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

April 28, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L004 - Mon 28 Apr 1986 / Lun 28 avr 1986

PANIC BUTTONS

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR YORK EAST

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

WINE PRICING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FREE TRADE

UNEMPLOYMENT

TOURISM COMMERCIAL

GASOLINE PRICES

LES DROITS DES FRANCOPHONES

FREE TRADE

PROCESSING PLANT

UNEMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

NATUROPATHY

RENT REVIEW

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS

"XI. PRIVATE BILLS

`APPLICATIONS TO PARLIAMENT

`PRIVATE BILLS

`PUBLIC NOTICE

"COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

UNEMPLOYMENT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PANIC BUTTONS

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In view of the unfortunate situation that occurred in my office and in yours this morning, it was discovered that the panic buttons had been removed from various desks and places, unbeknownst to us and probably unbeknownst to many other people. Upon further investigation, I discovered the panic buttons had never been hooked up, at least since last summer.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you refer this matter to the new standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Second, perhaps you would cause a memo to be sent to all members and their staffs to see: (

a) whether their panic buttons have been removed unbeknownst to them and (

b) whether the panic buttons are connected.

Last, perhaps at the end of question period, the members would like to go to their offices and test their panic buttons to see whether they are in operating order.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept the point of information from the honourable member and do my best to see that this matter is brought under control.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: As some members of the House will know, my home-town hockey team, the Guelph Holody Placers, is in the final of the Ontario Hockey League against the Belleville Bulls. We are extremely proud of this. Indeed, we beat them seven to nothing yesterday.

The point of privilege is this: There is a nasty rumour going around that I bet $5 against the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil). I know gambling is not allowed in the House and I want to dispel that rumour. If I were going to bet, it would be for at least $10.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I ask you to take this under advisement. It arises out of business on Friday last, when we asked a question of the acknowledged key player in the doctors' negotiations. We feel our privileges were abused as a result

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened carefully and I cannot see where that is a point of privilege. Mr. Harris: You have not listened to the fact that the minister refused to answer those questions in the Legislature.

Mr Harris: You have not listened to the fact that the minister refused to answer those questions in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Come to the point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: However, you will note from reading the newspapers over the weekend that he quickly left the Legislature, acknowledged his role and answered questions of the media as a lead negotiator in those negotiations.

I am asking you to take under advisement, as the Speaker of the Legislature, whether somebody who plays such a key role should not be obligated to answer questions in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. It is up to each member what he does outside the House. However, I appreciate that the member has it on the record now.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR YORK EAST

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate of a by-election held on April 17, 1986:

Electoral district of York East -- Christine Hart; Province of Ontario.

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election, dated March 6, 1986, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Frances Mastoras, returning officer for the electoral district of York East, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of York East in the Legislative Assembly of the province, in the room of Robert G. Elgie, Esquire, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of York East, has resigned his seat, Christine Hart has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, April 28, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Christine Hart, member-elect for the electoral district of York East, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take her seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take her seat.

Christine Hart, member-elect for the electoral district of York East, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took her seat.

Mr. Grossman: It is always a special day for all members of the assembly when a new member takes his or her seat in the House. Regardless of which side of the House we are on, it is a special day for us all. On behalf of my party, I should like to welcome the new minister for York East to the House.

Mr. McClellan: Promoted already.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Did I say "minister"? It would not be for long anyway.

In any case, I do wish to welcome her and assure her that her time in the House will no doubt be less difficult, less controversial and less heated than she found the by-election itself. Although I hurt my knee playing basketball, it was certainly aggravated by walking the streets of York East. York East aggravated other parts of my body as well.

While we will fight the member as hard in the House as we fought in York East, there is no doubt her perseverance and intelligence will serve her well in this setting. We take this opportunity to welcome her here and to wish her well during the coming months.

Mr. Rae: The member for York East (Miss Hart) should enjoy this day because it is one of the few occasions on which everybody says nice things. That has been my experience, although I do not know about others. Perhaps she will be luckier than I have been.

In any event, as I did on election night, I want to congratulate the member for a very fine campaign and for her victory and that of her party in the by-election. I know she will be bringing a strong message, particularly about beer and wine in the corner store. I will be glad to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) so that the real views of the people of York East can be expressed to that minister and the government.

Seriously, I welcome the member. She will find, as I am sure we all have found, that for all the comments that are made about how difficult public life is, it has its unique rewards. However long her career may be, and that is a matter for yet more partisan conjecture, I know she will enjoy it and will find that the rather bizarre camaraderie that occasionally extends across party lines will be extended to her as she joins in the life of this unique ship as we continue to float along for the benefit of the people of the province.

I extend my congratulations and welcome to the member. May her stay, however long or short, be an enjoyable one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party. I find that people on this side of the House are always saying nice things about everything. This perhaps speaks to his opposition mentality.

This is a very happy day for members of our party. All of us who have got to know the member for York East well welcome her as an esteemed and respected colleague. I am sure she will quickly familiarize herself with the rules of this unique institution and make an active and meaningful contribution.

As an interested observer of the York East by-election, I thought it was a very wholesome exercise. There was significant discussion of the issues. There were three extremely fine candidates running there. I would like to compliment Gina Brannan, who ran for the Conservative Party, and Gordon Crann, who ran for the New Democratic Party. In my view, these three people were a compliment to, and indeed uplifted, the democratic system and process. As members of this institution, we can be extremely proud of what transpired in York East. I take special delight in the results, but it was a great comment on the process we all serve and in which we labour together to try to build a better Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members are no doubt aware, the Canadian Labour Congress has designated today as a national day of mourning for Canadian workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I commend the congress for this effort to draw into sharper focus the occupational health and safety challenge that faces all Canadians. While that challenge is always evident in Ontario, which has the greatest economic activity of any province in our country, it seems particularly marked now.

The total number of accident claims reported in Ontario in 1985 was more than 426,000, an increase of almost 10 per cent over 1984. The total number of accidents for which lost time was compensated also increased by about 10 per cent. While there has been a marginal improvement in the first three months of 1986, the distressing trend of the past year has persisted, as lost-time claims have increased by five per cent over the first quarter of 1985.

This government is not unaware of the continuing need for determined vigilance when it comes to work-place health and safety. As Minister of Labour, I consider health and safety to be the most important area of public policy for which I am responsible.

In that regard, the government has taken and will continue to take important steps to help ensure that the province's work places are safe for the men and women who work in them. With the possible exception of the period in which the Occupational Health and Safety Act was drafted, debated, passed in this assembly and put into force, I doubt there has been a time in the life of our province where there has been so much positive government activity in the health and safety field.

Despite everybody's best efforts, however, there will continue to be instances in which the health of workers will be harmed and in which workers will be injured and perhaps even killed.

That is why this day is so important. It reminds all of us in this House and in this province of the lurking dangers of the work place and of the terrible toll those dangers can exact from workers, families and friends.

It brings home to all of us the perpetual need, day in and day out, year in and year out, to be ever-persistent in an unremitting effort to quell injury and disease in the work place.

The working men and women of Ontario have the fundamental right to be protected from any harm that might come to them at work. This minister and this government are dedicated to playing an instrumental

part in assuring that protection.

I presume the critics will want to say a word on this important day. Afterwards, I ask all of the members to rise and join me in a minute of silent tribute to those workers who have died as a result of work-place accidents and work-place disease.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to join with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) in congratulating and recognizing the efforts of the Canadian Labour Congress to organize this important tribute to the workers of this province who have died as a result of work-related injury or disease.

We want to recognize the efforts of the minister and former ministers. I think particularly of our former colleague Russell Ramsay, who fought to bring about improvements to occupational health and safety and to workers' compensation benefits for the survivors of workers killed on the job. Members are aware of the improvements that were made to survivors' benefits, the lump sum award and continuing benefit related to the age of the surviving spouse.

While these steps were important, nothing can replace the loss of a loved one to a work-place injury. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that everything possible is being done to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents in the work place.

All workers in the province have the right to expect that every possible measure will be taken to protect them and their physical wellbeing from occupational health hazards. We must pay increased attention to accident prevention and refine the system, to bring about the best mix of controls and incentives for workers and their employers.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister in his desire to improve the overall health and safety performance in the work place. However, we view with alarm the increase in injuries over the past year, the highest number of work-place injuries in this province since 1974. The percentage of workers who are off the job from accidents is also up, representing a 20 per cent jump from two years ago.

Approximately 200 workers in this province die every year in a work-related incident. We cannot allow this to continue. The vast majority of these fatalities and occupational injuries are preventable and, as such, cannot be justified or tolerated. As legislators, we must not be satisfied until we develop a strategy that will drastically reduce and, I hope, some day perhaps even eliminate work-place accidents.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Every year 1,000 people in Canada die on the job. Thousands are disabled permanently, hundreds of thousands are injured and thousands more die from cancer, lung disease and other ailments that are caused by exposure to toxic substances.

The minister and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) have both mentioned the latest and most horrifying statistics with respect to the number of accidents in Ontario. Even a neutral political observer would agree that there must be something terribly wrong with the structure of government, the responsibilities of employers and current policies when there are 426,000 accidents in 1985, which is a 10 per cent increase over 1984.

My party's critic the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who again today is discussing these questions with citizens across the province, has been in many respects the conscience of this Legislature with respect to this issue. No one has fought harder or worked harder. I know the report he is now drafting, following the number of hearings that have been held, will be a landmark document in terms of the kinds of changes that need to happen to make sure that we get a safe working environment in this province and that one day we will take pride in the fact that we do not need to have a moment's silence for people killed that year because no one will have died on the job that year.

