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

March 2, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L156 - Thu 2 Mar 1989 / Jeu 2 mar 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPAIR AND STORAGE LIENS ACT

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

KELLY SMITH

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

USE OF LOT LEVIES

MINISTER’S COMMENT

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PENSION BENEFITS

ASSISTANCE FOR GRAPE GROWERS

RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE FOR GRAPE GROWERS

PENSION BENEFITS

ASSISTANCE FOR GRAPE GROWERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION BENEFITS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

ONTARIO CENTRE FOR FARM MACHINERY AND FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

NUCLEAR SAFETY

FUNDING FOR WATER SYSTEM

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS

RECYCLING

TRANSPORTATION TO SKYDOME

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

TABLING OF PETITIONS

PETITIONS

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

EXTENDED CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROPOSED CLAY MINING PIT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

EXTENDED CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

COUNTY OF LANARK ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIVE AFFAIRS

INTERIM SUPPLY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

STATUS OF BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED) / EXPOSÉ BUDGETAIRE (SUITE)

SUPPLY ACT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

REPAIR AND STORAGE LIENS ACT

Consideration of Bill 152,

An Act to revise and consolidate the Law related to Repairers’ and Storers’ Liens.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of the opposition, I would like permission to move down to the front row, to have a table brought on to the floor and to have staff brought on to the floor during this discussion in committee of the whole.

Mr. Chairman: Please go ahead. I am sure that would be agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: To facilitate matters, while the table is being brought out, perhaps you want to know the amendments that I have to this.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I would like to list them at this moment.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We could run through them. I have an amendment to

section 1. I have a number of amendments to

section 10, three in total. I have one amendment to

section 14, two amendments to

section 17, five amendments to

section 24 and amendments to sections 27, 30 and 31.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish at this moment to list proposed amendments and, if so, to which section? Any from the third party? If not, we have the complete list of proposed amendments.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that the definition of “repair” in

section 1 of the bill, exclusive of the clauses, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

‘“Repair’ means an expenditure of money on, or the application of labour, skill or materials to, an

article for the purpose of altering, improving or restoring its properties or maintaining its condition and includes.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is a housekeeping amendment. It corrects a grammatical error in the definition of “repair.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 10(3)(

a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(

a) the end of the registration period as set out in the claim for lien or as extended by the most recent change statement registered under subsection (4) or reduced by a change statement registered under subsection (7).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This amendment reflects changes made to

section 51 of Bill 151, on which we concluded clause-by-clause yesterday, and ensures consistency with the method by which the effective period of a registration is calculated by the replacement computer system we talked about. That was that long amendment, I say to my colleagues, that we did yesterday afternoon, which essentially captures the necessary change for the new personal property security computer system. I want to make sure members understood that.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 10(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(5) A change statement may be registered to record an assignment of a nonpossessory lien where a claim for lien has been registered.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This corrects a drafting error and now reflects that a nonpossessory lien is assigned rather than a claim for lien.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 10(7) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(7) Unless the information related to a claim for lien has been removed from the central file of the registration system, a change statement may be registered at any time during the registration period,

“(

a) to correct an error or omission in a claim for lien or any change statement related thereto; or

“(

b) to amend a claim for lien or any change statement related thereto where the amendment is not otherwise provided for in this part.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Again, this change reflects an amendment which was made earlier to

section 49 of Bill 151, which relates to modifying any part of a registration at any time during the registration period.

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 14:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that

section 14 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(6) The lien claimant is liable to any person who suffers damages as a result of a seizure under subsection (1) if the lien claimant has entered into an agreement for payment of the debt to which the claim for lien relates and there has been no default under the agreement.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This change clarifies that a lien claimant with a nonpossessory lien who arranges the seizure of the repaired or stored goods in breach of any agreement with the owner will be liable for the damages suffered.

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

Section 17:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 17(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “60” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof “30.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The amendment reduces the time period for objections to foreclosure by a lien claimant, to be consistent with the equivalent time period in Bill 151. It simply gives us more consistency in both pieces of legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The second amendment is really to accomplish the same thing.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 17(4) of the bill be amended by striking out “60-day” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “30-day.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The same explanation.

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 24:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 24(9) of the bill be amended by inserting after “sheriff” in the fourth line and in the fifth line “or bailiff” in each instance.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This corrects an inadvertent omission. We have added the reference to bailiffs because a seizure of goods is carried out by a bailiff in small claims court.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that

section 24 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(9a) Before obtaining a writ of seizure, the applicant shall file an affidavit with the clerk or registrar of the court confirming that the respondent has not released the

article as required.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This amendment will protect court clerks and registrars from liability by ensuring that they can rely on an affidavit before issuing a writ of seizure.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 24(10) of the bill be amended by inserting after “sheriff” in the third line “or bailiff.”

I presume the same explanation, Minister.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 24(12) of the bill be amended by inserting after “sheriff” in the second line “or bailiff.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I feel like an auctioneer.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is the last amendment to

section 24, Mr. Chairman. This will take a little longer, so you can kind of catch your breath.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 24(13) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(13) The charge upon the money paid into court or the security posted with the court is discharged 90 days after the

article was returned to the applicant or seized unless, before the end of the 90 days, the respondent has accepted the applicant’s offer of settlement or has commenced an action to recover the amount claimed.

“

(14) Upon the expiry of the 90 days referred to in subsection (13), the clerk or registrar of the court may return to the applicant the money paid into court and deliver up for cancellation any security posted with the court if the applicant files with the clerk or registrar an affidavit confirming that the respondent has neither accepted an offer of settlement nor commenced an action to recover the money claimed.

“

(15) The respondent is liable for the costs of enforcing a writ of seizure and these costs shall be set off against the amount paid into court under this section.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This rather lengthy amendment protects court clerks and registrars from liability by ensuring that they can rely upon an affidavit before returning to an applicant money paid into court or any security that has been posted. It also ensures that an applicant is given a means of recovering the cost of seizing an

article when a lien claimant has unreasonably refused to return an

article when required to do so. If members would like an example, I can give one, but I will pass at this point.

Motion agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 25 and 26, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 27:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 27(2)(

b) of the bill be amended by striking out “sixth” and inserting in lieu thereof “10th.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is the same amendment as we had in Bill 151. It refers to allowing 10 days for the deemed receipt of registered mail.

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 through 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“30a.

(1) A sheriff acting under a direction to seize an

article or a writ of seizure, or a bailiff acting under a writ of seizure, may use reasonable force to enter land and premises if the sheriff or bailiff believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the

article to be seized is there and reasonable force may be used to execute the direction or writ.

“

(2) A sheriff acting under a direction to seize an

article or a writ of seizure, or a bailiff acting under a writ of seizure, in respect of an

article in a dwelling shall not use force to enter the dwelling or execute the direction or writ except under the authority of,

“(

a) the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, in the case of a direction to seize an article;

“(

b) the order of the court that issued the writ, in the case of a writ of seizure.

“

(3) A court may make an order for the purposes of subsection 2 if, in the opinion of the court, there is reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the

article to be seized is in the dwelling.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The new

section clarifies the powers of sheriffs and bailiffs to seize articles and it also provides for limitations. It provides that a court order is required to use force to enter residential premises.

The amendment is consistent with rules set out in

section 19a of the Execution Act.

Motion agreed to.

Section 31:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that

section 31 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(

f) prescribing the types of security that may be deposited with a court under

section 24.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This amendment will assist applicants and court officials by providing for the regulations to set out the types of security that may be deposited in a

section 24 court application -- for example, a letter of credit.

Motion agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 32 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Harris: I just have one question. Does anybody in the chamber completely understand this particular bill?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Certainly not you, but many of us do.

An hon. member: Alan Pope would.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: And, of course, I do.

Mr. Chairman: I presume your question has been answered.

Mr. Harris: I think it has been answered, that the staff understand this very complicated piece of legislation. I will be very brief, but I might say this is a very technical, complicated piece of legislation.

Given that after a bill like this is passed, it then goes on to regulations that are developed behind closed doors and nobody gets a look at or ever gets to see or ever gets to comment on them -- I do not want to be negative, but we know that is how regulations are developed -- I ask that the minister be cognizant of legislation like this and that time be taken to meet with the parties that are going to be affected by this piece of regulation to make sure that the regulations, as they are developed, do not cause more problems than they try to solve.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If I might just very briefly, I do not want to unduly delay the House but I want to assure the House leader for the third party that this bill came forward after consensus was reached with really all of the parties involved in this very technical area. I want to assure the honourable member, sensitive as I was, having gone through innumerable briefings on both Bill 151 and Bill 152 in terms of the bills and the amendments, that was why we offered very specific briefings substantially in advance of these bills coming to the House to both opposition critics. I am certainly well aware of the very technical nature of these pieces of legislation.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 194,

An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am going to try to keep these comments as brief as possible, but I want to say that it really is a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill 194 and to see that the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) is here and will be, I think, offering some comments as well.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Fresh from Europe.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: And looking very fresh indeed, as the government House leader points out. We like to see that. It is not reflected in the faces of all his colleagues.

With Bill 194, as in many other areas of public policy, Ontario really is again in the forefront of the development and implementation of innovative and progressive legislation. I think we should all be very proud of Bill 194 in that regard, because it is a unique initiative which has really no parallel in any other province.

When this bill was first introduced on November 30, 1988, Greg MacDonald, who is the director of public affairs for the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, was quoted as saying, “The trend towards a smokeless environment is already here in Ontario.” With Bill 194, we in Ontario are placing ourselves in the lead in that regard.

All will recognize that the real impact of this bill is to reduce in a very significant way the extent to which people do smoke in workplaces. On the surface, the bill appears to be a small and readily understandable piece of legislation, but really, it has quite a dramatic impact. The issue it addresses is an important one for all Ontario workers. With the introduction of the legislation, the government has said in effect that smoking is not really a right. At least, it is not a right when it affects the comfort and wholesomeness of other people’s working environment.

After it is passed and proclaimed, workers will be able to go to their places of employment and do their jobs in a cleaner and, I suggest, healthier atmosphere. As a regulator, the government of Ontario has an obligation, I believe, to enact legislation which will ensure uniform, minimum standards which govern conditions of work in all places of employment under provincial jurisdiction throughout Ontario.

