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

April 27, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CENTRE D'EXCELLENCE ARTISTIQUE DE LA SALLE

CLOSURE OF STOCKYARDS

PICTON UNITED CHURCH

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

SERVICES IN MIDDLESEX

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

EDUCATION REFORM

JOBS ONTARIO

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

VISITOR

LABOUR RELATIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

ARBITRATION AWARDS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ACCESS TO POLICE REPORT

JOBS ONTARIO

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

CLOSURE OF TRADE OFFICES

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CENTRE D'EXCELLENCE ARTISTIQUE DE LA SALLE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Le Centre d'excellence artistique de La Salle est la seule institution du genre qui a pour mandat de favoriser l'épanouissement de la jeunesse francophone de tout l'Ontario. Le gouvernement sait que ce centre est crucial pour la survie et l'épanouissement de la culture francophone en Ontario.

Le Centre d'excellence artistique de La Salle est menacé de fermeture dès septembre 1993 s'il n'obtient pas l'appui financier des gouvernements fédéral et provincial. Sommes-nous prêts à voir disparaître une institution si importante pour la communauté francophone ?

Je comprends que les temps sont difficiles et qu'à l'heure des compressions budgétaires, les fonds se font de plus en plus rares. Le gouvernement doit tenir compte du fait que ce centre est le seul et unique centre d'excellence artistique qui existe en Ontario pour la jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario. Il se doit de lui accorder une priorité.

Lors de la dernière campagne électorale, le gouvernement néo-démocrate s'est engagé à assurer le plein épanouissement de la culture francophone. Va-t-il encore une fois manquer à ses promesses ? Si jamais le gouvernement cherchait des moyens d'aider les francophones de l'Ontario, voilà une autre occasion en or que le gouvernement ne devrait pas laisser tomber. J'implore le ministre des Affaires municipales de s'impliquer dans la cause de La Salle.

CLOSURE OF STOCKYARDS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week, the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, and I met with a group of Ontario sheep farmers who are very concerned that the stockyards in Toronto could be closed down. As the Minister of Agriculture and other members know, this could prove to be a fatal blow for sheep producers in our area of the province.

If this were to happen, sales would have to be carried out in yards in Kitchener and Brussels, but 80% to 90% of the lambs sold in Toronto are sold to local people, many of the city's ethnic community. These buyers represent restaurants, small butcher shops and stores located in Toronto. As well, they bring the tradition from their homelands of seeing the animal before buying it, something they will no longer be able to do. Now, they will be forced to travel long distances to get the produce, and many of them will not be able to afford to go. Instead, they will hire someone to bid in a block for them. That practice will result in less competitive prices.

Sheep producers know that the growing market is based in Toronto. If the stockyards are closed down, they will lose this market. They have written to the minister, but they don't feel they are being heard. They are very upset with the present uncertainty, and ask what the minister is prepared to do to assist them in their cause.

PICTON UNITED CHURCH

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today to tell you about the Picton United Church. The actual building of the Picton United Church is this year 100 years old, not unlike our most august establishment of the Legislative Building.

I want to tell you that Picton United Church has been a very important building for many reasons in Prince Edward county. It has been the place where the Prince Edward food bank has been established for a number of years under the very good leadership of Marilyn Bradley and her very hardworking volunteers. Little Learners are located at the Picton United Church, a place where my children indeed went for some of their very early learning and social interactions with other children. The graduation exercises of the students of Prince Edward Collegiate Institute take place at the Picton United Church and Quinte Summer Music also holds many of its extravaganzas there.

So Picton United Church has been a venue for many important events in Picton and the Prince Edward community. It gives me pleasure to congratulate Reverend Lloyd Paul and the congregation of Picton United Church. I offer them congratulations on their considerable contribution to Picton and Prince Edward county.

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise to bring to the attention of the members a very difficult situation of over 200 former employees of Cortaulds Films in Cornwall.

When the cellophane plant production shut down operations in October 1989, many thought that their termination and severance money would follow shortly. We are now in our fourth year, and the former employees are still waiting for their severance packages. As the plant was on strike, the company argued that it did not have to pay the workers their termination and severance.

The Ministry of Labour has assured former employees that adequate funds are being held in trust with the employment practices branch, but due to a great deal of legal wrangling, the money has not been released to the workers. In September of last year, the Ministry of Labour told me that the termination and severance package was in judicial review.

What is so disturbing is that two previous decisions have been made but have not been binding. I have also learned that once a judicial review takes place in June, there may be appeals to a higher court. While the legal arguing drags on, the former employees are becoming increasingly anxious to know when they may expect their due compensation. I call on the Minister of Labour to respond to my most recent letter asking for details on the appeal process and when the workers might expect to end this unfortunate delay.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Simcoe county council this morning voted 43 to 27 to proceed with the restructuring of county government. Simcoe county's elected officials have indicated their continued support for restructuring. They want you to immediately bring forward restructuring legislation for us to consider and provide an appropriate amount of time for public hearings, where individuals and elected municipal officials can freely express their views and concerns about this controversial issue.

I've had reservations about the process involved in the issue of restructuring since it was first proposed by the former Liberal government in 1988. I want to make it quite clear that I have never opposed the need for some restructuring. It is and always has been the process that is flawed.

Minister, you have continued to monkey around with the process by trying to get everyone to approve restructuring legislation that you have not even introduced here in the Legislature, and you're trying to do the same thing with Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. Your government wants us to give consideration to Bill 7 this Thursday, only two days after we received printed copies of this legislation at our offices.

Minister, introduce a County of Simcoe Act now and delay second reading of Bill 7 until all members can give it the appropriate consideration it deserves.

SERVICES IN MIDDLESEX

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I owe a great debt of thanks to the people and service providers of Strathroy in the riding of Middlesex. On Monday, April 5, and again on Friday, April 16, I had the privilege to visit three facilities in Strathroy and area that serve members of our community.

On April 5 I visited MerCare, a residential facility for former psychiatric patients, and MerCare Industries. I would like to thank Robert Barkman, the staff, residents and workers of MerCare for their time and gracious tour of the facility.

On April 16 I met with Pat Walker and the board of Strathroy and Area Association for Community Living and toured ACCESS, a training centre for developmentally challenged adults. In addition to learning and living skills and work training, ACCESS offers clients fitness and social interaction. Thanks to Myrtle, Cathy, Matthew and all the staff and clients who were so kind to receive me.

Last year the Ministry of Housing provided money to Strathroy Community Living so that those of their clients ready for independent living could have homes of their own. I'd like to thank Scottie Fletcher for welcoming me to his Strathroy residence.

The people of Strathroy know of the wonderful contribution to the community made by the independent residents of MerCare and Community Living, and in turn the people of Strathroy have been wonderful neighbours. We owe a great deal to those people, the care providers and the clients of MerCare and Community Living, for what they bring to the people of Ontario.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to address a very serious problem created by the NDP government.

On December 8, 1992, the Minister of Municipal Affairs reversed the NDP government's policy on Bill 94, sending the issue of Metropolitan Toronto market value reassessment back to Metro council to be reworked. The result is that a vicious tax war is raging between the city of Toronto and the city of Scarborough.

The city of Toronto is appealing the property assessments of many properties in Scarborough, including Mr Enzo DiMauro's. He owns a house in Scarborough, and when he received his notice that his property was being appealed by the city of Toronto because the assessment was too low, Mr DiMauro couldn't believe his eyes. He was furious, because he knows and believes that his property tax, if anything, is too high, not too low.

Mr DiMauro is not the only person facing this problem. The city of Toronto has filed 5,600 assessment appeals, and the city of Scarborough has appealed 1,000 assessments. Each appeal must go before an Assessment Review Board and is costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to intervene, to call a truce. Hundreds of honest, law-abiding taxpayers like Enzo DiMauro are suffering because of NDP incompetence.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This morning representatives from four groups representing about 10,000 concerned parents held a news conference to critique this government's common curriculum. Unfortunately, these parents were forced to use this medium to communicate their views because the Minister of Education and Training had refused to meet with them to discuss their concerns.

I applaud these parents for their active involvement in their children's education and their desire to work in partnership not only with the government but also with their communities, labour and business to meet the educational challenges facing us in this province.

The primary concern of these parents is the welfare of their children and the quality of the education which they receive. They want their children to receive a balanced education in which the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills are the cornerstones. They want a system with clear goals and measurable results. They also recognize the need for the teaching of social responsibility and good citizenship.

I would urge the Minister of Education and Training and the members of this government, who pretend to be consultative, to listen to these parents as well as the others throughout this province who have views that they wish to share with you concerning education.

I strongly urge the minister, who unfortunately is not here, to be much more responsive than he has been in the past and to take the time to listen, to consult and to meet with the parents of the children that his ministry is responsible for educating. It is important that he recognize --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mrs Witmer: -- that parents and children have the greatest stake in the education system and they deserve --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As most of you know, the more remote areas of northern Ontario, composed of single-industry towns, have more difficulty surviving through the harsh realities of economic decline. To help combat community devastation, our government has made a commitment to invest in people through Jobs Ontario initiatives. Because of this, in Cochrane North a significant number of laid-off workers and people collecting social assistance have the opportunity to upgrade their skills and find new jobs.

In Cochrane North, many jobs have been created through Jobs Ontario Capital projects such as the Sno-Trac snowmobile trails project and the construction of water and sewer projects on the Highway 11 corridor.

Through Jobs Ontario Training, in Cochrane North alone there have been 39 jobs filled since the program started in October 1992; 46 more positions are yet to be filled. Presently, there are 186 participants and 45 employers now registered with the Jobs Ontario Training program. I am particularly pleased that a new Jobs Ontario Training broker is being designated to focus directly on training aboriginal people. This will help them acquire the skills needed to build their own economies.

The local people themselves have also made a notable contribution to the economic growth of Ontario. For example, the town of Hearst suffered enormously when Levesque Lumber closed its doors in December 1991. Since then, former employees and local people have devised a strategic employee ownership plan to open a new planing mill. This will bring approximately 15 more jobs to Cochrane North. The recent opening of a Canadian Tire store in Hearst will bring 20 more.

