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

June 23, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

SALE OF FISH

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

HEALTH SERVICES

METROPOLITAN AGENCIES REPRESENTATIVES' COUNCIL

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

OSHAWA FIESTA

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

YORK DETENTION CENTRE

WAGE PROTECTION

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

LANDFILL

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RACE RELATIONS

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CONTRAT SOCIAL

HISTORIC VEHICLES

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

DRUG BENEFITS

LANDFILL

WATER QUALITY

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

GO BUS SERVICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S COMMENTS

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

MEETINGS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the members' expenditure report for the fiscal year 1992-93. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest Ontario regarding Mr Will Ferguson, MPP.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The Premier and the Minister of Finance have cancelled a party in Brampton, a fireworks display that takes place on Canada's birthday, July 1. It has been going on for years. The reason is that with Bill 48, its uncertainty and its obvious challengeability in the courts, municipalities and other transfer partners do not know what is coming down the pipe. They are therefore taking steps to eliminate such things as the fireworks on July 1. This is a tremendous event. It's a free event. It's a family event. Mr Premier, Mr Finance Minister, you should be ashamed of doing that to the people of Brampton, and I'm sure this will occur throughout Ontario.

More important is the fact that the children's aid societies, which are bound by statute to look after the protection of young children, are going to have difficulty in terms of carrying this out because of this uncertainty. I suggest, Mr Premier and Mr Finance Minister, your bill is so uncertain that I'm sure it will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, transfer partners, a whole host of them that are listed in the bill, will be dangling in the air trying to figure out what to do. At the end of the day this government will leave the next government a mess that will take years and years to clean up and further uncertainty.

SALE OF FISH

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the Midland fish shop dealer, Ray Brennan, who was fined $11,000 when he was caught in a government sting operation in 1988.

Mr Brennan was charged by MNR undercover agents for selling fish caught by unlicensed fishermen from the nearby reserve on Christian Island. Mr Brennan pleaded guilty soon after the charges were laid on June 2. The eight native fishermen were acquitted of 108 charges of illegal commercial fishing. The natives argued that the Indians in central Ontario have an aboriginal right to fish in waters surrounding their reserves.

Minister, your government is sending out mixed signals. On one hand, your government is allowing native fishermen to catch and sell fish without a commercial fishing licence. On the other hand, you are charging, convicting and fining non-native fish dealers for selling fish caught by unlicensed native fishermen. Mr Brennan and many other people in Ontario are wondering how you can justify such an unfair law.

Minister, you and your government have an obligation to honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation and to apply and enforce existing laws equally. I urge you to either appeal the June 2 court decision or overturn Mr Brennan's sentence and give him his money back.

EMANCIPATION CELEBRATIONS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to bring to the attention of the members of the House a unique event which is taking place in Niagara-on-the-Lake next month. From July 9 to July 11 the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the signing of Upper Canada's anti-slavery legislation, the Emancipation Act.

The man who made this possible was Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe's legacy to our province and to our country is documented in many a history book and we, as modern-day legislators, are certainly reminded of his contribution to our legislative history each day as we sit here in the House. As Upper Canada's first Lieutenant Governor, Simcoe was determined to create a society patterned on the image of Great Britain. He founded the first Legislature and enacted a series of laws, including one to provide for the gradual abolition of slavery.

Prior to the legislation, black slaves had no legal or civil rights. This appalled Simcoe and he instructed his Attorney General to prepare a law to abolish slavery, the first such law in the British Empire. Two hundred years later, we are gathering to pay tribute to Simcoe's actions in advance of black civil rights in Upper Canada.

Many people in Niagara have been busy over the last year making preparations for this commemorative event. Highlights of the week's activities include a re-enactment of the passage of the anti-slavery legislation, a lecture series on Simcoe's legislative legacy, a blues-jazz concert, a revival church service and gospel choir in Simcoe Park and black history displays at the local community centre.

I invite all members to attend what I think is an extremely important event for Niagara and for our entire country.

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I honestly don't think this government has any idea what impact its increase in stumpage fees of some 43% will have on the forestry industry in northern Ontario.

When my leader rose to ask a question regarding this bizarre tax increase to the Premier yesterday, he passed it on to my northern friend the Minister of Finance, the member representing the northern riding of Nickel Belt. His response was totally -- I totally -- unacceptable.

In an area of the province where unemployment lingers around 16%, how can this government justify such a move that will have such an impact on the jobs which northerners depend on?

I, representing a riding largely dependent on the sawmill industry, call upon that great number of northern ministers -- the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance -- to give their heads a shake, listen to what northerners are telling them and take a close look at what this additional tax grab will do to the sawmill industry in my riding, in their ridings and throughout northern Ontario.

Let me quote to them a letter directed to the Minister of Natural Resources from an operator in my riding. He indicates:

"These additional charges will strangle the small operators. The Minister of Finance obviously went for a tax grab but did not take into the account the impact on employment or whether the industry could afford the extra expense."

I truly believe that the impact of this significant tax grab was never even thought about. I again appeal to this government to re-examine this portion of its budget.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Last week the Minister of Health quietly introduced legislation which has broad implications for patients who access Ontario's health care system.

While the current minister and her predecessor rail against the evils of rationing health care, Bill 50 will empower bureaucrats to make arbitrary decisions on what health care services will be insured and how often a patient can receive treatment.

Simply put, this legislation will facilitate the further rationing of health care services. But instead of the public and health care professionals determining what services should be insured, it will now be left to Dr Ruth and faceless bureaucrats at the Ministry of Health to make these critical decisions.

There will be no limits on what services can be restricted by the government. As Ontario Medical Association president Tom Dickson said: "It's not just psychotherapy or eye examinations as originally proposed. The power to ration insured and medically necessary services applies to everyone and to everything."

In her response to the valid concerns raised by the medical community, the Health minister claims that Bill 50 is an extension of her government's reform policies. She's half right. These proposals follow the government's panicky pattern of gutting services without regard for the consequences. They represent changes made out of desperation and not meaningful health care reform.

METROPOLITAN AGENCIES REPRESENTATIVES' COUNCIL

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group called MARC, the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives' Council.

MARC is an association of non-profit agencies in Metropolitan Toronto that share a common commitment to provide high-quality services for persons with developmental handicaps. Their agencies are diverse in size, structure and mandate but work collectively to address common issues and concerns. MARC believes that all persons with developmental handicaps have the right to receive services that most appropriately address their needs and ensure the highest possible quality of life.

Priority issues such as children's services, case management, housing, day activities, human resources and mental health services for persons with developmental handicaps are addressed through the establishment of MARC task forces and subcommittees. Working closely with the Ministry of Community and Social Services is important to MARC. Ministry staff actively participate on most MARC committees and projects and currently co-chair a task force on case management.

There are nearly 50 member agencies of MARC including Bloorview Children's Hospital, the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living, Community Living Alternatives Scarborough, Extend-A-Family, Safehaven and We Four Homes for the Developmentally Handicapped.

MARC combines planning and action to ensure sufficient high-quality services in Metropolitan Toronto for persons with developmental handicaps and their families, and I commend it for its hard work.

Also, I would take the opportunity to introduce a good friend of mine by the name of Darron Bunt. At 10 years of age, she is an active member of the anti-poverty movement in Toronto. She is a student of the political system and is quite looking forward to coming and serving this Legislature at some point.

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Does this government care about the north?

Last week I had the opportunity to visit different parts of northwestern Ontario to meet with school board trustees and administrators, teachers, parents and students. They all raised a number of concerns regarding the provision of education in the north, and there was one point that everyone raised: When will the Minister of Education release his final report of the northern education project?

The northern education project was established in January 1991. It was to undertake an in-depth study of providing educational services to meet the needs of small and isolate boards in northern Ontario.

In June of last year, the project released a consultation report summarizing its findings. This preliminary report dealt with curriculum services and teacher in-service, special education services, supervisory services, finance and capital services and a

section on educational governance issues. Upon the release of this report last June, responses were requested by September 30, 1992. A final report was to be ready by the end of last year.

The northern educational community continues to wait for action by this government. Why has the report not been released? Are the expenditure controls and the social contract going to eliminate bringing about important reforms to improve northern education? There is real concern in the north that this Minister of Education and Training and this government plan to do nothing.

Minister, it's time to release the final report of the northern education project and to set out what specific actions you are prepared to take.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm rising to ask for the personal intervention of the Solicitor General of Ontario with respect to a small volunteer fire department in an unorganized municipality in my riding, Laurier township.

The Laurier local services board has made several representations through Mr Jim O'Connor, the chairman of the board, to the Ontario fire marshal's office.

The background behind this is that there was a family, Mr and Mrs Robert Davies, whose home was totally destroyed last year by fire because the fire could not be responded to in view of the fact that there was not a volunteer fire department able to service the area.

Despite the fact that Laurier township has less than 300 permanent residents, they have organized a 24-person volunteer fire department. They have also raised some $18,000 in cash and pledges, plus land to be donated to the construction of a firehall. These 300 people have also undertaken to purchase themselves, without government help, a used pumper truck. They were given a verbal commitment by Mr Bill Bowman of the Ontario fire marshal's office in North Bay that the ministry would be forthcoming with some $15,000 as its contribution to equip and build the firehall.

