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

October 1, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VILLAGE OF EGANVILLE

Mr Conway: I would like to rise today and pay tribute to the residents of an historic community in my constituency, namely, the village of Eganville, which this year is celebrating the centennial of its municipal incorporation in 1891.

In a very personal way, I want to pay tribute to the community for the organization of its centennial efforts over the past number of months, but most especially for its efforts in the course of the summer, during which time it hosted a spectacular series of centennial events, culminating in a marvellous ecumenical service and parade on the Sunday of the long weekend in August.

In a very personal way, I want to pay tribute as well to Mr Gerald Tracey of Eganville, who was the chair of the centennial committee. That committee worked incredibly diligently over the course of three years. In addition to their efforts previously referred to, they constructed a spectacular waterfront park in the heart of the village of Eganville along the shores of the beautiful Bonnechere River, as well as producing a history book highlighting the history of this very famous community in my part of eastern Ontario.

I have a special word of congratulations to Mr Tracey and his colleagues at the Eganville Leader, who published a 225-page centennial supplement to their July 24, 1991, edition.

As the local member, I want to pay particular tribute to the marvellous history of that community and to the almost incredible volunteerism that made this centennial celebration the spectacular success it so evidently was.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Turnbull: Last night I was one of 400 people who attended a fund-raiser for the continued fight against the government's decision to axe the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Of the six NDP MPPs invited to attend this event, none had the courage to face the people. The Conservative Party is the only party in this House that has consistently supported the construction of the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

There can be no argument about the tremendous economic and social benefits this highway would bring to the region of Hamilton, and $70 million has already been spent on this project and is now just wasted money.

The party that always billed itself as one in favour of consultation cut off this important project without consultation or good reason. The government has broken its fundamental promise to listen to the people and be fair in its action. As one speaker, a steelworker, said last night, "The NDP has been in opposition so long they are now in opposition to the people." The very competence and moral fibre of the NDP is questioned by its actions in this matter.

What I saw last night was an incredible amount of citizen anger and energy focused on the task of trying to have this government listen to reason and right. Governments have an obligation to make decisions that are seen to serve the best interests of its citizens. This ruling fails that test. I urge the new Minister of Transportation to review his government's anti-expressway stand.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr Martin: Today I would like to congratulate all those individuals across Ontario, and particularly in Sault Ste Marie, who are devoting their time and energy to the United Way fund campaign. During these difficult times, particularly in my own riding, we must support and encourage the efforts of the United Way volunteers. This fund drive is a 99% volunteer effort. What we must remember is that without a strong volunteer network, human care needs would not be sufficiently met.

In Sault Ste Marie, we are facing a difficult winter. The demand is great and the challenge for the United Way volunteers is even greater. I encourage all those who are presently employed to recognize these fundamental needs and come out and join these volunteers. I urge you to contribute to this vital cause in our community and across the province.

Our theme this year at the United Way in Sault Ste Marie is appropriate in light of our present situation. This theme is, "Let's Pull Together." I am personally asking that we, as a caring community, support our local United Way fund campaign. Let's truly pull together.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Sullivan: New Democrats whom I have met and others who are members of the party must be reeling in dismay at the environmental record of this government, because it is truly one to be ashamed of. There is no sense of what the Minister of the Environment's rules are or what they will become, since the minister puts forward inconsistent and disconnected rhetoric in virtually every area.

Her statement on the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is a perfect example. It is a vague reiteration of environmentalist lingo, and while it was being put together fully one year was lost in dealing with toxic discharges into our waterways.

If a total loading reduction approach is to be taken, where are the minister's interim load reduction targets? Where are her time lines? If elimination in the manufacture, use, generation and release of toxic substances is to engendered, where is her list of toxics that must be phased out of industrial use? What reporting mechanism is to be utilized? What kind of centralized data bank will be required, and what information will be made public?

There is a need for a systematic, coherent process involving government, industry, municipalities and the public, a process that specifies the timetables and the legal mechanisms for bans and phase-outs and analyses the volumes of toxic chemical use, the availability of alternatives and the process changes required.

None of these are on the table and there is no indication of when they will be. We have waited for a year while we have simply heard rhetoric.

Time lost is air and water polluted, and that is this government's record: adding to the environmental problems and not solving them.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Jordan: I rise today to bring to the attention of the Minister of the Environment yet another injustice that is being done to eastern Ontario. Seven municipalities -- Smiths Falls, Carleton Place, Pakenham, Prescott and the townships of Beckwith, South Elmsley and Kitley -- are being dealt a raw deal over garbage.

The municipalities, because of new regulations set by the Minister of the Environment, are facing a $20-per-tonne increase for continued garbage disposal at the Carp landfill site. At $90 per tonne, the municipalities are already paying a $44 premium above the regional rate of $46. The $20 will be added to the $90 rate.

To a town like Smiths Falls, the January 1 increase would result in an $80,000-a-year expense and force additional taxes on residents who are already paying over $600,000 in unsubsidized dollars on waste disposal.

The Ministry of the Environment is forcing the municipalities to dispose of their waste in Carp, but is driving costs out of control. Constantly changing rules set by the ministry has made locating a waste disposal site a nightmare over the past 20 years in Lanark-Renfrew. The responsibility lies with the minister.

KOREAN HERITAGE DAY

Ms M. Ward: Today I would like to pay tribute to all Ontarians of Korean descent.

Five years ago, the Ontario government proclaimed October 4 as Korean Heritage Day. On this Saturday, October 5, the Korean Canadian Cultural Association of Metropolitan Toronto will be celebrating Korean Heritage Day at its community centre at 20 Mobile Drive, which is located in my riding of Don Mills.

Korean Canadians are one of the smaller ethnocultural groups within Canada in terms of population size, but they have made significant contributions to our economic, social and cultural life. Many of them are active members in the professional and retail business sectors of our economy. I know the members of this House who are from Metropolitan Toronto can look around their ridings and find Korean Canadians operating successful businesses in their communities.

The Korean heritage is rich in folk traditions. They have brought us their music, dance, cuisine and crafts. This week is a fitting time for us all to applaud Korean Canadians for their successful integration into Canadian society while preserving their cultural heritage. Let us wish them a joyful celebration on Korean Heritage Day.

OPP CUTBACKS

Mr Bradley: I had the opportunity last Saturday to be in downtown St Catharines on the main street, St Paul Street, as the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival parade was going by. It was indeed a beautiful parade. We had the lovely floats it has become famous for. We had the smartly marching bands which come each year. We had everyone who was part of the parade, but something was missing: It was the hum of motorcycles I could not hear and the pipes and drums I could not hear.

The Golden Helmets of the Ontario Provincial Police added so much to that parade over the years. So many people commented on its wonderful part of Ontario tradition. Then I listened for the OPP Pipes and Drums. They too were absent from the parade, as they are absent across Ontario now because this government has decided to destroy this vestige of history and heritage in this province. Indeed, the last time they performed was in Perth when the Premier was present. The St Catharines Senior A fastball team members told me how much they enjoyed the Golden Helmets at that time.

With Prince Charles and Lady Diana coming to Ontario, how appropriate it would be to return the Golden Helmets and the Pipes and Drums to our province.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the London Board of Education for stating its long-range plans to update and expand technological education in London schools.

Trustees approved a comprehensive plan to extend education and technology from grade 1 to grade 12. The plan is comprehensive and considers the age and ability of the students. For example, in grades 1 to 6 eventually every classroom will have a technology corner where tools and materials will be available for projects, much like most junior classrooms now have a reading corner. The same kind of idea, an extension of opportunities to young people in technological studies, will extend to grades 7 and 8 and again the curriculum in grades 10 to 12.

In their deliberations they underlined the fact that mandatory grade 9 technical studies courses are not an option for this government but something the government should move towards quickly. Co-operative education programs have been expanded. This board has been a leader in this province in working with the business community and industry and the unions.

I urge the Minister of Education not only to take a look at what is happening in schools in the London board and around the province in technological studies but to work very carefully with the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who is also Minister of Skills Development, in making a comprehensive program realistic to all young people across Ontario.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Ms Carter: I want to draw the attention of the House to the consequences to Peterborough of free trade, the high dollar and related federal government policies.

Local trade unionists realized years ago that jobs would leave if tariffs were removed. Outboard Marine, Raybestos, Nashua, Alfa Laval, Purity Packaging, Johnson and Johnson and many others have pulled out. General Electric has downsized. Two more firms have gone in the last couple of weeks, Kendall and A-L Stainless. Within the city, nearly 16% of all children are on social assistance. The real unemployment level is also 16%.

I want to thank all the groups in Peterborough, such as the Peterborough Social Planning Council and the many agencies and volunteers, beginning with the United Way, which are fighting these trends and assure them the government at Queen's Park is working with them. We established a wage protection fund. We are improving retraining programs and social services. We will protect the rights of workers and do all we can to create good new jobs.

There are some exciting new growth points in the Peterborough economy. A locally based firm is making energy-efficient light fittings and another is developing high-tech metering equipment. Our GE factory may take on a new lease of life with energy-efficient technology. All these developments will not only provide jobs but also help in the urgent task of protecting our environment. We will work together for a better future.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish to take this opportunity to advise the members of the Legislature about the progress of the environmental bill of rights and the next stage in its development.

My commitment to this bill has long been a matter of record in the Legislature. Our goal is simple but of profound importance: to give the citizens of Ontario the right to act to protect the environment.

I am pleased to advise the Legislature today that I have now established the minister's Task Force on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. This task force is made up of representatives from business, environmental groups and government. The members will draw upon their expertise and experience to design a draft bill.

The task force is co-chaired by my deputy minister, Gary Posen, and Michael Cochrane, a senior counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General. Members of the task force are Bob Anderson from the Business Council on National Issues, George Howse from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Rick Lindgren from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, John McNamara from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Sally Marin from the Ministry of the Environment, Paul Muldoon from Pollution Probe and Andrew Roman of the law firm Miller, Thomson.

Co-chair Michael Cochrane will also meet directly with groups that have a special interest in the proposed bill, such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Canadian Bar Association.

