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

July 8, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

CARABRAM

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

ALCOHOL ABUSE

ORILLIA SCOTTISH FESTIVAL

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

HEALTH CARE REFORM

MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

BLOOD DISORDERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CASINO GAMBLING

EVICTIONS

NURSING HOMES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

LANDFILL

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

TIRE TAX

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AMALGAMATION OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS

GAMBLING

HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

GO BUS SERVICE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH SERVICES

GAMBLING

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALLOCATIONS DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Lessard moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la

Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Over the last few years, constituents in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville have suffered tremendously from the impact of the recession. Plants have closed and the plants that remain open have reduced their workforces. Jobs have left the city as a result of federal economic policies like free trade, and those jobs are not returning. Private sector workers who still remain working have seen little or no wage increase over the past few years, and now public sector workers are facing the reality that government revenues that pay their wages have decreased for three years in a row.

Social Contract Act provisions, I know, are tough to take, but I believe people don't mind sharing the pain to maintain important public services like education and health care. But they want to know that the pain is being shared fairly by everyone, and they're not shy about letting their elected representatives know when they see things that they perceive to be unfair.

One of the things I've been hearing from my constituents lately is that they feel the MPPs' pension plan is unfair and needs to be reformed. They're not alone in expressing this opinion. The 1992 report of the Commission on Election Finances suggests as follows: "We feel that members should have the same entitlement for amounts paid into their pension plan as those in the public and private sectors. However, we do feel that the criteria for eligibility with respect to members' pensions should be reviewed."

Premier Bob Rae has agreed that MPPs' pension plans should be reviewed as well. I respect the judgement of the Premier, and on this issue I can only say that I think he's right on.

Mike Harris as well expressed his support when on May 3 during question period he referred to the announcement of the Premier of the province of Alberta that he was going to be doing away with MPPs' pension plans and suggested to Premier Rae, "We should do away with any portion of our pension that is not fully funded."

Now, I know that there is a wide range of public opinion with respect to what compensation MPPs should be entitled to, from those who don't think that we should be paid at all to those who think we should be paid fairly in order to attract qualified candidates as representatives, but I think most people agree that we should be fairly compensated for a job that is difficult, time-consuming, challenging and oftentimes thankless. But when it comes to other benefits, like pensions, I think people get upset when they see something that is completely out of whack with what they see in the public and private sectors.

This bill would bring the MPP pension plan more in line with what's available in the public and private sectors, would help eliminate the unfunded liability and would also save taxpayers' money. Currently, a member who retires after at least five years of service is entitled to a lifetime pension. If the member's age and years of service on retirement add up to 55, then the pension is 5% of the member's pay for each year of service, up to a maximum of 75% of that pay. Periodically, adjustments in pension payments have been made to reflect increases in the cost of living, by the Board of Internal Economy.

People may not be so upset if they felt that the plan was self-sustaining and that any improvements in benefits were fully funded, as they are in almost every other plan. But they're not, and they haven't been for a long, long time. Even as far back as 1976, the actuarial report respecting pensions reported that allowances paid under the plan to cover increases in the cost of living, and these are benefits that are external to the plan and as a result are paid from the consolidated revenue fund, amounted to about $68,000. In 1987, that amount had increased to $887,000, and by last year had reached $1.35 million.

I think the trend is pretty clear, and that is that Ontario residents are paying an every-increasing amount towards the maintenance of the MPP pension plan.

If one agrees that the plan should be self-funding, then one of the places to look for that funding should be within the plan itself: surpluses. In fact, the plan did have a surplus, if you take out the cost-of-living adjustments, in 1991 of about $669,000, but by 1992 that surplus had dwindled by half and has probably disappeared by now.

I think this is one of those issues where the public is way ahead of the politicians, and although pension reform may not have been one of the deciding issues in the recent Alberta election, I think it would be foolish for us to ignore the results of that election. I don't want to see what happened in Alberta happen here. I don't want to see a wholesale devaluation of the work we do as MPPs, and I don't want to see a case where only the rich and those who may have other full-time employment are able to become politicians. So I think we need to seriously consider reforming the members' pension plan, and this bill proposes three changes.

First, the bill proposes to eliminate severance pay for members who resign voluntarily between elections, unless that resignation is for serious medical reasons. I think most voters find it incomprehensible that a member can resign midterm, leave them without representation for up to six months, start working at another well-paid job and also collect severance pay. Canadian workers have seen recent Tory amendments to the unemployment insurance plan deny them compensation if they quit without good reason. They must find this completely unfair.

In recent months, I've heard plenty about this issue as a result of the resignation of the member for Essex South, who quit to begin working for an amusement park located in the Detroit River. Although his employment was not interrupted one day, he was entitled to collect severance pay in an amount of over $40,000. There is no such golden parachute for members of the general public.

Voters are similarly upset when members resign to take on other employment with a government agency, board or commission, receive severance pay, begin collecting their pension and also begin collecting a government salary at the same time, something referred to as double-dipping.

The second part of this bill suspends payment of pensions to members who continue their employment by virtue of a government appointment. There should be no reward for MPPs who quit voluntarily to move on to other jobs. If that job happens to be a government appointment, then retired MPPs should not be collecting a government pension and a government salary at the same time.

Finally, the bill amends the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act so that members who retire will not be able to begin collecting their pensions until they reach the age of 55 or their age plus years of service equals 70, whichever comes first. If a member dies before then and leaves a surviving spouse, then the spouse wouldn't be entitled to collect a pension until the member, had he or she lived, would have reached the age of 55. However, if such a member leaves a surviving child or children but no spouse, the child or children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

The rules with respect to qualifying for a pension and the level of benefits available would remain unchanged.

I know that given more time, there could have been further refinements made to this bill, but I think that it is important to begin the path of reform now and introduce it now instead of some time in the fall session.

I have to admit that when I began dealing with this issue, it became much more complicated than I had anticipated and there may be some unusual circumstances that I failed to pick up, and I'm interested in hearing suggestions about those.

I would also have liked to have had an opportunity to do an actuarial analysis of what impact these suggestions may have on the plan. I know there are other areas that need to be dealt with: the issue of people who are now collecting pension benefits, grandparenting provisions, and also the issue of fairness of the entitlement of surviving spouses in the event that they may have young children.

I want to acknowledge the previous work of the member Al McLean, who had introduced a bill prohibiting double-dipping on three occasions but never had an opportunity to debate it. I also want to acknowledge the work Peter Kormos did, who, unbeknownst to myself, introduced a bill that had some similar provisions in it to mine. I know that was helpful to legislative counsel, and I want to thank them as well, John Hill and Krystal Nikolich, who were able to accomplish a great deal in a short time.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I welcome the opportunity that the presentation of this bill provides to be able to address what is certainly a timely issue, timely in the sense that it is a matter of very genuine public concern and one which the members of this House should in fact be addressing.

I speak today not so much in support of the specifics of the particular bill which has been put forward, but indeed in support of the intent to review and to make changes to the MPPs' current pension plan. It's very clear, as I believe all members of this assembly have heard, that there are issues in the current pension plan which are of concern and which must be addressed.

There is a concern that MPPs become eligible for their pension after serving for five years, which in some cases, as we are all well aware, may be less than serving two full terms. That is a concern that must be addressed.

There is a concern that MPPs can draw their pensions immediately on retirement if their combined years of age and service equal 55. Again, clearly, this is very different from other pension plans and this is a concern which has to be addressed in any proposals for change that are made and subsequently passed by this assembly.

We recognize as well that there is a very real concern that individuals can be eligible both to draw their pension and to receive remuneration for other public service at the same time. We recognize that this is a very difficult issue to resolve, as some past attempts to deal with what has been called double-dipping have proven. But needless to say, it is also a very real concern and it's a concern which needs to be addressed.

We in our caucus understand these concerns and we believe that there must be changes to the present plan. We are ready to cooperate to put changes in place.

Having said that, let me also say that I am a little bit surprised at this specific bill coming forward at this time for two reasons. One is because, as I think members of the assembly are aware, there is already a bill relating to MPPs' pensions which has been put forward by one of the colleagues of the member putting forward the bill today, so we have a bill presented by the member for Windsor-Walkerville and a bill that has been presented by the member for Welland-Thorold.

I might have thought that two members of the same caucus would have been able to get together and present bills which were at least not contradictory in scope. It makes me wonder how serious the effort is to look at the very real concerns in MPPs' pension plans and to bring forward some joint recommendations for changes to those plans.

The second reason I'm surprised to see a bill being brought forward by a member of the NDP caucus today is that when this issue was raised just a short time ago, there was an agreement that was reached, at the initiative of the Premier, and it was agreed to by myself and by the leader of the third party, that indeed there would be a cooperative joint all-party effort made to review MPPs' pension plans, and that the review that would be carried out by an all-party committee would be informed by an independent actuarial review which the Premier undertook to implement and to complete, and that this review would assess the cost of the pension plan, levels of contributions and, as I understand it, would do an assessment of MPPs' pension plans in relation to other pension plans.

I believe it's very important that this review take place and, again, that there be an all-party, cooperative effort made to deal with what are real concerns so there can be a joint agreement on what changes need to be made and that those changes can be passed.

It doesn't seem to me that it does real justice to the issue that this should be coming forward in what seems to be a series of private member bills presented by members of the NDP caucus. Quite frankly, I would have thought that the Premier's own caucus members would have joined with my caucus in welcoming the independent assessment that the Premier himself has undertaken to put in place, and would have wanted to participate in that kind of joint effort to bring in changes to the current plan.

Nevertheless, we in our caucus are firmly in support of the intent to change the current plan. We will support this bill and we will in fact support the bill to be presented by the member for Welland-Thorold on the same issue, as we will support a bill which will stand in the name of one of our own caucus members, the member for Halton Centre.

Our goal is to see that all of these proposals come before the joint committee, which we trust will still be established, and that the work of that committee will still be informed by the independent review which is to be carried out, so that together we can address the very real concerns that exist so we can propose and recommend to this House, jointly, changes that should be made and that indeed those changes will be passed by this assembly.

I believe the goal of all of us here should be and is to ensure that those who are elected to serve in public office are neither financially advantaged nor seriously disadvantaged by their willingness to serve.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on this bill this morning brought forward by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

I'm rather hesitant to comment extensively on this bill because I just received a copy this morning and I haven't had a chance to review it; however, I do want to say that when the member introduced his bill on July 5, I thought it was very appropriate.

