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

October 28, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YOUVILLE CENTRE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On October 9, 1992, I had the pleasure of attending a unique high school graduation for 23 young mothers from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Youville Centre is a high school for 30 mothers, where they learn at their own pace, secure in the knowledge that their babies and young children are being cared for in the adjoining day care.

In 1987, Sister Betty Anne Kinsella, recognizing a need within the community for an educational setting that could meet the special needs of young single mothers to complete their high school diploma, took up the challenge. With the assistance of the McHugh school and the Ministry of Education, the Youville Centre was established on Melrose Avenue. Three teachers are on staff to assist the students with their studies. Two day cares, one for infants and one for toddlers, provide child care services.

To date, 63 young women have graduated from Youville Centre. Many have gone on to university, community college and employment, but all have a common goal: to better themselves and provide a future for their children. Support services such as counselling, nutrition, parenting, legal and medical services are all available. A residence has been established that will accommodate up to five mothers and babies.

I have visited the centre and witnessed first hand the exceptional work that is being done and the results that come from providing assistance on a grass-roots level. At this time, there is a lengthy waiting list for entry to Youville. The centre is hoping to move to larger quarters in order to accommodate more young mothers and children.

To the director, Sister Betty Anne Kinsella, to the school principal, Tom White, to the teachers, day care workers and support staff, I extend my thanks for their diligence and dedication in providing the opportunity for these women to complete their education and become better prepared to contribute to society. However, my biggest "thank you" goes out to the young mothers who, in overcoming countless obstacles, have risen to the challenge and worked hard to achieve success.

OWEN SOUND SUN TIMES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): A year ago I advised the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he had misjudged Grey county's views on land planning because he listened to only two sources of information: a tiny group of malcontented, displaced city people and the Owen Sound Sun Times.

I pointed out that the Sun Times was out of touch with the reality of the county, and as proof I offered the results of the 1991 municipal election, where voters had chosen candidates who represented their views and not the views of the editorial board of the Sun Times.

I am now pleased to be able to advise the minister that all this may have changed. The paper has a new editor, Jim Merriam, who seems to understand the people in the area which he serves. Although he has been there only a short time, he appears to be leading the staff in a new and positive direction. Grey county council is no longer receiving negative assaults which serve no purpose and seem to come from left field. The views of all the people, the ones who own and work their land, are being respected again. The views of a small, disgruntled minority are not the only ones represented.

It is with cautious hope that I tell the minister that while I still feel strongly that he should consult with local officials and get his sense of Grey and Grey's needs, he can once again rely on the Owen Sound Sun Times for a clear, more objective picture of the riding.

IROQUOIS FALLS CROSS-COUNTRY SKI CLUB

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Iroquois Falls Cross-Country Ski Club in the community of Iroquois Falls within our riding.

It's quite an interesting process they went through. This particular club formed some 10 or 15 years ago. A number of citizens within the community of Iroquois Falls came together in order to develop a cross-country ski club to give some recreation and entertainment for the people of the town of Iroquois Falls and surrounding areas.

What's to be noted here is that they are a club that did not necessarily sit back and wait for government grants or sit back and wait for things to be done. This group, being very active, went out on its own and developed much of its trail system, and much of the work was done without government help. Basically, they did it on their own. I'm proud to say that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, under the leadership of Mr North, has granted money in order to buy trail groomers and different equipment, but overall most of that work was done on their own.

I would like to say that one of the things they did which I take a lot of pride in is that they had to build themselves a ski chalet. Unfortunately, they couldn't get the money through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation because of the tough economic times that we're going through, so decided to do it on their own. They pulled together students from local high schools to become part of the labour of building this thing, and it really became a labour of love for this particular community and the people of the town of Iroquois Falls.

I want to tip my hat to them as their local member. I appreciate and I respect the hard work they have done in order to make the community of Iroquois Falls a better place for everyone. We salute them for their efforts.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Two years ago this December, the NDP made its decision to backtrack on provincial funding of the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton. Two years of government inaction have gone by and the government has offered no new solutions to the traffic infrastructure problem it created by cancelling funding.

Our leader recently asked Hamilton citizens to tell us how they feel about the issue, and almost every response demands immediate action to start building the Red Hill Creek Expressway now.

As one of the respondents put it, "The people of Hamilton-Wentworth now regret the mistake of electing the NDP government." Another resident wrote: "Cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway is the greatest mistake that the present government could make. It is detrimental to Hamilton industry." Still another resident says: "I have expressed my opinion to the MPP for Wentworth East on this issue. Unfortunately, he would not even acknowledge my letter. I assume it is because he cannot democratically justify his position."