I believe this is a balanced and thorough way to proceed in the development of this bill. Because the bill is closely related to many other pieces of provincial legislation, it requires a detailed and careful drafting of its provisions and a complete understanding of its implications.

Everyone on this task force has agreed to work within the framework of some principles which I have indicated are fundamental to this bill. These include the public's right to a healthy environment; the enforcement of this right through improved access to the courts and/or tribunals, including the enhanced right to sue polluters; increased public participation in environmental decision-making by government; increased government responsibility and accountability for the environment, and greater protection for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers.

Our earlier consultations, which were with the public, an interministerial committee and an advisory committee of 26 organizations, concentrated on a broad discussion of principles. This task force will focus on the specific provisions of a draft bill. When the draft bill has been completed, there will be a further opportunity for public review.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the task force and the members of the Legislature, whom I welcome in joining me in delivering this important reform to the citizens of Ontario. Representatives of this task force are in the gallery today. I would like them to stand so that they can be recognized for the hard work I know they are going to do.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Hon Mr Laughren: I am about to make an announcement on agricultural assistance. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is not here right now, but he will be here later on in question period to answer any questions, just on the outside chance that members have any questions of him.

At the start of this session of the House, the Premier outlined the challenges that lay ahead for the government in the economic renewal of this province. In his statement, the Premier noted that rural communities in Ontario are in difficulty due to the collapse in farm incomes. He renewed this government's commitment to work with farmers towards the renewal of the rural economy. Agriculture is and remains a key sector in the province's economic renewal strategy. We have always maintained that a strong provincial economy depends on a healthy agricultural and rural economy.

Everyone is well aware of the serious financial difficulties Ontario farmers are facing. Low commodity prices, low yields, high grain supplies, a severe drought in parts of the province, the effects of free trade and gaps in govern-ment support programs have all combined to create this financial hardship. It is a hardship that affects many producers. The fruit growers have had cheap fruit dumped in Canada. Grains and oilseeds producers have suffered low prices because of international trade subsidies driving down world prices.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has toured the province this summer, about 25 counties and districts in total. He has seen the severity of the drought and has listened to the financial plight of farmers and their families. His parliamentary assistants have also met with many farmers and farm groups and have discussed their findings. Our colleagues in the rural caucus have regularly shared the concerns and needs of their constituents with the minister.

In response to these consultations and in keeping with our commitment to renewing and revitalizing the agricultural and rural communities of Ontario, we are pleased to announce today that the Premier and cabinet have approved the emergency assistance package for Ontario farmers for 1991. The program will consist of the following components.

First, there will be additional funding to our existing 1991 farm interest assistance program. Earlier this year we announced a $50-million farm interest assistance program to offset interest costs to Ontario farmers. The program was well subscribed and funds fully committed. Consequently, we are adding another $11 million to benefit all applicants to the program.

Second will be a payment to grains and oilseeds producers, as originally requested by the commodity council, equal to their premiums in our provincial farm income stabilization program for these crops. This premium exemption will provide $15 million to participating grains and oilseeds producers.

Third is a payment to producers of edible horticultural crops equal to 1% of net sales as calculated under the net income stabilization account for the 1990 tax year. This 1% payment amounts to $5 million for producers of edible horticultural products.

Fourth, we will negotiate with the federal government to include apples, honey, onions and fur as eligible commodities under the net income stabilization account program. The province will contribute 1% of eligible net sales for these crops for the 1990 tax year, which amounts to $1 million.

Fifth, we will provide $3.5 million to farmers and farm families experiencing financial stress from market prices or drought. Details of this component will be determined after consultation with farm groups.

Together, these components of the assistance package amount to $35.5 million in assistance to alleviate the difficulties faced by our farming communities.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has spoken to the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr McKnight, about this package. We have emphasized that our province has been singularly hard hit by the current recession. Yet despite our declining revenues and difficult fiscal situation, we have drawn on our resources once again to aid our farmers. We call on the federal government to live up to its commitment to provide financial assistance to Ontario farmers in these extraordinary times.

We recognize that money is not the solution to all the problems pressing on our farms and farming communities. We know that this money alone is not enough, but for the present it is what we can offer in times of very tight provincial budgets. We remain confident that this new injection of funding, coupled with the cash flow which will result from the interim gross revenue insurance plan payment, will help bridge financially troubled farmers until next year when long-term programs take effect.

We wish to acknowledge the efforts of farm organizations, local farm groups and the rural caucus in bringing to the attention of the public the need to direct new money towards agriculture in Ontario, even in these times of limited resources.

Although this package is designed to alleviate short-term difficulties, we will continue to have discussions with our farm and rural community leaders to develop long-term options for the economic restructuring and renewal of the agricultural sector of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The normally quiet member for Quinte is blocking his good colleague.

RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr McClelland: No doubt the member is excited, and as a former Minister of the Environment, he well ought to be.

A year ago, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore was sworn in as minister. She made a commitment as she travelled this province throughout the campaign. Among those promises she made, the very cornerstone of her environmental policy was the introduction of the bill of rights.

A year later, she is advising the House today that she is putting together a ministerial committee. I wish it well. She has great people there, tremendous resources. But where is the bill of rights she promised immediately to the people of Ontario? She travelled the province and told them she was going to do it. When the minister was in opposition, she stood in her place and hammered away at the government of the day, asking for that environmental bill of rights. She tabled one when she was in opposition.

With all the help she has from the bureaucracy, all the able people she has, she still has not been able to produce. The member for Halton Centre has put a good bill before the minister. Why can she not do it?

Furthermore, the minister has had the opportunity to do it. It is amazing that the minister has not been able to produce in the time she has had.

I also want to draw to the minister's attention and ask, in spite of all the good people she has in there, where is some representation from the agricultural community? Farmers are very concerned about the impact this bill may have on their operations. They have been left out in the past. They were left out of the advisory committee she introduced in this House on December 13. The farmers are wondering when she is going to talk to them, when she is going to include them in the discussions.

On December 13 she announced an advisory committee and we have not heard yet what it has done. Where have they been for the past few months? What have they done? She has enunciated that it agreed with the broad principles. Is she going to allow this group to build on the work it has done? Is she starting afresh? When can we expect her to introduce her legislation -- a year, two years, three years? What does "immediately" mean to the minister? Where is it? She has not reported back to us on what she has done. I want to know what kind of work she will be doing.

I wish her well. The people she has are great people, but let's get real here. When she and the Premier travelled the province, she talked about what she was going to do immediately. She put that in her agenda for power. She put it to the people of the province. They expect action. They have waited a long time. She will do well with these good people. It is too little, too late. The minister has lost it in terms of what she said she was going to do.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: We are pleased on this side of the House that the government has finally recognized the crisis in agriculture. Our party has worked with farm groups throughout the summer and the fall to stir the government to action. The five-month delay in the announcement has caused serious problems in the agricultural community. Farm leaders appeared before the standing committee on resources development, criticizing the government's inaction. It is no wonder that farm leaders believe the government has no long-term commitment to agriculture.

The government today announced $35 million of the $124-million gap in financial support that farmers face this year. Farmers will be left to face the reality of dealing with the rest of the crop themselves. Farmers in Essex county, facing over $40 million in crop damage, will be wondering how $3 million in extra assistance will allow them to keep farming. Farmers will be disappointed to learn that the announcement does not contain the provincial funding for NISA that they demanded.

Many of the farm groups we met with are going to be very disappointed. They are going to say it is just another patch on the boot. Anyway, I hope the Treasurer has good luck dealing with the federal government. He has said there are some things he is going to do in agriculture, and I wish him all the best and hope the good message keeps coming, because this is just a stopgap measure until the new programs kick in. Maybe he will get generous and announce a few more things for the agricultural community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Bradley: I was interested in the statements that were made today because I was waiting with baited breath for yet another statement that would be made to the House by the Minister of Energy. I did not know whether it would relate to the statement made by the Treasurer or to the statement made by the Minister of the Environment, both of which were interesting statements for which we made very good responses.

But there was a statement I was waiting for from the Minister of Energy and I thought with the news media all sitting here, he would perhaps want to make this particular announcement to the House today. We are quite willing as a party to extend the time of statements for ministers, if necessary, so he can make his statement.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: The $35.5 million is certainly better than nothing, and I understand that because of a debate that occurred right in this Legislature yesterday, the package was enriched by $15.5 million this morning. So I guess it does help from time to time to jar them, and if we need a prod, we will use a prod. However, there is a recognized need out there of $194 million just to meet the falling commodity prices, and it was exactly outlined by both the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the horticultural producers. Quite obviously we have a major shortfall.

It is amazing that this government had $151 million for de Havilland and it had $250 million for communities in northern Ontario such as Kapuskasing and Elliot Lake, but worst of all, it had $515 million of additional income to civil servants in the province. The $35.5 million pales in comparison to that kind of money. That is for 60,000 farm families that are out there producing to make sure that everyone is well fed in Ontario and producing lots for export.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food, when he made the statement in Mississauga at 12:30, said the presentation by Essex county farmers yesterday had no bearing at all on his statement today. That is how this government listens to the public. The farmers made an excellent presentation and showed why $20 million just for drought assistance is absolutely required in Essex county, but the minister said their presentation made absolutely no difference to him or his government. That is how they listen.

Some 60,000 farm families will say, "Thank you for the $35.5 million," but it will not save their farms from going under. I say to the Treasurer, the minister and the Premier that they are going under, and it is a rather sad situation. As a matter of fact, it is a shame.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Cousens: The Minister of the Environment may have forgotten that on May 15, 1989, she had all the answers with regard to the environmental bill of rights, and even the Liberals came out with the identical bill. The minister should not rush it. She should take her time, do it right. She made the promises before she got in there, but she should do it right. We are faced with the fact that she had all the answers at one time, and now I am afraid of what she is going to do.

She has what she did before. She had all the answers then. She should come along to this House now and understand at least a couple of the points that should sink in.