I do not think any of us can rest satisfied until that has happened. We are an industrial province. We are what has been called the manufacturing heartland. But there is something terribly wrong in the way in which we organize ourselves in the work place if this level of death is taking place and these numbers of people are getting killed. Something has to change; something has to give.

I do not want to inject too partisan a note into these discussions, but I do want to say that the structures and the policies are not working; no government can take pride in its record or its policies as long as we have the numbers of accidents and deaths we so tragically have in this province.

On that note, it would be appropriate if we all took a moment to reflect on what has happened, and what is happening today, and honoured those who have died by keeping our silence for a bit of time.

The House observed one minute's silence.

WINE PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to inform the House of a historic agreement regarding wine prices. This agreement arose out of concerted decisions between the Ontario government, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Ontario and United States wine producers and the federal governments of Canada and the US. This agreement settles long-standing concerns of Ontario grape growers and wine producers who sought a fair opportunity in the Ontario marketplace.

The agreement is based on a new pricing formula which requires the percentage tax markup on domestic and imported wines to be reduced and the imposition of a flat markup. This means that effective May 26, 1986, the markup on Ontario wines will be reduced from 58 per cent to one per cent. The markup on imported wines will be reduced from 123 per cent to 66 per cent. These reductions will be replaced by a uniform markup of $13.50 per case of 12 750-mililitre bottles.

Overall, the effect of the new pricing formula will be to lower the prices of Ontario and higher-priced imported wines, while lower-priced imported wines will be increased in price.

A number of factors have led to this new pricing formula. As a result of concerns it had with marketing practices in a number of Canadian provinces, the US government in 1984 passed the Wine Equity Act, under which Canada has been designated as a country with trading practices said to be unfair to US wine producers. The Ontario wine industry has shown that the European Community subsidizes its wine industry in the range of $1.50 to $2.50 per bottle, creating an unfair competitive advantage which has caused difficulties for the Ontario wine industry in holding its share of the market.

As a result of these and other considerations, especially the Ontario government's desire to implement generally fairer and more competitive marketplace practices, discussions took place initially between representatives of the Ontario and American wine industries and, subsequently, among the governments of Ontario, Canada and the United States. This led to agreement on how Ontario would respond to the points raised by US wine producers.

This agreement, which was based in part on an earlier industry agreement called "the Niagara accord," included the adoption of the new pricing formula.

I should also point out that concurrence was reached on this agreement with Canadian federal trade representatives at meetings held in Ottawa on March 13 and 14, 1986.

All this has enabled Ontario to address the question raised by the US and at the same time to address the concerns of the Ontario wine industry.

We believe all our commitments in respect to the agreement are in keeping with our obligations under the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Ontario government is satisfied that the new pricing formula will make Ontario wine a more attractive product to purchase, thereby leading to an improved market share for Ontario grape growers and wine producers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier, who is rapidly catapulting towards a severe disruption in the health care system, perhaps as early as 12 days from today. Since the Canada Health Act does not require him to take any action for one full year yet, and given the negotiations, would the Premier not agree that the wisest thing to do would be to replace the series of meetings that are now being held once or twice a week, working to an early deadline, and instead to say to the doctors in the province that he will take the balance of 1986 to try to work out a satisfactory agreement with them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I realize the Tory approach is always to delay, procrastinate and take time. Let us take as an example the Niagara accord, which my colleague just announced. The Tories had been fooling around with it for about eight years and could not come to a conclusion. We believe decisions have to be made, and we believe in full consultation.

The honourable member has been running around the province suggesting there has been no consultation, and I say with great respect that that is patent nonsense. My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has had a number of meetings. Our position is very clear. As long as we think we may be able to come to an accommodation, we are prepared to do that, but we are going to end extra billing. There are ways to do that, but we do not think the member's proposal at this moment is very constructive; there is nothing new there. All we would do under his idea would be to let it go, pass the cutoff date and lose $150 million at that point.

Mr. Grossman: I am not suggesting the Premier go by the cutoff date. My request to him is a simple one. If he believes in consultation, as he likes to say he does

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are going to fill in the seats around the member first, so it will not look empty.

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until the chief negotiator has finished giving advice.

If he believes in consultation, as he says he does, and if he puts peace in the health care system and the patients of this province ahead of a political victory, as he should, why does he not protect his $53 million and the patients by simply saying to the doctors, "Instead of a series of rushed meetings this week and next week before May 7, why do we not negotiate till the end of 1986," still leaving him enough time to implement the legislation if he so chooses?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member says it is going to happen, and I gather there is a rally planned for May 7, but that is by no means a cutoff date for any discussions. I do not know where the member got that idea. We will continue to discuss this matter. I appreciate his taking the Neville Chamberlain approach. He thinks that there will be peace in our time and that if we delay this, something magic will happen next fall or next spring. There is no evidence to suggest that. We are most anxious to resolve this problem, but we are not persuaded that his idea of today is going to be constructive in doing that.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Just out of curiosity, what is the Premier's timetable? We hear what he says here in the House today in answer to certain questions and then outside he says something slightly different. I gather last week he said it was conceivable that the discussions could go on or that the legislation could be delayed at least until the fall.

Since the Premier seems to be in a mood today where he is saying how decisive he is going to be -- by contrast with other days and other weeks -- can he tell us precisely what his time frame today is for the government and precisely how much longer patients in this province are going to have to shell out $1 million a week in extra bills which they do not want to pay, which in many cases they cannot afford to pay and which, in the view of the majority, they should not have to pay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My time frame now is the same as it was last week, the week before and the week before that. Let me be precise. I am not in a position to give the honourable member a precise date. I am not prepared to stand here and say it is May 6, May 17 or whatever. But I am saying that as long as we feel meaningful negotiations are going on in good faith and there is a possibility of a negotiated settlement here, we will continue to discuss that. We will not discuss it for ever. I have told the member before that we would like to see a resolution of the matter this spring.

I would like to see it tomorrow ideally, but I cannot suggest that would happen. I would like to see a resolution of this matter this spring. That is the line towards which we are working. I am not in a position to give the member a precise date, as I know he would like.

Mr. Grossman: If that is the case, then I ask the Premier whether he would be willing, to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the patients of Ontario, to simply say to the OMA that if it is prepared now to commit to meaningful and real negotiations with his government through to early fall -- to use the words of his chief negotiator -- he would commit to the OMA not to bring forward the legislation until early fall?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend insults the OMA by suggesting it has not been involved in meaningful discussions thus far. The member cannot spring forward and fall back at the same time. We are hearing so many strange signals from those people. I am very sorry about the member's recent injury, and I hope he is feeling better today; but when he was away, does he know what his colleague was saying in this House and otherwise? I gather he has changed his position a couple of times on it over the weekend. That is not particularly constructive in these discussions, which are meaningful.

There are some differences of opinion, and they are serious differences of opinion. We are hoping for a resolution, and if he has any good ideas today or tomorrow, even if they change over the next couple of days, we will be very happy to take them into account.

Mr. Grossman: If we do, we will send them to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott); maybe he will share them with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), or maybe he will not.

I have another question for the Premier. On these negotiations, can the Premier confirm that he has offered the doctors of this province a substantial portion of the $53-million refund he is so jealously protecting from Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, we have taken the position that we are not discussing in public the details of any discussion with the OMA. When the OMA wrestled the member to the ceiling more than four years ago, he is the one who said that one should never negotiate in this House. That was constructive advice.

We are searching for creative proposals and suggestions, and the doctors may have ideas on how to work with these things. We believe there are a number of design flaws in the system that we have to work on now and in the long term. We want to work with the doctors in that regard. l can tell the member I am aware of what he has read. Those discussions have not been made public by anyone in this government.

Mr. Grossman: Let us try to clarify this bungled negotiation and whether the Premier has given away the $53 million.

I refer him to the words of his chief negotiator, the Attorney General, when he said last Friday, "If you have seen the 10-point program you will report what it says and you will recognize that it says nothing about money." Let me now read from point 2 of the government's proposals put to the OMA a week or so ago: "The government, with a substantial proportion of the recoveries from the annual federal holdback of $53 million, proposes establishing a fund for supplementary payments to designated Ontario physicians, with the OMA and the government determining the criteria for payment from this fund."

In view of that offer, which presumably was made on his behalf to the OMA, is the Premier now prepared to clarify his initial response and acknowledge that he has offered to give away "a substantial proportion of the $53-million holdback"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member criticizing me for giving away the store? Is that his position right now? I find this absolutely incredible. I have said in the past and the minister has said in the past that rewarding excellence is something this government believes in. There are possible ways to do that with respect to the OMA. To the best of my knowledge, specific amounts were not discussed, but the minister may be able to add to this. I find the line of questioning strange, to say the least. The member is taking a different position from what he has said in the past and every day he takes a new position.