Bill 194 is, as I said earlier, unprecedented in any other province in its establishment of minimum standards prohibiting workplace smoking. The provisions of this legislation will be enforced by inspectors authorized under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This means that some 3.9 million workers in 233,000 of Ontario’s workplaces will enjoy the coverage of this legislation. That, by the way, is 90 per cent of Ontario’s workplaces.

I think it would be appropriate to congratulate those employers, trade unions and municipalities that have worked to establish the principle of smoke-free workplaces in their own jurisdictions. Bill 194 builds on those individual achievements. It is the commonsense, practical approach of Bill 194 which will make it widely accepted and easily implemented.

The central provision of this legislation is that no smoking is to be the general rule in Ontario workplaces. Bill 194 establishes a general prohibition on smoking in the workplace but does allow the employer the option -- and I reiterate, the option -- of establishing designated smoking areas. These, however, are restricted under the legislation to a maximum of 25 per cent of the floor space of the work area; that is, the enclosed workplace.

Furthermore, and I know my friends in the Legislature will be interested in this, if employers choose to designate smoking areas, then they are required under the act to consult with the joint health and safety committee, or, if there is none, with the worker health and safety representative, in establishing the designated areas for the purposes of the legislation.

I believe it is important to note that in keeping with the flexible and practical approach taken by Bill 194, the legislation does not require the prohibition of smoking in areas of a workplace in which the public is served. This includes such workplaces as restaurants, bars, hotel lobbies, outdoor work areas, vehicles and the residential complexes of such facilities as detention centres.

Instead, the regulation of smoking in public places will continue to be, as it has for some time now -- and I know my friend the member for Carleton understands this -- in the hands of municipalities. Some 60 municipalities now regulate smoking in public places and have demonstrated a willingness and ability to do so. There is clearly no reason for the province to step into that area where it is not needed.

The acknowledged effect of tobacco smoke upon our health demands that consistent standards be established from one end of this province to the other, in order to effectively regulate this particular form of workplace irritant. Smoking is a major cause of ill health, disability and premature death. These effects of tobacco smoke are well known to all of us. When one considers both the health and quality-of-life impact of smoking, whether in the workplace or otherwise, there is little wonder as to why smokers have become a minority, consisting of about 30 per cent of adult Canadians.

This general acknowledgement of the health consequences of smoking among both smokers and nonsmokers, as well as the increasing evidence which demonstrates the linkage between secondary tobacco smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke as it is sometimes referred to, upon the health of nonsmokers, has given rise to new concerns and demands for restrictions on smoking in the workplace. As a result, workplace smoking restriction policies have become quite commonplace.

Indeed, in a number of businesses I visited in my capacity as Minister of Labour, I noted the workplace parties themselves have undertaken an examination of their workplaces, and, in very many instances, have determined on their own to implement a smoke-free workplace policy, which is entirely consistent with Bill 194 or will be consistent with the bill when it is passed.

I do not want to take up too much more of the Legislature’s time on this bill. I know we have a very busy agenda both this morning and this afternoon. I want to conclude my remarks by saying I believe the bill is a significant step forward towards a smoke-free society and I am pleased to have the support of the Canadian Cancer Society, which recently wrote to me and said that Bill 194 was “a positive step towards the goal of making all workplaces smoke-free in the province of Ontario.”

In order that the workers of Ontario may soon enjoy the protection offered by this legislation, I ask the members of this House to give Bill 194 their support.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise on Bill 194. My comments will be brief and to the point.

I might say it is long past time that we recognized the question of the effect of this toxic substance, secondhand smoke, on workers and on the citizens of the province. I do not think there is really any debate or argument any more as to the harmful and ill effects, even among those who might acknowledge that there may be some satisfaction in being able light up a cigarette, cigar, pipe or what have you.

However, I am a little bit concerned with the rather flamboyant defence of the bill the minister has just given us, because I think there are some shortcomings in the legislation. That is not to say that we will not support this bill, but if the minister thinks it is good legislation and its time is overdue, we hope he is also going to be willing to take a look at some of the weaknesses in Bill 194.

First off -- I have said this before and have not heard a defence against it from the minister -- this bill has been introduced without any real consultation with many of the interested parties. I am talking about the trade unions that represent workers in the workplace and the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, and I suspect that there has not been the kind of consultation there should be for a number of reasons.

The bill is fundamentally flawed. Both the Ontario Federation of Labour and the NSRA treat cigarette smoke as a toxic substance. The main provisions of Bill 194 to limit smoking to a maximum of 25 per cent of a workplace will do nothing to remove toxic substances and the dangers posed by secondhand smoke. It might reduce it, but it is not going to remove it.

The bill does avoid requiring employers to establish designated smoking areas that are properly ventilated. I think that is a major fault in the bill. Obviously the government here does not want to add to the expense of the employers’ operations. That is a perennial theme when we are trying to break new ground with progressive legislation in this province.

The requirement is essential, and obviously that is one area where we are going to want to take a look at an amendment to the bill. Incidentally, it is a demand of some of the interested stakeholders, whether it is the OFL or the NSRA. It is a key component of the city of Toronto bylaw on smoking in the workplace and was part of Lynn McDonald’s federal bill, C-204.

The bill does not make provision for smoking cessation programs, nor does it have a phase-in period. The bill also provides for fines for noncompliance of not more than $2,000 for employers and individual workers. In the first case, the fine is not a deterrent, and in the second case I would suggest it is discrimination.

I think this obviously lays out the areas where we want to see improvements in this bill.

I am hoping that this government has a bit of an open mind -- I am finding it difficult in many pieces of legislation these days -- and will look at establishing designated smoking areas that are properly ventilated and are identified by both the joint health and safety committees, with the cost of any needed renovation to be borne by the employer; having the employer provide for cessation programs; having a phase-in period to be determined in consultation with the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, the OFL and other interested stakeholders, and to reduce fines on individual workers and increase the penalties for employers.

I think the bill is of such fundamental importance, it is a major social policy for Ontario. We acknowledge that. We appreciate the fact that the bill is before this House and that the minister has decided to open up debate on this issue. Because it is of such major social consequence to this province, we think the interested parties -- and there are a number of them -- should have some input into the bill.

Certainly we are looking forward to the hearings, to the reaction of government members in terms of fundamental amendments -- not such major ones but ones that may be a little difficult in some cases and that have some real meaning -- and to various groups having a chance to have their say.

I might say that the kinds of amendments we would like to take a look at are part of the nonsmokers’ rights groups’ feelings about the bill. They are certainly part of the OFL reaction to the bill; they are certainly part of the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada position on this particular bill. All of them are supportive, as I have indicated we are, but with the understanding that there are some real flaws in the bill. Let’s have a chance in this major social policy field to take a look at what amendments we can convince the government to take a look at in this particular legislation.

Having said that, I think it states fairly clearly, and without a lot of rhetoric, the position that we will be taking on this legislation, and I do commend these suggestions to the minister and the other members in this House.

Mr. Sterling: As many members of this Legislature may know, I have had a passing interest in this issue. In fact, I think my first bill was introduced in December 1985, some three years and a couple of months ago, with regard to controlling smoking in the workplace and public places, some time before it became a popular issue even at the federal level. I hope that I have had some small

part in urging the government to take this action at this time.

I want to congratulate the minister on taking this step and hope that he will look forward to committee hearings, which I understand we will have on April 17 as agreed between the House leaders, when this bill is referred to the standing committee on social development. I hope that he will have a positive and open mind to constructive suggestions as we go through those particular hearings.

This morning I talked with Dr. Lynn Kozlowski of the Addiction Research Foundation. I had met Dr. Kozlowski some time ago on a television program and thought I would touch base with him and indicate to him that we would be debating this bill this morning in the Legislature. He has produced, in the last month, an interesting paper for the Journal of the American Medical Association. As you know, the Journal of the American Medical Association is a very prestigious medical publication in the United States. He has produced what I think is an extremely interesting and important piece of research.

I wanted to indicate to the Legislature some of the results of that particular report. Up to this time we have talked about the detrimental health effects of tobacco, in that we know from Statistics Canada that, as a result of tobacco smoke, each day 35 to 40 people in Ontario die prematurely by about seven to seven and a half years as a result of inhaling and the detrimental effects of tobacco. Even during this period of time that we are talking in the Legislature maybe one or two persons will die prematurely by seven to seven and a half years because of addiction to tobacco.

Dr. Kozlowski talks about the urge to smoke and the addiction to tobacco. People who have come to the Addiction Research Foundation to seek help with regard to alcohol and drug problems were asked, and this included a sample of some 1,000 individuals, how great their urge and addiction to tobacco really was. It is interesting that some 56 to 57 per cent of the people who had come to the Addiction Research Foundation for alcohol and drug purposes said they would have a greater time kicking the habit of tobacco than they would have of kicking the drug or alcohol problem. That shows how deep the addiction to this particular substance and the urge to continue with it are.

Even of those who were addicted to heroin, some 31 per cent said their urge for tobacco was as strong as their addiction to heroin. I think this particular study shows that we are not dealing with a habit or a socially accepted custom. We are dealing with an addiction, an addiction which will cause early death. It is a very serious problem. Therefore, I do congratulate the minister in taking one small step to try to alleviate this problem.

I have said over a period of time when I have spoken on this subject that the problem of addiction to tobacco and the detrimental health effects of tobacco have to be approached in a number of areas because there are a lot of people in society who are affected by this. Those of us who have tried to show some leadership in attacking this particular problem and in trying to deal with this problem have indicated in the past that one step is not enough to deal with the whole problem.

I think it would be important for this government to set out a series of goals which it should put forward as its mandate in dealing with this problem. I would like to put forward my goals in dealing with this problem so that we can have a healthier Ontario in the future.

The first goal I think we should have in dealing with tobacco is to keep those who are not presently using tobacco and are not addicted to tobacco from taking on the habit of smoking. I see many young people in the public gallery opposite me here today. Unfortunately, most people in our province become addicted to tobacco before they reach the age of 18. Therefore, it is most important that we talk to our young people and say to them: “Look, if you want to die seven and a half years earlier than you would normally die, then take up tobacco.