The first is that her bill encourages the use of the courts to address environmental issues and environmental harm. The minister should think twice about how she is going to use the courts. Her bill encourages a breakdown in the relationships between the environment, municipalities and other groups. She should make sure that when she comes out with her environmental bill of rights it is not going to be nearly so destructive as the Liberal bill of rights or the ones she brought in before. She should allow some common sense to creep in. May she, who has been selected, come out with some bright ideas that will help this government, which is going down deeper and deeper in the hole.

Mr Stockwell: Under her regime, the Minister of the Environment has taken this province to a sad low. She stood in this province during the campaign and made promises she could not keep. The minister promised people at Keele Valley and in Mississauga she would not expand landfill sites without full environmental hearings. She did not tell the truth. She stood in front of the people of this province and said --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West should not be suggesting that another member of the House is not telling the truth. Would you withdraw that statement.

Mr Stockwell: I will withdraw that she did not tell the truth.

I do not think the minister was being forthright with the constituents in this province. She promised the bill of rights. She has not delivered on the bill of rights. The minister has the piece of legislation before her. I do not know what is taking her so long. It is not being fair to the people. It is not being fair to the environmentalists. I do not know what is taking her this length of time.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, members may wish to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member of the assembly from Kitchener-Wilmot and a former minister of the crown, Mr John Sweeney.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Bradley: I rise on a point of order -- a point of order which was raised by former members of the House such as Ian Deans and Elie Martel and the present government House leader -- to ask where the Premier is today and to register a complaint with the government that the Premier has not been present in the House to answer questions on a number of occasions, surely one of the most important responsibilities a Premier has.

I recognize that he can play national statesman, because that is a role the Premier has to play, and that he has other things to do, but surely a person who sat over here and wanted the government to be accountable would be present in the House on more occasions than this Premier.

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the comments from the House leader for the official opposition, but I think it is fair to say that the attendance of the cabinet and of the Premier has been absolutely outstanding. We have respect for this place and we have respect for the process, and we have shown that by our attendance. I think the House leader for the official opposition should be a little fairer than he seems to be this afternoon.

The Speaker: To the point of order raised, while the Speaker has many duties and responsibilities, taking attendance is not one of them. It is time for oral questions.

Mr Elston: I find it interesting that most of the announcements that have been made recently by this government have not been made in this House. I would think that should come to the attention of all the people who think this place is supposed to be where the people do their business.

In any event, just before I start my questions, I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who I know now has gone to the wall twice with his cabinet colleagues, first, at the retreat up at Honey Harbour to try to get agriculture on the list of the 10 top items they should deal with and, second, with respect to the funding that has been announced. I want to thank him for that, as I have undertaken to do on any occasion when I think some work has been done for the benefit of the province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Elston: Let me deal first of all with my favourite minister, the current Treasurer. The Treasurer has noted that his deficit increase above and beyond the reckless $9.7-billion level which he talked about in April 1991 is the result of, among other things, pension deficits, forest firefighting, increased use of health care and welfare costs, but he has not yet been able to tell us the numbers that are associated with any of those problem areas to any degree of accuracy, although he does go out to the media from time to time and drop more specific hints about the numbers.

Can the Treasurer commit to us today that when he delivers his expenditure statement tomorrow, he will give us a program-by-program accounting of all the increases in each of the program areas that he has underlined as problematic for his budget plan?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do appreciate the question again from the leader of the official opposition. It is my intention tomorrow to provide more details to the Legislature not only on the pressures that have been mentioned here but on some of the others as well that are not in such large numbers but nevertheless are there as pressures. Yes, I think the member will get the details he is seeking tomorrow. When the second-quarter finances come out, there will be even more details than that, of course, but I think we are going to provide tomorrow the kinds of details the leader is seeking.

Mr Elston: It is very helpful for us to get the issue of the problems before us after the minister tells us about what solution he is giving us. It does not help us prepare to assist him in his dilemmas.

But I would like to indicate that, after repeated questioning yesterday, the Treasurer finally admitted that he had at least a few management principles which he was applying to the examination of his expenditure crisis. He did not tell us what they were in here, but he did tell the media that it was a "use it or lose it" type of principle he was applying in some cases.

Can the Treasurer tell us that basically what he was telling his ministerial colleagues was, "If you don't spend your budget, we'll take it back," and as a result any of the efficient people who are managing their expenditure crises better than others are going to be penalized to make way for those administrators who are not performing well? And can he tell us whether or not there are any other management principles which he is applying along with the "use it or lose it" guide?

Hon Mr Laughren: While I do think that this community and the province are well served by the tabloids that are published in Toronto, they are not always spot on. I do not recall ever using the term "use it or lose it," at least not in a polite way. I want to assure the leader that what we are trying to do as we try to contain our expenditures is to do it in a very sensitive way and in consultation with the people who are recipients of the service and also the people who deliver the service. We are very serious about going through this exercise in a more sensitive way than I think other jurisdictions have done in the past.

Mr Elston: In addition to the types of line-by-line examinations, or perhaps more program-by-program examinations, which he will give us tomorrow, will the Treasurer undertake today to us that he will refer his expenditure plan to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs so that we can examine him and his minions, either in treasury board or in the Treasurer's department, who have put together this program so that we can understand where the principles have been used effectively or whether there have been any real principles at work?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I certainly have no objections to getting advice from all members in the House and, of course, members opposite as well. On the matter of referring it to the standing committee, I would make one suggestion only, that the matter go to a meeting of the House leaders to determine, with the Chair of the standing committee, if that is what they want to do.

Mr Elston: I hope I heard the minister say he is not opposed to that so that we can get on with the work of the committee, but I do not think he really said that. I hope he is in favour of it.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Elston: My next question is to the Minister of Health. It has been described by the Treasurer and reported in the tabloids recently that there are some problems with respect to quality care for our senior citizens in the province and in fact there are some crises being spoken about.

I would like the Minister of Health to tell me that the seniors who are resident in nursing homes across this province are not at risk and, if she finds that there are people at risk in those nursing homes as a result of financial difficulties, what action she intends to take to guard their safety.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the issue that the member raises is an important issue for all members in the House. There has been a lot of attention lately in the media with respect to the funding levels of nursing homes and the fact that a number of nursing homes in the province are facing very difficult situations right now. I think 12 to 14 are actually in receivership, and there is some suggestion that there could be many more that would go into receivership except there are no buyers at this point in time, so the banks have sort of stepped back from that as a tactic.

It is a very serious situation that we face, and I think we have been looking at it with respect to the redirection of long-term care and levels of funding to care for our seniors in the various types of homes as being a very important part of that reform. The question that gets raised, by virtue of the problem they face, is whether they can wait that long. I think that we see light at the end of the tunnel, and they do in terms of stabilization for the beginning of 1993. The question is between now and then.

The one thing I have become convinced of, as a result of which the Ontario Nursing Home Association actually sees some hope, is that we are the first government to say to them that we believe they are right in the claim they have been making for a number of years, that the level of care required by patients in nursing homes is in fact of an equivalent nature to those in other types of homes. As a result of that, I have undertaken to look at this issue and to try to do something in an interim way.

Mr Elston: I again would want the minister to tell us that none of the seniors in residence in any of those facilities are at risk. Second, since she has described the problem as one between then and now, then being the time when the new funding mechanism comes into place, would she describe to us what she intends to do to prevent any seniors falling into the risk category and what she intends to do to take care of any potential staff layoffs which could jeopardize the level of care those people are receiving?

Hon Ms Lankin: There is a lot of information here and I do apologize. I did not address one of the specific points of the honourable member's question.

At this point in time our analysis is that there are no seniors who are at risk, and we are ensuring, if there are any homes that we think are in that sort of situation where they would be looking at closing the doors, we have a plan in place. However, I do not think that is sufficient, and I would like to move to have a bit more of a comprehensive response to the problem between now and then. I am looking at whether or not we are able to do an interim phasing-in towards level of care funding. As the member knows, that has been announced for January 1993. I am hopeful we might be able to do some phasing towards that.

It is a very difficult fiscal time, as the member has heard, and he has been pursuing that line with the Trea-surer. I am not in a position to tell the House today what steps I might be able to take, but I am pursuing that and I hope to be able to inform the House in the very near future.

Mr Elston: What is first and foremost necessary is that everybody should understand that the current government has postponed the implementation of the level of care funding formula. It was supposed to take effect very soon, but the government has put it back to 1993; what that means in fact is that some of the lending institutions are now concerned about whether or not they can carry the operation.

My concern is that, between the time when the minister acts to take the problem of funding away from the people who are administering the nursing homes that are in receivership or otherwise, she guarantee us that no senior who is currently resident or about to be resident in any nursing home will be left at risk, and that she share with us the emergency plans she has put together to take effect if there are staff cuts which jeopardize the care of seniors in those homes.

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, on the issue of the delay, moving new levels of care funding to 1993, that is part of the redirection of long-term care. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my previous answer to say to the member that in fact I hope in the next fiscal year we will be able to take steps to move towards that so the delay will not be felt in the same way. What I am actually working on right now is whether in the short term, or immediately, there is some sort of assistance we might be able to give, and it is a very difficult proposition.

The member talks about pointing out there is that delay and says that should be made very clear. I know everyone wants this to be a kinder, gentler place, and everyone is saying we should not point fingers, but I do have to point out that the reason we have this problem is because no government has ever agreed that nursing home clients require the same level of care funding as clients in homes for the aged or charitable homes. This government recognizes that and is committed to that, and we have said it publicly for the first time.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Premier, late this summer, indicated to the Canadian Press that our social welfare system in this province, as administered by the minister, needed some changes. To quote him directly, "'We are simply going to have to do a better job of cutting down on the bureaucracy, cutting down on the overlap and the amount of administrative confusion and try to get services delivered more efficiently,' Mr Rae said."

Given that the Premier has used every word except the word that every mayor and municipality in this province has used, and that word is "accountability," could the minister please advise this House what new initiatives and what specific recommendations she is putting in place for greater and enhanced accountability on the issue of the social welfare dollars that are spent in this province?

Hon Ms Akande: This question is one which has been emphasized again and again not only by the Premier but also by the ministry staff and by me myself.