Mr. Rae: It is fair to say that what is on the table is an open secret. Can the Premier explain why the government was so determined to make a very large financial offer to the OMA, when there was no mention at any point in the throne speech or during the whole discussion of health care about doctors' incomes being one of the underfunded problems in the health care system? In all the OMA ads I have heard on commercial radio, I do not recall having heard a doctor say, "I am not getting enough money and that is why I am mad at the government." If that is the case, why is the government trying to throw money at doctors as a solution to the problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to comment on the specifics that have been discussed. I read the same things that the member reads. To be helpful, they are wildly inaccurate. In this business there is a lot of speculation daily about what I do, what the leader of the third party does and what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) does. That is part of the business we all are involved in. In these discussions we have seen a minister who has stayed steadily on course and has kept constructive discussions, and we are going to find a resolution.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has referred to his steady-as-she-goes former Minister of Health. If he will acknowledge that the Attorney General was wrong and that this document does reflect his offer to give away a substantial proportion of the $53 million, will he invite his Minister of Health to stop misleading the public by suggesting, as he did in his comments to the standing committee on social development, "The recovery of the penalties will build a 300-bed acute care hospital or provide 500 more chronic care beds or pay the cost of running five trauma units for the seriously injured"?

Will he tell his Minister of Health that he has given away his right to put this case to the public because he offered a substantial proportion of the $53 million to the OMA?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to the member, the facts in the newspaper from which he is reading do not accurately reflect what has gone on. If the member has a question, all he has to do is ask the minister, who is sitting here. Why not ask him what is going on? He will be very happy to tell the member.

2:40 p.m.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Today the minister took great pride in talking about so much positive government activity in the health and safety field. On Friday I was in Timmins and once again heard of the extraordinary evidence with respect to cancer and to conditions in the gold mines in Ontario and the alarming new evidence of a virtual cancer epidemic in many of our mining communities.

Given that fact and the fact the government has had a report since 1983, pointing out that workers who have been in the gold mines and uranium mines have a far higher incidence of stomach cancer than the general population and that number is growing and growing virtually daily --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: -- can the minister explain why to date the Workers' Compensation Board has not recognized a single case of stomach cancer as being connected to working in the mines when the evidence is literally overwhelming that it must be the case?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member should know the Workers' Compensation Board has not yet decided that the evidence is overwhelming that the causal link is there. That is part of the second phase of the Muller study. There is an amount of research now being done by the board for the United Steelworkers to get numbers going back a very long way. We continue to look at these matters, but as I am sure the member would wish to acknowledge, the relationship between gold mining and cancers, the kind the member has raised, has perhaps not been established yet. These matters may carry forward to appeal and can be referred to the new Industrial Disease Standards Panel.

Mr. Rae: The evidence with respect to stomach cancer is overwhelming. Since the minister has struck out on that and there are people and families today that are not receiving compensation and should be, can he explain why, when the government has had studies with respect to the gold mines since the 1960s, and again in 1976, 1978, 1983 and 1984, clearly establishing that rates of lung cancer, specifically for gold miners, are catastrophically higher than expected in Timmins and Kirkland Lake, and those people and their families are still not being compensated

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: -- there has not yet been a lung cancer case recognized by the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to gold miners?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the member would wish to wait the additional couple of months until phase 2 of the Muller study is completed; because as the member knows, the 1983 study, which he so glibly points out has established all of this relationship, did nothing of the kind. That is what phase 2 of the Muller study is about. I wish and hope the member would be willing to wait the additional period of time until the phase 2 report is out.

If there is that kind of relationship, if it is such that workers' compensation benefits ought to be paid to any or all of those miners in the gold mines, the uranium mines or the mixed ore mines, then in this government's opinion, not only ought compensation to be paid but also it will be paid. Let us wait until the studies, which will definitely establish the relationship one way or another, are released.

Mr. Rae: There is a pile of studies that have been sponsored by the Ministry of Labour right up to this ceiling, and still this government will not act when it comes to an issue as basic as what is happening to the health and safety of miners in this province. Those are the facts.

The minister will be aware, since he is so acquainted with all of the different reports, that in the 1978-79 mortality study done for the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, it says, "Large excess lung cancer mortality among males in Kirkland Lake and Timmins was not expected. Other components of the air in underground mines which may contribute to the risk of lung cancer include arsenic, diesel fumes, thoron and its daughter products." The ministry has known about that with respect to thoron and its daughter products since 1960.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: With respect to arsenic, can the minister explain why, when as recently as March 1986 arsenic was finally designated as a designated substance and when the regulations were published, mines were exempt from this particular regulation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of exactly the point the member makes. Frankly, the decision was made to exempt mines. It is a decision which we are looking at and, as we will with --

Mr. Rae: The minister made that decision.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand the point my friend makes, but the tying in of the relationship has actually followed designating that regulation. Not only with arsenic but in any other area, this government is going to continue on an ongoing basis to review not only those substances which it is in the process of designating, but even those substances and the exposure levels which are now in place. We are not afraid to go back to take a second look. If changes are appropriate, they will be made.

Mr. Rae: It is hard to know what one can say about a minister who publishes a regulation on March 27, 1986, and then says he is looking at it again.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to free trade. No doubt he will know from reading the papers that the Senate finance committee has approved the fast-track talks on bilateral free trade by the overwhelming vote of 10 to 10. Can the minister give us the categorical assurance of his government that, in the event the auto pact decreed between Canada and the United States is a subject of those negotiations in any way, Ontario will urge the federal government to withdraw from the talks?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have always made it very strong that we do not believe the Auto Pact should be one of the things that is placed on the table.

Mr. Rae: That is not quite what I asked. I would like to ask him specifically about this since he knows what the position is.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Our position is the same as it has been in the past, that is, that the auto pact should not be put on the table.

Mr. Brandt: Can the minister indicate whether he has conveyed his concerns about the auto pact to his federal counterparts? If so, what has he said to the Prime Minister of this country with respect to that concern and any other concerns covering other industries that he may have some suspicion could be affected negatively by free trade? Will the minister let us in at this time on what he has discussed with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Not only the matter concerning the auto trade but all the other issues about which we are worried have been expressed to the federal government.

Mr. Rae: Let me try again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: If the auto pact is the subject of negotiations, what is the minister going to do then?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is hypothetical. We would have to deal with it when it happens.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: I am trying. I want to wait until it dies down.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology as well. Last Thursday in the House, with reference to the same issue of free trade, the minister stated, "My position is the same as the Premier's." I am still trying to find out what that position is, but it is the same as the Premier's.

2:50 p.m.

If this is the case, can the minister indicate how, in a recent speech he delivered to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, he was an enthusiastic supporter of free trade? He indicated many of the opportunities that would present themselves to this province if there was freer trade between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. At the same time, the Premier has mentioned again and again that up to 300,000 jobs could be lost in this province if we had a free trade agreement.

Which position is the government taking? Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Perhaps the member should have checked the speech closely. He mentioned it last Thursday as the speech I gave in Washington. I have not been in Washington for approximately 10 years.

Mr. Gillies: He did not say that. He said the chamber of commerce right here.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: He did say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: When I spoke to the chamber of commerce, I was for increased trade with the United States. We are all in agreement that we want increased trade with the US.

Mr. Brandt: I have the minister's speech and it was to the chamber of commerce. I was incorrect and I apologize for stating the speech was given in Washington.

Mr. Timbrell: You said the chamber.

Mr. Brandt: We are speaking of the comments I made last Thursday. The minister is correct that I indicated he gave the speech in Washington. I have the speech here and it was not delivered in Washington. We have that cleared up.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister says in his speech: "I believe that two-way trade is vital in our strategies to reshape, rebuild and rejuvenate our industries. Together as economic partners" -- the reference must be to the United States -- "we can get back into fighting form."

Will the minister once and for all clarify where he stands and where his Premier stands? Frankly, I do not know where they stand.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Just as you and I are for increased trade with the United States, all of us want increased trade with that country. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur is being very reasonable and is waiting to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister outline clearly for the House the items his government has told the federal government cannot be on the negotiating table?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: l believe where we stand on the subject of free trade and the topics we feel should not be on the table are a matter of public record.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier relating to the massive downsizing and permanent layoffs announced by Algoma Steel last week, which could result in a 25 per cent unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie within a year. Is he going to take action to maintain the steel jobs we now have in the Sault and stimulate new economic activity in that area, or is he going to adopt the federal Conservative approach of providing retraining and relocation so that workers from northern Ontario can move to southern Ontario? What is the government's policy? Is it moving jobs to the people or moving people to the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are very concerned about the economic vitality of northern Ontario. As the honourable member knows, this is not the only problem there that has been faced for some time. This government is spending a great deal of time canvassing its options in that regard. As the member says, our responsibility is to widen the economic base. It is something we are very concerned about. We are doing an inventory of every single option we have available to us to bring a co-ordinated policy to that problem.

I understand there will be discussion of this issue in the emergency debate the member is proposing this afternoon. I know the ministers are very well prepared to discuss some of these options and initiatives with him and will welcome his views.

Mr. Foulds: If, as he indicated in his answer to my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the Premier realizes Algoma Steel's layoffs are part of a concerted attack on the economic capability of northern Ontario, particularly in the manufacturing sector, can he tell us why Canadian Pacific is allowed to get away with its withdrawal of commitment and capital in Algoma Steel and in Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay? What specific steps will he take? Will he bring in legislation to impose a one-year moratorium on the plant closure at Thunder Bay, as was requested by the union, since he was so ready to bring in legislation last week to force workers back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I see this matter in the same -- may I use the word "conspiratorial"? -- terms in which my honourable colleague opposite sees it. These are two extremely difficult situations at the moment. The ministries have been involved from the beginning. The waferboard plant in the member's home town is a serious one. The negotiations broke off this weekend. We did have a labour negotiator --

Mr. Foulds: Robert Joyce.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Joyce was there. We stand ready and willing to provide any other assistance we can by way of an arbitrator or whatever.

