact that we see piecemeal announcements coming from the government about this very critical issue.

We are continuing to look for what we would expect to be a comprehensive and integrated plan to respond to the needs of laid-off workers, the kind of plan that would see a co-ordination of the efforts across a number of ministries and that would also bring about an integration of the resources that are available in communities to provide the kinds of programs that are needed.

We also continue to express our hope that this government is going to begin to anticipate the need for labour market adjustment programs before the crisis of layoff actually occurs. As well, we address the fact that this is $9 million in training programs for laid-off workers of the total $25-million labour market adjustment originally announced by the Minister of Labour. We questioned at the time how much of that money would actually be going to direct programs and services for laid-off workers. We think a very large amount of that money has gone to create bureaucracies and set up new committees without there being direct programs of immediate benefit to laid-off workers.

Finally, we express a concern that following an announcement in January, we have waited a further six months for the announcement of some of the specific programs that would be put in place. We feel that is a very long time for laid-off workers in a crisis situation to have to wait for the programs to actually be provided.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Elston: I rise to reply to the statement by the Chairman of Management Board. Although the announcement was made today, one may very well take notice of the words that were used. It says, "Each ministry will be required"...there will be a "review" of "employment systems...guidelines are being drawn up...employment equity principles will be built into all management...managers will be responsible...we will openly report."

All of these things are so much in the future that it lets one believe they were rushed to make an announcement today. Although they put a number beside the money being allocated to it, it has not really provided us with the material we need to understand how they are going to put these things together. These people have tried to tell us they are going to be developing new guidelines, and every time this government talks about developing guidelines and clarifications we over here shudder.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I am responding to the statement from the Minister of Education. I will start by saying that when I saw this statement, I thought it was the same one that was given last week. In looking at it, though, if one really reads it carefully, one will find that there are other programs, all of which we support and expect to happen. I have to say it is pretty hard to keep up with this govemment. There is a very scattered approach delivering these kinds of programs.

I take this opportunity to say that I had hoped today we finally would have an announcement on skills and apprenticeship training. We are looking for a change in ratios and a change in wages for apprenticeships, and we are looking for a co-ordination with the school system.

Young people in this gallery right now would love to work with their hands. They would love to have opportunities to do more technical education programs. They would love to know they are being trained for a job for tomorrow and today as well. They would love to know there are jobs out there for them at all.

All I can say is I am looking for the big announcements. I have been sitting around here for almost a year right now and nothing has changed.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Tilson: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Chairman of Management Board. It is certainly admirable to try to remedy the discrimination and harassment against minority groups and others in the government, but I hope this is not the start of the quota system we have been hearing so much about that is coming from the government.

We should not be trying to take away the initiative to do better, make a profit or improve or to take away excellence. These are the values our province is built on. The province should not be developing hiring policies based on the quota system, which is what I believe this government is moving towards.

To qualify for a committee or anything else this government sets forward, it depends on what minority one is a member of. The women are asked to become judges not because of their excellence in law, but because they are women.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Tilson: The whole issue of excellence is out the window. Policies are now in existence where it does not matter whether one is qualified, but whether one is of a particular minority group. There are even situations where women are discriminated against, and that is in this government. The Minister of Correctional Services is a specific example.

These policies are doing away with excellence and are insulting to the minority groups of this province. We hope this province stays away from discrimination and develops policies opposing discrimination and harassment, but we hope it hires those people who are the best qualified.

ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE

Mr Eves: Just briefly in response to the statement the Minister of Northern Development made today about Elliot Lake and other communities on the North Shore, it would appear that Ontario Hydro's mandate is changing daily in this Legislature. Ontario Hydro is now going to do what the government should be doing with respect to solving social problems in northern Ontario. I have a couple of questions about where the money is coming from. Are we increasing the rate base of Ontario Hydro across the province? If so, by how much and over how many years?

I find it strange that the Minister of Energy in the same government is considering a moratorium on nuclear energy, and yet the Minister of Northern Development is standing up to call for a continued purchase of uranium at the same time. Does anybody know what they are doing over there? Do they talk to each other? Do they have any game plan as to what they are supposed to be doing?

I also note that Ontario Hydro's commitment to the northern Ontario heritage fund now appears to be somewhat larger than that of the government itself. It is larger than the Ministry of Northern Development's commitment to the northern heritage fund. I find that somewhat passing strange, to say the least.

I do not know why the government just does not accept its responsibilities and get on with governing the province instead of finding ways after the fact, scurrying around and, in this case, having an Ontario crown agency trying to do the work the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Northern Development should be doing themselves.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon Mavis Wilson, the former member for Dufferin-Peel.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Nixon: With the examples of political leadership from last Thursday still dazzling the House and the people of the province, I would like to point out to the Premier the undoubted fact that the responsibility for the oversight of his cabinet colleagues still lies totally with himself.

Can he point out to the House what response he has entered into, not just on the basis of the resignation of the two ministers that he rejected last Thursday, but with the realization that eight specific ministers in the last six months have stepped over the bounds and guidelines of the conflicts of interest he himself has established? What is he going to do specifically to see that this situation, which must be embarrassing to him and must undermine the confidence in which his government is held, is stopped?

Hon Mr Rae: Ultimately the people will decide the confidence they have in our government, but it seems to me worth our reflecting for a moment on one simple fact, and it is brought home by the exchange we had last Thursday, in terms of the particular civility of that exchange.

I want to just emphasize again with respect to the two ministers the Leader of the Opposition referred to, whose resignations I, on reflection, decided not to accept, that there was no allegation of any kind of any personal benefit or gain by them. There was no allegation with respect to any advancing of any private interest by them. All they were trying to do was to put forward and to protect the public interest. That is the essence of what took place in that situation.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, when he says, what is it that I now propose to do, I have made it very clear what I propose to do; it is what has been there for some time. I have asked the standing committee to give us its advice with respect to changes in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and I look forward to receiving that advice.

Mr Nixon: The Premier, as usual, is answering a question which was not asked. He has attempted to justify the actions taken by his two ministers, in spite of the fact that his original decision was to accept at least one of the resignations. I suggest there is no question that the guidelines were broken.

In attempting to assist both these ministers and others who may be tempted to follow their example, is he undertaking to give them some special instruction; is he, on the other hand, informing the deputy ministers he expects them to advise the ministers on any possibility that they may see fit to contact any judicial or quasi-judicial body; and can he assure the House that these ministers were not so advised by any of their officials or anyone in the Cabinet Office before they took the action which resulted in their resignations?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to know that the two members in question have taken responsibility for what has taken place and I, as well, have taken responsibility for exercising judgement, which I may say I exercised after being asked to do so by the Leader of the Opposition in the exchange that took place last week.

The purpose of any guidelines or of any law in this area is to protect the public. I am satisfied that what motivated the ministers entirely in this instance was the protection of the public interest with respect to a particular situation in North Bay.

Mr Nixon: I just want to reiterate for the benefit of the Premier, who does not seem to listen to the question, that there is no question that the guidelines were broken or transgressed. This is the eighth instance that it has happened in six months. The original question was, what is he going to do about it, and he fails to answer that in his attempt to shift the blame to me for what is apparently his own inability to make an appropriate decision, which is precisely what he just did.