If you want to take the chance of injuring your child when you smoke during pregnancy, then you should take up tobacco. And if you want to cause a great deal of potential for pain and suffering during your 40s and 50s, then take up tobacco.” Our first goal should be to prevent, and we should aim our forces at the young people to stop them from taking up the habit.

The second goal, and the goal which we are dealing with primarily today, should be to protect those who do not smoke from the hazards of secondhand smoke. This piece of legislation deals with controlling smoking in the workplace. I will mention some specifics with regard to this piece of legislation and where I see it falling short of achieving that goal. I hope that we will be able to change this legislation through debate and through the committee process.

The third and last goal that we should have is to try to help, through understanding of this terrible addictive substance, those who are addicted to tobacco to try to get off of that substance. We have not been able to tell people of the problems or we have not gotten through to these people as to how they can do that. As I indicated in terms of this latest research, we have to understand that those people who are addicted to tobacco cannot just walk away from that habit without some significant help, and I do understand the problem that people have in doing this.

I might add that this government is not taking an adequate role in educating the public as to the ill effects of tobacco. They have not taken an active role in helping many associations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, the Canadian Cancer Society -- Ontario Division and many other groups in educating the public as to what in fact is needed to get people to get off the habit.

An interesting fact, whether we would like it or not, is that people at various educational levels react to smoking in different ways. Statistics Canada shows that if you have a university degree, then there is only a 20 per cent chance that you are a habitual smoker. If you have finished high school, then there is a 35 per cent chance that you are a habitual smoker. If you have passed grade 8 and you have not completed high school or completed a substantial portion of high school, then there is a 50 per cent chance that you are a habitual smoker.

That tells me that those people who are perhaps reading material with regard to the detrimental health effects of tobacco are drawing a logical conclusion and trying to get off it, but those people who are less likely to pick up a newspaper and read the columns with regard to the detrimental effects of tobacco are not taking action and therefore a greater number of them are smoking.

I am talking in general categories. I am not saying that everyone who only has a grade 8 education is necessarily a smoker. We are talking about statistics which the Canadian government has produced and which show that the message is not getting across to those people who need the help most.

We must take a number of corrective actions in order to meet these three goals. One of the things we have failed to do, in my view, is address the problem that tobacco producers and the workers involved with producing these particular products might have. We have had a great deal of social upset with the people who are producing tobacco and our governments have not reacted in a positive enough manner to this particular problem. We should be in a position to compensate tobacco producers. We should be in a position to retrain tobacco producers, whether they are working in the field or in the plant.

We have to put greater emphasis, as I said before, on education of our public, not only in terms of written articles but we should produce facts so that people who are watching television or listening to the radio learn the facts about this very detrimental substance which will affect their health in a very detrimental manner.

We must recognize how to help addicted smokers get off the habit if they in fact choose to do that. Therefore, I was pleased that the government introduced some help for Ontario civil servants to get away from the habit in terms of supporting some programs which would help a smoker quit. I would hope that they might encourage other members who work in the private sector to get off the habit as well.

Of course, we have legislation at the federal level dealing with the controlling of advertising and I support stricter controls with regard to the advertising of tobacco.

I have introduced a bill with regard to controlling the sale of tobacco to minors. Right now the control of sale of tobacco to minors is a joke in our province. We had a recent situation where Boots Drug Stores Ltd., which sells $2 billion worth of consumer goods a year, was fined the grand sum of $25 in court for selling tobacco to minors. What kind of a disincentive is that for any retailer to stop selling tobacco to minors in the future? Business will continue as usual, whether or not it is Boots Drug Stores or any other kind of drugstore.

Boots Drug Stores should not be singled out; I believe that it is trying to control the matter, but I believe also that the present law is a bit of a joke.

Lastly, we come to situations where we must control the environment indoors with regard to smoking, both in public places and in the business place or in the place of work. That is what we are dealing with today in Bill 194. As the minister knows, I have introduced two different bills dealing with this problem. Bill 157 allows municipalities to make bylaws which would be much more restrictive than Bill 194.

It has received second reading in this Legislature and I hope will eventually receive third reading in this Legislature to allow other municipalities across this province to take the same progressive steps as the city of Toronto, the city of Etobicoke and the city of Markham have the right to take now.

I would say, in a constructive manner as best I can, that I would like to suggest to the minister a number of problems that we have with his existing Bill 194. Bill 194 requires that an employer designate at least 75 per cent of the workplace as a nonsmoking area. That means that up to 25 per cent could be designated as a smoking area. One of the great problems that is identified in this bill is that there is no need to provide separate ventilation between a smoking area and a nonsmoking area. I hope to illustrate that in a more dramatic way in a few moments.

This problem has been identified by a number of groups. I suspect that on April 17 and the days following that we will hear from a number of groups with regard to the problems that that could lead to, but I would read from page 2 of a letter from the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, affiliated with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, which was written to the minister. I believe he has also quoted from that letter, which in some ways congratulates the minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I acknowledge that and would not read the other parts of the letter without indicating that.

I would point out to the minister that on page 2 of their letter, which he has of course received, dated December 14, 1988, there is very strong evidence to suggest that confining smoking to 25 per cent of a large office or shop floor would be almost indistinguishable from having no smoking restriction at all. Therefore, with respect to the bill indicating that only 25 per cent of the area would be smoking, there is some feeling with this group and other groups that that would eventually not change anything from what the status quo is at the present time.

I think the more important

part comes when we read from a copy of a letter which I have received, dated January 6, 1989, from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. These are the people who are selling tobacco to our people in Ontario. It is signed by William Neville, its president. This is directed to the director of human resources, directed to the people who take care of employee relations in offices and plants across the province.

This is the penultimate paragraph, the second to last paragraph: “The bill currently before the Ontario Legislature proposes to compel you, your business and your staff to conform to a set of one-size-fits-all directives. We hope this brochure” -- and there is an enclosed brochure -- “will offer you some thought-provoking information and some interesting management alternatives.”

In the brochure, it indicates in one portion:

“Encourage two or more employees sharing the same office space to work out their arrangements. Failing that, each employee might be given the right to designate a circumference from where he or she sits according to his or her individual preference.”

In other words, the way the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council and every group that I have heard is interpreting this piece of legislation is to give this piece of legislation the same kind of impact and the same kind of shenanigans that we have seen on the TV program, WKRP in Cincinnati.

I do not know if members ever watched that, but if they remember Les Nessman, he was a radio announcer who was concerned about the fact that he had to sit in an office with three or four other people and he was not given his own, separate office. Therefore, Les Nessman drew a line along the floor where his office wall should be.

What the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council is suggesting is that Bill 194 should perhaps be named after Les Nessman. What we should have is a Les Nessman bill, because what the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council is suggesting is that if my seatmate over here happens to be a smoker or if this fellow happens to be a smoker, then what we do is put a line of tape down the floor between us.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Put that tape over your mouth and we can end this debate.

Mr. Reycraft: Would you send that roll over with a page when you’re finished with it?

Mr. Furlong: You didn’t have to do both sides, one was enough.

Mr. Sterling: In this case, this is a smoking area but this is a nonsmoking area, and I am supposed to be protected from smoke from these two particular individuals.

Mr. Mahoney: You should be protected from your colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, that is protecting you from the third place Tory party.

Mr. Sterling: I have upset the Minister of Labour by showing so graphically the faults with regard to this particular portion of the bill. But we will be insisting, during the committee hearings, that if in fact there is to be a division between a smoker and a nonsmoker, there must be a wall or some separate ventilation to protect me, the nonsmoker, from the secondhand smoke of my fellow worker.

I hope that after we have had the proper hearings with regard to this particular bill, the minister will see the fallacy with regard to this whole matter and we will not, as Les Nessman has been awarded, have to award the minister the Golden Sow Award for not seeing the fallacy of Bill 194 with regard to separate ventilation.

There is another problem. The member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), who is actually shorter in stature than myself, has always blamed the stunt in growth on the fact that he was a former smoker, and I accept that. Unfortunately, I did not smoke before and I have no excuse at all for the size of my stature.

Another problem we have with regard to Bill 194 is that it does not guarantee a nonsmoker a clean environment in his workplace. While consultation must take place and it should take place, if the employer makes the decision that even I as a nonsmoker must work in the smoking area, then that is the way it must be according to Bill 194. In all of the legislation I have been associated with before, such as the legislation in the city of Toronto, if a nonsmoker is aggrieved at the fact that he is not able to work in a smoke-free environment, then he has the final say. Therefore, that will be something we will insist upon when we deal with this legislation.

Second to last, I would like to indicate to the Legislature that I believe this bill is in some ways too arbitrary. If everyone within a working establishment smokes and does not object to second-hand smoke, then I do not see any reason only 25 per cent should be designated as a smoking area. You may say that might be odd coming from a person advocating nonsmoking rights, etc., but the fact of the matter is that if all the people in a particular workplace smoke -- I am thinking of small working places of maybe two or three individuals -- and if they all are not concerned about second-hand smoke, I do not understand why this legislation should override their desires.

That is the beauty of the present municipal legislation that is in place in the city of Toronto and will be probably in place in the town of Markham and the city of Etobicoke.

Finally, I would like to say that within this bill under subsection 10(2), it says, “Nothing in this act prevents a municipality from passing bylaws respecting smoking in workplaces.” I am happy that particular

section is in place because last November this Legislature passed Bill 157, a bill I introduced in this Legislature, which would allow the right of every other municipality in Ontario to pass workplace smoking bylaws.

I hope the minister will allow each and every other municipality, at its option, to have the same rights the city of Etobicoke, the city of Toronto and the town of Markham now enjoy. Therefore, I ask him that we go with Bill 194 and try to improve that legislation, but that he also see that the government calls Bill 157 for third and final reading so that other municipalities might take more restrictive action, as the city of Toronto has, in dealing with this whole issue.