The member will be aware that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between union and management over financial matters. It might be constructive to have an objective view of the situation. I know the management is pushing for certain concessions to try to make that operation competitive. In a way, it is a labour-management situation at present, but at the same time it speaks to some general competitive problems throughout northern Ontario.

These matters are of enormous concern to this administration. As the member and his many colleagues who have brought this to our attention before say, this is not an isolated thing. There are major changes going on in the mining business, the forestry industry, the steel business and others. It is part of our initiatives with respect to the federal government for changes in respect to steel imports into the country and many things. I assure the member --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the Premier is aware that layoffs across the province in the early months of this year are up by 65 per cent from the same period last year, but in Sault Ste. Marie they are up by 450 per cent. We take some comfort in the fact that the Premier is looking at options, but could he tell the House his immediate plans to help in the economic adjustment and improvement of that community?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right in his figures. He will be aware at the same time that in the last year 173,000 net new jobs have been created in the province. That is no consolation to the people of Sault Ste. Marie, as I am aware, but it speaks to some of the problems we were talking about earlier. I have asked the ministers and the ministries to canvass every single option we have with respect to Sault Ste. Marie. I cannot tell the member there is one dramatic thing that is going to put a Toyota plant into Sault Ste. Marie, although I would like to see it if we could do it.

We are going to work with Algoma, as we have been doing. The ministers are going this week and there is a committee of deputy ministers going next week. I have asked the ministers to look at how they can contribute, however small the contribution, to try to broaden the economic base of Sault Ste. Marie. It is a very worrisome situation, to which I say to the member in all candour I do not have an easy, instant solution.

TOURISM COMMERCIAL

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister confirm that the latest tourism TV commercial for his ministry was filmed indoors with a man-made lake, an artificial waterfall and an artificial general store?

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, we have a new agency in place in this province. I do not know where they were filmed.

[Failure of sound system]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rowe: I thank the minister for that artificial answer.

In view of the fact that there are more than 200,000 natural lakes in Ontario and perhaps 1,000 or more functioning general stores that are real, can the minister explain why he would allow such a decision and why most of the footage was shot on a holiday Easter weekend, probably at double time and a half? If this is true, it is not only Ontario that is "incredible" as the minister's new TV ad says; I suggest it is the minister who is incredible in wasting taxpayers' money.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the honorable member that the agency is continuing to film, even

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. Harris: On a point of technicality, Mr. Speaker: The microphone did not appear to be working. I do not know why Hansard would be prejudging and not answering, as right as they might be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I noted it was not working, and I hope it has been recorded somehow.

3 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Swart: My question is for the Premier. He was quoted by the Canadian Press and other media last Saturday as saying his provincial government "does not have control over gasoline prices. They are a federal matter." I am amazed how he could have said that and meant it seriously.

Has the Premier forgotten that the House passed legislation in July 1975 to control the price of gasoline, both wholesale and retail, and that in debate it dealt with the issue of constitutional authority? All parties, including his party, agreed the province could exercise such power. Can he tell us where he got his current legal

interpretation that he cannot exercise such power to control the price of gasoline?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going by memory, but my mind is not as swift now as it was 10 years ago. I thought it was with respect to the Isbister report on the freeze on prices coming down the pipe for a 90-day period just prior to an election. Am I right'?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think that was it. The honourable member will recall we were heading up to an election or something like that, and the former government wanted to make a statement about the whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I refer this question to my friend the minister responsible? He may be able to add to this.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am delighted to respond. The honourable member may know that legislation is no longer on the books. There is no question that if we as a body wanted to institute such legislation, we could. But I should tell him that in provinces such as Nova Scotia, where they have regulated gas prices, they are paying more than we are paying in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Now the minister is admitting the Premier made a misstatement of fact when he said the province does not have the power to control retail prices.

Will the minister admit the absolute futility and ineffectiveness of everything that he and this government have done about gas prices to date? The minister will recall he stated publicly last week that the oil companies should bring gas prices across the rest of Ontario down to the 37 cents that was listed in Toronto at the time. Instead of doing that, two days later the oil companies took the 37-cent price up to that of the rest of the province, 41 or 42 cents per litre. That is real performance on his part.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Swart: I have a supplementary. If the minister has any sincerity about bringing gas prices down and protecting the consumer, why does he not stop posturing, quit passing the buck and actually implement legislation, which he now says he has the power to do, and use it to bring the price of gasoline down?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get to the throne speech some time.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As usual, the member confuses some of the issues. I am saying that right now there is no legislation in Ontario that can control the price of gasoline.

An hon. member: Then bring it in.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We could bring it in if there were a great cause to do it.

I should also tell the member that, if he will recall, about a month ago I predicted the price of fuel in Ontario would be 37 or 38 cents by the end of April or the beginning of May. This morning, if he drove anywhere in Toronto, he would have seen prices at 36.9 cents.

I am very concerned about the price of fuel. I have been working with the oil companies, and we are continuing to monitor it.

Mr. Baetz: In view of the fact that the minister is still hanging on to his empty and vague promise of some weeks ago that by tonight or tomorrow the gas prices would be 36 cents a litre, how can he explain that in Ottawa-Carleton they were paying 48 cents a litre? And what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The price of fuel is declining, and I am not happy with the state of the price of fuel. I am working with the oil companies. The Premier has made a statement that I agree with completely. The statement of Shell Canada that it will not pass along savings is totally unacceptable. However, the honourable member has to understand that we are working on it and that the price of fuel is coming down. I am not happy with where it is, but it is coming down in Ottawa as well.

LES DROITS DES FRANCOPHONES

M. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Je veux savoir ce que le ministre fait, en ce moment, pour garantir à la majorité francophone de Kapuskasing ses droits?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je veux rassurer le député de Cornwall que je suis très au courant de la situation à Kapuskasing. J'ai écrit, la semaine dernière, au maire et aux membres du Conseil municipal et je dois l'assurer que mercredi prochain, lors de leur réunion, ils prendront une décision, une décision du Conseil et non pas du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Mr. Guindon: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs and Minister of Municipal Affairs. With the present confusion in Kapuskasing concerning the ability of a municipal council to designate a community officially bilingual, what is the minister doing to clarify this matter?

FREE TRADE

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister is well aware of the hard times that agriculture is suffering. Symptomatic of that, a good example would be the Depression-era prices we are receiving for wheat right now. But those commodities in Ontario that are surviving, staying barely afloat, are those that are supply-managed.

Now we have free trade talks beginning, and as the minister knows, everything is on the table; there are no preconditions. Is the minister prepared to allow supply-managed commodities to go the way of everything else that seems to be going with these fast-track talks?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This ministry has a committee established, working in conjunction with a national body, to make a study of each sector of our agriculture industry that could be impacted detrimentally by free trade. We are going to know exactly where the benefits and the costs are going to be if we enter into free trade discussions. If it appears the costs are going to exceed the benefits, such as losing supply management, then we will be there at the bargaining table, through our Premier (Mr. Peterson), telling Mr.

Mulroney what impact this is going to have not only on Ontario but also throughout this whole country. We will be there and we will make sure we protect the agriculture industry.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsay: I am very glad to know the minister will be there. I am not sure the invitation has been extended; let us hope it is.

The minister is well aware that especially these supply-managed commodities in Ontario are the very ones for which the United States has the capacity to replace all our production. It is not a matter of being hurt or of what the cost is; we are talking about total replacement of that production in Ontario. What are we doing to prevent that replacement of this industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The simple answer would be that we are not going to lose our supply management programs because of free trade negotiations. We are going to be there to protect a program that has prevented the chaos they have in the US, where they have to sell a million dairy cattle and then buy back 400 million pounds of beef. What kind of chaotic situation is that in the US`? We do not want that here in Ontario, and we are not going to get it.

We will be there and we will fight for the agricultural industry. It is not only this minister who is working on it but also various consultants, as the honourable member may have noticed. He has probably read in the paper that William Doyle, a former assistant deputy minister, said that if we do lose supply management in chicken, it will be the end of the chicken industry in this province. We are not going to let that happen.

Mr. Stevenson: We, along with the farmers in Grey county, know the minister will be there talking. They listened to him for two hours not too long ago, but from what I have heard, they still do not know exactly what his party's views are on free trade. Can the minister clarify just where he stands today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am most interested in having that comment come from that critic. There was an

article in the Windsor Star just the other day, talking about the member for Durham-York. The

article said:

"With more than 10 months of wound-licking under his belt, Stevenson clearly had the gloves on and wanted to score points for his languishing party. Instead, he came across as punch-drunk, bitter and a poor alternative to Riddell and his still-popular Liberal colleagues."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully. Is the minister going to answer the question or not?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I simply repeat what I have already said. This ministry is responsible for knowing what impact tree trade will have on each and every sector of the agricultural industry. When our committee has completed its report, it will convey that to the Premier, who will be standing up for agriculture when free trade negotiations begin. We will not stand by and see free trade take away those programs that have meant so much to our farmers in this province. We will defend our agricultural industry, the supply management programs and all the other good programs we have for agriculture. We will not trade them away.