I would like to ask the Premier why he and his colleagues, I would say, including the present government House leader, were so positive when they were in opposition what the appropriate actions were for cabinet ministers, when now that they have the responsibility, they are unsure: so unsure that the Premier cannot educate his colleagues as to what their responsibilities are; so unsure that he fails to instruct the deputy ministers or, according to his answer, the political advisers to these ministers that they cannot assist them.

What is the answer, other than for the Premier to bluster after his cabinet ministers have been shown and seen to break the guidelines which he himself established with so much fanfare and pride?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me make it clear that although the Leader of the Opposition may have found my answer blustery and he may have thought I was trying to somehow ascribe responsibility to him, that is not at all true. First of all, let me make it very clear that I take full responsibility as first minister for my decision on Thursday, after being asked to reconsider by the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr Nixon: Which decision?

Hon Mr Rae: -- after being asked to reconsider by him, if I may be allowed to proceed, if I may be allowed to answer. I take responsibility for that.

I do not pretend that these matters are easy. I do not pretend that these decisions are instant.

It was a moment last week when, during the course of the day, given the seriousness of the situation which the ministers were trying to respond to with respect to convictions against a doctor on four counts of sexual assault, with respect to their concern for the protection of the public and with respect to their motivation in that regard, I decided, on balance and on much reflection, that since there was no attempt by them to advance their own interest or any private interest on their part, one had to look at all those circumstances in exercising a judgement.

That is exactly what I did in exercising my judgement as Premier.

Mr Scott: I suppose the good news is that the Premier can bounce from penitent Premier on Thursday to his regular holier-than-thou status in little short of a weekend.

Everybody in the House admires the step these two ministers took. We think they were forthright and honourable and we have no questions to ask of them. What we have are questions to ask about the process in the Premier's mind and in his office.

He told us on Thursday that he met with the minister for women's issues for half to three quarters of an hour, discussing the matter with her. He elected to accept her resignation. Her printed statement indicated that he had accepted her resignation and he told the House he had accepted her resignation. Would the Premier now tell us what he regarded as sufficiently serious that he would, by 1:30 on that day, accept the minister's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I had a chance on Thursday morning to speak relatively briefly with the minister and to go over with her the circumstances, of which I was entirely unaware until that morning. I then came into the House, and I scarcely had had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister of Northern Development and we did not in fact have an opportunity to discuss that. Then we had the exchange in the House.

The member for St George-St David talks about the change in the House. I would say to the member for St George-St David that for a brief moment there was a time when the Leader of the Opposition and I were able to have an exchange that dealt with the substance of a matter and that was not overly tainted by the obscurities and rhetoric of partisan politics. That was a unique moment in this House.

In good faith, the Leader of the Opposition asked me, and I am quoting from Hansard: "Would he consider reconsidering his acceptance of the resignation of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues? I think there is a clear understanding of what has happened here."

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: In good faith, that is what I did. I discussed the matter carefully with both ministers, and on reflection I decided that their apology to the House was full and complete, that there was an understanding in the House as to the seriousness --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- of the issue they were attempting to deal with, and it was on that basis that I decided I would not accept their resignations.

Mr Scott: This Premier cannot talk straight to the Ontario people. The question is, what was it before 1:30 that he regarded as so serious that he should accept the resignation? I am not making any criticism of the ministers. Then the supplementary question is, what was it that happened, what facts came to his attention or considerations were brought to bear between his decision to accept the resignation at 1:30 and his decision not to accept it at 5:30? What was it in the facts or in the mix that changed?

The reason we want answers to that question is not because of the ministers, but because the Premier's ability to make a sensible judgement one way or the other is clearly at stake.

Hon Mr Rae: It is hard in the time allotted to answer fully, but let me just try to say to the member for St George-St David that if I had to point to one factor which led to my making up my mind as I did, in addition to the point that was made to me and the point that was put forward to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I would have to say it was the circumstances surrounding the fact that a physician was convicted of four counts of sexual assault in the community of North Bay. I had an opportunity through the day to reflect more seriously on that question.

One can argue about the appropriateness of the way in which the ministers responded, but the fact is that this is a serious question, this is a serious issue and it is not surprising that ministers as human beings would respond to that kind of situation when confronted with it and when asked to do so by their constituents.

If I had to point to one factor alone which pointed me in the direction I took, that is the factor, the fact of the seriousness of the circumstances in North Bay, and the fact that we are dealing with children, with vulnerable people and that there was an attempt in this case to advance the public interest and not to advance any private interest at all in this circumstance.

Mr Scott: The major concern that commentators both in and outside the House have to this is the sense that, for better or for worse, he may have made the wrong decision, but the Premier made a principle decision at 1:30. Then, when he found he could make another decision with impunity, he strove to make it by 5:30, as he promptly did. We are glad he did, but what we are concerned about is the ability of the capacity of our Premier to decide.

In May 1989 a mother of four and a grandmother of many was awakened at her summer cottage in the middle of the night. She heard from a distraught young female teenager that a young man had been arrested and was being held by the OPP and being assaulted. That grandmother got dressed in the middle of the night and went down to a police station for four minutes, at which time she asked if the boy was being treated properly and was told yes.

Here is what the Premier-in-waiting had to say on 25 May: "I don't want any investigations. The critical question is the judgement of the Premier. If that isn't improper, I must be living in a different province. I want her out."

I want to ask the Premier if he ever, in the privacy of his own room, has any nagging doubts about the wisdom of that judgement, or does he have a rationalization to offer us about that one too?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only refer to the circumstances which I was confronted with on Thursday. The member for St George-St David seems to think that if someone is asked by the Leader of the Opposition, who is the dean of this place, to reconsider, somehow it is a sign of weakness or of indecision to do so. I make no apology for the fact that I found this a difficult decision to make, that it was a difficult moment for me on Thursday. I make no apologies for that. I think, on balance, I made the right decision on Thursday. I tried to exercise some compassion and some judgement.

The issue before me as Premier is what to do with respect to these two ministers, and that is the question I resolved on Thursday.

Mr Harris: My question as well is to the Premier. Last Thursday this government saw its eighth controversy in nine months. The most recent blunder involved three players. Two of those players have admitted they made a mistake; two of those players have taken responsibility for their actions; two of those players have apologized to the people of this province. Two of those players have done the honourable thing. The third player in this latest

chapter of the Bob Rae soap opera has not apologized; he has not admitted he made a mistake.

In this whole area of conflict in ministerial guidelines, when is the Premier going to stand up, apologize and admit it is his inconsistency, his inability to explain the guidelines, to explain the importance of the guidelines, let alone the substance of them, that has been the real problem?

Has the Premier considered resigning, or at least accepting responsibility for minister after minister after minister treating the guidelines like that?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the advice of the leader of the third party. I would tell him it is my intention to stick around as long as the people of Ontario will have me. I say to him that I have exercised my judgement. I have found in discussing this with people and in listening to people over the last few days there are some people who disagree with me and there are many who agree with me, and that is the judgement I have to exercise. There is no question that the buck stops with me and the consequences for taking the decision rest with me and with me alone.

Mr Harris: I did not hear an apology in there, but let me bring forth something else. When the member for Victoria-Haliburton broke the law, the judge said this, "Here is a person who, as an elected member of our provincial Parliament, displays very little respect or recognition for the rule of law, which is the very foundation of the system which elected him." That is what the judge said at that time. What did the Premier say? The Premier said, "I am proud of him." The Premier said, "I am proud of the cause that he was fighting for and as long as it's a cause I believe in, or one that he was fighting for, or one that he believed in." The Premier condoned that action.