The real issue here is that we have initiated several steps towards making this a more accountable system. One of the things we are focusing on is the use of the computer material and the sharing of that information so the information that is collected through various other systems, such as unemployment insurance and others, will also be shared through the welfare system when people move off that unemployment insurance listing.

We have moved in a way so that our workers have more meaningful contact with the social assistance recipients to the extent that they will be counselling them and moving to support them back into the workforce and back into training and other skills areas.

Mr Jackson: Today is October 1, and it marks the day on which 63 of the 88 recommendations contained in the SARC report are put into effect. The concerns expressed by mayors in municipalities all across Ontario are still out there; they have not been addressed. They have legitimate concerns such as, what direction is this ministry giving on recommendation 33? I will read that into the record: "Employable persons, age 16 and 17, who are in need and who are living outside the family home should be eligible for assistance unless there are special circumstances that indicate that they should not be eligible."

My understanding from the government's last communique is that this is an as-of-right recommendation and guideline from this government and that the onus is on the very workers who are managing the public purse to prove it, and not the applicant or the recipient having to prove that need.

These are fundamental questions which some mayors in this province have referred to as an outrageous recommendation in the absence of a framework of accountability. I ask again of the minister, when is she going to publicly state in this House and advise municipalities how she is going to bring an accountability model to these social assistance reforms? When is she going to talk publicly on this issue?

Hon Ms Akande: In fact, there is a framework of accountability that we have discussed in this House and that we have in fact stated we seek to extend.

The recommendation the member raises here in the House as one of great concern to the mayors of many municipalities has been the subject of discussion with many of those mayors, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has come to meet with us around it. We have not implemented that recommendation today, October 1, which was the slated day, because we are developing a better implementation strategy. It might be noted that this implementation strategy is being done in concert with, discussion with and consultation with the very mayors to whom the member refers.

Mr Jackson: I do not doubt for a minute that the minister is terribly concerned about this issue, but the facts out there are that the municipalities do not know where she stands on this issue. Today the Treasurer had to stand in this House and talk about substantive cuts in spending in this province, and the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health control some 50% of all expenditures that occur in this province.

This is a legitimate question that municipalities have raised for the minister. It is a legitimate question for any member of this House to ask the minister what she is doing about accountability. The truth is that the single largest contributor to property tax increases in this province this year is the growth in the cost of our social assistance programs. We have an obligation to those people to understand that there has to be an accountability in this system.

In light of the fact that there have already been cabinet document leaks that indicate the minister's programs with SARC improvements were not accurately costed, in light of the fact that the Treasurer has put an order out to all cabinet ministers to look at restraint, I ask her again, when will she assure the property taxpayers in this province that she has a system of accountability in place which will ensure that our social assistance system support net does not turn into a social service assistance safety hammock?

Hon Ms Akande: I will repeat for the member that in fact we have developed an accountability framework and continue to refine it and extend it, and so we shall, and we shall be talking about it in this House. I will also remind the member that it is in recognition of the fact that we are responsible for people that we are determined this recession will not be carried on the backs of the poor, that we are determined to focus our view on economic renewal and that we have set our course as we have.

I wanted to tell him then and I will tell him now that we are developing and improving an implementation strategy for the 16- and 17-year-olds. We are committed to ensuring that families are maintained where it is appropriate but that 16- and 17-year-olds are not in danger of suffering abuse if their being on social assistance is more appropriate.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The sweeping changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, as outlined in the Burkett committee report and his own cabinet submission, have alarmed businesses across this province. Having received no concrete answers from either the minister or the Premier about what changes their government plans to proceed with, businesses in this province are either putting investment decisions on hold or are looking very seriously at transferring their operations elsewhere, to another jurisdiction.

The uncertain investment climate he has created by the release of these two documents is having an extremely negative impact on job creation, not only for today but for years to come.

In order to repair some of the damage that has already been done by the uncertainty surrounding these proposals, I would like the minister to provide us today with some straight answers to my questions. The cabinet submission states that the minister intends to introduce legislation prior to the end of this year. Could the minister specifically indicate to us today when he intends to bring forward his legislation into this House?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure the member recognizes that any document that goes to cabinet and that is to outline a consultative process has to go through the cabinet first. That will be done as soon as we can make the arrangements.

Mrs Witmer: I am extremely disappointed that the minister's response continues to be vague. It is simply not acceptable. If we are going to give the business community an opportunity for further investment and to create further jobs in this province, we need some answers.

In response to my question last Wednesday, the minister said: "We do not have a set position or a recommendation as yet." However, we have the minister's signature on a cabinet submission, and that included 61 specific recommendations. The minister's signature on that document, which seeks cabinet approval for the amendments, would seem to indicate to me that this government has very set views on this matter.

The Speaker: Would the member place her supplementary, please?

Mrs Witmer: The minister has indicated he is going to issue a discussion paper for 8 to 10 weeks. I would like to ask the minister, when will the discussion paper be released and will it contain all 61 recommendations?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First, I think the member will recognize that any submission to cabinet to set up a discussion paper will have possible recommendations, will have options, will have directions the government may wish to take.

I am also certain she will recognize that the intent of any consultation we set up is to see whether or not, given the kind of economic conditions that exist in this province of ours today, we can do anything that will replace the confrontational approach between business and labour that has been there for a good many years now in Ontario with a co-operative and consultative approach, which is exactly what this government is trying to do.

One of the ways to do that is by making sure that you are going to involve workers and working people in the decisions that are going to affect them and the future of plants and jobs in this province, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased the minister recognizes the uncertain business environment. Certainly we have no further wish to increase the confrontation. We are looking for consultation. But I want the minister to know that businesses across this province are forming coalitions to express their concern. They are telling the minister that these proposals are ill-timed and they could have very serious consequences on future business investment in the province. We have Project Economic Growth, with 100 businesses that are concerned. We have the More Jobs Coalition, with 40 companies. We have the All Business Coalition that represents 25 business associations.

The Speaker: Would the member place her supplementary, please?

Mrs Witmer: These companies are devoting a great deal of time and effort to get this government to listen to their concerns. They are concerned about the future of jobs in this province. What, if anything, will these changes the minister is proposing do to seriously create more investment and the much-needed jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member that I welcome the forming together or the positions from any of the various groups she is talking about and any of the various coalitions that may organize on this. I would hope, however, she recognizes that to make the kind of changes we want to make in Ontario, it takes two to tango. You simply have to listen to what is there, present your views and then make sure you represent both sides of the equation, workers and employers, in the discussions, because workers have a lot to contribute.

LAKEFILL

Mrs Caplan: I know the Minister of the Environment is very embarrassed today with her announcement, as she should be. She has also been known over the years for her opposition to lakefilling. I remember over the course of time she asked many questions in this House on the sub-ject and she even prepared a press release entitled "Fishable, Swimable and Drinkable." This press release was tabled in May 1988 and it contains the following statement:

"Lakefilling has changed the shape of the shoreline. It has created bays where contaminated water is trapped and has reduced the wave action that previously scoured the area. The accumulation of sediments presents a serious problem and no level of government has yet addressed it."

That was in 1988. Will the minister tell the House today whether the practice of lakefilling ceased when she became minister last year?

Hon Mrs Grier: No, it did not because many projects were under way and being completed, but what has ceased is the wholesale approval of new lakefilling projects that change the shoreline, create embayments and trap contaminated sediments. What has changed is lakefill quality guidelines which will make sure that in the projects being completed, the fill that goes in is not contaminated.

Mrs Caplan: The truth is that since the minister took office, over a million cubic metres of lakefill have been dumped along the Toronto waterfront. There has been no sign that the activity is slowing down. In fact, it may increase in the wake of the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's East Point Park initiative.

This activity, I would suggest to the minister, is curious in light of what she has just said. The Crombie commission last week released its report entitled Shoreline Regeneration for the Greater Toronto Bioregion. The document contains extensive discussion on lakefilling and it has three recommendations. I would ask the minister today to consider those three recommendations: (1) a moratorium on new lakefill projects, which would allow operations to continue at existing sites, (2) increased restrictions on material used in lakefill and (3), which I know will appeal to the minister, an absolute ban on lakefill.

Given the minister's past statements and her statement today, an obvious ban on lakefilling would be her choice.

The Speaker: Would the member conclude her question, please?

Mrs Caplan: In the interests of fairness, will she adopt the recommendation and when will the decision be announced? Because of her knowledge, I expect --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's interest and the question was quite detailed. Perhaps on another occasion when we have extremely detailed questions, it might be better suited to the Orders and Notices paper. I am sure all members are also aware of the fact that we are trying to conserve time.

Hon Mrs Grier: I will try to be as precise as possible. Let me assure the member that no final approval has been given for East Point Park with respect to lakefilling for that project. Second, let me point out to her that where a project had been begun, it would have been far more dangerous to the environment to suddenly stop with an unprotected edge of fill for those projects that were under way when I took office, as opposed to completing the contours and preventing further erosion of the fill.

Third, I am sure the member and all members of this House are aware of this government's support for the recommendations of the Crombie commission. The recommendations in his shoreline regeneration report I have read with interest, and look forward to responding to specifically when we have had an opportunity to review them in detail.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. I have a letter from Metropolitan Toronto solicitor Ossie Doyle. He has reported to the Metropolitan works committee -- I am not sure if it is in camera or not, but from the solicitor -- outlining numerous statutory approvals and legal impediments involved with the extension of the Keele Valley landfill site.

Just to itemize a few, the minister has problems with Environmental Protection Act approvals, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Aggregate Resources Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Municipal Act, official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment under the Planning Act, approvals under the Regional Municipality of York Act, approvals under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Metro's contractual agreements with Vaughan.

These could tie up the expansion of Keele Valley for years and years and years. How does the minister propose to get past all these acts, some that were put in place to ensure environmental sensitivity, when approving specific projects? How is the minister going to get around the three to five years, potentially 10 years, of time taken up in the courts so she can have Keele Valley expanded so it can accept municipal waste in the not-too-distant future?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member has had an opportunity to review, if not memorize, my statement to the House earlier this year when I outlined the program of this government and the actions we would have to take in order to solve the long-standing crisis of GTA waste. I am pleased to be able to inform the member that omnibus legislation, in accordance with the policies I announced at that time, will be introduced in this House in this session.

