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

April 10, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROATIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Sola: Once more 10 April is upon us, and this year Canadians of Croatian descent are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Croatian Independence Day. However, in light of the changes that have taken place since last year's internationally monitored free democratic elections, it can be given a much more objective historical analysis than before. Perhaps now we can get a realistic appraisal of the political, social and world conditions under which Croatia achieved its independence.

This statehood was won in a bloodless coup, a national plebiscite which, to paraphrase the words of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac: "It would be unfathomable for Croatian Canadians not to feel the essence of their people."

The tragedy of Croatian Independence Day lies in the fact that it did not survive, that all the Croatian political forces did not put themselves in defence of this indelible historical symbol, regardless of the fate of the governing regime. Even that wartime government must be viewed in more lenient terms given the terrorist provocation, manipulation and criminal intent of those elements in Croatia today who, as in 1941, will not and cannot accept the political will of the majority.

The fear of the Croatian community in Canada is that violence may be transferred from Yugoslavia to Canada, as evidenced by the vandalism and desecration of Our Lady Queen of Croatia Church in Toronto two weeks ago.

It is the hope of Canadian Croatians that all groups in Croatia and Yugoslavia have learned the lesson of wartime excesses and will learn to live with the freedoms and obligations of democracy.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

Mr Turnbull: The previous Liberal government gave a last gift to Metro Toronto as a memento of its term in office: the commercial concentration tax, a tax levied on buildings over 200,000 square feet and on all parking lots.

We are aware of the public's response to the Liberals. They were turfed out of office. This nasty little gimmick, this final discriminating tax grab by the Liberals, is an invasion of the historic right of municipalities to tax property, the major source of revenue for cities.

What has been the effect of this money grab? The Toronto Transit Commission parking lots, full to capacity in 1989, lost 22% in business in the six weeks after the commercial concentration tax was imposed on 1 January. It has been estimated that the commercial concentration tax will take $2.8 million from the TTC coffers and another $100 million a year from Metro businesses. This odious tax has harmed the business community and the environment by reducing TTC ridership. The GTA contributes far more to the province than the province puts back.

It is vital to keep a healthy and financially sound Metro Toronto for the wellbeing of the entire province. I urge this government to remove this negative and destructive tax in the next budget.

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

Mrs MacKinnon: Recently I attended the annual meeting of the Lambton County Municipal Association. It was a great pleasure at that time for me to present scrolls to six gentlemen who were retiring from their various positions of employment in municipalities within Lambton county. These six employees gave a total of 116 years of dedicated service to municipalities within Lambton county. Because of the pride these employees had in their positions, they left Lambton county a better place in which to live and to enjoy.

These men are: Ken Stutt, 26 years with Lambton county roads department; Clive Bennett, 21 years with the city of Sarnia works department; Gabriel Krammer, 23 years with the Petrolia works department; Don Gibb, 16 years, Moore township works department; Fred Baxter, 15 years, Bosanquet township works department; and Glen Syer, 15 years as road superintendent in Plympton township.

Congratulations to all of them on a job well done, and all the best in their retirement, as they have certainly earned it

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Poole: At a news conference this morning the Cooperative Housing Association released a report confirming that one out of every three tenants, a staggering 477,000 of Ontario households, spends at least 30% of his or her earnings on rent, and one out of five pays more than 40%.

The need for affordable housing has never been greater, yet the Minister of Housing contradicts himself, day after day, as to whether the NDP will keep its promise on affordable housing. In the election they promised to build 20,000 non-profit units by 1992, but just last month in Belleville the minister was quoted as saying: "We won't be able to do 20,000 a year under the current fiscal situation. We simply can't afford it."

Last week when I asked the minister about the statement he made in Belleville, he would not admit that he said it, but this morning a representative from the Cooperative Housing Association confirmed that this is exactly what the minister said. Why the smoke and mirrors? The minister had no difficulty in making a simple promise. Why is he having such difficulty in giving us a simple answer? Will he keep his promise? Can he keep his promise? When will these units be built? The members of this House and the people of Ontario deserve an answer.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr Jordan: "This province is finished industrially," said the chairman of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. In February, Ontario Hydro chairman Bob Franklin asked, "To what degree can we rely on conservation and non-utility generation and for how long can we postpone the date when we will need another generating station?"

During Energy estimates the government said the NDP policy would require monthly monitoring between the minister and Ontario Hydro. The minister should tell this Legislature, as a result of this monitoring process, how many megawatts have been made available to this province. The minister has told the media that she would worry if the new head of Ontario Hydro favoured building more nuclear plants.

How long will it be before this minister has a policy on the sale of tritium? At $29,000 a gram, it is estimated Hydro could add $25 million to its coffers over the next five years.

This government needs to give the people and industries of this province some confidence that their electrical future is bright. The minister should start by explaining this government's policy to the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario in her speech tomorrow morning.

MEMBER FOR YORK EAST

Mr Martin: I rise today to recognize my colleague and friend the member for York East. He was recognized this past weekend by his peers at Gallaudet University for the significant contribution he has made to the whole of the deaf community in North America and indeed the world. Gary was presented with the Outstanding Young Alumnus Award at Gallaudet University's 127th Charter Day and 22nd annual awards program of the university's alumni association on Saturday 6 April 1991.

The member's election to the Legislature in September 1990 was a very significant moment in Ontario parliamentary history. In itself, it says a lot about the people of Ontario, particularly the people in this riding, and the aspirations of the deaf community to be recognized and participate fully.

Gary has impressed and continues to impress all of us, his friends and colleagues. I was particularly moved by the activity generated by Gary as he served on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and the consequent participation by the deaf community as we crossed the province. If that initial impact and participation is any indication of what is coming, then Gary surely will make and leave his mark.

Communication is one of the most fundamental needs and rights a human being has. Gary has moved that agenda forward for not only the deaf but other cultures, and we, along with Gallaudet University, today salute him.

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

Mr Miclash: The class environmental assessment on timber management is convening its 298th day. The first party in opposition to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' position, Forest for Tomorrow, has completed its case, and the intervention of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce begins tomorrow. They will be represented by Doug Scott, an NOACC member; Joy Neil, president of NOACC; and the reeves of Ear Falls and Golden, Mr Leschuk and Mr Hermiston.

The representative of the NOACC, presenting its case, has indicated that the principal focus of its brief is that natural resource policies should be regionally sensitive, that southern Ontario politicians should have less influence on northern resource policies, and that the economic and social impact assessment should be considered to be as important as environmental impacts.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Arnott: Today I had the opportunity of meeting Harold Gilbert, chairman of the Better Roads Coalition and incidentally one of Canada's foremost authorities on transportation issues, and Art Frewin, chairman of the Citizens' Expressway Committee, to once again discuss the government's inexplicable and astonishing decision to withdraw funding from Hamilton's Red Hill Creek Expressway.

The government's explanation of its decision not to provide the committed funding for this project is totally irrational. The ministry's own data show the proposed route is the most environmentally benign. On 19 March the Premier assured this assembly that he was "prepared to put all the money that was supposed to go to the Red Hill Creek Expressway, all that money can go to other projects."

The Premier and the Minister of Transportation know full well that it will take years before any alternative projects are to be developed. They also know that there is no other feasible alternative north-south route for the expressway and they should be both ashamed of creating misleading perceptions that, by magic, alternatives can somehow be easily achieved.

With this decision, the government has given the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth an economic kick in the teeth. I therefore call upon the Premier to admit his cabinet has made a mistake in its decision to withdraw funding for this project and urge him to give immediate assurance that the project will proceed as planned without further delay.

ONTARIO COALITION AGAINST POVERTY

Mr Owens: Today the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty came to the steps of Queen's Park to meet with MPPs from all parties to remind everyone of the important issues of hunger, homelessness and poverty. This coalition represents antipoverty groups across the province which come together each year to lobby and rally at Queen's Park.

John Clarke, a constituent of mine, is the primary organizer for this coalition. I have the utmost respect for John, who has demonstrated selfless dedication to the issues of poverty. He has a great capacity for work in an area that is notorious for burning out those who care.

As a government member, I see the great need to have groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty press the government to move forward on issues of hunger, homelessness and poverty. Indeed, during these tough economic times the lobbying of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty is all the more necessary.

I, like my fellow members, am committed to the coalition's goals and principles, and while we may have been slowed by these terrible economic times that we face and the complete lack of support by the federal government, we will continue to strive to implement our goals in a timely fashion.

Mr Harnick: Unanimous consent is being sought to make a statement about Holocaust Day.

Agreed to.

HOLOCAUST DAY

Mr Harnick: According to the Jewish calendar, this evening at sundown Jews around the world will light candles which will burn for 24 hours to honour the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Together with memorial services and silent tribute, Holocaust Day will be marked by day-long recitations of the names of the victims of the Holocaust. Their names, birthdate, birthplace and site where they died will be recited aloud in synagogues, schools and public places throughout Israel and in Jewish communities around the world.

Under the slogan, "Unto every person there is a name," these recitations have become a focal point of Holocaust Day in commemoration of the six million Jewish men, women and children who died in Europe by the hand of Nazi tyranny and atrocity. From the ashes of the Holocaust the state of Israel was born in 1948. Since the Second World War, Israel has been and remains a haven for Jews, a home to go to, a place to seek a new life, a place where the desert has blossomed and where life has been changed from darkness to light.

The world today must continue to be ever vigilant to ensure that no tyrant or dictator ever again perpetrates such heinous atrocities on any group of human beings, wherever they may live. For the Jewish people, we will never forget the six million. May their memory be a blessing for us all.

Mr Kwinter: I would also like to rise and join in what is a commemoration of what is known as Yom Hashoah; that is, the remembrance where Jews around the world weep for the six million who perished in Europe almost 50 years ago under the Nazi regime. Their only crime was being Jewish. There is hardly anyone in the Jewish faith who has not been impacted, who has not had a loved one, a friend who was slaughtered in this way.

For years I have heard of the horror camps of Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Treblinka and Babi Yar, and quite frankly they were names, and names only, to me. Two years ago I had the occasion of visiting Kiev in the Ukraine and the officials there made a point of taking me to Babi Yar. Babi Yar is a park and what it stands for is "baba," old lady, and "yar," a park, and that is where the old ladies used to congregate.