The Premier sent out at that time a very clear message to his caucus and to his cabinet: "If it's a cause Bob Rae believes in, if you act with good intentions, then it's okay with me. You can break the law, you can break the guidelines, you can do whatever the hell you want." Does he not understand that the way he has handled these cases beginning with the member for Victoria-Haliburton, with caucus member, with minister after minister, it is his

interpretation of the guidelines that is the problem here, not his cabinet ministers.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the leader of the third party that when he looks at the circumstances surrounding the two ministers I had to deal with on Thursday, and having a chance to consider it through the day; when he considers the fact that there was a great deal of concern in the community expressed to the two ministers as well as to many others -- I find it is a question there of judgement involving trying to put forward the public interest and doing it in a way that perhaps was something that could be criticized.

For heaven's sake, the purpose of conflict guidelines is to prevent people from taking private advantage of a situation. There is no private advantage here. There is no private advantage involving the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. There is no private advantage involving the Minister for Northern Development. There is no benefit to them at all. There is a cry of anguish on behalf of families who have asked them to intervene because they are being asked to go to a doctor they do not want to have to go to. That is what we are looking at.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: The Premier does not seem to understand. There are guidelines governing conflict and there is the rule of law. Then there are codes of conduct of which we are talking about in these cases -- the rule of law and the codes of conduct, not conflict for personal gain.

In the Premier's throne speech seven months ago, he said:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers, members of the Legislature and senior government officials."

When the Premier brought the guidelines in, he said: "We must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny, but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."

Does the Premier honestly believe his actions in how he has dealt with these 10 ministers in eight situations and the member for Victoria-Haliburton come anywhere close to living up to the rhetoric of his 10 years in opposition, to his rhetoric of the throne speech, to his rhetoric of the promise to the people, to his rhetoric of his guidelines? If not, when is he going to stand up and do the honourable thing, apologize to this House, to his cabinet, to the members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only quote back to the member, the leader of the third party, the words spoken both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Parry Sound when the member talks about integrity. It was interesting in listening to the responses on Thursday, both of them made it very clear that there was no question -- and I am surprised the member would even raise it in this context -- of the integrity of the ministers involved and if I may say so --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Let it be on the record, Mr Speaker, the member for St George-St David said it is my integrity which is in question. I want to say to the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. I realize this is a very contentious issue. There are two things which would be very helpful: first, if members would attempt to give each other an opportunity to be heard and, second, if those who are addressing questions and responses would address the Chair. That would be very helpful.

Mr Harris: I have a new question. The Premier may want to answer about how the fruit trees are growing in Florida, which has as much relevance as his answer to me and the question I asked. I am not questioning the ministers' integrity; I am applauding their integrity. It is the Premier's integrity that I am questioning; it is his integrity at stake here.

When the member for Victoria-Haliburton broke the law and went to jail, he was given a promotion. When the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations posed in a shirt and tie for a newspaper, he was turfed from cabinet. When the member for Oakwood broke a labour law, he was dumped from caucus. When the Solicitor General's office wrote to a judge, he was defended by the Premier.

Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the record needs to be clear. I was not given a promotion after I was convicted and came back from jail; I had the position of Chair of the government caucus before that time and I am happy to have that position now as well.

The Speaker: If not a point of order, certainly a point of disagreement. If we would come to order, please.

Mr Harris: When the Solicitor General's office wrote to a judge, he was defended. The Premier keeps changing the rules, his guidelines. I suggest to him --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I trust members do not want to shout their way through question period. A member has asked to raise a point of order, I shall hear it.

Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: All kinds of allegations are being put forward in this statement. The member made reference to the Solicitor General's office. Nobody on the payroll of the Solicitor General, nobody in the Solicitor General's office ever wrote to a justice of the peace.

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if members who have an interest in raising points of order could do so outside of question period, and I would appreciate it if the leader of the third party could succinctly place his question.

Mr Harris: The point of all this is that the Premier seems to be, apparently is, and in many cases exactly is, changing the rules to suit the certain circumstances as he sees fit. Does he believe these guidelines, these actions of what the law is and these codes of conduct, as he has alluded to again today in the House, are subject to being interpreted on the basis of what he, the Premier, thinks is morally and politically correct? Is that what the Premier is trying to tell us?

Hon Mr Rae: What I am trying to say to the member and to the House is that I have to exercise my judgement with respect to the question of resignations being demanded of individual ministers, and that is frequently a judgement a Premier has to make. It happens all the time when people are demanding a resignation or putting it forward as something that needs to happen.

My judgement on this instance with respect to the conduct of both ministers was that, given the very serious nature of what it was -- what was the problem they were attempting to respond to? The problem was that there were four counts of sexual assault against an individual doctor, and the ministers were approached by a number of families with respect to responding, and they responded. I decided that, given all those circumstances, to demand their resignation was too much and it was quite appropriate for them to apologize fully to the House, and that in the circumstances, the admission of the mistake was in itself sufficient. That is what I decided.

Mr Harris: I know I was not here on Thursday. I did not hear anybody demand the ministers' resignation. Did anybody ask the Premier to demand their resignation? I heard the ministers ask if they could resign. That is all I have heard from anybody on this side of the House or from around this province.

I suggest the Premier is playing a game called situational ethics. He changes his principles to fit the occasion. On 6 July 1986 the Premier said this:

"If the government is not willing to enforce the guidelines, it does not matter what they are, how comprehensive they are, or how great they are -- they could have been devised by Moses and brought down from the mountaintop -- but if we do not have a Premier who is prepared to enforce the guidelines, they will not make a difference."

He is now the Premier. Since we have not seen one shred or iota of evidence that he plans to live up to that responsibility in the first nine months, can the Premier tell us today when he plans to take seriously and live up to his responsibility as Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope I live up to my responsibility as Premier every day. That does involve exercising judgement in each instance.

I would make one other point to the leader of the third party. The premise behind his question is that the only way one can enforce any guideline or any law is to demand the resignation of ministers. I do not share that view at all.

With respect to the rest, I have already said I am looking forward to hearing from the standing committee with respect to how we can improve the law. That is exactly what we are waiting to hear from the committee on.

Mr Harris: I am very sorry, but the Premier keeps seeming to allege that I am calling for something, asking for something, that he has never heard. It is in his mind; he is making it up. If he is embarrassed about answering the question, he should just say so. If he does not want to answer it he should say so. But he should not make up answers to questions that are not asked.

At least 10 of the Premier's ministers that we know of have in some way misunderstood, misread or ignored and broken his guidelines, so we are not dealing with an isolated incident. Thursday was not an isolated incident. Clearly his cabinet does not understand either the substance or the importance of the guidelines.

For nearly a decade in opposition in Ottawa and at Queen's Park, the Premier has said on many occasions that he has known exactly what the ministers should do in these circumstances; he knew exactly what the Prime Minister should do; he knew exactly what the Premier should do. The Premier does not want me to take the time to quote back all those quotes. The Premier knew exactly. In fact, I would suggest to the Premier that he has had more experience with this than any other member I have ever heard of or known in the history of politics.

The Premier knew. He was the expert. He knew exactly. Now, in 10 months, we have seen example after example after example of inconsistency, of lack of understanding.