In spite of that fact, in spite of the fact that the municipality and local residents have done their homework so a disaster like the Davies home never occurs again, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is now reneging on its commitment.

OSHAWA FIESTA

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I am pleased to rise today to tell you of Oshawa's 32nd annual Fiesta celebration, which is going on this week. Fiesta is a celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity sponsored by the Oshawa Folk Art Council and supported by such groups as the Ukrainian Youth Association, the Hungarian Cultural Club and Club Carib, to name but a few.

The Fiesta is organized by the citizens of Oshawa and area and is intended for the enjoyment of the people. There's no government funding or organization involved. There are approximately 18 pavilions located throughout the city, each hosted by different social, cultural and ethnic groups. These pavilions operate through Fiesta Week, this week, offering glimpses of the host culture through food, drink, music, dancing and craftwork.

From the parade and concert to the crowning of Miss Fiesta, culminating in the teddy bear picnic, this week-long festival is fun filled, with the most racial, cultural and ethnic harmony. It acknowledges the value of heritage while celebrating the richness of our Canadian society.

I've had the privilege on many occasions of attending, along with my colleague from Oshawa, the reviewing of the parade and the opening day concerts as well as all the pavilions, have enjoyed some excellent dishes, watched young people dance and even quaffed a pint or two of brew.

At a time when the challenges of modern life are pressing upon us, Fiesta is a welcome respite, and I welcome the people here to join us in Oshawa for this coming celebration.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr André Bertouille, a member of the Belgium Parliament, and Mr Claude Rijmenans, the consul general for Belgium. Welcome to our assembly.

We are also joined today by one of the officers of the assembly, the Honourable Judge Evans, the commissioner for conflict of interest. He too is seated in the Speaker's gallery.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr Speaker, I have a point of order, and it's possibly as well a point of personal privilege. It arises in connection with Bill 48, the Social Contract Act. Specifically, my point of order relates to the highly unusual and unprecedented degree to which Bill 48 authorizes cabinet to make what are fundamentally important and substantive laws by way of regulation.

There is no doubt that it is within the mandate of any government to introduce legislation which contains within it a provision enabling cabinet to make regulations. This happens all the time and is generally supportable. But I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this tradition has been based on the premise that the legislation itself is to contain the substantive elements incorporating a government's policy, while the regulation-making authority is merely for purposes of facilitating the implementation of the substantive provisions; the regulatory provisions are not to be used for purposes of enacting substantive government policy.

This legislative tradition has evolved over centuries of parliamentary democracy. Like many other traditions we follow and respect in this Legislature, this particular legislative tradition has evolved in recognition of the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy: that government policy must be subjected to public debate.

A regulation is, as we all know, not subject to debate in this Legislature; in fact, it is not even subject to debate by the caucus of the governing party. A regulation is passed by a cabinet whose meetings are secret. There is no opportunity for members of my party, the official opposition, or for members of the third party to debate the wisdom of a particular regulation, and by and large we accept that. We accept that very severe curtailment of our right to debate a legislative enactment of the government because of the bargain implicit in the tradition to which I have been referring.

The bargain is simply put thus: Members of the opposition are not permitted to debate a regulation arising from the bill which has become law, because the government's regulation is not permitted to embody substantive government policy but merely facilitates the implementation of that policy.

I submit, Mr Speaker, that Bill 48, as it stands, is in breach of the tradition regarding a government's authority to make regulations; it goes outside the bargain made between the opposition and the government.

The following are some specific examples of how, by way of regulation, Bill 48 will enable the government to enact substantive policy and thereby avoid the scrutiny of this House. Let me begin by saying that Bill 48 is generally regarded as the most intrusive wage control legislation ever introduced in this country. It is a very controversial bill. The provisions are powerful and far-reaching and will have a profound impact on many Ontarians and their government-funded institutions. This, I submit, makes it all the more important that the bill respect the parliamentary tradition, or bargain, relating to regulatory provisions.

Subsection 41(1), dealing with the regulations, provides in part as follows, that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable for carrying out the intent and purposes of this act." This provision alone gives the cabinet virtually unrestricted authority to make whatever regulations it, subjectively speaking, deems to be necessary or advisable.

Now, what you, Mr Speaker, or my party or the third party or the government considers to be necessary or advisable in given circumstances may very well be four different things, and of course only the government's opinion can win the day. The government is entitled to win the day, but only where a substantive law has been subjected to public debate.

There is, objectively speaking, no restriction whatsoever in

section 41 on the kind of regulations the government can pass. If the government determines, subjectively, that it is necessary or desirable to enact a regulation which, objectively speaking, is clearly a matter of substantive law, then it can do so with impunity, without exposing such a regulation to public debate. Clearly, such a provision runs contrary to the parliamentary tradition or bargain about which I have been speaking.

In addition,

section 41 allows the government to designate, by way of regulation, other employers not listed in the

schedule for the bill that would then be bound by the bill's provisions. Is this not a substantive question? Surely the employers to be affected by Bill 48 should be made known to us now and this issue should be subjected to debate.

Section 41 also specifically permits the cabinet subjectively to define any word or expression used in the bill. Again, this enables the government to interpret the bill, once it becomes law, in a manner which could very well be contrary to what an objective

interpretation would dictate.

This list is lengthy, Mr Speaker, but I submit the few following as being other examples of where Bill 48 permits substantive law to be passed by cabinet in secret, without public debate, by way of regulation.

The size of the public sector job security fund and its operation will be dictated by regulation. So would the question of which employers will be required to pay money into the consolidated revenue fund, the amount of money and the method and time for payment to be made. In addition, there is the question about to whom the minister can delegate any of his powers under the act and to whom these persons can, in turn, subdelegate their powers.

I submit that Bill 48 is, in large measure, a law which allows cabinet to pass other laws. These other laws or regulations will, because of their substantive policy nature, go outside the traditional scope of regulations.

I submit, Mr Speaker, that it is beyond the power of this government to introduce Bill 48 in its present form and I ask that you compel the government to withdraw Bill 48 or, failing that, that you in some way ensure that my rights and the rights of the other opposition members of this House to debate substantive government policy be protected.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Having heard what my colleague said, Mr Speaker, I would refer you to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

section 106(k), which clearly state:

"Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

"Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

"Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

"Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

"Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty."

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to look at that in light of the comments my colleague has made. I would submit that Bill 48 is in contravention, if anything, of the standing orders of the Legislature,

section 106(k).

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm just seeking from you an opportunity to speak on the same point of order raised by my friend from Ottawa South and spoken to as well by my friend from Brampton.

For a period of five years while our party was in government, I had the privilege and the opportunity of serving as the chair of the cabinet committee on regulations. The responsibility of the chair in that cabinet committee was to examine every single regulation proposed for enactment by the government, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, prior to that regulation going before cabinet. I should tell you two main features of the work of that cabinet committee on behalf of the cabinet.

The first was to ensure that the authority to make the regulation existed in the statute, in the law that the Parliament, this Parliament, had previously passed. Regulations, as you know, cannot be made until there is an empowering statute, an empowering law, an empowering act that gives the authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the cabinet to make a regulation which then has the force of law, every bit as much as a law passed by this Parliament has the force of law.

Our first objective -- and this is a long-standing tradition in the Parliament -- was to make sure that the authority to make the regulation existed in the act passed by Parliament.

That was crucial, because if it were ever found by a court that there was not the power to make the regulation, then as a result of that, the regulation itself was ultra vires and did not have the force of law. Obviously, you had to ensure that was the case, because after the regulation is published and proclaimed, citizens of the province rely on it: everything from the setting of GO fares to the setting of very sophisticated environmental regulations. That's the first point.

The second point, and the point that is germane to the matter raised by my friend from Ottawa South, is this: It was imperative upon us to ensure that the regulation being made was not in fact establishing policy or establishing matters of law that were not contemplated in the bill; that is to say, the regulation-making power of the government and the cabinet could not replace the authority of Parliament to pass bills that set public policy in the province of Ontario.

If a regulation came before my cabinet committee, and thereafter the cabinet, which attempted to usurp the power that is vested in this Parliament, our responsibility as a cabinet committee and as a cabinet was to reject it and to advise the appropriate minister and the appropriate ministry that if that minister or ministry wanted to achieve that end, to establish those laws, then it was his or her responsibility to introduce a bill in this Legislature and have it go through the legislative procedure of being read three times and being considered by one of the committees of this Legislature or the committee of the whole, including, time and again, and often, public hearings so that the public would have an opportunity to consider that bill.

If a regulation came which was really the establishment of new public policy not contemplated by the bill, or if the effect of the regulation was to go beyond the bill, then it was our responsibility to reject it. It could not be sealed and it could not become law in Ontario.

I have personally read, several times, Bill 48, the so-called Social Contract Act, and I simply want to advise you, sir, that given my experience as Chair of that regulations committee and my experience with the legislation that we are called upon to vote today, the power vested in the cabinet is actually power to write new laws that ought properly to be the subject of a bill in this Parliament, and not regulations.