Mr Stockwell: I find it unbelievable that the minister would legislate away every one of these acts. They are designed to protect neighbourhoods, regions and municipal governments maybe from environmental holocausts, for all we know, with respect to expansion of sites. The minister is not allowing one minute of hearings on either of these sites in Britannia or Keele Valley.

The most ironic part of all is that the solicitor of Metropolitan Toronto has suggested on the last page of his statement that if the minister introduces her environmental bill of rights -- that joke she just came forward with here today about putting it off for a little while longer -- her first piece of legislation will be to introduce her environmental bill of rights and her second piece will be to exempt Keele Valley and Britannia from it.

Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for her to stand on this side of the House for five years crowing about an environmental bill of rights, introduce it, and in the very next piece of legislation exempt two sites with not a minute of environmental assessment hearing? How does she respond to the residents with that statement being made?

Hon Mrs Grier: I will not respond to the rather extravagant hypothetical question contained in the latter part of the member's question, but I would like to assure him, and I think he has known me long enough to know, that I take no pleasure in the actions I had to take to try to resolve the crisis we inherited. Emergency legislation in order to make sure there is not waste on the streets of Metroplitan Toronto is not something I do with relish, but something I do because it is environmentally safe and sound.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: This is very upsetting.

The Speaker: Yes, indeed. We have managed to hit that first axiom again. There will always be questions we do not like and responses we do not like. I ask that members attempt to have a calm and reasoned approach to question period. It is time for a new question.

GAS LEAK IN JARVIS

Mr Jamison: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As he is aware, on Thursday, September 26, the city of Nanticoke initiated a state of emergency for the municipality of Jarvis due to a gas explosion and continued gas leaks. The entire town was evacuated. While all the residents have returned, there is still a number of outstanding issues, outlined in the council's resolution I sent yesterday to the minister. MNR and Ministry of the Environment experts were available onsite and were tremendously helpful with the emergency situation. Can we expect this help and expertise to continue?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member's concern for the people of Jarvis is certainly well known to me, as he raised these issues immediately at the time of the disaster, right after it happened and throughout the weekend. I know he has been involved with the municipality and the mayor in attempting to ensure that the concerns of the people of Nanticoke are resolved. As the member indicated, MNR staff have been onsite ever since the beginning of this situation and lending their expertise for the short term to the municipality.

With regard to the resolution passed by the municipality of Nanticoke, the Ministry of Natural Resources is leading the technical committee which will respond to the recommendations with regard to the short-term study, and will assist the municipality in how to deal with the situation. We expect the interim report to be available on Friday and hope the final report for short-term measures will be available by the end of the month.

There are five members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff assisting the municipality, in addition to staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The government is also considering how we will deal with the cost implications of the study by the technical committee.

Mr Jamison: This response has been swift and helpful. I would like to ensure this will continue as the situation moves into a preventive stage. It has been identified that the gas leak was a natural occurrence and that there is a potential that this could recur in the future. I would like to know what steps the ministry is taking to address the needs of this community.

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the Ministry of Natural Resources is co-ordinating the work on the long-term strategy involving the ministries of the Environment, Municipal Affairs and the Solicitor General. We will review the recommendations of the technical committee and determine how to implement its recommendations for the longer-term strategies to deal with the problems of naturally occurring gas leaks. As I said, we will be looking at the long-term funding implications and the sources of funding. The technical committee group will be meeting in the next day or two, and I will keep the member and the House informed of its progress.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy. For some time now the minister has been pushing and shoving Bill 118 along; this in the face of overwhelming opposition we have heard from organizations such as the Municipal Electric Association, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and, perhaps more important, from ordinary ratepayers.

The time is certainly ripe for any kind of statement the minister might care to make. It was certainly ripe prior to the beginning of this question period.

In any event, the provisions the ratepayers are in opposition to are, first, that they allow the government to direct Hydro to do things that have no relation whatsoever to Hydro's mandate to supply power at cost and, second, that they allow this government to force Hydro to pay for some ratepayers to switch to natural gas at the expense of others who stay on the Hydro system.

In light of this overwhelming opposition, will the minister not concede that his bill is fundamentally flawed and either withdraw it completely or amend it to reflect the public will?

Hon Mr Ferguson: This bill was originally introduced for first reading back in June. After being appointed, I suggested I was prepared to consult and listen to all parties, all stakeholders affected. Having had the opportunity to speak and meet with the Municipal Electric Association, I had a much better appreciation and understanding of its concerns. They understood the government's position. Essentially, I asked the MEA, "What is the biggest difficulty you have with this bill?" They replied they were concerned that the government, for example, could direct Ontario Hydro to assume the SkyDome debt.

Any reasonable-minded individual would know that is not the intention of the bill. The intention of the bill is to direct Hydro in order to fulfil the mandate of the government of the day.

As a result, I have asked both opposition parties to permit me to take five minutes today to present some remarks and introduce some minor amendments that will be brought forth in committee, which will assure the MEA of its concerns as well as put to rest its fears about what might possibly happen and further clarify the government's position on this matter.

Mr McGuinty: It is indeed unfortunate that all we have is a hint of what the minister's intentions are when he could have seized the opportunity earlier today to advise us fully of his intentions.

We have another concern as ratepayers in this province in addition to our Bill 118 concerns. We are concerned about the track record this government has set with respect to its initiatives at Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing. How can this minister argue that $65 million donated to the northern Ontario heritage fund is associated somehow with Hydro's mandate to supply power at cost? Our party is concerned that this behaviour might be repeated in the future.

Will the minister assure this House and the people of this province here and now that our Hydro bills will never again under this government reflect any costs other than those related to Hydro's fundamental mandate to supply us all with power at cost?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The purpose of this act is to bring Hydro under control and provide direction where in the past no direction whatever existed. The goal and objective of Hydro is to provide power at reasonable prices. Essentially, what has to be fundamental in Hydro's mind and in this government's mind is to obtain the best deal we possibly can on behalf of the ratepayers of Ontario. That is the goal, that is the objective and that is what we as a government are going to achieve.

REMARKS BY APPOINTEE TO POLICE SERVICES BOARD

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General and concerns an NDP appointee to the police services board of Peel region. The minister's appointee, Mary Nnolim, in a recent Toronto Star

article charged that Peel regional police routinely lie in court to protect fellow officers. The alleged comments of his appointee have, in the view of the police services board, "sullied the reputation of our police by calling into question the integrity of its police officers."

As the minister should know, the board has asked him under provisions of the Police Services Act to authorize an immediate investigation into this situation, and its request last week was endorsed by the Peel regional council. Could the minister tell us how and when he intends to respond to the request?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have received an official request that the commission conduct an inquiry under

section 25 of the Police Services Act, as has been indicated by the member. I am pleased to inform him we are presently reviewing all the material we have received and as soon as a decision is made I will inform the member and this House.

Mr Runciman: I am not sure what information the minister has to review. He has had this request in front of him for more than a week. This is an NDP appointee who apparently has made some comments that are having a very negative impact on the Peel Region Police Force, and certainly the Peel regional council is very concerned about this as well.

The minister has the authority. I emphasize again that this is an NDP appointee. Many communities right across this province are concerned about individuals who will be appointed by this government to police services boards. It is sending out a very bad message not only to communities but to policemen and policewomen across this province. In my view he has an obligation to act quickly. If the minister deems that this individual did make these comments, in my view he has an obligation to remove her from office.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I agree with the member that there is an obligation to review. In fact, the matter will be reviewed, as I indicated. I will be pleased to report back the factual findings of the circumstance. I do not disagree with the member.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Mathyssen: My question is to the Minister of Housing. There are tenants in an apartment complex in the northeast part of my riding who have been battling their landlord for several years to have him comply with municipal work orders to bring the buildings into conformity with the Ontario Building Code. This highly publicized case has been dragging on for several years while the landlord has pursued a number of appeals of these city repair orders.

My question is on behalf of these tenants who feel they are fighting a losing battle in their attempts to force the landlord to accept his responsibility to the occupants of his buildings. Tragically, during this process they have met with derision, contempt and racial harassment. What is our government doing about new provisions for the enforcement of maintenance standards to remedy this situation?

Hon Ms Gigantes: In response to the question raised by the member for Middlesex, I would like to express my personal regret to those tenants that they have not, under existing legislation, been able to get satisfactory action from the government of Ontario.

We are going to be moving forward on the question of adequacy of maintenance. Within Bill 121 there are two provisions. The first says that if there are outstanding work orders, as there have been in this case, there will be no allowance for the landlord to increase rent while those work orders are outstanding. Second, under the new legislation, tenants will be able to make application to have the rent lowered where maintenance standards are not being met.

Mrs Mathyssen: When can tenants look forward to this protection and what can they do in the meantime?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We will be bringing forward the legislation for clause-by-clause consideration early this fall. We hope to have it passed by Christmas and in place by relatively early in the new year, in the spring. In the meantime, I am going to go back over the file on this particular apartment complex and try to find out whether under existing legislation we can provide more effective enforcement for these tenants.

SABRINA PANETTA

Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to say at the outset, and reflect a sentiment that is written in editorials in my local newspaper and indeed is expressed by the family in question itself, that it is unfortunate a family has to take its personal tragedy to the press and make it public to deal with an issue. I am speaking of the Panetta family situation. Members will be aware of the case of young Sabrina Panetta, a nine-year-old who weighs some 16 pounds, whose physician has said she is terminally ill. She is on a day-to-day basis.

Her physician has indicated the best hope for her to extend her short life is to do so at home. The minister has the power to do something about that.

I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague the member for Yorkview. We went to the minister on a non-partisan basis and tried to establish an order in council that would allow this young child to die at home. I do not know how to put it more bluntly to the minister.

I have held this little child in my arms. I ask the minister if she is prepared to consider and to reconsider. She has the power to issue an order in council that would allow this little child to die at home with her parents, where they want her to be. What is the minister's response to that position I put to her?