He indicated at that time that the bill would eliminate severance allowances for members who resign unless there are serious medical reasons.

It would provide that members would not be entitled to be paid their pensions until they reach the age of 55 or the day on which their age and years of service total 70, whichever comes first.

It also provides that if a member dies before reaching the age of 55 or becoming eligible under the 70 rule and leaves a surviving spouse, the spouse would not be entitled to be paid the retirement allowance until the day on which member would have reached the age of 55 had he or she lived, but if the member has left a surviving child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

It also suspends pensions while a person is receiving compensation for acting as a member or officer of any government agency, commission, board, committee, office or organization to do with government.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and support this bill in principle because it attempts to do something that I tried to do myself when I introduced private member's Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, and Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act. That was in May 1987.

My bills would have eliminated retirement allowances for persons entitled to them if that person is employed and/or receiving other compensation from the public service or other government agencies.

I wanted to end the practice, commonly known as double-dipping, whereby people who receive retirement pensions from the government are also being paid as a member of another government agency, commission, committee or board.

One of my bills dealt with elected officials while the other focused on civil servants. What about the civil servants who are getting the golden handshake, retiring early, wanting back in with the connections they have in the public service, getting contract positions?

I believe it is morally wrong for people retiring on generous pensions to use the inside track to appointments. I also believe there are plenty of capable people in Ontario with little or no pension who could qualify for these appointments. While I support Bill 58 in principle, I would appreciate having the opportunity and the time to study this legislation, find out what loopholes there are in it, if any. I would hope that this bill reflects the ideals I tried to promote with my private member's bill back in the late 1980s, and a return to fiscal responsibility and personal integrity in the ranks of elected officials and the senior civil service.

I believed then, and I still believe now, that it is fiscally and morally irresponsible to make an appointment to a government agency, commission, board or committee, office or organization, without open competition and while government pensions are still being received.

The independent committee that has been recommended to be set up: I don't believe the election commission should be making recommendations; I believe it should be an independent committee set up by the Premier to look into the whole aspect of pensions. I also believe, as I've said on many occasions, no elected member should receive a pension until they're 55. I believe that is the appropriate, proper time that would be allowable. There's no way that somebody 41 or 45, with a lot of years of service, should be able to draw a pension and go and get another job in government. It just morally to me is not right.

What this bill is trying to do is to correct that situation. I would have hoped that the member and the member for Welland-Thorold could have got together and brought in one bill that we all could support to try and fulfil the commitments he's recommending here, although I like the proposals that this member is making better than the one from Welland-Thorold, because I believe the 55 age factor is the appropriate one.

That's why a lot of people get upset with politicians, when you read in the papers some of the other generous pensions in Canada that have been put in place. This here has been fair to the extent that you had to have the number of years of service and your age to match 55. I think that has been fair to the extent it has been because there's not been a lot of people, but if any are getting it and getting another job, that's not appropriate or right. So I will agree with this 55; I think it's proper. I would like to see that nobody can get that until they are 55.

The independent committee should make those recommendations and they should make them very strongly and change the whole process of pensions in Canada and Ontario, because I believe strongly that Bill 58, while, as I said, I haven't had an opportunity to go through the whole bill, is a step in the right direction. It's a step I would like to see and it's a step I think the people of this province want to see, because with what's gone on in Ottawa with the senators and with regard to the legislatures in other provinces, people are fed up.

Look, it's only right. Pensions were made for when you retire and had no other income. That is not what it has become. I want you to look at the senior civil servants who are retiring with large pensions. What are they doing? Are they getting back into the civil service and getting jobs, when other people could get them? I hope you will address this in your bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for South Hastings.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Thank you, Mr Speaker; Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. I rise today in support of Bill 58, the Legislative Assembly Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, that was presented today for second reading in the House by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

I want to go back to 1987, because it was then that I first ventured down the political trail and vied for a position here in the Legislative Assembly. At that time, all my opponents were asked by a scrutinizing public if they thought the pension plan was too generous. Indeed, questions were even asked of them about whether they thought MPPs were paid too much. In 1990, I very seriously considered -- not too prudently, I might add -- that maybe I'd make a public statement and suggest that I not accept a pension if I were to be successful the second time around.

This was in 1990, before I even knew I would be successful the first time. Let me just say that I didn't, and I want to say I'm glad I didn't, because the optics and the public perception about the job and the role of the members is somewhat different from what the real job and role the member plays here is.

Before I became a member, I thought maybe members made too much money, maybe their benefits were too good and maybe they shouldn't have pensions. Now that I am an elected representative, I know, through the course of a day's work, how much work a member does, and now that I've had a chance to walk a mile in the shoes of a member, I have a different opinion. My opinion is somewhat different from what it was as one who was vying for the position and had never had first-hand experience.

Now that I've been here, I think that indeed people who have spent a considerable amount of time here deserve some sort of pension. There's no doubt in my mind. I also think there's not a lot of job security in this job. In fact, every five years or so, we go to the polls and our constituents determine whether they think we should have a longer life in this job or a shorter one.

Because we have no job security, because we have no unemployment insurance -- we don't pay into the unemployment insurance plan -- I think there needs to be some compensation for members, who have given as much as they have for the time they've been here. Of course, the compensation will vary based on the amount of time one has been here. A member who hasn't reached that level of five years, of course, is not eligible for any pension. And the notion that if someone should resign their seat, they not get severance pay, I think is very admirable, and I think it's the sort of thing we would all support.

I even thought that maybe in 1995 I might say, "Hey, I'm not going to take a pension." I don't know if there would be an advantage from my constituents in terms of whether I would be re-elected or not if I were to stand up and publicly say, "I'm not going to take a pension, because I don't think that's something that I, after just five, six or seven years, deserve." But I want to say that for those members who have been here for a number of years, I think a pension is something they deserve.

The big question that is raised is the double-dipping factor. It's been mentioned by everyone who has spoken previously. I think it isn't good, and the public doesn't think it's good; in fact, from time to time we see in the media that the public is outraged by the fact that members who have received very generous pensions have an opportunity to sit on boards and commissions and other appointments from the government and indeed, in some instances, double their salary.

During these very difficult times of restraint, when the government of Ontario is asking all people to make contributions to help reduce the deficit, this is a time when we can see Bill 58 as something that is very advantageous.

I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville for introducing this bill. I support it and I hope all the other members of this Legislature do, because I think it's not only what the members in this Legislature want, it's what the people of Ontario want as well.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I rise to support Bill 58 because I think the time has come for honourable members on all sides in this Parliament and in the Canadian Parliament to address two of the most irksome aspects of parliamentary perks, and those are certain aspects of the pension plans here in this Legislature and elsewhere in Canada, and certainly in the national Parliament, and the question of double-dipping.

I have over the course of 18 years in this Legislature addressed this issue both publicly and privately on my own behalf on a number of occasions. I have through most of those years not received very much support. In fact I bear a few lacerations from members, most of the lacerations coming from my friends in the New Democratic Party. So I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have honourable members in the New Democratic Party advancing bills as we have today in the name of the member for Windsor-Walkerville or in the name of the member for Welland-Thorold.

Let me say as well that I understand, perhaps as well as anyone in this place, the uncertainty, the difficulty, the unpredictability of political life. I grew up in a very political family. My grandfather served here for 16 years back in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. A cousin-in-law of mine, Mr Yakabuski, served here for 24 years. It's interesting when I think of the Renfrew county experience -- and I think this has to be said -- my two predecessors, Mr Yakabuski in south Renfrew and Mr Hamilton in north Renfrew, served, in the case of Mr Yakabuski, 24 years.

He died the day he retired and received no benefit from his very generous pension entitlement. Mr Hamilton served here from 1958 to 1975, 17 years. He died six months after he retired. There are two examples of members who together served for over 40 years and who personally drew almost nothing of their pension entitlement.

I look at my county and I think of the late Joe Greene, who served with distinction in the Parliament of Canada, and Mr James Maloney, who served here with distinction. They died in office. When I look at the Renfrew county experience, most of the politicians I grew up with died in office or died very shortly thereafter. For them, the pension entitlement was a matter of a widow's benefit.

The average length of stay in the Parliament of Canada is now something in the neighbourhood of five to seven years. The average length of stay in this Parliament is now below five years. So the average member of the Ontario Legislature today will not even participate in this plan.

I was saying to my friend the member for Halton Centre, Mrs Sullivan, that we have had three successive electoral decapitations: 1985, 1987 and 1990. The greatest electoral change and decapitation in the 20th century in Ontario will occur in the spring of 1995. There will be a massive change and turnover in this place in two years' time. I say to my friends, if ever there was a time to change the plan, it is now.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition who said a few moments ago on behalf of her Liberal colleague that there must be a new plan for a new Parliament. That is the 36th Parliament, which will presumably be elected some time in the spring of 1995. That new plan must deal with, I believe, those elements of the current arrangement that, as the member from Walkerville has pointed out, are unacceptable to the Ontario electorate and, I believe, to the Canadian electorate in this day and age.

The first of these problems is the problem of relatively young people like the honourable member now standing from north Renfrew; like the former Minister of Health, Mr Timbrell, from Don Mills;, like my former colleague Mr Mancini; like Stephen Henry Lewis, who left here in 1978 at the age of 40 as a very young man with a very comfortable pension benefit. People talk about Mancini; I guess I would say, "Go and interview Stephen Lewis and ask him what it's been like for the last 15 years drawing a Mancini-like pension, or ask Timbrell." We've all got those kinds of examples of young people; I might add, relatively few examples.

We must address the fact that the people of north Renfrew or elsewhere in Ontario or in Canada cannot understand and should not accept the notion that, for whatever internal and private reason, certain young people after 10 or 15 years, at age 40, walk out of the Parliament of Ontario, the Parliament of Canada, the Parliament of Alberta, and have a pension payable at that age of 40, or 38 or 42, immediately and for life and indexed. That is the single, biggest irritation and wrong in the current arrangement that must be addressed.

I say to my friends on all sides, because, yes, the Liberals have Mancini, the Tories have Timbrell, the New Democrats have Stephen Lewis and Richard Johnston and Michael Breaugh, who's drawing a pension of $35,000 provincially, I think it is. He's up in Ottawa at age 40, and he's a wonderful fellow and I like Mike and he's a very good member of the Canadian Parliament. That's not the issue.