I ask you, sir, to consider that matter, and before this bill proceeds, to ensure that we do not allow this Parliament simply to give the authority that we have and vest that in the secrecy of cabinet and put all the power in this province in the hands of a Premier and a Minister of Finance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just one very brief comment on the very interesting point that's been raised on the other side, Mr Speaker, and that's to point out to you, sir, that Bill 48 was drafted by the office of legislative counsel, who have done all the legislative drafting for this establishment for many, many years, and legislative counsel assures us that all --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As you know, their job is not only to draft but to advise on the legality of the legislative drafting that's requested, and we've been assured by legislative counsel that all the matters dealt with in Bill 48 are in order.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Ottawa South, I appreciate the courtesy which he extended to the Chair by indicating in advance his interest in raising a point of order and, indeed, providing me with a verbatim copy of his argument.

I must tell him that it is not a procedural point. There's nothing out of order. The question of governance by regulation has been a topic of some discussion over decades in this assembly and I suspect will continue to be so for many more decades. The points he makes are ones which he may wish to raise in debate, and may wish to place amendments.

The

section to which the member for Brampton South refers, 106(k), is one that deals with procedures which are before the standing committee on regulations and private bills when regulations are submitted to that committee for their consideration.

Finally, to the member for York Centre, the points that he raises are ones that very well a counsel, a barrister, a solicitor may wish to raise in the courts. The Chair is not about to give legal opinions, only decisions on procedures. There is nothing out of order.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer you to

section 1(

a) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which the item that I gave you before is part of.

It says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

The Speaker: A point was raised. I have dealt with it. It really is time to move on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today, we will be voting against Bill 48, the government's social contract legislation. For the past weeks, we have asked what we believe to be important questions about the problems that we see in this bill and we have received no answers.

Once again, I stress that we support the need for restraint, but we are convinced that the process set out in this bill cannot work. But even more so, we are genuinely concerned that the effect of this legislation is going to be to defer significant costs to future governments and future employers.

One example of this is the special-leave provisions for workers performing critical functions. The unpaid days off given under this special-leave category are to be taken from existing holidays and by law must be repaid after 1996. Now, the government has not said who is to be designated as providing critical functions. Based on the

definitions of essential services under the Labour Relations Act, special leaves could apply to correction officers, nurses and other health workers, child care workers, ambulance drivers, utility workers, police and firefighters, and as well teachers could be considered critical services under Bill 48 because you can't just shut down the classroom for a day a week.

When you look at the kinds of positions which could be affected by this category, it's possible that at least half of the 900,000 members of the broader public sector could be included under the designation. This means that under Bill 48, as much as $3 billion in costs could be deferred to future years.

I ask the Premier, how can you justify pushing costs that you have not even begun to calculate on to future governments and future employers?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can only say to the honourable member that this is an exact repeat of an exchange that we had some time ago; it's an exact repeat of the question. I would simply say to her that we don't share her

interpretation of the effect and the impact of the act.

Mrs McLeod: The reason that my questions, as we approach a vote on this important piece of legislation, will in fact repeat exchanges, as the Premier notes, that we have had in the past, is because these continue to be absolutely essential questions for public responsibility. We are frustrated that we cannot get answers from this government on them.

Another example of potential deferred costs as a result of your legislation was raised yesterday by our Finance critic, who raised concerns about the growing liabilities in the government's pension plans. You have already deferred last year's $500-million payment to the teachers' pension fund. You now say that you've found $500 million more in reduced payments due to lower wages under the social contract. But the annual report of the teachers' pension plan shows the growth in the unfunded liability more than doubling over the next 15 years.

Again, I ask the Premier: What assurances can you provide that the pressures you are adding to pension plans will not mean more pension costs in the future? How big is the deferred pension bill going to be for future governments?

Hon Mr Rae: All we've said on the subject of pensions, and I think again we've been as clear as we can be, is that the assumptions behind the extraordinary payments, the additional payments which were set out in the

schedule attached to the earlier legislation brought in by our predecessor, were based on certain assumptions about inflation and certain assumptions about the size of payouts and certain assumptions about the size of payouts and certain assumptions about the size of increases.

All we're saying is that it may well be, on the basis of the actuarial advice we've had, that those assumptions need to be looked at again. We would not do anything without agreement with our social contract partners and we would not do something, obviously, without full support from the actuarial profession with respect to what's being done.

There may well be savings there, and if there are savings that are there, it would seem to me that it's perfectly responsible for us, indeed it's fiscally prudent for us, to make sure that we can achieve those savings without, for an instant, wanting to cast any doubts on the soundness of the plans and without in any way affecting the people's rights under the plan.

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest to the Premier that when he uses words like "may well be," "seems to be," "I believe that," that is not the substance of tough budget accounting. Premier, I say to you that it is not being fiscally responsible to refuse to look at the future cost that your legislation is imposing on future governments just because the bills don't have to be paid today.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Set an example, Lyn. You show us. What's your alternative?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Durham Centre,

Mrs McLeod: You keep saying that you are willing to take everything into account. You have said that the negotiations will take into account wage freezes that are already in place. You've said that your negotiations will take into account unpaid leaves that are already in effect. You've said that the negotiations will take into account delaying any wage reductions until existing collective agreements expire.

But you have not at any point explained how these measures are going to be taken into account, when they will be taken into account or where you intend to find the money to take them into account, and I am asking, how many of these costs are you simply going to defer to the future? Why will you not look honestly at the future cost of your legislation, at what you can realistically achieve under your social contract negotiations in the last six months of the year, and then take some practical steps to look at cuts in your own operations to meet your budget targets?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that of course we're looking at all those things in terms of the expenditure control plan, which was also opposed by the Liberal Party. We're doing it in terms of all the efforts that we make. Whatever we've done, I know it will be opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, but let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition, that coming from a party which left this government to pay for the SkyDome, which left this government to pay for Darlington, which left this government with a structural deficit of some $8 billion, you are in no position to lecture anybody with regard to future costs.

You're the experts on future costs. The Liberal Party wrote the book on future costs and establishing a burden for future generations. We're the party and we're the generation that's now paying the bills that you left us in your time in office. That's what we're doing.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, $3 billion which you will not even acknowledge is a potential deferred cost because you refuse to look at the cost of your own legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. This government has talked about its intention to implement the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board literally since it took office. The government set up a transition team working out of offices at 101 Bloor Street West, and yet the OTAB legislation has not yet been passed. The legislation, in fact, was not introduced until a year after the program was announced, it is still waiting for the government to call third reading and it is a long way from actually being implemented.

Yet we have found that Management Board staff have confirmed that the government has leased over 5,000 square feet of empty office space for OTAB, down the street at 175 Bloor Street East, at a cost of $154,000 a year. The lease runs for 10 years and the $27-per-square-foot cost is considerably higher than the $20-per-square-foot average cost in Toronto today. I ask the Premier, why are you leasing expensive and unused office space for a program that does not yet exist?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will be referring this question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I very much appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I find it very interesting, in her question she refers to the fact that we haven't received third reading of the OTAB bill yet. I would be more than willing to have third reading on OTAB.

We spent time in committee; we spent time and time and time in committee; we thought we had agreements of when bills were going to be completed; we thought the bill was going to be reported to the House for third reading, and instead the opposition parties referred it to committee of the whole House.

We in the government are proceeding with the implementation of OTAB. We feel that the coordination of training programs and having a training strategy in this province that will be directed by the labour market partners in this province will in fact be good for the economy and will make better use of limited funds in this province, for the first time, on a training strategy.

We don't need a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition party about the time to implement OTAB in this province. If it's taking too long, then perhaps we could get some cooperation from the opposition party and get the legislation moving ahead.

Mrs McLeod: I can understand why the Premier referred the question. It's quite apparent that he had not been made aware that he was now an absentee tenant.

The minister's refusal to answer the question which was asked, however, is not acceptable and I say to the minister, the question you addressed about how soon third reading of OTAB would take place is not related to the question I asked about the government's renting of unused office space.

Just to put it in context, it was in fact two years ago that you announced the OTAB legislation initiative, but the legislation still has not been passed. The fact is that, because you have not brought that legislation forward, whatever your intents, there are no programs in place and the other fact is, quite simply, that you have been paying rent on this unused office space since last October and the office is fully furnished.

The OTAB transition team told us, when we asked the OTAB transition team, that absolutely no arrangement had been made for office space for OTAB. But Management Board staff confirm that this unused office space is indeed being rented for OTAB.

We went to the office, we found the lights were out, the doors were locked, there was no one there, the people next door haven't seen anybody there. I have to ask you, how do you justify wasting $154,000 a year leasing unused office space when you keep talking to everybody else about making tough choices on cuts?

Hon Mr Cooke: If the Leader of the Opposition is blaming or concerned about the fact that I was talking about the timing of the legislation, she's the one who raised it in her question, so I was responding to her question.

We are in the process, even in the absence of the legislation being passed, of setting up the infrastructure. There are people working on the transition. We will be consolidating the programs. There are training programs being delivered in this province, but those training programs will be transferred to the OTAB project.

I will have to get a specific answer for her about the space she's referring to. I will get that answer for her, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should be aware that there are training programs, and she knows it, that are to be delivered by the province. When OTAB is up and running, those programs will come directly under the control of OTAB, so it's unfair to say there's nothing happening just because the opposition parties have held up third reading of OTAB.