When the Germans occupied the Ukraine they sent a notice out to the Jewish community saying because the Red Cross had asked for the safety of the Jews, they were going to comply. They would ask that all the Jewish citizens assemble at Babi Yar, where they would be taken to safety. The irony of that story is that many of the non-Jews resented the fact that these Jews were given special treatment, so they showed up as well. When they showed up, over 100,000 of them were herded into the park, machine-gunned on the spot and bulldozers immediately covered them. To this day there is a memorial.

That tries to put some context as to the magnitude of what we are trying to commemorate. Today in synagogues and memorial services throughout the world there will be services held to commemorate and, more important, to ensure that we will always remember, so that the world will never forget.

Hon Mr Rae: I know that every member in this House will have some special thought or memory perhaps of friends or family. I can only recount to the House this day the extraordinary experience that my wife and I had last year when we visited Poland and Lithuania. My wife's father was born in the town of Radom in Poland and my wife's mother was born in a little village in Lithuania called Zidikai.

In Warsaw we were able to see the memorial to the ghetto uprising and to see a very small community of a handful, a few thousand who are left in that city where before the war the Jewish population was about 30% of the population of the city of Warsaw. Now it is a very few thousand. We visited the synagogue in Warsaw -- there is one that is there -- and had a chance to meet with some members of the community. Through interpreters we heard their story. We visited the concentration camp at Treblinka. What was overpowering about that experience was that we were the only people there visiting and one had an awful sense of the absence of memory, which is so troubling.

When we went to Zidikai, which was a tiny village, we were there on election day in Lithuania. So part of it was a celebration, because it was a chance for us to celebrate this expression of democracy in this town. The other part of what we wanted to do was simply try to talk to people about that community as it had gone through the war because this, again, was a village of about 1,200 or 1,500 and before the war the Jewish community was about 1,000-fold, about 300 or 400 families.

My wife's grandparents and her mother had come out in the 1920s to Peterborough, and there are others who have gone on to other parts of the world, but basically the community was there in 1941. We asked if there was anyone in the village who could tell us the story of what happened. We were invited to a very small kitchen in a tiny rural house in this Lithuanian village to meet a woman who would have been well into her 80s. She used to work in the post office. She knew everyone's name and she was able to recount. My wife, Arlene, asked if she knew any of the names of the people in her family and she knew them.

She remembered them, she remembered who they were, she remembered the dry goods store and she remembered the stores that were on the street.

Then we asked the inevitable question, what happened? The Germans attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the Jews in Lithuania were rounded up with a brutality and a quickness which defies the imagination. We were told that people were corralled up together, taken to the synagogue, the men separated from the women. A couple of babies were spirited out and cared for by local families. But essentially, within three days this entire community was taken on a train to the neighbouring town, taken to the Jewish cemetery, lined up and shot, every one of them.

We asked if we could see the cemetery in Mazeiki, because it had been a community for hundreds of years. It was the middle of winter and it was across two farmers' fields and we could not go. We were very upset because we wanted to pay tribute. The people who were there said, "Is this very important to you?" My wife and I both said, "Yes, it's very important to us." They said: "Well, please trust us. When we can get across, when the weather improves, we'll take pictures of the cemetery and we'll send them to you." We said, "Has anybody been there?" They said: "No one has visited the cemetery for 50 years. It's untended."

We went away and it was obviously a day of enormous emotion. About three months later, a package arrived at my office. It was a package of photographs taken by members of the Lithuanian community who simply wanted to express their memory. It was an extraordinary moment.

We are living now in a prosperous community in which we often do not think of what life must have been like. We can remember best by paying tribute to those who died, to all those who have suffered discrimination, and by building a province and a country that knows not hatred.

The Speaker: If it is the pleasure of the House, I would offer an observation that the three members who have spoken today with their kind and thoughtful remarks have once again underscored how ably served, by all sides of the House, the people of the province are, with members who possess a great compassion and understanding. I for one appreciate it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Hon Ms Lankin: The members of this House are well aware of the severe repercussions the current economic downturn is causing in homes across this province, and our challenge is to get people back to work today and provide them opportunities and training that will serve them into the future.

We made a major commitment to these goals in last November's throne speech when we announced a $700-million anti-recession program. Its aim is to alleviate some of the recession's hardship by creating short-term jobs through the upgrading or expansion of public buildings and other infrastructure.

As the members are aware, many announcements by my colleagues have followed. With the Ministry of Government Services projects that I am announcing today, the $700 million has now been fully committed to the anti-recession program.

With the program's emphasis on public facilities, my ministry has a natural role to play. I am pleased to advise the members that we have earmarked $36.5 million for 137 projects in 66 communities across Ontario. These include repairs to OPP detachments and correctional facilities, construction of four new OPP detachments, new travel information centres in Sarnia and Cornwall and new Ministry of Agriculture and Food offices in Clinton and Vineland.

The funding also includes more than $3 million for special employment equity measures. My ministry will be encouraging contractors who wish to be considered for projects to provide apprenticeship and employment opportunities for women, first nations peoples, francophones, visible minorities and people with disabilities.

The key to this program is quick action -- job creation now. Many projects will begin in the next eight weeks and all will be completed within the 1991-92 fiscal year. In total, they will create more than 15,000 weeks of employment.

As Chair of both the Management Board of Cabinet and the operations committee, I am also responsible for overseeing the implementation of all the projects initiated by those ministries participating in Ontario's anti-recession program. I would like now to inform the House of our progress.

Twenty-two ministries are participating and they are undertaking more than 3,000 projects. As many as 14,000 jobs will be created by our investment in the public infrastructure. In total, 20,000 jobs will be created by all measures being taken by this government to counteract the recession.

On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the many municipalities and school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities and other local agencies which are working with us to implement and fund many of these projects. Our community partners are contributing over $200 million to this program, and they are contributing in bringing that combined provincial-local investment to more than $900 million.

Before providing you with some examples of the kind of projects being initiated, I would like to briefly inform members on the process we have followed in developing the anti-recessionary program.

The operations committee of cabinet is responsible for overseeing the program's development, implementation and follow-up.

The committee has worked closely with ministries in identifying potential projects and establishing some of the selection criteria, including the following: Projects should begin as soon as possible, be labour-intensive and achieve significant public benefits; there should be no regulatory, design or other impediments to getting the projects up and running and completed; projects in areas experiencing serious economic problems should receive priority attention; and attempts should be made to offer employment opportunities to women, first nations peoples and other employment equity groups that might not otherwise benefit equally from the program.

Ministries have worked hard to select projects which meet these standards and will ensure that they are implemented as planned.

Members will recall that work on over 300 projects with a cost of $41 million was announced in December of last year. These diverse projects, which range from renovations to North Bay's Canadore College to forest management operations in the Cochrane area, are well under way and nearly 35,000 weeks of work are being created.

Many additional projects have since been announced, and jobs are being created and essential public services are being improved in many priority areas.

Examples include: improved day care facilities; construction of expanded transition homes for abused women and children, such as Thunder Bay's Faye Peterson Home, to reduce overcrowding; upgraded energy efficiency in Ontario Housing Corp buildings to cut operating costs and reduce fuel consumption; upgraded water and sewer services to ensure safe drinking water and better waste treatment; renovations to improve fire safety and security in hospitals and homes for the aged; renovated educational facilities to improve learning environments for our children; and improved access to public buildings for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

In addition to the $650 million in funds allocated for capital projects, $50 million is being spent on special adjustment measures to open up employment and training opportunities, particularly for employment equity target groups. We want to encourage their fuller participation in the economy now and in the future.

For example, we are funding initiatives that will train first nations peoples to: manage local construction projects; use new automated library equipment in 43 public libraries; co-ordinate resource projects in Espanola; and act as apprentice health counsellors.

With the increase in welfare case loads across Ontario caused by the recession, we are hiring and training welfare recipients themselves to help social service agencies meet rising demands for service. Single mothers and others will gain valuable experience that we hope will be transferred to other permanent job opportunities. Social assistance recipients will also have access to child care training positions which will help them to pursue careers in this field.

In

summary, the kinds of capital projects and special measures we are funding offer profound benefits whose impact will be felt well beyond the recession. Many basic repairs and renovations to our public buildings and other facilities, too long neglected because of insufficient provincial funding, will now be undertaken.

Above all, people will benefit, not only from their paycheques but from the new skills that many will learn. While the jobs will be short-term, we hope the results will be long-lasting.

I look forward to the continuing support of our funding partners and all members as we implement the anti-recession program and put people to work.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Hon Mr Farnan: Today I am pleased to announce an employment equity regulation which will increase the representation of four prescribed groups in police services across Ontario. These groups are racial minorities, aboriginal persons, women and persons with disabilities. This regulation will provide for fair and equitable employment opportunities for civilian and uniformed police service employees. In particular, it will address past inequities experienced by the four prescribed groups.

In April 1989, the Clare Lewis Race Relations and Policing Task Force presented the Solicitor General with 57 recommendations. These covered the major areas of hiring and promotion, race relations training, the use of force and community relations.

My ministry is solemnly committed to acting on the task force recommendations. This is being done through the race relations and policing unit, which was established to help implement the task force recommendations, and through the new Police Services Act.

This employment equity regulation spells out to all police services and boards what actions are required of them and the time lines for such action. My ministry is also providing support for implementation of this regulation. Chiefs of police will be required to implement employment equity plans which detail specific goals and timetables to increase representation of the prescribed groups in their workforce. Sanctions will be applied to those police services which do not comply with the regulation.

These sanctions range from the appointment of an independent employment equity administrator to suspension or firing of the police chief or members of police services boards. Every police service will make available, at no cost, information contained in its employment equity plan to any member of the public who requests it.

The Police Services Act commits the municipal police services boards and all police chiefs to submit employment equity plans and results to my ministry on a continuing basis, commencing in May 1992. Thereafter they will also submit annual results which will show how goals are being met within the specified time frames.

The regulation is broad enough to accommodate the needs of all police services across Ontario. It is also specific enough to ensure results throughout all levels of each police organization.

I am encouraged by the support this regulation has received from provincial organizations involved in policing. I wish to point out to members of this House that through an extensive consultation process, these regulations are fully supported by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Municipal Police Authorities and the Police Association of Ontario.