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Harris: In fact, I suggest to the Premier that we have cause to feel sorry for his cabinet because they have no idea what the guidelines are or what they mean.

The Speaker: Is there a supplementary?

Mr Harris: What has changed between that 10 years when the Premier clearly had all the answers, knew what ministers should do, knew what premiers should do, and the past 10 months, when he does not seem to have any idea what he should be doing in living up to his responsibility?

Hon Mr Rae: I was in northern Ontario for much of the weekend and in southwestern Ontario for a bit on Sunday. I must confess, I do not think the public has any difficulty understanding the nature of the decision that I had to take on Thursday. I never had a sense from talking to people that the public feels it was an easy decision. I do not feel there was any lack of integrity in the decision that was made.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Rae: It was a decision made with integrity because we are concerned as a government with ensuring that the public is protected. We are also concerned that when mistakes are made apologies are given, which is exactly what happened on Thursday with respect to the situation. I had to decide then whether I would accept or insist on the resignation of the two ministers. I decided that no further public interest would be served. All those decisions were made. They were made very publicly and, if I may say so, they were made with as much integrity as I am capable of as a human being.

TAXATION

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Treasurer. It deals with perhaps some of the statements of the old member for York South when he was in opposition. When he was talking about taxes, he said his tax manifesto will include a very simple pledge against the GST. "We reject an amalgamated sales tax." He said that in August 1990. On 22 August 1990 he said: "We are committed to making taxes fair by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax."

Now I see various reports coming forward that the Treasurer, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Revenue and the Premier are all talking about some kind of harmonization with the GST, even though they indicated so clearly before the election that they were not. The Premier said in Thunder Bay that "there is nothing coming next week." I believe it. I suspect it is coming next month, when the Legislature is not sitting.

I would like to ask the Treasurer this question, since it was reported in the Financial Post that he was considering this harmonization matter. Considering that this would mean an additional 8% provincial sales tax would be placed on haircuts, funerals and other things that are not taxed now and that it will result in a massive additional amount of revenue to the province, can he confirm or deny that the NDP government is actively considering this policy?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I can make a declaration in that regard, which the member has asked me to do. I should clarify somewhat the whole issue because I think the member for St Catharines is under some kind of misapprehension. What I said, and also I believe what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said, was that the whole question of harmonization is not under active consideration by this government. That was said by me, and that was said by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology as well. So I am not sure what more assurances the member for St Catharines needs, but I am sure I shall find out.

Mr Bradley: I have concerns because I notice in the wording of the answers that are given to the news media and the wording of the answers in the House to the Leader of the Opposition and to others who have asked these questions that there seems to be an evasiveness when it gets down to talking about, not the word "harmonization," but the words "having the same tax base."

Is the Treasurer considering expanding the sales tax base of the province -- the provincial sales tax, so that it corresponds exactly with or is close to that of the federal GST?

Hon Mr Laughren: What the government did was it made a couple of decisions, one in the fall and one in the spring. In the fall we made a decision not to impose the Ontario retail sales tax on top of the existing goods and services tax. We forgave almost $500 million in revenues by doing that because we wanted that money left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend and help stimulate the economy.

This spring, when the Fair Tax Commission was launched, I wrote to the commission as part of a series of requests and asked it, in view of the fact that there is now a sales tax both federal and provincial at the retail level in the province, to look at a way in which the administration of those two taxes could be made more efficient. I think that is probably where some of the confusion comes in, because of my request to the Fair Tax Commission to look at that.

SEXUAL ABUSE

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier on this whole issue surrounding the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development. Why did his government not address the crux of this issue, which was the suspension of the doctor's licence, when the issue first arose?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to thank the member for his question and say that I noticed today when he stood up in members' statements that he is bringing forward a private member's bill on that matter. That is obviously going to be considered by the Ministry of Health. It is something that is dealt with by the health professions legislation review.

But under the current law and under the current situation, I think the member would realize that government intervention of that kind is not, as I understand it, that easy. That is obviously something which, as a matter of public policy, will need to be discussed in this House and is something that will be discussed in this House.

Mr Eves: I would beg to differ with the Premier on that issue. As a matter of fact, under

section 3 of the Health Disciplines Act, I would like to briefly read him subsection 1 and paragraph (

a) headed "Duties of Minister" -- not powers of the minister; duties of the Minister of Health.

"It is the duty of the minister to ensure that the activities of health disciplines are effectively regulated and coordinated in the public interest, to have appropriate standards of practice developed and ensure that these are maintained and to ensure that the rights of individuals to the services provided by health disciplines of their choice are maintained and to these ends to,

"(

a) inquire into or direct the appropriate council or councils to inquire into the state of the practice of one or more health disciplines in any locality or institution," and it goes on and on.

I would suggest to the Premier that there was more than ample authority here under

section 3 of the Health Disciplines Act. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it was the duty of the Minister of Health at the time to look into, to inquire into and to direct, as the act dictates and says. It is that minister's duty to address this situation. It would have helped everybody concerned, especially the people who were sexually abused.

Hon Mr Rae: The member will know, and I take his views very seriously because he is somebody who has considerable experience in this area and whose knowledge and whose interest I think everyone in the House takes seriously, that it has been the view of the ministry that other revisions in terms of the law to deal with this question are going to need to be looked at. That is exactly what is taking place. But I would say to the member for Parry Sound that, given that there was a criminal trial under way, there were some very general discussions between the ministry and the college with respect to the general matter, but it was difficult to focus in on the individual situation.

When the member says the act could have been changed, I can only say to him that to change the act to deal with one particular problem would perhaps not be quite as easy as the member might suggest. But I am not dismissing for a moment what he is saying and I think there now will be an opportunity for the House to consider the points he is making.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is no secret that in Ontario it is getting tougher for farmers to sell their food products because of cross-border shopping and free trade. I am just wondering what his ministry is doing to promote the market for Ontario food in Ontario.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to thank the member for the question. First of all, in a general sense I can say that we have launched, through the market development branch, a very aggressive campaign to promote Ontario produce this summer. The main part of the program is centred on television and seven different TV commercials that are going to talk about the quality and the freshness of Ontario produce and how it is superior in many ways to the imports we get.

We hope that through this, consumers will be more aware of the importance of agriculture and food in Ontario and will seek out Ontario produce and products when they do their shopping.

The second part of the member's question deals with cross-border shopping. We in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are working on some initiatives with five border communities. Ministry staff are working with retailers in those communities to develop some aggressive promotional programs for in-store promotion of Ontario products. We are co-operating with the retailers to do that and we will be providing some of the funding to allow them to use promotional in-store materials to get the people of Ontario to appreciate the importance of buying Ontario products.

This will not totally eliminate the cross-border shopping issue, but I believe it will go a long way to raising the awareness of the importance of Ontario food and agriculture in Ontario.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Conway: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Six weeks ago it was announced in her department that there would be a consolidation of registry offices across the province in the interest of better service, better access and more efficient use of public dollars. Having regard to that announcement, I would like to focus for a moment on the decision as it relates to the county of Lanark.

Can the minister help me understand how, in light of the several objectives that the policy speaks to, the public interest is going to be served in any of those areas by the closure of a brand-new, $1-million government office, opened just eight or nine months ago in the town of Almonte, with the best possible access that one could imagine? How is the public going to be served when it sees a $1-million government building, just opened, closed and all the facilities transferred and consolidated in the town of Perth, where the registry facilities are currently located in rented space that, according to the public inspection panel, is very much a fire hazard?

