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

November 17, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

PARKDALE PAROLE OFFICE

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

EXPO 2005

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

TVONTARIO FUND-RAISING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

CANCER TREATMENT

WCB NEWS RELEASE

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

MEDIA BRIEFING

STATUS OF BILL

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 47

VISITORS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

TUITION FEES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY

NHL DISPUTE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PARKDALE PAROLE OFFICE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'd like to point to another example of NDP mismanagement, insensitivity and secrecy.

Recently, this NDP government secretly approved the relocation of a Ministry of Correctional Services probation and parole office, with an average of 1,400 adult clients, into south Parkdale, forcing me and our community to try to demonstrate in front of the building.

There are many reasons why this move is wrong. First, south Parkdale has already the highest concentration of social service organizations, mental health centres, drug clinics and crisis care facilities. Second, the parole office is not far from an area frequented by drug pushers, pimps and prostitutes, and therefore it's hardly conducive to a rehabilitation program.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: When will this government stop treating Parkdale as a hospital without walls and roof?

The third reason, of course, is that the decision was made in secret, without even consulting the political representatives and community leaders, depriving us, therefore, from suggesting alternative sites.

In short, we want this office closed and moved, and we will not rest until this is done.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The general government committee is currently reviewing Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario was not permitted to join the task force considering this bill. I quote AMO when it said, "Despite AMO's requests on several occasions, municipal representation was not permitted on the task force."

To no one's surprise, the task force itself concluded, and again I quote, "that it would be difficult to apply the EBR to municipal instruments without hearing the specific views of representatives of municipalities."

AMO does not support the Environmental Bill of Rights unless its many concerns are addressed. These concerns include the impact of this bill on municipal planning, on municipal projects such as roads, sewer or water line construction, on municipal costs and on the cost of doing business in Ontario.

Many of these same kinds of concerns have been expressed by the Ontario Mining Association, the Ontario Waste Management Association and the Ontario Forest Industries Association.

In view of these deep concerns, will the Minister of Environment and Energy grant AMO's request about this unclear legislation and take the time required, and again I quote, "for further discussion and analysis" before proceeding with this bill?

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In the last 18 months, the government of Ontario has been hard at work with Jobs Ontario Training, part of its economic renewal strategy to get long-term unemployed people across the province back to work. So far, more than 32,000 jobs have been created province-wide, with an average wage of $21,000.

On Friday of last week, I was very pleased to attend another broker launch in Cochrane North. The Abatisowin Training Management Group is the second aboriginal training organization in Cochrane North to act as a Jobs Ontario Training broker and will deliver Jobs Ontario Training to six native communities along the coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay. This means that all 15 aboriginal management boards in Ontario have now been approved as brokers.

The goal of the Abatisowin group is to create 350 to 400 jobs over the duration of the program. Between the two brokers, 18 people are already working and 11 employers have been registered. In a region where unemployment is running at about 60%, Jobs Ontario was designed to focus on helping social assistance recipients get the training they need to access the changing job market. Forty-five per cent of those who applied to this program are social assistance recipients.

Province-wide, we have saved $135 million on social assistance benefits this year alone. The training component of the program works to complement our government initiatives like Jobs Ontario capital, housing, community action, forestry and youth.

Jobs are the government's first priority. Along with Jobs Ontario programs, there are a variety of other measures through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to assist private sector employers.

Our government's Jobs Ontario programs are an absolute success and we continue our commitment to a program such as this to help put Ontario back to work.

EXPO 2005

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The Premier will know that a major initiative is being undertaken in the national capital region which will involve the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the federal government, local governments and the private sector. I am referring, of course, to the creation of a bid for the national capital area to host the international world's fair in the year 2005.

At a press conference today, the Expo 2005 committee released the results of a pre-feasibility study showing the fair is technically and economically feasible.

Canada's two previous expositions, in Montreal and Vancouver, have resulted in substantial benefits to their host regions, provinces and the nation. In fact, in Vancouver, Expo '86 generated a $65-million surplus, and both left a legacy of new infrastructure and economic development.

I am urging the Premier to please urge his regional minister, Evelyn Gigantes, and his cabinet to be a positive partner in trying to create a feasible world's fair for the national capital region. We really want the province of Ontario to be a positive partner in this initiative. I'm certainly urging the regional minister, who is here in the Legislature today, to look at this seriously and hopefully receive the encouragement of the people in the national capital region.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): In September 1992, the Minister of Education announced that the provincial Benchmarks, which are now referred to as the provincial standards project, will be established for mathematics and language for grades 3, 6 and 9.

These standards will be used to assess both individuals and education programs. They will show what the Ministry of Education expects students to achieve at different stages and in different subjects in education courses.

The standards for student achievement in mathematics were to be released to the school boards this fall, and language standards were to be developed in the 1992-93 school year. We have recently learned, after numerous complaints from parents and educators, that the math standards, which went out for public comment more than a year ago, have not yet been released. According to ministry officials, they don't know exactly when they will be released, but they hope before Christmas. The language standards which were to be developed during the 1992-93 school year have yet to be sent out for public input.

Minister, yesterday you stated in your presentation to the standing committee on estimates, and I quote: "Without a strong accountability framework, we might as well close up shop and go home. We cannot meet the needs of our learners without being accountable to them."

We all agree that our education system must be more accountable. We need standards that are challenging so that students are prepared to compete globally.

Earlier drafts of the mathematics standards were unacceptable. We need standards to show how we can improve learning in the classroom. Parents, students and educators trust that the minister will deal with his ministry staff to ensure that these standards are quickly in place in our school system.

TVONTARIO FUND-RAISING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to salute the Ontarians, many of them my own constituents, who have supported TVO in its current on-air membership campaign. Equally important, I salute the TVO volunteers from around the province who each year donate a combined 8,000 hours of their time to make the on-air campaign possible.

This financial and volunteer support is making it possible for TVO to exceed its already aggressive revenue target. This year's campaign will contribute more than $350,000 to TVO's programming budget.

This will ensure that Ontarians will continue to enjoy the high-quality educational programs they have come to expect: children's programs such as Bookmice that set the standard for all broadcasters; curriculum programming for teachers and students such as Mathica's Math Shop and Many Voices; High School On-Air which provides access to advanced high school courses for more than 7,000 Ontario students; and adult programming including Saturday Night at the Movies which is currently celebrating its 20th anniversary.

Tonight, members of the Legislature will have an opportunity to show their support for Ontario's educational television network and the programs they bring to our constituents. I encourage each and every one of you to join TVOntario's volunteers on air in taking pledges from the viewers tonight. Will you be there, Mr Speaker?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): To paraphrase an old barnyard slogan, the chickens are finally coming home to roost for this NDP government. Last night in Vancouver, CUPE, which as we know was the former staunch supporter of the NDP, has decided that it can no longer stomach this government, this Premier and this social contract. CUPE has decided to sever all links with the NDP.

It seems that CUPE members can no longer swallow Bob Rae's betrayal of the principles they hold dear, and we agree with them and so it seems does the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Just this morning she admitted that the social contract process led to this rift because, and I quote, "The timing was wrong and it was too much and too fast and people weren't able to accept that we ended up at the impasse."

Talk about stating the obvious. Now the minister understands what my leader, Lyn McLeod, has been saying all along: You're rushing into this, you don't know what you're doing and you don't understand the consequences.

We told you to sit down with these groups and negotiate without putting a legislative gun to their heads. You ignored us and now you are paying the price.

It is too late for the people of Ontario who have to endure the cost of the social contract. But make no mistake, and Mr Premier should make no mistake of this, the people will remember in 1995 what you've done in 1993.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In May 1992, Premier Bob Rae said that the fatal shooting of Raymond Lawrence, the suspected drug dealer, was part of a disturbing pattern of racism. Two weeks ago a coroner's jury found race did not play a

part in the shooting.

It is clear that Premier Rae's remarks were not only wrong; they were irresponsible, even dangerous. He was playing to vocal critics of the police, and without the benefit of knowing any of the circumstances of the Lawrence shooting, he made allegations of police racism, thereby encouraging racial tensions during a difficult period in the city of Toronto.

Now that the facts are known the Premier should publicly apologize for his remarks. He ought to apologize to the Metro Toronto Police Service, to all police officers throughout the province, and in particular to Constable Rob Rice, an honest and very courageous police officer who put his life on the line, and in turn was smeared through innuendo by the Premier of Ontario. Apologize, Mr Premier, it's long overdue.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Yesterday during question period, the Liberal Health critic blamed the Ministry of Health and the social contract for hundreds of people not receiving cancer treatment.

The critic's one-sided view of this complicated issue does nothing more than generate fear in the public, especially those unfortunate patients with cancer.

According to Dr Mark Levine, chief executive officer of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, patients who require radiation receive it. He stated that breast cancer patients who have undergone lumpectomy for early breast cancer and require breast irradiation have four to six weeks to wait.

However, clinical research has shown this to be safe and not to impact on survival. Patients with early-stage prostate cancer also may have to wait four to six weeks, but this does not affect the curability of the disease. It is important to note, however, that patients requiring urgent radiation have no waits.

With cancer cases increasing substantially, health officials are taking steps to increase the radiation machine capacity and the staffing of those machines to meet the need.

There is no doubt that the waiting list for radiation treatment is an important issue. Government and cancer care organizations are trying to deal with this complicated problem in a responsible manner, but it goes without saying that the Liberal Health critic's fearmongering rhetoric is totally irresponsible.

WCB NEWS RELEASE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to protest the violation of my rights as an opposition member in this Legislature and as a member of the standing committee on government agencies, which met today to review the Workers' Compensation Board.

As an elected member of this Legislature, it's my duty and responsibility to represent my constituents and to provide the people of Ontario with pertinent information the government feels is necessary for them to be made aware of. Judging by the blank news release that arrived at my office today, I can only assume that the Workers' Compensation Board is trying to withhold important information from me and the people of Ontario; or is the WCB weighted down so badly by its unfunded liability that it cannot afford the ink for the news release?