PROCESSING PLANT

Mr. Stevenson: We will see what the Minister of Agriculture and Food has to say here. Three and a half months ago, the federal government gave its approval to give $1.5 million to the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative to establish a multiproduct processing business, including tomato paste. Has the minister finally ended his indecision on its request to the Ontario government for $1 million?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is not indecision on the part of this minister. We want to know whether the banks will stand behind it for the remaining $2 million that it has to put in to make this plant fly. The federal Minister of Agriculture and I have discussed this matter a number of times. We are waiting for the federal minister to make a decision on whether he has

Mr. Stevenson: What a pile of crap. How times change.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Wait. Just listen. It is not. We are waiting for the federal minister to make a decision on whether he has $1.5 million to sink into that program. When he tells us he has the $1.5 million, then I will make my move. He is also wondering whether the banks are going to support Topaz for the other $2 million the company must have to make the plant go.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister should read some of the press releases of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) from a few months ago.

It is very clear the federal minister has made a decision, the banks are ready to go and this minister has been dragging his feet. In fact, part of his own ministry has been pressing the company to get its processing licence and it cannot because the minister has not made a decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment.

I should remind the House that under standing order 19(

a) all members should rise and address the chair. Rather than pointing back and forth at each other, would you mind pointing to me?

Mr. Stevenson: I will be glad to direct my comments to you, Mr. Speaker, or to anybody else in this House, if I thought anyone could get through to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Do I take it you do not have a supplementary?

Mr. Stevenson: I will place my supplementary.

It is planting season. The shareholders, the bank and everybody else are waiting on the minister's decision. Why has the minister put this group into such a time crisis by delaying his own decision?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If the honourable member has a pipeline to my federal counterpart, I suggest that as soon as he gets out of this question period, he jump on the line, phone my federal counterpart and tell him to let me know if he has the $1.5 million to put into the program. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some members are wasting time for other members.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In view of the great wealth that Algoma Steel Corp. has taken out of the Wawa area for many years, the high productivity of the workers in the Algoma Ore division mine and the fact that there are 25 years of iron ore reserves left in the Wawa area, and considering the responsibility of the company to that community, does the minister agree that Algoma Steel must make a clear commitment to the community of Wawa and must not cut production at Algoma Ore division any further until the company has closed out its operations at the Tilden mine in Michigan?

Mr. Davis: Page 34. There is the minister's answer.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No.

I met with the president of Algoma Steel Corp. with regard to the Wawa situation. We are meeting with that company and its people, as well as Algoma Central Railway, next week. We will have to look at the costs. As a government, we will do our best with the railway and the company to try to keep that mine going in its present state. I will be meeting with people in Wawa this week. I will stop there on Wednesday and meet with the union and the mayor. My ministry will put one of our economists in there right away to work with the area to try to find a solution.

3:20 p.m.

Pour essayer d'améliorer la situation à Wawa, cette semaine, on va envoyer un de nos employés, un économiste pour travailler avec le syndicat et la compagnie pour tenir cette mine en activité jusqu'à ce qu'on ait une solution.

At the same time, I know there are other mining companies in the area that are very close to a production decision. We are working with them also. Perhaps we will go beyond that. I will look to my own program on mining to accelerate a decision in this area.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister has said he will be meeting with the union and the company in Wawa, is he aware that over the last few years Algoma has sourced more and more of its iron ore from the Tilden mine in Michigan to the point that the Algoma Ore division is now providing only about 40 per cent of the ore used at the Algoma Steel Corp.,

whereas historically it was at a level of 60 per cent? is he aware that the union anticipates the company may intend to cut the capacity at the Algoma Ore division sinter plant to 900,000 tons from the current capacity of 1.8 million tons? If he is aware of that, what does he intend to say to the company with regard to its Tilden-Michigan operation?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am not aware that the number of tons is going to go down from 1.8 million to 900,000. When I meet with the company again this week, I will take into account what the member is telling me and then, with the Premier, I will make a decision.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Last Thursday the minister told the House the Ontario Humane Society had not yet made an application to his ministry for its annual grant for 1986-87. Is the minister not aware that the society has been requesting adequate funding from the provincial government for several years to enable it to carry out its important responsibilities for enforcing Criminal Code sections relating to cruelty to farm animals and other animals? The society laid its needs before the deputy minister in February this year.

Is he not aware that, as of April 1, the society has been forced to withdraw the services of all its agents and two inspectors across the province --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Bryden: -- because the present level of funding at $125,000 a year is inadequate to enable it to continue to operate that service?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I believe the question is, am I aware that it has indicated a desire for more funds? I am certainly aware it made a request for more funds, based on the Price Waterhouse report of some years ago, but it is still factual that it has not yet filled in its application form for the annual grant that, as has been communicated, will be available as soon as it requests it.

Ms. Bryden: When an organization has an annual grant under the budget, it does not usually make an application. Is the minister aware that the society produced a special edition of its Animal Action bulletin this year with the word "crisis" in two-inch red letters on the top, which I show to the minister? Surely this indicates the need for further funding.

Mr. Speaker: Are you aware, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am aware of seeing the bulletin from across the aisle. It has never been sent to my office.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I will address my question to the Premier.

As the Premier is well aware, the Sarnia community has made a request to the Minister of Health for the funding of a chronic care hospital expansion at St. Joseph's Hospital. In a voluntary effort, the community has raised about $4 million and has been patiently awaiting word from the government when the funding will come forward for that facility. Can the Premier give us some indication of when the Sarnia request will be funded and when other requests -- from right across this province, quite frankly -- will be funded where there is a need for improvements in hospital care'?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I cannot assist the honourable member on the specific request of Sarnia. I do not know about it. I can inquire from the minister whether he has any news for the member.

The member's point is well taken. There are a number of requests from right across the province, which is nothing new to him. He is aware of the enormous capital pressures on the system. We are trying to sort this out in as fair-minded a way as we can. There was an announcement in the throne speech that we would take a long-term view of the capital funding project so we should not hold everybody in suspense. We shall try to work with the communities so they will know with some certainty where they fit into the program.

The pressure that is coming for capital funding is no surprise to the member. I do not know how long St. Joseph's Hospital in Sarnia has been on the list; I assume probably for years as have many others around here. I do not know what answers the member gave them when he was a minister of the crown, but he can tell them for us that we shall look at it in context with the needs right across the province and try to do that in as fair-minded a way as we possibly can.

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier is aware, many millions of dollars were expended in hospital expansions in his own area of London. Right across this province there have been many capital expansions. All I am asking of the Premier is to give some indication of when the next round of improvements in hospital expansions is going to take place, recognizing that there has been very little comment from the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) either with respect to needed hospital facilities that have to be improved upon in this province or with respect to other matters, such as the negotiating problem on the extra billing ban.

We are looking to the Premier for some leadership on that side to help us with this problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to the member and his colleagues, he really is strange. The Minister of Health was sitting in the House, and the member could have asked him any question he wants to know about. The minister is here most days, a lot more often than most of the members opposite who are in semi-retirement. The minister is here doing his duties. If the member wants to know, he can ask him. There are no secrets here.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is an extremely unfair accusation for the Premier to make. He knows full well there is a lineup of questions. I waited patiently to address my question to the Minister of Health, and in his absence to the Premier. The minister chose to leave, not I. I am here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the party of the honourable member does not take him seriously enough to put him on the top of the list, I cannot --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Morin: I have before me a petition signed by 176 members of the Ontario Motor League requesting the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately, and to phase in further reductions over three years to five cents a litre by 1989.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Breaugh: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: "Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

It is signed by 51 constituents from Oshawa.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition regarding Bill 78, the rent control legislation, demanding its immediate implementation.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on social development be reappointed and authorized to meet this afternoon following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are going to entertain a motion to set aside the ordinary business. The House leaders have agreed that certain government notices of motion might be proceeded with, and with the agreement of the House, at this time I would like to move resolution 1.

Mr. Speaker: You have heard the suggestion by the government House leader. Do members of the House agree to going ahead with this order of business'?

Agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, resolution 1:

That the standing orders be amended as follows:

1. Standing orders 2, 3 and 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"2. (

a) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 2 p.m., and on Thursdays at 10 a.m., unless otherwise ordered.

"(

b) The bells shall be rung for five minutes before the time appointed for the meeting of the House to summon the members.

"(

c) The Speaker shall take the chair at the time appointed on every day fixed for the meeting of the House and shall read the prayers.

"(

d) The House shall not meet on New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, the day fixed for a civic holiday in August, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. When Canada Day falls on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day.

" 3. (

a) Except as provided in clause (

c) and in standing order 28, at 6:30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sitting day.

"(

b) Except as provided in standing order 64(f), at 12 noon on any day on which the House meets in the morning, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 2 p.m.

"(

c) The House may sit beyond the hours set out in clause (

a) on the passage of a government motion for that purpose. The question on such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate; but such government motion shall not pass if 20 members stand in their places. However, if a recorded vote is requested, the division bell shall be limited to 15 minutes.

"(

d) When the House adjourns, the members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the chamber.

"4.3. (

a) Whenever the House stands adjourned, if it appears to the Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

"(

b) In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House shall act in the Speaker's stead for the purposes of this standing order."

2. Standing order 28(

a) be amended by striking out "8" in the last line and substituting therefor "5."

3. Standing order 28(

b) be amended by striking out "10:30 p.m." in the second line and substituting therefor "6:30 p.m."

4. Standing order 28(

f) be amended by striking out "10:30 o'clock" in the first line and substituting therefor "6:30."

5. Standing order 64(

a) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"64. (

a) Unless otherwise ordered, each Thursday during the session, the House will meet in the morning for the consideration of private members' public business. On such a day, the routine proceedings shall be at 2 p.m."