In the next few days our caucus is going to put a number of these responses on the record. We're going to give voice to the outrage that people in Hamilton feel over the NDP funding cut, in an effort to try and convince the NDP to change its position and build the Red Hill Creek Expressway now. It is urgently needed.

LONDON INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Members of the London business community, educators and the three local boards of education in London have assembled a joint task force called the London Investment in Education Council. Its mandate is to create and provide a better understanding for students as to how education is directly linked to career opportunities.

The council's first major initiative, titled Do Jobs Grow on Trees, is a city-wide industry open house. Over 50 London industries, businesses and institutions are opening their doors for up to 5,000 grade 8 students on October 27, 28 and 29.

Spearheaded by 3M Canada, this endeavour will provide hands-on demonstrations and employee-student interaction to increase the awareness of current emerging careers for students, educators and parents. Included in the list of participating businesses are General Motors, Canada Post, Sifton Properties, Fanshawe College, the University of Western Ontario, University Hospital, Emco and 3M Canada.

Last Tuesday at a news conference to announce this important initiative, I joined representatives of the three local school boards; Dr Bill Coyne, president and general manager of 3M, and two grade 8 students from St Mary Separate School, Shauna Birke and Dan Murphy. The students reminded us that they were certain that projects such as this and future efforts by that task force will make it easier for students to make the right decisions when choosing their course direction at the secondary level.

I compliment all involved in this project.

CITIZENSHIP COURT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I'd like to express my displeasure at what happened during the referendum, but I'm sure Canada will grow and become a stronger place. I rise to tell the members about an event held in Wilmot township in September which gave me the opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to Canada.

Special thanks go to Shirley Shearer and Elaine Gross, who co-sponsored a special citizenship court which was held in the New Hamburg community centre. This special court was presided over by Her Honour Judge Van Mossell, who has a deep love for Canada and her citizens. This event provided the opportunity for many local residents to reaffirm their commitment to Canada during Canada's 125th anniversary celebrations.

Judge Van Mossell was escorted by Sergeant Bowman from the Waterloo Regional Police; Harry Brightwell, the federal member of Parliament for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, and myself. After the reaffirmation ceremony, the guests, which included a group of New Hamburg boy scouts, came forward and received a certificate of affirmation.

The evening was enhanced thanks to Alfred Kunz and the Nith Valley Singers and Jim Murray and the New Hamburg Band, who provided both entertainment and inspiration through song and music.

Once again, special thanks to Shirley Shearer and Elaine Gross for their commitment to their community and their country, Canada.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am building a dossier on all the difficulties that are now occurring in this Legislative Assembly when it comes to providing the members with a free opportunity to be heard and for the public outside here being able to reach inside this institution to talk directly to the issues that really matter most.

A lot of our problems began on September 6, 1990, with the advent of this so-called New Democratic government that we have. What happened on June 8, 1992, was a resolution moved by Mr Cooke to shut down the debate in this House to give the people on the government side the final say on how much was said and how much was heard by this House with respect to difficulties proposed in their legislative agenda. They have shut us down, and most of us are very much perturbed by that. It is my hope that we all vote for a resolution I will be posing later that will open up our democratic institution.

While I have the floor, Mr Speaker, in that vein, it came as a very big concern to me that yesterday there was some concern expressed about those people who could and could not come into this chamber as members of the general public to view the proceedings here. I thank you now for the meeting that we had yesterday, but I will be proposing to the House leaders for the government side and the third party that we make rule changes that allow this chamber to be openly accessible to all our citizens.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise today to acknowledge in the House the great debt of gratitude that all citizens of Ontario owe to the men and women who serve and protect our communities and families as police officers.

By enforcing the law, the police perform the positive act of ensuring that our common social contract, as expressed in our laws protecting the rights of all citizens, and especially the vulnerable members of our society, is maintained and respected.

However, police officers can only discharge their responsibilities effectively in an atmosphere of the kind of solid trust and confidence which should exist between them and their government. Today's police demonstration on the front lawn of Queen's Park is an indication that the crucially important relationship has been severely damaged. This is not the time to lay blame for this turn of events, for what lies at stake here is the principle of public and community safety.

The Premier comes from a political culture that is expert in the use of confrontation to achieve social and political goals. Today I call on the Premier and his government to transcend that partisan tradition and begin rebuilding that relationship of public trust and confidence with the men and women police officers of Ontario. I invite the Premier to give a sympathetic hearing to all the concerns of the police without setting any preconditions. I ask the Premier, who I know has the capacity to understand complex social issues, to now extend that same capacity to the very real concerns of police officers, their families and the communities they serve.

JOHNNY TSAPARIS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to pay tribute to a Wellander who passed away and who will be sadly missed, Johnny Tsaparis, who owned and operated Johnny's Grill on east Main Street, right across from city hall, kitty-corner from Atlas Steel.