That's the news release, Mr Speaker, that I got this morning. It's blank. That's the way the WCB seems to be operating.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Simcoe East will know that he does not have a point of order, although it did sound as if he had material for question period.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Thursday, November 4, the member for St George-St David (Mr Murphy), rose on a question of privilege concerning a letter that was critical of remarks he made in the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 56.

The member stated that the letter was intended to intimidate him but that he would not be intimidated. The member for Willowdale (Mr Harnick), who received a similar letter, stated that he too would not be intimidated.

In response, let me begin by noting that Speaker Edighoffer stated on December 10, 1985 (at page 147 of the Journals) that "it is only in very extreme circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real and accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege."

However, I wish to emphasize here that threats to members are very serious matters when they affect the exercise of their duties and the fulfilling of their two most important privileges, that of free speech and that of attendance in this place.

In the case at hand, after reviewing the letter, the Hansard for October 14 and November 4, and the relevant procedural authorities, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I thank the member for St George-St David and the member for Willowdale for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. I know that they and many others were deeply troubled by the content and tone of the letters in question.

MEDIA BRIEFING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday, the member for Markham (Mr Cousens) rose on a question of privilege concerning a press briefing sponsored by a government agency on the previous Friday. The member indicated that he and other members had been refused admittance to the briefing. The member for York North (Mr Beer), the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), the member for Brampton South (Mr Callahan) and the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) also spoke to this question.

In response, let me say that Speaker Edighoffer stated at page 6204 of the Hansard for November 28, 1988, that no privilege was violated in circumstances where the government had not invited a particular member to a media event. In my view, this precedent is equally applicable to where a briefing is held by a government agency. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that the Speaker has no authority outside the precinct that would permit him or her to ensure that announcements are made in a certain fashion.

STATUS OF BILL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday, November 15, the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) rose on a point of order with respect to committee consideration of Bill 50,

An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

I may say at this juncture that normally the Speaker would wait for a member to be present before delivering a ruling. However, the issue is at hand for the assembly, and thus it's important to proceed with the ruling.

The first question the member raised was based on conjecture as to the process involved if the principle of the bill is altered in committee. While this may certainly be an interesting subject for discussion, the member will know that it is a hypothetical question and therefore one on which I am unable to rule.

As to the second question posed by the member for Bruce, I would like to refer to the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice at page 181 where it states:

"The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee."

In addition, standing order 120(

b) clearly sets out a procedure by which a committee may report any disagreement with a decision made by the Chair. This includes rulings on the admissibility of amendments to a bill which would have the effect of altering its principle.

Finally, I will deal with the question of whether debate during routine proceedings on the motion to adopt and receive a committee's report on a bill is in order. I can advise the member that such a debate is certainly in order. Indeed, there are several precedents of extended debate being entertained at this stage.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 47

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House.

The Minister of Transportation said yesterday in this House that we would have two days of public hearings on Bill 47, but according to the motion that was passed by the House yesterday, introduced by the government House leader, within those two days we have to have as well clause-by-clause and vote on Bill 47.

Normally clause-by-clause and voting on a bill take at least half a day to a day. So I'd like to have it clarified, perhaps through you, Mr Speaker, and the government House leader, whether in fact we should

schedule this afternoon, at the subcommittee meeting, two days of public hearings as promised by the Minister of Transportation, or will we even further reduce the opportunity for the public to speak on Bill 47 according to the motion from the government House leader?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Nepean: What the House and what the Chair are guided by are the resolutions which are brought before the House.

There was a time allocation motion which we dealt with yesterday, and questions pertinent to that were raised and dealt with at that time.

What the member brings to the Chair today is a concern that perhaps quite properly could be dealt with by the three House leaders as they attempt to organize the business of the House and attempt to provide opportunities for committees to deal with certain subject matters. But I appreciate the concern which the member has brought to my attention.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding with oral questions, I would invite all members to welcome to our Legislature this afternoon two very special guests: First, the consul general of France, Mr Yves Doutriaux, and a senator from France, Mrs Dominique Ben Guiga. You are welcome to our assembly. Would all members welcome our guests.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Who's with the consul?

The Speaker: You may recognize the other person. It is now time for oral questions and the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Labour. I want to ask you some questions about continuing concerns with the mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board following the appearance this morning at the legislative committee of Mr Brian King, the vice-chairman of the board.

Minister, our concerns about the fiasco of mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board have reached new heights today. I say to you that Brian King has misled a legislative committee, that Brian King has misrepresented the Provincial Auditor, that he has shown contempt for the Legislature, and we demand his resignation. Minister, will you fire Brian King?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The answer is no.

Mrs McLeod: I suggest to the minister that we consider this to be a very serious matter of public confidence; that the minister is surely aware of the kinds of concerns that exist about mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board; that the questions that are being asked in this committee, the questions that have been asked in this House are critical questions about the responsibility of the senior management of the Workers' Compensation Board, and they are critical questions at a critical time.

The minister surely knows that people are concerned about a Workers' Compensation Board that has an unfunded liability of $11 billion, and that this liability is growing at $2 million every day. Confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board is absolutely essential, and there is no confidence. I call on you today to act to restore that confidence and to begin by asking for Mr King's resignation. Minister, will you ask for Mr King's resignation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer to that again is no.

Mrs McLeod: I simply do not believe that a minister who is prepared to accept his own responsibility can continue to ignore the fact that the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board has continuously and repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for his actions on behalf of that board.

I suggest to this minister that Brian King has betrayed the public trust; that he has betrayed the confidence of the minister; that he has betrayed most certainly the confidence of this Legislature; and that he has betrayed the confidence of the injured workers of this province.

Minister, the injured workers of this province are absolutely dependent for their welfare on confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board, and that confidence has been completely eroded. Why will you not act now to demand the resignation of Brian King, act now to restore confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The vice-chair of the WCB has written to the Provincial Auditor to deal with the basis for the start of this, to clarify any misunderstanding that arose regarding the objectivity or factual content of the report on Simcoe Place. Mr Peters has confirmed to the standing committee that he is fully satisfied with the response of the vice-chair to his concerns.

Beyond that, I want to say that I think trying to assess lack of confidence in this entire House and in the injured worker community is an absolute crock.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): That is an issue we will return to, but I do want to direct a second question to the Minister of Health.

Today we learned that you will not be pursuing your misguided plan to charge user fees for prescription drugs to seniors. You have finally admitted that copayments are in fact user fees, and you have acknowledged that user fees will just hurt seniors. But the real question is: Why did you ever allow these threatening proposals to be put on the table in the first place?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The proposals that were put forward in our consultation paper were very wide-ranging. They called for reform of the way drugs are administered and prescribed in this province, and they asked for people's comments as to how we could make the system better.

As part of that, we proposed copayment from those who currently benefit from the Ontario drug benefit plan and believed that to talk about sharing in the cost of a product was not a user fee.

The Leader of the Opposition is right, the public disagrees and believes very strongly that being asked to pay for part of prescriptions in fact will hurt the vulnerable and the elderly. I agree with them and so does our government, so we are not moving to put in place those copayments.

But the fact that we want to reform the system has not been changed and the support we received as a result of our consultation for many of the reforms we're proposing was virtually unanimous.

Mrs McLeod: The question to the minister is, what does she believe? The public does not believe that copayments are anything other than new user fees. The issue is, what does this minister believe and what is the place of new user fees in her government's philosophy and its policy? I ask this question because even though you have today said that you will not go ahead with foolish, threatening proposals to charge new user fees to seniors for their drugs, there are still new user fees on the table.

You know well that cystic fibrosis patients, that organ transplant recipients, that AIDS patients remain afraid that you are going to charge them user fees of up to $2,000 a year for the drugs that they need to stay alive. Surely you would agree that these too are among the most vulnerable members of our society?

These people need your assurance that you are not going to charge user fees on their life-sustaining drugs. Will you assure cystic fibrosis patients, AIDS patients, organ transplant recipients, that they will not be hit with new user fees for the drugs they need to stay alive?

Hon Mrs Grier: When I said yesterday that cabinet had said there would be no copayments for drugs, that was what I meant and that applies to everybody who is a beneficiary under the Ontario drug payment plan.

If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to try to misinterpret and twist that, I don't know how much clearer I can be. But no copayments means no copayments.

Mrs McLeod: This is not a question of clarification for the Leader of the Opposition; this is an assurance that people who are out in those communities, who are really afraid about whether or not you are going to bring in user fees, need to have that you are not going to hit them with these fees.

They will be relieved to hear the statement you've made today, but let me say that they also need an assurance that this is not going to be an issue that hits them in the future.

You have agreed that you will not charge user fees to seniors, that you're not going to proceed with these ill-thought-out proposals to charge user fees to those with cystic fibrosis, to those with AIDS, to organ transplant recipients. If that is the case, you will no longer need legislation that gives you the power to impose those user fees in the future.

So I ask you, will you now withdraw the portions of Bill 81 that allow you to charge user fees in the future and give both seniors and people with life-threatening illnesses the assurance that they will not be hit with these user fees now or at any point in the future?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Ontario drug benefit plan covers senior citizens, it covers people on social assistance and it covers people under the special drug program. When I said there would not be copayments for the Ontario drug benefit plan, I did not pick and choose among the categories of beneficiaries; I said there would be no copayments.

That therefore means that many of the issues that are discussed in our consultation paper will be reviewed, and I will be coming forward in the very near future with the reforms that are continuing and that will enable us to assure those people who were worried about drugs.

They were worried about the cost of them. They were also worried about the inappropriate prescribing and use of drugs. Seniors said to us: "We get too many drugs. We get the wrong drugs. Drugs are wasted." We want finally, maybe for the first time, in fact for the first time, better management of the system. That better management and reform is what they're going to get.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday it was revealed that your former deputy minister, Michael Decter, was dining out at taxpayers' expense at the same time that he was lifting money from the pockets of public sector workers through the social contract.