Mrs McLeod: I can appreciate the minister's difficulty. It's awkward when the Premier refers a question to you as the manager of the program, instead of to the Chairman of Management Board who was probably responsible for renting the unused space for the program the minister has not yet put in place. So there is an awkwardness. I should tell the minister, though, that we're well aware there is a transitional team, even before you have your laws passed, but that transition team has an office. It's at 101 Bloor Street and that's why we're wondering about the unused space at 175 Bloor Street.

I understand that $154,000 may not seem like a great deal of money to a government that spends almost that much on a single ad. Nevertheless, we believe that examples like this of wasteful spending are exactly what makes the public believe that this government is not making a serious effort to look at its own operations. It is exactly for this reason that people who are being hit with $2 billion in new taxes are so upset with the government.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): I've got your expenses right here, Lyn: $320,000.

Mrs McLeod: I realize that the member opposite is interjecting and we should not acknowledge that, but since he's specifically referencing our caucus's ability to control our expenditures, I say with pride that today's expenditure statements show that this caucus has reduced its own operations by $100,000, because we are serious about reducing expenditures.

People who are being asked to make cuts, to make personal sacrifices, are questioning whether or not this government is doing everything possible to cut its own spending.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We all know you bury yours in your office. Don't be so phoney over there. Every one of your cabinet ministers buries it in the office. Get up and tell the truth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St Catharines. Could the Leader of the Opposition place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, I will. The question relates to the fact that this government has spent $154,000 a year on leased space since last October which has not been used. The decision to lease this office space could not have been made by accident, without senior staff in somebody's ministry being aware. I ask the minister, how does this happen? Why did no one question signing a lease for office space that this government has not used?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm certainly very pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is cutting back on the expenses for her caucus. Maybe she can stop sending direct mail into my riding from the Liberal caucus, in a riding she doesn't even represent. It's true and you know it.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's true. Plus the other two Windsor ridings.

I told the Leader of the Opposition that nobody on this side of the House approves the wasting of any money, whether it's $154,000 or whether it's $154 million. We don't approve of that. I don't have all the facts in front of me. I will find out exactly what happened and get an explanation for the member. I'll try to do it before the end of question period.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. This afternoon we will vote on second reading of your social contract legislation. We see this vote as being one that is pretty straightforward: Do we support the principle of cutting back the size and cost of government or do we support the union leaders who do not want to cut back the size and cost of government?

Premier, we want you to know that, unlike the Liberals, who still play the old-time, vested interest, oppose-for-opposition's-sake politics, we plan to support the principle of downsizing the cost of government. We support that goal and have clearly indicated that to you all along.

Having said that, we all know this legislation was drafted pretty hurriedly, we all know it's not perfect, and you know we have difficulties with some parts of the legislation. We intend, as you know, to force this bill into committee, where we will move amendments that will ensure fair, permanent and structural downsizing of government.

Premier, since your government holds a majority on all committees, I would ask you this: When we force this bill today out to committee, will you personally ensure adequate committee time for our caucus, which wishes to make this bill better, to bring forward and debate our amendments? Will you make sure that we have time to do that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Despite any temptations to the contrary from the members of the Liberal Party, I would simply say to the leader of the third party that, first of all, I'd say to him in all seriousness, if there are amendments that are going to be forthcoming from the Conservative Party, or I would say from the Liberal Party, since I gather the Liberal Party has expressed concerns about the bill, and if there are serious suggestions with respect to amendments, I would ask that they be shared with us as soon as possible so that, if there are any technical issues that need to be dealt with by the official draftspeople and so on in committee of the whole, those are issues that can be dealt with.

But I would hope that we could deal with this matter in committee of the whole in terms of a good discussion here in the House and have an opportunity for a good discussion.

I would say to him very directly, we are very interested in hearing what particular amendments are going to be forthcoming from whatever side of the House or from others, and we look forward to that.

Mr Harris: We too, Premier, I want you to know, are interested in facilitating moving this legislation along. We think, as we've always said, meaningful negotiations will not take place until the union leaders clearly understand what the alternative is. You can call it bang, bang, bang or first, second, third reading; we're still very interested and believe that's the only way it will proceed.

Yesterday in the House you offered support in principle for the establishment of an expenditure review committee. I agree, you said you'd like to see the wording, and we could talk about that. We would like the committee to deal with eliminating things like the year-end burnoff and review the necessity of government programs. It could well make recommendations on, could some services be better delivered by the private sector than the public sector? Premier we'll also be moving amendments which will provide for whistle-blowing protection of employees as part of that as well.

Now, in conjunction with this committee recommendation, another amendment that we've talked about was to encourage the efficiency and the elimination of waste by setting up a system of rewarding public servants who develop ideas to save money, instead of the current system that tends to reward particularly middle management with having more employees or bigger budgets for spending more money.

Will you, support the principle of this amendment, which will simply ask for a different way of rewarding a number of our civil servants by way of pay for encouraging efficiency instead of them now being rewarded for wasting money?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, just so you know, that in the context of the talks that have been held since April, we have encouraged the whistle-blowing idea as something to be incorporated into sectoral agreements. We believe in it strongly. We've been working on the legislation with respect to the public service, and we're strong supporters of it.

Second of all, with respect to the issue of performance bonuses, productivity increases and sharing the benefits from these gains are key elements of long-term restructuring and reducing waste and inefficiency in government, and again it's something that at the sectoral tables we've been encouraging.

I'll have to see the specific wording of the amendments, but the principles are ones that we are very much encouraging to be put in place.

Mr Harris: I believe I also indicated that I think there are a number in both management and unions in the private sector, CAW in particular, who have experience in negotiating productivity bonuses for employees. In the case of CAW, they gain when they manufacture the same number of cars with half the number of employees, and we should do that.

In committee as well we will be moving an amendment that calls for a hiring freeze. This amendment will acknowledge the need for essential services to be maintained by allowing for flexibility to hire classroom teachers or firefighters, police and others for essential services.

To date, my sense has been that you have dismissed my caucus's proposals for getting the attrition clock counting in this method. In doing so, I suggest that you are precluding some of the sound long-term management we need to permanently downsize the cost in government, particularly after eight years of high spending and overhiring governments, and I acknowledge your comments earlier today, most of the hiring done by the Liberals.

Will you support our amendment for a hiring freeze while allowing for flexibility as one of the tools to ensure permanent structural downsizing of the government, not short-term fixes?

Hon Mr Rae: I haven't dismissed the ideas with respect to the kind of approach that has been taken at all. We in fact have argued that we need to go beyond a simple freeze in terms of its impacts. Again, it will depend on the wording, because the concern that has been expressed to us from a number of ministries, from managers, who I am sure you would want us to listen to, within ministries, has been what do we do if the factor-80 window which we've opened has a tremendous impact, let's say, on the Ministry of Correctional Services, if I can just give you one example?

If that ends up having a serious impact on our ability to provide critical and essential services in that area, a blanket freeze is not the answer. In fact a blanket freeze would be unacceptable.

What I hear you saying is you want to see something which is flexible. The issue then becomes, if it's that flexible, is it a freeze or not. We've been reluctant to go out and say, "Yes, we're going to freeze," knowing that as soon as we bring in the exceptions that'll be the headline the next day, saying, "You said you'd freeze and now you're not."

I would say to the honourable member, we're interested in downsizing and we're interested in reducing in a number of ministries. In a number of areas that's exactly what we're doing. The critical point, though, is to make sure that we've got the flexibility to ensure that we have appropriate staffing levels at institutions where public health and safety and other issues are involved. We're trying to find that happy medium, and I look forward to seeing any wording that you've got.

YORK DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Premier. I'm going to be sending you over a copy of a letter which was sent to you on September 1, 1992, and also a copy of your response. The letter testifies to a serious breach between the policy and practice within your government on the issue of sexual assault and harassment, a breach that has been covered up by senior staff, including ministers in your cabinet, over a period of three and a half years.

I have other letters: one dated June 5, 1991, to Zanana Akande; another to Marion Boyd, dated April 6, 1992; and two letters to your current Minister of Community and Social Services, dated in March and May of this year.

The letters all report the actions of a male employee at the York Detention Centre, a sexual predator, who targeted young, mostly unclassified, female workers, many of whom were community college students. The letter also reports the inaction of your government in protecting the innocent victims involved. It is believed as many as 14 employees were victimized.

Can you explain why you and senior ministers of your government took so long to respond to the serious allegations of sexual assault and harassment at this provincial institution?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I refer the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think there are a couple of points that I would like to say in response to the member's question. The first is specifically to the letter that he refers to that was sent to the Premier. My understanding is that letter was referred at the time to, I believe, the Attorney General's office for them to pursue, so I think that as far as the Office of the Premier was concerned, they pursued the matter in the normal course.

The other point I think I would like to make is that the employee that I believe the member is referring to had in fact left the employ of the ministry certainly prior to that letter being sent, indeed even prior to this government taking office. I think that is important in the sequence of events.

Third, in the whole discussion that there has been around this issue it's my understanding that in fact there has been a great deal of discussion with employees at the particular centre, all of whom have made it consistently clear from our officials not only that we have zero tolerance level with respect to sexual harassment, but that in fact people were encouraged to go to the police if they had specific allegations they wanted to make.