In wrapping up, our party will support this legislation. We look forward to constructive hearings in the standing committee on social development beginning April 17. We will be putting forward constructive amendments to this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions? Are there other participants in the debate? Does the Minister of Labour wish to wrap up the debate?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do. I enjoyed the comments of both members. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), for some unknown reason, suggested there were major structural problems within the bill. We are going to review those remarks within the ministry.

We are particularly going to review the remarks of the member for Carleton. I am going ask officials within my ministry to look at those comments very carefully, and I will tell the members why. The member for Carleton really has made this issue something very near and dear to his heart. He has participated in the democratic process in a sterling way, if I might say that, and has brought this issue to the Legislature not so much in the form of a bill; he has registered disagreements.

In the political and democratic processes and in the way in which we conduct ourselves, I think he can take a good deal of the credit for the fact there is a government bill before this Legislature now that will certainly go a long way in reducing the extent to which there is smoking in the workplace and will restrict greatly the amount people smoke in the workplace.

I want to thank both the member for Carleton and the member for Hamilton East for their comments and for what I hope will be their support of the bill. I look forward to hearing their further comments when the bill is in committee. I fully expect that when the debate is over and the bill is read for a third time, given royal assent and proclaimed into law, we will be regulating our workplaces in a far more effective and appropriate way, recognizing that those who prefer to work in an atmosphere free of smoke will be able to do so under this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your time and consideration, and for the consideration of the House in this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 212,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to make some very brief opening comments with respect to Bill 212, the purpose of which is to raise the indemnities and allowances payable to members of the Legislature under the Legislative Assembly Act for this year just ending, the fiscal year 1988-89, by 4.7 per cent.

As I said earlier, I want to make just a couple of comments by way of explanation because I know honourable members will recall the debate of a little over a year ago. I was reviewing the debate of January 7, 1988, when we last discussed this matter of the pay and allowances to members of the Legislature. It was indeed a lively debate at that time. I can well remember the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and the leader of the third party expressing their concern about the process.

I made a commitment at that time on behalf of the government to review the process, with a view to finding an alternative to the annual bills we will debate here this morning in respect of the salaries and allowances paid to both the members of the Legislature as members of the Legislature and to those members who also serve on the executive council.

I want to say that we have had over the last number of months -- my friends the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), as members of the House leaders and whips panel will know from their participation at that level -- a number of discussions as to alternatives to this annual debate, where members must stand in this chamber and address a bill or a set of bills raising their pay.

The Leader of the Opposition said some time ago -- it was January 7, 1988 -- that he found this to be an invidious position and I agree it is not perhaps the most comfortable position, but I want to say that as we looked at alternatives over the last several months, it was quite clear we could not find a better way.

We looked long and hard. I want to say to my friends that it was with some interest that I watched the debate in Congress over the last few weeks when the often-held-up better alternative of an exterior commission having charge of this kind of responsibility was shown to be, in its own way, very inadequate. There was no debate in Washington quite like the debate over that exterior commission that was recommending to the United States pay raises for members of Congress and members of the federal judiciary, a pay raise increase I think in the order of 51 per cent. It ignited a nationwide debate.

Mr. Speaker, as you are from that very important border city of Windsor, I am sure you would know from reading the Detroit Free Press just how galvanized public opinion became in the United States over the idea that Congress was simply going to routinely increase its pay by 51 per cent because some commission had recommended it as a good idea. As I remember, members of Congress did not approve that increase and it produced no little bit of tension on Capitol Hill.

We looked at a number of alternatives. We are joined by my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the distinguished House leader for the third party. He came to me with one particular model that we looked at with some care.

I certainly have been in favour -- I make no bones about it -- of some kind of escalator that would remove the requirement for the annual bill. I want to say that we do not have the annual escalator in these two bills, Bill 212 and Bill 213, because my friends in the opposition have said, “We are not prepared to have an escalator that is attached to what we believe is an inadequate base.”

I respect their views in that connection, but I want it to be clear that when it was argued last year that we should look at a new process, we did look at a number of alternatives. The government was and is quite prepared to accept and build into the process an annual escalator. We were not, however, able to resolve the question of the base salary among our three parties.

The government has felt we must show leadership in this connection. We have said it is very difficult for us to stand in Windsor, Pembroke or North Bay and tell people who are out there working in the public sector, particularly people who have made a very passionate argument that their base pay rates are not as they would like them -- I am thinking, for example, of the home care workers in my county who have come to me and said, “We just do not think you are being adequately sensitive to our income needs.” I can appreciate why they would feel that way. The members opposite have made a very compelling argument on their case, as have many of my colleagues in the government caucus.

When we, as an executive council, looked at the whole question of the base salary for members, we considered a number of alternatives. One alternative that was looked at -- I want to be perfectly frank -- was accepting the most recent recommendation of the Commission on Election Finances, so ably headed by the very distinguished former member for York South and a long-time leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, Donald MacDonald. That recommendation, made some time ago, was that the base rate should be increased from where it is now, from about $39,200 to $45,000. That one alternative was looked at with a great deal of care.

We looked at another alternative -- I do not mean to speak out of turn but I think my friend the member for Nipissing would well remember the discussion -- where we looked at the current system, long developed over the decades in this chamber, where the members’ pay is a matter both of base salary and nontaxed expense allowances. We looked seriously at what is called the grossed-up alternative, taking all the current base salary, which is taxed, and the nontaxed allowances and folding those into one grossed-up salary, all of which would be taxable. That was looked at very carefully and had its proponents and its detractors.

In the end, we have decided that while we are prepared to incorporate an escalator to eliminate the annual introduction of the pay bill -- I want to be clear about that; the government is and has been quite prepared to offer that escalator -- we have decided that the mix of base salary and expense allowances ought to be maintained as they are and that they should be adjusted this year by essentially the rate of inflation, which these bills suggest as 4.7 per cent.

I do not mean to suggest that is the rate of inflation, but essentially the principle cabinet approved was that the current regime of base salary and allowances should be maintained and that we should apply something like the inflation index to that for this year, 1988-89.

I know this is not going to meet with unanimous approval. I know it is of ongoing concern to a number of members, quite frankly on all sides, but I must say the government has felt that when all things are considered, the rates of pay are not unreasonable.

I do not know any of us who ever feels he is fully compensated for the amount of time and effort we expend, and I do not just mean as members of the Legislature, I say to my friend the member for Carleton, who prior to coming to this chamber 12 years ago was, as few people I know are, both a professional engineer and a lawyer. My lawyer friends always tell me, “The tariff just doesn’t fully compensate me for all the work I must put forward in favour of my clients.” I have even heard engineers, I say to my friend the member for Carleton, say something of the same. I know there are many people who feel their compensation package is not as full as they would like it and that is understandable.

I must say in concluding my remarks that we feel, as a government, that 4.7 per cent on both the base salary and the allowances is reasonable. It does reflect the cost-of-living indices we have seen in this province over the past year, to a very large extent at any rate.

I point out again that some of the alternatives were very carefully canvassed. The government is prepared to accept the escalator, but we recognize that honourable members opposite have very strong views about the kind of base to which that escalator might apply and we have left that, unfortunately, unresolved because we could not come to a meeting of minds.

I point out again, on the basis of the very spirited debate in the United States over the last month, that the alternative of the exterior commission as a better way has been shown to be, in my view, something that is not necessarily a better way.

I will conclude my remarks by saying again that we think, as a government, that this is fair and reasonable. We know it is not perfect. We know there will be some concern and complaint, but at the end of the day we feel we must show leadership to the province. People in the public sector and outside look to this government, look to this Legislature for leadership by example. We feel that this is a good example and that it is not unreasonable in so far as the compensatory considerations are concerned.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be very brief because I have certainly learned that on this particular subject, whether you are brief or whether you are short, the results are always the same when it comes to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) making a decision on the members’ pay for all 130 members.

I think Liberal backbenchers in particular should understand that this has not been a very democratic. or acceptable process. It really has boiled down to the fact that one person has made a decision on what kind of pay increase all the members of the Legislature are going to get. There have been negotiations going on since last January when we discussed the original bill in the Legislature. We received a commitment at that time from the government House leader and from the Premier that negotiations would occur.

The three House leaders met, I believe it was last February, over a year ago, to begin the examination of alternative processes and what the proper base pay could be in this place. Then a number of months went by and nothing happened. Finally, the leaders of the parties got together a number of weeks ago and put to the Premier a proposal for some alternatives.

I understand that a government party is obviously concerned about raising members’ pay substantially, because of the possible political consequences.

The Leader of the Opposition -- and the leader of the third party, I believe, was agreeable -- offered either to move the bill or to second the bill with the government House leader or the Premier, as a method of expressing very clearly to the people of this province that the entire Legislature was in agreement, that all three political parties and all three political leaders were willing to take any credit or any blame that would result from the setting of a proper wage for members of the Legislature. After several weeks of consideration, the Premier said, “No, the increase is going to be 4.7 per cent.”

I think one of the frustrations the opposition parties have is the reality that more than 80 per cent of the members in the Liberal caucus get some additional pay. They get the basic pay, they get the expense allowance and then they get some other pay, whether it be a parliamentary assistant’s money, a committee chairman’s pay or whatever. The amount of money that the Liberal backbenchers have to live on is quite different from what the majority of the opposition members have.

The vast majority of our members and the members of the Conservative Party have the basic pay and expense allowance and that is it. There is no additional money, except for a few of us who have some specific responsibilities within our caucus. There is not the pressure on the Liberal caucus to see that there is proper pay, because most of its members are receiving substantially more than ordinary members in the Legislature who are in the opposition parties.

The government House leader is correct when he explains that there was an automatic escalator offered to the opposition parties. But I am sure that most Liberal backbenchers would agree with the position that the opposition parties have taken, that it would be ludicrous to put an automatic escalator in the pay package when the commission’s recommendation, which has been in front of us for several years, for the second half of a major reform, a major increase -- recommended, I believe, either in the late 1970s or early 1980s -- has never been implemented.

There was a recommendation a number of years ago for a $10,000 increase in our pay packet. The former Premier, Mr. Davis, implemented the first half of that, the $5,000, and the Commission on Election Finances has been recommending every year since that the second half be implemented. That has not been done, so we are obviously not prepared to have built into the process an automatic escalator which would mean that there would never be a reopening of the pay discussions in the Legislature.