Not only, of course, is this inappropriate during tough economic times, but it sets a very poor example for other senior bureaucrats in your ministry who take their lead from you and your deputy.

Minister, can you tell this House what audits or audit you have carried out to determine whether other senior executives in your ministry are spending money appropriately?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I refer that question to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This issue was raised here in the House yesterday and is raised again today. I have had a look at the situation with respect to the deputy who was referred to.

Management Board issues a set of directives by which expenses are incurred in the ministries across this government. All of those directives, to the best that we can determine, have been complied with.

The process is that deputy ministers are responsible and accountable through the public accounts of this province. Their expenses are reviewed by the Provincial Auditor and, as far as we're aware, all of the expenses that have occurred have been in compliance with the guidelines.

Mr Jim Wilson: Two independent sources have confirmed to me that an internal audit at the Ministry of Health was carried out and completed three months ago on at least four of the Ministry of Health senior bureaucrats who live outside of Toronto. I've been told that the reason for this audit was to examine why these officials have living accommodations in Toronto subsidized by the Ontario taxpayer.

I say to the Chair of Management Board, will you share with this House the results of the Ministry of Health's own audit into the living accommodation and spending practices of Jodey Porter, Patricia Malcolmson, David O'Toole and Eileen Mahood? Do you, Minister, feel it is appropriate for taxpayers to be denied essential health care services while bureaucrats are given living allowances to live close to their offices in Toronto?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has raised a number of questions in reference to several specific individuals. I will consult with the Minister of Health and look into the matter.

Mr Jim Wilson: This question would be most appropriately answered by the Minister of Health, who is responsible for the audits that were carried out by her ministry. I don't expect the Chairman of Management Board to know what's going on in the Ministry of Health, as he doesn't know what's going on in most of the rest of the government on the best of days.

Since I'm stuck with the Chair of Management Board, I will remind him that his colleague the Minister of Health, at the Ontario Hospital Association's convention last week, spoke at great length of the need for hospitals to trim their fat and to find innovative ways to do more with less.

While the minister and her bureaucrats have been telling hospitals and health care professionals to bite the bullet, many of these same bureaucrats are living at taxpayers' expense in Toronto. Meanwhile, hospital beds are being closed, drugs are being cut, cancer patients are waiting for surgery, dialysis patients are finding themselves on ever-increasing waiting lists for treatment and now the Ministry of Health is playing brinkmanship with cystic fibrosis patients.

Minister, how can you, in good conscience, continue to deny critical treatments for patients and make random cuts to services while condoning taxpayer-paid living accommodations for senior bureaucrats?

Hon Mr Charlton: I have already said I would consult with the Minister of Health and look into this matter.

Mr Jim Wilson: She said the audit --

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

Hon Mr Charlton: It's extremely interesting how short the memories are around this place. The question was raised yesterday about expenditures of the deputy in the Ministry of Health that were available publicly through the freedom of information process because of policy decisions that were made by this government. Past administrations did not make that information available.

Even more than that, the kinds of audits the member's referring to, although I have no knowledge of them myself, are being undertaken in the Ministry of Health for precisely the purposes the member refers to: to weed out the kinds of things he's talking about. It's interesting to note, and unfortunate, that the administrations that preceded us here in this province never did any of this.

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a question to the Solicitor General. I want to send over, through a page, a notice of a public meeting that took place last night at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. This public meeting took place last night and I think a very, very serious thing happened last night.

A Toronto Sun reporter signed in to this public meeting, told them she was a Toronto Sun reporter and started taking notes for two hours of a speech given by a member of the police services board, Mr Minors. At the end of that meeting, this Sun reporter -- Sharon Lem, I believe her name is -- got up and was surrounded by four or five people demanding that her notes be given to them and that she not take them with her. She did not want to give those notes to those four or five people who surrounded her. In fact, having spoken to her, she felt she was being physically intimidated.

She, on a couple of occasions, turned to Mr Minors, who was the guest speaker at the time, who saw this all taking place, for help.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this the police commissioner?

Mr Stockwell: This man is a member of the police services board, appointed by this government. Mr Minors, during the entire proceedings, did not step in to assist this reporter, did not try to stem this theft -- and that's what it was, theft -- but in fact told the Toronto Sun reporter to turn over the notes to the five or six people who were intimidating her. I have been informed further that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force is treating this as a theft, a criminal action. They have turned the investigation over to the Ontario Provincial Police.

I ask the Solicitor General, what action are you going to take with Mr Minors in the meantime, considering this investigation is taking place?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I'm aware of the

article that appeared in the paper. I do not have any facts beyond what I also see reported in the media. If indeed there is a police investigation going on, then obviously we need to be sensitive to that. The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services has the jurisdiction and the opportunity to review the conduct of members of police services boards, and that is an option that is always available.

Let me say very directly to the member, I appreciate the concern he's raising. It is a matter of concern. I will look into the matter further and monitor the situation and ensure that any action or reviews that need to take place do indeed happen.

Mr Stockwell: I just don't think that's a good enough answer. First of all, I can't believe that the minister has not been briefed on this issue. With a couple of simple phone calls he would have discovered that the Ontario Provincial Police are now looking into this matter.

Let's turn this around just a little bit. This is a member of the police services board who's entrusted, we hope, to maintain law and order in Metropolitan Toronto. This man is accused, at least being investigated, of not only not stopping a crime but in fact facilitating this crime by not helping the Toronto Sun reporter at this meeting. We know full well he could have stopped that theft from taking place. Further, if this were a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force being investigated by the OPP, it would happen in a New York minute. You would suspend that policeman with pay while the investigation was taking place.

I direct to the minister, why is this member of the services board not obligated -- not obligated on your part to take the same action you would take on a policeman? Why is this member not being suspended while this investigation is taking place?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I've got to assume that surely the member isn't suggesting that based on one media report he feels he can do an instant investigation, be an instant judge and jury and mete out whatever measures should or should not be taken.

I do take the issue very seriously and I have said so. I have said to the member that I have no intention of not dealing with this. But there are procedures in place; there are processes in place. I think the honourable member would surely be among the first to rise to his feet if indeed a proper process was not being followed. I have committed to ensure that the availability of those processes are made and that they take place.

Mr Stockwell: Talk about a double standard. Not 10 minutes ago did the member for Leeds-Grenville stand in his place and speak about this Premier with respect to Constable Rice and the shooting that took place. One media report said, "Bob Rae said that the fatal shooting of Raymond Lawrence, a suspected drug dealer, was part of a disturbing pattern of racism." In one media report we talk about "a disturbing pattern of racism" and this constable was cleared of all charges.

I say to the Solicitor General, it's a double standard you have here, sir. If a policeman or a policewoman were involved in an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, you would suspend them. I say to you, you have an obligation to the people of this province to ensure that the police services board is above reproach, is there to defend the people of this community.

You have another opportunity to fix this, sir. Why will you not suspend a member of the police services board when he is being investigated but you will do that to any police person who works in Metropolitan Toronto? Sir, that's nothing but a double standard.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It is absolutely nothing of the sort. The fact of the matter is that there are processes in place to deal with these kinds of allegations. I have committed here on the floor of the Legislature that those processes and procedures will indeed be used and will take place. That is why they're there.

In terms of any kind of allegation from the honourable member that I, as the Solicitor General, would treat this situation any differently were it a civilian or a uniformed person, I take great exception to because that is not the way that I conduct business in dealing with this ministry.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to place a question again to the Minister of Labour, although on yet another issue of concern. Minister, when the government introduced Bill 40, you promised that farmers would have special protection under separate agriculture labour legislation. Last year the task force that you established to review agriculture labour legislation issued a report demanding that you implement specific provisions to protect the sensitive nature of agriculture.

Minister, anybody who operates a farm can tell you that crops don't stop growing and animals don't stop eating when there is a labour dispute. Work stoppages can ruin crops, they can hurt livestock and they can force farmers into bankruptcy. You promised that you would implement the recommendations of the agriculture labour task force, but an independent legal review of the agriculture labour legislation has found that your legislation does not include the protections that were promised.

I ask you, why have you not kept your commitments to the agriculture community?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Well, I don't think that we have not kept our commitment. Whether or not we will get the bill on the floor of this House this fall or whether it'll take longer than that, I'm not sure. I want the member to know that the two parties, when we pulled them together on this particular issue, came up with the unanimous recommendation. It's that recommendation we're following in trying to draft the proper legislation.

Mrs McLeod: I can tell you that the people who participated in the task force that you set up to bring recommendations that you promised to implement are feeling angry and they're feeling betrayed.

Let me give you two specifics. You said that you agreed with the task force recommendation to prevent strikes in agriculture. But your legislation has no enforcement provisions, no penalties to make sure that strikes and work stoppages do not happen.

The task force also recommended that family members who work on farms not be forced to join unions. But under your legislation, adopted children, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces are not considered to be part of a family farming operation. Obviously, you have no idea of how family farms work.

The independent legal review has found 10 major provisions that contradict your task force recommendations.

Interjection.

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

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you cannot continue with legislation that fails to implement the promises that you made to the agriculture community. Will you not withdraw this piece of legislation and go back to work with farm groups to make sure that you are able to fulfil those commitments?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The legislation hasn't gone out yet for debate. We tried to get an agreement not to delay the legislation from both parties in the House and we're prepared to take a look at it and any changes that might be necessary if the opposition parties are prepared to take a look at the legislation. We certainly do intend to try and follow the recommendations that came from both the farm community and the union side of the committee that met on this issue.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It was recently reported in the Toronto Star that a woman has been waiting for almost two years to learn the details surrounding her husband's death. Given the current special investigations unit legislation, this investigation is no closer to being concluded now than it was two years ago.