Mr Jackson: It's of absolutely no comfort to now two rape victims and four sexual assault victims that the minister has stood in his place and said they're to take some comfort that this person is no longer an employee at this institution.

The issues before the House today and before the Premier and his government have to do with the fact that your government has a workplace harassment and discrimination prevention policy. Those guidelines were brought in March 1992. According to them, every ministry is responsible for their implementation -- not the Attorney General's office but the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and you're the minister.

I want to send you over two copies of letters that were sent directly to you. These letters set out very clearly the allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. They talk directly about senior officials at the assistant deputy minister level who frustrated the investigations, who coerced and dissuaded the victims from their natural rights in this province in accordance with your own ministry guidelines. It was only last night --

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

Mr Jackson: -- that one of the victims went forward to the police with charges after months and in fact three years of frustration.

Was a thorough investigation ever undertaken in accordance with your own government's policies as set out by your Premier? If that was undertaken, have you read it and when did you read it?

Hon Mr Silipo: I want to say that the member raises obviously some very important issues. I want to tell him very categorically that from the time I became aware of this issue, I asked for some further information and in fact asked that an operations review take place, which operations review has been under way and I'm expecting the results of that review by early July. I will be looking very carefully at the recommendations and the conclusions that come out of that review.

Mr Jackson: I sent over letters dated March 9. More important, the Premier is aware that letters were sent to the former minister, Ms Akande, in 1991 about these cases. You're going to tell these victims that in July -- Minister, you won't have until July, because the police are visiting your offices today to ask for and to receive a copy of this report. They are interested in how the rights of the victims of this sexual assault may have been abused in the process by your own ministry.

This is a very serious matter involving as many as 10 or 12 victims at York Detention Centre. Given that the letters shared with three ministers of Community and Social Services, involvement at the deputy ministerial and assistant deputy minister levels, why is it that victims were frustrated, actively discouraged and indeed harassed when seeking their natural rights to justice in this province to pursue a sexual assault charge? Why has it taken three and a half years for your ministry to wake up and for you to stand in this House and say maybe by July you'll have a report? You tell that to the victims who are watching you today.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's all right, I suppose, for the member opposite to pontificate about what could be happening or couldn't be happening. What I think --

Mr Jackson: I wasn't sitting on letters for four months like you were.

Hon Mr Silipo: What I think the member should also take into account is the answer I've given him, which is, first of all that, during the course of all these events, it was made consistently clear, as I understand it, by officials in the ministry to employees at the centre as to their rights -- and their encouragement in fact of them to go to the police if they had allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. That has been done, as I understand it, consistently.

I can also say to the member that it wasn't in July or in June that I asked for this operations review to happen. In fact this happened back at the time that I became aware of the first letter, which is dated in early March. Even prior to that, I know that coming from the administrator of the centre there had been a request for an operations review back to January of this year.

Obviously, if the member says the police are looking for additional information, whatever information we have we will share with them. Now that charges have also been laid, obviously the process will ensue and whatever the justice system determines will develop on its own course.

But I can just say to the member that I too take these issues very seriously, which is why, as I've indicated to him, in addition to all of the previous work that had happened, when I became aware of this issue I asked for a further operational review to be undertaken so that in fact we could understand if there were some additional problems that needed to be looked after.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. You'll recall that in 1967, under the former Liberal government, there was a unit set up --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In 1987.

Mr Mahoney: What did I say?

Ms Poole: You said 1967.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me, 1987. I'm a little behind my time.

There was a unit set up for the purposes of collecting money from employers who had been paying less than minimum wage to their employees, who had reneged on paying vacation pay or any other benefits they were entitled to. I recall, as a matter of fact, how in 1987 you and your party in opposition were quite congratulatory towards our government for setting up this unit.

In the first year of its operation, it collected only $64,500. You have recently announced that you will be disbanding this unit in spite of the fact that it has raised more money than it cost to operate and had its best three months' collection period just before you decided to close it. In three months ending March 31 it collected over $901,000. This is actually an agency that makes money for the government and that helps serve those workers who are least able to help themselves.

Minister, can you tell us why you've done this?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The reason we've done it is relatively obvious. The reason we've done it is simply because we are in tough economic times and we are looking at where we can do something --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): So are the people who are going to benefit.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- that we're currently doing better than we have done it in the past. We have come up with --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- for this particular operation.

Mr Sorbara: What about the people who were going to benefit? How tough is this for them? Four bucks an hour.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. Had the minister completed his response? The member for Mississauga West with his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I think I heard him say it was because we're in tough economic times. This is a little bit like the decision the Premier made to reduce the size of cabinet by adding more ministers. There's a little confusion that I don't quite understand.

What you've done here is you've eliminated an agency that actually makes money. On top of that, out of the seven full-time permanent positions you've moved six of them into the Ministry of Finance. You've transferred the cost from this successful agency collecting money on behalf of those folks least able to help themselves. This is a clear example of how this government thinks it can fight its deficit on the backs of those people least able to help themselves, how this government has completely lost its purpose, lost its direction and lost any caring it has for the workers of this province.

Minister, you're saying: "We can handle the job maybe even better there, in the Ministry of Finance. If we're wrong then we'll have to do some fast readjusting." That's terrific. What do you say about your fast readjusting to the workers who are not getting the money below minimum wage, who are getting shafted by companies and not collecting the money that's truly due to them? What kind of an answer does the current Minister of Labour have to those people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: For one thing, I didn't say that we could do it better within the Ministry of Finance. The job is still going to be done within the Ministry of Labour. It might be difficult for the critic to understand, but the fact is that with the wage protection program and some of the other changes we've made, we have better than 50 additional people working on key areas of concern in the Ministry of Labour. We have sent the collection operation out to the field, where we feel we can do it better.

I might also say that the three people who were in charge of the operation when we had a separate collection division are still with us, are still organizing it and collected more than half of the amount of money that the member is talking about. We think we can do it with the employment standards officers in the field and in the regional offices much more effectively than we were doing it with the current group in the ministry itself.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. I read your rhetoric following yesterday's steel decision and it seemed to me to be quite tough. I think you said Canada should "clobber Washington with a two-by-four" because of the anti-dumping duty slapped on Ontario steel. Quite frankly, while there is a dispute mechanism available, I tend to agree with you; I think we should get tough with all those that throw barriers and tariffs in our road.

But time and time again my caucus has asked you to take that same tough stance against the province of Quebec. Yesterday, the member for Leeds-Grenville raised yet another example of how unfair Quebec protectionism hurts Ontario businesses and hurts Ontario employers and costs Ontario consumers.

Can you explain to me why you want to, with the United States, hit them over the head with a two-by-four, while for Quebec you continue to follow a 20-year-old tried and failed policy of throwing marshmallows at Quebec?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I will refer this to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I want to point out, first of all, and reiterate the comments that I've made in this House and the Premier has made in this House with respect to the interprovincial trade barriers that the province of Quebec currently has in place. Those are provincial government barriers that have been put in place that we object to. We've made that very clear. I've made that clear in a meeting with the minister from Quebec. I've made it clear at interprovincial trade ministers' meetings. We are pursuing bilateral discussions with them.

We are engaged in meetings to negotiate bringing down those interprovincial trade barriers. It would seem to me that while negotiations are taking place, it would be counterproductive to erect new barriers at this point in time.

The Premier has been down in Washington trying to engage the US steel industry in negotiations about a US steel accord. They have said no. They have said they will not negotiate. They have said they're not interested. They have said that they are going to use their trade rules and their trade harassment activities to disadvantage our Canadian steel industry. There is no room for negotiations with people who won't sit down and negotiate.

With Quebec, in fact, we are negotiating. We do think there is a serious problem. We will continue to pursue it and we expect that we will have action.

Mr Harris: Minister, we've continued to tell you and the Premier and your cabinet and your party and your government that if you downsize the public sector, which we support, you have to at the same time allow our private sector to upsize and to compete. You're going to have to abandon a number of positions you've taken, your anti-business policies such as Bill 40. You're going to have to bring down the cost of doing business in Ontario so our companies can compete. And you're going to have to fight a lot harder than we have for the last 125 years of talking to break down the interprovincial trade barriers, particularly those with Quebec.

I know you've been preoccupied with the social contract and preoccupied with downsizing the public sector, but I'm going to tell you that you're missing the boat on one of the opportunities to upsize Ontario.

Premier Frank McKenna is making great headway. He now has Quebec at the table. They are now talking to them about the interprovincial trade barriers between New Brunswick and Quebec. You want to hit the US over the head with a two-by-four. I don't disagree with that, but I'm going to tell you this: Until you get serious, you're going to continue to have Quebec say: "Why should we negotiate? We can take the marshmallows in the head, and we got all the jobs."

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

Mr Harris: Will you toughen up your stance with Quebec, as New Brunswick has, as other provinces have, and get these interprovincial trade barriers out of our road?

Hon Ms Lankin: The leader of the third party seems to ignore the fact that with respect to the US steel industry, they're not interested in negotiations; they're interested in trade harassment. That's what we've been experiencing. There is a need for a strong response from the steel industry and the federal government, and we continue to be supportive of that and part of that and participating in that.