I am proud that Jobs Ontario, with the participation of both the public and private sectors, has helped considerably in sustaining Ontario's communities. This important program has carried us through the deepest part of the recession and into the recovery period which we are now in.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order and to beg your indulgence and that of the House. I'll try not to be too long. I do think this is a serious matter and I understand that we will be dealing with part of this a little later this afternoon. But I just simply want to put the issue before the House because I think we do have an issue here that we are going to have to turn our minds to.

That concerns the activities yesterday in the resources committee. My point of order concerns standing orders 110 and 126, and it primarily concerns the role of members appointed by an order of the House to various of the standing committees.

I'd like to just paraphrase the two standing orders, 110 and 126, because I think it is clear what is intended. Standing order 110 has three parts.

"No standing or select committee shall consist of more than 11 members and the membership" of the committees shall reflect the membership of the House. I think that's well known to honourable members.

Standing order 110(

b) states, "Any member appointed to a standing or a select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed." I think that's very clear. I want to repeat that: 110(

b) says that any member who had been appointed to a standing or a select committee by an order of the House may subsequently be discharged by another order of the House.

Standing order 110(

c) states, "A temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the clerk of the committee either before or within 30 minutes of the committee meeting being called to order."

Essentially, what 110(

c) provides, something I think known to all of us, is that someone properly appointed to a standing committee may be substituted for on that committee if a representative of the party submits a substitution slip, and that's a practice that I think has worked rather well here in the last number of years and I don't believe was in effect when I was first elected. I don't believe there was the same provision for substitution. It's been, I think, a very useful one in recent years.

Standing order 126 then reads, "Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing or select committee may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take

part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum."

I think it is clear what the intentions of the orders are, and I want to then, simply against that backdrop, indicate what happened in the standing committee yesterday.

I should say before I do that that last Tuesday, April 20, as is quite proper, the government House leader stood in his place after question period and read a motion, a lengthy motion, which ordered the membership of all of the standing committees. Reading from page 128 of the Hansard of the Ontario Legislature dated April 20, 1993, the membership of the standing committee on resources development ordered and agreed to by the House on that date was as follows, "Mr Conway, Mr Cooper, Mrs Fawcett, Mr Huget, Mr Jordan, Mr Klopp, Mr Kormos, Ms Murdock (Sudbury), Mr Offer, Mr Turnbull, Mr Waters and Mr Wood." That was the membership advanced by government motion and concurred in by the House.

Yesterday, the standing committee on resources development met for its organizational meeting, and as the custom of this assembly provides, the clerk of the committee, in this case Ms Tannis Manikel, who I thought did a very good job in difficult circumstances, I want to say to the chief Clerk, called the meeting, the organizational meeting, to order at about 3:30 yesterday, and the first order of business of course is to elect a Chair of the committee.

As we began that task, my colleague the member for York Mills nominated Mr Kormos, the New Democratic member for Welland-Thorold, to that position, and Mr Kormos of course is a member of that committee. Very, very shortly thereafter, a member of the New Democratic Party, and I can't recall which member, put forward the name of Mr Huget, the member for Sarnia and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, as a second nominee for the position as Chair.

Then it became clear that Mr Kormos, who was at the committee, was being substituted for on that occasion yesterday, because the clerk of the committee indicated, I believe, that Mr Wilson of Kingston and The Islands was being substituted for Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos then told the committee that he was prepared to accept the nomination and that he was prepared, of course, to be there and to discharge the duties imposed on him as a member of the Legislature ordered a week earlier by the government House leader to be a member of that committee.

The first part of my question, sir, is this: It concerns the situation, which I can't remember occurring before, but that is the rights of an honourable member, any honourable member, ordered by the House to be a member of the standing committee, an honourable member so ordered going to work consistent with that order, showing up to the committee, agreeing to participate in the work of the committee and, quite unusually, I would say, and I would say furthermore quite inappropriately, being there and being substituted for in a way that is clearly not intended in standing order 110(c).

I would submit, Mr Speaker, that the intention of the standing order is that any honourable member who is appointed to the committee who shows up to the committee to do his or her duty is entitled to be seated at that committee, consistent with the order. The standing order is written in a way that I would submit assumes good faith. It assumes that substitution is only going to occur when the honourable member so ordered by the House to be a member of the committee, for a variety of reasons that we can all imagine and that most of us have experienced, can't be there, and with the whip of the party agrees to a substitution.

I would say to my friends in the House that if I were a committee Chair and two honourable members showed up, one of whom was properly a member of the committee and another one who bore a substitution slip, there would be no doubt in my mind what I would do as a Chair. I would recognize the person who was there by order of the House and I would assume that there had been some confusion. I might even assume that there had been some disagreement in the particular caucus or between the two members, but I would submit that the clear intent of standing order 110 is that the committee must recognize members of the committee who are ordered to be members of that committee by the House. As 110(

b) clearly indicates, only an order of the House can remove a member of the committee for whatever reasons the House or the government might have.

Yesterday, and I want to be clear, we had a situation where an honourable member so ordered to a committee by the House on April 20, a member who, quite frankly, had been a member of that committee and who had in the previous session of this Parliament served as Chair of the committee, Mr Kormos, went to the committee, stated clearly his willingness to participate in the proceedings of the committee and stated on the record his willingness to accept the nomination of Mr Turnbull to his old job as Chair of the committee.

The committee, as you know, was dispersed because there was no consensus and I think that many in the committee did not want to put Ms Manikel in the very difficult position in which she found herself.

I want to say again that my point of order is, firstly, the first-order right of honourable members who are designated by an order of the House to freely take their place in the committee to which they were assigned. I would submit, furthermore, that the only way we can remove someone from that membership, assuming it is not voluntary -- because standing order 110(

b) makes it plain that there is a provision for substitution, but the assumption and the traditions there are clearly that it is a voluntary withdrawal for a variety of reasons and a substitution is allowed for consistent with 110(b).

There is, in my view, no precedent, and there's probably nothing in our rules, to specifically contemplate the situation where an honourable member voluntarily goes to do his or her duty and then finds out that there is an effort, of which he or she is not a part, to remove that person from an assignment that the House has ordered. That is my first point of order and I do think we are going to have to give some thought to that.

I have had the opportunity to speak to the chief Clerk about these matters and he has been very helpful in providing me with some advice. I look at the standing orders. It is very clear what the intention is. It is also very clear what the spirit is. It's also very clear what the reasonable person would assume. It's also clear to me what the past practices in this place have been.

Secondly, this point, in my view, Mr Speaker, touches on a central question, and that is the role of honourable members elected to this assembly and, furthermore, the role of the legislative committees and their independence. You and your predecessors have rightly observed over the years that committees will order their own business, but they must order their own business within the framework of the House order that establishes them or gives them a special reference.

I would submit to you, sir, that yesterday the committee was trying to do its business and the operative House order was the government House leader's motion, concurred in unanimously on April 20, 1993, which order clearly indicated that Mr Kormos would be a member of the standing committee on resources development.

A second question touches on the issue of the chairmanship. I want to just deal quickly with this. Let me say parenthetically I can understand how in a government caucus or how in another caucus there might be a difference of opinion, there might be some personal or there might be some political tension as between a committee member and the caucus. So I can imagine circumstances where a caucus may feel that certain action might be taken with respect to an honourable member. Our standing orders provide for that, and they provide for a motion to be put to the House to establish and to alter the committee membership.

Now, on the second issue, we had yesterday a nomination from the government, which is entirely its right, for a person to sit as the Chair of the standing committee on resources development. But the government chose to nominate a very fine fellow, and I think a very good member of this assembly, the member for Sarnia, with whom I've worked on a number of projects and for whom I hold the highest regard.

My difficulty with that particular nomination, and this is a second point in terms of yesterday's proceedings, is simply that Mr Huget, good and estimable fellow that he is, happens to be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, two departmental mandates which are clearly going to come before the standing committee on resources development. I would submit to you and to the House that we have here, perhaps unintended, a clear conflict of interest.

I want to make the point that Mr Huget, as I say, is a very fine fellow and does good work, but he happens to represent the Minister of Environment and Energy, both of which departmental issues are going to occupy a considerable amount of time before that committee. There's no question in my mind that it is inappropriate for a member representing the executive council, particularly in areas of policy that are going to come before a standing committee dealing with those issues, to serve at one and the same time as Chair of the standing committee and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

I believe it is inappropriate because it is a conflict of interest and I think it violates the tradition and the spirit of the independence of committees. Those are my concerns. I submit them to you and to the House for some consideration and adjudication.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West on the same point.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What I'd like to point out to you, Mr Speaker, is that the crucial issue, I think, that needs to be discussed here or at least discussed by yourself on this point of order is whether or not, when this Legislature appoints people to committees, which just took place a few days ago, and it appointed the member for Welland-Thorold to the resources committee, whether or not that decision is in fact final, supreme, cannot be changed without the consent of the member who has been appointed.

The only way I think that you could go about removing someone from a committee, as stated very clearly in 110, "Any member appointed to a standing or select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed." So clearly it's very clear, in 110

section (b), that if Mr Kormos were to be removed from this committee, it would have to be done in this House.

Having said that, the member was in fact at the committee meeting at the time that the committee meeting took place. But the crucial question and the point that's put to you as Speaker on a ruling for this is whether or not a member can be subbed out on a committee he has been properly appointed to without his agreement. Clearly, there wasn't any agreement to being subbed out upon.

So I think what it turns on is whether or not, when this Legislature makes a decision about who shall sit on what committees, a subcommittee or a whip or a party can arbitrarily decide whether or not that person can then sit on the committee, because clearly the question is not today whether Mr Kormos is on the committee -- we know he's on the committee. He should not have been subbed in for, according to Mr Kormos.

The question we then put to you is, if this government did not want this member to sit on this committee, why did it appoint him? That's the question they must ask themselves. The question that is put to you is, this Legislature, being supreme, has made a decision that Mr Kormos is in fact on this committee. If he is, is it the right of the government to then sub out any member, whether or he not agrees, against that member's personal opinion, personal agreement, and whether or not that member in fact wants to be subbed out?

Mr Kormos did not want to be subbed out. The question then is totally up to you as to whether or not this whip of this government can arbitrarily change decisions made by this Legislature against the will of that member who is appointed to that committee.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I'll deal with the first issue that has been raised last by the member for Etobicoke West and was one of the issues raised by the member for Renfrew North first. If in fact, as the two members have alleged and as I think they have been led to believe, the circumstances had been as they've suggested, the government would be as upset as they are. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the substitution don't happen to be as they have been described.