At least the way it is now, as unacceptable as it is, there will be an automatic annual review and the members of the Legislature will at least have the opportunity to make their views known about the inadequacy of our pay package in this place.

The other thing, and I guess the final point, is that there were some substantial changes, and the commission certainly recognized that, when the conflict-of-interest legislation was passed. Members do not have the luxury or ability to freely invest and make money elsewhere outside of the Legislature. There are many more restrictions. There is public disclosure now. I think it is all very, very important and very good for all members of the Legislature to be participating in the conflict-of-interest legislation.

However, if we are to allow people and encourage people and have a process that allows people from all areas of society to participate in the Legislature and to consider running for office, for the Legislature, and if people are going to be restricted as to what they can make outside of this place, then obviously we have to have a pay package that is adequate, that offers some incentive to people to run for this office.

Certainly at the rate of pay we have now there is not that kind of incentive for large numbers of people, considering the hours that are put in and the stress that comes with the job. Also. obviously, a lot of rewards come with the job, but it is a stressful, time-consuming job that is up for review every four years. There is very little job security in this job.

I think that is another major reason the government should have considered implementing the second half of the election finances commission report and then we could have built in the automatic escalator. Once we have a decent base, then I think the automatic escalator and taking it out of the hands of the Legislative Assembly itself would have been an appropriate thing to do.

Under the current circumstances, I think we have a very unsatisfactory process. We have an unsatisfactory base pay, one that is not keeping up with the cost of living, which has not received the proper adjustments in the last number of years. I guess we can only express our disappointment. We cannot do anything else about it. Eventually, it is up to Liberal backbenchers getting their point across to their Premier and to their government that they want to see changes and perhaps we will see those changes next year or the year after.

It is frustrating again in that the person who makes the major decisions on this matter really does not have to worry about his income from the Legislature, because the income that the Premier earns at the Legislature is a very small amount of money indeed in terms of his personal financial resources. Many other members of the Legislature have to rely totally on their income from the Legislature. They are not like the Premier. Basically, the money he makes here is spending money compared to his private resources.

I think as long as the Liberal backbenchers let the Premier, who is a millionaire, make the decisions on pay packages for ordinary members of the Legislature, then this inadequate level of pay for members of the Legislature is going to continue. We will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Harris: I will be brief. We will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

I do not want to get into any of the specifies or any of the details or any of the behind-the-scenes, supposedly private discussions that took place. I want to simply say this: A year ago we expressed concern about the process. We expressed concern that there ought to be a better way than members of this assembly year after year after year voting themselves whatever the increase is.

We argued at that time. My leader spoke and the leader of the New Democratic Party spoke and said that there are mechanisms in place that work in the private sector, there are mechanisms in place that work in the public sector, we have a government that is committed to some pay equity legislation that requires an independent look and review of what people are worth in their jobs, and this is now a full-time job. This is now something that ought not to be an onus on the government to bear responsibility for and ought not to be an onus on individual members year after year to come in and say, “We vote ourselves a raise.”

Whether you vote yourself one per cent or 500 per cent, in my view, in this day and age of full-time politicians, that is wrong. There are the Hay system methods, there are many methods; so we wanted and we raised a little fuss a year ago, saying that we would like some meaningful, intelligent discussion on how we remove this from the process.

The government did not want to do that. I acknowledge there were some discussions that went on, although not the kind of discussions we particularly wanted to have, because the government said, “No, we will not allow it to go out to an independent commission, we will not allow an independent body, we will not allow that, we want to carry on in the same old way,” and there were some behind-the-scene discussions on that.

Second, the one aspect that the government House leader really wanted to talk about in those negotiations was this inflation indexer. He mentioned it five or six times in his speech. My party is opposed to automatically indexing to inflation in many, many areas. I think it is wrong. I do not care what the base is; I am not in favour of an automatic inflation indexer. I reject that outright.

I am in favour of some method of relating our salary through an independent commission. which would be my first choice, or some independent body, to some other salary that may be out there. Some will say that that salary will undoubtedly go up and that will, in effect, be some form of indexer. That may be very true. On the other hand, that other salary will have had an independent look at it. It may go up or it may go down. If there is a fair evaluation, if that is the method that is determined, then so be it; that is fair and that indeed is where we should be.

I think this would be 100 per cent totally wrong for this Legislature. In both opposition parties, we could argue about whether we felt the base was right. The main concern we had was that the process was not right, and we are opposed. Both parties oppose having an automatic indexing inflationary mechanism for our own salaries at the same time as my party, in any event, is not prepared to offer that to all of industry, to all of Ontario. It is the type of automatic indexing that we feel encourages inflation.

There are far fewer impediments in the way of government, if everything is just going to be automatically indexed, to control costs and to control inflation, to control those things. That is not a principle that my party espouses. That is not a principle that we are comfortable with. What a terrible example it would set to all of industry, to all of the public sector employees we have who must negotiate from time to time. They have a process. They have a mechanism we do not have if we say, “Our mechanism is just an automatic inflation indexation.”

I do not know why the government House leader brings that part up and tries to indicate how great it was. We think that is a terrible, terrible example to set for this province. We are totally opposed to that, so I do comment on that one part of it. We are against the process. We think it is continuing on. We have an indication from the government that this is the way it plans to do it for ever and a day.

I do not want to get into the argument of how it was done for 42 years. I want to tell members that we think we should be looking forward. We should be reflecting the role of the Legislature. We should be looking at the changes that have evolved over the last 10 or 15 years. We should be taking a look at how that role has changed and how some of the remunerations like the expense allowance have in fact perhaps outlived their usefulness.

Those are some of the specifies, but it is the process. We think somebody other than those of us who are directly involved should be taking a look at it and assessing it. We will oppose this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Sterling: As I have spoken out publicly in my own community on this particular matter and have not shied away from making my position clear, I thought I should say a few words today in terms of this issue.

The problem that we have with regard to Bill 212 and Bill 213 is that it perpetuates a system which is not only unfair but I think leads to a weak parliamentary system, a system in which members of the provincial parliament must not only come here and listen to logical debate, but also have in jeopardy the financial security of their families when making decisions on policy and whether or not they should speak out on behalf of their constituents from time to time.

I note that of the 94 Liberal government members in this Legislature who were elected as Liberals, 78 of them, 83 per cent of the Liberals. are receiving additional indemnities. Who decides whether they should receive an additional indemnity? One man, the Premier, and the Premier of the province is not only --

Mr. Ballinger: Boy, you’ve got a short memory, Norm.

Mr. Faubert: You did when you were in government.

Mr. Sterling: I hear them chirping. I hear all the fellows who are on the take. I hear them. They are all on the take, receiving extra money here in this Legislature, all chirping up with regard --

Mr. Faubert: Not on the take. Knock it off, Norm. You are losing any support you ever had.

Mr. Sterling: I am not going to get support for this, because I know Liberal members are all going to fall in behind the Premier.

Mr. Faubert: “On the take” is really inappropriate. You should apologize for that.

Mr. Sterling: Whatever the member wants to call it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: There are 78 of the 94 Liberals presently in this Legislature who are receiving additional indemnities. I apologize for saying “on the take,” because it is quite within the realm of this Legislature to do that. I apologize for that.

Notwithstanding that, the problem we have now is that we have a situation where not only is the Premier controlling the Legislature in terms of his powers as Premier -- what he can persuade members of his caucus to do, what he can persuade this particular Legislature to do -- but also he is dealing with the financial security of the members of provincial parliament and how they should react and behave with regard to their own constituents back home.

To say that one member of this Legislature is worth $52,000 or $53,000 and another member of this Legislature is worth $82,000 or $83,000 is a significant power for the Premier to have. It is a power which, I am afraid, has led to a lack of substantial debate in this Legislature from time to time. We have seen evidence of that over the last year and a half.

We have not seen members of the government side stand up in the Legislature and differ even one degree off the course of where the government might be, which is uncommon when we speak with regard to other British parliamentary systems.

Mr. Ballinger: Where were you 10 years ago?

Mr. Sterling: Some of the members talk to me about where I was 10 years ago. I did speak up in this Legislature and differed from time to time with regard to my government at that particular time.

Mr. Ballinger: On salaries?

Mr. Sterling: The member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) perhaps does not understand the particular point that I am trying to put forward, but the situation is such that, as we increase the indemnities, as well as increasing the base salary for MPPs, we are making the gap grow wider and wider between what those ministers would receive and what normal MPPs receive. Therefore, what we have is a situation where we are putting more and more power in the hands of the Premier to quell any debate with regard to any of his policies.

Another point that should be made at this time is that within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, for instance, or any other large metropolitan area, in comparisons of MPPs’ salaries with local politicians’ salaries, what is happening is that local politicians are now being paid in excess of what MPPs are being paid, notwithstanding the fact that many of us have to maintain two homes. While being compensated for many of those costs, not all those costs are covered with regard to the two areas.

The problem with the present process, as the member for Nipissing has indicated before, is that this particular matter is dealt with by one man, the Premier of the province, and nobody else really has anything to say about what in fact happens with regard to this particular issue.

To put all of that control in one man who, for his own personal reasons, has less concern about it than other members -- and quite frankly, I do not have much concern about this particular issue. It does not really make that much difference to me on a personal level because of my ability in private life to be able to sustain myself with regard to living expenses, etc.

It is interesting to note that last spring I had someone walk into my legislative office and offer a place of employment to me that would have more than doubled the salary I presently receive as an MPP in this Legislative Assembly. While many members here would argue whether or not Norm Sterling contributes to this legislative process constructively or energetically, or whether he is worth while, the fact of the matter is that if in fact this Legislative Assembly wants to attract people who have skills and are wanted on the outside, then it must offer compensation that is attractive.

I stay in this Legislative Assembly for the same reasons I came here in 1977. I feel I can make a contribution to my constituents and the people of Ontario. I enjoy the excitement of this institution. I think that I can make a better contribution overall here than I can in private life.