The issue is that my pension entitlement apparently -- if I quit today and walked out of this place, I am entitled immediately to a pension benefit of $54,000 annually. Let me say that there isn't a person I represent in the county of Renfrew who thinks that's fair and just. And you know what? They're right. If I quit tomorrow, I would feel honour-bound to tell the Speaker of this assembly to defer that benefit until I was at least age 55, because I couldn't go home.

I could not go home and face my parents or my neighbours or my electors who are good, hardworking people and who are not unreasonable, who understand the vicissitudes of politics and public life, because they remember Mr Yakabuski and Mr Hamilton and Mr Maloney and Mr Greene. They knew that none of those people made any money in the business of politics; in fact I could argue that Paul Yakabuski, who was married to my cousin, lost a fortune by being in politics, that he would have been a much richer man had he stayed in Barry's Bay and run the family business.

But I say again that there are two problems that must be dealt with, and the Conway problem, the Mancini problem, the Stephen Lewis problem, the Dennis Timbrell problem, which is young people who've been here for 10 or 15 years and who are, at age 40, able to walk out with an immediate entitlement is just indefensible and unacceptable. I say, as all honourable members besieged now with a scepticism and a cynicism about our honourable profession, let us together fix that problem.

The second issue that has to be dealt with, it seems to me, is the problem of double-dipping, and it is more complicated than we might imagine. Again, I think there is a way we can do it, and that is that honourable people who have a pension entitlement -- and, again, if you put the 55 rule in, you deal with the problem to a very substantial extent. I don't mean to be partisan, but two people I know and like and respect -- I can add a third one, my friend Bob Nixon. I was not happy when Nixon went to London and took his pension and took whatever salary attaches to the agent generalship in London.

He has resigned that position essentially because the position has, on his recommendation, been terminated.

But, you know, we have Ian Deans and Elie Martel. Ian Deans was a very fine and outstanding member of this Legislature. He was a member of the Legislature for the New Democratic Party from 1967 till his retirement in 1979. He was a very able, effective House leader. He then became the MP for Hamilton-Wentworth and the federal NDP House leader. He now apparently claims a provincial pension, a federal parliamentary pension, and he draws a salary of something like $140,000 on top of those two pension entitlements as chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

My friend Elie Martel, who worked long and hard as an outstanding member of this Legislature, is today, I'm sure, drawing a teacher's pension, a parliamentary pension from this place in the neighbourhood of $33,000 or $34,000, and he's drawing something in the neighbourhood of $95,000 as an able member of the Environmental Assessment Board. That is wrong.

I'm not saying it's wrong that Mr Martel should serve on the Environmental Assessment Board or that Mr Deans should not serve as chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, but who among us can go out and say that one should have those three entitlements all coming from the public purse at this time?

This is a tough life, it is an uncertain life, and it is an honourable profession, but we have a couple of problems in this area of parliamentary perks. Let us together fix the problem.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It's with some trepidation that I speak on this because of the penchant of the media to turn the issue into the ridiculous examples that have been used in the past. Fine examples were recognized by the member for Renfrew North just in his examples.

I think that the member brings forward a bill, which he's entitled to in private members' hour. I think that the member of the opposition, the member of the Liberal Party, was concerned to some degree with the motives behind bringing forward this bill in that we are entering into a by-election in the very near future in Essex South, which includes Mr Mancini, who has retired with a very generous pension.

Whenever we talk in this place about pensions, we don't expect to get any kind of crocodile tears from the public, because the public at this time are looking upon our profession with a great deal of scepticism, and therefore it's difficult to talk about this and come to a reasonable and rational conclusion with regard to what a member is entitled to or not entitled to.

I think that the member for Walkerville has brought forward in Bill 58 some reasonable suggestions in dealing with some of the problems which Mr Conway has identified. Mr Conway identified, number one, the problem of very young members, and I think that this bill does in some ways deal with that.

I would like to add to his list of problems that we have to deal with a third one, and that is: I think people out there have the impression that the normal MPP is getting paid $60,000 in annual salary, or approximately that amount; I think it's $44,000 plus $15,000 of tax-free allowance.

One of the problems we have in dealing with pensions is that, because we separate those two amounts into two pots, pensions are based on the lower amount of $44,000, or approximately that amount of money. Therefore, when we talk in terms of percentages and we talk in terms of entitlement, we're talking about a figure which is not realistic, and therefore it is difficult for the public to conceptualize around that.

Now, the other problem that we have had, and was exhibited by Mr Mancini, is that our pension has been based on the best three years of our parliamentary career. Mr Mancini was fortunate enough to be a full member of cabinet very near the end of his political career. Therefore, Mr Mancini's pension was based not on $44,000, but on $44,000 plus $33,000, which he was paid as a cabinet minister.

I don't think that is what our pensions should be based upon. I think they should be based perhaps upon the average salary that we have received over a longer period of time. Maybe that's a solution, or maybe the cabinet minister's salary should be not included in the pension entitlement. Now, when I say that, I say that in a way that would affect my own, because my best three years are still the years from 1982-85, when I was a cabinet minister in Mr Davis's government. Therefore, I probably, under the present rules, will never get to the point where I will ever improve those unless I stay after the next election and become the next Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

But notwithstanding that --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): A little presumptuous, are we? Don's the finance critic. He'll be upset about that.

Mr Sterling: I think one of the problems that Mr Lessard and anyone dealing with this particular problem has is that until we get our remuneration that we are receiving into the proper form -- and that is that we should all be paid $70,000 a year total and pay taxes on it like everybody else in Ontario does on the total amount of $70,000. That's about what it works out to when you work out $44,000 plus $14,000 in tax-free allowance. The end would be $70,000.

It's too bad we didn't do that during the latter part of the 1980s when there wasn't a recession, because it's hard for the people to understand when you jump a salary from a total package of $58,000 or $60,000 to $70,000. It's difficult, and the people would say, "Well, they're taking a $10,000 increase." There would be a great hue and cry, and the media would perhaps not be as careful as they might be in reporting why it went from $60,000 to $70,000, but I believe that it would be a more honest way of paying members of this Legislature.

That's what should be the determination of the amount of pension. The pension should be based on that amount, and anything more that you got, as a parliamentary assistant or a committee chairman or a cabinet minister, I don't believe should be added to your pension.

One of the things the public perhaps doesn't understand is that if we take a member like Floyd Laughren, who is the dean of the House at this point in time, who has spent 22 years in this place -- he's 58 years of age, I believe, at this time. He came to the Legislature perhaps in his prime earning years.

If Floyd Laughren had not been a member of cabinet, his pension after leaving this place -- he ran in the last election perhaps not on the expectation of being in the cabinet; I'm sure it wasn't on the expectation of being in the cabinet -- if Floyd Laughren would have retired at the end of this term, after 25 years of service in here, Floyd Laughren would have been entitled to a pension of about $32,000 or $33,000 a year.

I don't think that's adequate for the amount of work, the skill that Floyd Laughren has and the effort he has put into his job when we compare it to other public servants in this province. Now it is difficult for a person who is not getting any pension to understand me saying that $32,000 or $33,000 wouldn't be adequate for Floyd Laughren, who had served here for 25 years, but when I look at teachers' pensions and other public servants, they would far exceed what Mr Laughren would have received under the scenario that I paint.

There are some problems with the severance provisions of the bill. They would encourage people to hang on, to be MPPs even though they weren't doing the job. They would retain their seats until another election was called, notwithstanding they weren't doing their job.

We would have to go through these details, and I'm sure, deal with some of them, but otherwise we are supporting this bill.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm privileged to rise and join in the debate on Bill 58, introduced by my friend and colleague from Windsor-Walkerville.

Some members of my caucus said to me, "You know, you're the last one who should be getting up here this morning to speak about this," but nevertheless the pensions that I am in receipt of were all earned honestly and sometimes for the good of this country, and I must say that none of them were received early. It's put me in the position, with the clawback from income tax, to rather make me almost a volunteer here, so I can speak with some objectivity, free of bias.

I know that once we get into a recession, as we are in now, the first recipients of the public's outrage are members of Parliament and members of the provincial government. I find that a little bit sad in some respects, because like many of my colleagues here, when I came to Queen's Park for the first time, I had that perception that MPPs were down here living the good life and what a swell time it was. I quickly came to realize that it's not the swell life that the public perceives.

I'd like to mention two members here, the member for Kenora and the member for Rainy River. I think it's quite significant that both of those gentlemen are single, and I just think of the tremendous effort it must be for those two people to represent their riding, one almost close to Winnipeg and the other one almost a world away from here. I think when you recognize that commitment, when you realize what that does to people here, I have some difficulty in criticizing members' pay, pensions and whatever.

Nevertheless, there is a public perception that we have to address that the pensions are not right, and I agree they're not right. The pensions that I received were at the normal age of 55 and later at 60 and just recently at 65, and I think people can live with that and accept that, but the public's perception -- obtaining a pension in the early 40s is unacceptable.

I would like to see some sort of process whereby when he left, a member would get a certain amount of money but the main thrust of the pension will kick in at 55, like very similarly it does in the military now. You leave the military at 50, but you get a small pension and then at 60 the pension kicks in with the indexing, which it did in my case, and I couldn't live without another job between 50 and 60. Likewise, I think that we have to respect members who retire early. They are entitled to something for their effort, because it's very difficult for members, unless you have a high profile, to get alternative employment when you leave here.

I think that in 1995, when there's another election called and perhaps some of our members will not be successful, they're going to face an awfully difficult time in finding employment, because the perception of employers, I think, is that, "We really don't want MPPs on staff." I think you have to think about that, and you have to think about that in regard to severance pay, in that it bridges the gap when you will be on your own and trying to just pay the bills.

I don't agree with the severance pay being cut, but perhaps, who knows, when people resign, we are not privy to all the personal reasons behind that, and arbitrarily to say that you don't get any severance pay to me is a bit draconian.

I do have great difficulty with MPPs who leave here and go on to the House of Commons and become members there, but I believe that this difficulty is not necessarily their own, because I've spoken to Ross Stevenson, who is the federal member for Durham and I believe was the Minister of Agriculture, albeit for a very brief time, for the Conservative government.