On Tuesday afternoon of last week the government whip, along with the House leader, met with the member for Welland-Thorold. Again on Thursday afternoon the whip met with the member for Welland-Thorold. As a consequence of that meeting, this letter was sent to the member for Welland-Thorold, because in both of those sessions the member for Welland-Thorold indicated, and indicated clearly, that if he were not going to be the Chair of that committee, he did not want to participate in that committee or in any other committee.

As is the case with every whip, whether it's a government whip or an opposition whip, his obligation is to man the committees, to have members in those committees so the committees can proceed to do their business. As a result, the government whip sent a letter to Mr Kormos, said it in writing, to confirm the discussion they had had about substituting for him on that committee because he wanted to ensure that there would be government members available in that committee.

The member for Renfrew North has suggested that when somebody arrives with a substitution and eventually the real member also arrives, the real member, the member assigned to the committee, takes precedence. It is also very clear in the procedures and practices of this House that when a member has been substituted, even if the member assigned to that committee should arrive, the substitution is the only thing that stands at that point. That's been the practice in this House ever since I arrived here or at least ever since we started substitutions.

Lastly, the member for Renfrew North also mentioned the issue of parliamentary assistants being the Chairs of committee. That precedent has already been set in this House as well, in the last session and again yesterday afternoon, with the support of members of both of the opposition caucuses, in the Chair of, I believe, the standing committee on social development. In any event, there have been parliamentary assistants as Chairs of committees. There is nothing in our standing orders that precludes that.

Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you that in fact the substitution that happened yesterday at the resources development committee happened in the normal fashion, that any whip would proceed with any substitution based on the fact that the member in question had clearly indicated that he did not intend to participate in that committee.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, I'm afraid we've transcended the puffery that people often expect from politicians, transcended that and descended into a level of debate that unfortunately has to be addressed in the most subtle terms because of the rules of the House.

Let me tell you this, Speaker -- and, firstly, I join with the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North, raised in the most precise and clearest terms, identifying standing orders and requesting an

interpretation of those orders. I would have restricted my comments to the member for Renfrew North's standing order and to the very precise way in which he addressed the standing orders, but I go now to a point where I have to address some of the allegations made.

Yes, I received a letter from the government whip on Thursday. That letter flowed as a result of the government whip sitting himself beside me and attempting to speak with me, wherein he told me that I was going to be substituted. I then replied to the whip that I didn't want to speak with them, that anything he was to address to me should be in writing, because my trust level had diminished where I would prefer that it be in writing. He then sent a letter to me, advising me that I would be substituted on the resources development committee.

Tuesday of that same week, last week, the same day this House passed the government motion which placed me on the resources development committee -- and I was here in the Legislature when that motion was agreed to -- subsequent to that motion, I met with the whip, the chair of caucus and, for a brief period of time, because he didn't attend the whole meeting, the government House leader. It was after the government House leader left the meeting that the government whip told me I would not be Chair of the resources development committee.

Now I found that a particularly troubling thing for the government whip to say because I know as well as anybody that Chairs, as is the Speaker, are elected. It struck me as peculiar that I would be in the government motion of the day, passed but an hour before this discussion, and then be told by the whip, as if somehow he had control over this, that I wouldn't be the Chair of the committee.

I recall, of course, back in October 1990, when the Premier apologized for having created the appearance of endorsing a candidate for the position of Speaker. The Premier made it quite clear that these sorts of things were free votes, that there wouldn't be on his part an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. I accepted the Premier's explanation then and he indeed made it clear that if he appeared to have endorsed anybody, that was not his intention, because he believed that these were free votes and it was up to the persons who were eligible to participate in that vote to elect the Speaker.

My understanding of the standing order which permits the election of Chairs in committee -- and I understand that there are certain committees which are designated for opposition Chairs; there are certain committees which are described as being capable only of having government Chairs. That, of course, restricts who can be nominated, but surely it can't restrict who can be elected once that nomination is made.

So I tell you, sir -- and I appreciate that this isn't particularly germane to the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North, but it having been raised as the only defence to the point of order by the member for Renfrew North, the only defence by the government House leader, I believe it has to be explained -- that of course I never acquiesced to any suggestion that I be removed from the resources development committee. I was told that I would not be Chair. I, in more generous moments, understood that to be a mere error on the part of the government whip and, in less generous moments of course, saw that as a somewhat more malicious sort of comment.

The bottom line is, sir, that I attended the -- and the fact remains that subsequent to Tuesday, there was Wednesday, Thursday and indeed available to the government yesterday opportunities for the government to bring a motion in this House to remove me from the committee.

Now, I want to speak to standing order 110, subsection or paragraph (b), because that's the provision which provides for discharge from the committee. That seems to me to be the balance, the counterpart, of the motion which permits the creation of the committee. We're talking about an order of the House here. We're not talking about something that occurs by fiat. We're talking about an order of the House. We're talking about a motion that is debatable, appreciating that they're not usually debated, but that doesn't change the fact that they are very debatable.

Going to subsection (

c) and talking about the temporary substitute, there's no question, I'm sure, in anybody's mind here about the intent or the purpose of that subsection, of paragraph (

c) of standing order 110. Clearly there has to be provision, and you well know, sir, that there probably are far too many substitutions taking place, which certainly impacts and in some respects even discredits the committee process.

But we're talking here about a temporary substitute, and we're talking about a temporary substitute at the most crucial time in the life of a committee. If a committee is to be independent, if a committee is to have an independent Chair and if the purpose of permitting elected Chairs is to have any significance, any validity, then surely the people who are members of that committee have to be the people entitled to elect that Chair. It's a special circumstance when we have a so-called temporary substitution wherein the sole purpose is to basically stack the deck or rig the jury.

I tell you, that's gerrymandering, again at its most generous, and I tell you, Speaker, that the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew is one which could have significant impact on the independence and the legitimacy of committees not just now but down the road.

The Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Renfrew North, for Etobicoke West, the government House leader and the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. You have indeed brought a serious matter to my attention. I believe the memory of the member for Renfrew North is accurate. I certainly don't recall a similar situation having been brought to the attention of the House, and I trust that the members will appreciate that this is a complex item. I wish to reserve on it.

I do not wish to unduly restrict the activities of the committees because the committees are extremely important to the work of the Parliament, so I will endeavour to come back to the House as quickly as possible. I cannot give a guarantee for tomorrow, but I will certainly work on it as quickly as possible and try to resolve this so that the committee can get on with its work. Again, I appreciate the fact that the members have brought this to my attention and done so in such a good way. I appreciate it.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before oral questions, I would like to invite all members of the House to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mrs Rabi Audu, who is a principal legislative officer from the National Assembly of Nigeria. Please welcome her to our country.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, after refusing to answer our questions in the House, it seems that you were much more forthcoming with the media outside the House about your backup plan if the social contract talks should fail. You said, apparently, "This train is leaving the station." We assume that this means that the process is already under way whether the participants like it or not. So, Premier, again I ask you, what is it that you intend to do if your social contract train leaves the station and you are the only one on board?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I just would say to the honourable member, in terms of the preface to her question, that I always make a point of trying to answer questions in scrums as well as questions in the House, and I would say to her very directly that she would know full well that in answering the question I was referring --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Wait till Robin Sears comes back. He'll be in trouble then.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that's a thought -- to the overall train, the big train, the big picture, the expenditure control reductions, which has already left the station. I was referring to the social contract discussions and to the preparation for the budget.

But I can assure the honourable member that when we look at the need for us, having made one round of expenditure reductions which had been very substantial, I think, in discussing this matter with observers and with deputies and others, no one can recall an experience in which governmental budgets have been put through such a process of scrutiny. We still find that that's not enough.

We need to take more out and we've indicated that very clearly to our partners in the public sector, that the $2.5 billion which is contained in the expenditure reduction targets set out by the Minister of Finance on Friday is not enough, that there's another $2 billion yet to go for this year, annualizing out on an even higher rate.

That, we feel, we can only take out --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- in full discussion with our social contract partners. We intend to continue to discuss that matter with them but, as I've said before, there should be no mistaking the government's determination to meet the targets which we feel are reasonable and fair and just in the circumstances, and to carry on a serious set of discussions with our social contract partners about how we can effect the kinds of changes which we've set about.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, we know well what you are saying you want to do and need to do. Our questions are about how you plan to do it. Premier, what we're trying to do is figure out exactly what you plan to do if the participants in your social contract talks decide they're not going to take

part in your talks or if in fact they say they are unable to take

part in your talks.

You will know, I'm sure, that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has already said that it has no authority to negotiate a social contract on behalf of 831 municipal governments. That is not the mandate of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which you've asked to participate in the social contract talks.

So, Premier, again we're simply trying to find out how you plan to have this process work. So I ask, what is your reply to groups, such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that say to you that they have no authority to represent their members at your bargaining table?

Hon Mr Rae: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario had no difficulty sitting down and discussing disentanglement with us, and that's involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of transfers going one way and the other. I think the people in the province who understand that there is too much duplication, who understand that there's a need for governments working together, will find it a little difficult to understand that there would be some governments that would not be interested or not be prepared to come forward, and I suspect that people will come forward.

I would say to the honourable member, with respect to all the other hypotheticals that she's raising, what I've said to people in the scrums, and that simply is that I much prefer to look on life in a positive way, that we are always approaching these negotiations in a positive spirit, and I'm not going to get into all kinds of hypothetical "what ifs." We think what we're proposing is sensible, we think it's sound and we think it's in the best interests of all the people in the province, including the membership of the social partners, who we think will benefit directly by participating in these kinds of discussions.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, if you really believe that there is a direct relationship between the provincial government sitting down with municipal government representatives to talk about issues of cost sharing and disentanglement, that there is any relationship between that very legitimate and very necessary process and this government calling in people like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to talk about renegotiating collective bargaining agreements, then you really are dealing in a hypothetical world and you clearly have no understanding of how this whole social contract process is supposed to take place.

Premier, let me draw your attention to the documents that you released last Friday, because those documents show that there are no less than 9,000 collective agreements that are going to be affected by your social contract talks. Premier, quite frankly, none of us can yet understand how you are planning to deal with 9,000 separate agreements even if you can get everyone to participate in the discussions.