Additionally, I know that members will be interested to learn that this regulation has been developed through broad and full consultation with our partners. These partners are the 140 police and community representatives with whom we consulted in discussion group sessions in Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto and London. The regulation incorporates the spirit of co-operation exhibited at these meetings.

I would like to recognize the efforts of our partners who worked with the ministry to develop this important regulation. Their sincere desire to improve the community-policing relationship and their dedication to fair and equitable employment has allowed the ministry to develop a regulation with clearly defined goals and objectives.

I believe it is appropriate at this time to recognize the presence in the assembly of some of those individuals who played a leadership role in the development of this regulation. I would ask to stand, representing the Police Association of Ontario, Neal Jessop, Gord Noles, Ted Johnson and Bob Morrison; from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Harding; and from the Municipal Police Authorities, Mr Justice H. Ward Allen and Sandi Humphrey. To these and other members of my ministry's external consultative committee we owe a debt and a sincere thanks.

My ministry is providing comprehensive information packages to its partners across the province, in both official languages. Additionally, certain information will also be provided in a number of other languages, as well as on audio tape, to ensure that as many of the people as possible who are affected by this regulation are fully informed.

Employment equity for police is a province-wide issue. Police must become more representative of the communities they serve. This regulation will help the police and community to work together with increased trust and co-operation.

This regulation is the first of its kind in Ontario. It is my sincere hope that as it proves its success, it will become a workforce model for Ontario's public and private sectors. We must all commit ourselves to employment equity to enjoy the full rewards and benefits of a workforce which draws from the talents and skills of all people in Ontario.

RESPONSES

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Mr Bradley: It is interesting how the perspective changes when people change sides in the House. I can well recall some of the questions and statements which were made previously by the government on the issue raised by the now Solicitor General.

But I am going to respond not to the Solicitor General's statement but to the Chairman of Management Board's statement. I thought this should be a Treasurer's statement. I am really amazed that in fact it came from the Chair of Management Board, who it is alleged has aspirations to be the Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

The Minister of the Environment would be particularly interested in this statement, because it really incorporates a new set of four Rs, and I even wrote them down today: recycle, reuse, rename and reannounce. That is precisely what this government has done throughout this so-called anti-recession package.

If members examine the grants which would have been made -- and I want to give credit to my good friend the Minister of Transportation, who really let the cat out of the bag. I want to give him credit for his frankness and honesty in this, when he said in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record that there is nothing to force the municipalities to use the savings to create more jobs. In a municipal election year, some municipal councillors might be tempted to use any savings to ease property taxes. But he said that there are other incentives for them to use it for road work.

What the Minister of Transportation is pointing out is, in fact, because many of us served on municipal councils, they will find the money welcome and they will not get an objection from those to whom they have transferred some of those funds.

I guess what we object to over here is that the government pretends it is doing something new and different. This is essentially an announcement for monthly publications, because it is old news. Many of them are programs which are reannouncements, not only from what they said when they first came into office, but also from what the previous government had already announced. So some of the work they are doing in northern Ontario, for instance, could easily be characterized -- and the northern members know this -- as work that is going to be done anyway.

The members should examine each one of these and they will find these are routine announcements they put out. They get away with it sometimes with some of the publications that do not know them well enough to know they are recycling these, but essentially this is old news. I am sure the critic for the Solicitor General's department will be equally constructive in his comments now.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: I know how proud the Solicitor General is today that he has introduced this employment equity regulation and I share his pride too. Because it took him such a long time to introduce it, I hope it has been carefully analysed. I know it will be important to this community.

As you know, Mr Speaker, he had promised this from December 1990 and he is just now introducing it. I want to commend those who have partaken in bringing about this regulation. I want to recall and refresh the Solicitor General's mind. The present Minister of Transportation wanted most of these regulations to be passed through the standing committee on administration of justice, so that the elected members can have their contributions in open government aspects of it so he would have a better regulation. I have no doubt at all that thoughts have gone through it with his bureaucrats and some of the people he has consulted with. Of course, he said it is a very meaningful consultation process.

I had hoped some of the community people who have contributed would be here today to take their bows. I hope we could look forward to seeing him doing more about those regulations. We had many regulations he had promised to bring in today. We know he failed to introduce those regulations. There are some regulations on use of force by the members of the police force, which we have not seen yet. He had promised to bring forward the prescribing of a code of conduct on which offences constitute misconduct. That is not here yet. The police pursuit guidelines: We have not seen those yet.

It took the minister five or six months to bring this forward. We still hope, for that open consultation process and the way to draft this regulation, that when he brings the rest of the regulations, he does not make the same mistake of making it in a rather closed way. Give us an opportunity through the justice committee to partake with the rest of the regulations. We have been waiting a very long time for that. The people need it and I have my trust in him. He should not let us down.

Mr Carr: I welcome the opportunity to get up and speak about bringing various members of our community into the police force. I am very pleased to have my police chief from the Halton area here to see this. In fact, during the last period of time I spent some nights out with the undercover police. The sergeant and her partner who were taking me out, doing some of the most difficult and serious crimes, were both women. The sergeant and her partner did a very effective job, so I saw at first hand what women can do in the police force during very dangerous situations.

However, I am concerned about the rise and increase of crime in this province. I was out last night to the meeting at Metro's city hall. Women are affected by this crime in our streets. The aboriginal people are affected by crime on the rise in their communities, as are the minority communities. These are the factors that are not going to be addressed. I would hope he would work very urgently in this area to set quotas and to reduce our crime rates, so that the people, the minorities, the women, the disabled and the aboriginal people also are going to see that crime against those communities is reduced.

That is very urgent. I would like to leave a little bit of time for the critic for women's issues to respond as well.

Mrs Witmer: As this government embarks upon a program of employment equity for the private and public sectors, I hope there will indeed be true and full consultation with all those involved. I hope the government will take a look at the elimination of the barriers that women, visible minorities, native people and people with disabilities face.

I hope it will also fully utilize the educational system to provide these people with the skills and the training they need to become productive employees, and I hope there will be public awareness campaigns to change attitudes and educate people about the very important role each person in this province plays. I hope that is where the focus will be instead of mandatory quotas because, although we can legislate change, we must remember we will never achieve full and complete employment equity until attitudes in this province change as well.

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Mr Turnbull: With respect to the announcements made by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Government Services, I would just briefly comment that four months ago we heard their government announcing a $700-million package, an anti-recession package. We were given to believe this was going to be a labour-intensive capital project package. Today we find that it is now only $650 million, and $50 million has been bled off towards the minister's employment equity agenda.

That was then, this is now, and what will it be tomorrow? How much money is the government finally going to spend on job creation? It might be more appropriate to get the Minister of Housing to let some of the renovations go through and let them be charged back in the proper way.

Mr Tilson: With respect to the comments of the Management Board chair, it is certainly clear there is nothing new in what she has said and it is sad that when she cannot think of something to announce, she brings up old statements. What the chair has announced today, other ministers have already announced. The only thing that appears to be new is her repair projects across this province. The job losses under her direction are worse in the province of Ontario than anywhere else in this country. We have felt this recession more in this province than anywhere else in this country and it is all under her direction.

Where she is leading, of course, is in setting a terrible example with her jobs. The employment increases are up to 6% plus. She has set no standards at all. Quebec, on the other hand, has frozen its public sector salaries for 400,000 public sector employees. The chair does not appear to be studying that issue at all. All she is doing is spending.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: I was interested that the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, I believe, who was in his place a moment ago, had made a statement on behalf of the government or perhaps on his own behalf, in response to the antipoverty coalition which is here today and after talking to a number of members, that the federal government is responsible for poverty and the difficulties caused by the recession and that in fact this government's hands are tied and the responsibility lies elsewhere.

We know that in this House the Treasurer has indicated he does not see the financing over the next five years to fulfil the government's promises in this regard. Yesterday, or the day before, I guess, the Minister of Community and Social Services indicated she has no plan to eliminate food banks during the term of this government, and yet the government has moved quite dramatically to increase the pay of civil servants, it has indicated it is ready, willing and able to reform teachers' pensions and there are even rumours that it is trying to scrape together $300 million in back pay for the medical doctors who have gone so long without any sort of a reasonable pay increase.

Since in his pledge to the people the Premier said, "I will not lead a government driven by a narrow and self-interested agenda, ignoring what needs to be done," I simply ask him, why does a government decide to do those three things and many others that I have not bothered listing, which have all been expensive and important in their own ways, but has neglected totally its promise and its initiative to end food banks and reduce poverty in any reasonable program in the government program, and particularly on the basis of the inadequacies of the funding that has been made available to the Premier's ministers in this regard?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want the Leader of the Opposition to know that I do not regard this exclusively as a federal matter. I think it is fair to say that everybody has to pitch in, but we certainly take our responsibility seriously. We feel very strongly that we as a government do have a responsibility and I can point to several examples where we have already taken steps. I can assure the member that more has to be done and more will be done, within the limits of what can be done.

First of all, let me remind the honourable member that for people who are on welfare, we have increased benefits this year by some $286 million on an annualized basis which, I would remind members, is $100 million more than he allocated when he was Treasurer, to be spent starting on 1 January; $100 million more, money that was on the shelf, that stayed on the shelf and that was not being used effectively for the supports to employment program. In terms of getting back to employment, a $54-million fund was put into play by our government in response to the need that is very clearly there.

We are looking at providing some protection for tenants. It is controversial, but it is going to provide assistance to tenants that is going to be very substantial in terms of money in their pockets. We are dealing with the wage protection fund, and it is going to be coming down soon in terms of legislation. That will also have an impact.

These are examples of the things we are doing. I very much believe it is our responsibility to provide as much as we can for those people who are being affected by the recession.

Mr Nixon: I will not dwell on the extra $100 million the Premier indicated. I would not for a moment indicate --

Hon Mr Cooke: I wouldn't either if I were you.

Mr Nixon: Well, since the Minister of Housing, in his usual aggressive way, is asking for information, I would simply indicate that the $100 million has to be taken in the context of a budget for welfare services of about $5 billion. As a matter of fact, we had allocated a 5% increase and the government, gathering all its strength, all its sensitivity and all its generosity raised that 2%. I would suggest that if the minister thinks that is the solution to food banks and poverty, then probably he would be better back on the city council of one of the suburbs of Windsor.