The problem with the salary structure now is that it is too disparate. MPPs are not treated equally within the walls of this Legislative Assembly. It leads to a situation where in my view there are MPPs not speaking their mind, not taking an active role in debate and not speaking the minds of their constituents. Therefore, we are on a system which, albeit it was part of a system in which I was a member of government, is one that should be changed.

Quite frankly, as David Bartlett has pointed out with regard to the regional council in the Ottawa-Carleton area, I believe every member in this Legislature should be paid basically the same amount. Some of us might need more administrative help around us, but any additional posts or duties we take should be on the basis that we want to do those for the people of Ontario and that they are an honour and a responsibility we are willing to take. I would be quite willing to live with that regardless of which side of the House I lived on.

Lastly, I would like to say that I had the honour of being a parliamentary assistant to a former Attorney General for a period of four years; I have been a minister in the past government; I have been a member of a large opposition party in the last parliament, and I have been a member of an opposition in a small opposition party as I now am.

I can say that during that period of time, the energy, the effort I have expended has not changed. During all that period of time, I would not say I was worth any more or any less at one time than at any other time during that period of history. Therefore, if we want to measure the worth of an individual as an MPP, it does not relate to the position beholds in this Legislature.

Therefore, I indicate again that our party will oppose these pieces of legislation for the disparities that continue and the lack of process that continues as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions? Are there other participants in the debate? Does the government House leader wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, I do, briefly, on three or four points. I admit this is a difficult issue. It always is. I have to say what I said at the opening of these remarks, that one should look at some of the alternatives that are being held up as a better way. I would respectfully submit that what we have seen in Washington over the last six weeks, with the recommendations of the Quadrennial Commission, was in my view nothing but an unmitigated disaster.

Mr. Laughren: We can do better than this, Sean.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We may be able to do better than that, but I just say to my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), and for people who say there is a better way and that it is to accept the recommendations of an external commission, that I ask him to look at what has happened in Washington over the last month with that process in place. It was a disaster. I tell the member that is a Congress where the power of incumbency is enormous. They all get reelected, virtually.

Mr. Reycraft: It is 99 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The chief government whip says 99 per cent.

I want to make the point that the other ways have been carefully analysed and they were not accepted. I point out that the American example of recent note is a good example to me that this alternative is not all some would make it out to be.

Mr. Laughren: It depends where you get your direction.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No. I do not want to leave the impression that I take my direction from Capitol Hill. I point to Washington, since others have, to that kind of mechanism, to see what happened in recent days.

I want to say something else. I think it is important for me to say this. Difficult as it is, I do not have a particular problem standing up and addressing the question of my salary in this chamber. Like the member for Carleton, I have played the role on both aisles of this chamber. I do not have a problem. Others might, and I know it is not easy, but I have to tell the members that I have done it in the past and that I will do it in the future.

I am quite prepared to continue to look at alternatives and to try to find in a consensual way that better process that has been talked about. But let me be clear: I do not mind going home tomorrow and saying to the people in my riding what I did and why.

It has been observed by some that some members of this assembly receive additional emoluments relative to others and that is true. As far as I know, ever has it been the case in a parliamentary system. I always understood when I was over there why it was my friend the member for Carleton, formerly Carleton Grenville, would receive additional emoluments as parliamentary assistant to the late, great Roy McMurtry -- late Attorney General, I should say; he is, according to the news last night, alive and well and active in the commission rooms of the city.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: And the practice of law.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And the practice of law.

I understood why he received additional emoluments as parliamentary assistant. I understood why my friend the member for Nipissing received several thousands of additional dollars as a minister of the crown in 1985 for the service he ably offered as Minister of Natural Resources.

I do not want to leave any wrong impression about that. I do not think my friends from either Nipissing or Carleton want that changed. If they do, then that is a revolutionary change, it seems to me, over what I have heard in the past.

I want to say to my friend the member for Nipissing that the adjustment this year, like the adjustment last year, is offered as more or less of a cost-of-living increase: 4.7 per cent this year. I am not suggesting, though, that if we were to move to an escalator it would automatically be that, although that would be an obvious choice. So that there is no confusion in the mind of the member, I want to just make that point.

A final point: Yes, my friend the member for Carleton says, “Who decides?” It is a money bill and under our system the executive council decides.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was David Peterson.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside observes that it might very well have been done under the leadership of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and he is right, with a lot of advice around the caucus table and around the cabinet table. My friend the member for Hamilton East smiles his knowing smile. I just want to say that we had a very good debate. We had a very lively debate, I want my friends opposite to know. But they should also know that, yes, it is a money bill, and yes, the cabinet decides and the Premier was quite involved in that decision, as he is in all matters affecting this government.

He has said, “We have got to lead by example.” While it is difficult and while members opposite have argued --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: He’s a millionaire.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside observes something of the financial state of some members. Perhaps he wants to get into that with his friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) here and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) who is absent. I am not going to get into that kind of argument. I do not think it is fair to suggest that these decisions are made with a view to one’s own financial status.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Listen, I was not the one who raised the issue, I say to the member for Hamilton East. Please understand that the decision was made by cabinet. Certainly, the Premier had an active role in that. He has said, and I repeat it this morning, that government ultimately bears the responsibility. That is as it should be in our system of parliamentary responsible government. This morning, we are saying to the Legislature and to the province beyond that while it is difficult and while arguments have been eloquently advanced for more, we feel this is reasonable and sets a good example.

I conclude by saying, yes, the government decided; yes, the Premier played his customary leadership role. He said, “We think this is fair, we think it is reasonable and we think it shows a good example to the province in this connection.”

The Acting Speaker: I will put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 213,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, this bill increases the salaries paid to members of the executive council of the province by 4.7 per cent for the fiscal year 1988-89. I move the adoption of this measure on the same grounds that were advanced in support of the previous item.

Mr. Laughren: I want to briefly enter the debate because I did not have an opportunity in the previous debate.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Ah, Mr. Sanity from the NDP.

Mr. Laughren: I do not think the Minister of Labour should get into this debate unless he is prepared to do so in a formal way.

I found it very strange in the previous vote how the Liberal backbenchers did not express their views in this chamber the way they have privately in the corridors these last many months.

The other point I want to make to the government House leader is that I recall a year ago when in this chamber there was a debate about this very matter and I very clearly heard the government House leader promise there would be a new process. It was not some kind of vague assurance that they would think about it. It seemed to me very clear that the government House leader was saying there would be a new process for arriving at a decision on what members of this assembly should be paid, including members of the cabinet of course.

The other point I want to make is that we have in this province a Commission on Election Finances. I do not know why the government is proceeding in the way it is when it has that commission with its given mandate. I assume that at this point the commission would tell it to stick it in its ear.

It is ridiculous to give them a certain task, such as asking them to make a recommendation to the government on the emoluments of elected members, and then ignore them year after year after year. I do not know why they take the insult, quite frankly. If I were they, I would say, “Either change our mandate or get somebody else to do it.”

It is an incredible act of arrogance on the part of this government to have established that commission, to have given it that mandate and then totally to ignore it year after year. If I were a member of that commission, I know what I would tell the government. I am surprised they have not already. I would certainly encourage them to tell the government what to do with the existing mandate they presently have, because the government is making a mockery of it. It is asking them to do something and it is saying, “However, go through the exercise.” They have done a lot of work in this regard.

They have checked it out with other jurisdictions. They have made serious and carefully reasoned recommendations year after year.

The government says, “Well, we’re not going to listen to you.” Why does the government have them there? Why is it paying them to do a job and then ignoring their recommendations? To me, that makes no sense, for those two reasons: first, the fact that the government House leader promised a different process -- he promised, as I recall, quite specifically, quite clearly, in his usual articulate way, that there would be a new process. Well, there is not.

I know it is just another in a long list of broken promises. It does not rank up there with the importance of some of the promises that have been broken, but it is still yet another broken promise on the part of this government.

I, for one, no longer expect the government to carry out what it promises to do. When these ministers stand up day after day and make announcements, in my own head I just discount them. I think a lot of people out there in Ontario discount the grand statements that are made, because they are not carried through; they are not followed up.

I am glad to see the Minister of Labour shaking his head, because if ever there was an example, it is the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Why are you making a personal attack?

Mr. Laughren: I am glad the Minister of Labour has decided to get into the debate. I hope that when he returns to his seat he will get into the debate in a more formal way.

I can tell him that for those two reasons: one, that there was yet another Liberal promise broken, which should not surprise any of us but nevertheless it is another broken promise; and second, that they continue to ignore the recommendations of the Commission on Election Finances, one of whose duties is to make recommendations to the government and the government has failed to even acknowledge in any meaningful way what the commission recommends, I shall not support this bill.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have just two quick comments to my friend the member for Nickel Belt. I checked the Hansard of January 7, 1988, because I anticipated his attack. I want to be clear, as page 1832 of that Hansard makes plain, that what I committed to do was to enter negotiations with my colleagues in the opposition to see if we could not find another way, and we did that. We worked at some length to see if we could come to some understanding. It was a commitment made in good faith and carried forward in good faith, I want the honourable member to know.

Mr. Laughren: A year ago.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes. I just want to be very clear about what I committed the government to do. In my view, we did that; we did it responsibly.

Mr. Laughren: You didn’t do anything. You didn’t do it; stop pretending.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Well, I am just not pretending, and I want my friend opposite to know a second matter. Much is made from the opposition benches, and to be perfectly frank I used to do it when I was over there as well --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And probably will again.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Perhaps so. My friend the member for Scarborough West suggests that the day may come when I might return to the other side of the island. He may very well be right. My experience with the member for Scarborough West is that he is far more clairvoyant than most of us, myself included, so I am quite prepared to defer to his Mackenzie King-like vision in these and other matters.

I have to say something else, but I should just finish the comment, because the opposition likes to create the impression that it has extensive intelligence of what the government benches are about in these matters. If what the honourable member opposite is saying is that there is a range of opinion in the government caucus, well he is absolutely right. I have some very good friends who have said to me some of the things that have already been advanced by members of the opposition.

I do not want to put him on the spot, but I see the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) here. He has pointed out to me on occasion some of the differentials as between municipal and provincial pay scales in these matters.