With respect to interprovincial trade barriers, we are engaged in negotiations, both multilateral across the provinces and bilaterally with the province of Quebec. We are negotiating with them. We have issues on the table. They have concerns with respect to the Ontario economy. We believe that this is a very serious and important issue. You do not hit people over the head when you're at the table talking to them; what you do is make progress in negotiations. We believe that we are.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Once again, the Metro media is supporting the notion that garbage of Metropolitan Toronto should be dumped on the less fortunate communities that have a council that is willing to sell its community out for a dollar figure. The dollar figure, it would appear to me, is the reason for all the garbage decisions that Metro Toronto has made. The money, not the environment, is what motivates them.

My community finds it repugnant to imagine, as this morning's paper says in the editorial "Keep Options Open," that Metro can't afford to be without a place to send its garbage. The reality is that this government has put in place a process that will find a landfill site for the garbage and there is no need for Metro to continue to throw good money after bad.

Will the minister confirm for me today that the process that has been undertaken by the IWA to find three landfill sites in the GTA to serve these communities will continue and that in fact will be the way in which Metro will be able to dispose of its garbage?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes, I can confirm that the IWA process will continue, and I would point out that it's interesting that the Metro committee has proposed the use of the IWA's criteria and process for its site search. So I think that shows that the IWA process is accepted as the best way to go.

Mr Wiseman: The willing host scenario that Metro keeps talking about has my constituents outraged. They know well what Metro considers a willing host. They suffered through this type of process through the Liberal government; it was called The Rest of Durham Decides They Can Make a Lot of Money If They Let Metro Dump Garbage in Pickering, in an area 20 miles away.

My community believes that political accountability can only occur if this site is located within the municipality it serves. In fact, I delivered a petition to this House on Monday with over 10,000 signatures on it which stated on the bottom of it, "Political accountability can only occur if the site is located within the municipality it serves."

Is Metro so dependent on the revenues from garbage that they're willing to subvert the IWA process for their own financial gain?

Hon Mr Wildman: I won't comment on Metro's concern about finances. I would just say that there is nothing to prevent any proponent from pursuing an environmental assessment to establish a landfill site in the province. I would say, though, that it is significant, the question of the definition of a "willing host." It is difficult, perhaps, for all to agree on what that actually constitutes. Does it constitute simply a commitment on the part of the municipal leaders of a community or does it require some wider support within the community?

That's difficult to define, and these are issues that obviously would have to be taken into account, along with provincial government policy, by the Environmental Assessment Board when and if it is presented with a proposal by a proponent.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Premier on the social contract legislation. I know that you must be aware of the legislation and especially that part of the legislation which deals with what a public sector consists of. The legislation states, and I tell you that I am paraphrasing, that the public sector consists of, in the case of a municipality, any corporation -- and I underline that -- which operates or provides for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality.

Is it the intent of your legislation -- and this is my question; you must clarify this issue -- that contracts entered into between the municipality and the private sector are now going to be caught up in the net of social contract, that in fact they are part of the legislation and in fact the municipalities must comply with the legislation as it affects private contracts with the private sector?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): That's an excellent and very pointed question to which I am hesitant to give a definitive answer, but I would say to the member before he blows up, just discussing it informally with ministers here, that's not our view of the intent of the act. If there are any clarifications necessary to make that clear, that's precisely the kind of thing we would deal with in terms of amendment.

Mr Offer: I want to read part of the legislation. The

schedule states, "The public sector in Ontario consists of," and the appendix under Ministry of Municipal Affairs states, and again I paraphrase, any corporation "which operates or provides the collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality." Your legislation takes them into the net.

My question by way of supplementary, as it is surprising that the Premier is not aware of the legislation, is: Will you commit to the municipalities? You have put them in an incredibly impossible position. When you pass this legislation, you will automatically make every municipality breach another law dealing with contract in terms of the private sector. Will you say today to all of those municipalities that you will indemnify them for the damages they will incur when they are sued by the private sector over contracts that they have entered into?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Are you going to rule by fiat? Whatever you want today goes?

Hon Mr Rae: We will not be ruling by Fiat or any other kind of car.

I would say to the member for Mississauga North, we will deal with that kind of an issue in committee of the whole quite gladly. But I would say directly to him, I think he's exaggerating a little bit the level of uncertainty that's out there with respect to the legislation.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I've sent a package over to the Premier, and I think it's now with the Attorney General, from a press conference that was held today with the member for Willowdale, Mr Charles Harnick, and myself. So the question will be going to the Attorney General at this point.

Today, Mr Harnick and I will both be introducing separate bills which we hope will effectively end the dissemination of hate literature and the acts of hatred against individuals.

During the past month there's been a tremendous increase in the number of incidents of racial intolerance within our society. Some eight have been reported, to our count, in the media. We're also seeing groups such as the Heritage Front and the Church of the Creator using rock concerts to deliver racist remarks. We're seeing the rise in the recruitment of young people into these groups. We feel the time for talk is over and the time for action is now.

These bills will begin to empower individuals to fight for their basic rights. My bill will bring the Ontario Human Rights Code into the 1990s by providing a legislative vehicle for individuals to protect their rights to be free from discrimination, either in public statements or written material or visual representations.

I'm asking you, Attorney General, and from you to the Premier and your caucus and cabinet, will you work with us on this non-partisan issue?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): There were representatives, obviously, of my office at the press conference. I have my own copy of the materials that were circulated.

As I said in this House a couple of weeks ago in answer to a question from the leader of the third party, there are a number of civil issues that we as a government are quite prepared to consider, including changes to the Human Rights Code, including the kind of civil action that's implied by Mr Harnick's bill. We are certainly prepared to look at these.

I think the member is well aware that in the civil action area, the burden of proof is considerably less than it is in the criminal area and that the balance-of-probabilities factor in the civil area may well make it more possible for us to control these actions which all of us find abhorrent.

I also think, however, having just glanced at these two bills, that we also will have to be very mindful of the possibility of charter challenge. We'll have to work together to see how this can be done to protect rights and to balance out the respective rights of individuals.

Certainly this is the kind of action that we are discussing with the round table on anti-racism. It is exactly the kind of action we're prepared to work with the opposition on, as well as with the affected communities and the municipalities. We are planning to meet in the very near future with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which has requested a meeting to talk about the particular problems that are being experienced in this area.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are very pleased to know that we have the support of the third party in taking this action.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Attorney General, as you're aware, I'm going to be introducing a bill entitled

An Act to Protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. This act will empower people to bring an action against someone who has promoted hatred against them. The purpose of the act is quite simply to fight racism and to fight against the promotion of hatred.

Knowing that you will not likely be here for private members' hour when this bill is debated, will you send a message to your caucus right now and tell us whether you will be supporting this piece of legislation or whether you won't be?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have just indicated that I am going to be having the ministry look at this legislation to see the extent to which we believe it meets the needs that have been identified. If indeed it is clear that this is an appropriate vehicle, I not only will be here but will be encouraging my colleagues to follow it, and possibly, if all we need to look at are some amendments, to make sure that we get into a venue where we can consider those amendments.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that if I could get information, I would before the end of question period. I'd like to inform the members that a lease search was undertaken, with bids being requested from five landlords with space available in the vicinity of 625 Church Street, where the bulk of the staff who make up OTAB's head office are already located. The lease search received Management Board approval and was in accordance with Management Board policy.

I'd like to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no rent being paid for the current facilities. Part of the rental agreement was 17 months rent-free. So I'm not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I appreciate the additional information which the minister has provided. It leads to a number of other questions which I would reiterate in the supplementary. I suppose I could begin with why the information given by Management Board staff would differ somewhat from the information the minister has provided.

Nevertheless, if I took the fact that there is a lease-free period for the lease that has been signed, the question stands as to why there is an OTAB head office, to which the minister refers, which sounds somewhat substantial, already located before a piece of legislation has in fact been passed; why there would be a long-term lease signed for a program even before the legislation was introduced in the House, let alone before the legislation was passed; and why, if in fact these figures are correct, any government would enter into a long-term lease at a figure of some $27 per square foot when the average rental cost is $20 per square foot?

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess when you've been discovered to have the wrong facts, you have to try to figure out some defence. The fact of the matter is that since the business community and the labour community have both supported OTAB, while there's been general support for OTAB, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to get the infrastructure set up, and up and running. That's what we're doing.

Maybe what the Leader of the Opposition should simply have said is: "Thanks for the information. I was dead wrong in my question."

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You and the Premier are constantly repeating that you're interested in job creation and making sure that the economy recovers in Ontario.

Minister, I told you on April 29 of a golden opportunity to keep jobs in Ontario and to strengthen an important sector of our industrial base in Ontario. I told you that one of these opportunities was the long-awaited legislation to permit longer trucks in this province the way other competitors like the United States and other provinces in Canada have been doing for quite some time.

You will know that in 1991 alone there were more than 190 bankruptcies and in 1992 there were 188 bankruptcies in the Ontario trucking industry. Why have you failed to introduce in this session the long-awaited legislation to permit the Ontario trucking industry to use longer trucks so it can compete internationally?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Very soon a decision will be finalized.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, the member will be aware that there is such a thing as process. We're concerned about the competitiveness. We're aware that $100 million of competitiveness per year is at stake. We're very much aware that truck configuration invites criticism, positive and negative, from everyone around. Many groups had to be consulted and are still being consulted.