I would like to say we are not in any way criticizing the intentions of the Premier or any member of this House in order to solve these problems. But certainly I, and on behalf of my colleagues, am critical of his priorities. For example, in November of the year, it is customary, not waiting for the budget, to present the allocations for community-based agencies, such as day care, children's aid societies, children's mental health centres and community homemaking services. We have heard nothing about this except the indications in the media that many of these services are being pressed to the wall and not able to live up to the heightened responsibilities they must serve.

I would not for a moment indicate that the Premier is responding with these hundreds of millions of dollars to those who have the most political clout and perhaps bought advertisements in his support during the election campaign, but how are we going to find out, during these economically difficult times, why the Premier is responding only to those people and those groups with strong, organized political voices, and not to those he felt he was a principal spokesman for when he was in opposition, not to the agencies and not to the poor people who are, God help us, suffering hunger and poverty?

Hon Mr Rae: I have heard the accusation from the Leader of the Opposition. I can only tell him it is quite unfair, quite unfounded and completely and totally inaccurate. It is not a reflection of the reality at all. If the member looks at the decision this government has taken, his government sat for five years and left workers who were laid off, at all levels of society, 60% of them without a trade union of any kind, bankrupt workers forced to go on welfare.

We have said that workers who are affected by a bankruptcy will not be out wages in the province of Ontario, and they should not be out wages in the province of Ontario.

He had years to deal with that. If he looks at the steps the Treasurer has already taken in terms of the transfer announcements he has made, those transfer announcements are well above inflation and they provide for people at all levels of our society who are providing service.

If the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, is saying we could be doing more, I am sure that is a criticism which all of us can accept. There is more to be done and I can tell him that more will be done.

Mr Nixon: I am sure the Speaker is aware that during the years when the Premier said we should have been doing something, we created a net 700,000 new jobs in the province. During the six months the NDP has been looking after our affairs, we are losing an average of 1,600 jobs a day. I would ask the Speaker, in his position of fairness, to simply compare and indicate with a nod who did the better Job.

I would like to say further to the Premier, who keeps repeating about his anti-bankruptcy legislation, which he announced in a flurry of enthusiasm at the time he allowed his friend, Mr Rice, the president of -- what was that company? -- Varity Corp to move to Buffalo, that he was going to do this and, meanwhile, his Minister of Labour, struggling to stay awake during question period, still has not introduced the legislation. We thought it was going to be this week. Maybe it will be tomorrow.

What has he done? What has he done to improve the competitiveness of the Ontario economy? What has he done to create jobs? What has he done to retrain workers from sectors experiencing permanent job losses? As a matter of fact, I would ask him, what has he done, other than the oft-reiterated $700-million commitment which would make up for about two weeks of the jobs lost under his leadership, to improve the economy of the province, to feed the hungry and to improve the lot of the poor?

Hon Mr Rae: I suppose one could use this question period as a chance for us to simply exchange barbs back and forth, and there is a good deal of that that goes on.

I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition on this day, as I have said to him on other days and will say to him again.

If he is saying, for the benefit of those who are watching and those who will be watching later on, that his government was exclusively responsible, his government in Ontario was exclusively responsible for the prosperity, that when he became Treasurer there was instant prosperity, and then arguing that on 6 September the recession began with the election of the New Democratic Party, I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is the same kind of argument his former leader tried to use in the last week of the election campaign, and I think the voters of Ontario told him and his party exactly what they think about that kind of nonsense.

Mr Nixon: NDP times are hard times and the people are coming to realize that.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AIDS

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Health, and she says -- I think she mouthed, "It's about time," but it could have been something else. You know what happened to Trudeau in that regard.

Accusations have been made in today's press that the Minister of Health has failed to meet with her own Advisory Committee on AIDS since assuming office. I want to just say a word about that committee. It is not a political group. Most of them were appointed under the previous administration. The committee is a broadly based group of about 70 experts with clinical, public health and community expertise. Yet in the first six months of this government's mandate, the minister has not met with her advisory committee nor given them any direction on the policy agenda and priorities that she will pursue.

Can she explain why she is failing to adopt a co-ordinated consultative approach to policy developed in this extremely important and sensitive area, and why she is ignoring the advice that her committee proffers?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition will well recall that it was the previous government which in fact instituted the advisory committee. All of the appointments were made by the previous government, and I would agree with him that it is a group comprised of excellent advisers on the subject of what we should be doing in the province of Ontario to combat HIV infection and the spread of AIDS.

This committee has had one meeting. It meets on a quarterly basis. I do not know if he is familiar with the pattern of it. It meets on a quarterly basis. There was one meeting since the election, previous to the meeting which will be held tomorrow. I will be joining them at the meeting tomorrow. I did meet with representatives of the committee a few months back and I certainly have taken great care to pay attention to their recommendations.

Mr Nixon: I do not know the significance of the minister's comment that the committee was appointed under the previous administration, but it does lead to the question as to why --

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: Of course I said that. And then she said it. What was the point of that?

Perhaps she could explain why the members of this committee have indicated that the minister's response to their advice is insensitive and inadequate. There is an indication that a number of them will not be able to continue with their duties because of that insensitivity and inadequacy. Why can this sensitive and presumably adequate minister not give an appropriate explanation as to why these people, who are not political but are expert and deeply concerned with this matter, find that her leadership is inadequate?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the Liberal Party points out that I told him that this committee was appointed during the term of office of the government in which he served. He has suggested that some of the members were appointed during that term of office. I explained to him that all of the members were appointed, because it was the previous government which set up the committee. I hope he understands the purpose for which I explained.

There is no reluctance on my part to deal with the advice from this committee. In fact, I have studied the recommendations and the reports on which they are working. I have, as I pointed out earlier, met with representatives of the committee and I will be meeting with them this afternoon in their regular meeting.

Mr Nixon: It turns out that there are more than three pedagogues in the House, and now I add the minister to that list.

I do not know whether she is trying to say that there are only some of those people whose advice she would accept, or if she wants to adjust the committee in some way. The question really was to try to get her to explain why they are so disaffected with her leadership, to the extent that they have gone public. Was it to force the meeting that is going to happen today? Was it because the minister has indicated that she is not prepared to take action on anonymous testing, on northern travel grants, on using the Ontario drug benefit formulary to include new drugs?

Is there some difficulty with the minister being too busy preparing for the answers to questions in the House? Why would she say that the AIDS community, at least their knowledgeable and principal spokespersons here, feel that she is inadequate in performing her responsibilities?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the Liberal Party is saying something which I do not think is accurate. Certainly, there has been one resignation to my knowledge by a member of the committee. This is normal in the course of events, where you have 20 members on an advisory committee, over a period of time.

I think members of the advisory committee are well aware of the fact that this government has been very intently working on a series of initiatives in the program areas the Leader of the Opposition has indicated and also in others. I will be taking the opportunity this afternoon to discuss those initiatives with them and also to discuss with them, because I feel they are highly qualified to give advice to this government and to any government, the work that needs to be done in this province on the subject of AIDS.

I will be looking to them for recommendations about how their work in fact can become more effective in influencing the development of comprehensive policies and programs that will assist people touched by HIV/AIDS in this province.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Tilson: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I spent some time with the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Housing studying the question of fairness, and she had a great deal of difficulty understanding that question and perhaps defining it. I think I would like to have the Premier tell this House some of his thoughts on the issue of fairness.

Over six months ago, the Premier told us that his government was different. It was a government that was fair. it was a government that was accessible. I say hooey. His government is a government that is trying to muzzle the views of the province of Ontario. His government has the audacity to try this afternoon to bring an end to the debate on Bill 4, one of the most ill-conceived pieces of legislation, retroactive legislation, that this province has ever seen. I want the Premier to tell this House today what he meant when he promised us fairness.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the Minister of Housing deserves the opportunity to reply to the question.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Are the members trying to tell us that they do not wish to hear a response? The question was redirected to the minister under standing orders. If you would like to hear a response, then perhaps you will all sit quietly and listen.

Hon Mr Cooke: The first thing I would like to say is that I, as minister, am very proud of the leadership that the member for Niagara Falls, my parliamentary assistant, has provided on Bill 4. We in this party have indicated right from the beginning that we are determined to bring in real protection for the tenants of this province. The first step of that protection is Bill 4.

The Liberal Party on second reading voted in favour of the bill. Since then, they have been speaking against it. I am not sure where they stand.

The Conservatives have been consistent. They have said from day one they are opposed to Bill 4 and they are not going to allow the bill to pass. They left us with no alternative. We have an agenda to protect tenants and we as a government are determined to do that. The Conservative Party is trying to prevent that from happening and that is why we have had to bring in time allocation today.

Mr Tilson: The parliamentary assistant did not know what fairness was, and obviously the Minister of Housing does not know what fairness is. I would hope the Premier would be able to tell us; however, he is acting more and more like the last government, as far as his conduct today is concerned. We call it the Peterson shuffle -- the Peterson shovel.

From day one this government has attempted to ram through Bill 4. We have seen that in the committee. We have seen that in this House. We have had to fight to send this bill to committee, and when we got there, we had to fight for a fair and open process, a process that despite our attempts turned away over 100 delegations. I want the Minister of Housing -- I would have preferred to have the Premier, but if he is shuffling it off to the Minister of Housing, I would like the Minister of Housing to tell us if he really believes that he has heard all there is to hear with respect to this piece of legislation.

Hon Mr Cooke: What I would like to hear is, if the Conservative Party has any other position than deregulation, maybe it can be of some help, too. But so far all they have said to the people of Ontario is: "We made up our minds long ago. All we believe in is deregulating rents and leaving tenants unprotected." We do not share that opinion, but we have presented a point of view through Bill 4 on a temporary piece of legislation. We have had public hearings through the general government committee right across the province.

We have had extensive consultations with thousands of people on the green paper, and we are going to have public hearings right across the province on the permanent piece of legislation.

The critic for the Conservative Party said they had to fight hard to get Bill 4 out for public hearings. They asked once and we said yes. We know what it is like to have to fight for public hearings. We had to fight for them all the time.

Mr Eves: My, how times have changed. The former House leader of the New Democratic Party, now the Minister of Housing, standing up and talking about defending time allocations.

Mr Bradley: Do you have some quotes, Ernie?