He made many attempts to try to transfer his pension from here to there because he didn't want to draw it, but apparently you can be in Ottawa and you can bring that pension to here, so when we lambaste people like Mike Breaugh for going from here to there, I believe for sure that he would much rather transfer that pension, which brings me to a point that I made when I came here.

I had that meeting where they sort out all your coverage and everything, and I said, "I'm in receipt of a pension from the public service, and I would much rather not take that and somehow have that incorporated in here so that when I leave here I would get a pension." They said, "No way, you can't do that." So here I was trying to get rid of a pension and I couldn't get rid of it. I think that before we lay considerable blame on members from here drawing another pension, we should think that they probably tried or would have loved to have transferred that.

In so far as getting positions outside when you leave here and enjoying your pension, I think that's wrong. I don't think that one should leave here with a pension and get another job as an appointee to a public service for even more money. I think that's repugnant and I hope that's changed.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this brief time to address this issue.

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to speak to the member for Windsor-Walkerville's bill. I think in principle it's a very good bill in terms of talking about the type of changes that need to be done.

Dealing with, obviously, our own salaries and compensation is a tricky issue, and as I think the member for Carleton said, part of the problem is it's very hard for the public to understand what the total compensation package is for members of Parliament, and we do need to deal with that issue.

Let me just say, though, that it is certainly nowhere in the range that appeared in a response in the Windsor Star a little while ago, a phone-in response, where someone said that before they cut anything else they should cut the some $200,000 a year that MPPs make through all their perks. We know it's nowhere near that.

I want to state for the record that it's my opinion that 95% of all MPPs and elected officials are very hardworking, dedicated people who are doing the best job they feel they can do in terms of representing their constituents. That goes for all sides of the House, and I think that's important. I may disagree with their politics, but they are very hardworking, dedicated people, despite what is sometimes portrayed out there.

I think in terms of how we deal with this pension issue, when the House was elected, I was the youngest member. I hope to sit here for many years, as some of the other members have been fortunate enough to do.

I guess the background is that the pension plan was developed because of the lack of job security. Also, traditionally, this place has attracted professional people, and when you compare the salaries of MPPs to what most of the professionals make, we make far less than that. It was thought that the pension plan should be developed to help compensate for that loss of income that many of those professionals would be suffering, because you wanted to attract the so-called best and brightest, not to make them independently wealthy, but should they have to suffer a strong financial penalty? Also, because of the insecurity of this place, as the member for Renfrew talked about.

It is a professional job. It doesn't have the traditional professional qualifications. You don't get recognized by an association; you get recognized by the people. I think we are compensated adequately. I don't think we're as overpaid as many people think we are.

The pension plan is a very irksome issue to many of the public and we do need to look at changing it. I think the recommendations put forward in the bill by the member for Windsor-Walkerville are a very good start. Saying that people would have to wait until at least age 55 or a combination equalling a 70 factor is far more reasonable and I think more consistent with what is out there.

Let me say that when we talk about this pension issue, again, I don't think it's an opportunity for an open field day on elected officials, because as I say, in my short experience here and dealing with many federal members as well, I believe most elected officials are very dedicated, hardworking people who are doing the best job possible to represent their constituents. We sometimes say some silly things that get reported and picked up, but with the number of hours and the type of events and things they do for the community, people should be proud of their elected officials overall.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Lessard: I want to thank all the members who participated in this debate and expressed their support with the provisions of Bill 58. They participated in a very spirited debate in a very non-partisan manner. I think everyone appreciates that when it happens here from time to time.

I especially want to thank the member for Renfrew North for his remarks that were made in that spirit of non-partisanship. I think he is right, that things have changed in this place over the years and that the time has come to bring about some changes in some of the benefits that we receive as a result of our employment here as well.

I realize that there has been an independent committee that's been agreed to, to review the matter of MPPs' pensions, and the suggestions that have been put forward in the bill that I've introduced shouldn't be considered to derogate or take away from the efforts that are going to be conducted by that independent committee. I think it could be considered as a bit of a nudge to get work started on this review and also offer some suggestions that can be considered by the committee in doing its work. Also, I think it's important that we discuss these issues in a public forum rather than in closed meetings.

I want to thank all the members who offered suggestions as well for other things that could be considered, either as amendments to this bill or in the overall review of pensions, and other issues perhaps dealing with civil servants who retire and receive other work or MPPs who retire and receive other contract jobs, and also to address the total compensation package and how we use that to determine members' pensions.

Mr McLean: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: In my remarks, I talked about an independent committee looking at the aspects of this. What I wanted to say was an independent consulting firm, other than members of this Legislature. I want to make it abundantly clear that the tax-free allowance should be done away with and that there should be one salary, and that should be the basis of how members are paid.

The Deputy Speaker: It's not quite a question of privilege, but I think it's a correction of the statement. We accept it.

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Mr Sorbara moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This is the first opportunity in eight years that I've had to present a matter, to actually have a matter debated and discussed, in private member's hour.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): No, that's not possible.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I say to my friend from Renfrew North, it is possible; it's true.

I did a little bit of thinking of what I might want to bring forward for consideration by my colleagues in this Legislature. The bill that is before you is, I think, an important piece of reform. Although it doesn't change entirely our political system, it does present for members' consideration a reform to our parliamentary process that I think is important and timely and ought to be adopted by the members. This bill simply changes the way in which we fix the time for a by-election when a seat has been declared vacant either by the resignation of a member of this House or by the death of a member who is sitting in this chamber.

Why is it that we should be reforming this process? The answer to that is quite simple. For 126 years in Ontario, the procedure we have used is that the calling of a by-election has been at the will and the whim of the Premier of the day. The Premier is constrained somewhat by a statute which says that the by-election must be called some time over the course of six months, but often the date for that by-election is fixed for a period which is well beyond that six-month period.

The net effect of that system is that the people of the riding that is no longer represented in this Parliament have to live without a representative, and frankly without a constituency office as well, sometimes for as long as 8 or 9 or 10 months and sometimes, when the process is really abused, as much as a year.

I just think it's time to end all of that. I think it's time to appreciate that in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, the right of representation, the right to be represented in the Parliament, is just about as fundamental and seminal as any of the rights that collectively make up our democratic system.

What this bill does is to take the power out of the hands of the Premier and place that power really back in the hands of the Legislature, but even to be more accurate, in the hands of the people of the riding where the by-election is to be held.

The bill is simple and straightforward. It says that when a seat becomes vacant, either by resignation or by death, the by-election shall be held on the Thursday after the 70th day after the effective date of the vacancy. Why 70 days? In a sense, it's kind of arbitrary. I chose 70 days simply because in Ontario, a writ period, that is, the period of an election, is generally 37 days. So within that 70-day period, at the tail-end of it, there will be a 37-day writ period. That's the election period. That's the period when the three or four or five candidates are out campaigning to try to win the by-election.

The balance of that time, the period of 33 days before the writ is issued, I think that month is time enough for each party to be able to identify candidates and have nominated candidates.

My desire was to make that period as short as possible to ensure that as quickly as possible there is a new member of Parliament for the riding where the vacancy has occurred, so I'm suggesting 70 days. But I should tell my friends that if this bill passes this private members' hour and goes to a committee, I would be open and I think the government would be open and opposition parties would be open to consider whether it should be 75 or 80. The precise number is not of any particular importance. But the notion and the principle and the thrust of this bill are to ensure that as quickly as possible a by-election is called and a new member is elected to represent that riding.

It's not as if this is a rare occurrence. Indeed, there are a number of members sitting in this Parliament now who first came to sit in this Parliament as a result of a by-election. Indeed, some very eminent members of this Parliament, now retired, or defeated, in some cases -- I think of Bob Nixon, who was one of the greatest parliamentarians who ever sat in this place. He came to sit here as the result of a by-election on the passage of his father.

But my friend the member for St George-St David and my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand as well, in our own party, sit here in this House as a result of a by-election. Unfortunately, in each of those cases, they had to wait a very long time to find out when the by-election would be called, as did the other candidates, and then of course go through the process of a by-election.

There are no losers in this, except perhaps the Premier of the day, whoever that is, who loses the power to make a politically strategic decision in calling a by-election. Political parties don't really lose, and there are winners. The winners are the people in the riding where the by-election is to be held, because as quickly as possible they have an opportunity to ensure that they're represented in this Parliament and to do so in an expeditious manner.

The question the government is going to have to ask when it considers whether or not it's going to support this bill is, does it want to take that power away from the Premier and substitute it with the statutory provision to allow an expeditious by-election? For my friends opposite on the government side who are thinking, "Maybe we ought not to deny our Premier or any future Premier the right to do that," might I just say to them that it's not such a big loss.

I think, for example, of the premiership of René Lévesque from 1976 to I think it was 1985, when he was defeated by the Liberals under Robert Bourassa. I think during the course of his tenure as the Premier of Quebec, there were some 15 or 16 by-elections. The Parti québécois and René Lévesque didn't win one of them, yet they were able to secure the support of the voters to be re-elected I think twice before defeat in 1985. So the loss of this power by the Premier is not such a great loss, but the gains in parliamentary reform I think are of some significance.

I remember during the course of the Liberal leadership campaign that each of the six of us who were candidates in that campaign talked a great deal about reforming the democratic process and reforming the parliamentary system. I, for one, am very much in favour of a bill that will completely change the electoral system so that the divine right of premiers to call general elections when they think it most expedient be taken away, and that that be replaced by a statutory provision requiring elections to be held on a date certain, at a fixed time.

A fixed electoral system is something whose time I think has come in Ontario. But that reform is I think for a longer debate and something that I would hope either this government or some future government will bring to the Parliament so we can clean up that process once and for all.

When the historians look back at this period and, I confess, look back at the election that David Peterson called early in 1990, I think that is evidence enough that these decisions ought not to be left to the determination of one cabinet or one Premier. I think a good place to start in this reform is to start by changing the way in which we determine when a by-election shall happen.

I am sitting right now in the seat of the former member for Essex South. Remo Mancini represented that riding for almost 15 years. He retired two or three months ago and the people of Essex South are now without representation. They do not know when a by-election will be called. Those people who are considering being candidates, whether NDP or Liberal or Tory or independent, don't know when the election is to be called. There is no representation there. I just think we ought to eliminate that abuse and get these by-elections on as quickly as possible.