He came here decades ago as an immigrant from Macedonia, embraced this country, retaining every bit of that culture that was such a valuable heritage, and I tell you, helped make our community, the community of Welland, the great place that it is.

He was known literally by generations for his goodwill and his generosity. At Johnny's Grill, whether it was Johnny or his son George or any of their family serving, nobody was ever turned away for lack of money or lack of a credit card. Gosh, they never took credit cards because they were the sort of operation that ran up a tab.

Mr Tsaparis will surely be missed by his son, daughter-in-law and family. He was so typical of the great people who make this great country. It isn't constitutions that make countries; it's people like Johnny Tsaparis and other new Canadians who come here bringing with them a valuable culture and heritage and giving far more than they ever take back.

I want to pay tribute to what was a great man, Johnny Tsaparis. I want to express condolences to the family and I want to tell his family on behalf of this Legislature that we're all going to miss that fine man.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. Premier, as you've just heard -- with your name being chanted in fondness, I'm sure -- there are thousands of police officers outside on the lawn of this Legislative Building who have come from all over the province of Ontario today to register their grave concerns on the way in which your government has approached policing issues in this province.

For more than three weeks now, the Metro police association has simply been asking for a meeting with you to discuss its grievances; a simple meeting, no preconditions, Premier. They just want an open and frank discussion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Didn't you hear Art Lymer this morning?

Mr Mahoney: You'll get a chance to answer if you want to wait for the questions.

In refusing to meet with the Metro police association, you've simply allowed a common cold to turn into pneumonia. You've allowed the situation to become a standoff instead of acting in the best interests of the public. It has now spread throughout the province.

Premier, the public in Ontario want you, sir, to show some leadership. They want you to take the initiative and help resolve this increasingly serious situation. Premier, will you do that today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to get on the record a comment made by Chief Lunney, who's the chief of police in Peel. I think we have shown leadership in a very difficult circumstance. Listen to what Chief Lunney says:

"Our job is to enforce laws, all laws, not just some. Failure amounts to dereliction of duty. The public cannot be reassured. They pay our salaries. They dictate the vital issues in our future."

He then goes on to say:

"The irregularities to uniform are contrary to our rules. They are unprofessional in appearance and a threat to officer safety. But now we know that traffic law enforcement statistics are drastically down. These laws are made to ensure public safety. When they are not enforced, safety is at risk."

I just want to say to the honourable member, I would hope that, rather than to try to turn this into some kind of partisan issue or launch a daily assault on the Premier, what he would be doing is indicating clearly that there is an appropriate way for this kind of dialogue to take place.

I have offered every good effort. I will continue to do so and so will the Solicitor General, but I would say to the honourable member, I think it's time that we all recognize that this government is prepared to meet and to dialogue. However, we have to recognize that issues of public safety and legitimate authority are involved with respect to what is taking place. That's what's at risk here.

Mr Mahoney: We all know that the Premier's Solicitor General is his answer to Admiral Stockdale. We know that he's out of ammunition and he simply said that he doesn't have a green light to deal with this, so there's no point referring to his efforts. They want to talk to you. They have nothing to say to him any more.

I'm delighted that the Premier would choose to quote my chief from Peel region, Chief Lunney. Maybe you'd like to quote the entire

article when he talks about the support that he has for the men and women of the Peel Regional Police force and their job action, when he says: "Their concerns are the same concerns that the chief has, the same frustrations that I've experiencedI'm pleased to tell you that I support them because I feel the same way."

That's Chief Lunney, and there's more, where he goes on to refer to your policies as twaddle, whatever that is. I think I know what it smells like, but I'm not sure what it is. He goes on in this article, Premier, to say that he supports the action of his men and women.

Let's go back a little and walk through history --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: By way of supplementary to the Premier, in 1987, as Leader --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Do you want this?

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member to please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: As Leader of the Opposition in 1987, he expressed disbelief that workers at McDonnell Douglas would have to undertake a job action in order to draw attention to occupational health and safety concerns. I'm sure his answer would be, "That was then."

He will undoubtedly recall, during 1991 during a job action by provincial truckers protesting taxes and federal regulations, both the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Transportation met with those truckers to discuss their grievances.

The Speaker: Would the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sure he would say, "That was then."

We are given to understand that the Premier himself was even prepared to meet with those people, and everybody in the province can remember the Premier's own actions at Temagami.

Premier, why won't your government give the police in this province, the men and women who are sworn to serve and protect, the same consideration that you would give other workers?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to quote Chief Lunney's statement of October 26, just because I think it's important to do so: "I have never agreed with the job action decided by the membership of PRPA." These are his words; this is over his signature: "I have never agreed with the job action decided by the membership of PRPA. The irregularities to uniform are contrary to our rules. They are unprofessional in appearance and a threat to officer safety. But now we know that traffic law enforcement statistics are drastically down. These laws are made to ensure public safety. When they are not enforced, safety is at risk.