I just want to be perfectly frank with my friends opposite that it is not as though there is one view in the government caucus. The government caucus is representative of a wide range of views on this and, quite frankly, on a number of other issues. But after the good discussion and after the vigorous debate, this government caucus has a cohesiveness and a discipline that my friends opposite might do well to emulate. I know that it is not always easy to accept that, but I want to say to my friends that this government caucus, in terms of its cohesion and discipline, is a very, very exemplary group.

I have a final observation I want to make for my friend the member for Nickel Belt. He says: “What about the Commission on Election Finances? Isn’t it terrible that they have been asked to make recommendations and they have not been accepted?” I do not agree with his assessment that this is terrible. I have to tell the members that we are elected by the people of Ontario as an assembly, out of which comes a government to make these decisions. I just have to tell my friends opposite that I take the responsibility of being the government very seriously.

There are few people for whom I have a higher regard than my friend the chairman of the Commission on Election Finances. He was asked for advice and he gave advice. I remember when the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), now of this Legislature, formerly of that commission, participated in that process. They were asked for advice and they gave advice, but this government has the ultimate responsibility of making the decision. If the members opposite are asking whether we are prepared to accept that responsibility and to discharge it with sensitivity and clarity, we are.

If people who are asked to give us advice feel that just because their advice is not always accepted --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Never.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is not true. I have to tell the member that the Commission on Election Finances has offered advice on a variety of subjects. I can think of their advice on certain aspects of changes to the election law in this province and it was quickly accepted.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Never by you guys.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You’ve never accepted anything they’ve said on money.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On the question of members’ salaries, the member is probably right, but I want to disabuse my friends opposite of any sense they might have that we feel this is an unhappy situation. They get to offer advice and we get to make the decisions. They are not always easy --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are over here and you are over there.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not at all, because as we discussed in this chamber in recent days -- my friend the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said it last night -- I listen to our friends in the opposition talk about programming. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) is a very active proponent of spending on a whole range of proposals. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) was in yesterday, talking about how a variety of programs needed to be enhanced by way of commitment. But we ask over here about that group over there: Where are they when it comes to revenue matters?

Where are they on matters of taxation? With the odd exception, do they carefully withdraw from showing their cards, because they know there are some very tough issues, calls and judgements to be made? They do not want to be associated with them. They are prepared to stand in the sunshine of good-news announcements, but they will run as quickly as any sprinter one can think of from the tough questions of tax increases and other related matters.

I say in conclusion that we are prepared to do what the people of Ontario elected us to do: to make those tough decisions and to lead by example. We think, in this bill, as in its antecedent Bill 212, we have been fair and reasonable to the members of the Legislature and have shown a good example to the municipal sector and to the community at large. For those reasons, I once again say that I am pleased to put these motions and have them accepted.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What’s that glinting behind you? There’s 4.7 per cent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The discussion is now concluded.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendation contained in the report, on the process for the restoration of the parliament building, of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Epp: I am sure that we will not be able to emulate the kind of excitement that the two previous bills generated in this House. I get the impression that we are going to have unanimous consent to this particular motion and I am pleased to be able to participate in what I consider to be a very important debate and a very important adoption of a very important report.

I just want to outline a few things with regard to this debate. I understand there have been approximately 30 minutes allocated to the three parties -- 10 minutes to each -- so that we might get out of here at a time that is still reasonable, and people can get their lunch and get back here by 1:30 p.m.

In going back on the history of this particular building and looking at the restoration and renovation of this particular edifice, I find it is a tremendous building. I know the legislative chamber here is one of the nicest chambers I have seen in the five or 10 parliament buildings or legislative chambers that I have visited, both in the United States and in Canada. When we look at the particular building here and the history of this Legislature, we find that the area where the legislators met in this province has not always been in Toronto.

If we go back over 100 years ago -- or 200 years ago, actually -- in 1792 the legislators met first in Newark at that time, which is now Niagara-on-the-Lake. They moved from the Navy Hall to an oak tree in the centre of town, where now stands the Parliament Oak Public School, which I, by chance, had the good opportunity to attend back in the late 1940s, which gives you some idea of how old I am.

Prior to that, there was no real Legislature. After that, the legislators moved to Toronto, where the permanent home of the Legislature is now situate.

They first met at Front Street, where they built a building shortly thereafter of wood and brick.

In 1813, which was during the War of 1812 -- members will appreciate that -- the building was burned down by the American military forces. Following that, a new building was built, but in the interim the legislators met at the York General Hospital and the courthouse at the corner of King and Church streets.

The building was rebuilt, and then in 1832 the building was again ravaged by fire, but this was accidental, and a new structure was built shortly thereafter.

In 1841 the two provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were joined, and the parliaments of these two provinces met not only in Kingston and Toronto but also outside the province in Quebec City and Montreal. The government for this province has taken place not only in Ontario but also in Lower Canada, or Quebec as we know it today.

In designing this particular structure, the building went through a series of controversies. For instance, there was a committee that was established in the 1880s by the then government. There were three people on that committee and they drew up the specs, which were about 14 pages in length. They had a number of architectural firms and others who put forth plans. They were never happy with any one of them. Sometimes they picked the highest price, sometimes they picked the lowest price and so forth as far as the estimates were concerned.

At that time, in the 1880s, they thought the highest price of the building they wanted to construct was about $500,000. That is a pittance compared to the kind of investment we have now and it is a very small portion when we are talking about the restoration and renovation of this particular building.

What happened was what has happened in some industries. They drew up the specs and they found that one of the persons who could best deliver and who was an architect himself, out of Buffalo, was a fellow by the name of Waite who then became the architect of this particular building. They finished this structure, which has certain changes because of fires having taken place, for approximately $700,000, in that general neighbourhood.

In looking at this particular structure, I just want to quote from a report that was drafted by the Ministry of Culture and Communications in 1988, just to outline some of the structure here and what members might appreciate about the way it was developed.

It says: “Of considerable credit if not genius is the manner in which the entire parliament buildings are arranged in an harmonious five-part composition that at once appears formal and yet individual parts are enriched with an informal variety of textures and details. This Waite refers to as ‘informal balance’ and is a principle much exploited in the Romanesque style. The efficient functioning of the internal arrangements of rooms and spaces was of considerable concern to the government, probably more than the selected architectural style of the exterior.

The central block is the primary public space incorporating the main entrance, the grand staircase and the legislative chamber. The subordinate lower wings to the east and west provide administrative support to the Legislature and the government. Basically, the west wing was used for legislative functions and services including the various members’ chambers, opposition offices, the library and the Speaker’s apartment. The east wing provides rooms for the various departments, the Premier’s chambers, cabinet and other supporting services.”

That was the way it was designed and that is the way it has developed over the years. Still another thing, as we look at this particular building -- and it is a wonderful building; many of us have offices in it -- at that time they thought that the building was too large. They thought that it would take a long, long time to fill the building. We know it was filled within a few years, and within about 20 years they were constructing the north wing. The west wing, as members know, was ravaged by fire and they reconstructed that and even added rooms on to it.

But an interesting note is in the book called The House Was My Home by the former Clerk of this Legislature, Roderick Lewis. He writes on page 5, in describing the scene of the opening of the Legislative Building in 1892 when Oliver Mowat was Premier, that he came riding up University Avenue with a long-term servant of this province, a Mr. Fitch. Mr. Fitch said, “It’s a fine building, sir, a fine building.” To which Premier Mowat replied: “Charlie, it frightens me to death. We’ll never fill it in 100 years”.

The feeling at that time was that we would not fill this building for maybe 100 years. Mr. Mowat was somewhat frightened by the prospect of this large building, but it did not take long. The imagination of politicians and civil servants found ways to fill the building very quickly.

Subsequent to that, the building, of course, was visited by a number of important visitors over the years. I just want to look very quickly at some of the people who have spoken in this chamber who were not members of the chamber.

We go back to 1941 when Wendell Willkie addressed the chamber here. He was the leader of the Republican Party in the United States. We find out that Cardinal McGuigan addressed it in 1946 and that the tremendous figure skater Barbara Ann Scott addressed it in 1947.

In addition, we are told that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth met guests and so forth and briefly addressed the accompanying guests in this chamber in 1939. Just a few years ago -- most of the members who are here today were here in 1976 when the then Bishop of Johannesburg, Desmond Tutu, addressed the members.

These are only a few of the important events that have taken place. This chamber has also seen a number of great orators, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you remember them, but for the benefit of all the other members I just want to mention a few of them. We had the member for Sudbury at one time, Elmer Sopha, who I am told was one of the great orators back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In addition, Farquhar Oliver, a gentleman who was leader of the Liberal Party and who passed away just a very short time ago, was probably, I am told, the greatest orator that this chamber ever heard.

I remember when I first came here just a few short years ago, listening to Stephen Lewis orate in these chambers. I remember that when he spoke, many members and staff would come in just to hear him speak.

We have had the benefit of some great people speaking here. I think that is a tribute to the kind of chamber that we have here and to the province in general.

In looking at restoration and renovation, we have to look very quickly at some of the basic things that need to be done. The roof probably has to be replaced. I have never been up there, but I know it is made out of slate and copper. That is a major job. There are, it was once estimated, approximately 400 windows in this building. Some of them are rotting. In my own office, when there is quite a snowstorm the snow will come in under the window sills. I am told by one of the reporters that whenever we have a heavy rain in the summer, spring or fall, it rains into his office, on the floor there. Papers and other things can be damaged that way. Those are major things that have to be done.

Most people, when they go to eat, do not go into the basement to eat; they probably have their dining room on the main floor. Yet in this building we have the dining room in the basement. I think we should take a serious look at the facilities, not only the dining facilities for members and guests but also, equally as important, the cafeteria facilities, which are very inadequate as far as groups coming in and as far as members of the staff, the legislative staff, the library staff and so forth, are concerned. People want to get a quick bite to eat, but there are inadequate facilities downstairs.

We have no committee rooms that are adequate for a group of citizens coming in that might number over 50 people. We might be able to crowd 50 people into a committee room, but I think we should be able to accommodate at least a few hundred.

There is also the fact that the Lieutenant Governor is in this building. He has been here since the mid-1930s. I question whether constitutionally the Lieutenant Governor should be in this building. The other important point of course is the fact that he has an apartment here on two floors, and that space might be more appropriately used in another manner.