The other element of this bill that I'll just touch on for my final 30 seconds is that during that 70-day period this bill provides that the constituency office be maintained. I also think that's something that all members should support, because it serves the people of the riding and it allows individuals who need to get in touch with their government through the office of an MPP to do so and to do so without disruption notwithstanding that the seat has become vacant.

I am pleading with my friends on all sides of the House to support this bill and ensure that it gets passage and moves through the committee process.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on private member's Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act, which was introduced by Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, and received first reading on June 29.

This legislation would fix a day for the holding of by-elections to fill vacancies in this Legislature to take place on the first Thursday 70 days after the date on which the vacancy occurred, a commonsense approach. As well, the Speaker would take the appropriate steps to permit the constituency office of the member whose seat has become vacant to remain open and serve the public until the vacancy has been filled.

While I support Bill 57 in principle, I do have questions about whether or not the people of Ontario would be expected to foot the bill for a costly by-election if the vacancy occurred shortly before a government's mandate was due to expire and it was going to go to the polls anyway.

I refer to the matter of unnecessary and expensive elections, because you may no doubt recall that in April 1991 I introduced a private member's bill aimed precisely at preventing unnecessary and expensive elections. The purpose of that bill was to establish the timing for general elections so that they could occur four or five years apart, or sooner than that only if the government had been defeated in the assembly. As well, my bill would have established a maximum 60-day period between the date of the writs of election and election day.

I introduced those bills more than two years ago, because I wanted to see the prevention of unnecessary and expensive elections in Ontario if there is no logical or moral reason for one being called. School boards and municipalities have set dates, so why shouldn't we?

I find it somewhat ironic that the member for York Centre has brought this bill before us for consideration, because it was the actions of the former government and its former Premier that prompted me to introduce my private member's bill in 1991. Of course, I'm referring to the September 6, 1990, provincial election called by the then Premier, David Peterson, only three years into a Liberal five-year mandate with some 92 members in the government. There was no logical or moral reason for that election. It was a waste of taxpayers' money.

That election cost millions of dollars and was called only because David Peterson hoped it was an opportune time for what he thought would be another victory at the polls. We all know that David Peterson was wrong and we know that his mistake led to another mistake, and that was the election of the first socialist government in Ontario. That was the biggest mistake.

An editorial titled "Another Good One From Our Mr 'Bill"' was published in the April 13, 1991, edition of the Orillia Packet and Times. At that time they said:

"Excuse us, Mr McLean, but this kind of clear, commonsense thinking simply has no room in politics. Imagine making an elected government fulfil its mandate by governing for a full term. How novel.

"At Queen's Park this week...MPP Al McLean, the king of the private member's bill, came up with another good one: 'I want to see the prevention of unnecessary and expensive elections in Ontario if there is no logical or moral reason for one being called.'

"McLean came up with the idea after last year's disastrous decision by former Premier David Peterson to call an election three years into his majority government's five-year mandate. Of course, McLean hasn't lost any sleep over Peterson's stunning departure, but he is justifiably concerned that the entire exercise was a colossal waste of taxpayer money."

That is the opinion of the people and that is the opinion of the editor and publisher of the Orillia Packet and Times. It says:

"This kind of thinking from McLean is a true indication that his concerns are with the people and not the party line. If our MPP had his way, he would be stuck on the PC side of the Legislature, out of power for a full five-year period with no chance of a quick victory based on some Premier's selfish motives for a stronger mandate....We can only hope that some day McLean gets a chance, as a veteran member of the governing party, to see some of his people-first bills through" the Legislature.

I noted earlier in my remarks that I support Bill 57 in principle, but the member is back now and I would like some of the matters clarified relating to the timing and expense of a by-election if it was called close to the end of a government's mandate. As well, I would like to know what safeguards would be in place to ensure that the operation of a constituency office would remain non-partisan in the riding where the vacancy occurred.

I agree with this member's bill. We have a lot of bills in here on Thursday mornings, plain, commonsense bills. This is the type of bill that should have three readings within hours to become law, and in effect the by-election in Essex South would be called. It's not the people here who are being hurt; it's the people in that riding who are not being represented.

We have had other bills. Plain common sense would tell you what should happen. This is one of those bills that the member for York Centre has brought in. I can't help but support it totally and would hope that the government members would see that this bill is passed as soon as possible.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to rise this morning to speak in support of Bill 57, introduced by my friend and colleague the member for York Centre.

I'm particularly interested in

section 4 of the bill, 27.1, where it says:

"When an election is to be held to fill a vacancy that has occurred in the membership of the assembly, the Speaker may take steps as are appropriate to permit the constituency office of the member whose seat has become vacant to remain open to serve the public until the seat has been filled."

I see this as the crux of your bill. It's to serve the public.

I have a uniqueness that I'd like to add to this debate, as far as my own experience in the 1990 election. As you know, Mr Speaker, or perhaps you don't, on October -- I forget the date; it's a long time ago -- anyway, on the night of the election, I was the winner by eight votes. Obviously such a slim margin as that --

Mr Sorbara: Those eight voters subsequently committed suicide.

Mr Mills: I'm trying to be friendly and support your bill.

We were sort of technically the winners, you see, but we weren't the winners, because there was a recount and then there was another recount, and all the time in between, as you know, Mr Speaker, there were no funds available and technically I wasn't the member.

But you could not tell that to the people of Durham East. I can remember that the very next morning, the phone rang off the hook. "You're our member and we want you to do so-and-so and so-and-so." I tried to explain to them that I wasn't the member, and they said, "Wasn't there an election yesterday?" and it went on and on and on.

What I had to do was to install another telephone in my house -- two telephones. I had to get answering machines in there and my wife, who is very unpolitical, was absolutely run ragged when I wasn't there to try and answer the phones and the questions.

So I can speak with a great deal of feeling about how people feel when they're not represented, because, although I was technically, in their eyes, the person who had been elected, I wasn't elected, but they thought I was. So I really think that this part of Bill 57 is a very great move. I only thought afterwards that if the constituency office had been available from the previous member, Mr Cureatz, how much easier my life would have been and how much better I would have been able to serve the people from Durham East.

It wasn't until November -- I looked at the picture of when I was sworn in down here. I was the last one to be sworn in and I was wearing a poppy so it must have been in November some time -- and here we had all that time that we tried to handle the constituents of Durham East under very, very difficult conditions.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Gord, that poppy was for "Lest we forget."

Mr Mills: Lest we forget. Anyway, I'd just like to add my comments in support of that bill. I think the uppermost thought in my mind is that people must have representation. They must have that representation as soon as possible, and this bill goes a long way to achieving that. With that reasoning, I will support it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise with pleasure to speak to this bill. This is one shot fired for restructuring this place and actually making it democratic and making it operate for the people as opposed to the members of this House.

We have little enough power as backbenchers, as members of the opposition, to affect anything in this place. As I've said on many occasions, it's all done by the Premier of the day, of whatever party, about four cabinet ministers and about six unelected spin doctors down on the second floor. The only thing that doesn't change is they don't move from the second floor as elections take place, but every party has done this.

I applaud my colleague for bringing this in and let me say why, and I have to say it very quickly, which for me is very difficult, as you know, Mr Speaker. I have at least three of my colleagues who wish to have a snippet of time to speak to this bill.

I suggest to you that this bill -- I would join with the member for Simcoe East -- should be given three readings today because it's a very important bill.

Mr Poirier: Bang, bang, bang.

Mr Callahan: Bang, bang, bang, yes, my colleague says. In fact what we're dealing with here almost follows on the footsteps of what the government says it has to do in terms of cost-saving. If you think about it, and the public should know this, every constituency office lease has a clause in it that requires us to pay three months of rent when it's unoccupied. That, to me, is total nonsense.

In the meantime, the constituents, who are the people who are to be served by us, not we being served by them, have no place to call. I don't know about your people, but my office has got reams of paper, reams of requests, and the people who work with me in my offices are excellent people. They really look after the needs of Brampton South, and I'm sure that's the same of every member here.

Why should we waste the money? Why should we leave those offices empty? It doesn't make any sense at all. It may have been just a political decision that was made in the past by former governments that they didn't want to have anybody around, a semblance of that Liberal or that New Democrat or that Conservative, because they might infect the minds of those people in the interim. So what?

I, for one, find the basic value is to serve those people during that hiatus. I think my friend's thought about bringing in the by-election within a certain period of time is excellent. You don't leave it to the whim of the Premier to decide what date is going to be politically attractive to him at the expense of those people who we're supposed to be representing and we're paid handsomely for it. Why should it be in the Premier's aegis to do that?

He should be required by statute to call it. Everybody knows when it's going to be called. You can also have enumeration. In fact, I'd like to see this go further. No longer should we have enumeration and waste money on sending people around to collect names. There should be a permanent voters' list. You should be required by law to update it, just like your driver's licence.

There are many more things that can take place, but in my view, this is one blow struck for the people, as opposed to the politicians, and in fact it will provide them with that essential item that all of us are supposed to provide for them, which is service.

I'm going to support this wholeheartedly and I applaud my colleague from York Centre for having brought this forward. I hope that there will be more bills. We should have an omnibus bill before this Legislature. We should have all sorts of things. Even Queen's Park offices should remain open. Why should people be denied access to Queen's Park? For some of them, for some people, where their ridings are way off in northern Ontario, or people who want to get in touch directly with a minister or whatever through their member, they should have access through those people.

In addition and finally in closing, I would say, in the interests of saving money and making certain that the money that we do spend is spent well to represent the people of our various ridings, our staff as well -- I don't know whether you know this or not, but our staff are given a certain amount of severance pay as well. It may be three months or I guess it depends on the length of time they've served.

So what in fact you're doing is, you say to them, "Well, goodbye, the office is closed tomorrow," because the member has died or resigned. They had nothing to do with it; it wasn't their fault. It wasn't the people being represented; it wasn't their fault either. You say goodbye to them, you hand them a cheque and they go off and look for another job.

In the meantime, what you could do is to keep them on -- and this doesn't say it in the bill for Queen's Park staff -- but you keep them on and they continue to serve. If the next member who's elected decides that he wants to keep those people on -- and I would say that I think anybody coming into my office at Queen's Park, or at my constituency office, would probably take on my staff, even if the election happened to go to the New Democratic Party or the Conservatives got the bid, because they're excellent people, and if we're all honest with one another, our staff really serve the public very well. Having said that, I'm going to support this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to only use a few minutes of my eight and a quarter minutes left after the member for Simcoe East, the king of the private members' bills, because there are three other Liberals who want to speak on this who have been involved in provincial by-elections and I'd like to give them the opportunity to say a few remarks here. So if you would note any time that I have left and give it to the Liberal Party.