Hon Ms Churley: First, the decision was to integrate all the land registry offices to make it more cost-effective and more efficient, and the reality is to have one office per county or united county or municipality. The reality is there were 14 areas within the province that had duplication of services. It does not make sense. It cost taxpayers extra money to provide the duplication of services.

In the process of rationalizing the system across the province, unfortunately in my view, there were a couple of offices that were fairly new. Most of the offices were in fact quite old and inefficient. This office was built under the previous Liberal government. We will be looking at new uses for that building, but we are equalizing the system across the province and making it more cost-efficient and more efficient in general. Unfortunately, in the whole of rationalizing the system, that one had to be included as well.

Mr Conway: The minister can understand what this looks like to the taxpayers of Lanark county. They have seen, at their cost, the expenditure of nearly $1 million to build a beautiful new facility in that part of Lanark county. She made a statement six weeks ago that said, systemwide, operationally this rationalization is going to save, she expects, about $1 million annually. Well, $1 million was just spent in that beautiful new government-owned office. She is going to close that down after seven or eight months of operation and move everything down to a leased facility in Perth that, according to the public inspection panel, is fraught with all kinds of fire hazards.

Surely she understands that to the taxpaying people of Lanark county that appears to be madness. The question, among several they would want asked, is, how much money, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars is the government going to spend in Perth to address the several occupational health and safety questions raised in the public inspection panel's concerns?

Hon Ms Churley: The reality is that a lot of the offices that will be closed have incredible occupational health and safety problems. In fact, in closing a lot of these buildings, the taxpayers will be saving at least $8 million in capital costs. When one puts the whole thing together and looks at the integration of all the offices, it is an incredible --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon Ms Churley: The opposition cannot have it both ways. On one hand, they are calling for us to save money, they are complaining about the deficit, and on the other hand they are saying, "Don't save money, leave the offices open." I am sympathetic to the problems of moving the offices. My staff are working very hard to make sure the integration happens well, but it makes a lot of sense to save taxpayers' money in this case and to make the system more efficient overall.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Premier, if he could resume his seat. It has to do with what some might consider questionable behaviour on the part of other members of his caucus and deals with letters written by the Minister of Government Services and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications, I believe, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

These are letters in respect to a very controversial matter in the provincial riding of Frontenac-Addington written to a municipal council and the planning commission, with copies to the municipal council urging an official plan amendment. I am wondering if indeed the Premier considers those kinds of interventions in municipal matters as appropriate behaviour by members of his caucus.

Hon Mr Rae: The member has been good enough to send me over the two letters -- this is the first I have seen of them -- but I would say to him at first blush that there is nothing unusual in members of the assembly writing letters with respect to projects in their ridings or with respect to situations affecting things and nothing unusual about their writing in a very public way to municipalities or to various people with respect to activities in their council.

The member says it is an area of some controversy. Well then, we are elected people. We will get involved in areas of discussion in the local community. There is nothing wrong with that or unusual in that. I would regard it as strange if members decided upon election they were never going to do anything on behalf of their constituents or stop saying what they think. Surely to goodness members are entitled to say what they think about a given problem and to try to respond to it. What could be wrong with that?

Mr Runciman: That was discussed within our group as well, and I must say that in my 10-plus years as a member of this Legislature I have never made that kind of intervention in respect to a municipal zoning or planning decision. In fact, we have one member, the member for Kingston and The Islands, who was writing on ministry letterhead in respect to a zoning decision in a riding other than his own. I question that behaviour.

Obviously, the Premier's standards are much less sufficient than those in the Progressive Conservative Party. I think that is clearly indicated by the things he said here earlier today. My point is that we indeed believe this to be inappropriate behaviour. This is a decision that is going to impact on the community. We are talking about a secure facility that is going to house individuals convicted of very serious crimes indeed, and we have someone writing on ministry letterhead urging a municipal body tribunal to make a decision in favour of a minority in that community. I would like to hear the Premier's views on that.

Hon Mr Rae: First, the member said on what letterhead? It is on Legislative Assembly letterhead; the two letters I have seen are on Legislative Assembly letterhead. Those are the two letters I have seen.

Just so the public will know what terrible thing the members have done, they have said:

"I am writing in support of the new facility which has been proposed by the St Lawrence Youth Association to be located on Taylor-Kidd Boulevard in Ernestown township.

"The St Lawrence Youth Association has proven itself to be an invaluable asset to the community in its capacity to provide a rehabilitative service to young people making the often difficult transition into mainstream society."

I can remember a time when Frank Drea, when he was the Minister of Community and Social Services, had the guts to take a strong stand on behalf of community homes and youth homes and support for people in the community. That used to be the position of the Conservative Party, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with members taking a position and members expressing a point of view. Robust discussion in a community is not wrong; it is a healthy thing.

Mr Morrow: My question is to the Minister of Labour --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize we are all happy to be here. If all members would come to order, then the member for Wentworth East could place his question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Morrow: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I want to congratulate the minister on his recent announcement of the new construction regulations. I was glad to see the support these changes received and I know these measures will increase safety for workers on the job. However, I do understand the date these measures go into effect is 1 August and would like to be sure this date is one which it is possible to meet. Can the minister comment on these concerns?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The industry has been expecting the amended regulations for some time. The 1 August deadline gives them adequate chance to take a look at the amendments and digest them. There has been extensive consultation with the industry and the workers involved over these regulations. It has been going on for a considerable period of time. I might say a considerable period of time too in terms of the amenities, like being able to wash your hands, on a construction site. This has been well discussed and well debated within the industry before we drafted the regulations.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is aware there is a major Ontario Municipal Board hearing under way regarding the Ottawa Senators' Kanata Palladium site.

Last Tuesday, because of the ongoing hearing, the Minister of Agriculture and Food told this House he should not comment on the hearing, yet in the same answer he said, "We think there are alternative sites." Also on Tuesday, the owners of the Senators offered to freeze 500 acres of their holdings for at least 25 years --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Chiarelli: -- to which, last Thursday, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who said he should not be commenting, told the media he was interested in the proposal, and: "If there is no legal impediment, I am prepared to take a serious look at it and see if there is something we can do. We are taking a look at the proposal put on the table to see if it can be made into a legal agreement."

Last Friday, the ministry's $1,000-a-day special legal counsel, Mr Lederer, told the media that "there was never to be a statement from the minister."

How can the Premier reconcile his minister's telling this House he cannot comment, then saying there are alternative sites, then publicly debating a proposed settlement and then having the minister publicly reprimanded by legal counsel, who said there was never to be a statement from the minister?

Mr Bradley: Dalton Camp was right.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines says "Dalton Camp was right." I want to point out the Beverly Hillbillies was a series which lasted for several years, and now it is in syndication and it can go on indefinitely. That is what we are seeing.

Let me say in answer to the serious question from the member for Ottawa West that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has taken a position with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. That hearing is going on quite independent of the government, and the OMB will reach a decision independent of the government.

Mr Chiarelli: The facts on this issue show clearly this matter involves executive political action and does not require a show trial at the OMB to make a green statement. The former government asked officials to assist in the approval of this project. The minister, with advice from the member for Ottawa Centre, instructed them to strongly oppose it. The minister has now publicly said he supports a team in Ottawa and he is prepared to consider the compromise proposal.