Hon Ms Akande: Indeed it is a tragic case. It is a case about which we have been very concerned and the staff in the ministry have done a great deal of work. We have been in consultation with the doctor. We have been in consultation in terms of finding out from the doctor exactly what the bottom-line needs of this child are in order to ensure that if the child were taken home, she would not be at risk.

We have received a great deal of conflicting information. The member should recognize, though, that we already have in place services that are paid for, a housekeeper for that family. We have offered to this family to extend the special services at home to the fullest extent. We have offered the family placement in a group home near the family home so that in fact the child can be taken home for every weekend.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Akande: I will continue my answer after this.

Mr McClelland: What the minister has said she has done is all well and good. I appreciate that and the family appreciates it. That is not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is this, and she has summarized it well: There are conflicting reports. But the family physician who has dealt with this child consistently over the past nine years since her birth says that one of the fundamental factors that has contributed to her wellbeing is the care and the nurturing she receives at home. That is undisputed evidence from that physician.

I have a letter here that was sent to the minister on September 26. So that it does not get bogged down, I am going to ask one of the pages to bring it over to her. I want the minister to read the letter. It is from the Panetta family. They say to the minister: Please take time out of your busy schedule, contact the doctor and find out the facts from the child's physician personally.

There is also a letter here which says as follows, "Premier Bob, why can't the province of Ontario grant my daughter's only wish when it is within your power to do so?" This is a nine-year-old child who is literally living day to day. Weekends are meaningless at this point in time.

I urge the minister, I implore the minister to personally look into this matter and not to leave it with her staff. Some of her staff were very concerned about this and they have been sidetracked. They have been pushed off the case. I wonder why. I will leave that for the minister to determine. Would the minister look at it, please? Would the minister talk to the family, talk to the physicians? The minister has the power to do something about it. The minister and her staff are the people who stood there and said they care about people.

Indeed, in her answer just a short while ago, the minister said her job was to help people. Here is a nine-year-old child who needs the minister's help, and the Premier's. The minister can do it. She should do it.

Hon Ms Akande: That child is indeed receiving our attention. As a matter of fact, rather than staff being sidetracked, more staff have been added to the focus. The important issue here, in terms of the confusion of medical information, is that we must be absolutely certain this child is not at greater risk if taken out of the hospital. We have no confirming information from the medical practitioner that will allow us to believe that. We have asked for it repeatedly.

In addition to that, in order to assure this family and to give it all the support we have, we have also promised that if we had that confirming information, we would do whatever we could to support this child's being at home as much as possible. If the member has information which will confirm this situation, I suggest he make it available to me.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Yesterday TVOntario's chairman and CEO, Bernard Ostry, offered his resignation and the minister accepted it. When asked at her press conference about a severance package for Mr Ostry, the minister said the matter had not been discussed. Given the litany of excesses at TVOntario under Mr Ostry's leadership -- $35,000 for nine televisions, $1,800 for parties at his home, $607 for a dinner party for three people -- I would suggest that Mr Ostry has already helped himself to his severance benefits. Taxpayers should not have to provide him with a severance package.

What does the contract say for Mr Ostry -- I do not want the minister to hide behind the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- and is the minister going to give him some kind of sweetheart deal, or will the minister promise the people of Ontario that she will not in fact give him a further severance package?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I can assure the honourable member that there is no settlement package from the Ontario government, commonly called the "golden handshake." While the member might not want to be governed by the freedom of information act, I on the other hand must be. I can assure the member I take very seriously the position of the taxpayers in this option.

Mrs Marland: If this minister took very seriously the position of the taxpayers, she would not be allowing Mr Ostry to stay on for another two and a half months.

I am also concerned about the response of the TVO board of directors on this whole issue. On the one hand, we have the TVO board of directors supporting the excesses and actions of their chairman, Mr Ostry. On the other hand, we have the auditor saying, "Several of our findings prompt questions as to the adequacy of administrative practices, in particular those related to the feasibility of major projects and the exercise of prudence concerning travel and other business expenses."

Also, the director of finance for TVOntario said: "For the third year in a row, there has been inadequate planning and control in the management of leasehold projects. Firm estimates have not been obtained for projects, nor have the expenditures been monitored. Consequently the actual information is available after the fact, which can cause potential overruns."

Given this information, a board that continues to show strong support for a chairman who had to resign obviously is not a board that I would expect this minister to support. Does the minister support a board that obviously does not know what is going on, or is she going to ask for the resignation of those board members?

Hon Mrs Haslam: This is amazing. First the member says, "Would Mr Ostry please resign." Mr Ostry has resigned. Now she wants the entire board to resign. If the member wants blood, she should go to a slaughterhouse. That is not my style. I have every confidence in the board. This is a healing process and I intend to work with that board.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hansen: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Residents in my riding are concerned about the traffic congestion on residential streets caused by trucks bypassing the Queen Elizabeth Way. For many years now, the town of Grimsby has requested that the MTO extend Clarke Street from Nelles Road easterly to Book Road to ease traffic congestion. What attention is the minister giving this matter?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, I had, and understandably so, with respect, some difficulties hearing the question. I believe the member was concerned about the situation that actually concerns all of us, that of Grimsby.

I appreciate the member for Lincoln's diligence regarding this matter, and yes, we are right on top of the issue. I have asked our parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, along with MTO officials, to meet as soon as possible with the mayor of Grimsby, his worship Nicholas Andreychuk, to look at the situation with the understanding that the township of Grimsby will be the proponent of any new road construction. Therefore, we encourage them to seek our expertise, to seek our reputation in terms of road construction.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The point is very well taken. I do apologize for the noise around us. Standing order 20(

b) should have allowed me better time to present. Thank you kindly, Mr Speaker.

TUITION FEES

Mr Daigeler: I appreciate that I still get an opportunity to ask my question, even though, Mr Speaker, I would appreciate perhaps that in future question periods you would be a little bit tougher on the amount of time being used by the members to pose their questions or for the replies by the ministers.

My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In a recent letter to the minister, the Ontario Federation of Students had this to say about his leadership:

"Frankly, Dr Allen, Ontario students expected a great deal more from you and your government. When you in-creased tuition fees in violation of your own party's policy, we were disappointed. When you threaten to take away what little funding you have promised us, we are outraged."

The students are very concerned that the minister will hit them with a major tuition fee increase soon. Traditionally in this province, as the minister will know, tuition fee increases were tied to the increase in transfer payments. Can the minister confirm today that this policy will be maintained? In other words, can he confirm that tuition fees will rise by only 2% if transfer payments will increase by only 2%, as the minister has advised the university presidents?

Hon Mr Allen: I would ask the member to do his own research as to the performance of the minister and the ministry over the past year. He might come to a slightly different conclusion than the students he has quoted. Indeed in that respect, I met, for the first time of any Minister of Colleges and Universities, with all the representatives of all the student councils of all the universities of Ontario for a full day to discuss their concerns with them. We went over this question in great detail.

-What I want to say to the member in regard to that and what I want to say to the students is that inasmuch as we have not completed our evaluation of the circumstances of the system at this point in time vis-a-vis our revenues and our capacity to respond, therefore it is not possible for me at this point to confirm any policy with regard to tuition fees.

Mr Eves: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: On behalf of the Minister of Energy, perhaps the Speaker could inquire whether the tirade by the Minister of Culture and Communications did any permanent damage. None is apparent, but --

The Speaker: Point of order?

Hon Mr Ferguson: If I might, Mr Speaker, very briefly, I am going to send the honourable member one of the new energy-efficient light bulbs that we have for one of the brightest comments we have heard in this Legislature in quite some time.

The Speaker: Who said this is not good theatre?

I have had an opportunity to review Hansard from Thursday last, and under the circumstances which resulted from question period, I will now allow the member for Parkdale to pose a question to the minister concerned.

EXPO 98

Mr Ruprecht: This is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. One of the fundamental rights that we have and must maintain as members of Parliament is to ensure that we can ask questions on commitments by this government in questions of tax incentives or whatever that has to do with money that is being spent.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation to this point has not come clean and told this Legislature just how much money he has committed to help Expo 98, how this money is going to be spent and whether provincial investigators and inspectors will be hired. All we know is what the minister has decided to drop while he is walking down the hall or what we read in the press in terms of rumours and innuendo.

I ask the minister today to make a statement in this House and tell us specifically what he has in mind so that we are informed as well.

Hon Mr North: At this point, what I can tell the member across the floor is that we are going to spend $400,000.

Mr Ruprecht: As the minister can see, that may not be good enough. As he knows, Metro council recently made a decision, last Wednesday. They made clear what they are going to spend: $150,000, specifically itemized, and $250,000 five weeks from now.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation comes to the House today, after having had notice over months to tell this House specifically how he will allocate this money. I think we have a right in this Legislature to know specifically about the innuendoes in the press where the minister has said he is going to hire a host of investigators to co-ordinate the finances among three levels of government. I want to know, and we have the right to know today, is he spending that $400,000 on a host of investigators or will he spend that $400,000 specifically on Expo 98?

Hon Mr North: I would like to tell the member across the floor that I do not put out innuendoes or any of these things. He has spent a lot of time, wind and water filling up this House with all kinds of statements about whether or not we are hiding. It is innuendo this, innuendo that.

The bottom line is, at this point we are going to spend $400,000. We have put together a fairly decent bid, I believe. We have put together partners, for the first time, on a decent bid. We have got partners from all three levels of government. We have partners from the private sector. We have Max Beck, who runs Ontario Place, who incidentally is the man who is co-ordinating all of this at this point, and we have a lot of good things happening.

If the member thinks there is some value in bringing this to the House every other day and making a big thing out of it, fine. I hope he enjoys it. It is good for his politics. That is great. The bottom line here is, we put together a very good bid and I see it going together well. We are after the bid and we wish to win it.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr Daigeler: I have a petition here signed by some 19 residents of the Ottawa-Carleton area. They came together some two weeks ago at a rally of 900 people, very concerned about the lack of funding for nursing homes in this province. They have asked me to put forward this petition:

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

I am pleased to sign this petition.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I too have a petition with 19 names, and I would like to affix my name as well.