I'm in support of this kind of a bill in private members' hour. I think it's the right kind of matter for us to be determining. It's fairly simple, it's straightforward and it's not ripping apart the fabric of Ontario or dealing with a major policy decision in Ontario. I congratulate the member for York Centre in bringing forward something which I believe is the proper subject for discussion here.

I say that in deference to the member for St George-St David, who brought forward a private member's bill which I thought was quite improper to bring forward in this Legislature because it had far-reaching ramifications, dealt with a lot of financial matters in this province, had financial ramifications, and there wasn't an opportunity for many members to debate that in this Legislature. It was a very, very important subject for members to get on the record.

However, I think that we can deal with this bill in this amount of time today. I'd only say one or two remarks. I'd be interested in hearing the proposer of the bill indicate under whose direction the constituency office staff would march. I think it's important for us to have at least in the debate an indication or some kind of direction, if in fact it's to be the Speaker, then it would be the Speaker who would direct the constituency officer whom they would ask questions to.

You know yourself, Mr Speaker, that on a daily basis we get questions from our constituency staff as to how to handle problems etc and there has to be some kind of direction going to that constituency staff from someone.

I could say a lot about terms etc. I would have preferred in the bill -- and I would prefer the member to put it in committee of the whole House so there could be a little bit of debate and perhaps some movement for amendment -- some flexibility in the actual date, not a great deal of flexibility, but something like a two-week or a three-week span as to when that particular Thursday fell, particularly in the death of a member when it can't be determined actually what that Thursday is surrounding. Is it surrounding a holiday weekend? Is it surrounding kids going back to school or whatever?

I like a little bit of flexibility, and I trust whoever is Premier of the day to exercise a flexibility of one or two weeks on each side of those 70 days to the best interests of the voters of Ontario, regardless of which party the Premier at that time represents.

The only other thing, and I think the member for Simcoe East made a good point, is that perhaps there should be a different rule in the fourth and the fifth year of the mandate of a government and that there should be maybe more discretion given to the Premier of the day to postpone an election, or maybe it should be lengthened from 70 days to 140 days in the fourth and the fifth year of the mandate of the government.

It's a thought that I just throw out for consideration by other members of the Legislature, but I'm willing, basically, to live with the hard and fast rules that the member has put forward. I think that perhaps it could be improved on slightly, but I think we could do that in committee of the whole House. I don't believe any bill should have first, second and third reading on the same day. I believe there should be a pacing of the legislation. I believe the pacing of this legislation is that it should take place in about a week's time.

I'll give up the rest of my time to the Liberal caucus, about three and a half minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has indicated that he wishes to give the remaining time, I believe three minutes, 44 seconds, to the official opposition. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to commend the member for York Centre for having brought forward this bill, because I think many of us in this House are aware that there are far-reaching discussions on parliamentary reform going on in this place, members bringing forward ideas on what they would like to see happen. Definitely within some of the committees these ideas are beginning to be debated and so this is timely on his part to bring this forward for this type of discussion.

The bill has a lot to recommend it. As various members have already spoken and the fact that they will be voting in favour, I will indicate my own support at this time for this bill, because when we look at a bill like this we try to determine what the pros and cons are, not only for ourselves but for the public at large. For the most part, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this bill. There's a lot for and really very little against.

I did, however, want to raise some personal points of what I would have liked to see addressed by this bill. I had spoken to the member earlier, so he does realize that there are some issues around electoral reform that I would have liked to see take place, but in this particular bill they are not, and I understand his reasons why they are not in place at this time.

I think first and foremost, one for me is the issue of enumeration. I ran in 1987 as a candidate, and obviously in 1990, and in both those elections what I found to be major problems and hurdles that were very difficult to overcome were the many hundreds of people who in fact were left off the voters' lists. We are talking of blocks and blocks of people who for whatever reason had not been enumerated, and we did not find out about this in a quick enough fashion during that particular campaign to be able to get those people to go down and get themselves on to the voters' lists.

I know there have been some changes made in how we do enumeration in the province of Ontario, and while that has addressed some of those concerns, it's still not the best job it could be. This is really not the place today to bring forward all of those ideas that I think each and every one of us has about correcting some of the problems of running any election, be it a by-election or provincial or federal election. It really behooves us to address that issue at some point, because I think denying people the right to vote through not being on the voters' list is a major flaw.

There is another point I would like to raise. I am not a northern member but we have many northern members in our caucus and I know the member for York Centre has some northern members as well. I think really that he should have a discussion with his colleagues as to how citizens, constituents for the member for Kenora, get to the poll in the wintertime. This is a major concern. In some instances, maybe it's easier to get around than in the summer. Knowing the kind of land masses people have to deal with, trying to get through a bog is easier to do in the winter as opposed to in the summer.

But still, the whole transportation issue and allowing people to get to the poll, and again the enumeration issue under those circumstances, are ones that really have to be addressed. We can't forget that climate and geography do play a role in how elections are run, giving people the opportunity to exercise their democratic right.

Also, I wanted to raise the point that I have some friends who live in the United States and we obviously talk about how elections are run. They're usually thoroughly amazed that we manage to conduct an election campaign in 37 or 57 days, depending on the jurisdiction. They spend a year having their presidential elections, and for the House of Representatives and the Senate as well there is a fair amount of time and, shall we say, a lot of money.

When we're really talking about getting prepared for an election campaign and the whole issue around election finances and really trying to keep elections available to people like me, someone who is a library worker who doesn't have a lot of money available personally, or a lot of my constituents don't and a lot of my supporters are not in a position of putting a lot of extra money into a lengthy campaign, when you have a set election date, you tend to have a lot of financial pressure being put on particular candidates in trying to get out there.

I think that's something we have to have a discussion about. It's not a simple discussion, because I know it sort of deals with not only the democratic right -- we've seen the discussion happen federally, and I'm not sure that seeing huge amounts of money having to come into play is the way I would like to see elections run, be they by-elections or federal or provincial elections.

I have really exhausted my time. I know there is another member who would like to say a bit more on this issue, but I do also want to thank the member for Carleton for his comment about the constituency offices, because not all members have constituency offices, which does raise the point of how citizens within that riding might in fact be able to contact the Speaker, or who would be giving direction and who would be doing that constituency advocacy work? That is another issue I think we have to discuss.

In essence, I am supporting the member for York Centre and his bill and thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very pleased to rise in support of the bill introduced by the member for York Centre. I think this is a bill and a principle that is far beyond its time. I was elected in a by-election in the riding of St George-St David on April 1 after a seven-month period in which the riding went unrepresented. There was no one in that riding providing the services of an MPP and the services of an office of an MPP to the people of St George-St David.

Frankly, I fault the Premier for that delay and I think some limitation on the discretion, of the kind proposed by the member for York Centre, is entirely appropriate because, in truth, that kind of delay in the period of time in which a riding is unrepresented hurts the people who need the help of an MPP the most.

It's the people who need access to the kind of assistance an MPP can give on a daily basis about how to access government departments relating to welfare and to Ontario Housing and to all those issues where people may not have other avenues, may not know other ways in which to proceed with what is viewed as a vast bureaucracy of government that weighs down in very many ways on the lives of people.

In some cases, obviously, individuals may have other access points, could know how to access the system through other people, but it's the people who don't have that access who are hurt the most by a long delay before a by-election is called.

I think the initiative in this bill is entirely appropriate and it's high time that it happened, and I congratulate the member for York Centre for bringing it forward. I think we can have some debates around the particulars of flexibility and timing where it's the death of a member or a certain season. Those are details that we can debate later. I think the principle is a highly appropriate one and I think it fits in the context of parliamentary reform that, for example, the member for Etobicoke- Humber in our caucus has been talking about for a while. These are the kinds of issues we need to talk about and address.

I think the member for St Catharines-Brock also raised an important point related to enumeration. Having representation and the right to vote on that representation are fundamental, it seems to me, to the rights citizens have in this province, and the enumeration question is an important one.

I had looked, in my private life, at the possibility of bringing a charter challenge to the quality of enumeration. For example, in the by-election, an entire building in my riding was missed on the enumeration. We had to enumerate it the night before the election and provide special enumeration.

This is not the way to make sure people have the right to vote. It strikes me that there may be a denial of the charter guarantee of a right to vote through that kind of thing, and I think that's another issue we have to look at. I think there are many reforms to the system. This is a good and quality starting point, because in the seven-month period of time that the riding of St George-St David was unrepresented, I knocked on thousands of doors and people were saying: "What can you do to help us? Who's there? Where can we go?"

The Premier's failure to call the by-election, I think, was reprehensible in the eyes of the very people we need to help the most in the system, and I'm very pleased to be able to rise in support of the bill put forward by the member for York Centre.

M. Poirier: Je regarde dans l'Assemblée présentement, et nous sommes au moins trois députés qui avons été élus lors d'une élection partielle dans le passé. Je pense que les députés, surtout ceux qui ont été élus dans des élections partielles, sont très bien placés pour apprécier l'importance, le bon sens et la logique du projet de loi tel que proposé par mon collègue de York-Centre.

Je me rappelle, lorsque j'ai été élu dans la partielle de décembre 1984, la circonscription de Prescott et Russell à ce moment-là avait été sans député pour plus de six mois. Pour une circonscription comme la mienne et comme celle de mon collègue de Brant, qui sont des circonscriptions rurales, il y a beaucoup de gens qui, dans le secteur rural, n'ont pas accès aux services comme dans une région urbaine.

On sait très bien, et mon collègue vient justement de le dire, que même dans une région urbaine, il y a des gens qui ont des besoins urgents qui n'ont peut-être pas les ressources pour pouvoir identifier les organismes, les différents services qui pourraient leur venir en aide.

Lorsque mon collègue prédécesseur s'est lancé sur la scène fédérale, lorsque je suis arrivé en poste, il n'y avait aucun bureau, aucun dossier, aucun personnel ou quoi que ce soit. Lors d'une élection partielle, bien sûr, l'Assemblée législative n'a pas les moyens de mettre en marche tous les services de formation des nouveaux députés comme c'est le cas dans une élection générale. C'est injuste pour les commettants parce que même lorsqu'il y a un député en place, les travailleurs du député dans les bureaux de circonscription et à Queen's Park n'ont pas le droit, et ni le député, de faire de la partisannerie.