6. Standing order 64(

f) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"64. (

f) No question shall be put to the House before 12 noon. At that time the votes on items on which a vote has not been blocked under clause (

e) shall be taken. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes. The House will sit until the necessary votes have been completed, at which time the Speaker shall leave the chair until 2 p.m."

7. Standing order 5(

b) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"5. (

b) If at any time after prayers, the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall, upon determining that a quorum is not present, cause the bells to be rung until a quorum is present and, in any case, for no longer than five minutes. If a quorum is not present after the expiration of five minutes, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day. The matter under consideration prior to the adjournment is deemed to be adjourned to a future sitting day."

8. Standing order 5(

c) be amended by striking out "standing order 2(c)" in the third line and substituting "clause (b)" in lieu thereof.

9. Standing order 5 be amended by adding the following clause:

"5. (

d) Whenever the Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the names of the members then present shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings."

10. Standing order 25 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"25. The routine proceedings before the orders of the day are as follows: members' statements, statements by the ministry and responses, oral questions, petitions, reports by committees, motions, introduction of bills."

11. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

"25a. (

a) A member, other than a leader of a recognized party in the House or a minister of the crown, may be recognized to make a statement for not more than one and one half minutes.

"(

b) The period for members' statements shall be limited to 10 minutes.

"(

c) Members shall be recognized as follows: the official opposition first, followed by other recognized opposition parties in order of their membership in the House and finally the government, and then in rotation, starting with the official opposition, until the time provided in clause (

b) has expired."

12. Standing order 64(

k) be deleted.

13. Standing order 26 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"26. (

a) A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(

b) The time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes without the unanimous consent of the House.

"(

c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders or their representatives at or before the time the statement is made in the House.

"(

d) After any policy statement, the minister shall table a compendium of background information.

"(

e) Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

14. In exercising his discretion pursuant to standing order 27(

d) to permit supplementary questions, the House recommends that the Speaker permit supplementary questions as follows:

Official opposition -- one question and two supplementary questions;

Official opposition -- one question and two supplementary questions;

Third party -- one question and two supplementary questions;

Third party -- one question and two supplementary questions;

All other questions -- one question and one supplementary question.

15. Standing order 30 be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:

" 30. (

d) Within 120 days of the presentation of a committee report as provided in clauses (

b) and (c), the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response."

16. Standing order 33(

b) be amended by striking out the words "On the petition of 20 members any such report shall be referred to a standing or select committee of the House."

17. Standing order 33(

c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

" 33. (

c) Statutory annual reports provided for in clause (

b) shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee."

18. Standing order 34 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

" 34. (

a) Following the routine proceedings and before the orders of the day on an afternoon sitting, any member may move to set aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration.

"(

b) The Speaker shall then rule whether or not the motion is in order based on the following criteria:

"(

i) the member proposing the motion shall give written notice of the motion to the Speaker at least two hours before the afternoon sitting of the House;

"(ii) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting;

"(iii) not more than one matter may be discussed on the same motion;

"(iv) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order;

"(

v) the motion must not raise a question of privilege; and

"(vi) the discussion under the motion must not raise any question that, according to the standing orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice.

"(

c) If the Speaker determines that the motion is in order, the member proposing the motion may state his arguments in favour of his motion in not more than five minutes. One member from each of the other recognized parties in the House may state the position of his party with respect to the motion in not more than five minutes.

"(

d) The Speaker shall then put the question `Shall the debate proceed?' to a vote of the House.

"(

e) If the House determines by its vote to set aside the normal business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, each member who wishes to speak in the discussion shall be limited to 10 minutes, and the debate shall conclude when all members who wish to take part have spoken or at the hour of 6:30 p. m., whichever shall be first."

19. Standing order 36 be amended by striking out "The previous question" in the first line and substituting therefor "A motion for closure" and by striking out "the previous question" in the seventh line and substituting therefor "a motion for closure."

20. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

" 37a. Except in the case of a motion that a certain member do take the chair of the House as Speaker, a motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne and the budget motion, no motion or amendment shall be required to be seconded before the question thereon is proposed from the chair."

21. Standing order 31 be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the last line.

22. Standing order 32(

a) be amended by striking out "properly seconded" in the first and second lines.

23. Standing order 35(

a) be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the last line.

24. Standing order 36 be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the second line.

25. Standing order 37(

c) be amended by inserting "and" after "notice" in the first line and by striking out "and must be seconded" in the second line.

26. Standing order 52 be amended by striking out "or seconder" in the first line and by striking out "and a seconder" in the last line.

Part XI of the standing orders be revoked and the following substituted therefor:

"XI. PRIVATE BILLS

"65. (

a) Any person, group or corporation may make an application for a private bill by filing with the Clerk of the House,

"(

i) a copy of the bill;

"(ii) a fee of $150; and

"(iii) a declaration proving publication of the notices referred to in clause (e).

"(

b) Every applicant for a private bill shall pay,

"(

i) the cost of printing the bill at all of its stages including reprinting if it is amended; and

"(ii) the cost of printing the act in the annual statutes.

"(

c) Where, at the request of the applicant, a standing order is suspended with reference to a private bill, a charge of $50 shall be levied.

"(

d) Where a private bill relates to a charitable organization within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada), the standing committee on regulations and private bills may recommend that the fee paid under clause (

a) be remitted, and if the recommendation is approved by the House, the remitted fee shall be applied to reduce any costs payable under clause (

b) and the committee may, having regard to the circumstances, recommend that all or part of the costs payable under clause (

b) be waived and, if the recommendation is approved by the House, the costs shall be waived.

"(

e) Notice of an application for a private bill shall be given before it is read a first time by publishing the notice once a week for at least four weeks in each of the Ontario Gazette and one newspaper circulated in the municipality most affected and the notice shall,

"(

i) be signed by or on behalf of the applicant;

"(ii) clearly state the nature and object of the application;

"(iii) when the application refers to any proposed work, indicate generally the location of the work;

"(iv) where the application is by a municipal corporation for authority to issue debentures, set out the particulars of the existing debenture debt and the amount of the rateable property of the municipality according to the last revised assessment roll of the corporation, and in brief and general terms the object for which the new issue of debentures is required; and

"(

v) state that any person who has an interest in the application and who wishes to make submissions for or against the application when it is considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills should notify the Clerk of the House in writing.

"(

f) Notice of an application for a private bill is valid for the calendar year in which the last notice is published and until the first day of July in the next following calendar year.

"(

g) Where,

"(

i) an application for a private bill is made during a session but the bill is not read a first time; or

"(ii) a private bill is read a first time but is not considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills before dissolution or prorogation,

"the application shall be considered during the next regular session of the House without publishing further notice of the application and without payment of additional fees under clause (a).

"66. The Clerk of the House shall refer to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly any application that, in his opinion, does not comply with the standing orders.

"67. When any private bill confirming any letters patent or agreement is presented to the House, a copy of the letters patent or agreement shall be included in the bill.

"68. No private bill relating to the status of a corporation shall be considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills until there has been deposited with the Clerk of the House a certificate of the Minister of Revenue showing that all taxes payable under the Corporations Tax Act in respect of the corporation have been paid.

"69. (

a) Every private bill when read a first time, shall, unless it is an estate bill or a bill providing for a consolidation of a floating debt or for the consolidation or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures of a municipal corporation, stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and all petitions and correspondence to the House for or against the bill stand referred to the committee.

"(

b) No private bill shall be given first reading unless a compendium of background information has been deposited with the Clerk of the House by the applicant.

"(

c) The compendium required under clause (

b) shall cite the precedents, if any, used in drafting the private bill and shall contain an up-to-date consolidation of existing legislation that is amended by the bill.

"(

d) The standing committee on regulations and private bills may adopt guidelines related to the form and content of the compendium required by clause (b).

"(

e) Where the purpose of a private bill application is to amend a

section of an existing private act or the private bill would have the effect of amending a

section of an existing private act, the private bill shall re-enact the

section in its entirety.

"70. (

a) Every private bill or part of a bill of a municipal corporation providing for the consolidation of a floating debt or the consolidation or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures, stands referred to the Ontario Municipal Board after first reading.

"(

b) The board, after due inquiry, shall report to the House whether or not it is reasonable that the bill, or the part thereof relating to the matters referred to in clause (a), should pass and what, if any, alterations are necessary.

"(

c) A report of the Ontario Municipal Board shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House. "(

d) The bill and report shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

"71. (

a) Every estate bill or part of a bill that contains an estate bill provision stands referred to the commissioners of estate bills after first reading.

"(

b) The commissioners of estate bills, or any two of them, shall report their opinion on the bill or the part thereof that has been submitted to them and whether, presuming the allegations contained in the

preamble to be proven to the satisfaction of the House, it is reasonable for the bill or the part thereof to pass and what, if any, alterations are necessary.

"(

c) A report of the commissioners of estate bills shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House.

"(

d) Where the commissioners of estate bills report that in their opinion it is not reasonable that the bill or the part thereof submitted to them pass into law, the bill or the part thereof shall not be further considered.

"(

e) Where the bill or the part thereof submitted to the commissioners of estate bills is reported favourably by the commissioners, the bill and the report shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and where only part of a bill is submitted to the commissioners and the commissioners report that, in their opinion, it is not reasonable that the part pass into law, the bill shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and the committee shall amend the bill by deleting therefrom the part to which the report relates.