We're also aware of our duty, of our mandate, to look at the impact on the environment, economically; what happens in terms of emissions, total weight, repartition on axle weight are all factors that have to be meticulously looked at before a decision is made.

However, the point is well taken and in the final analysis a decision is pending.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it within your mandate to tell us what the Minister of Transportation actually says during his answers?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce surely does not want the Speaker challenging anyone's questions or answers.

PETITIONS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you know, the folks in Ontario have been aware for some time about the concern of the people for Bruce A, and there's a petition which includes over 15,000 names in support of the continued existence of the Bruce A facility. I present one of those petitions now to the House. I have attached my signature, and we have more of those.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and the social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here.

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

"Whereas Brian Kavanagh will be eligible for parole on July 22, 1993, after serving only 20 months (1/6) of his sentence, that this travesty of justice be addressed immediately by whatever means available and that are within your power to prevent the premature release of this person from custody.

"On January 31, 1991, Ellen Sands Kavanagh was stabbed 32 times in her back, hands, ear, eye, cheek, neck, chest and stomach with a fishing knife, her head was bludgeoned twice with a fifteen-pound axe, fracturing her skull in three places and breaking her jaw. Her neck was slashed twice with a saw. Her estranged husband, Brian Kavanagh, was convicted of manslaughter in November of 1991 and received a sentence of 10 years in a federal prison.

"On July 22, 1993, Brian Kavanagh comes before the National Parole Board. On that date he is eligible for unescorted temporary absence and day parole. He has already applied to a halfway house in the city of his choice and will only have to report between midnight and 6 am to that location. The victim's family lives in terror at the thought of his release. We, the undersigned, wish to loudly proclaim that:

"This is not our concept of Canadian justice."

It's been signed by thousands of people, as you can see, and I affix my signature too.

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell): Comme hier et la semaine passée, j'ai deux autres pétitions signées par des gens de Prescott et Russell et adressées à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario. Ils sont en désaccord avec la façon de procéder de M. Rae face à la coalition, et ces soussignés-là demandent à M. Rae de corriger tous les déficits, les problèmes avec son contrat social, bien sûr. Je suis certain qu'il va accéder à la requête de ces braves gens et je vous dis, Monsieur le Président, que j'ai apposé mon nom sur ces pétitions et que je les appuie à 100 %.

HISTORIC VEHICLES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas government funding is supplied for the restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and sites, both public and privately owned, the financing of museums and the preservation of Ontario heritage;

"Whereas historic vehicle owners receive no assistance in the restoration or maintenance of these fine examples of an integral part of the history and heritage of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We, the members of Ontario antique auto clubs and concerned citizens, respectfully request an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and regulations permitting a one-time-only licence fee, valid as long as the registered owner retains ownership, for 35-years-and-older historic vehicles, with an option to register and legally display year-of-manufacture plates in place of current issue historic vehicle plates. Modified vehicles, kit cars or streetrods are not eligible."

I've affixed my signature.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here from the inclusive neighbourhood campaign, which is located in Toronto, from a Barbara Jamison. To this date, these 111 signatures that are presented on this petitions bring it to a total of 2,428 petitions that have been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

It is speaking in support of the passage, and quick passage, of Bill 90, and it is petitioning the government of Ontario, and in particular the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing, and the Minister of Citizenship, responsible for human rights issues, to immediately put an end to the widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so that it will require municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet the health and safety standards in the neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing.

There are 111 signatures on this petition, and I do affix my signature to it.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a petition signed by 700 parents and interested parties in sheltered workshops from the city of Kingston, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has stated its intention and policy to reduce and ultimately discontinue funding in traditional segregated programs, resulting in the eventual phase-out of sheltered workshops; and

"Whereas the ministry itself recognizes that the needs of people who want meaningful work activity but are not able to work in a competitive environment may not be addressed," and those are quotes, Mr Speaker; "and

"Whereas this policy was formulated without grass-roots consultation, especially without consulting individual parents and guardians of adults with disabilities; and

"Whereas no provision has been stipulated for individual assessments regarding the needs and desired outcomes for individual clients,

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services to reinstate funding for sheltered workshops in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

'Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of immediate tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again I bring to this assembly thousands of signatures that are against casinos and I'd like to read it. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in an individual is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos in that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

We hope that they listen to these good people. I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition. It's actually the same one as Mr Drainville's, to the Legislative Assembly.

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to the petition.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members of the 60+ Club of the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario, do hereby petition the government of Ontario to seriously reconsider its decision to reform the Ontario drug benefit program, which would reduce the health care services by $4 billion."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York, Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives, like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of Environment but at the same time the IWA must adhere to the minister's ideology and their ban of waste alternatives, such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the New Democratic Party government refused to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remained firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas,

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

Signed by two people on Morrison Crescent in Markham and with my name affixed to it.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, support the initiative of the council of the township of Bosanquet to bring piped water" --

Interjections.

Mrs MacKinnon: Excuse me, Mr Speaker. There are people who don't belong here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs MacKinnon: -- "to service residents adjacent to Highway 21, the communities of Port Franks, Ravenswood, Ipperwash and the surrounding areas, at a cost of approximately $2,500 to $5,000 per household, debentured and payable over a five-year period."

I will sign this same petition.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition here signed by many residents in my community, including Susan Wilson and Rod Wilson of Oleander Crescent, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature has given first reading to Bill 90, a bill to permit accessory dwelling units as of right and to permit granny flats,

"We, the undersigned, object to Bill 90 for the following reasons:

"

(1) That the province examine the implications that Bill 90 may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority in the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"

(2) That the province not entertain Bill 90, removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on Bill 90;

"

(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate and license or register accessory apartments;

"

(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth accessory apartments;

"

(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into Bill 90;

"

(6) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification, subject to the insurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use;

"

(7) If the province permits the enactment of this legislation, let Bill 90 be referred to a standing committee for public input."

This is signed by my residents and I'm affixing my signature thereto as well.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows to object to the recent cuts to the GO Transit bus service for Woodbridge, Kleinburg, Nobleton, Bolton, Palgrave and Highway 9:

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers; and

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy; and

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels, at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transportation systems; and

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto during peak hours, and

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers, at one of the worst economic times in Ontario history, to incur extra expense finding another form of transportation."

It's petitioned that the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and restore GO Transit service to Bolton and Palgrave, and I've identified my signature in this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Gloucester

Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Township of Atikokan.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting Cambridge-Guelph Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting Georgian-Simcoe Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting Picton-Trenton Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting Stratford, Huron and Bruce Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting Waterloo-St Jacobs Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting Waubaushene Railway Company Limited

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr82,

An Act respecting the Humane Society of Ottawa-Carleton, be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr43,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

On motion by Mr Cousens, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The purpose of this bill is to give a person the right to make a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about any public statement or any written material or visual representation that ridicules or demeans the person or that discriminates, incites discrimination or expresses hatred against the person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

On motion by Mr Harnick, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 56,

An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario / Loi visant à protéger les droits civils des personnes en Ontario.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This bill gives a person the right to bring an action against another person whose conduct or communication promotes hatred or promotes the superiority or inferiority of a person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap. The bill also makes it an offence to engage in such conduct or to make such a communication.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The next item of business is a deferred vote on Bill 48. There is a five-minute bell.

Point of order?

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Yes. Actually, I think perhaps it may be a point of privilege.

I reluctantly rise today to bring to the attention of the House -- and I know everybody here in the House actually knows -- the speech made by the Queen's representative in the province concerning certain aspects of political activity in the province of Ontario. The privilege is one which comes from the point of tradition and the role that has been traditionally played by the Lieutenant Governor in the province with respect to political matters.

There is no question that I revere the member who serves currently as the Queen's agent here, the representative of Her Majesty in the province of Ontario. I respect his judgement. I respect in many ways the contribution that he has made to the province. But I raise for you, Mr Speaker, what I believe are at least concerns enough that I could not let them pass without bringing them to the record of the floor of the House.

I regret that I have to do this, because of the esteem in which I hold the Lieutenant Governor, but I think for the comment to have been made prior to a vote -- in fact the very day prior to a vote on a piece of legislation which is a major centrepiece of government policy, the social contract -- that in fact the social contract would be endorsed, or at least that the Premier would have his social contract, meaning that the Parliament, the Queen's subjects' place of deliberation would pass it, is a break from tradition.

Further, an examination of the text of the material which was delivered in the forum indicates that the Lieutenant Governor had endorsed the Premier for re-election should he run, or at least had said that he would win, has left me really with no alternative, not to, in my sense, ask for any kind of censuring or otherwise, but merely to raise it as a point of parliamentary tradition so that it can be noted and so that it cannot be allowed to pass, so that it be seen that Her Majesty, through her representatives, or Her Majesty's representatives can in fact play their role in that way.

If, for instance, there was an observation that the bill had passed second reading, that would, in my view, have been nothing more than remarking upon a factual set of circumstances. But when we have the vote coming today and the speech coming prior to it, it creates a problem for me.

I have been seen, I think, by many as a traditionalist in terms of the ability of this forum to make our own decisions unaffected by the remarks of other organizations, of other institutions in our democratic society. We're a parliamentary democracy, but we have Her Majesty as the head of state for our Legislature. I am merely rising, as it were, to make sure that this Parliament, this people's council, can hold its position of paramountcy in relation to the business and the conduct of the public affairs of this province.