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have the privilege of presenting a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds; and

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario police officers."

That is signed by some 50 residents in my riding of Simcoe West in the towns of Wasaga Beach and Stayner, the village of Angus and the townships of Sunnidale, Essa and Nottawasaga, and I too affix my name to this petition.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Grandmaître: I also have a petition:

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

I have signed this petition.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reading as follows:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen at her coronation in 1953 took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance in service to the people of the sovereign; and

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance in service in such form; and

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Suite du debat ajourne sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

The Speaker: When we left off last day, the member for Brampton North had the floor.

Mr McGuinty: That is correct, Mr Speaker. He had every intention of continuing speaking to the matter today and we are just making efforts now to bring him in.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement to wait for a moment?

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: Perhaps the more appropriate way to go would be to allow our member to speak and we will agree to give the floor back to the member when the member for Victoria-Haliburton has completed.

The Speaker: Okay.

Mr Drainville: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Last week we heard from a number of members in this House, and in that period of time there were many questions that came up about the rationale of why the government was approaching this particular bill in this particular way. There were also criticisms, if I might say, about the government's approach, and its lack of consultation I believe has been raised by a number of members.

I have to say that consultation, at least in the parliamentary forum, is not something that just happens before the drafting of a bill, but rather also something that happens when the bill is coming before Parliament and when it goes into committee stage and afterwards. In terms of that consultation, we have been very responsive, I believe, as a government to the criticisms that have been put forward, as well as to the comments that have been made by the general public on where we can increase the bill's effectiveness. I would like to talk a little bit about that as I begin my remarks today.

There has been considerable concern and indeed misunderstanding about the scope and nature of provisions in Bill 118 regarding policy directives of this government. During the committee stages of this bill, it is the government's intention to move changes that will address this misunderstanding and will clarify the government's intentions.

The key to Ontario's new energy future is the implementation of the government's new energy directions. The primary goal of these new directions is to protect the environment while ensuring that the province continues to have a reliable supply of energy at reasonable prices.

Ontario Hydro has a unique role in helping the government meet new energy policy objectives. Ontario Hydro and the government must work together to meet the commitment to concentrate more of our resources on controlling growth in the demand for energy and to ensure that we use energy efficiently.

The changes that will be moved during committee will make it clear that the intent and the purpose of the legislation is to provide the framework for this new partnership and to remove the barriers to the implementation of new energy directions. The changes will ensure that the government's policy directives will be applied to matters within the scope and the mandate of Ontario Hydro as set out in the Power Corporation Act.

It is my understanding that the government proposes to change sections 2 and 6 of the bill to make it perfectly clear that any policy directives that are issued must relate to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under the act and not lead to an extension of those powers and duties by means of government directives.

The government shall also move some minor wording changes to

section 4 of the bill, dealing with the substitution of other forms of energy for electrical energy. These changes will clarify the government's intentions and address the misunderstandings surrounding this matter.

Fuel substitution is an important element in the government's strategy to make Ontario more energy-efficient. The government is determined to proceed with amendments to the act that will enable Ontario Hydro to encourage --

The Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton, sorry to stop you in midflight, but we have a point of order.

Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the member's comments, but they are more appropriately delivered by the minister in the form of a ministerial statement. That is the exact information we were seeking earlier today. It is unfortunate it is being given at this time by the member and not by the minister so that I could properly respond to it.

The Speaker: We are in second reading debate, I understand, and all members of the House have an opportunity to contribute their ideas and thoughts, unless I have misunderstood the member's point of order.

Mr Conway: On that point of order, Mr Speaker: I was in the lobby for a brief moment, but I think the member's point of order has to do with the fact that what we are getting now are amendments to a central piece of legislation, and those amendments can only be moved by either the responsible minister or his parliamentary assistant. I have a great deal of regard for the member for Victoria-Haliburton, but in this case I do not think he is either.

Mr Drainville: If I might clarify the situation, I have discussed this with both the parliamentary assistant and the minister in terms of the remarks I was going to be making today. This is not moving the amendments; rather, it is giving indications of the government's goodwill about some of the criticisms and some of the issues that have been raised. If the honourable members think that is anything except food for discussion, I am sorry, they will have to take that up with the minister. But I believe it is my prerogative as a member of the House, in discussion with the minister, to bring forth these comments.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point raised by the member for Renfrew North. I was listening carefully to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who spoke about amendments which will be placed, it is his understanding, when the House is in committee. There is nothing out of order about any member speaking about items which will subsequently be placed as amendments, provided the member does not attempt to move them as amendments during second reading debate.

Mr Conway: If I might speak to that, Mr Speaker: I do not intend to prolong this, but I will certainly be spending a lot of time over the next 12 hours to prepare a point of order for tomorrow. I have been here 16 years and I have heard a lot of interesting things procedurally, but never this.

We are all aware that the government is planning to make some changes, and I respect that. Our standing orders provide ministerial statements. Ministers are getting up all the time and indicating changes or additions to policy.

I am simply making the point, and I will say this and sit down: Never in 16 years in this Legislature have I been witness to a situation where government policy, in this case significant government policy, is being changed and the first word the House hears of that change is from neither the leader of the government nor the responsible minister but, in this case, the estimable member for Victoria-Haliburton, who is neither Minister of Energy nor parliamentary assistant. I think that is a first in the annals of the Legislature.

It is something I want to spend some time researching over the course of the next 12 hours.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to respond. I am out of breath because I saw the member on the floor on the TV downstairs. I think he knows -- I certainly know his House leader knows -- that we discussed this matter yesterday in a House leaders' meeting. I indicated that we were going to make a request today, when the debate on this bill resumed, for the minister to make a statement, and I was asking the two opposition House leaders for unanimous consent so that could be done by the minister. We needed unanimous consent because the minister had already spoken on leadoff on this bill.

The policy initiatives referred to by the member have already been communicated to the opposition parties. I was informed today just before question period by the House leader for the official opposition that he would not grant unanimous consent. The third party agreed that it would grant unanimous consent. So the only way we could communicate this matter during the debate on Bill 118, which is the appropriate time to do it, was with the member who has just spoken.

I think we made our best effort to communicate to the Legislature quickly and promptly, but I cannot do it the way the member for Renfrew North refers to if I cannot have the co-operation of the official opposition. If it does not want to co-operate, we had to try to communicate it some way, and I think this was the appropriate way to do it.

Mr Conway: On that point, Mr Speaker, if I might, I want to raise this additional point: The member for Windsor-Riverside knows perfectly well that the standing orders of this Legislature provide something called ministerial statements. This afternoon there were some six to seven minutes left in the time ordinarily allotted to the Treasury bench for ministerial statements. It is absolutely the case that this is the more appropriate way to have announced what the government wants to announce.

He is quite right that I am the person denying unanimous consent. The reason I will deny him unanimous consent in this fashion is that we are about to get a major policy announcement from the government. In my view, that should come from the responsible minister. Failing that, it should come from his parliamentary assistant. Without any doubt, it seems to me, it should come first as a ministerial statement. There was sufficient time remaining today after the Treasurer and the other minister spoke in that period.

I might add that the responsible minister has been questioned on two or three occasions in the last 25 or 26 hours. He made absolutely no hint of the change that the member for Victoria-Haliburton is now about to introduce.

Again, my point is that, in my view, it is not appropriate and, I think, out of order for a private member -- an outstanding private member none the less -- to advance government policy, particularly significant changes in government policy, as a first order of business without the minister or the parliamentary assistant hinting that the change was about to be made.

I find it additionally peculiar that we should be engaged in this kind of chicanery in the context of a bill where the government says it wants both energy policy and Hydro itself to be more public and more accountable. What they want to do is announce a major change in the direction of their Hydro policy. That is their right. I respectfully submit to you, sir, that the better way is to do it in ministerial statements. They had six minutes of that today that they chose not to use.

Never in 16 years have I ever known a private member just willy-nilly, in the course of a routine debate on behalf of the government of which he is not a cabinet minister, to make a significant policy announcement first.

The Speaker: Rather than debate the point of order that was raised, I take seriously the matter the member raises. If I understood him properly, he volunteered to do a bit of work on this. I will be reviewing Hansard. I will be reviewing the events that have unfolded this afternoon. If the member for Renfrew North or any other member of the House would like to provide some thoughts on the matter, I would be delighted to receive them.

Perhaps at this juncture we could continue. The understanding was that the member for Victoria-Haliburton will have the floor until the member for Brampton North reappears. He would then wind up his remarks and the member for Brampton North would have the floor, because he had it on the previous occasion.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know how carefully you observe what goes on in the House. During the period for responses to the statements made by government, because I did not want to be out of order, I made allusion to the fact that we were expecting a statement from the Minister of Energy which would be a fundamental, substantial change in a bill that has been put before the Legislature. Even if it required the extension of the period of time for ministers' statements, we as the opposition and I as House leader were quite willing to agree to that.

What has happened, quite obviously, Mr Speaker -- I do not ask you to necessarily make a judgement on this -- is that the government is embarrassed by its retreat on this bill and has decided it wants to do it through the back door at a time later on, when the news media are gone, when they are not in the press gallery. We have seen examples of it happening: An announcement the member for Mississauga South was involved in was made in a press conference downstairs.

But now, when there is bad news in the minds of some, good news in the minds of others, but bad news for the government because it has to retreat, it wants to retreat to a position where it has a private member -- a backbencher, even though he is sitting in the front benches -- make an announcement of government policy at 3:40 in the afternoon, when no media are around here.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: On the same point of order?

Mr Elston: Not quite on the same point, Mr Speaker. It is with respect to whether it is within the ambit of the member for Victoria-Haliburton to carry on debate at this time when he is privy to knowledge that the rest of the members, backbench members and the rest of the House, are not privy to. He has been given advance notification of material which should have been made available to us. With an advantage that is, to us, substantial, he is going to enter the debate. It will not allow us as members to either counter or agree with his assertions, because there is nothing in our hands that would allow us to deal effectively with the points he raises.