Mr Eves: I have a little quote here from the honourable member. I am glad the member mentioned that. I just happen to have a few of them handy.

On 3 April 1990, the honourable minister said: "I would suggest that" -- time allocation -- "is incredibly unfair. It will result in the process not holding the government accountable."

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the position that I have certainly tried to take, and I know that other members of my caucus have taken, is that each case has to be taken on its own merits.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: It is true. If I could give an example --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: Just hold on. If I could give an example; if the opposition would let me give an example.

The Speaker: When I can hear it.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible to take this whole answer as given, as read, done, and then move on to something else?

The Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it may be a point of restoring order.

Hon Mr Cooke: If I might just give an example that I know the member would appreciate, when Bill 94 was brought in by the Liberal government, the legislation that brought in the ban on extra-billing, the Liberal government of the time was forced to bring in time allocation. We were the third party and we supported that time allocation because it was in the interests of the province.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: I will wait a while, because this is a rather serious issue.

The Speaker: The member is absolutely right. I think the atmosphere is nice and clear now. The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

Mr Runciman: A convicted rapist is living in a halfway house in the city of Brockville only two months after beginning to serve a jail term of two years less a day. William Uloth raped a 12-year-old girl last summer, and what made this attack even more tragic was that it occurred just months after the death of the victim's father. The victim's mother says: "What's to stop him from doing it again? He's out in the community and there are a lot of vulnerable young kids around."

Mr Uloth served his two months of so-called hard time in a county jail and then he was let out on to the streets of the same community where the 12-year-old victim lives, and the Correctional Services ministry did not even have the decency to inform the victim's family.

The corrections system has placed the offender's rights ahead of the victim's, an absolute disregard for the protection of society. Officials of the ministry put a man responsible for the violent rape of a 12-year-old girl back on the streets after two months in a county jail. Does the minister support that decision, and if yes, why? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Farnan: The primary responsibility of a minister in the area of corrections has to be the security and safety not only of those who are in our trust but of the community. I take that responsibility very seriously. I am very concerned with the facts that have been presented to me today and I intend to look into the situation. After I have full information on the situation, I intend to get back to the member and respond to his concern.

Mr Runciman: I am astounded that the minister is not aware of this situation. It has certainly been in the eastern Ontario media for some days, and I do not think that he has a defensible position on this, or his ministry does. We are talking about a man responsible for the rape of a 12-year-old girl, a girl from a low-income family, a 12-year-old girl who had just lost her father.

I would like to put some comments from the victim impact statement on the record: "This 12-year-old victim suffers continual nightmares about the assault. She is trying to cope with feelings of low self-esteem and she is now being treated by a psychologist."

I would like the minister to stand up in this House today and indicate to this 12-year-old victim and her mother and countless other victims and their families across this province that he disagrees with what his officials did, that it was not okay, and that he, as the Minister of Correctional Services, does see something wrong with the rapist of a 12-year-old girl being out on the streets of her community after that individual served only two months of soft time.

Hon Mr Farnan: I will repeat for the member this fact. These are very serious statements that are being made in the House that cause me great concern as a minister. It is an issue I intend to examine thoroughly, and then I will get back to him.

Mr Runciman: The minister has been in office almost seven months and we are talking about the system. This is an individual case that I personally and I assume all members of the House are very much concerned about, but in my view and in the view of officials I have talked to around this province, the corrections system is a fraud. We have the Attorney General's ministry working to put people behind bars and, as soon as they are there, we have Correctional Services officials working like beavers to get them out, mollycoddling people who rape 12-year-old girls.

Violent crime is growing at a breakneck pace in this province. Just yesterday, a 19-year-old woman was raped after her car stalled near Stratford. The minister can start to change that if he genuinely cares about victims and victims' rights and he can commit himself to revamping the system that provides soft treatment for people like Mr Uloth, a revolving-door system of justice that places a criminal's rights ahead of the victim's and the community's at large. Will the minister commit himself to that today?

Hon Mr Farnan: The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Correctional Services and this government are vitally concerned to have a justice system that is sensitive, that works, that is effective. I thank the member for bringing this information into the House. It certainly makes for a dramatic moment in the House.

I would like the member to feel free to come to me any time he has information and any concerns, to come into my office with this information, so that we sit down, check the facts, discuss the facts and, if he has concerns at that stage, then I think it is fine. But I will say to the member again that it is my commitment, not only to him but to this House, that I will investigate this situation, because I think it is very serious.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Offer: I have a question to the minister of layoffs, also known as the Minister of Labour. He will recall that in the aftermath of the Premier's Massey-Varity sellout, it was announced at a ratification meeting of 19 October 1990 that a deal between the Canadian Auto Workers, Kelsey-Hayes and the provincial government had been struck.

As reported in the Windsor Star, "The agreement would allow workers to place their severance pay in trust with the Ontario employment standards branch." It was explained that putting the severance in trust would allow them to draw federal unemployment benefits immediately. The workers could then collect their money from the provincial trust once they found new work or UI benefits expired. That, they were told, would allow them to save thousands of dollars.

The problem is that this type of agreement is illegal and the Unemployment Insurance Commission is waiting now to confiscate the severance pay of workers who participated in the minister's scheme and collected UI. My question is whether it was either the minister's negligence in allowing his ministry to be part of this illegal agreement or, on the other hand, was it his incompetence in making such an agreement before checking with the UIC?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the honourable member that, as far as I am concerned, it was neither. The deal with the workers at Kelsey-Hayes is a deal that was worked out with their union, their legal representatives, the Canadian Auto Workers, and an effort was made to find a mechanism whereby the workers would not lose their severance pay. It turned out that particular method of protecting that severance pay was not upheld, and it is one of the reasons why we will be bringing in legislation that will correct that problem.

Mr Offer: I find the minister's response quite surprising, because in that particular report by the Windsor Star it goes on to quote Lewis Gottheil, the lawyer for the CAW's head office in Toronto, to speak about Buzz Hargrove, assistant to CAW president Bob White, and to state that there was a deal made, an agreement made between the CAW, the ministry and Kelsey-Hayes. In the minister's response he seems to be stating that his particular ministry was not part of that particular arrangement. This seems to fly in the face of the facts that have been brought forward on earlier occasions.

That particular agreement has been declared illegal by the UIC. The minister had an obligation, if not a responsibility, to inform the workers how the federal government views those particular severance payments as opposed to the UIC benefits. The minister had that obligation. He refused to do so. At the very least he had the opportunity to say, "We want to take that agreement before the courts and have the courts rule upon that." The minister has said no to the workers, he has said no to the agreement and he has said no in terms of his responsibility.

My question to the minister is whether he is ready to finally stand up and say, "I'm going to stand behind the agreement, have it determined by the courts, and let's see how it is decided." Let's see some action on his part.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can only tell the member that the effort to protect the wages of the workers was one that was entered into in good faith. It was not successful and that is exactly why we will be having legislation before this House to protect workers in situations similar to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In a speech given to the Ontario Hospital Association on 28 November last year, the minister said that her government had a great commitment to long-term care in this province and that it would be proceeding. Can she tell us how it is proceeding?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I am pleased to report that it is proceeding very well.

Mr Eves: That was certainly a general answer given. The reality is that the same minister appeared in the Kitchener area during March of this year, last month, and indicated that because of federal restraints she was going to have to cut the home care program, and unfortunately it would be among the first fatalities in the Ministry of Health.

How can the minister suggest that she is proceeding with long-term care objectives in this province and at the same time be delivering a speech in the Kitchener area that indicates she may have to cut the home care program in that area? How can she do that?

Does she believe in the previous document, Strategies for Change, and what progress has she made? The minister says it is proceeding. That is very nice and that is a flippant answer, but there are a lot of people out there who need this service. It is about time maybe the minister got off her duff and did something.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I am sure the member understands that I can look after my own duff. I do not need his advice. I am glad he raises the question of the quote that was in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, because that was a very mistaken quotation.

Mr Eves: Why, they all got it wrong.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, the member says the Kitchener-Waterloo Record got it wrong, and in fact the Kitchener-Waterloo Record did get it wrong. It is key to what we are going to be doing in the long-term care program that we are going to be increasing the resources available for community-based programming. We have to build up those resources at the community base so that people can receive service and the support they need to be able to stay in their own homes, they are in supportive housing, and they will not have to be institutionalized at rates which are both unacceptable in terms of their wellbeing and in terms of the financial underpinning of our health programs in this province.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Duignan: My question today is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. First of all, let me offer my congratulations to the minister for her recent decision over the initiatives on garbage removal and excluding Halton from that decision.

In the last couple of months I have been contacted by a number of people throughout the region of Halton who are concerned about the quality of life and the future of their community. As the minister knows, there are problems such as urban sprawl, accessible affordable housing, water quality and many concerns about the environment. Can the minister give some indication as to how and when these concerns are going to be addressed by the office of the GTA?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to respond to this question and to say to the member that the issues he raises are going to be addressed both by the office of the GTA and by the region of Halton. The previous government had given financial assistance to the region to undertake a review of its urban structure, and I am delighted to be able to confirm to the House that this government is going to continue that financial assistance.

Last Saturday, I and other members of this House -- the member for Halton North, the member for Halton Centre and the members for Burlington South and Oakville South -- attended portions of a workshop put on in Halton by the chairman, looking at precisely the kinds of issues the member raises. As Halton region embarks on the second stage of its review, I am confident that those issues will be addressed.

Mr Duignan: Again, my question is to the minister responsible for the GTA. Many people in my region are concerned about the future of the regional economy and their ability to find good jobs close to home. Is the issue of how land use planning relates to social-economic planning going to be part of the Halton study or other studies that the office for the GTA is --

Hon Mrs Grier: One of the reasons that I am pleased to continue the support for the planning exercise the region of Halton is doing, is precisely because of the kind of holistic approach to settlement patterns that Halton is taking, looking at the development of the area for the next 20 or 30 years. They are examining the feasibility of a number of growth options and how they can avoid continuation of urban sprawl and development of precious agricultural lands. They are also producing the kind of plan that takes environmental considerations into account and a long-term regional strategy.