"72. The Clerk of the House shall post on all notice boards five calendar days' notice of the date on which any private bill is to be considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills and the notice shall be published in the Orders and Notices paper.

"73. Any person whose interest or property may be affected by a private bill, when required, shall appear before the standing committee on regulations and private bills to express his consent or objection, or may consent in writing, proof of which may be demanded by the committee.

"74. Private bills when reported by the standing committee on regulations and private bills shall be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for second reading.

"75. Private bills amended by a committee may be reprinted before further consideration, as the Clerk of the House may direct.

"76. Private bills, after second reading, shall be ordered for third reading, unless specially ordered referred to the committee of the whole House.

"77. Except when waived by unanimous consent of the House, notice is required for a motion to dispense with any standing order relating to private bills.

"78. A private bill register shall be kept in the office of the Clerk of the House, in which shall be entered the name, description and place of residence of the parties applying for the bill, or of their agent, and all the proceedings thereon, such register to be open to public inspection daily, during office hours.

"79. (

a) Every parliamentary agent conducting proceedings before the House is personally responsible to the House and to the Speaker for the observance of the standing orders and practices of parliament, and also for the payment of all fees and charges.

"(

b) Any parliamentary agent who wilfully acts in violation of the standing orders and practices of parliament, or who wilfully misconducts himself in prosecuting any proceedings before the House, is liable to an absolute or temporary prohibition to practise as a parliamentary agent, at the pleasure of the Speaker.

"80. The Clerk of the House shall publish weekly in the Ontario Gazette the following notice:

`APPLICATIONS TO PARLIAMENT

`PRIVATE BILLS

`PUBLIC NOTICE

`The rules of procedure and the fees and costs related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Copies of the standing orders may be obtained from:

`The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Room 110, Legislature Building, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1A2. Telephone 416/965-1406. (Collect calls will be accepted.)

`Applicants should note that consideration of applications for private bills that are received after the first day of September in any calendar year may be postponed until the first regular session in the next following calendar year.'"

28. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

"19a. (

a) Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the matters before the House and to allow responses thereto in the following circumstances:

"(

i) debate on second reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved second reading of the bill;

"(ii) debate on third reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved third reading of the bill;

"(iii) debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the motion for the address, the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized opposition parties and the speeches of the members winding up the throne debate for each recognized party;

"(iv) debate on the budget motion, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the presentation of the budget by the Treasurer, the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized parties and the speeches of the members winding up the budget debate for each recognized party; and

"(

v) debate on a motion for interim supply.

"(

b) In asking a question or making a comment with respect to the matters set out in clause (a), no member shall speak for more than two minutes. Two minutes shall be reserved for the reply of the member originally speaking."

29. Standing orders 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91 and 92 be deleted and the standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing orders:

"83. Within the first 10 sitting days following the commencement of each session in a parliament the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed for the duration of the session:

"(

a) Standing committee on administration of justice;

"(

b) Standing committee on general government;

"(

c) Standing committee on resources development;

"(

d) Standing committee on social development;

"(

e) Standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled;

"(

f) Standing committee on government agencies, which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies;

"(

g) Standing committee on the Ombudsman, which is empowered to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available; and, as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, subsection 16(1), to formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under the act; and to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate.

"(

h) Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which is empowered to review on its own initiative or at the request of the Speaker or the direction of the House and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the standing orders of the House and the procedures in the House and its committees; to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members; and to act as an advisory body to the Speaker and the House on the television broadcast system and to conduct reviews, at least on an annual basis, of the televising of the legislative proceedings and of the guidelines established by the House with respect to the television broadcast system;

"(

i) Standing committee on public accounts, which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the report of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts, which documents shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee as they become available; and

"(

j) Standing committee on regulations and private bills, to be the committee to which all

private bills, other than estate bills or bills providing for the consolidation of a floating debt or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures, of a municipal corporation shall be referred after first reading; and to be the committee provided for by

section 12 of the Regulations Act and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely, to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:

"

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

"

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

"

(3) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

"

(4) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

"

(5) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts;

"

(6) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty;

"

(7) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence;

"

(8) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee or the like); and

"

(9) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal;

"And the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by subsection 12(3) of the Regulations Act, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit.

"84. (

a) Standing and select committees shall be severally empowered to examine, inquire into and report from time to time on all such matters as may be referred to them by the House.

"(

b) Except when the House otherwise orders, each committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and things.

"(

c) A standing or select committee to which a bill has been referred by the House shall be empowered to report the same with or without amendments or to report that the bill be not reported.

"85. (

a) Select committees of the House may be appointed for any purpose or to consider any matter referred to them.

"(

b) The motion to appoint a select committee may contain the names of the members proposed to be members of the committee and such motion is subject to amendment.

"(

c) No standing or select committee shall consist of more than 11 members and the membership of such committees shall be in proportion to the representation of the recognized parties in the House.

"(

d) Any member appointed to a standing or select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed.

"(

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

"86. The Clerk of the House shall post in the Legislative Building a list of members serving on each standing and select committee.

"87. Within 10 sitting days following the appointment of the membership of the standing committees, the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee for the purpose of electing a chairman and vice-chairman.

"88. (

a) The chairmanships of the standing committees set out in standing order 83 shall be distributed in proportion to the representation of the recognized parties in the House.

"(

b) The chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be a member of the party forming the government and the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts shall be a member of the party forming the official opposition.

"(

c) Failing consensus on the distribution of the chairmanships of these standing committees, the recognized parties in the House shall choose which committees they wish to be chaired by one of their own members in rounds, through the House leaders, as follows: the government first, followed by the official opposition and then the other recognized opposition parties in order of their membership in the House, and then in rotation until the distribution is completed according to the number of chairmen from each recognized party as determined in clause (a).

"89. Each standing committee shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman at its first meeting in each session and, if necessary, during the course of a session.

"90. Upon a written request signed by a majority of the members of a standing or select committee, the chairman of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee within 10 sitting days following the receipt of such request by the clerk of the committee. The reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.

"91. The clerk of each standing and select committee shall attend each meeting of the committee and shall record the names of the members of the committee present at each meeting in the minutes of proceedings.

"92. (

a) A majority of the members of a standing or a select committee, including the chairman, shall constitute a quorum.

"(

b) Any committee may authorize the chairman to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present.

"(

c) If at any time during the sitting of a standing or select committee the chairman of the committee is advised by a member of the committee that a quorum is not present, the chairman shall, upon determining that a quorum is not present, suspend the proceedings of the committee; if no quorum is present at the expiration of 10 minutes, the chairman shall adjourn the committee to the next scheduled sitting of the committee.

"(

d) Whenever the chairman of a standing or select committee adjourns the committee for want of a quorum, the clerk of the committee shall record the time of the adjournment and the names of the members then present in the minutes of proceedings.

"93. (

a) Standing and select committees may be authorized by the House to meet on Monday evenings to hear submissions from the public, provided that the motion authorizing a committee to meet is made at the unanimous request of the committee and with the agreement of the House leader of each of the recognized parties in the House.

"(

b) Except by unanimous consent of the committee, no standing or select committee authorized to meet in the evening may continue to sit beyond 10:30 p.m. when the House is in session.

"94. In any standing or select committee, the standing orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders limiting the number of times of speaking.

"95. The chairman of a standing or select committee shall maintain order in the committee and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof.

"96. (

a) Standing and select committees may adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

"(

b) Standing and select committees shall be severally empowered to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary.

"(

c) Except with the written authorization of the Speaker, a standing or select committee shall not incur any expenses related to matters referred to in clauses (

a) and (

b) until a budget for such expenditures has been approved in whole or in part by the Board of Internal Economy.

"97. (

a) At the beginning of each fiscal year or as soon as possible thereafter, the clerk of a standing or select committee shall prepare a budget at the direction of the committee, and the chairman of the committee, or a member acting for the chairman, shall present to the Board of Internal Economy for its approval in whole or in part, the budget adopted by a majority of the committee setting forth in reasonable detail estimates of its proposed expenditures for the fiscal year.

"(

b) When the expenditures of any such committee have reached the limits set forth in any such budget, the chairman shall present to the Board of Internal Economy for its approval in whole or in part, a supplementary budget or budgets.

"(

c) The clerk of a standing or select committee shall administer and monitor the expenditures of any such committee and shall advise the committee if expenditures are likely to exceed the budget approved by the Board of Internal Economy.

"98. (

a) Unless otherwise ordered, standing or select committees shall have the power to appoint subcommittees which shall have power to report from time to time to the committee.

"(

b) Every such subcommittee shall be appointed by motion, such motion specifying the terms of reference, the membership of the subcommittee and the number of members required to constitute a quorum.

"99. Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing or select committee may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take

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

"100. On a division being called in the House, the chairman of a standing or select committee shall suspend the proceedings in the committee for such time as will in his opinion enable members to vote in the division in the House and return to the committee.

"101. (

a) When a division takes place in a standing or select committee, the clerk of the committee shall record in the minutes of proceedings the question proposed, the name of the proposer, and if requested by any member, the vote of each member present.

"(

b) When members are called in for a division, there shall be a maximum wait of 20 minutes before the vote is recorded.

"102. The chairman of a standing or select committee shall not vote except in the case of a tie, when the chairman shall give a casting vote.