What happens if you do get a deal and any one of those 9,000 independent bargaining units decides not to go along with it? You have less than a month to go before the budget, Premier. Time is running out. This is not rhetorical talk. We are asking you to put real, solid plans on the table, and I ask you again, how can a social contract deal be imposed on 9,000 separate collective agreements across this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that she may not like what's taking place. I haven't heard one sensible suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition indicating how she would deal with a very significant public policy problem. I think that the people who work in the public sector and the people who work in the broader public sector are entitled to be able to sit down with the government of the day and discuss what is clearly a major challenge for all of us.

Maybe she would simply wave a wand and say, "Poof, you're $2.5 billion or $2 billion poorer, and that's the way it's going to be." That's not the way this government is going to proceed. We are going to sit down seriously with our social contract partners and address what is a major challenge for the people of the province. That's the step that we're talking. We think it's a responsible step. I haven't heard a peep from the Liberal opposition indicating one constructive alternative to the very difficult challenge that we face; not one.

Mrs McLeod: I assure the Premier that we are not trying to undermine his social contract talks. He's doing a fine job of doing that all by himself.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will ask a second question of the Premier and I will, having totally failed to get a response on that issue, turn to another issue.

Premier, during the month of March, Ontarians found these very large advertisements in their newspapers. They may be familiar to you. They are ads that publicize your failing job training scheme. The ads that are used most often show a picture of an individual in a mechanical job or in a drafting job. I wonder, Premier, if you might be able to explain to us why these occupations were chosen to illustrate your failing job training scheme.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll refer that question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I can certainly indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the whole intention of the advertising campaign was to let more companies, more businesses and more individuals know about the Jobs Ontario Training program, a program that is creating about 1,000 jobs a week now for the people of this province, a program that is placing between 600 and 1,000 welfare recipients in the workplace per week now, and if she wants to continue to stand up in this House and downgrade this program and criticize this program when it's getting people on welfare back to work, then I don't know where she's coming from.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell the minister where we're coming from. We want to get the facts out about what this program is doing and is not doing, because we would like to have a real job training program. We would like to see people get back to work into jobs that they can be trained for.

Minister, I would like to take a minute and share with you some information that you may or may not have, information that we've collected about the potential jobs your training program has identified through this presumably $1.5-million advertising program.

Our research shows that two thirds, no less than 62%, of the jobs that are available in this job training program are in the lowest-skilled job categories. The fact is that only a very few of the potential jobs that you have listed are in the categories that are used to illustrate the program. I would suggest that your advertisements are misleading people by suggesting that these are the kinds of jobs they will be training for.

So, Minister, I would ask if you would not admit that your scheme gives employers up to $10,000 to train people for jobs that require very little training at all.

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is, very seldom when the Leader of the Opposition asks questions about this program does she have the facts right at all. In fact, when she asked a question a couple of weeks ago, she referred to a particular person who had 49 sheets of paper with regard to the Jobs Ontario Training program. When we checked, she wasn't even referring to the Jobs Ontario Training program; it was a completely different program.

What I would suggest is that the member might want to come over to the ministry and get a briefing so that she understands the program, the benefits of this program, which is producing work for -- the last time you asked the question, there were 19,000 jobs that had been created; since the last question you asked, there are now 21,112 jobs created. If that's not a successful program, then I want to know what it is. The average wage for the person who is going into this is $22,000 a year.

People who are on welfare get training, get to work for $22,000-a-year jobs, and an additional $5,000 is available to the companies to provide training for their existing workforce. That will make Ontario more competitive and create more work for people in this province.

Mrs McLeod: The information we are using in our questions has come very directly from your ministry in written form. You are surely not suggesting that they are giving us different information than they are providing to you in your briefing notes.

Let me try and take it out of the statistical world for a moment and tell you about something which I acknowledge is pure anecdote; not based on numbers, not based on statistics, but just happened to happen. It was a student who approached me, a sociology graduate from McMaster University, out of work since last spring, very much involved in writing, on a volunteer basis, a literacy program for a charitable organization. She had been approached by Jobs Ontario Training and asked if she would take a position as a bartender because she'd had bartending experience when she was in university.

I'm not going to claim that this is statistical evidence, but it's that kind of anecdote we hear that gives us real concerns about whether or not you are just filling this program out with numbers to try and defend what we see as being a program that has an 87% failure rate. We keep trying to give you examples, Minister, of the ways in which your program is not working for people, and we question spending $1.5 million on advertising a program that isn't working, we question you misleading people into believing that they are going to be trained for highly skilled jobs, because the highly skilled jobs just aren't there.

Again I would ask, as I will keep asking this government, when are you going to come back with a real plan that will attract business, that will create the jobs people need so they can get back to work?

Hon Mr Cooke: No one has suggested that this is the beginning and the end and the only program to create jobs in this province, but I'd ask the member that maybe she should go out to some of the places where people are getting training and have got jobs. I've met with some of these folks, people who have been unemployed for a long period of time in this province and who this government is trying to help: get them off welfare, get them into the workforce and make them feel good about themselves again.

If you want to run down that program, then you go right ahead, but this is one of the most successful programs for welfare recipients in the history of this province. Welfare recipients who are recipients of this program will tell you, what you're telling us today is that you'd rather have people on welfare than at work, and we don't agree with that.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. For the last few weeks, in fact the last month or so, you will know that I have applauded and supported the direction of cutting government spending that you have talked about being in and what I believe to have been cost-cutting efforts on your part. The Liberals, you will know, complained about cutting spending, but you will agree, Premier, I did not.

Now, as we analyse Friday's mini-budget, many questions have come forward, and we discovered that a significant portion of the $2.4 billion that your Treasurer on Friday touted as program cuts are not really cuts at all, but are in fact bogus savings.

For example, rescheduling of school payments to the next fiscal year: Under questioning on Friday, the Treasurer said it won't save a cent; the Treasury officials said it simply will be deferred for another budget year. Can you explain to me, Premier, how deferring $130 million in payments to the school boards out of one budget year into the next, in essence saying that the next Treasurer can deal with it or, ultimately, the next government -- would you not agree with me that this is not a saving at all, but simply a deferral of $130 million of payments?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will endeavour to answer it, except to say to the honourable member that when I look at the number of things we're doing, the offices that are being closed, the closure, for example, of all of Ontario's international offices, the decision to cut back in a number of areas, including direct decisions to deal with our transfer partners, I think he will find that when you look at the package overall, there is a very, very substantial reduction in actual expenditures, in operating expenditures, in offices, colleges are being closed, and it's issues which are being dealt with in that way.

Obviously, I'll look into the particular issue he raises, but I can assure him that when we sit down with our social contract partners, for example the boards of education and others, I would say to him very directly that we obviously recognize the need for some of these things to be dealt with in a very direct fashion.

Mr Harris: Premier, you're throwing around this $2.4-billion figure and you're touting them as cuts. You know that we've said: "Hey, cuts have to be made. We understand that." Some may argue about your priority setting, and I think that's fair game, but not the direction that you're going in. But the $130 million that you've counted in the $2.4 billion is simply a deferral to the next tax year.

At the same time, in the announcement on Friday, when we get into the detail, deferment of planned expenditures to universities and colleges was $30 million. The shift of the delivery timetable for non-profit housing units was $12.5 million. The extension of the sector partnership fund from three years to five years is simply a deferral of $25 million.

Obviously, we applaud the direction, but now as we look at the detail, Premier, would you not agree with me that we have identified in a short period of time over half a billion dollars that are simply deferrals designed to help you meet the deficit du jour, that in fact they are not cuts at all? The spending is going ahead, the programs are going ahead. You simply are deferring the cost of those into the next year, as is the case with the $130 million through the school boards.

Hon Mr Rae: There are some cash-flow savings, there's no question about that, with respect to school boards and with respect to others. But I think it would be a mistake for the honourable member to say that these are not going to become real in-year expenditure reductions in 1994-95. They are expected to be. That message is very clearly being delivered by the Ministry of Education and Training in that instance, as in others.

I can assure the honourable member, if he's questioning whether or not there are going to be real reductions in cash flows this year and in transfers generally to boards of education, to hospitals, to municipalities and to others, they know full well that the message from this government is that they will in fact be receiving less. That's why we're having the social contract discussions, so that we can work through with them to maintain and guarantee as many jobs as possible as we look at a world in which there is less money to go around and in which there will be less money for transfers.

I don't want there to be any illusions about what we are doing. We are actually reducing the amount of money that is going to boards, to hospitals, to our major transfer partners, and in order to cope with that impact, we are of course extending that into the second year. The savings will have to be found in the second year, and I can tell him that's exactly why we're having the social contract discussions, in order to deal with the full impact of that.

Mr Harris: Premier, we know there are some real cuts and there are some meaningful cuts, and we understand that. But also rolled into that were deferrals. When the Treasury officials were asked, they said: "Yes, it is simply a deferral into the next year." So next January, February, March, we're not going to pay that extra $130 million. We will have to pick it up and pay it in the next year, with assurance to the school boards that, "You're still going to get the same amount of money" --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No.

Mr Harris: Well, I'm sorry, but that is not what your officials told us, that is not what school boards understand, and that is not their understanding of a lot of the deferrals.

Premier, let me as well bring to your attention one that we brought up last year, and this was the deferral of over half a billion dollars in payments to the teachers' pension plan, because we now understand that the Treasurer -- last year it was 11% interest, and it allowed the Treasurer to, so-called, diddle the books for one year and put off that payment. This is now planning to be a rolling deferral for a whole bunch of years. The only thing to be decided now is the interest rate.

That, coupled with these deferrals we've identified, is now over $1 billion, Premier, that you plan to call cuts that really are not cuts; they're deferrals. So I am concerned that a significant portion of the announcement was not penny-pinching at all; it was simply penny-procrastinating.

I say to you, Premier, can you respond? Is it the Treasurer's and your intention to defer again the payments into the teachers' pension plan for another "fix the books," the $500 million, $600 million? Can you respond to that? I say to you in general, why, when you had a climate to cut significantly, when the public was ready, when the union members were ready -- even though their leaders don't think they are yet, you and I know the members are -- why didn't you provide us with real, meaningful cutbacks instead of a whole bunch of these bogus deferrals?