Donc, si c'est le cas lorsque le député est en poste, c'est sûrement, évidemment, le même cas qui se produit lorsqu'il n'y a pas de député, lorsqu'il y a une vacance. On sait très bien que le personnel ne fait pas de partisannerie dans les bureaux de députés. Les besoins continuent d'exister, et au moment où on se parle, jamais il n'y a eu tant de besoins, de demandes d'aide dans les bureaux de députés. Il est inconcevable d'attendre une éternité avant qu'une prochaine élection ait lieu. Il est inconcevable de fermer les bureaux de députés lorsqu'il y a tant de besoins que la population de l'Ontario a besoin de faire combler. Il est inconcevable de ne pas offrir des services.

Le prochain député qui arrive en poste, je peux vous assurer que cette personne-là, peu importe son affiliation -- le nouveau député ou la nouvelle députée est très heureux ou heureuse d'hériter du personnel, des dossiers, d'équipement de bureau, d'expertise et des dossiers des besoins qui ont été comblés sans arrêt depuis le départ de l'ancien député.

C'est un excellent projet de loi. Je félicite mon collègue de York-Centre et j'espère que mes collègues des deux autres partis vont également appuyer ce projet de loi qui est d'une logique et d'un besoin exemplaires.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for York Centre for presenting this bill. I did have it on my list, but according to the luck of the draw on private members' bills, it may be the end of the term before I have the opportunity.

It is very important, and I'm both disappointed and astounded that we stand here today debating a bill that will take a responsibility away from the Premier of the province of Ontario. Why are we taking it away? We are taking it away simply because he has not been fulfilling his responsibility. I find that very difficult to deal with.

I am amazed. It is the simplest responsibility the Premier has, because when there is a vacancy, he only needs to make a memo of a date on which to announce a by-election. He won't do that. He didn't do that: In the case of the riding of Brant-Haldimand, it was without an elected representative for seven months. It's the people who suffer.

I don't know whether the Premier thought it was an advantage to wait. He must have. But I'll tell you what happened: The member from an adjoining riding, the riding of Brantford, who happened to be an NDP member, offered to look after the people. That's convenient for a few people around Brantford, but not for the north and not for the south of my riding.

What happened? That was fine, except that many people do not want to deal with an NDP member. In fact, there are people who will not vote NDP. So what happened? That executive assistant had been the NDP candidate in the previous election and he became the NDP candidate in the by-election. Some people say that's not fair. Some people say he had a great advantage over a farm boy from a gravel road in a rural township, inexperienced in running large campaigns, which I was. That is what it was: It was stacked. The people said it to me. It was not proper.

We had two constituency offices, one in the lower end to serve the south and one in the north to serve the northern people. What could they do? Perhaps the member for Oxford helped out and had some of the people go over there, but the staff was dispersed, the offices were leased to other people, and there it was: a backlog of problems and concerns that the people could not have resolved, that took over a year to resolve.

Of course, I'm slow, I realize I'm very slow and somewhat backward, but it was over a year before that backlog was cleared up. That's what they do to the constituents of Brant-Haldimand. That's what you did. You might have won the seat if you hadn't been so ignorant on the matter. I think it's a disgrace.

Therefore, I stand before you calmly pleading for support for this bill, because it is an excellent bill. The matter needs to be cleared up. We talk about adverse weather. Well, in by-elections it's normal, I believe, for the government member to be defeated. That's a given, so there shouldn't be the big concern. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen, let's face it. But I find that if people want to vote -- and they do -- they will vote, they will get there to vote.

I would like to again thank the member for bringing this forward. We've done a check on all the by-elections that have been held recently and seen the various periods, but I again stress the fact that the constituents of Brant-Haldimand -- and I would point out that we have lots of provincial ridings adjoining mine. There are nine, and they are all held by the NDP, so I suppose there would be lots of help there; nine ridings adjoining mine.

But unfortunately, mine is an island held by another party, and I really feel very strongly that the Premier could have -- is it because the Premier is too busy to see that democracy lives in Brant-Haldimand? I can't think of any other reason. It's most unfortunate.

When the Honourable Bob Nixon was appointed by the Premier -- and it was a government appointment; it was an appointment by the Premier, so he well knew there was going to be a vacancy -- wouldn't it have been the courteous, the gentlemanly thing and the proper thing to do at that time to say, "Therefore, with this appointment, there's a vacancy in the riding of Brant-Haldimand; an election day will be on a specified date"?

The vacancy occurred in Brant-Haldimand July 31, 1991. A member was elected -- it happened to be me this time -- on March 5, 1992. If we had used the formula in the bill presented today by the member for York Centre, the vacancy would have been filled on October 14.

The reason given by the Premier was, at one point in time, "We don't want it to interfere with the municipal elections." The municipalities are required to follow rules on vacancies by this assembly. We have the rules in place, but we don't have it for ourselves. As a result, it didn't happen. It should have happened, could have happened under these rules if the Premier had any care or concern about it -- although he did have some concern, because he went to the town of Dunnville during the by-election and made two promises, neither of which has been kept, and they haven't heard or seen him since.

The promises were made, saying, "In spite of who is elected as member, we will do this and this."

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Say it isn't so.

Mr Eddy: Yes, and it's most unfortunate. Anyway, I just very calmly appeal to the members to support this bill, and I'm pleased that so many who spoke this morning -- all who spoke, I believe -- have spoken in favour of the bill submitted by the member for York Centre, giving specific timetables for the holding of by-elections to fill vacancies in ridings for this House. I appreciate the concern.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's indeed a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I wanted to say right off the bat that I support the principles and the concept of Bill 57, and I think the member has done well in bringing this issue forward.

However, I'm going to try to refrain from the kind of partisanship that the previous speaker alluded to, because what happens more often than not --

Mr Eddy: Partisanship? You had the partisanship.

Mr Perruzza: He has a particular axe to grind, and I understand that. Some people come into this place with chips on their shoulder, and I understand that too. They have every right to bring in those chips and they have every right to bring in those axes to grind. I don't prescribe to them. I don't support that kind of thing, but I'll respect people's right to be able to bring that kind of thing into this place.

To simply point the finger and say that the Premier of the day, the Premier who's here today, is the one who's somehow got this privilege and this power is absolutely a sham, because you well know Peterson had that privilege and that prerogative before him, and Davis had that privilege and that prerogative before this Premier, and Robarts before that, and Frost before that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, you have the floor.

Mr Perruzza: But I agree with the principle and the concept that says that no one individual in this place should be above Parliament. I believe that Parliament is supreme. This chair doesn't belong to Anthony Perruzza. This chair belongs to the people of Downsview, to the electoral district of Downsview, as every other seat, as every other desk in this place belongs to a district and the people around the province.

Those people in those districts have the right to representation, have the right to a voice, have the right to a vote. They may elect someone and then find that the particular individual doesn't reflect their point of view, and they have the right at the next opportunity, at the next election, to fire that person and to elect someone new. They have all of those rights, and that is essentially the kind of right that we need to fight for, that we need to try to preserve

That's not to say that the traditional right of the Premier or the head of the executive council in this place, whether in a majority Parliament or in a minority Parliament, doesn't today have the right to exercise flexibility in determining when a by-election is going to be called. I'm not going to lay blame, and I'm not going to point a finger at any one individual for using political tactics to call a by-election and win a seat or have a good showing or any of those things.

Quite frankly, while I believe the current Premier has done it, I also believe that other premiers before this Premier have done it as well. However, it's time that we look at this practice, that we look at downsizing the authority of any one leader of any executive council and give it back to the people of each and every constituency.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sorbara: Even if this bill doesn't become law, and I think it will be, it certainly has given rise to a great debate. I appreciated the comments of my friends from Downsview, from Brant-Haldimand, from Prescott and Russell and others. It has given rise to a good debate, and I just want to take these two minutes to answer some of the questions that arose.

First of all, to my friend from Simcoe East, who questioned two things: Firstly, I would say that where a vacancy occurs in the last year of the life of a Parliament, the law already stipulates that a by-election need not be held, and my bill doesn't change that.

Secondly, as to the non-partisanship of the constituency office when the seat becomes vacant, that's a very good point. I think the thrust of this bill is to immediately place the constituency office in the hands of the Speaker and to ensure that there is no hint of partisanship in the operation of that constituency office during that period.

My friend from Carleton suggested a degree of flexibility, and I think he's right about that. If the bill were amended in committee to provide for a two- or three-week window, taking into consideration that the bill as presently formulated might fall very close to a day like Christmas or Easter or Labour Day, I think that is appropriate as well. But if that amendment is adopted, I would place the ability to identify the specific day not in the hands of the Premier but in the hands of the Speaker as well and let him or her identify that date.

Finally, I should tell my friends that if this bill passes second reading here, I'm going to be asking that the bill go to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and that the refinements can take place during committee debate and that it be expeditiously considered there and given third reading and become law in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 19, standing in the name of Mr Lessard. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Lessard has moved second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

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

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

ELECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 20, standing in the name of Mr Sorbara.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Sorbara has moved second reading of Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, might I seek the consent of the House to have the bill referred to the Legislative Assembly committee?

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of Mr Sorbara, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if we could have unanimous consent of the House to have the previous bill referred to the same committee?

The Deputy Speaker: No, that can't be done.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1202.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I hold in my hand not an airline ticket, but a trip to 20 places around the world without leaving the good city of Brampton. I invite all of you and all the people viewing to, of course, attend Carabram. It starts tomorrow and will continue right over the weekend, and it looks like we're going to have excellent weather once again.

I also want to thank the some 2,500 to 3,000 volunteers in the city who commit themselves every year not just to participating in Carabram, but starting about a week after that, to planning for next year's Carabram. On behalf of the province of Ontario and all the members of the Legislature, I'm sure we want to congratulate them.

I'd also like to thank the corporate sponsors who are good enough to provide funding. This operates in the black; in fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's one thing that doesn't cost the government anything.

I submit to the province that it's a great way of getting to know one another, to understand one another's ways, our differences, our likes, to savour the sights, sounds and tastes of 20 different countries without ever leaving Brampton.