Will the Premier instruct his minister to immediately negotiate a solution to this matter and further act to facilitate a solution that meets the needs of the ministry while also serving the needs of Ottawa-Carleton? Who will be accountable to the people of Ottawa-Carleton when thousands of jobs are lost: the minister or the ministry's $1,000-a-day lawyer who said, "There was never to be a statement from the minister"?

Hon Mr Rae: The hearing is under way and proceeding and I reject categorically the member's description of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing as a show trial. I think that is rather strange wording from a member who knows full well there is a law with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. The law with respect to the preservation of agricultural land and rezoning is in place. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing is scheduled according to the law of the province. To describe any such hearing as a show trial, I think, shows a serious lack of understanding by the member of exactly what is involved.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today during the question period, as on other occasions, we have had people who have stood on what they pretended to be points of order. They took up a fair bit of time. On two separate occasions on points of order we had a very long orchestrated standing ovation for the Premier which took up another several minutes.

Mr Speaker, I ask that you again address the issue of points of order which in fact are known full well by the people who have raised them not to be points of order but points of view perhaps, points of interest to them perhaps. I ask that in the next several days, as we approach the end of the session, when these points of order are raised you add an appropriate amount to the clock for the question period, particularly in situations where those people who are now in this House are very much fully aware of the fact that there are no points of order about whether or not they have a different point of view.

With respect to the standing ovation, we know full well that there are orchestrations of activity in the House to take away from the question period drive of the people in the opposition, that there are meetings almost every day now before question period, at 1 o'clock, wherein there is an attempt to take us away from asking the questions. When we hear barracking that is going on over there -- and I understand, Mr Speaker, there are likewise replies from this side -- when we find that it is so consistently being done now by the government side, I wish you would intervene and replace on the clock the minutes lost to those terrible, inconsiderate interruptions.

Hon Mr Wildman: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I hope you will treat that line of poppycock for what it really is.

Mr Drainville: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I want to be very clear that this House is a deliberative body and when information is put into the record which is patently wrong, it needs to be refuted. That is what was happening and I was glad to do that.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, who raises a number of points, some of which I have drawn to members' attention not only today but on other occasions, it places the Speaker in a very awkward position when a member rises to raise what she or he believes is a point of order. The Speaker does not know what it is until having heard it. I have asked members if they would, if at all possible, refrain from raising points of order or privilege unless absolutely necessary until outside of the question period time. No doubt that, plus other extraneous sounds not connected with actual questions or responses, does utilize a considerable amount of time.

Like not only the member for Bruce but, I believe, all members of the House, I am most anxious that we be able to accommodate as many members as possible to ask questions. Some days we are able to do that and others we do not do it so well. As we head into the last few days of this sitting, apparently, perhaps members could be a bit more restrained in the extra sounds that are emitted and we could conduct the public business in a very efficient way.

MOTION

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Miss Martel moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bills Pr31, Pr33, Pr34, Pr42, Pr50, Pr63, Pr65 and Pr75 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 19 June 1991.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Ferguson: I have a petition signed by a number of residents in my community as well as communities throughout southwestern Ontario. In part, it says:

"We, citizens and taxpayers of Ontario, petition the Minister of Health and the Ontario health insurance officials to hear our request for fair and equitable rates to be paid to US facilities to take care of Ontario residents undergoing treatment, especially adolescents 12 to 21 years of age."

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Abel: I have a petition with approximately 150 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"We are opposed to a waste disposal site for composting on 63 Parkside Drive in Waterdown.... The activity would appear to be illegal both under the town's bylaw and under the Environmental Protection Act.

"The subject property is bordering on residential homes and dangerously close to residential subdivisions and the Guy Brown public school. Excessive trucking, heavy equipment noise, blowing dust on to the homes, road damage, rotten offensive odours, potential well water and land contamination, rodent infestation and surrounding devalued land are all consequences of this operation."

I have signed my name hereto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SCIENCES DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill 127,

An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act.

M. Eves propose la première lecture du projet de loi 127, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les sciences de la santé.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Eves: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Health Disciplines Act to provide for the permanent revocation of licences of members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario who are found guilty of sexual abuse of current and former patients.

Subsection 60(5) of the act currently gives the discipline committee discretion to impose any of several penalties if a member is found guilty of professional misconduct. Professional misconduct is defined in the regulations and includes "sexual improprieties."

This amendment defines sexual abuse to include the more serious kinds of sexual improprieties and requires the permanent revocation of licences of members found guilty of such behaviour in addition to the imposition of a fine of up to $10,000. The penalty extends to cases involving current patients, all former patients of a member who practises psychiatry and, in the case of former patients of members other than psychiatrists, to persons who were patients less than two years before the occurrence took place.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Miss Martel moved government notice of motion 20:

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 June 1991, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Miss Martel: If I may make an initial statement and then have a go-around on this, I am moving the motion for extended sittings over the next two weeks and I have included within the notice sittings for each night of this week, four days, and for next.

I would like to make two points. Members will recall that several weeks ago a decision was reached that in exchange for hearings on the budget this summer the government would put forward some of the legislation which it felt it had to get done before the session ended. Indeed, over the course of two House leaders' meetings we came to what I think is a very amicable resolution with respect to what business has to be done.

Within that time frame, I suspect we will sit two nights this week and two nights next -- that is, Monday and Wednesday of this week and Monday and Wednesday of next -- in order to deal specifically with two of the bigger bills the government has put in late in the day; that is, the bill with respect to Sunday shopping and, second, a bill respecting rent control. We have blocked those two evenings to allow for a very full discussion and for as many members who wish to participate at this time.

Second, we have also within the

schedule tried very hard to arrange off those evenings where various caucuses indicated they had particular functions they would like to attend which were very important to them. We have one as well. We have tried -- that is, the three House leaders -- as best we can to respect the various functions that people need to attend and to work around them.

I am moving this motion, because we have some business that we must conclude, as part of the arrangement we made in order to have public hearings this summer on the budget. I do not expect it will be an onerous task, but it will allow members who want to get their points of view on the record with respect to Sunday shopping and rent control to have the time to do that.

Mr Elston: I must say this is becoming a bit of an annual event, and while I do not wish to criticize too roundly the steps taken so far to manage our business through this past session, I must say we might have performed much better in this House had there been some consideration of reaching an agreement much earlier between the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, and the member for York South, the Premier of this province.

The points that were being raised by the member for Nipissing were of course real and felt to the depth of his right-wing soul. I know he felt very strongly about his point of view. The point of view shared by the caucus of the New Democratic Party with its Premier was likewise firmly held and I can understand its resolve to resist even a modicum of movement towards some kind of reasonable discussion with the third party because of its desire to display its macho credentials to the public in Ontario.

But I have to say it has been destructive of the process of studying and developing the issues in this House and has prevented us as members of the Legislature from displaying an ability to consult and speak our minds in this House in the manner in which we ought to be allowed to express our views.

That having been said, on behalf of our party I am not going to resist the extension of the hours this evening. We are prepared to go along and sit until midnight if that is the will of the New Democratic Party, but I can tell members that it would have been very easily avoided indeed had there been some prior decision taken by the Premier that he would allow a reasonable review of the budget material in a committee of the Legislative Assembly.