In January of this year, your government announced a program evaluation of the SIU with a completion date set for July 1. Minister, it's been over four months since you were scheduled to receive this report. In light of the widely acknowledged problems with the SIU and the importance of its role, when are you going to release this report and introduce the necessary legislation to fix the problems?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member is quite right that we have been awaiting the report. The audit is not yet in my hands but I understand is well along.

At the same time, the SIU of course has been reviewing both its operational processes and has been going through a very extensive hiring process which will result in the hiring of at least five additional investigators as well as a senior former police chief who will have a good deal of authority over the operations of the unit. As soon I do receive the report, I will be making a statement about the changes that the SIU has made and will be contemplating in the future.

Mr Harnick: Minister, you see, the problem is that the special investigations unit of the police department has been continually criticized for inept investigations, inadequate training, extraordinary delays and lack of communication, and I can appreciate that you're going to hire more investigators because it's not right when a car accident takes six months to investigate. But that's not the crux of the problem. It's not a matter of throwing in money and new personnel just to do investigations.

Over a year ago, Howard Morton, the head of the special investigations unit, publicly stated that the unit could not properly function within the constraints of the current legislation. A coroner's jury recently concluded the SIU is incapable of properly functioning under the current circumstances.

Minister, can you explain why, since you took over the jurisdiction of the special investigations unit in March 1990, you've not introduced the necessary legislation that will allow the SIU to properly serve both the public and the police forces of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm delighted to take from the comments of the honourable member that he would support legislative strengthening of the role of the SIU, because I would certainly agree with him that strengthening of that role would probably be effective in terms of dealing with some of these issues.

However, we have made a commitment that any changes in that part of the Police Services Act will undergo thorough study by us and consultation with the affected groups. That was a commitment that we made in this House and we certainly take very seriously that there are conflicting interests in this. Those may be the calls from the director of the SIU, but there are other and conflicting ideas on how this matter is best resolved. We are continuing to work at various options and we will continue to do so.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Housing. We know that apartments in houses which allow one rental unit in a home promote compact development, make better use of often underutilized urban resources, promote the revitalization of our city cores and prevent urban sprawl.

We know that having an apartment in a home allows a home owner to defray mortgage and utility costs by renting to a tenant. We know that the construction of apartments in houses will create much-needed jobs and that the average rent for an apartment in a home is less than in a rental complex.

Finally, we know that many seniors are on fixed incomes and would benefit from apartments in houses and garden suites. I come to the question. There are, in effect, 100,000 illegal apartments in houses in Ontario, often substandard and subject to eviction at the whim of the landlord.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The question?

Mr Winninger: Since apartments in houses promote jobs, income security and affordable housing for tenants, including seniors and single parents --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Winninger: -- when can we expect the legislation, Minister, respecting apartments in houses to move forward?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That was a wonderful question. The member will be aware that in fact for all the good reasons which he has mentioned, both as benefits to property owners, benefits to people who would be involved in constructing apartments in houses and benefits to both future and existing tenants, because we would be providing more powers of inspection for existing illegal and substandard apartments in houses --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Don't listen to municipalities; they don't matter.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- we have tabled and provided first reading for legislation to promote exactly what he is asking for. In fact, the government intends moving forward with that legislation through second reading this fall.

Mr Winninger: I'm sure my constituents would also be interested in knowing what initiatives for affordable housing your ministry has undertaken while we're awaiting this legislation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is quite correct in identifying the apartments-in-housing legislation as only one element of this government's program to promote the existence and create new affordable housing in the province of Ontario.

We know that fully 25% of tenant households in Ontario are forced to pay over 30% of household income in rent --

Mr Mahoney: Quit giving funny speeches and misleading people, Evelyn.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Did you use the word?

Mr Mahoney: She does all the time.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West is to come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and therefore we have pursued policies to have good rent control and standards of maintenance provisions for tenants. We have also engaged in the largest non-profit housing creation program in North America. We've allocated over 40,000 units in the three years that we've been in office and we are moving forward on the apartments in houses legislation.

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Students at the University of Ottawa are holding a demonstration on campus today. Like university students across the province, the University of Ottawa students are concerned about what you're going to do to their tuition fees.

Since the academic year ending in 1991, tuition fees have gone up by 30% while the cost of living has gone up by only half that. The Council of Ontario Universities wants you to increase fees by 50% over two years. You said that a substantial tuition fee increase is on the way. We're hearing now that you'll be increasing fees by 30% over three years.

You know, Minister, that tuition fees make up only 20% of a student's actual cost of attending university out of town. You also know that students can't find a job to help pay for the tuition. You also know that you've eliminated student grant assistance in this province. Students are very anxious about the increase you're about to make in their fees. What assurance can you give Ontario university students that their fees will not increase by anything more than a moderate increase?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that first of all the member asked a similar question yesterday in committee but used a different figure. Instead of talking about the rumours of 30% over three years, I think he talked about 15% and 10%. There are all sorts of rumours out there. There's been no decision made. In fact, a recommendation hasn't even been finalized in the Ministry of Education and Training. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about what a tuition increase would be for September, 1994.

I think it's also important to realize that as was restated again this morning in the morning newspapers, Ontario has the second-lowest tuition in all of Canada. So keep that in mind. We have some financial pressures in our university system.

In fact, you've got up and asked questions in the House on other days and said that the universities need more money. Your leader gets up at other times and says, "Lower the deficit." What do you want to do? You want more moneys to universities. You want a lower deficit. The only way that can happen is with some tuition increase to help the universities and to expand the universities in the province.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister won't talk about a decision he's going to make, let's talk about a decision he's already made. That's his decision to turn a blind eye to universities raising tuition fees through the back door.

Last year, you raised tuition fees by 7%, but you allowed universities to raise fees even further through the back door. For example, although you allowed universities a $135 increase in fees, Western university added $200 to that and the University of Toronto added $185, and they did this by jacking up their ancillary fees. The real increase in tuition fees for Western students was not 7% this year, but 18%.

Your ministry's guidelines prohibit a university using ancillary fees to cover operating costs, but that's exactly what universities are doing. Western specifically said it was charging an additional $200 in ancillary fees in 1993 because of social contract cuts to its operating budget.

My question: Why are you allowing Ontario universities to raise tuition fees through the back door, pass on their social contract cuts to students and breach your own ministry's guidelines?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is simply misinformed. The Western ancillary fee increases have nothing to do with the social contract. He knows that. It's completely inaccurate and silly to make that accusation.

I don't support what some of the universities have been doing on ancillary fees, and I've told the leadership of the university community and the students that when we bring forward a policy on tuitions, we will also want to see some commitments from the university community to keep a lid on ancillary fees. That's a commitment we're willing to make. It's too bad you didn't take action when you were in government.

Mr McGuinty: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The minister alleges that I am misinformed. I have a copy of the minutes for the board of governors for Western university. It reads, "Through its expenditure control" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. Would the member take his seat. Being informed or not informed is not a point of privilege.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Last week, the Minister of Labour received a 30-page critique of agriculture's thoughts on Bill 91. I'm sure you're aware of that. Actually, a quotation says, "Bill 91 fails to translate into statutory form the consensus developed by the Agricultural Labour Relations Task Force on a number of critical points." Those critical points number 11. The Minister of Labour totally ignored them.

Agriculture, sir, is your area of responsibility. Will you make sure that the Minister of Labour knows that in agriculture we have seasonal workers, not like running GM? Will you make sure that when Bill 91 comes to this Legislature, it does reflect agriculture's concerns?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Of course we will address those concerns. That's why the bill was put together by a committee representing different commodity groups, representing labour. Another group has taken a look at the bill. They have pointed out some things they'd like to see changed, and I would like to assure the member that in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour, we certainly will make sure those issues of concern are addressed.

I do not think this is the appropriate time to try and nitpick on the bill. I think there's enough consensus around the bill from all the groups concerned. We feel confident that this bill has the support, and that perhaps with a few minor modifications that have been suggested, we can bring this bill forward with the unanimous consent of everybody.

Mr Villeneuve: These are 11 major points of concern, Minister, and I think they're more than minor modifications.

When the Minister of Labour brought in this bill, he accused me of being the only negative person. Interestingly, we now have the entire area of agriculture very concerned about, first of all, the Ministry of Labour, knowing nothing about agriculture, moving into your domain and basically taking over what we have thought should have been your responsibilities. It's clear that the Ministry of Labour, based on Bill 91, hasn't the faintest idea of what goes on in rural Ontario.

I reiterate to the Minister of Agriculture that unless major changes occur in Bill 91, I must say to you that you are not doing your job. Will you do your job, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Of course I'll do my job. I also want to point out that the Ministry of Labour and the minister certainly understand agriculture and understand rural Ontario or they wouldn't have put together a committee which is made up of farmers in order to put that legislation together.

I would like to remind the member --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Whether there are one or two or 11 suggestions that have been made, I don't think the number is important; it's the significance of them. We do have consensus on the major items and I think that with a few --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- modifications we can proceed.

I would like to caution the member that the alternative to bringing this bill forward, even if it has a wart or two on it, is that the agricultural workers at this point in time will be subject to the same rules as everyone else, and that is not the desire of this minister. We're looking for some special provisions for agricultural workers and the agricultural industry.

Without bringing this bill forward, they are going to be exposed and they're going to be covered by labour relations as it fits with auto manufacturing. So there's some interest for members of the other side to support this bill so we can bring it in and deal with it and get it passed.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I was surprised to read in the Financial Post this morning that the provincial governments have reached an agreement on internal trade as part of comprehensive negotiations. Is this true, Minister?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think members of the House will know that we are engaged in interprovincial trade negotiations, which are ongoing. The Financial Post report that the negotiations have been concluded is in fact quite inaccurate.

Right now, the chief negotiators are meeting on an ongoing basis. At the next meeting of the ministers of internal trade, when it comes up in either December or January -- the date's still to be confirmed -- we will have an opportunity to review the progress that the chief negotiators have made. I think progress is being made but there's no deal that's been concluded at this point in time.

Mr Sutherland: The

article also makes reference to agricultural marketing boards, and I was wondering if you could inform this House and my constituents as to how a supply management system may be part of these negotiations.