The other aspect of their plan, which I hope other regions will follow, is that there is extensive citizen participation. It is the kind of planning structure and review that I know all of the regions in the GTA will need to undertake and that, as the minister responsible for the office of the GTA, I am very happy to support.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. During the free trade debate the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, and his party vowed that they would fight the free trade agreement, that if they came into power they would not implement any of the provisions, and in fact they would do anything they could to thwart it. Notwithstanding that, they have already allowed many hundreds of permits for 54-foot trailers to go to the United States.

The Premier recently met with leaders of the Canadian steel industry, and they were complaining that they had a serious problem that could have a severe impact on the economy of Ontario. They found that imports of United States steel into Ontario and into Canada had gone from 6% to 15.1% in one year.

What has happened is that we are under a VRA agreement and we have a situation where -- notwithstanding that I am sure the minister is going to say he has no control over this, that it is federal -- this government, as recently as yesterday when they were discussing free trade with Mexico, said that even though it cannot do anything about it, it was going to intervene. They were going to make alliances with entities in the United States -- which they have not identified -- but that they were going to do it.

The question I have for the minister is: Could he tell me if he is prepared to make representations to the United States on the VRA, and more important, and I really want him to give me a definitive answer, at what level would he suggest that be?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member for Wilson Heights quite appropriately identifies the fact that I cannot alter the programs or the initiatives of the federal government. There are, of course, many times and many instances that I wish I could. There seems to stem from the opposition benches the fact that they bemoan any criticism or concerns or reality of the federal fact in these situations, and there are many circumstances there which we, as a province, cannot override.

It simply is not just the members of this government suggesting that; those in the House may have recently recognized comments from Doug Peters, who is with the Toronto Dominion Bank, who is our chief economist, who appeared before the finance committee of the House of Commons, who suggested that "the federal government's single-minded attack on inflation will cause high unemployment, more bankruptcies and a stubbornly high federal deficit over the next few years."

He was also joined by Mike McCracken, another well-known economist, who suggested that he agreed that inflation targets by John Crow which have been established to reduce inflation in 1995 by 2% would result in four to five more years of nonsense that we have had in the past decade. I would simply suggest that many of the problems that are facing the steel industry in Ontario, whether it be Algoma Steel or Stelco steel or whichever, emanate from policies enunciated and held by the governor of the Bank of Canada and supported by Michael Wilson, the federal Minister of Finance.

Mr Kwinter: It really is sad that we have a minister who supposedly has responsibility for the economic wellbeing of this province who does not even know what I am talking about. If the minister wants to talk about bafflegab, that response -- I asked him a specific question. I said, "What level of VRA would you recommend?" and he totally ignored that.

Mrs Sullivan: He does not know what it is.

Mr Kwinter: I know that, but Stelco last year lost $197 million; Algoma lost $104 million; Dofasco has had to write down $700 million worth of investment in Algoma. We have not seen their results yet, but it is going to be devastating. It cannot help but be that with the $700-million write-down.

We have one of the largest markets in the world to our south and all this minister has to do is get out of his office, go down, talk to the people. l have to say with some regret, and I say this and I am sure all members will join with me, that the leading spokesperson for the steel lobby, Senator John Heinz, was killed in an airplane crash last week, and that is too bad, because he is the man whom, had I been in the minister's position at this time, I would have called on the telephone and said: "We have a problem here. You guys are taking our market and you're not allowing us into your market."

I ask the minister one more time: What level of VRA does he think would be acceptable? I ask the minister not to give me any of this baloney and not to show me that he can read. I want to know whether he can think.

Hon Mr Pilkey: There are many responses, perhaps, to that, but perhaps I could answer quite simply. I believe that I, and this government, can think to a consequence that perhaps will not lead this party to a defeat in the next election. I hope we can, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, move forward in a variety of circumstances that will result in a more successful conclusion than many that have been left from the previous administration.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister said the search for a long-term disposal site for GTA garbage will not be conducted outside of the GTA borders. Her announcement would indicate that the Uthoff quarry in Orillia township will no longer be considered as a dumping ground for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. Will the minister now order Ontario Hydro to abandon plans to dump ash from its coal-fired generating stations at the Uthoff quarry?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am aware in a general sense of the proposal the member raises. I am not, I am afraid, at this point in a position to tell him whether an application has been made for an environmental assessment of that proposal or where it stands within the ministry, but I will be more than happy to find those details and get back to him.

Mr McLean: There are three sites being looked at -- Cayuga, Lincoln and Orillia -- for coal ash to be disposed of at those three sites. The question is: The minister has indicated that the GTA garbage will not be disposed of out of the Metro area. Is the coal ash from the Lakeview generating station classified as garbage, so the answer would be, no, it will not be disposed of? That is the question the community is asking. Can coal ash still come to Uthoff, yes or no? My people would hope the answer is no.

Hon Mrs Grier: The announcement I made with respect to the GTA was specifically directed at this point to municipal solid waste. The issue of coal ash, its designation and the kind of approval process required before a safe disposal site can be obtained for that is done in quite a different way and is a different exercise and a different proposal. I will look into the details and be specific with the member as to where it stands with respect to the Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act as soon as I can.

SEASONAL CAMPING TRAILERS

Mr Waters: As a follow-up to my question of 2 April to the Minister of Revenue regarding the Assessment Act and seasonal trailers, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A few days ago the Minister of Revenue pointed out that there were not going to be any changes to the Assessment Act which would affect the taxation of seasonal trailers. However, trailers that have been in the trailer park more than 90 days may be subjected to a permit fee, pending any changes to the Municipal Act. Is it the minister's intention to make changes to the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to apply for a permit fee for these trailers?

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the interest that the member has shown in this matter in discussing this matter with the Minister of Revenue as well as myself. It is obvious that the opposition does not care about this, but most of us have received hundreds of letters over the last number of months about this issue. I want to assure the member that it is not our intention to change any legislation. We intend to, in this area, maintain the status quo, so the member's people can be well assured.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister will know, just yesterday the TTC made a significant announcement, namely, that it would severely cut service and employment, which led one important newspaper in Toronto, the Toronto Sun -- do not laugh, please -- to write that this kind of reduction in service is playing Russian roulette with the city's future.

The minister has an important decision to make, whether to increase the funding that his government and his leader and he himself promised throughout their campaign. I will read the promise: "The New Democrats think the provincial share to the TTC should be increased substantially." Will the Minister of Transportation stand in the House today or make an announcement before 12 May that will be specific, a plan that will say to the TTC, "I, as minister, and the government are willing to increase funding so that no one is playing Russian roulette with the city's future"?

Hon Mr Philip: All of us who are concerned about public transportation, including myself, are concerned about the layoffs and the possible effects on ridership. The fact is that this year we have substantially increased our grants to the TTC. The operating grants this year are $108.8 million in subsidy, which is an increase of 8% over last year. That is a substantial increase and is higher than the rate of inflation.

While the Liberals talk about job creation, their deregulation policies in the trucking industry have laid off hundreds of jobs in the transportation industry. They have got some nerve to get up here and talk about jobs in transportation.

Mr Ruprecht: Let me provide the minister with some important statistics that he may or may not be aware of. He realizes, of course, that Wheel-Trans, which comes under the jurisdiction of the TTC, has been rumoured to be going to have a reduction in service there as well, to the point where some disabled persons will not be able to go the doctor or shopping or go to important events. Last year over 8,000 calls which were made to Wheel-Trans were turned down. This month, I remind the House, there will be over 10,000 calls to Wheel-Trans which will not be answered, a reduction in service.

What I want to know is, when the minister says, "We're going to increase," when the minister says, "Oh well, we're going to keep our promise," is he ready to stand today and to tell this House that yes, he will promise that no disabled person is going to be left stranded on the sidewalks of Toronto? Is he going to make the commitment that no disabled person will be left stranded to the point where he cannot go to work, to the hospitals or to shops?

Hon Mr Philip: I have met with the disabled groups, I have met with the TTC, I have met with the representatives of the union which works with the disabled transportation and I can tell the member that we are committed to providing transportation for the disabled not just in Metropolitan Toronto but across the province. I will be making a major announcement in the near future.

I can tell him also, as the member for St Catharines knows, that the Pelee Island ferry, which the Liberal Transportation critic wanted to be built in the United States, will be accessible to the disabled as well.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I understand that Boeing has now sold its Canadian de Havilland branch to a European interest. What are the minister and his government doing to ensure that jobs are safe and the research and development which has been undertaken by de Havilland will remain in Ontario and in Canada?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We are, of course, quite interested in having de Havilland remain as a fully integrated company, complete with research and development facilities, here in our Ontario. The agreement has been inked today, apparently, between Boeing, de Havilland and the Aeritalia-Aerospatiale consortium.

I have contacted Benoît Bouchard's office this morning to ask for a meeting with him immediately, so that we might go over the details of this offer. We have also invited the consortium to present itself at a meeting in front of the task force, which is chaired by Tim Armstrong, the deputy minister in my ministry, to review this particular circumstance. I can assure the member of our continuing interest to try to find a solution to the circumstances that will not allow a tremendous amount of unemployment at de Havilland, and will maintain a viable company to help assure the suppliers that produce product to de Havilland.

This item, of course, will go to Investment Canada, where it properly belongs. My ministry and myself will have that circumstance to be allowed to comment and I can assure the member we will do so in the interest of Ontario workers.

Mr Sterling: While this sale has evidently been finalized today, it has been known for some period of time that Boeing was interested in selling its interest in de Havilland. The minister has been in charge of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology for the past seven months and his government has been there for a period of time.

Can he tell me, in view of the fact that there was widespread public opinion that our aircraft industry was having a difficult time being competitive in producing aircraft and undertaking research and development in our country and in our province, what steps had he taken prior to the signing of this agreement to encourage the competitiveness of our aircraft industry in Ontario? What positive steps has he taken over the past seven months to ensure that those jobs will stay there now that the ink has been signed on the dotted line?

What steps has he taken to make certain that the research and development will remain here? I want to know what he has already done, besides contacting Benoît Bouchard today. What has he done in the last six or seven months?

Hon Mr Pilkey: This industry is not owned by the government of Ontario. We have a circumstance where we have a privately owned company, Boeing, which took over de Havilland some years ago. I understand that the productivity of that particular plant has in fact been increasing. Boeing took a decision as a private company to sell that enterprise. As they cast around the world for a purchaser, they came up with Aerospatiale and Aeritalia.