I note it here on the record so that the people know that we are concerned, that we in our party believe it was an unfortunate speech, that we believe it was a break with tradition and that we in the Liberal Party assert the paramountcy of Her Majesty's council to deal with public affairs and public business in our forum without being affected by remarks from another institution in our democratic society.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I want to address you and the members of this House on the issue raised by my House leader, the member for Bruce, and I want to do so, sir, in the very strongest terms, because I believe very, very strongly that my privileges as an elected member of this Parliament have been breached in the most serious and significant way. I think that applies to every single member of this Legislature.

I would say to you as well that it most certainly applies in these particular circumstances when we as a Legislature are about to vote on perhaps the most significant piece of legislation that the government has presented and will present during the life of this Parliament, all the more so because, as we know, currently the government has a majority of some seven members in this Parliament. Certain of those members have publicly stated that they are prepared to vote against this measure and certainly some others will be considering that course right up until that vote is taken.

I say to you, sir, for the Lieutenant Governor to make any statement whatever about the conduct of proceedings in this Legislature is the most vile breach of traditions, of executive authority in Ontario, and this Parliament, before this vote is taken, must do something about it.

I want to say to you first, sir, that I have the very deepest respect and regard for the Honourable Henry Jackman, the person who currently sits as the Lieutenant Governor in this province. He is an eminent citizen of some stature. He comes from a family of eminent citizens. His brother is a Catholic priest in my own riding. His sister was recently a candidate for election to this Legislature in the by-election in St George-St David.

The Honourable Henry Jackman is also a prominent business person in Ontario, in Canada and around the world. He has been a successful business person of great integrity. I should say as well that throughout his career he has taken an active and I think important interest in the political process.

All of us welcome the fact that he was appointed Lieutenant Governor of this province on November 19, 1991, and sworn in on December 11, 1991. He has shown himself throughout his career to be a very strong and community-minded person, and we have welcomed him as our Lieutenant Governor.

I think it's appropriate for me to read into the record the remarks made by the Lieutenant Governor in London yesterday. I'm sorry to take the time of the House but I think it's absolutely imperative. These remarks are not lengthy and it's imperative that those words be on the record so that we can deliberate as to whether or not our privileges have been breached. The speech begins as follows:

"It is a privilege for me to be here. I am, as the chairman mentioned, the Lieutenant Governor of the province, which is a" -- and then there is a

part inaudible -- "head of state. Therefore, I have the ultimate legitimacy and power given the Queen's representative, but in practical terms, it means you just shut up and do not exercise it." Apparently, the Lieutenant Governor did not take his own advice.

"The relationship between the Queen and the government is the same as between the Lieutenant Governor in Ontario and the Legislature. So the way it works out with my socialist Premier, Mr Rae, is that he gets all the flak and I get all the honour. It is the same relationship the Governor General has worked out successfully with Mr Mulroney.

"But I am not going to talk to you about the role of the Queen or the Queen's representative. Sufficient to say that I think in our system of government, the purpose of the sovereign is always to ensure that those who are elected do not take the law unto themselves, that there is a sovereign who is above them. And maybe the sovereign is the supreme head or the Lieutenant Governor in our case is just a symbolic... (inaudible) nevertheless acts as a sort of symbolic safety valve on the elected politicians. They must always recognize that they are subject to the law. So I really do the ceremonial stuff."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I trust the member is not going to read the entire speech.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, sir, but it's only a page and a half.

The Speaker: We've spent a fair bit of time already. If the member has a point of order, I would appreciate if he would get to it very quickly so that we can move on.

Mr Sorbara: Then I'll just go to the salient parts of the speech. He says at the conclusion of his speech, after describing the deficit situation of the government:

"The Premier, I felt very, very strongly, because of his labour background, felt that he had to ask the unions to be part of this decision that was affecting them. A lot of businessmen, a lot of editorial writers, said: 'Why are you asking them to cut their own throat? Why don't you just pass a law and say that's the way it's going to be?'

"Well, from his perspective, from his background, as the leader of a party which is very heavily dependent on labour, he wanted to go through the exercise. The exercise so far has not been entirely successful. He has introduced legislation which will empower the employers to open up labour contracts and impose these cuts.

"I think there is no question about it, he means business. There is a New Democratic Party conference in Gananoque in a couple of days. He received the approval of his caucus and his party. Remember that, in his party, a lot of his ministers are former labour leaders themselves.

"I would say that I think he will prevail. I would say the strongest thing that Rae has going for him is that he is probably indispensable to the NDP party's survival. It's not like the Tory party in this country, where the Tories seem to have the luxury of debating whether they will keep the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, or keep the current Prime Minister, John Major, because they feel the party is stronger than the leader.

"In Canada, in Ontario, without Bob Rae, the New Democratic Party would probably be nothing. I think they realize that themselves. So I think he will get his way. He's got a majority of 15 or 16 seats, I think. It doesn't take a lot of NDP ministers to vote with the opposition (to defeat the government). A couple of them said they would. He's had one minister resign on him. But he will prevail, I think, because his party knows that they cannot survive without him.

"And also he is sort of positioning the party on fiscal issues sort of on the conservative side" --

The Speaker: Could the member get to his point of order, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- "and in terms of his concern for pay equity and the disabled and recognizing minority rights...then certainly on the left."

And this is the conclusion, sir:

"But I think Rae, although he is behind in the polls now, could easily win the next election. He got 38% of the popular vote because the opposition is split between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Whether he wins again I think will depend on how much the Liberals and the Conservatives..." and then it's inaudible.

"If the opposition to Rae coalesces behind one of the two right-wing parties" --

The Speaker: I ask the member for one last time to get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: -- "then he would lose. If they don't, then I think there's a very good chance he would win."

Now, Mr Speaker, I am finished reading that part of the speech into the record.

I simply want to say to you, sir, this: The power of the Lieutenant Governor in this province is a very strong one indeed. I just want to review those powers for you.

The Speaker: Very quickly.

Mr Sorbara: He has the power to summon this Parliament into session. That is his power and his power alone. He has the power to dissolve this Parliament, and it is his power and his power alone. He has the power to withhold his consent to every act that this Parliament passes into law. Those powers reside in the Lieutenant Governor and they are exercised in this province on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

It is clear from every one of our traditions for 126 years in Ontario that the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor General, just as the Queen, do not interfere with the rights and privileges of members of this Legislature to consider legislation and pass it or defeat it.

I just want to quote you, sir.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: I'm telling my friends in the opposition that this is a matter of privileges, my privileges and yours.

The Speaker: The member is on very thin ice, and I ask the member to very succinctly get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I reiterate this is not a point order; it's a point of privilege.

I'm referring to, sir, a volume entitled The Office of Lieutenant Governor. It was written by Professor John Saywell and published in 1986 by Copp Clark Pitman Ltd. I'm quoting from page 20. It reads as follows: "Political opinions publicly proclaimed are forbidden him."

What the Lieutenant Governor has done, either advertently or inadvertently, compromised my right in this Parliament to expect the possibility that the social contract he referred to in his speech and that we are required to vote on under business of the day, the next order of business. He has compromised the ability of this Parliament, having declared that he believes it will become law.

He has the right to sign that bill and he has the right to refuse to sign that bill, and before Parliament has considered it independently, as we are elected to do, the Honourable Harold Jackman has prejudiced our rights in that matter.

What's worse is that under his authority to dissolve Parliament, he has publicly made predictions as to the possible outcome subsequent to the dissolution of this Parliament, suggesting to an audience in London but broadcast to an audience throughout Ontario and in Canada, the possibility that notwithstanding the current disfavour that the government is held in, Bob Rae could get re-elected.

I say to you that in 125 years of parliamentary and executive history in Ontario, we have never had a Lieutenant Governor comment in that way about the very political issues and the political climate in the jurisdiction for which he is responsible.

The insult that he proffered to the New Democratic Party is beside the point. I simply say that my rights to expect a fair and independent vote in this Legislature on Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, have been irreparably compromised by the remarks of the Lieutenant Governor. I plead with you, sir, that you adjourn this Parliament at this point, and now, until the Lieutenant Governor can come before this Parliament and --

The Speaker: May I say first to the member for York Centre that I appreciate very much the point which he raises. I understand --

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I've got authority like crazy here.

The Speaker: I'd ask the member to come to order. The member raised the point of privilege, I listened, and I ask him to listen. I appreciate the point of privilege which he has brought to my attention.

To the member for Bruce, I appreciate not only the concern which he raised, but why he raised it and the point in time in which he did, and the argument which he made.

The members will know that there is nothing which has been raised today which involves directly the Speaker of the assembly, nor the assembly itself.

Mr Sorbara: What about my privileges?

The Speaker: What the member has raised is a constitutional matter, and those matters are normally dealt with before the courts. It is not a matter for this assembly. It is not a matter for the Speaker.

SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 48,

An Act to enourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The business that we're at is the deferred vote on Bill 48. There will be a five-minute bell. Please call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1547 to 1552.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Laughren moves second reading of Bill 48. All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Runciman, Silipo, Stockwell, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wis