Hon Ms Lankin: Supply management is not an issue that is under negotiation in these interprovincial trade negotiations. I believe that in the internal document the Financial Post referred to, there were illustrative cases put forward from a number of sectors, but I can assure the member that supply management boards are not under negotiation. These negotiations, in the area of the agriculture and food sector, are being directed by the ministers of agriculture. He could seek further information there.

I understand that at the federal level, the chair of the interprovincial trade negotiations is issuing a press release today to also correct the record with respect to the Financial Post article.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. You will be aware of your public relations exercise in the area of zero tolerance: zero tolerance, no blood alcohol while driving a vehicle. But zero tolerance without a penalty is just a fancy press release, just words on a piece of paper. You are aware that there is no driving penalty for a young person, a person under the age of 19, having any alcohol in their body.

As you are aware, I have introduced legislation which will prohibit persons under the age of 19 from operating a vehicle while having any alcohol in their body, the penalty for which, on contravention, would be the suspension of their licence for one year. My question to the Minister of Transportation is, will you support this legislation?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It's quite refreshing and welcome indeed, with respect of course, to have a member opposite not talking about money and to have a member of the government talking about saving lives. It's quite a departure from recent form and hence certainly the cooperative attitude.

The member has approached me, and I very much appreciate this, with ways to sort of make it foolproof. For instance, you cannot, under the statutes in the province of Ontario, consume any alcohol if you're younger than 19 years of age. This is a given; it's the law of the land indeed.

The only dilemma we could possibly have is with the legislation under our safety initiatives -- and there are many programs that we're bringing forward -- the ability of that legislation to blend, to connect with the desire and the substance of what the member is bringing forward. I don't say this as a deterrent; quite the opposite. It has to work together. There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end, and it must never be contradictory for its application and enforcement thereafter.

We're looking forward to good cooperation. If it's his idea, it shall remain our idea. We're not offended by it and look forward to working together. But first we must make sure for the citizens we represent that both pieces of legislation blend and blend well.

Mr Offer: I cannot understand that type of response by the minister. On an earlier date, I sent over to the minister statistics from Dr James Young, the chief coroner of Ontario which really do indicate the depth of the problem in terms of the fatalities on the roads where alcohol is a contributing factor. We have young people in the gallery today.

Mr Minister, the issue is this: There is a law in this province now that people under the age of 19 cannot legally consume alcohol. There is no law in this province that a person under the age of 19, having consumed alcohol while in the operation of a vehicle, will suffer a penalty.

This question is very simple: Will you support legislation in which a penalty is foisted upon young people under the age of 19 who operate a vehicle while having alcohol in their body?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We already have under the statutes --

Mr Offer: You don't have a driving penalty.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- laws regarding the legal drinking age in the province.

Mr Offer: There is no driving penalty.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Will you stop shouting like a jackal?

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. The last remark was not helpful, but on the other hand the member asked a very serious question and I would anticipate that he would appreciate a thoughtful reply. The minister now has the opportunity to provide that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw. There's no call for this and I apologize. Under the heat of debate when we both take our roles rather seriously indeed, sometimes our temper, our temperament, gets the best of us. I apologize.

Perhaps just as importantly, if there is a way that we can arrive at it, if it's commonsensical, if it works in the real world, we shall endeavour to do so. We're talking about the same thing. What the member says is, "Why don't you support my bill?" and what we're saying is, "If your bill is applicable, does not contradict the legislation already in place, if it is workable, if we can monitor compliance, we will do it together."

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I'm sure that the minister as well as myself was made aware of a news

article this morning by Christie Blatchford in the Toronto Sun, where she was reporting on equity questionnaires that are being distributed to university students who are applying to get into our universities.

Since we've had a number of questions, I thought I would pose it to the minister in the House. It states: "The resulting data will be used to develop and justify various 'quota' systems at the province's 20 publicly funded universities."

I wonder if the minister could take the opportunity of this question and explain to us just what this is all about, since the ministry is funding to the tune of $150,000 a grant to do this survey, why it chose to use this vehicle to get this information and what it's going to be used for.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): When I read the

article this morning in the newspaper, I was quite concerned myself. Then I decided to try to get the facts. We should never rely on the Toronto Sun to present the facts on issues like this.

The fact of the matter is we don't have good statistics in this province as to the makeup of our university bodies. You know that we've had these discussions in committees around here before. Some of the universities have done censuses on their own to get a proper analysis of the makeup of student bodies in the province. That has been hit and miss. So the universities decided that it was appropriate, through the application process, to get an idea of who was applying to go to university in Ontario.

I want to make it very clear, and I've got the form in front of me that the students fill out, how the information will be used. The information you provide to the application centre will not be disclosed to the universities before the admission decisions are made.

This has nothing to do with admissions to the universities. It's a statistical analysis to help us in the ministry, in the provincial government and the universities to plan our university system and to get a better idea of the makeup of our university applicants in the province of Ontario. It has nothing to do with quotas. It has nothing to do with that issue whatsoever.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm obviously raising it so that there is a clear understanding. I do have to remind the minister that when a similar question was asked about gathering data on crime, he stated in the House that it was okay to ask all these questions but it wasn't okay to ask a person's race. So we do have a double standard in the kind of forms that are being filled in and being asked to be filled in across the different ministries. I would ask you very carefully to take a look at that, because in fact it is a question in the eye of the public.

Getting back to this issue, I have to say to the minister that right now we're advised, and he knows this as well as I do in my position as critic, that across the province of Ontario right now there are some universities that do have quota systems based on some of the answers to these questions or maybe based on needs, especially in the fields of education. In fact there may be a need for that.

I'm going to ask the minister this: What is he going to do if there is a need for these systems, which we don't really know about but we hear are in place? What is he going to do provincially about these quota systems that are being established in colleges, teachers' colleges especially, faculties of education across the province of Ontario, when he's saying today he doesn't have these data? It's already taking place.

Hon Mr Cooke: The member is dead wrong. There's not a quota system in the universities of this province; there's not a quota system in the faculties of education of this province. There are programs, as there are at York University, and there have been for many years, even when your party was in power, that try to promote a variety of criteria for admission to the faculty of education, something you've advocated and something I've advocated.

It is just good common sense to have a teaching profession that represents the entire province. I do get exercised about these types of questions, because it's not helpful to make accusations about quotas when they're not there, they're not true, and you know that they're not there. It's not helpful to try to make accusations about a system that are not true when we're trying to have a university system that is more representative of the province and do it in a way that everybody can support and make it that way in a way that everybody can support.

The universities have programs in place --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- programs that you supported. So don't try to alienate people from the system when we're trying to make a university system and a professional system that is representative of all of Ontario. Your kind of accusations are not helpful.

NHL DISPUTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I've been following with interest the negotiations between the National Hockey League and the NHL referees. I know that in Ontario, under the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, it is illegal to hire replacement workers during a strike.

Can the minister tell me why replacement referees have been hired for games played here in Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): It's nice to get an intelligent question in the House for once. The NHL can, unfortunately, hire replacement refs because the referees are not recognized as a trade union under the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They have not been certified by the OLRB and, therefore, they don't have access to the provisions of the law. They are not recognized as a union because they have not gone through the usual process of getting at least 55% of members to sign cards.

It makes an interesting question that maybe should seriously concern the referees and linesmen going through the process, but I think we should also be aware that, if they did go through the process, it's likely they would also have a battle with the NHL over jurisdictional grounds as to whether it was national, provincial or international.

Mr Hansen: Is there any way for these workers to access the provisions of Bill 40 in order to halt the replacement workers from being used in a work stoppage in Ontario?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Burlington South is out of order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In response to the final question, were I in the position of the linesmen and the referees, at least I would try the process of organizing in the province of Ontario and becoming a member of a certified union before the board.

However, I also fully understand that there would undoubtedly be a challenge by the NHL over the fact that it's not just a provincial jurisdiction; it's international. That might very well make their efforts not very successful.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering why an employer cannot discourage his employees from unionizing --

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: No. The member has a question for question period. If he'll take his seat, perhaps he'll have an opportunity. We still have time in question period.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is also to the Minister of Labour, and since I won't have time for a supplementary I'll try to wrap it up into one.

This morning in committee, it was quoted that Mr Brian King said something to the committee that Mr Di Santo agreed was incorrect, and I'd like you to hear it.

On September 15, Mr King said:

"As a matter of fact, the company that ultimately ended up as the real estate holding company," of the new building, "the numbered company 799, had been specifically audited by the Provincial Auditor's office in 1990, at which time the Simcoe Place development was known and it was known that 799 was going to hold the Simcoe Place."

The auditor comments, "This passage contains a number of statements which are not factually correct." He says that at no time during 1990 was it known about Simcoe Place or the investment in Simcoe Place.

In fact he says, "By the time of completion of the audit of investing activities, September 1990, the WCB had placed ads in newspapers requesting pre-qualification information from parties interested in providing space." In other words, the board had asked for submissions. The auditor had not audited the numbered company that holds the real estate investments for the WCB.

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

Mr Mahoney: The auditor had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Mr King, according to Mr Di Santo, in response to my question --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- made a factually incorrect statement, the auditor said it was factually incorrect --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I have asked several times. If the member actually has a question, I would invite him to now place it quickly.

Mr Mahoney: What's your hurry?

It was pointed out in committee this morning that Mr King had made an incorrect statement. My question to the minister is: Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King made an incorrect statement to the committee and misled the committee? If you do agree with that, what are you going to do about it?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On this specific question that's been asked by the member, I'll get back to him at a future meeting of the House.

PETITIONS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition which I would like to present. The petition is from many people in the area of Quinte and it reads:

"To the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"The government of Ontario has presented to the Legislature of Ontario a bill identified as Bill 79,

An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women.

"We, the undersigned, believe most of the items in this bill are discriminatory, racist and inflammatory.