On hearing of the concern as to what this consortium may wish to do to de Havilland in terms of reduced employment levels and shifting supplier bases, we involved ourselves, on a voluntary basis in trying to protect Ontario jobs and Ontario interests. We have continued to do that by way of our task force and through the federal government and any other way we can to ensure our interests. We will continue to do that. We will be made aware of the details of this filing with Investment Canada within the very near future and will try to involve ourselves, as I said before, in Ontario's interests.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Miss Martel moved resolution 16:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, in relation to Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986, one sessional day shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in the committee of the whole House following the passage of this motion. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House shall be deferred until following 5:45 pm on this sessional day.

At 5:45 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment. No deferral of any required divisions shall be permitted.

That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

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

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention that this time allocation motion, much to the surprise of those of us who have heard the NDP talk about these matters in the past, has been put forward with the minimum of notice possible under the rules.

There was a time, Mr Speaker, which you may recall, when it was necessary for such an indication and notice to be in the Orders and Notices so that it could be read by the members of the House a full day before the government of the day brought forward the motion, which is a very sensitive and important one, one of particular importance in the democratic process, so that the members could review it before the matter came forward for debate.

Under our rules presently, sir, you will know and will have been informed, as I have been, that it is appropriate for such a notice to be laid upon the table before 5 pm the day previous. It disappears into the maw of the Clerkship and into the printing process and appears on the members' desks when an appropriate time is found, so that the members coming to the House see it on the order paper for the very first time.

Hon Mr Hampton: Who instigated these rules?

Mr Nixon: I gather the member's party did.

It might have been appropriate if the House leader had indicated to the other two parties what her intention was. Maybe she was just informed that was her intention a few minutes before 5 and simply went on about her business.

But I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that although I cannot bring to your attention that this is improper and inappropriate under our rules as they are and as they have been changed since you and I first had these matters brought to our attention, still it seems to me that in the interests of fairness, it would be appropriate if the government allowed the notice to be on the order paper one day so that members of all parties, but particularly the opposition parties, could look at it and get over their surprise that the NDP is resorting to time allocation and closure, something that they have deeply criticized both in this jurisdiction and elsewhere across Canada as something that was inappropriate and undemocratic.

Then if the government, in its lack of wisdom, decided to proceed, at least the opposition parties would have had a chance to digest the complexity of this motion, look at the precedents and be prepared to undertake an appropriate discussion as will eventually ensue.

My real argument, sir, is that in looking after the basic rights of the members of this House and recognizing what I have already said about the rules -- I hope you agree with that -- this surely should be postponed at least another 24 hours for simply the decency of giving the honourable members of this House an indication to prepare for an important discussion that is based on this really surprising initiative taken by the New Democrats.

The Speaker: Do any other members wish to comment on the point of order?

Mr Elston: I do. Surely one of the points that has to be considered, along with that of surprise which has ultimately come to afflict all of us, in the fact that it has prevented us from properly preparing for the debate which is being requested for today, is the element about the abuse that is being heaped upon the minority within this Legislative Assembly.

It is an argument which is often and most fully advanced, I guess, by opposition parties in a House which is dominated by the governing party's majority.

In this situation it is quite clear that there has been very little time spent in this Legislative Assembly, in committee of the whole House, dealing with Bill 4, and in fact there was some difficulty in dealing with this issue even in committee, bearing in mind the material which was provided ably by the member for Dufferin-Peel and his question today to the leader of the New Democrats, the Premier, who ducked the question, who refused to answer on behalf of the government why it was that he was prepared to trample upon the rights of the members to express their concern, their apprehensions about the bill.

In some ways, it also prevents them from telling the public about some of the parts of the bill which they find acceptable. There are parts in here which are not to be condemned, but there are things that can be improved upon in a way and a manner the public appreciates and expects the members to appreciate, in a way that would make this bill more workable and a better piece of legislation for the province as a whole.

We do have a role and a task here of putting the case to the contrary point where we see that there are problems with abuse, where there are problems with a taking away of the rights and the abilities of citizens of the province in a manner which must be demonstrated is open and available to the members when they see it occurring. We have to be able to put those points and we have to be able to do it on each

section of the bill as it is being observed.

I do not want to interrupt your discussions with the Clerk, Mr Speaker. I am prepared to wait until you are finished. Can I --

The Speaker: Yes. I was listening.

Mr Elston: I am sorry, I did not think you were. You were in consultation with the Clerk and I --

Interjection.

Mr Elston: Okay. This particular matter, Mr Speaker, is fully within your hands at this very moment. The point of order is with respect to the manner in which the members can prosecute their duties and obligations to their constituents, and indeed prosecute even a bigger duty, which is to the public of the province as a whole. There are certain things a member must stand in his or her place to deal with which transcend the duties that are dependent only upon his physical constituency.

There are certain ways of doing business in this province which must be protected, there are certain ways in which the culture of this democratic society of ours must be upheld by the members, and when we see it necessary to speak out against it, we must fully speak out against it.

We are surprised that this event is occurring today. It could have been that while the Clerk's table accepted this motion, this resolution, from the House leader of the government party last night, the government House leader might very well have given us notice at the same time.

It would have been no very big problem logistically to send a note to the leader of the third party or the leader of the official opposition or the House leader from the third party or the House leader from the official opposition to say, "Today, so that you will not be surprised and not be prevented from preparing your arguments with respect to the motion, we have laid on the table a resolution which will implement a process" described as the guillotine.

The guillotine is the most ruthless measure available to a majority government in this Parliament. It is the most final of all options available. It is the most unacceptable to the democratic process which we represent.

I agree that there are times when governments must proceed to do business. There is no question that they cannot be held up and hijacked by the minority. That business must be prosecuted goes without saying. I myself was in a position where many days were spent listening to the reading of telephone numbers by the member for Welland-Thorold. That member, now having departed from his cabinet post, I am sure will want to read some more telephone numbers when we deal with the government's version of its new insurance legislation. That will come another day.

But for today, it is enough for you to know, Mr Speaker, that while the Clerk received notice and while you received notice and while the government House leader had notice and her minister had notice and her Premier knew and the people who are members of the majority party knew, and perhaps even the independent member, although I suspect not, knew that this guillotine would be dropped upon the heads of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we did not know and we could not prepare adequately enough to defend ourselves and also to defend the rights of the people, who expect good representation in this Parliament.

If we are unable to prepare ourselves with precedent, with searching after the answers we seek as to why these people are able to proceed with this, then our debate will have been prevented from having been fully prosecuted.

I do not like that. But it does not matter whether I like it. It matters, Mr Speaker, that you, dealing evenhandedly, are able to stand in your place and say that there has been a fairness demonstrated in the way in which this debate has taken place to this point.

First of all, there was surprise, an attack in the night, as it were, a surprise for the morning. I must say that Mr Dee, who is a member of the House leader's staff, provided me with a copy of this at his first opportunity, which I think was about 10 minutes after 9 this morning, which was sooner than I would have gotten it otherwise, because it would have come to my office only by notice on Orders and Notices, I think around 10:30. He made the trip to my office at that earlier hour, but even that meant we were precluded from starting our search for precedent and other things which we could have worked at last evening and early this morning.

While it is important for you to know about the surprise element, it is important for you also to rule, Mr Speaker, about whether it is in order to jeopardize the rights of the minority.

This has not been here that long. This committee of the whole House discussion has not been going on very long.

An hon member: Three days.

Mr Elston: Three days.

Hon Miss Martel: Four.

Mr Elston: Well, the House leader from the government says four days. Four days, and there are important issues at stake for this society. The issue of expropriation is a matter on which some people would express their concerns about this particular bill. Is it fair, is it just that the views of the minority in this Parliament with respect to that important issue are held and prevented from being made openly in front of the people of the province?

My answer, of course, is no, that it is not fair in a society that sets up very, very long hearing processes to deal with expropriation of people's rights in other forums. It goes without saying, then, that this sort of bill presents itself as an interesting divergence from what has been traditionally the practice in the province of Ontario. To underscore that, it is necessary that we have our time on those clauses which point to an expropriation of people's rights. That is clear.

The issue of retroactivity is important for a lot of us who deal in the law and who deal in the law in so many other areas. We have always sought not to pass legislation in this House which had a retroactive effect. This one has such effect.

Sometimes we are pleased enough to introduce legislation that would say it comes into effect on the day it is first introduced; ie, if I introduced a bill for first reading on 1 October 1990, I might very well say, "This bill will come into force and effect as of 1 October." We do not see that as necessarily as difficult to deal with, because everybody has notice of the regime that is about to take place and we discuss the bill in the fullness of time and it will take effect on 1 October unless there is an amendment.

But when you deal with legislation that says, "We're introducing it today to take effect six months before," and people's affairs have been arranged in such a manner as to deal with the current legislative scheme and to comply with the rigid necessities of the legal framework of our land, then we say that creates a problem.

So it is necessary that the minority in this Parliament that stands with respect to the retroactivity of this legislation be allowed to take its place and speak openly against those clauses and to provide some kind of alternative to those clauses, because we respect the tradition of our society in that regard.

Those are two items.

We might want to also talk about the issues which affect agreements as between tenants and landlords, where people have come together to say, "This should happen with the building that we are associated with." This bill, of course, goes against those contractual agreements as well, because there is a very solid and firm set of principles set. This violates the principle of contract. Tradition in the province of Ontario has been a respect for contracts, and the minority should be able to speak to those clauses that prevent the fullness of contractual arrangements from being dealt with. It is an abuse of the rights of the members here not even to get to those clauses to express that concern.

I see you getting uneasy, Mr Speaker. You perhaps feel that I am going on too long in underscoring the problems which are associated with the traditions --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, it is not the length of time, but I would remind the member that the point of order which was raised was with respect to the notice provision of the time allocation. I very much would appreciate contributions by members to assist the Speaker in reaching a determination about whether this motion should go forward, and I would appreciate you addressing that subject.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I was just outlining some of the areas in which the minority in this Parliament wish to put their case, because we are charged with the obligation to deal with the changes this bill puts on our social and cultural context in this province. I was just going through those three very simple examples, very outstanding examples, of where we and our rights are being trampled upon by the government that refuses to let us talk to those. That was how I was dealing with the entire issue.