Hon Mr Rae: Since the honourable member wasn't there on Friday, I'm sure our people in the Ministry of Education and Training and people will be prepared to sit down and discuss with him, as will the officials -- I can tell the honourable member, we were locked with the officials for days in preparations of this announcement. If he wants to get the same briefing as I have had, I'd be willing to give it to him; as well as with the minister.

I'm just telling him that the impression he's leaving with people is wrong when he says that they are not real cuts, when he talks about --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What about the teachers' pension?

Hon Mr Rae: No, in all the verbiage that surrounded the question -- Mr Speaker, I have to be able to deal with the verbiage as well as the question -- he said that, and I want to say to him he's wrong: These cuts are real, these cuts are there, there is less, and these cuts are in place.

With respect to the pension plan, I would say to the honourable member that obviously the actuarial assessments that are involved are part of overall discussions ongoing with the teachers, as they are part of the social contract discussions.

Mr Harris: "Actuarial assessments, revenue enhancers." You've got all these words. All we're asking for is, be straight with us on whether you're cutting or whether you're deferring.

ARBITRATION AWARDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. We have just established that some of the program cuts the Premier says he's making are not; they are deferrals. They are about as permanent as quicksand, which leads me to question how serious you are about making the tough decisions on the wage side of the restraint measures.

Premier, you've given direction to your transfer partners, to your social contract partners, both employers and employees. But there are, even as we are here speaking and even as these negotiations are going on, many arbitration decisions across the province which may impact significantly on costs for municipalities, for school boards, for hospitals, for all of these social partners.

Premier, in light of your negotiations with the transfer agencies and the directions you have given to both employers and employees that you want to have these all-encompassing talks, can you tell me what directions you have given to arbitrators, so that our hospitals, our municipalities, our education system and our social partners are not saddled with wage commitments that they simply cannot meet?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): We're not in the business of giving instructions to arbitrators.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Premier. Sudbury General Hospital, as of a recent decision, since you announced suspension of negotiations and social contract talks to replace them, are now saying they must cut jobs as a result of an arbitration award of 17.4% over two years for lab workers. That's 17.4% in wage hikes at a time when hospitals are being asked to cut $600 million, at a time when they in good faith have said: "Hey, we'll sit down with you. We'll try and do this.

You talk with the employees and us at the same time." But these arbitration awards are out of their control -- physiotherapists, hospital technicians, dietitians in 52 hospitals, since you announced suspension of negotiations, awarded 10% over two years.

Premier, if you are truly serious about wage restraints in the broader public sector, then arbitrators have to be in the loop, because most of these employees know that if they just don't go to the table or if they sit back or they don't settle, ultimately it will end up in arbitration. So if you don't give direction to arbitrators, would you agree with me that your social contract talks mean nothing to the transfer partners?

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I can shorten the discussion by just saying absolutely not.

Mr Harris: Listen, the last time when transfer and wage restraint was brought into the province, inflation was out of control. You will recall the six-and-five program. At that time, it could only have been made effective -- inflation was running -- what? -- 15%, 16%; interest rates, 20% -- it was only effective because direction was also given, by way of a bill, to arbitrators that they must respect the six and five as well. At that time, in 1983, Premier, the actual bill wording was this: "Arbitrators, in making their decisions, must consider the employer's ability to pay in light of existing provincial fiscal policy"; ie, the policy was six and five, and arbitrators had to respect that.

I would ask you this, Premier: So far it has been verbal direction to the employers, and the employees of all your transfer partners, but you have left out of the loop arbitrators. Are you prepared to give the same, at this point, verbal direction to arbitrators, and if you come to an assessment or agreement -- it's zero, it's 2%, it's 1% -- arbitrators must be part of the loop? If you're going to legislate, which we all know you may have to do, are you prepared too to bring arbitrators in by way of legislation?

Otherwise, Premier, these discussions are meaningless for school boards, for municipalities, for hospitals, as long as arbitrators can go on their merry way without paying attention to the guidelines.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't share that perspective at all. I think that certainly as we envision the social contract discussions, obviously they will touch on all the relationships between the partners and their employees. Obviously, that's the case. It will obviously also deal with the question of the impact and the potential impact of arbitration decisions. Obviously, that's true.

But when he's saying now, "Have we made any verbal statements or made any speeches about what arbitrators should or should not do?" obviously not to the point of saying -- we expect arbitrators to wake up and smell the coffee like everybody else, but above and beyond that, we want to wait for the outcome of the social contract negotiations before making any other general comments to the arbitration.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. In October 1991, the Premier arranged for Mr Hansen, the member for Lincoln, to be turfed from the finance and economic affairs committee because he dared to vote against a tax the government proposed that would be detrimental to his riding. In the same year, the Premier arranged to have Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, deposed from the justice committee because he happened to espouse the viewpoint that the NDP had espoused on the Sunday shopping issue during the 1990 campaign.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, was mugged by the former government House leader simply because he rendered a decision in the House which was fairminded to the opposition.

In light of this, I ask the Premier, is it your intention to continue to persecute all members of your own caucus whose only sin is to either defend traditional NDP policies or to defend those promises which were made during the last election campaign?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would just say, obviously, no, not, to the honourable member. I intend, and the whip does and the House leader does, to be certainly as fair in the administration of our caucus as I'm sure the person who's in charge of official opposition questions is to the various members of his caucus with respect to who gets on the question period list. Certainly, that fairness will be exercised on our side just as keenly as it's exercised by him. I note with interest that he has the first question after the question being posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Bradley: I know that my own members consider me to be fairminded with them at all times.

To the Premier: In view of your past views when you were leader of the official opposition and when you were a member of the federal House of Commons, your views that the individual members of Parliament should be able to express their own views without penalty, such as the almost $10,000 penalty you're imposing on the member for Welland-Thorold by deposing him from the committee, and in view of your many speeches about parliamentary reform and enhancing the position of individual members of this House, will you today undertake to inform the House that you are prepared to have the member for Welland-Thorold restored to his former position as Chair of the resources development committee, a position which has the support of both opposition parties with his fairminded handling of those affairs, or are you going to simply turf him out of this position and demonstrate clearly to the people of Ontario, and certainly to members of this House, that you will brook no dissent and that you will be satisfied only with compliant members?

Hon Mr Rae: There's a real contradiction in the question, which I'm delighted is being put to me. I just would say to him that he's asking the first minister to go out and select each one of the names of the people who are going to serve as Chairs of committees. What a ludicrous proposition. These are decisions which the Premier does not make; these are not decisions that the Premier makes; these are decisions that are made as part of a process within our caucus just as you make them within your caucus.

I would expect more commitment from the Liberal Party to democracy than to ask the first minister of the crown to select every single person who's the chairman of a committee. I would have expected you to show more respect for the independence of committees than you're showing in your very question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

ACCESS TO POLICE REPORT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Premier as well and it's related to the Piper-Ferguson scandal. I have today sent an open letter to Commissioner Thomas O'Grady of the Ontario Provincial Police, asking the commissioner for access to a précis of the police report related to the Piper-Ferguson matter and that opposition members not only have access to some sort of a précis but also have the opportunity to meet investigating officers.

The Premier will recall that there is a precedent, in 1989, when one of his own members, Mr Kormos, met with an OPP officer related to the matter of Joan Smith, the then Liberal Solicitor General. At that time also, the Premier called upon then-Premier Peterson for a release of the police report related to Ms Smith.

I have prepared a letter for the Premier, which I will send over to him, that is addressed to Mr Tom Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, worded:

"In the interests of public accountability and the need for credibility in the Premier's office, I consent for the Ontario Provincial Police to release my name and any references to me in the 'John Piper report' that was released by the OPP in March.

"Sincerely, Premier Bob Rae, Mr Mike Mendelson, Ms Melody Morrison, Mr Ross McClellan, Mr David Agnew."

These are FOI waivers, which I'm going to send over to the Premier and ask him, will you sign these today and put all the facts on the table?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll obviously take a look at what the member is suggesting and have a look at the precedents as they've been put forward and will take his question as notice.

Mr Runciman: There's certainly a feeling on this side of the House that the Premier, at best, has engaged in something of a passive coverup -- and I'm being polite in that respect, I believe -- since day one in this matter. We know that the Premier met with Mr Murray Segal, the director of the crown law office, criminal division, of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and he's admitted publicly that this particular report was discussed and reviewed with the Premier -- there are certainly reports in the media to that effect -- discussed the report, which may in fact name the Premier, may name senior members of his staff; a clear conflict.

Now I think the Premier should be prepared today to stand up, indicate that he's going to sign a waiver, and instruct his staff and others impacted upon by this under his control to sign these similar waivers to put all of this on the table. If there's nothing to hide, sign it right now; if not, explain why not.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that there is an innuendo contained in his question which I don't think could be substantiated by any fact that I am aware of in any way, shape or form, but I will not dignify it further by making any other further comment except to say, as I said, that I take his question as notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A new question, the member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Attorney General.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): He's not here.

Mr Wessenger: If I might stand my question down.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, it has become increasingly clear that while you were doing your budget cuts last week, you neglected to make one important cut to your government's senseless spending. You should have cut your giant public relations scam, Jobs Ontario.

Now, you're aware, Mr Premier, that although 55,000 people signed up for the Jobs Ontario Training, in the past year your government only produced 7,600 short-term jobs. Not only that, they were low-skill jobs and well below the target you promised for this past year.

But Mr Premier, at the same time as you have been claiming a new-found sense of fiscal responsibility, let me tell you where your government has been spending its money on Jobs Ontario Training. Mr Premier, if you take a look at this little button, this little button cost the taxpayers of Ontario $21,000.

Interjection: One button?

Ms Poole: No, actually for many buttons. Bumper stickers, thousands more on bumper stickers; $65,000 on designing graphics for all these neat little buttons and these pretty bumper stickers; $33,000 for display easels, and a further $10,000 for folders. The list goes on and on. Mr Premier, I have page after page, 45 categories of wasteful promotion. Rather than spending the money on jobs, $700,000 was spent on promoting your own government. And you know what the kicker is, Mr Premier?