"This bill, if passed, will create additional cost to employers, double jeopardy legal entanglements and an entirely new bureaucratic hierarchy in this time of financial problems for governments and industries.

"We, the undersigned, request that you withdraw or defeat this bill."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 50,

An Act to implement the Government's expenditure control plan and, in that connection, to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre le Plan de contrôle des dépenses du gouvernement et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé et la

Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. Shall Bill 50 be ordered for third reading? Agreed. So ordered.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the County of Grey

Bill Pr61,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr48,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 12:

That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House, in relation to Bill 8,

An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos, one further sessional day shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 3:30 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion.

Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day. At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That, upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That, at the end of the sessional day on which Bill 8 is called for third reading debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That in the case of any division in the House relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'll again be very brief today, but I think it's important that I do make a few opening comments on this motion to proceed to use time allocation to complete the legislative process around a piece of government legislation.

The circumstances today are somewhat different than the circumstances we found ourselves in as a government around the piece of legislation yesterday. This is a circumstance where this bill has been through the second reading process, has been through extensive committee hearings during the legislative break in August and September, had some considerable amount of time allotted to it in clause-by-clause during that break and has gone back into clause-by-clause discussion here in the House.

Unfortunately, in this process the opposition has made it very clear to the government that, firstly, there are several sections of this bill that it will not under any circumstances allow to pass. The consequence of that is the very piece of legislation itself. In fact, the opposition has said clearly to this House leader that it has no intention of seeing this bill pass in the form the government intends it to pass in. From that perspective, this is in fact the kind of circumstance where I guess almost any House leader of any government party would find it necessary to proceed with time allocation.

We have allowed a very extensive process around this piece of legislation; it had extensive public input. But there comes a time when democracy must be served, when the government must be allowed to govern and deliver the legislative program it has initiated. Since the opposition has made it very clear to us that it will not allow this bill to pass without this kind of action, we must proceed to use the standing orders to move this piece of legislation forward to its completion. So, as unfortunate a circumstance as it might be that we find ourselves in, I find it necessary to proceed in this fashion to get on with the rest of a very lengthy legislative agenda that will follow this bill.

Just before I take my seat, when my remarks end the remaining time this afternoon will be, as I understand it, split by the two opposition parties to discuss this question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed. Is there further debate on the resolution?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr SPeaker, I recall, less than 24 hours ago, sitting in this place observing an exchange between you and my government House leader. Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, stood in his place and challenged you as Speaker in terms of a government time allocation motion that was brought yesterday. It was a very passionate debate.

I'm not going to revisit that right now, simply to say that during the course of that debate I interjected when the government House leader said, "None of us likes to use time allocation motions, but from time to time they become necessary in terms of the scheduling of government business." He stood in his place with great righteous indignation and talked about how he had to move forward with the government business and introduce a time allocation motion yesterday.

At that point in time, you chastised me, Speaker, because I came back to my seat and I heckled -- I confess I did that -- and I said, "Tell me now, then, Mr Charlton, that you're not going to introduce the time allocation on Bill 8." He smirked, of course, and just sort of shrugged his shoulders. He said: "I really don't like doing this. This is contrary to what I believe in, in terms of the democratic process and the operation of this place, but I'm doing it on the photo-radar legislation because I feel compelled to do it."

Again, I interjected from my seat here and said to him, "Tell me, promise that you won't do it on Bill 8." Again, a smirk from the government House leader, knowing full well that yesterday he was going to do exactly that same thing.

Hon Mr Charlton: We just tabled it yesterday.

Mr McClelland: You tabled it last night. The government House leader said, "We just tabled it yesterday." You stood in your place yesterday, I say to the government House leader through you, Speaker, and you knew exactly what your intention was doing. Notwithstanding all of your rhetoric about how you don't like to do it, you have no hesitation. The bottom line is this: If people disagree with the government, people and the process can be put aside. All that matters is that the government gets what it wants, the way it wants it, when it wants it.

It's interesting to hear the government House leader say, "We gave everybody ample opportunity." The fact of the matter is, we have had two days of debate in committee of the whole on this legislation -- two days. We got hung up on one specific amendment that I introduced that will be debated at length tomorrow for an hour.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You have delayed it and delayed it.

Mr McClelland: Some caterwauling over here from the member: He says it was delayed. We discussed for two days on one amendment. The great irony, of course, is the government members would stand in their place and say, "We agree with this amendment, we think the amendment makes sense, but we're not going to pass it." The member for Grey-Owen Sound stood in his place and said, "Maybe if the government introduces the amendment, because it agrees with it, then it'll pass it."

That amendment specifically spoke to the fact that the taxpayer, at the end of the day, will not be responsible for any losses incurred from the construction and/or subsequent operation of a casino, a fairly straightforward amendment. Yes, it became a hurdle in terms of moving this legislation through the process as we go in sequence,

section by section.

So we got hung up on

section 6 and spent the better part of four hours, which is a considerable period of time, granted, on one amendment. But I remind you that at that time the government took the absurd position that, "We agree in principle with what you're saying, but we're not going to pass it." Members of both opposition parties spoke to that over and over again, and now the government has the unmitigated temerity to stand and say that it gave this full due process. I have never heard anything more absurd and disingenuous in my time I've been here.

I received a number of phone calls from the electronic media in the Windsor area last week. I went on, I believe it was, CBC. CKLW also interviewed me and a number of other media. The woman who was interviewing me said this as she teed up the interview: "'Bill 8 is being delayed by the Liberal opposition at Queen's Park,' says Mr Cooke, the Minister of Education, the member for Windsor-Riverside. We have on the phone, and after this break" -- of course, all the usual; they've got to pay for the show, take a pause to sell some time -- "we'll be back to talk to Mr McClelland to find out why the opposition is delaying the bill."

I said at that time, and I say in this place again, that the opposition is not delaying this bill. I say very plainly and clearly that the government, and the government alone, is responsible for any delay on this bill. In fact, there has not been delay. There's been two days of discussion on an amendment that the government says it agrees with.

Furthermore, they did not call the legislation until late in September and allocated two days. They wait now until mid-November and say, "My goodness, we're in a crisis situation." The fact of the matter is that this time allocation motion is being brought because the government cannot manage its affairs. They have had no idea of where they're going with this legislation.

Shortly after this legislation was introduced in the House, in question period and on other occasions I had exchanges with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have said to her, "The fact of the matter is that you let the good ship Casino sail from the harbour and had no idea where you were going." It has been evident from day one that the minister, with all due respect to the minister, who is a fine woman, has no idea what's happening with this legislation. She is totally out in the dark on this. What happens is that she reacts from day to day, from whim to whim, and has no idea of what's going on.

I predicted it, interestingly enough, a couple of weeks ago. I said: "Do you know what the government's going to do? They're going to sit" -- and it's interesting that there are some electronic media waiting to interview me following the debate today. They said: "That's really interesting. That's exactly what you said would happen." I said a couple of weeks ago: "The government will wait and at the appropriate time, a couple of weeks from now" -- being some time this week or next week -- "will throw up its hands and say, 'Oh, isn't this terrible.

The opposition is delaying the bill,'" knowing full well that it had not called the legislation for debate, that it had devoted only two days in committee of the whole and was actually setting the table so it could rise with some sort of indignation and a sense of righteousness.

The government House leader says, "Well, you know, we have to allow democracy to work." What absolute hogwash. Allowing democracy to work? "We'll introduce a time allocation motion and cut off legitimate debate, on some very significant amendments that are before this House and some very controversial sections of the bill," which I think quite frankly the government wants to avoid debating, because I think the government's embarrassed and would be embarrassed to have to discuss some of the more contentious elements in this bill.

That is the reason we have the time allocation motion today. It has very little to do with moving along the legislation or having any regard to the government's agenda. It has everything to do with the fact that this government has been unable to manage. They have demonstrated with Bill 8, as they have with other pieces of legislation, incompetence and a total lack of management. This bill has been handled in such a way, and I say this without fear of having it corrected, that they created a situation where they could try to justify a time allocation motion.

There was no need for a time allocation motion. It would have required perhaps a little bit of reasonable response from the government. The government House leader says, "We had public hearings for a few weeks." Do you know what the public said? The public said they're concerned about taxpayers' costs on this matter.

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: One of the government members, Mr Dadamo, moans when he hears me say that. It's very interesting. It seems to me that if you go back home to Windsor and talk to the people there, they too will tell you, notwithstanding the fact that they're in favour of the project, generally speaking, that there's some opposition in Windsor, as one would expect. They're saying they too have concerns about some of the economic modelling in the forecasts. The fact of the matter is that people are concerned that the taxpayer not be responsible and left with some white elephants in and around the province.

It is also important to note that Bill 8 is not about the Windsor casino. Yes, the government announced a time frame off the top of its head, if you will, without any real thought to it, and said, "We're going to have the interim casino up and running for January 1, for New Year's Eve." It became apparent that they weren't able to do that and they bumped the date a little further and said maybe into March.

Now I suspect, if you want another prediction, they'll say: "It would be really good to try to get this on stream for the Freedom Festival on the long weekend in July so that we can capture some of the American market as they come over and use it to kick off the casino with some sort of fanfare and appropriate celebration."

They will need another excuse. Doubtless it will be perhaps the Liberal opposition or maybe this time it will be the PC opposition that delays their March date. They'll find an excuse to pin on somebody else or to attempt to pin on somebody else why this legislation has been delayed.

It hasn't been delayed. There's been two days of discussion on it. The government House leader comes in, picks up his paper, looks over at me and smiles, because he knows what I'm saying is true. The record indicates very clearly two days of discussion. Having had those two days, the government found itself in an embarrassing situation. So what do they do? They wait and they wait and they wait, and about a month later they throw up their hands and say, "Oh, the opposition's delaying it."

It has been delayed, and it's been delayed, as I said, because the government doesn't know where it's going or what it's doing. I suppose when you run into a situation where it becomes patently obvious that you are mismanaging a situation and have fairly patently demonstrated that you're incompetent in the matter, you obviously look to blame somebody else. That's what the government has tried to do.