I suggest to you that it's probably one of the greatest multicultural events in this province, in this country, and it's a way of doing it in a friendly, neighbourhood way without having to spend taxpayers' dollars for it. In fact, Carabram itself provides buses free of charge to take you from pavilion to pavilion, and that's paid out of the moneys that it makes. The moneys that are left over are distributed among the various groups that participate and they can use those to further their own multicultural heritage.

I invite all of you out to have a happy Carabram.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the Legislature today to remind the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that as a member of cabinet, she is accountable to the people of Ontario.

I could talk about casinos, but instead I will concentrate on the $50 corporation filing fee. On September 7 of last year, I asked the minister during question period if it was the NDP government's intention to make the corporation filing fee an annual tax on incorporated and non-profit businesses. The minister didn't answer my question but instead rambled on about other matters.When the Treasurer announced his budget in May, it was no surprise that in fact this filing fee had become an annual tax on corporations.

This is another tax on small businesses and non-profit corporations in Ontario by the NDP government. This is another example of how the NDP does not understand that small business can lead Ontario in job creation and out of this recession, if only given the opportunity to do so. This $50 fee is one more nail in the coffin for small businesses and non-profit corporations in Ontario.

The minister has not been forthright with the people of Ontario in her answers to questions brought forward by myself or the member for Parry Sound regarding casinos.

Question period is a democratic forum in which the concerns of the people of Ontario are heard and the opposition parties can hold the governing party accountable for its actions. The sooner the minister realizes this and actually starts answering questions brought forward by the members of the opposition, the sooner Ontarians will have faith that democracy is still alive and well in Ontario.

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I bring to the attention of this Legislature today an event which took place last week here at Queen's Park. Twelve outstanding individuals were honoured for the dedication and kindness which they give to their fellow Ontarians, people who give of their time willingly and freely in the quest of creating a better atmosphere in the communities in which they reside.

The Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship is awarded to those who show selfless dedication and concern for the wellbeing of men and women: the sick, the elderly or the disabled.

One of the those recipients was Dr Gordon Jasey of Windsor. Dr Jasey is a physician by profession, but clearly able to devote his time to patients, family and of course his community. Dr Jasey is founder of the Windsor Islamic Association and has worked tirelessly to make Ontarians of Islamic faith feel at home culturally and spiritually. He has worked with the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County and has been actively involved in the city's race and ethnocultural relations committee.

Last week, I had the pleasure to meet Dr Jasey and his family as they accompanied him here to Toronto to receive this award before the Lieutenant Governor and also the Premier of the province.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to all 12 Ontario medal winners, and especially to Dr Gordon Mohammed Jasey of Windsor for many years of love and attention to his Islamic faith. His nominator has put it succinctly, "This award will be a fitting tribute to a man for his long years of selfless and dedicated volunteer service to the wellbeing of his fellow Ontarians."

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise in the House today in order to raise an issue of some consequence in my riding and to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to assist me in dealing with the issue.

People in the riding, including The T.O! Magazine and constituents at my office, have raised a concern about the availability of cooking wine for non-cooking purposes. The wine is cheap at $2.50 a bottle and is quite potent, ranging from 35% to 40% alcohol content, and is available in variety stores. The high salt content makes it exempt from liquor licensing provisions, but while the salt is said to render it undrinkable, it has not stopped many unfortunate people from diluting it, mixing it or in some cases drinking it straight.

The volume of cooking wine sold is quite large, and empty bottles are littering the Cabbagetown neighbourhood in the riding of St George-St David and the back steps of many local businesses. Members of the Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area and Cabbagetown residents are concerned about this form of alcohol abuse and the related problems of broken glass and intoxicated individuals on the street, and associated nuisance issues.

I hope the minister realizes this is a concern and will assist the community in addressing it. I recognize that cooking wine when used properly is not a problem, and I understand that it is an important ingredient in the cuisine of many cultures. I hope we can address this in a way that is sensitive to those cultures.

ORILLIA SCOTTISH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I would like to invite the people of Ontario to attend the 16th annual Orillia Scottish Festival, July 16 and 17 in the Sunshine City.

Approximately 10,000 people are expected to converge on Orillia to attend this year's Scottish festival, which is sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 34, Orillia, to honour Clan Farquharson. The chair of this year's festival is Helen MacDonald, and her committee welcomes you.

The Scottish festival kicks off the night of July 16 with a dance at the Legion. Scottish Highland dancing and the pipe and drum competitions take place at Couchiching beach park Saturday morning and more than 20 pipe bands from across Ontario are expected to march in the parade at noon.

The history of Scotland is long and glorious and dates back to Roman times. The Scottish community has made a number of impressive contributions to the economic, agricultural and cultural wellbeing of the province of Ontario.

You will no doubt recall that on December 19, 1991, this Legislature approved a resolution from my colleague the member for Grey that proclaims the sixth day of April as Tartan Day. The sixth day of April is of historical significance to the Scottish community because it marks the anniversary of the declaration of Scottish independence in 1320.

Celebrate the rich and colourful Scottish heritage by visiting the Sunshine City on July 16 and 17 for the 16th annual Orillia Scottish Festival.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): In the recent weeks, we've heard numerous accounts from the opposition of how the government has caused the high cost of health care through mismanagement. I have a letter here from a constituent that truly shows where the problem lies.

This constituent is 71 years old and is required to take four different prescriptions each month, with 30 pills in each prescription. Two months ago, the drugstore started giving the man eight bottles of pills with 15 in each, with the name of his doctor on four and his doctor's fill-in on the other four. The province is being charged for eight prescriptions instead of the four.

The constituent found a number of his friends were having the same experience. He said, "I believe the drugstore in question is just picking here and there on different people where they can, so OHIP cannot detect such crooked misgivings."

Is this the fault of the government's mismanagement or corporate greed? There are those who will see the system destroyed in the name of profit. Is it any wonder that this government is in support of the action taken by the Honourable Ruth Grier to control the system?

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to take a few moments this afternoon to address the Minister of Health, who is not here yet but I am sure she will be later this afternoon.

Members, I think on all sides, are increasingly concerned that as we approach midsummer, we do not yet have from the Minister of Health and the Rae government the particular cuts that they plan in the area of health policy. We all know that the government is in the course of redesigning the drug benefit program. We know, because some months ago the Treasurer told us that fully $195 million would be stripped out of the drug benefit program this year.

I say to the minister, who has now joined us, that she surely owes it to the people of Ontario, to pharmacists and to others to at the earliest time put the specifics of her plan before the province. She is congenitally unable to mouth the words "user fees," but it is absolutely obvious that user fees are going to be introduced in a substantial and a significant way. It is time, I say to the Minister of Health, to put the policies in more particular terms before the Legislature and before the province.

Similarly, Bill 50 contemplates dramatic changes to the way in which we organize medical manpower. The small hospitals that I represent are increasingly frustrated and angry because they do not yet know how they are going to specifically have to deal with the government program. Minister, I say to you in all candour, we need to know more specifically what your plans are.

MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today in praise of the member for Oriole; yes, that's right, the member for Oriole. It kind of slips off the tongue, doesn't it?

As you know, the member for Oriole has of late been especially supportive of my caucus and party, and today I'd like to return the compliment. In specifics, I wish to congratulate the member for Oriole for her introduction of Bill 71 which, as everybody knows, would repeal the commercial concentration tax introduced by her own party. This is a good start.

However, while the member for Oriole is on a roll, so to say, I would encourage her to table even more bills to get rid of even more Liberal tax grabs. Would the member for Oriole care today to introduce a bill to roll back the provincial sales tax to 7%, where it was before the Liberal Party got its greedy little mitts on it? How about a bill to knock the gasoline tax back to where it was before the Liberals jacked it up?

Might I suggest she also get rid of the Liberal Party's payroll tax or the Liberals' land transfer tax increases or the countless fee increases the Liberal Party pretends to be so upset about these days, or any one of the other 33 new taxes and whopping tax increases the member for Oriole and her party dumped on Ontarians during their five miserable years at the till.

Let me say very directly that I and my caucus colleagues in the Ontario PC Party will support any bill presented by the member for Oriole or any member of her caucus that rolls back any of the Liberal's punitive tax increases.

BLOOD DISORDERS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The most common genetic conditions worldwide are blood disorders known as hemoglobinopathies. Sickle cell disease and thalassemia cause lifelong disabilities in those who are affected.

As our population changes, the number of people carrying the genes is increasing. About 10% of Afro-Caribbeans are estimated to be sickle carriers. The majority are heterozygote and have absolutely no clinical problems, but a child who inherits the gene from both parents faces recurrent crises and complications.

Fortunately, there is much that can be done to help sickle disease through counselling, education and advocacy. There's considerable clinical experience being developed, and I would like to mention the work of Dr Nancy Olivieri at the Hospital for Sick Children on a drug called butyrate, which may be a real advance in treatment.

I'd particularly like to bring to the attention of the House the work of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario. Entirely funded through donations and fund-raising events, this organization shows admirably what can be achieved through dedicated self-help. By education and raising awareness, it helps the community and health professionals in dealing with serious problems in this area. It advocates for coordinated approaches to screening and treatment such as are developing in other jurisdictions.

I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly compliment the Sickle Cell Association and its many volunteers on the outstanding job they do, motivated by their wish to relieve avoidable suffering in the community. Their phone number is 789-2855.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM / RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm happy to inform members today of some changes to the social assistance system in the province, and I want, before getting into the statement, to acknowledge the work that's been done on this issue by my predecessor, the Honourable Marion Boyd.

Today I'm announcing that the Ontario government is going to scrap the province's welfare system as we know it. We are going to replace welfare with new programs that help people get training, get education and get back to work.

For the first time since the modern welfare system was created in the 1950s and 1960s, we are going to focus on helping people get back to work.

J'annonce aujourd'hui que le gouvernement de l'Ontario entend abolir le système d'aide sociale que nous connaissons actuellement. Nous allons le remplacer par de nouveaux programmes qui donneront accès à l'éducation, à la formation et au marché du travail.

Pour la première fois depuis la création du système moderne d'aide sociale, c'est-à-dire depuis les années 50 et 60, nous allons nous appliquer à aider les gens à réintégrer le marché du travail.

We are going to continue providing financial support to people in need, but we will do so in a way that takes away the barriers to work that are now i