I will revisit my remarks, as I am sure you will when you consider this, but I really want to assure you, Mr Speaker, that there is real and legitimate work to be done on this legislation, and it must not be curtailed to the point where we have but one more day in committee of the whole House to study all of those clauses and one more day to deal with it on third reading, when there is an impossibility of receiving the answers that are required from the Minister of Housing and from his able assistant.

I agree with the Minister of Housing. I watched his parliamentary assistant yesterday performing here in the House and I noticed a desire on her part to do some real work on this bill and in fact to help process some changes into this legislation in a manner that would make it more fair. I have read some of her remarks; I listened to some of her remarks.

But surely if we are unable to put the case to the parliamentary assistant, knowing full well the Minister of Housing is not interested in listening, knowing full well that we are unable to put the case, how is it that she is able to react to our intentions to make this bill work better, to make it work more fairly, and how are our rights and obligations to be protected?

When we get into this debate a little more fully and the substantive issues surrounding the merits of this motion, I will tell you, Mr Speaker, about the number of days and hours and minutes which passed in other legislative crusades, and I will let you be the judge later on, and the public, about how quickly this government has moved to curtail the free voice of the minority in this Parliament.

That will come later, but it is enough for you now, I think, to deal with the issue of surprise and the issue of notice, which allows for preparation -- that is key -- and then also to deal with the issue of whether or not the people who are members of my caucus and the people who are members of the third party caucus have been able and amply able to put their points of view on the various clauses -- not just one clause or two clauses -- and whether or not this guillotine motion, which is the most severe in our Parliament, can be used at this time.

If perhaps you think we should move much more quickly, maybe you would agree that there are other options open. That is not what this government is about. It is their way or the doorway, obviously. I think that you, as a fair-minded individual, Mr Speaker, I know once a member of that caucus but now removed from the despoiling effects of continual chatter around a caucus table, will know much better about fairness and about the need to protect the rights of myself to put the case, just as you need to protect the rights of the others on this side.

I know that there are a couple or three people over on the other side of the House who, if they had a chance, would be willing enough to speak but who know what happens to people in the New Democratic Party if they speak out of turn and out of tune.

Mr Stockwell: What about Dr Henderson?

Mr Elston: The member for Etobicoke-Humber spoke his will with respect to our legislation and is still with us and is very active and participates fully in our caucus. The member for Etobicoke West knows that. The member for Etobicoke West is of course showing the difference between the Liberal Party and the New Democrats. The member for Etobicoke-Humber is still with us in his capacity, and became a parliamentary assistant. The member for Welland-Thorold was on his way out the door when he spoke out of tune.

I just wanted to bring that to the attention of my friend from Etobicoke, who is an extremely able and otherwise intelligent individual but who sometimes forgets from whence the real facts have arisen.

I think, Mr Speaker, I will stop there, because I may have been about as much help as I can be to you, although we will see by the results of my remarks whether or not I have provided enough assistance. I am certainly open to any other requests from yourself or any other member of the House to provide my views on how fair or unfair this is. I just ask you, let us have some time to fairly prepare our case.

Mr Sterling: I do not want to be long in terms of supporting the point of order in terms of dealing with the notice of motion, but perhaps it points to a weakness in the standing orders in terms of what happens after the notice is given to the Clerk or filed with the Clerk. Is the first time we see it as members of the Legislature the next day, when something comes across our desks, or we receive a phone call from a House leader, or whatever it might be? I think it has to be taken somewhat seriously in that view.

The actual

section says, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day." I think this probably leaves the table in a bit of a predicament. When they have received this at 5 pm the day before, they do not know whether they are obligated or whether it is within their mandate to go to the opposition benches and say, "This has been or not done." I would suggest, in spite of the ruling you might make, that perhaps the Speaker be required under this

section to give notice if the House is sitting on that particular day, or that the Speaker give notice to the other -- well, we would have to be sitting that day if in fact it was going to be done the next day. I think the Speaker should give notice to perhaps the House leaders that it has been filed with him, if he or she is for some reason unable to give notice within the Legislature by 6 pm that evening that this has been filed.

I want to indicate that my colleague the member for Parry Sound also has a point of order, unrelated to the one brought forward by the opposition, with regard to whether or not this motion is in order, and he would like to speak to that after you have disposed of this matter.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The point of order presented this morning certainly did take me by surprise. Open government -- empty words; guillotine -- it is not a very good fit, and that is what went through my head. I take this motion as being arrogant. It is a sad commentary on what I know and many know as a bad bill. It is an abuse of majority government. We are limiting debate on a bill that is not fair. It is retroactive. It has had incomplete public hearings. More people have been turned away from expressing a viewpoint on this bill than were received, and in every instance this bill is controversial.

It has been the focus of two major marches to this Legislature, the only bill that has received that kind of attention in this province, so we are shooting down debate from the floor of this Legislature, while we are still listening to and discussing the very first amendment presented by my party. I feel this is an infringement of my rights as a member of this Legislature. The NDP government is acting exactly like the Mulroney government, "It is either our way or the byway."

The Speaker: Any other members who wish to be of assistance on this matter? No? Did the government House leader wish to contribute anything to this?

Hon Miss Martel: I would like to speak last on behalf of the government, and I am not sure if the --

The Speaker: No other members have offered to speak.

Mr Eves: I have a different one.

Hon Miss Martel: A different matter? Then I will make a number of points with respect to the comments I have heard thus far, and members can use these in their deliberations.

The member for Brant-Haldimand has said that the real argument here is the question that surely this matter should be postponed, because in fact the opposition members did not have a chance to see this until this morning and it came as an utter surprise to them.

Let me respond in as frank a manner as I can. That is really hard to believe. The fact of the matter is that last Thursday I made it very clear to the House leaders that I would like to know when we could finish with this matter. I felt, and I said very clearly to both parties, that a great deal of time had been spent, that it was my opinion as government that we had had the fullest debate we were going to have and when they thought they were going to finish.

It was clearly told to me that the government would have to do what the government had to do. That was a pretty clear signal to me, and I think everyone around the table understood what that meant. What it meant very clearly was that the issue would be forced and we would have to bring in a time allocation motion.

I know, for example, that the Liberals sat here on Thursday night because they expected I might even get up and move that we sit beyond 6 o'clock, as was done to my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold some time ago. So there is no doubt in my mind that people were very much aware this was coming. I have the greatest faith that Liberal research, in very short order, could gather enough information to come into this Legislature and place its points with respect to points of order.

I see that the member for Parry Sound came into this assembly this afternoon and had comments from the former House leader for our party, who is now the Minister of Housing. His research staff certainly had enough time to take a look at the motion and respond to it. He came here today and used comments we had made in order to place his question.

Second, I think if we were really going to be frank -- and I am trying to be as frank as possible -- it is a little hard for me to accept that this was a total surprise and that we have never seen anything like it. If the truth were told, we copied the Liberal motions for time allocation and that is what we have presented here. So this is nothing new to the opposition parties. This is nothing we have not seen before. This is something that members are certainly very much aware of and knew was coming.

I find it hard seriously to stand here and accept that either they did not have enough time, did not know it was coming, or the research staff were not competent enough to get something together in four hours this morning, which I am sure they are. So I cannot understand this.

Mr Speaker, I have to say to you that in my humble opinion, we did meet the standing orders. We have provided the notice of motion within the time allotted under the rules of this House, and we were in fact in under that deadline. There was no doubt in my mind that everyone knew this was coming. It was made very clear to people last Thursday; they had the utmost time to prepare, and I again point to the member for Parry Sound who did have time to prepare on this particular motion.

I want to say that in fact we are not making any progress on this particular matter. The member for Bruce stated that yesterday the parliamentary assistant for the minister was very progressive and progress was made on this bill yesterday afternoon. The parliamentary assistant has said clearly to me, "We didn't even get through an amendment yesterday afternoon," and that was day four of this debate.

So I say to you, Mr Speaker, that we put the notice in under the deadline with respect to the standing orders. People were very much aware this was coming. I have no doubt the research departments on both sides could have put something together. They could only have gone back, as we did, and looked at the three other debates we had in the last Parliament and got their arguments from there.

Mr Speaker, I submit to you that we should proceed with this motion. It is in order and we would like to get going on it.

Mr Mancini: We are not very happy with what the government is trying to do. This matter was referred to the standing committee on general government late last fall. We were told at the standing committee to make up a

schedule for hearings. As Chairman, I presented a

schedule to the committee for approval which was approved at the time and then changed. Then the government's green paper got involved with Bill 4 and needless to say, the time we thought we were going to get in committee we did not get because we were given two jobs to do instead of one. We co-operated with the minister and with the House leader's office, because they said their green paper was of vital importance.

The reason I am making this point, Mr Speaker, is to show you that we did not get all of the time we thought we were going to get in committee. This is a major piece of legislation that deals with the issue of retroactivity. Retroactivity from Bill 4 is going to bankrupt thousands of people who undertook repairs to their buildings when it was legal to do so.

Today we have a situation here in the House where we were not only denied the opportunity to hear everyone who wanted to be heard in committee, but now we are denying the members themselves the right to be heard in the Legislature. Mr Speaker, my case to you is that we have consistently been cut back on our time for this important legislation, not only here in the House but in the committee, so there is a pattern that has developed around Bill 4.

All we want from the government is an opportunity to properly debate a bill which is affecting thousands of Ontario citizens, many of them adversely. What the government is trying to do is unfair. It goes directly against everything it said prior to 6 September last.

We heard quotes today from the honourable minister when he was the House leader of the official opposition and how he felt about closure, and I submit to you, Mr Speaker, because we did not get our time in committee, because we are not getting our time now, that the motion the government has put forward is in fact an injustice and goes against the opportunity of all members of the Legislature, particularly the members of the opposition who have a great deal to say and who have a great responsibility to bring the other point of view to the government.

The Speaker: The matter before the House is a substantive one and I take quite seriously the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The very reasoned argument that was presented is one that causes me some concern. I appreciated the contribution by the member for Bruce and of course the member for Carleton, as well as the government House leader. I will take this matter under advisement. I will report back to you tomorrow.

Mr Eves: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I have another point of order to make on the same government notice of motion. My point of order is based on the fact that I would ask you to look into whether the government notice of motion infringes upon the rights of the minority in the Legislature. I would refer you to page 1 of Erskine May, which is always a good place to start.

Mr Nixon: Page 1?

Mr Eves: Page