These neat little buttons which your government needed to promote itself have succeeded in creating more jobs than we had previously suspected, jobs in Taiwan -- in Taiwan, Mr Premier. Ontario taxpayers may find this hard to believe --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Ms Poole: -- but the Jobs Ontario buttons were made in Taiwan. Will the Premier tell us how he can justify his Jobs Taiwan program?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that to the minister.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I will certainly find out for the member where the buttons were made, why they were made in Taiwan and find out whether the facts she's presenting are accurate at all. But what I can tell the member --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thousands of dollars of waste.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- if the member for Oriole would just cool it for a second -- is that every time we spend $5,000 in training funds to get somebody off welfare in this province, we save thousands of dollars in welfare costs and we get people back to work feeling good about themselves and contributing to the province of Ontario. So while she may have a complaint about where the buttons were produced, her other criticisms about the program and the Jobs Ontario program are completely out to lunch.

Ms Poole: We not only have a problem about where these buttons were produced, we have a problem with spending $700,000 on promotion. We have a problem with you cutting training programs and training literacy programs in this province, programs that are working, while at the same time you waste taxpayers' money on this garbage.

Let me ask the minister about a program, a very viable and successful program, that just last week his government axed. This is the Metro Toronto literacy program, which last year trained 400 laid-off workers. This program had been successful in helping 80% of its graduates move on to jobs or further skills training. But what this government has done is axe programs like this all across the province; instead they're pouring their money into Jobs Ontario Training, which isn't working.

When the minister says 21,000 jobs created, he doesn't even understand how his own program is working, because those are just the jobs registered. The latest statistics we have received from your ministry, Minister, show 7,600 jobs created, and many of those are in low-skill categories.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Ms Poole: Why don't you just admit that your program's a failure and you're wasting hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on garbage like this?

Hon Mr Cooke: I say this in all seriousness. I would offer the member a briefing at the ministry on some of the programs that we're involved in. The program that she refers to, the Metro literacy program, the funding of that program was extended by my ministry. The program has not been cut off the funding, and in fact, in the ministries and through treasury board, we're looking at how that program can be perpetuated for a longer period of time. The program is funded till the end of August, so your figures on that are wrong.

The figures in terms of people placed into jobs are wrong. It's not 7,600. There are 8,348, and it's growing by 800 or 900 a week. I can understand how difficult it is for the Liberals to keep up on these figures, because they're going up by 800, 900 placements per week, people off welfare and into jobs, and if that's what the member calls a failure, she's just as wrong as her leader is.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm compelled to comment that if they didn't close sheltered workshops --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Turnbull: -- they wouldn't have to send jobs to Taiwan.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Could the member identify to whom he wishes to address a question?

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Transportation, Mr Speaker. Will the minister introduce legislation allowing longer truck lengths and, if so, when?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member is right in expressing anxiety, concern, about what he terms the need for urgent passage of legislation vis-à-vis longer vehicle configuration. The member will be aware that the item that he's referring to is approximately $100 million a year. The member will be cognizant that people in the industry are not buying trucks by virtue of waiting whether we will or will not, by virtue of waiting for a decision regarding longer trucks.

The member has mentioned to me on previous occasions that only four states in the United States of America do not allow longer trucks. The member has also mentioned in the same vein that axle weight, that overall capacity payload, will not be impacted. Because of all those mentions by the member, we have taken a very close look. We're cognizant of the responsibility of time, whether we will or will not deliver, but we're also cognizant of the safety factor, being fully aware that the environment has to benefit and, of course, first and foremost, the economic condition.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: We will make a decision and the member will be the first one to know.

Mr Turnbull: It is a shame that the Minister of Transportation is so eloquent and yet does not seem to understand what the question is. I asked you, when will you introduce legislation?

We are an island in Ontario. Quebec and all of the western provinces and all of the US interstate allow this. We are at a competitive disadvantage. Eighty per cent of all of the imports into Ontario come by truck. Seventy-five per cent of all of the exports go by truck.

As you did correctly point out, the truckers are holding off buying equipment. We could stimulate the economy without any cost of taxpayers' dollars if you would get off your duff and get on and do what you should be doing, instead of spouting.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Always with the highest of respect, I always consider the source, so I will not get involved in an exchange of compliments, for it is very, very difficult obviously for the member to pay a compliment to others, least of all to --

Mr Turnbull: Will you introduce legislation?

Hon Mr Pouliot: He's interrupting. Would you please cap the bottle, Mr Speaker?

The member is right. We have no intention of not respecting uniformity. We know, because of deregulation, that when you transport commodities from point A to point B, on the backhaul when you come back, if the contract is given to a competitor that has the most modern of equipment, with 10% less capacity, it places you at a disadvantage.

We're cognizant of all those facts, but we will not make a hasty decision, for that person there, with the highest of respect, would be back on his feet yet one more time, disagreeing with the progressive legislation that the government is contemplating. I wish to thank you, Mr Speaker.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, recently I met with farmers in my riding of Oxford at an agricultural day sponsored by the Oxford Federation of Agriculture.

Some producers I spoke with are concerned about the existing supply management system in place for some farm commodities such as poultry and dairy. They feel the current national quota system is not flexible enough. They suggest a quota be based on more current data about consumption in each province, which would allow producers to respond more quickly to demand in their marketplace. Would you support these changes, Minister?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): First of all, let me say that the Ontario government strongly supports the concept of national supply management systems that are currently in place. We've done so consistently at the GATT negotiation. We maintain we need a balanced position which will reduce export subsidies and also support supply management.

The second thing I would say is that the quotas that were allocated to different provinces were set on a historic basis a number of years ago when the systems were set up. We've now come to realize that there's not much flexibility in the exchange of quota between provinces. There have been some discussions at the dairy industry. They recognize in the dairy industry and, a year ago, in the poultry industry, there are some problems, because there's more demand for poultry products, for example, in Ontario than we have quota.

The people who administer the quota system are indeed looking at the problem and trying to address it and put a little more flexibility into the system.

Mr Sutherland: Minister, given that you support these changes, what action are you taking to encourage these changes so that the farmers of Ontario can get their fair share of the national quota?

Hon Mr Buchanan: One of the things we've been doing is the deputies of the different provinces have a committee that's looking into how we can address this. At the last ministers' meeting, there was agreement that we would proceed in looking at quota exchanges, looking at allocation of new quota, not necessarily on the old system but on a new system.

We have been consulting with farmers to see if we can't put in place a system that reflects the needs and where the consumption is as opposed to just simply going on a historic share. The producers, especially the dairy producers, have moved on this issue and we expect to be able to address the concerns of the producers, probably at the next ministers' meeting this summer.

CLOSURE OF TRADE OFFICES

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. During the current recession, which we are told is technically over, the really bright spot in our economy has been our foreign trade. Without that trade the recession would have been even more severe. I'm sure the minister will know that for every dollar that an Ontarian has in his pocket, one third is there because of trade. When you compare that to our American neighbours, only 10% of their gross domestic product is a result of trade.

With trade making up 30% of our economy, everyone agrees that Ontario's fragile recovery is predicated upon how much the province can sell and how much investment it can attract from abroad. Yet you have chosen to close all the trade offices and plan to run our external operations from Toronto.

I'm sure the minister will know that there are offices in Boston; New York; Chicago; Atlanta; Dallas; Los Angeles; London, England; Paris, France; Frankfurt, Germany; Milan, Italy; New Delhi, India; Hong Kong; Seoul, Korea; Singapore; Nanjing, China; Taipei, Taiwan; Tokyo. All of this is being closed.

Madam Minister, I have no problem with eliminating duplication of effort and rationalization of services and the use of Canadian embassies to promote Ontario's trade in foreign lands, but there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive foreign trade and investment strategy. These office closings appear to have nothing to do with effective trade and investment goals and everything to do with how much money can be cut from the government's bottom line, a case of penny wise and pound foolish.

Minister, do you really believe Ontario's trade effort will be as strong using the Toronto office and Canadian embassy staff as it would have been using Ontario's own representatives in our major foreign markets?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the member's concern with this issue and obviously his direct knowledge of the operation of the international offices from the time in which he was minister responsible for these operations.

I can also understand the nature of the concern. Ontario is an exporting province. Our economy is based on trade and it is a very important part of our economy. I assure the member that our review of this kept that foremost in our minds, and our commitment to try to both maintain and improve our efforts with respect to international trade will be at the centre of the reorganization of our offices and of our way of doing business.

I think it's important to inform the member that we were undertaking a review of the role and the effectiveness of the international offices before we began to take a second look at budgetary considerations. At that point in time we were looking at a major revamping of how we do business.

I will say to him that he is very, very correct that in a review of bottom-line budgetary considerations and fiscal considerations we came at it again and in fact in a way that forced us to look at how could we completely reorganize how we do business and take away from the money we're spending on the brick and mortar in terms of the offices and the investment there.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I'll try to do it briefly.

May I say to the member that, in consultation with many people in international communities, international networks of consultants and bankers and industry and exporters, we believe we can reorganize services. In using their assistance, we can be as effective as we were through an actual physical network of offices.

I understand that the concern he raises is an important one and would be willing to work with him, with his ideas, to maximize our efforts in terms of the international trade and our initiatives there. I can assure him that we're not just looking at walking away from that responsibility.

Mr Kwinter: I thank the minister for her remarks, but I just want to emphasize that I think it's important, and there's a great deal of value in having Ontario's own representatives in major markets promoting and attracting Ontario's trade and investment interest on a full-time basis. Let me make a suggestion. I know the Premier is always saying, "All you do is criticize, but you don't make any kind of suggestions." Let me make one to you: I think there's a way to reduce costs and promote Ontario's interests.

I'm sure that we can negotiate to put a provincial trade and investment representative in the key Canadian embassies with a mandate to promote Ontario's trade relations. This would be cost-effective, you could send a provincial trade person from Toronto to these posts at very little cost, and Ontario would get a maximum bang for its trade promotion dollars.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Kwinter: Madam Minister, instead of just closing Ontario's foreign offices and leaving us without an effective trade and investment presence, would you consider the alternative, or are you ready to sacrifice Ontario's trade benefits in order to reduce the deficit?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I assure the member we don't see that we are sacrificing our trade benefits. In fact, we think we can organize services to maximize our exposure in the international market and to be more effective.