There are other areas in which we might very well use this motion to make our points of view known with respect to the manner in which the Premier is managing his overall governmental affairs. There are concerns to no end about the manner in which he exercises the use of his principles or extends his principles with respect to the operation of ministerial business. There is no question about the lack of confidence that the people have in the ability of this government to manage the day-to-day economic issues.

We might very well have taken our time to expose the New Democratic Party for what it is in being unable to manage not only the business of the House but also the business of the province.

We might very well have decided to make a very concerted effort to use this debate to talk about the inability of the New Democratic Party to manage the economic welfare of this province. As a result, the extended sittings might very well be used as an occasion to point out to the people in the province that these individuals are solely and entirely responsible for a whole series of misadventures by not only ministers but several other people who live in this province as well.

I cannot say how difficult a position the province is being placed in by the inactivity of the New Democratic government, how difficult by reason of delay in the implementation of several policies and proposals which should have been here on the floor of the House, except for the machismo that the Premier had tried to display in the early showdowns with the leader of the third party.

It is to me a sad comment, the government's resort to the extended sittings as an answer to getting some business done when it might very well have arranged on a consensus basis to have the issues dealt with in a timely fashion here in the Legislative Assembly. There are so many things that could have been done better, except they thought they would like to show us the bottoms of their boots. That is perhaps the way this government will continue to carry on, as they display a total disregard for developing, in a consensus fashion, a way of managing the affairs of the province.

It extends to labour-business negotiations; it extends to management of the economy; it extends to their dealings with the federal government.

All of these things could make me speak for hours on end. However, I have decided that in the interests of getting on with the business of the day we will acknowledge the superior numbers of the New Democrats and their mindless adherence to the Premier's party stance. We will let this chamber get on with the debate of the Sunday shopping bill, which is for my friend the member for Scarborough North more important than dealing with the speech from the member for Bruce, who says he wants to express concerns about the way this New Democratic government has displayed its inability to manage the province's affairs.

We will not oppose this. Let's just get it out of the way. Let's get on with business.

Finally, because they are in a hurry to get away from here for their holidays, these people may want to process some business instead of making some grandiose gestures of concern, and we will help to process the business through.

Mr Sterling: I think it is important to note that the government has the right to introduce this motion and limit debate on this motion going into the last two weeks of each period of our session. We do not deny the government the right to extend the hours this evening and each of the evenings for the next two weeks if that is necessary in order to carry the business. Therefore we will be supporting this motion. We think it is perhaps unfortunate, but I think those of us who have been here for a long period of time recognize that it is almost a necessary evil. It seems to happen all the time in just about every session. Therefore, let's get on with the debate.

Hon Miss Martel: I appreciate the support from the member for Carleton. I would only say in response to the comments made by the member for Bruce that there was a time when I sat on that side and the former government House leader sat over here. In those times it was a fairly regular practice of the Liberal Party as well to move this motion. While he may talk about how we should have organized our business better, etc, I would remind him that this motion was moved twice under the Liberals and it was moved twice under us. It is becoming, as the member for Carleton says, a regular part of this business, and I expect it will, but I hope that we can get on with it. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, if I might, I shall go in search of the Solicitor General, since he is moving this bill. My apologies to the House.

Mr Elston: I think, Mr Speaker, there ought to be a recess until he is found. Since the Solicitor General is unable to attend the business of the House, we should have a recess until he is found.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that there be a recess? Any recommendation as to how long this recess should be?

Hon Miss Martel: May I make a suggestion? If you would give us five minutes, I shall go in search of him.

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 1535.

Hon Miss Martel: The minister is on his way. I apologize to the House. We had been advised by the official opposition that there would be several speakers on this motion. We had assumed they would be vociferous and eloquent, etc, and so did not gauge our time accordingly. That is the reason for what has happened here today.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister has just arrived.

RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFLANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

Mr Farnan moved second reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

M. Farnan propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.

Hon Mr Farnan: It is with great pleasure and a considerable degree of pride that I move second reading of this important legislation. This government is committed to providing Ontarians with a common pause day, a commitment that was made in the November speech from the throne.

Bill 115 establishes a common pause day for Ontario while at the same time encouraging tourism, an industry that is vital to the economy of many areas of our province. There are two parts to the legislation.

The first amends the Retail Business Holidays Act regarding the operation of retail businesses on Sundays and other enumerated holidays. It supports and protects Ontario's tourism industry by providing province-wide criteria for an exemption for tourism-based businesses regarding holiday closing requirements.

The second part protects retail employees by giving them the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work without risk of losing their job or facing disciplinary action from an employer.

Tourism is a vital part of our economy. The changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act acknowledge that by providing a mechanism to meet the needs of this important industry. It is important to note that Ontario's tourism industry is a unique industry with unique requirements. No existing or previous legislation has ever adequately addressed this fact. Indeed, this government is the first to address the significance of tourism.

Under the current act, municipalities are granted powers that are virtually unrestricted to enact bylaws. This holds the potential for an inconsistent application of the law across the province, thus undermining the importance of providing a common pause day for Ontario. The amendments before the House will establish province-wide criteria for tourism. These criteria would have to be met before an exemption can be granted. This provision strikes a balance between responding to local needs and the need to have a fair and uniform law that promotes a common pause day for the citizens of this province.

I remind members there is a transitional process to minimize confusion during establishment of the new system. Municipal bylaws regarding retail operations on holidays that were in force as of 3 June 1991, the day before first reading of this legislation, will continue for one year from the date of proclamation of these amendments or until the bylaws are repealed, whichever comes first.

I also remind the members that this government regards the common pause day issue most seriously, as indicated in the fact that the amendments set out minimum fines for breaches of the law.

As for the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, they will strengthen the rights of retail workers by giving them the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work. Even if employees initially agree to work on one of these days, they can still change their mind and refuse the holiday work if they so advise their employer within 48 hours. In addition, the amendments guarantee an employee 36 hours of rest in every seven days of work.

The sooner we can pass second reading and send the issue on to the standing committee on administration of justice for public hearings, the sooner these benefits will flow to the tourist industry, retail workers and all Ontarians.

Mr Curling: I have looked forward with great anticipation to speaking on the amendments to this act. Although a few minutes ago I thought the debate would not take place, I must commend the government House leader for finding the Solicitor General so he could make his opening statements. I am glad to hear him so that we are able to make our comments. We will be making comments in more detail as it goes to the committee and the public has an input into this bill that he has put forward here.

As the Solicitor General first stated, the intent of the amendments by the government is to provide two basic things; one is a common pause day with the exception for the tourist industry and the other is the absolute right of refusal of holiday work for retail workers.

Whether or not these amendments have accomplished this will be judged when we take a closer look at what was done. As a matter of fact, we do not even have to take a closer look. I think the way some of the comments have been made recently realize that this is not a well-thought-through bill at all.

The history of Sunday shopping goes as far back as 1845. I do not intend to take members through this long history of Sunday shopping, but here we are in 1991 and I should say that when the Liberals were in power, we moved very far in addressing some of the concerns that were daunting us for years. Today we are here to address the amendments before us.

I want to begin my comments today by quoting the words used by a certain member of this Legislature during a debate on this very subject, the legislation to regulate Sunday shopping. Not so long ago, that member during justice committee hearings placed a stuffed yellow chicken and a sign saying, "I am not deaf, I am just ignoring you," on the corner of his desk. His colleague who is sitting beside the member, and I will not name him here, recalls very well that those were the gimmicks done by the now minister.