One of the reasons I alluded to a bit earlier, and we'll probably get into this if the government doesn't find some other way of killing debate, get into some of the substantive elements of Bill 8 that are contentious, is that we know that there is a court application pending, that there is a contentious matter with respect to the lands that would be used for the permanent casino. There is also some question as to the propriety of entering into a lease arrangement on behalf of a corporation that doesn't yet exist. Be that as it may, those are some issues that I'll leave for my friends in the legal profession to battle out in the appropriate forum.

It was very interesting to see, when one of the government members, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, spoke in favour of an opposition amendment, that there was suddenly a recess called and all the minions ran over from the minister's office and, if I can use it only sort of euphemistically and in allegory, kind of beat up on him in the corner and persuaded him that it would be in his best interests to vote against the opposition motion even though he had spoken in favour of it. It's not perhaps a wise career move to vote against the government.

We know what happened to Mr Hansen when he stood up for his principles and what happened to Ms Haslam when she did the same thing. They probably reminded him of that and said, "You know, you don't want to vote with the opposition on that, even though you believe it, in committee," and so that was changed.

Regrettably, the minions from the minister's office weren't quite quick enough when it came to a

section 19 amendment that the government's really concerned about. That amendment was lost in committee and, to his credit, the Chair of the committee, a government member, Mr Johnson, stood with tradition and protocol and maintained the status quo.

That amendment, in my view, that was lost and I suspect will be slipped through by way of this time allocation motion -- and I suspect that's one of the motivating factors for introducing this time allocation motion at the present time -- would have effectively bypassed, potentially eliminated, in my view, some remedies available in law to some land owners.

Now, without getting into all of the argument on that particular

section -- because I suppose that the government may even break down and allow one full day of discussion yet to remain, and I'm sure we'll have ample opportunity to discuss it at that point in time -- let me give you an idea of why the government is trying to avoid discussion on this.

Their amendment to

section 19 of Bill 8 would effectively say to people who own lands where the casino project is to be located, the permanent casino: "We're sorry. We don't like the fact that you're objecting to our acquisition here. To be really, really sure that we can acquire the lands, we're going to change the law to circumvent your legal remedies and your right to protest and to use the Ontario Municipal Board and the Planning Act and other vehicles and remedies that are available to you."

Effectively, what the government has said is, "We're not sure we're going to win this, so we're going to use the power of government to change the rules in terms of property rights because we want to have our way." Some people may say, "Well, you know governments; that's the way it happens," because this government has a certain propensity to ride roughshod over people when it has to be their way.

It's really interesting. I recall the Premier in 1990 making a big splash in the papers and electronic media when he went up to Temagami and arranged to have himself arrested because he wanted to fight for people's rights. It's interesting now that his government stands by and says, "People have some rights and they have some concerns and some beliefs in terms of their property rights with respect to the acreage in question in Windsor, but we don't like the rules the way they've been written, so we're going to change the rules."

During a committee meeting I likened it unto sort of the old coin toss, where you say, "Heads or tails?" and you call heads and it turns out tails and you lose and you say, "Well, let's try two out of three," and, "Let's try three out of five," or four out of seven, and you keep going until you win.

Let's put it another way: "Let's keep playing the ball game and we'll keep adding an inning on until we're ahead, and that's when the game will stop." That's what the government is saying. That may sound simplistic, but what they're saying is this: "We're not sure we're going to win this court case, so with a

section 19 amendment we want to change the rules to ensure that we're gonna win."

There are some land owners in Windsor who have some legitimate concerns about their property rights. Whether I agree with them or disagree with them is, quite frankly, irrelevant in terms of the substantive argument of their case. What I think is fundamentally at issue here is their right to make their case.

I find it, quite frankly, appalling that a government that, when it was in opposition, said it stood for the rights of the little guy -- I use that in a generic sense -- or the little woman -- I don't mean that in a disparaging sense -- the people of the province of Ontario, that we're going to stand for them and fight for them, now says: "When people have some rights that they want to exercise and they disagree with us, we want to push them out of the picture.

We want to change the rules to make sure they can't engage in their protest with the government according to the rule of law that was established prior to entering this particular piece of legislation into debate in the House." I find that absolutely repugnant.

Anyhow, the government members sit there because they've heard all this stuff before. We all hear it and we get a little bit insulated, I suppose, from some of the rhetoric because there's an awful lot of rhetoric in this place from time to time. But I would ask some of the government members to listen very, very carefully to this situation.

I want to lay out a bit of a scenario for you. Ask yourself how you'd respond to this, because I think I know how you would respond. I think I know exactly how you would've responded when you were in opposition.

Presume, if you will -- and I don't use this to be dramatic -- a single mom with two or three kids who has a piece of land on the corner of a property in the city of Windsor. Some big, bad developer -- because, according to the New Democratic Party, anybody in business and developers are all bad people; they're all profit-hungry people -- but those big, bad developers, they want to come in and, God forbid, they want to make money; they want to develop this land.

They put a proposal to the land owner and they say, "We want to give you" -- say, arbitrarily -- "$100,000 for your property." She says, "No, I don't want to sell." They say, "Well, we'll give you $200,000." She says, "I still don't want to sell." Next thing you know, "You're crazy; we're offering you twice as much as the land is worth." She says: "I don't care; I want to stay here. This is my home and this is where I belong and I want to stay here."

Then that developer came to the government and said, "Would you pass a law or an amendment that gave us the opportunity to kind of circumvent the existing protections under the Planning Act and rezoning procedures so we can get this lady's property and go ahead with our development?" You know what would happen then? There isn't a woman or a man who carried the New Democratic banner who wouldn't have stood -- probably literally if not figuratively, laid down in front of the bulldozers for that woman. You would've done it and you would've been proud to have done it.

There are some ministers sitting in this House today who would've done it. There's a former minister standing in this house today who would've been proud to have been associated with that kind of a fight, to fight for a person who is defending her rights. But you know what happens here? It's changed a little bit now. Now it's the government that has a project. Now the government wants to proceed and there are some land owners who say: "We don't want to give up our land. We think what you're doing is wrong. We have some remedies available that we want to exercise."

As I said -- and I want to interject this -- whether or not I think the land owners are right or wrong is really irrelevant. The fact is, they have a right in law to make an application or to put forward a remedy -- some might call it a hurdle; so be it -- in terms of this development. But the government comes along and says: "It's our game this time and we're the ones who want to do it, so you know what? Our principles don't matter any more."

This government -- as I read today in the

article by Steven Langdon in the newspaper, that calls upon the Premier to resign -- stated very, very clearly and succinctly evidence that points to the fact that this government is willing to compromise its principles if it's expedient for it to do so. This

section 19 amendment that they're going to propose, I say without fear of retribution in any sense, is exactly that. It's a fundamental departure from the principles these people who call themselves New Democrats used to fight for and proudly do so.

There are some members of the caucus who, I think, when they understand, if they choose to understand what's happening here, will be very, very loath and perhaps in their conscience find themselves unable to vote in support of that particular amendment because what you're saying is this: "We want to change the rules to ensure that we get a win."

During committee hearings, legal counsel was called from, I think it was, Municipal Affairs, to testify. She testified before the committee and said, "I was asked for advice on this one and I indicated that the government would probably win at the end of the day. They'd go through the expropriation procedure with the city and so forth. When I say 'the government,' obviously they're proponents of this particular project so they're in partnership in that sense, if you will, but they wanted this to take place. But I can't guarantee them," said legal counsel, "that they're going to have the victory."

I think that any of my colleagues in this House who have practised law or have been associated with the legal profession would know that it's a very poor, unwise lawyer, she or he, who guarantees any outcome in a case. All they can say is that on balance they suspect the following will happen. I've always said that any lawyer who gives you a guarantee is probably not a good lawyer, because there are no guarantees in a lot of things in life, and law of course is one of those things in life where there are very few, if any, guarantees.

What legal counsel said was: "Well, I can't tell the government without qualification that they're going to win. They probably will." The government said, "We want to know that we're going to win, and how can we do that?" She said, "You're going to have to change the rules."

That's great. That's like saying, "The Leafs this year are going to win, I hope, without any help." That would be like saying: "We want to make sure that the Leafs win this year, so you know what we're going to do? We're going to keep penalizing the other team and taking one of their players off the ice until we pad a lead and make sure that we can run the clock, and when it comes to 19:59 of the third period, we'll allow the team to revert back to the other rules."

You kind of chuckle and say, "That's kind of silly, isn't it?" But that's precisely, if you want to use that imagery, what the government's doing. They're saying, "We're going to change the rules in this case because we're afraid we might lose, and we don't like to lose." It's interesting that this is the government that used to say: "We don't like people to lose. We believe in people's rights."

The member for Durham East stood in this House two weeks ago Thursday and spoke about Remembrance Day and very genuinely displayed emotion. There's no question that was a genuine expression of gratitude and respect for women and men who gave of themselves for this precious commodity that we call freedom and some of the pleasures that we enjoy under our system of government. This is the kind of thing that we're talking about here. He stood there and talked about that. Part of that is a sense of property rights and a sense of having the opportunity to have rule of law and predictability in law.

This government says, "Sorry, we might lose this case, so we're going to change the law to make sure that we win." To the New Democratic members who are in the House or are busy doing other things or are back in their office watching this debate or who may watch, or the folks back home who are watching this or hear about it, remember what's happening with this. It's only one

section of one bill affecting some 14 property owners or so. I think the number may be 20 for 14 acres or 14 for 20 acres. Be that as it may, a couple of dozen property owners have some land in question for a casino development.

What we've allowed here is the beginning of the erosion of a principle, and that's a fundamental property right that says, "If the government wants to do a project, I have my right to defend it and to put it through due process and through the due process of law." This government says, "I'm not prepared to give that to those people, because it's our project and we'll have it our way."