The alternative he suggests is one that in fact we have reviewed. In fact, as I was indicating to him, we'd undertaken quite a major review. We were involved in discussions with the federal government about co-location with other provinces as well, and it remains an option for us to pursue with respect to some key posts. For example, we have yet to work through with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food about some of its international representatives who are actually involved in selling directly on-market, and we're looking at co-location to try and take care of some of their location needs.

So the alternative he suggested is one that we have looked at. It is also one that potentially, with the remaining budget we have, we may pursue in some very select areas. But I can tell him that we believe we can use the international networks of consultants and banks and others to very effectively represent us and to work with us in terms of contacts, to send in expert teams in terms of areas where we identify markets and to be much more strategic.

Could I also, hopefully, reassure him and let him know that in our discussions with the Canadian Exporters' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- the Toronto board of trade, for example, all of them support 100% the initiatives we have taken with respect to closing the network of international offices.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, these slasher films were the subject of an all-party agreement last Thursday, as I know you are aware. Since the previous questioner has used up all my time, I'm going to combine my first and second question for you.

You are aware of the fact that everybody in this House thinks the Ontario Film Review Board is doing its job reviewing this kind of material. You may also be aware of the fact that the newly appointed chair of the Ontario Film Review Board, Dorothy Christian, said at a public meeting in Mississauga that the Ontario Film Review Board fast-forwards this material and all of the material as it's reviewing it, and that it uses a search-and-scan method, which in fact, from her description, was double the speed, with the sound turned off.

I read to you very briefly, Madam Minister, a memo that was sent to the members of the Ontario film board from the chair, Dorothy Christian, in which she says: "I am officially on public record stating the board's use of the search-and-scan feature for the viewing of adult sex product.

In my public statement" -- and this is what is so important for you, Minister -- "I stated that this feature enabled the board to view at double speed versus seven or eight times the speed of home VCRs, but we all know the reality is that panels do use a much faster speed than double speed when viewing, a seemingly acceptable practice which operated satisfactorily because an unstated honour system was in force. However, it appears there is a breakdown in the process of this honour system."

Madam Minister, do you feel that for the chair of the Ontario Film Review Board to say publicly in a public meeting that they review this kind of material at double speed when in fact she admits that what they do at the board is in reality, in her own words, "a much faster speed than double speed" -- Madam Minister, I ask you whether you accept a chair of the Ontario Film Review Board who says one thing in a public meeting and another thing is actually going on under her chairmanship at that film review board.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'll attempt to answer. There were two questions given to me here. First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Mississauga South and the member for Eglinton for bringing up this issue and bringing it before the House, because I think it's quite important that everybody be aware of the issue of violence against women, and I think everybody here knows that I have spoken out on this issue and very much share your concern.

The member for Mississauga South is well aware that many of the videos and I think that the videos that she pointed out to me today and the slasher films that she's talking about predate the provincial government authority over the video releases, and that has been clarified. It's unfortunate but it is a fact that the slasher films that she is talking about predate the film review board, and the videos which are --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That is not the question.

Mrs Marland: That is not the question. Why don't you answer the question?

Mrs Caplan: You can't get away with it.

Hon Ms Churley: If the member would like to hear the answer, I will continue.

Videos which were in distribution prior to 1988 are not subject to review by the OFRB. The fact is that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: -- the new board is very sensitive to the issue of violence.

Interjections.

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

Mrs Marland: I cannot believe you are reading your answer. You are an insult to the women in this province, Madam Minister.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please come to order.

Mrs Marland: You're reading your answer. My goodness, it's a very --

The Speaker: Would the member for Mississauga South please come to order.

Had the minister completed her response? If not, could she do so quickly.

Hon Ms Churley: I wanted to say that this is a complex issue and she's asked a couple of questions and I was attempting to speak to both of them. I want to say, in closing, that we are also talking to some of her colleagues in Ottawa about this very issue. We operate under the Theatres Act, and in fact --

Mrs Marland: Ottawa has nothing to do with Dorothy Christian.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: -- the Criminal Code at this point needs to be amended to include violence as one of the issues that need to be dealt with. Right now the Criminal Code does not include violence, and it is a real problem for the film review board, and it is in fact classifying, with the new members that I have appointed, to the best of their ability under the Theatres Act, but we need some help from the federal government, and need to open up the Criminal Code and make our job a little easier here, and she might be able to in fact --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: -- help us in that endeavour.

The Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees:

On the standing committee on estimates, Mr Wiseman for Mr Rizzo; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands) for Mr Kormos; on the standing committee on social development, Mr Rizzo for Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Speaking to the motion, which as everyone knows is a debatable motion, and I promise I will not go on unduly, but this is a --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Oh, come on, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, it is an important motion, and let me just indicate that I know honourable members, particularly relatively new members, find certain of these parliamentary issues troubling. I even heard one of the honourable members opposite yesterday say it was "so much dicking around about nothing." That's not my view, though I can understand the frustration.

I want to at a certain level say to the government House leader, I understand what he's doing and he's now doing what he ought to have done a couple of days ago. I may --

Hon Mr Charlton: That was Sunday.

Mr Conway: I just simply want to make this point: My concern earlier in this day when I raised the point of order had to do with the role of members who were ordered by the House to sit on standing committees. I felt then -- I feel equally so now -- that it is a clear infringement on the rights of all members when they are ordered by the House to attend a committee, when they follow that order, they show up and voluntarily agree to do their duty and without their agreement they are superseded by a substitution order that does not come from the House.

We have a mechanism in our standing orders that the government House leader has quite properly invoked this afternoon, and I have no quarrel on a technical level with what he has done today. The Minister of Labour, in flushed tones, shrugs in disagreement. He may wish to engage the debate. I want to make this point again: The rules of this House are designed over time to protect the interests of government, to protect the interests of the opposition as corporate entities and also to address the concerns of all of us as members.

It is absolutely obnoxious to me that we would have a situation on the part of any government -- I'm not just saying it of this government; I would say it of any Liberal government or of any Tory government -- that we would seek to infringe upon the rights of members by ordering, through the whip, a substitution that was not agreed to by the member being substituted for and that had not been ordered by the House itself.

So let me say simply this: The government House leader has acted quite within the rules today and I have no quarrel on a technical ground with what he's done. I would submit that if the government wished Mr Kormos removed from the resources committee, that is entirely its right to wish and it has an instrument by means of which it can properly achieve that objective. Today the government House leader has invoked the proper instrument. What was attempted yesterday in the resources committee in my view is wholly inappropriate, and I don't make that as a partisan observation, because it would be equally inappropriate for a Liberal government and equally inappropriate for a Tory government.

I ask honourable members, each and every one, to think about this, yes, at one level which is political, and I will deal with that momentarily, but at another level which is parliamentary. We have traditions and we have rules which speak to the integrity and the importance of members as elected members, who have a right to take their seat in this Legislature and to take their seat in standing committees.

What was attempted yesterday was, in my view, a clear infringement on the rights of members to be seated in standing or select committees. There is no doubt that what happened yesterday contravenes the spirit and, I believe, the intention and the letter of our standing orders.

The government House leader will shake his head and he will say, "Point to the specific language," and he has a point. I can't do that, because nowhere is it written, simply because it would be unthinkable. You wouldn't write a rule, because you would not have previously imagined the need for a rule to contemplate what happened yesterday, because what happened yesterday was a breach of good faith. What the government House leader has done today is back, in my view, within the rules.

So much of my concern around the future deliberations of the resources committee I think has been alleviated. Now the honourable member has been withdrawn from the committee and the government will presumably have seven members in the committee to do its bidding. When the nominations are put and the votes are taken, we will see what we will see.

But we will not have what we had yesterday, which is a member of the committee there properly -- and I want to take issue with something the government House leader said earlier today. The government House leader, who was not at the proceedings yesterday -- I understand why he wasn't there, but I happen to have been there from the beginning, and I will say this. Mr Kormos was there from the beginning. Mr Wilson arrived with colleagues well after 3:30, and after one of the government representatives quite properly -- well, I shouldn't say "quite properly"; let me withdraw that -- when a motion to recess for 20 minutes had been offered and accepted.

But I was a little struck by what the government House leader said earlier this afternoon. He left the impression -- I'll have to check Hansard, but he certainly gave the impression that Mr Wilson was there, properly substituted for, and Mr Kormos wasn't there or arrived later. I was there at 3:30, and I can tell you, Mr Kormos was there at the beginning of the proceedings. Mr Turnbull, the Conservative member for York Mills, put his name in nomination as a candidate for the Chair.

Mr Kormos indicated shortly thereafter that he was willing to accept that nomination, and it was some time later that we heard that -- Mr Wilson, Kingston and The Islands, arrived, and it was some time after that that we found out that Mr Wilson was in fact being substituted for Mr Kormos, who was there, who was properly there, and who had already indicated at that point that he was willing to accept the direction of the House to do his duty, including standing for the chairmanship of the committee.

That's the point I ask members to think about. My point of order has to do with the rights of members to be seated in standing or select committees where they have been dispatched by order of the House. That's the issue I want people to think about.

For members who are so ordered, it's quite clear to me what the rules and the traditions of this place intend: If you're so ordered, you go to the committee, you accept your responsibility, and if you can't be there, standing order 110(

b) or (c) -- I haven't got it right in front of me -- allows for substitution. But the substitution assumes good faith and it assumes that you can't be there, and together with your colleagues and your whip, you will arrange an appropriate substitution.

The rules and the traditions of this place have not had to and have not dealt with a situation where the member, so ordered by the House to be a member of the committee, arrives at the committee, indicates a willingness to do his or her duty and then is told, "You're being substituted for," apparently against your will, wish or judgement.

I said earlier and I will repeat that I have, I think, been involved in a situation. We've all had committees where people are busy. Often, members will be working perhaps two committees during the same week and they have to move back and forth. I would say as a -- dare I say it? -- now relatively senior member of this House, that if I were a Chair and my colleagues Caplan and Offer came to a committee where I was the Chair, Mrs Caplan was ordinarily a member of the committee and Mr Offer showed up with a substitution slip, as Chair, there would be no question in my mind of what I would do.