The same member was thrown out of the Legislature for calling another member a hypocrite. Can anyone imagine that this honourable gentleman, who came forward today to present this bill, called one of the most honourable members in this Legislature, the then Minister of Health, a hypocrite? Of course, I am speaking of the Solicitor General, who is now putting this bill forward.

Surely the people of Ontario have a right to expect the government to implement after it is elected what the government promised before it was elected. Surely the people of Ontario have a right to some honesty and integrity in government. Of course, election time is a time to make promises. But again, we are all honourable people, advocates of all of the concerns of the little people or common people, or whatever the NDP put forward. Of course, we are advocates to an extent that sometimes we can even break the law to advance the cause, but people look for honesty and integrity and sometimes a bit of consistency.

This legislation represents yet another series of NDP broken promises. The Solicitor General promised special exemption for border communities. He has not proven at all that he can deliver on that. He criticized the current legislation, the municipal option, and then with this legislation handed to the municipalities what promises to be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. We heard the comments after the press conference of some of the interest groups as to what the minister has put us into.

The Solicitor General also promised a province-wide common pause day. He has not yet defined what that is. This bill does not do that, as the minister would acknowledge. Of course, it provides that in his opening statement.

It does not matter to the government of the day that this legislation is poorly drafted, very complex and, no need to say, unworkable. I will comment on that later on. What matters, they say, is that it shows they are committed to a principle. As one of my colleagues, the chief whip in my party, stated, "If you don't like our principles, we have some more."

Taxpayers in Ontario have a right to know why the government is so intent on passing legislation which it admits to be flawed and unenforceable. As a matter of fact, the minister himself admitted that this legislation is going to place an onus and a very expensive burden on communities across the province.

The current Minister of Transportation, when he was a member of the opposition, once spoke of the importance of a government having the courage to admit it is wrong. The existing legislation regulating Sunday openings has been upheld as constitutional by the Court of Appeal. It did not lead to wide-open Sunday shopping as prophesied by this NDP government when it was in opposition. I consider that legislation, that direction by the then government, to have been fair, consistent and, most important, enforceable.

The NDP members should admit, which they are not likely to do, that they are wrong. They were wrong about the legislation as drafted by the previous government. They should in fairness withdraw this inconsistent, poorly drafted, unworkable legislation. But do they listen to us? No, I hurry to say, they do not listen; but yes, sometimes they do listen. They said they listened to our leader the other day when he made some comments to them. They said they based their judgement really on the honourable leader of our party, the member for Brant-Haldimand.

Let me just make some quick comments about some of the amendments that were put forward by this minister. One of the things that is stated in the bill is that a bylaw may only be passed to ensure the maintenance and the development of tourism. This is a rather restricted way of putting this point forward. We have yet to find out the definition of "tourism" or even the definition of a "tourist" in this bylaw.

A municipality must ensure, the bill states, that prior to passing the bylaw, the area meets provincially devel oped tourism criteria. As I stated earlier on, when we had passed on this, when we considered the Sunday shopping bill, we felt that the municipalities had an extremely important role to play. We thought it was difficult for us at Queen's Park, along University Avenue, to dictate to all the municipalities around what should take place. We felt they knew exactly whether they would like to open their stores on Sunday, whether they wanted designated areas of tourism.

We moved that responsibility, of course, into the hands or the jurisdiction of the municipality. Earlier on I commented that the member put out his rubber chicken and said that was a chicken way out. Today, the same minister is asking the municipality to take that responsibility.

We feel that as he flipped in some respects, in flopping and flipping from one position to the other, he has made it more confusing. Believe it or not, the minister has made it more confusing. What he has done or his party has done is decided to put certain provincial criteria and then pass it on to the municipalities and say, "Now you do it." I recall some time ago that his leader stated emphatically, and I quote from one of his remarks about the municipal option, "You cannot protect the worker's right to refuse, nor can you protect the notion of a common pause day, when you have legislation decentralizing all this power to the municipalities."

Some of the new members here may not recall or they may not have been following Hansard or they may not have been looking at the TV at night, but I was here. That was not even so long ago as a matter of fact; that was last year in June, just before the big promises came about in the election. The leader felt that abdicating our responsibility as a province to govern would not be the way to pass the power on to the municipalities. Members would not believe it is the leader of the party who had stated that. The flip-flop attitude of this government is quite evident, not only in some of the policy issues but in the basic principles guiding them in governing this province.

Another point I would like to make about the bylaw they intend to amend is that a bylaw may only be developed following a request from one or more retail establishments, or within a regional municipality upon request of a local municipality. The members know that in our legislation we did not require an application for a bylaw to be made. It is rather interesting that the minister is asking the regional municipality -- I want him to help me understand this amendment he put forward. By helping me to understand, I think he will have the people of Ontario understanding this rather confused bylaw that he has put forward here.

I live in Scarborough. That is a municipality within the regional municipality, and the mayor is Joyce Trimmer. In the regional municipality we have a regional chairman by the name of Alan Tonks. If I have a law I would like Scarborough to put forward -- the mayor would like to -- for a tourist area, of course we have to appeal to the region for this. There is this confusion about the municipality asking the region if it can be designated as a tourist area. I want the minister, when he comes back, to explain this to us so we can fully understand what the process is and why he has to make it so adversarial and confusing in his amendments.

There is another point I would like to make. The amendments also make the final decision regarding the tourist exemption bylaw the responsibility of the regional municipality, following up on my point that the exemption bylaw is the responsibility of the regional municipality. If the regional municipalities say no, it is all over. What can individual retailers do to correct that? They would have to challenge them in the courts.

I say to the minister today that while being a politician is the profession I am so happy about, if you want to make money I would advise many people to go into law practice because a lot of cases will be coming forth. Many lawyers are smiling today knowing that a lot of appeals will be coming down.

The amendments also prescribe procedures of municipal councils, the ability of the government to prescribe regulations and the ability to act for unorganized territories. That is not much of a difference and I understand that in areas that are unorganized, actually some of the legislation can be done here. I have not much complaint about that one.

The final comment I would like to make on this one is that the government has made minor alterations to the form the bylaw may take regarding classes of retail establishments like stores and other related requirements with regard to the establishment of, as I said, retail establishments. In addition to the amendments to

section 4, they also intend to amend

section 6 and

section 7. This, as indicated, will allow the existing bylaws to continue for the first anniversary. I think that is sensible in a way because I know that for many people, as laws are changed, it throws in a lot of confusion. I can say yes, that as 3 June, as the minister has described, if laws are in existence then, the anniversary will be 12 months or a year after that. It gives them time to adjust.

I just want to make some comments about the other part on the Employment Standards Act. I know the NDP government feels that it is the greatest advocate for workers. If the members are sensitive to it, let me tell them that this amendment will not in any way protect anyone. It is unenforceable.

First, to begin with, it is stated that you could give 48 hours' notice if you wish not to work on a holiday or on a Sunday. I think that is rather inadequate considering the fact that if someone is going to work on a Sunday -- the minister does not have to answer until we get him into the committee -- and on Friday evening he or she states to his or her employer that he or she will not work on Sunday, he or she has lived up to the requirement of giving 48 hours' notice. I feel it places the employer in a