The whole issue of inside information has afflicted this administration from almost the very moment of its inception. We had it with respect to the leak of prior information to Mr Hinkley in Hamilton, now a mayoral candidate, where he got information about the Red Hill Creek Expressway which of course put him and his colleagues in the New Democratic caucus of the Hamilton city council at an unfair advantage. We have had it with respect to other materials in this government's administration.

Here we have it now, where the minister has been questioned in this House this very day by our critic, the member for Ottawa South, who has received not a hint that there are substantial changes or, if I were to agree with the government House leader, the fine-tuning now alluded to -- not only alluded to but asserted by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

How unfair this type of operation is to our House is without precedent. It is a very unkind act this administration has done to the people when we are dealing with a fundamental difference of opinion about how Bill 118 will affect the current and the about-to-be-formulated policy with respect to energy consumption in Ontario. What is more important for us is that we have been told that a set of facts exist under the current Bill 118 which promote increased costs for energy consumers, particularly electrical energy consumers, as they are fully subject to the new implemented programs of Hydro under the auspices of this New Democratic government.

How we can be expected as members of the Legislative Assembly to defend both the taxpayers of this province and the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro under yet-to-be-announced or made-public amendments to this series of amendments is beyond me. In that way, my point should have been a point of privilege. My privileges as a member have in fact been violated by this type of government activity.

I have been willing, and I have spoken it most often, to co-operate with this administration to pursue the business of the province on a cordial and co-operative basis, but if this is the way in which the government pretends to treat us as opposition people who are required to defend the public, then we cannot but fail to co-operate when the time comes. How can they spring this stuff on us in the middle of a day when this was well established last week to be a debating day for Bill 118?

Hon Mr Cooke: No, it wasn't. You changed it because your Labour critic can't be here. Get your facts straight.

Mr Elston: When they change their direction, things do not amount to being fair ball.

I have to apologize to the member. Our Labour critic is ill, and that is one of the reasons this is reprogrammed, but it still does not alleviate the necessity for us to know what the government pretends it will next do with this legislation, so that we can carry on a reasonable debate. That is the point. I think it will not be fair for that member to carry on, nor will it be fair for any of those members over there who have advance notice of what that government is doing, to our disadvantage. I think those members should uphold our rights as the minority to make sure that our privileges are not breached because of this transgression by that administration.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, there has been an accusation made --

Mrs Marland: It's our turn.

The Speaker: Whoa. Just a minute, before we get too carried away here. I am listening carefully to the points of order. I would appreciate if there is any new material that would assist the Speaker, I would be pleased to hear it. But I have mentioned -- I realize some members were not in the House at the time -- that I will reserve judgement on this. I have taken the point seriously. I think it is my responsibility to try and get the debate rolling again and to recognize the member for Brampton North. If there is additional information from the member for Mississauga South, I have not heard from the third party yet.

Mrs Marland: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, I realize that the member for Victoria-Haliburton has been put in a difficult position by his government. The fact is that because of a rescheduling of House business today, we are here to debate Bill 118. However, apparently the government policy as prescribed in that piece of legislation now is going to be radically changed, and if that is the case, then we are no longer here as opposition members debating Bill 118 as we know it in its printed format on the floor of the House. So personally I take very strong exception on behalf of our caucus to this avenue we are now walking down with this socialist government.

Hon Mr Cooke: That is not what your House leader said.

Mrs Marland: I think it is really unfair, and I say to the government House leader who is contradicting me as I speak, which is a great courtesy on his part, that we are in a position here where we are ready to debate Bill 118. We have not given unanimous agreement for the Minister of Energy to bring in an amendment and we certainly have not agreed that a backbencher, which I say with due respect to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, now be the messenger.

I am not about to kill the messenger, but I certainly think this government makes a mockery of the traditions of Parliament and the rules of procedure. If they want to make a major amendment to this garbage piece of legislation known as Bill 118, then why do they not do it properly? But as has been said by other members of the opposition, what we are now entertaining this afternoon is totally unacceptable. It is also unprecedented, and I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule on whether or not the statement from the member for Victoria-Haliburton on Bill 118 is in order, in light of the fact that those areas to which he is now speaking are not in fact contained in that bill today.

The Speaker: On that same point of order, the government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I just think it is important, because of the points the leader of the official opposition has raised, to make a couple of things clear to you when you are determining whether this is an appropriate point of order or not.

I met with the opposition House leaders and shared the information with regard to Bill 118 with both opposition House leaders at 5 pm yesterday afternoon, so any accusation in this House that there are some games up and that we are not sharing information with the opposition parties is really unfair of the leader of the official opposition. I shared that information with him yesterday, about an hour after I was informed, as government House leader, about the changes that were going to be announced with regard to Bill 118.

I then asked, since we could not do Bill 70 today because the Labour critic for the Liberal Party is ill, if we could do Bill 118, and I asked if the minister could make a statement at the beginning, since we were debating Bill 118, indicating some changes, not radical changes but some changes to the bill in response to the Municipal Electric Association.

Both opposition House leaders said to me that they would discuss the matter with their caucuses today and get back to me with regard to unanimous consent. The House leader for the third party called me at the lunch hour and indicated that his caucus agreed with unanimous consent. That was the phone call I got from the member's House leader.

Then the House leader for the official opposition came to me at approximately 1:40 and indicated to me that they did not agree with unanimous consent and thought instead that we should do a ministerial statement. A ministerial statement could not be prepared at 1:40 and properly distributed in accordance with the rules, so the best way to do it and the only way we could do it to inform the House was the way the caucus proposed.

I take the criticisms from the official opposition party very seriously, and I can assure the official opposition that we will not do this again. We will make sure that it be done outside the Legislature if they will not agree to have it done by unanimous consent in the House.

Mr Conway: On that point, I want to make a final observation. I have to pay due regard to what my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside has said. I was not at the meeting. I know some of the instructions, and I am very pleased to see the member for St Catharines here, because on the basis of what I know, I think the member for Windsor-Riverside has, and not for the first time in my experience, presented a highly personalized and very idiosyncratic version of the truth.

The Speaker: If there is new information, the member for Brampton North.

Mr McClelland: I want to comment if I may. You asked for some assistance, Mr Speaker. In my own humble way I will attempt to do that on two points, first on a point of privilege and second in terms of a point of order, on which I would ask you, if necessary, perhaps to recess and rule.

On a point of privilege: I had adjourned the debate on 23 September and accordingly, but for the fact that I was detained outside, I would have commenced the debate this afternoon.

I am a private member who has a responsibility to represent the people of Brampton North, who have entrusted me to do that. I have a broader responsibility in terms of my exercise of that responsibility in this Legislative Assembly to respond to legislation that will dramatically impact this province for some time to come. It has significant implications to many many people. My responsibility and my privilege, entrusted in me by my seat in this House and by the people of Brampton North, are to comment and to do so on an informed basis, as is customary and expected in the parliamentary process.

We are here today in a position where I am to resume the adjourned debate and respond to a statement given by a member which I have not had an opportunity to review, which is to be considered in the context of the debate that I have the privilege of continuing. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that my privilege to continue effectively and responsibly in dealing with this has been breached.

On a point of order: Surely, given that the minister was here today and had the opportunity to put a statement forward and to provide us with the framework within which I could at least respond and perhaps if necessary change the comments, and perhaps even be persuaded that maybe my view was not entirely correct -- indeed, how could it be, if this is a substantive change?

The government House leader says it is a small, cosmetic change. I happen to have a different opinion, and I am entitled to have that opinion, I say with respect, Mr Speaker. I suggest to you that it is a matter of, first, order and, second, privilege. I put to you that if we were to proceed without the minister's statement, my privilege as a member to continue this debate effectively is being violated, and I ask you to rule on that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: With respect, I have heard a lot of information, which I am very pleased to receive.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: If there is new information, fine. Otherwise I can reserve on this and we can move on and recognize the member for Brampton North to continue the debate.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to reiterate what was my understanding of the House leaders' meeting that I went to.

I think the government House leader is quite correct in stating that he brought forth this information at 5 pm yesterday and asked the two opposition parties if we would agree to revert by unanimous consent to have the minister -- nobody else -- bring forward some statement as to how he was going to address a resolution and some concerns that the Municipal Electric Association had at a meeting I believe it had this past Sunday.

We on our part agreed that we would give unanimous consent, provided that both opposition critics also had an opportunity to respond with equal time and thus speak twice on second reading debate. We also indicated that during ministerial statements would be the most appropriate time for the minister to make such a statement. There was some concern apparently whether the minister would be here today in time. I note that the minister did make it for question period today.

The only point I would like to make is that surely the most appropriate time would have been during ministerial statements. That is why we have provisions for them in our standing orders. There was ample time today for the minister to have made such a statement and for replies by both opposition parties. I just think that perhaps in the future -- we have learned a lesson here -- we can all abide by the standing orders that we have all, by consensus, agreed to have in the first place. That is the purpose of ministerial statements and responses.

The only thing I do not think was appropriate on the part of the government House leader was the fact that he indicated that in the future we will just do it outside this chamber. That is not the point; I think he has missed the point. The point is that there is a period of time called ministerial statements and there is a period of time for responses. There are rules that all three parties have agreed to by consensus. I would suggest that we just put this behind us and get on with the business of the House.

Mr Bradley: There is a different version of history, or

interpretation of history perhaps is a better way of putting it, by the government House leader than by myself on what took place at the meeting. The member for Parry Sound may speak for the Progressive Conservative Party; he does not speak for me.

My understanding was that the government House leader presented a piece of paper at the meeting which was from the Municipal Electric Association, I believe, and said, "We would like to introduce some amendments in compliance with this demand from the Municipal Electric Association."

I indicated at that time that the government has the right to make any amendments it wanted but, when asked about when it should be done, clearly indicated that the best time to do it was during the time allotted for ministerial statements and that if additional time were required, we would give additional time if the government had other statements. I did not even indicate that we would be wanting extra time for response on our part. I also indicated I would discuss this with our caucus this morning, which I