I would accept Mrs Caplan as the member of the committee because she is the member ordered by the House and I would assume that she and Offer or the Liberals just had a busy day, they had had a fight, they were not getting along. All I can ultimately go by is the order of the House, and the order under those conditions is that Mrs Caplan was ordered to be the member and yes, Mr Offer has come as a substitute on other occasions, but I'm only allowed to make a judgement consistent with the rules, and the rules say the House order is transcendant.

I just want to make it clear to my friends opposite and to my friends over here what my concern is. It is a parliamentary point that I speak to, and it has to do with the importance, the independence and the integrity of members. I would be furious if I thought I was there as a member and my leader or my whip tried to undermine me in a way that was discourteous at one level and unparliamentary at the other, because the people of Renfrew have sent me here and they have sent me with a mandate, and I come to a place that protects my electors in their right to have their views, through their member, heard.

It is one of the learned British parliamentary authorities who talks about what has happened in Westminster, how through what I think he called the tyranny of the House leaders and whips' panel we've now got to the politics of the foregone conclusion. We often think -- and I did as well; I sometimes do still, as a former government House leader -- that as long as the House leaders or the whips make a deal, that's all that is required. Well, we do make deals, and it helps expedite the business of this place, but our deals, such as they are, must accord with the standing orders and the traditions of Parliament.

I want to come back again to this motion. What we now have today, one week after the motion put by my friend the government House leader a week ago, which motion said and was concurred in unanimously, is that for purposes of this session, on the standing committee of resources development, one of the 11 members so nominated, so designated, was Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold. It appears that the government did not really wish to have Mr Kormos on that committee. Quite frankly, that is the government's business. I have a view, but that is just my view.

The government has a right to nominate seven of its own to these committees, and we can all comment, but that's their view. But they put a motion and sought the support of the House, which they got unanimously, that for purposes of this committee, in this session of the 35th Parliament, Mr Kormos would be one of the members of that committee.

It is, as I say, clear that the government didn't really want Mr Kormos on that committee. That is their right, and I would simply submit to the House that any party or any group that so feels that it does not want a person who has been nominated to and has been a member of a standing committee -- any of us has the right to change his or her mind, and the standing orders anticipate that.

My point to the government House leader is, he ought to have done what he did today before he tried to do what he tried to do yesterday. Now, I know the government, and I have a lot of sympathy for government House leaders. They are busy, sometimes frazzled people, trying to run the House and trying to run important departments like treasury board and Education and Financial Institutions. But there is a right way and a wrong way, and what was attempted yesterday was the wrong way.

I still take the view -- and this is another issue, and I know the government House leader doesn't agree with me. I want to be clear about my friend the member for Sarnia. I think he's a very capable fellow. I can't believe I am the only person here who honestly thinks -- because I would like to think, if I were the parliamentary assistant for justice or the parliamentary assistant for Natural Resources or the parliamentary assistant for Comsoc, by accepting that additional responsibility, I am part of the outer circle of the executive council. I am, by any political science standard. You don't have to agree with me, but I think independent advice will clearly indicate that.

It just seems to me inconceivable that people don't see the conflict. I don't mean to question the motives of my friend from Sarnia, because I think his motives are very good, but it is clear to me, if you accept the notion of independent committees --

Mr White: We are saving the government $10,000.

Mr Conway: That's another one of my questions. The member for Durham Centre has helpfully relieved me of a concern I might have had, which is, is it possible for a parliamentary assistant and the Chairman of the committee to accept the two emoluments? I just assume the answer is no, and my friends opposite tell me so, and I am relieved, because that's what I would have expected.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): We're not the Liberal government; we're the NDP government.

Mr Conway: You are not the Liberal government. That is manifestly the case, I say to the member for Huron.

But my point on the second issue -- I speak only for myself, but I think many people would agree with me. There is a conflict of interest between a parliamentary assistant for government ministries in the resource field being Chairman of the standing committee on resources development. That is a point, I submit, and I've got to -- because I know what will happen. My friend is a good parliamentary assistant, and the day that his departmental estimates come before that committee, he's going to have to choose. I suspect that he will leave the chair. He can't be in both.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): He can't be impartial.

Mr Conway: Well, I don't think he can be impartial, but he can't be in both places. I guess it just troubles me a bit that some people don't see the conflict between those.

You know, there was a time in this place when honourable members, when they were elected to the Legislature -- there was a long time in this place and in the British system generally -- when an honourable member like my friend from Beaches, having won a good election from the electoral district of Beaches-Woodbine, came to Parliament as the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and if the first minister then asked Ms Lankin to join the executive council, the first thing she had to do was resign her seat and go back to the electors of Beaches-Woodbine to get a second sanction.

There was clearly a recognition, and there is today, that there is a conflict between serving the King and serving the King's subjects in Parliament. That's what that whole ministerial by-election process was all about.

That's why today, for example, members of the cabinet are held to a higher standard of accountability and conduct than are honourable members. Your conflict-of-interest sanctions are tougher in cabinet and at the parliamentary assistant level than mine are as a private member, for a variety of reasons. Most people find this just to be ethereal, irrelevant political science, but I don't happen to believe it's entirely that.

We've got ourselves, on all sides in this place in recent years, into some real difficulty around conflict of interest. Some of them have been some of my best friends. Let me use a good friend of mine, Ms Joan Smith from London. When she went to that police station, she felt she was going as a private member in support of a constituent.

Interjection: What does that have to do with it?

Mr Conway: Well, I'm talking about conflict of interest. I was struck this afternoon by the number of people who just thought there was no possibility of a conflict between a parliamentary assistant for one of the resource area ministries being, at one and the same time as parliamentary assistant there, Chair of the standing committee on resources development. To me it is just so transparent that if I were government House leader I would certainly try to eliminate those possibilities. There's less of a concern, quite frankly, if the parliamentary assistant for justice is the Chair of the resources committee, for obvious reasons.

But back to my point. The government House leader this afternoon did what he ought to have done before yesterday, and what was attempted yesterday was inappropriate and wrong, and I just think we should observe that. I hope we don't see, any one of us -- I don't expect that after this case -- I was interested in what the Speaker had to say. I didn't have a chance to check the precedents, but I can't remember a situation quite like this before.

It is true, to be ecumenical in this, that governments of all kinds have moved to deal with difficult colleagues. The Tories did it, the Liberals did it and the New Democrats have done it. We used to say in the bad old days of endless Tory government around here that if you really wanted to shut up an obstreperous and recalcitrant Tory backbencher, you put them in the cabinet. That's the way it used to be done.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): That didn't always work.

Mr Conway: My friend for Leeds points out it didn't always work, but I make this point seriously because I think what was attempted yesterday was a serious breach.

I'll make one final comment about the politics, having regard to the fact that the political woodshed has been used by all political parties since this place started to do business over 100-and-some years ago.

The thing that struck me is that I actually came here a week ago fully expecting -- I was here when the government House leader read the list -- Mr Kormos not to be a member of the committee, because I was hearing through the place that the Ron Hansen woodshed was going to be warmed up by a couple of government members and that Mr Kormos, having had the effrontery of going down to that Queen's Landing with the brown paper bag lunch, had pushed the power in the New Democratic government over the line, beyond the brink.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Graceland.

Hon Mr Charlton: And that's the natural story.

Mr Conway: And my friend the government House leader, says, "And that's the story." I will say to my friends opposite, I heard the Premier's response to the member for St Catharines today and it was laughable. I say to my friend Ross McClellan, who is not here but I am sure marionetteer extraordinaire in these matters, "By your deeds ye shall be judged." I don't care what Bob Rae says, I am interested primarily in what Bob Rae does, and I see today the deed: Peter Kormos is being dumped from the resources development committee.

I simply say this in conclusion: The New Democrats under Bob Rae are incompetent in all things, including their vindictiveness.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Further debate on the government House leader's motion. The honourable member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'll be extremely brief, but I would just like to put a few points forward.

I was, in fact, as most members know, the person who suggested that Mr Kormos would be appropriate as the Chair of this committee, and for the sake of anybody who is following this debate who does not know the rules, each party is given a certain number of committees that they chair. We freely accept that. That is the way this House works and it is not unreasonable.

Mr Kormos was the Chair of this committee, the resources committee, during the last year or so. He has been a very able Chair of that committee. I have not always agreed with his rulings, but on balance I would say that he has been as fair as any committee Chair any of the parties have had. I have got no affection for his brand of politics and I make no apology for that. However, he has been fair and he has been a capable member.

The government started out by making the fatal mistake by putting him back on to this committee. It was their own choice that they made the motion last week to put him on this committee. The concept is that there is supposed to be a free election of the Chair of these committees by the members of the committees, albeit that it is understood that certain committees will be chaired by various parties. I have no problem with that. The fact is that yesterday made a myth out of that.

I would suggest that if we are going to have these practices, let's be up front, because the electorate are fed up with all of this trickery that is vested on us, where we tell people that people will be freely elected and they are not, they are not, and yesterday made that very clear. We also saw that with Mr Hansen when he was bumped as an NDP committee Chair because he got a little bit out of line because he happened to want to do the right things for his constituents and disagree with the government. Well, I've got news for this government: A lot of people disagree with a lot of things that you're doing.

What happened yesterday was that we had a duly nominated person to sit on this committee, Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who arrived at that committee meeting, which was an organizational committee meeting, and the job was to elect a Chair. I nominated him in full knowledge that there would be an NDP Chair of that committee, and he had demonstrated that he was capable. He acknowledged that he was there and that he was prepared to serve, if elected, as Chair of that committee.

Another name was put forward, and that name was of somebody, Mr Huget, the member for Sarnia, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I would put it to you, that very clearly there is a clear conflict of interest in having a parliamentary assistant for a ministry that in fact will be coming before that committee for review.

Having done that, we went to a vote, but the government asked for a recess because it didn't have enough people there. In fact, even if they had all of their people there, if Mr Kormos voted for himself, as we had every indication he would, we would have had a split decision which would have been referred back to this assembly for a decision.

During the recess, which the government asked for and eventually received, another member arrived with a sub slip to sub Mr Kormos out of his position. This goes to the whole heart of this question. If a party has appointed somebody to a committee, he is a legitimate member of that committee. The whole concept of the House rules, as evidenced in standing order 110(c), the intent, is to be able to substitute people where the properly constituted member is not available to sit on that committee, not to pull the rug out from under his feet. In fact, the s