Talk about the little kid who says, "I'm taking my ball and going home if I can't have things turn out my way." That's exactly what this government is doing, and it's using the time allocation motion to hide that very fact.

I say to you that I will not allow that to happen. Whether anybody picks up on this and whether or not it becomes a matter, I'll tell you that my caucus colleagues are assured of this, that we have made the point and put it on the public record. But when the government of the day begins to, I believe, get on that slippery slope of justifying bringing the power of the state down to bear on people who disagree with it, in a heavy-handed manner, it has opened the door for some potentially very serious consequences down the road. It's like a lot of other things in life.

Once you do it once, it becomes easier the second time, the third time and the fourth time and suddenly you forget; you forget what this is all about and you forget some fundamental rights and some fundamental freedoms that we enjoy.

You know, I would be accused of being dramatic, but so be it. The member for Durham East stood and talked about people who fought and died for the right to at least have a rule of law, an opportunity to challenge governments in the courts.

I would hope that in this case the government members would look very, very closely at what their leadership is proposing to do, understand what's happening with this particular section, understand that in

section 19, when we get to that amendment, you're saying to some people, "We're not going to allow you the opportunity to have your due process of law." I guess the question is, when you do it once, is it okay the next time? Is it okay to do it a bit more and the fact situation changes?

Let me get back to that little hypothetical scenario I gave you a while ago about the single mom maybe of two or three kids who had the little corner lot that the developers wanted to develop. Do you know what these government members would do, Mr Speaker, if that was the situation and that was the person whose property rights were being potentially challenged? Every woman and man on the New Democratic side would rise to her aid and to her defence. They would make a hero out of her. I said in committee, "It's the stuff that you would want to see made into an ABC Sunday night movie or a CBC Sunday night movie." That's true.

I think it's so telling, and this will probably rankle them a bit, that when the socialists don't get their way, they say: "It's okay to change the rules to make sure that we get our way because that justifies it, because we must be right, after all. We'll change the rules to make it right. Civil disobedience is okay if it's what we believe in, and changing the law is okay if it's what we believe in.

But people be damned if they disagree with us," says the government, "because we have the power and we'll use it to our advantage." And therein lies, I believe insidiously, the real folly of this time allocation motion, apart from the fact that governments use time allocation and this government has used it more freely than any other government in the history of Ontario.

What's really underneath it all? I think what's underneath it is the following. They're embarrassed about the way they've mismanaged this. They haven't managed it well from day one. They have demonstrated, I think, complete incompetence in terms of the management of this legislation. They don't know where they're going with it, or how, or when, and suddenly they find pressure.

The members from Windsor find pressure back home. "What's happening? How come the legislation isn't passed? Why are we having trouble with the interim site? Why has the January 1 announced opening date passed and gone and now we're into March and probably into July? Why is it that maybe this thing won't get off the ground before the next election and maybe the project's in jeopardy?" All of these questions are being asked.

So government members come back from their weekends in Windsor and say, "Oh, my God, this isn't going well." People scurry around and they sit down and they strategize and the political staff say: "You know, if we string this out long enough, we could always introduce a time allocation motion, justify it -- people aren't going to pay too, too much attention to that -- ram it through, minimize the debate, minimize the fallout and get on with the project, and we'll have somebody to blame. We can blame the opposition."

Nice scenario. But you know what? People aren't that stupid. You may think they are and you may think that people really don't care about the procedural aspects about this place.

It was interesting when the rule changes took place. We had great debates where my friends the member for St Catharines and the member for Bruce and others on the government side and the members for Oriole and York Centre stood and talked about the traditions of Parliament and the rules and how they had evolved. People said, "Well, that's just the way you conduct business." I'd go back to Brampton evenings or on the weekends and they'd say: "Why are you women and men so hung up on these rule changes? Does it really matter?"

I suppose in some sense, you know, when you're trying to meet a mortgage or worry about your kid's health and wellbeing and school and so forth, these things are secondary at best and are somewhat esoteric. They are sort of "out there" and the kinds of things that happen down at the Pink Palace. I think that our behaviour collectively or individually from time to time gives people a sense that "You guys are all crazy anyway and you don't really know what you're doing."

But there are some real, fundamental issues at stake here when you begin to changes rules partway through the game. When the rule changes came down here, people said: "What's happening? Does it really matter?" They didn't really pay much heed to it. But when something came down the pipe in terms of legislation and they wanted us to fight it, we said, "You know, the most we can do is have half an hour on this one because of the rule changes." They said: "How come you didn't fight the rule changes? Where were you?" and we reminded them that we did fight it but the government felt it was expedient to change the rules to its advantage.

So where are we now? We're in a situation that's very similar, I say to you. Maybe it's not particularly analogous, but I think it's similar in kind. We have a situation where the government says, "We believe in this concept of open debate and we believe in this concept of free votes and we believe, sort of theoretically, in the opportunity for people to go into committee hearings and have their views presented and then brought to the floor of the Legislature by way of amendment by the opposition," and I say quite frankly by way of the government from time to time as it responds to things it's heard across the province.

But when push comes to shove, when you get right down to where the rubber hits the road, if you don't like what the opposition is doing, it's find a way to slide out of it, find a way to keep people quiet, find a way to make sure the public really doesn't have an opportunity to understand what we're doing.

A time allocation motion such as this one plays that scenario so very, very well for the government, because we can talk about the amendment that became the contentious issue a couple of weeks ago, about three or four weeks ago, the amendment that said the taxpayer would be responsible. We can talk about the amendments at length if we want, make the points and let's move on, I would say.

We could do that, but the government has said: "You know what? No matter what you do we're not going to listen to the people of this province and we're not going to give you the amendments." So we fight, as opposition members, as is our responsibility to do on behalf of the people of Ontario.

The government House leader says, "Well, you know, democracy," and stands and sort of lifts himself and puffs himself up and says: "This is an issue of democracy. We have to get on with the government's agenda." The fact of the matter is, if they really believe in democracy they would listen to the people and allow themselves the opportunity to think through some of the things they're doing and to deal with it in a forthright, direct manner.

I don't think it's the end of the world when you have a time allocation motion, but I think when you do it this way you begin to erode, ever so insidiously and ever so slowly, the institution we all serve in, the process that has served us well for so many years.

Sometimes government is tough, sometimes it doesn't go your way, but maybe there'd be a lot more people around -- and I say to you, Mr Speaker, although you sit in the chair and do so very well in a non-partisan fashion, maybe some of your colleagues who served with you over years past who got caught up in the reaction, the wrath of the people, would still be here.

I take no particular personal credit for having survived the 1990 election. A lot of good, good women and men were defeated and a lot of good women and men are going to be defeated sitting on the government side who served their constituencies to the best of their ability.

One of the reasons many of them, if not every single one of them, are going to be defeated is because they too came in with these lofty ideals about listening to the people, but when it comes down to it they say: "Oh my God, I might lose my parliamentary assistant position or my committee chairmanship or, God forbid, I might be chastised by the Premier and embarrassed in front of my caucus colleagues. I'm going to just kind of let this thing slide by and be silent. I might even go to the washroom during the vote." We know how that game's played.

I say to the government members, think about what you're doing, not on the time allocation motion but the stuff you're trying to hide on this, the substantive amendments that were tabled by the opposition. Yes, it's true we got hung up on one amendment. The member is no longer here. The member for Oxford, Mr Sutherland, said, "Yes, but you spent two days on one amendment." Yes, we did spend two days on one amendment, because we were frustrated when the government would stand in its place and members were saying: "It's a good amendment. We believe in it. We agree with the principle but we're not going to support it because it's an opposition amendment."

The Conservative member from Grey-Owen Sound stands in his place and says, "Maybe you don't like McClelland," he sort of said tongue-in-cheek. "I can understand if you don't like him. He's in opposition and he's always bugging the government. Why don't you introduce it yourselves and we'll support it."

So, yes, we got hung up on one amendment, but for the government House leader to say that's somehow an abuse of democracy I think is absolutely antithetical to what in fact actually happened. That is not in fact the case. The government's introduction of the time allocation motion is contrary to some of the democratic principles we believe in.

The members of this government when in opposition stood for hour after hour after hour filibustering legislation they didn't believe in, and they like to pat themselves on the back and liken themselves unto some latter-day heroes for having done that, as they sort of figuratively stood on the bridge singlehandedly.

The member from Thorold held off the barbarians and saved the nation as he fought hour after hour on government auto insurance. He was a bit of a folk hero. I know since that time there's maybe been a little bit of parting of company and a little bit of disagreement around the kitchen table, but the now government members, then sitting in opposition, thought that was great.

You know what happens when somebody else in opposition now starts to do it? They think it's terrible because it's suddenly their game that's being upset, their game plan, and now they have to bend a little bit and now they have to compromise, and they don't like that. They find that really, really hard to deal with.

When all is said and done you come back to this particular government motion and you ask yourself, why are they doing it? They're certainly not doing it because they're wanting to get this legislation through. If they wanted to get the legislation through, they would have called it a lot earlier. They would have allowed some more extensive debate on the contentious issues.

In fact, if they really wanted to do it, they might have suggested something like this: "Well, obviously we're hung up on

section 6, on that particular amendment. Why don't we set that aside and move on to the rest of the bill and come back to that if we can't find some resolution?"

You could do that with unanimous consent. We suggested it to the government, but they weren't prepared to do that. You know why, Mr Speaker? Because they wanted an excuse. They wanted to set the table to be able to say, "We're bringing in time allocation because those terrible Liberal opposition members and PC opposition people are holding up the government's agenda."

I think that is the height of disrespect, not for this place -- although I think it is for that -- and the traditions of this place, but for the people of Ontario, because, when all is said and done, the people of Ontario have us as their voice in this place. Whether you're in favour of casino gambling or not and whether you like the bill in its present form or not, as the government has said, we have no intention of seeing this legislation pass in its present format, and that's true. Failing some very significant amendments, I am personally not pr