Very quickly, what our committee is recommending in the report is that the Speaker and the chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly co-chair a committee of five members, including one member from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Progressive Conservative Party and a member of the Liberal Party. There has been a committee that has met over a period of time.

We suggest that committee be given authority to oversee restoration and renovation of this particular building, and of course two floors in the Whitney Block but that is a subsequent thing. We are 100 per cent interested in this particular building and not so much in the Whitney Block, although we do overlap into that building for offices for members. Assistance would come from the director of Legislative Assembly services as well as the Clerk and the controller and various other interested people from historical boards, the heritage boards and the province.

I am pleased to be able to have participated in this debate and I look forward to hearing the comments of the members from the two other parties on this matter.

Mr. Breaugh: It has taken a while and a lot of effort, but it would appear that we are on the verge of doing something that, for me and for many other members here, is long overdue. It has been a difficult road because, although this I suppose does not matter to very many other people, the history is that the chamber itself and this building have not ever been in the control of the members of the assembly and now they are. The Speaker now has jurisdiction over this building and a portion of another building.

We have tried, in the last year or so, to sort out the process question. How would we go about renovating and restoring this building? We think that the recommendations of this report provide a mechanism whereby that process can begin. We will simply have members representing each of the caucuses here, the Speaker and the chairman of the Legislative Assembly committee make the recommendations and do the legwork that has to be done to undertake -- I think we should put this on the record today -- what is going to be probably a long and difficult task.

Many of us are advocates obviously of the political system that we have and we kind of love the trappings of the process as well: this chamber, this building and all the things that go on here. It is not just a memento to political junkies like me, though. The important thing to try to remember is that this building represents democracy in this province.

Without getting too high-faluting about it all, that is important to each and every person who lives in Ontario. The values, the traditions and the political process that we are associated with occur in and around this building are important to my father, who uses the medical care system that emanated from this building, are important to my children and are important to the neighbours in my own community. This is symbolic in a sense, but it is important to the people of Ontario.

Many of us have looked at other jurisdictions and how they went about the restoration and renovation of their buildings. We are aware that this is not an easy thing to do. In this building as it now stands, for example, about 20 per cent of the building is not usable. The fire marshal says so; common sense tells us that too. So one of the first priorities will be to try to make better use of the facilities we have.

The second thing we have learned in other jurisdictions is that you can do a lot towards the restoration of a building by simply stopping destroying the building. Much of what people will see as they wander about this very old building is that a lot of it has been destroyed by us, by people who wanted a wall moved and did not think about how that should be done, by somebody who wanted to stick a window in here or do something else somewhere else.

I am often reminded that I would very much like to have in my home some of the little oak woodwork that is in my office, but if I were doing it in my home I would be most upset if somebody came in and strapped a cable down some oak railing in my living room and then ran a staple gun up and down it three or four times and said, “That’s the way we are going to do this.”

I think in my own home I would want someone to do that with a little bit more care and a little bit more diligence, because I would probably be well aware that if I went to Beaver Lumber and tried to replace that oak trim, it would cost me an arm and a leg.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But you didn’t want to tell Cassidy and Bounsall that they couldn’t make some of those alterations in those happy days.

Mr. Breaugh: That is true, yes. The government House leader, in his eminent wisdom, has stuck his nose into the debate one more time.

We should put a couple of things on the record today too. Although I am obviously strongly an advocate of this committee report and the restoration of this building, it does mean some things. We are not going to be able to accommodate everybody in the way we want. In my view, this is a parliament first and foremost, and the functions of a working parliament are the paramount concern that should dominate what this committee does as it goes about restoring the building.

I think many of us would like to see a good deal of restoration in the building, but we are mindful that it is a working place as well and that in this day and age we need to have computers, televisions, telephones and all kinds of fax machines. There is a need to bring that modern era into the building. We obviously do not want to restore the building to its virgin state as it was originally built, because most of us would like to have electricity in our offices and most of us would like to be able to use the telephone now and then.

But we have seen other jurisdictions where this has been done with some sensitivity, where there is an attempt made successfully to recapture the original spirit of the building, where there is a willingness on the part of those who do the repairs to the building to try to get it back to a period of restoration, so that you can sense what the history of the building is about.

Sometimes as you walk around this building you see great works of art that have not really been preserved in the way they should; you see fine furniture that is stacked one piece on top of another; you see the way they rip out electrical cables and stick in new ones. You get some sense that there is not much respect for the building.

It is my hope that the work of this committee, with the help of the Legislative Assembly, will restore some of that respect, restore some of the art around the building to its original condition and display it so that the people of Ontario can see that treasure, restore some of the woodwork you see in and around this chamber to its original condition so people can appreciate the great craftsmanship that has gone into the construction of this building.

As I went through the committee report, I was struck by the number of things I do not know about this building, even though I have been a member here for a long time. I was not aware that there is an immigrants’ entrance to the building, and there is. In the northeast corner of the building there is an entrance that at one time was called the immigrants’ entrance. I was not aware that there is a members’ entrance until I read some of the background report.

One of the things that became obvious as we dug up all of these reports is the amount of time, money and effort that has been spent over the years to study the building. The tragedy, of course, is that those efforts went awry. Nothing ever happened to a lot of it. It is interesting to note that in the building we have a jail, though few people could find it; we have a movie theatre --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order, please. We have an outstanding order from last Thursday to conclude the debate at 12:30. Is there unanimous consent to continue and to conclude it? At what time?

Mr. Breaugh: It is my understanding that we have roughly set about 10 minutes or so for each of the parties to do that, so we could conclude in about 10 minutes’ time. Is that agreeable?

Agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: In conclusion, then, I do hope that members understand some things about this. This is not going to be cheap any way you cut it, but our options are really kind of limited. There are parts of the building that are unsafe, and we should say that and know that. There are parts of the building where if we spent some money to restore portions of this building, we could actually use the space. I believe that would be a good thing.

I think we should do all of this with some respect for the history of the building, for the knowledge that this is still a working parliament; that should be the paramount concern as the committee goes through its work.

I hope we can do a good job. I hope it will not take for ever and ever to get done, but I do appreciate that it is going to be expensive, and even if we want to it is going to take a lot of time. I am reminded that some of the work around the building is work which is not commonly done any more and that we will have some difficulty finding people with the skills to rebuild the stonework and the woodwork around the building, but I hope we can do that.

I hope that as the committee goes about its business, it is both creative and mindful that the people of Ontario, in their own way, have a very valuable resource here in this building and in the work that goes on around the parliament of Ontario. I hope all members will be supportive of the committee’s recommendations to proceed in this manner.

Mr. Sterling: As I guess the only professional civil engineer in the Legislature of Ontario, I have been designated by my party to be involved in the restoration and renovation and maintenance of this particular building.

As you know, 1993 will be the centenary for the main Legislative Building that we are now housed in, and I believe it is incumbent upon us in the Legislature to plan and to rebuild and to put this building into a position so that it will serve the Legislative Assembly for the next 100 years. Therefore, it is necessary for us to put forward a method and a means to undertake that particular task.

Some time ago I became aware of the fact that there are many problems with the existing structure and the maintenance of this particular building. If we did not undertake to change any of the functions or the space or any part of this building, we would be faced -- and we are going to be faced -- with a substantial maintenance or repair cost just in order to keep the structure standing and dry and warm in the winter and somewhat livable in the summertime.

Therefore, I think that it should be very important for us to point out as we go through this next process that many of the costs that will be incurred, and they are going to be substantial, would be there regardless of whether or not we decided to make any changes in the formation or the division of this particular building.

This step was necessary because, most recently you Mr. Speaker, have taken over the lead role with regard to this main Legislative Building. Up until that particular step was taken, the government had the responsibility for taking care of this particular building. Now it is unclear how decisions are to be made when we have to fix the roof and replace the windows, which are so old and lose so much energy through them every day.

So I applaud the member’s leadership, the leadership of the chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and our clerk for putting together an idea and a group which is embodied in this resolution, for us to be able to make those decisions which are going to have to take place in the next two, three or four years and which will affect the lives of members of this Legislature for a century, really. I will be happy to participate in that, if in fact I get the opportunity, as a representative of my caucus.

As members know from our previous discussions with regard to this matter, I have a concern as to the willingness of the government to supply this Legislative Assembly with the necessary funds in order to carry this project through. I can only say that I will go forward at the initial stages in good faith, and put as much effort and energy as I can into trying to reach logical and reasonable conclusions and decisions as to how we should proceed.

But I may say, as a bit of a warning, as we go through this process that it will involve, on the part of the government leaders and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of the government of the day -- it may not be this particular Treasurer; it may not be this government -- taking some flak on their part when we replace the roof of this particular building at a cost of maybe $15 million, which may be the estimate of that kind of repair. Therefore, not only is it going to require the committee to work hard but also it is going to require a show of fortitude and determination on the part of the sitting government to see this thing through to its final end.

The other part that will be very important for us, as members of the Legislature, will be to try to understand all of the pushes and pulls that are made in each and every decision. It may affect the size of our offices; it may affect whether we have a decent kitchen in this particular place in order for us to have meals prepared for our staff and for members of this Legislature or of the visiting public; it may affect whether people from our province can come here and park their cars while they visit the Legislature.

All of those kinds of decisions are going to be difficult to come to a conclusion on, and members of the Legislature are going to have to show a significant amount of support for this committee and the decisions that it makes.

I only say that my participation on that particular committee will be with those kinds of understandings, that we will get the support of the government in terms of the financial end, providing we are reasonable; and we will get the support of the members of the Legislature after they have had their opportunity for input and after what is a reasonable decision by the committee that is being formed by this resolution today.

I would like to leave a few moments of my party’s time -- if I have not used it all up -- for my colleague on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), to have a few moments for a few remarks.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will take only a few minutes. I did intend to make a major speech, but I will set that aside for another day. I have just a couple of personal observations. One is that I very strongly support the recommendation, the motion before the House. It has not only my personal support but also the support of our party.

I have served on this committee for many years. I have travelled to Sacramento and Victoria. I wa