"103. (

a) The report of a standing or select committee is the report as determined by the committee as a whole or a majority thereof.

"(

b) No minority report may be presented to or received by the House.

"(

c) Every member shall be permitted to indicate in a report that he dissents from a particular recommendation or comment within the report. The committee shall permit a member to express the reasons for his dissent within its report.

"(

d) The report as agreed to shall be signed by the chairman on behalf of the committee and shall be presented to the House by the chairman or by another member of the committee authorized by the chairman or the committee.

"COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

"104. (

a) When an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall leave the chair without a question put, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into a committee.

"(

b) When the Speaker has left the chair, the mace shall be placed under the table and the chairman of the committees of the whole House shall take the chair of the committee at the table.

"105. The standing orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders limiting the number of times of speaking.

"106. The chairman shall maintain order in a committee of the whole House and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House; but disorder in a committee of the whole House can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof.

"107. A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future date, but this standing order shall not affect the application of standing order 10.

"108. A motion may be moved during the proceedings of a committee of the whole House that the chairman report progress and ask for leave to sit again, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

"109. (

a) A motion that the chairman of a committee of the whole House leave the chair is always in order and shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

"(

b) If such a motion is carried, further proceedings of a committee of the whole House on the matter or bill then under consideration shall be superseded; but the matter or bill may, on motion with notice, be revived and proceedings shall be resumed at the point where they were interrupted. Such a motion shall not prejudice or in any way affect any other matters or bills referred to the committee of the whole House.

"(

c) If such a motion is defeated, no other such motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place."

30. Standing orders 86, 87 and 90 be renumbered 110, 56(

d) and 111 respectively.

31. All standing orders subsequent to the current standing order 92 be renumbered accordingly.

32. The standing orders be amended by adding thereto the following standing order:

"58a. (

a) The chairman of a committee considering a bill shall initial each

section of the bill as it is passed and sign the bill.

"(

b) Amendments shall be clearly indicated in the signed copy and the amendments or additions shall be initialled by the chairman."

33. Unless otherwise ordered, the provisional standing orders shall be in effect during the period commencing at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the adoption of these amendments, and concluding at 12 midnight on Thursday, December 18, 1986.

34. The Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the standing orders integrating the provisional standing orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister not going to say anything?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought perhaps I might.

Mr. Timbrell: I understand the government House leader wishes to speak last.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or I can speak not at all.

Mr. Timbrell: Or not at all, which would be even better. I wish only to indicate the support of the official opposition for this motion, which came about as a result of a great deal of work on the part of members of all three parties.

In the 15 years I have sat here in the Legislature, we have seen a variety of changes in the standing orders, all of them leading to a more open legislative process; a progression which I support.

I must admit that in that this stage in that progress began while I sat on the other side of the House, and is concluding while I sit on this side, my perspective has changed somewhat. My attitude about certain proposals which a year ago were anathema to me all of a sudden became rather enlightened. In that it is unlikely I ever shall change my perspective back, at least not as a sitting member but as a supporter of the next government, we shall have to wait for the next phase.

However, I congratulate the chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions and his colleagues for their report. I also want to thank the whips who, along with support staff, carried out most of the negotiations among the parties leading to this motion today.

Mr. McClellan: I too want to speak very briefly as we take the historic step today of reforming, once again, our own standing orders.

The reforms set out in the motion the government House leader has moved are quite significant. They increase the role of the ordinary back-bencher in the assembly during proceedings in question period, debates in the House and in standing and select committees.

The work of reforming the standing orders, as the House leader of the official opposition said, has been a long and arduous process which began in 1977 with the work of the procedural affairs committee in the second minority government. The chairman was the same person.

Ms. Gigantes: The same illustrious chairman.

Mr. McClellan: He was the same illustrious chairman then as now. Many of the recommendations which were allowed to gather dust during the interregnum of majority government have borne fruit in the reforms set out in the motion before us today.

I am especially pleased that after so long a time we are abolishing evening sittings, which are a relic from the days when the Legislature met two or three weeks or a month per year and people had regular, full-time occupations. The attempt was to get the legislative session over and done with as quickly as possible.

Now that we are sitting virtually nine or 10 months a year, evening sittings have become for members a major burden that quite significantly affects their health. offer the members exhibit A, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), to my right.

Finally, I also commend the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith), the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the three whips for the parties, who did most of the detailed work of hammering out a consensus and a compromise.

The motion before you, Mr. Speaker, is very much a consensus and a compromise that was accomplished after a great deal of goodwill and give and take between all three parties.

We look forward to 12 noon tomorrow when we begin the new regime.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would join with the other two House leaders in welcoming the advent of this latest revision of the rules and in expressing my thanks, along with theirs, to the staff, the whips and others who worked long and hard to reach agreement. I tend not to have much patience with these things myself, for some reason. I regret that because, as a person who is very interested in the work of the assembly, I want the rules to work well and effectively.

One of the regrets I have experienced over my years in the House is that, apart from question period and certain other ancillary orders of business, I have seen the involvement of private members reduced until most of our work is done with a quorum or fewer. I find this regrettable and I believe that at least some aspects of the rules will involve more members in the regular debates which should become more interesting. We shall have an opportunity to exchange views at the time the views are put forward rather than to insist they be put on ice and raised at some subsequent time when the point is long since forgotten and has lost whatever relevance it might have had on that occasion.

I would point out something that may be in response to the honourable member the House leader for the official opposition. He said his views changed a bit when he was transposed to opposition. Perhaps mine have not changed as much as they might have, and there are things here that my colleagues are not as enthused about as I have been and continue to be enthused about.

There is very little here which serves the government in a way to expedite business. Some of the original drafts called for limits on the lengths of speeches. Right from the beginning my own feeling was some lack of enthusiasm for that, even though I have felt frankly that lengthy speeches can be an abuse of the intention of the work in the House. Rather than trying to push for that or to stand pat for some sort of a limit, I felt it would be better simply to leave that as a weapon -- if we may call it that -- for any member of the House who wants to bring special attention to a matter which is unsatisfactory or remains unsatisfactory.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have handed out some of it. It is worse receiving it than handing it out, that is for sure.

I am absolutely delighted with this latest structuring of the rules. I know they will be improved, perhaps at the end of this trial session this year with the introduction of some amendments at that time. I hope we shall find them to be useful, and that it will not be very long before we take for granted that the session opens, after prayers, with brief statements made by private members. Probably the person who is under the gun more than anyone else will be you, Mr. Speaker; you have to be familiar with the whole thing.

While I can assure you that we all have examined the rules carefully and are very familiar with all the details, it will be up to you, sir, to keep us within the parameters that we now accept as we support this notice of motion.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: That means I shall have to stay up all night, burn the midnight oil and study.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is interesting reading. You will like it, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, resolution 2:

That the following

schedule for committee meetings be established for this session: the standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons; the standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and, if required, on Thursday afternoons;

The standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons; the standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons; and the standing committee on social development may meet on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I say in parenthesis that under the new rules, seconders would not be required for motions of this type, so Ms. Caplan would not have to hang around.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon Ms Caplan, resolution 3:

That the membership on the standing committees for the second session of the 33rd Parliament be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs. Brandt, Callahan, Cooke (Kitchener), Ms. Fish, Ms. Gigantes, Ms. Hart, Messrs. O'Connor, Partington, Polsinelli, Villeneuve and Warner.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Messrs. Ashe, Barlow, Bossy, Cooke (Kitchener), Cordiano, Foulds, Haggerty, McFadden, Morin-Strom and Sargent and Miss Stephenson.

Standing committee on general government: Ms Bryden, Messrs. Cousens, Dean and Guindon, Ms. Hart, Messrs. Henderson, McCague, McKessock, Newman, Pollock and Pouliot.

Standing committee on government agencies: Messrs. Epp, Grande, Gregory, Lane, Leluk and Mancini, Mrs. Marland, Messrs. Rowe, Sargent, Mrs. Smith (London South) and Mr. Swart.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs. Bossy, Breaugh, Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel), Mancini, Martel, Morin, Newman, Sterling, Treleaven, Turner and Warner.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Messers. Bossy, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, McLean, McNeil, Morin, Newman, Philip, Sheppard and Shymko.

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs. Epp, Ferraro, Gillies, Gordon, Harris, Philip, Polsinelli, Pope, Runciman, Smith (Lambton) and Wildman.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Messrs. Callahan, Charlton, Cordiano, Cureatz, Ferraro, Haggerty, Hennessy, McKessock, Morin-Strom, Shymko and Wiseman.

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs. Bernier, Hayes, Knight, Laughren, McGuigan, Pierce, Ramsay, Smith (Lambton), South, Stevenson and Taylor.

Standing committee on social development: Messrs. Allen, Andrewes, Baetz, Davis, Jackson, Johnston (Scarborough West), Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk), Offer, Reville, Reycraft and Ward (Mr. Epp for Bill 30).

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Morin-Strom moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the economic crisis facing Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and, indeed, all of northern Ontario, as a result of Algoma Steel's program to downsize operations and permanently eliminate 1,500 jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in time, at 11:20 a.m. on April 25, and complies with standing order 34 regarding the notice requirements. I will listen to the member for Sault Ste. Marie for up to five minutes as well as to representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to speak to this motion, although I am not particularly pleased with the need to have to take such action. I am very concerned with the situation facing my home community, Sault Ste. Marie, and the surrounding areas in the district of Algoma and, indeed, similar