A report will be tabulated, the board will be informed and provided recommendations to restore conformity."

Elsewhere in this letter, this is what he says: "This stalemate over the job action will not last. Having vented frustrations, understandable as they are, it's now time to get to the table and talk, for this dispute can still be resolved by talk." I fully agree with the words of Chief Lunney: "In a democratic state legitimate authority must win. An elected government will tolerate dissent to a reasonable degree and may be persuaded to alter its intentions, but it cannot tolerate outright defiance for long. Neither can the police services board, nor the chief."

Police in our society play an extraordinarily important role. If there's ever a sense in our society that a group of police officers in a union are indicating that there are some laws that will be enforced and other laws that won't be enforced, that there are some things that will be done and other things that won't be done, I think, and I hope the honourable member would recognize this, we have a precedent which is very different from any other situation which confronts us. We have a precedent which I don't think any government in the province could accept, whether it was a Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic Party government.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: I've said many times in this House that this Premier has principles and if we don't like them, he has others. It just simply depends on the issue of the day. When it's convenient, he will criticize something, and when it's convenient to suit his purpose, he'll pull quotes out and try to distort the facts.

The fact is, you can say what you want about Bob Lunney; Bob Lunney supports the men and women of Peel Regional Police and he supports the police of this province, and he sure as hell does not support you or your government or your actions.

Premier, you must understand that the Metro police officers have not undertaken this job action lightly. I don't think they're happy to be forced into this situation. They're professional men and women. They just want to get on with the job that they have to do. However, the sense among officers throughout this province is that your government dislikes and distrusts the police. By way of proof, I have a letter --

The Speaker: Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: -- from the Peel Regional Police Association, under the signature of David Griffin, the administrator --

The Speaker: No. Would the member place a supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- in which he says, "The sense among our members is that your" --

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. I ask the member to very briefly place a supplementary. We've utilized a great deal of time in the

preambles and indeed in some of the response.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm sure you understand this is a critically important issue and a certain amount of

preamble is necessary.

Premier, do you not find it extraordinary that police officers feel so frustrated by your government and by you that they would have to undertake such a job action in order just to be heard? You've been quoted as saying that no one supports the police more strongly than you do. You can demonstrate that today. Premier, you cannot leave this matter wide open while you fly off to Japan. It is time to get off the sidelines. Why will you not take one small step, convene a meeting with the police and listen to their grievances?

Hon Mr Rae: In the clearest possible terms, I have offered to meet with them and that offer still stands.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member that the statements he has made and the views he has described as pertaining to me and as pertaining to this government are grossly unfair. I'm truly surprised --

Mr Mahoney: Are you hurt?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm not hurt. I am surprised. I'm not hurt. Hurting has nothing to do with it. I am surprised by someone who would inflame that kind of thinking.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say, when he suggests, for example, that this government would for an instant force people to take this kind of action, I am truly surprised by this Liberal Party, truly surprised by a Liberal Party which brought in the reforms to the Police Services Act, truly surprised that it would be taking the kind of attitude and the kind of positions that it is. I think it really is very different from a standard I would expect, very different.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The problem the Premier has in calling for the rule of law to prevail is that it rings very hollow when yesterday we clearly established in this House that the Premier himself is not abiding by the rule of law and is not abiding by the very guidelines he established for the conduct of ministers. We established that from his office came a letter interfering with the administration of justice at the Ontario Municipal Board. We established that the Premier's own executive assistant was prevailing upon no less than the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board to expedite a hearing.

Incredibly, yesterday we heard the Premier's defence in these terms. He said: "What's the problem? It's a great project." I'm not surprised, because the Premier's government is the developer in this project. It is the respondent at the Ontario Municipal Board. But the Premier is wearing all the hats. The Premier as well appoints the chair and the members of the Ontario Municipal Board and, incredibly, feels that he is justified in trying to intervene in an extremely important decision about the timing of the hearing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Sorbara: The Premier has had time to reflect on this matter and on the correspondence relating to this matter, and I simply ask him once again: Who is going to stand in judgement as to whether or not your letter to the Ontario Municipal Board, in a very important hearing, in a $400-million project, is going to be adjudged contrary to your very conflict-of-interest guidelines? Who is that going to be -- you or someone else?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to say to the honourable member that, again, it's similar to the comments made by his colleague the member for Mississauga West, and I would say to him that he is making allegations which are untrue. He is drawing conclusions which I think are quite unfair and quite unreasonable.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Not true.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's not true. He's got the letter.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The fact of the matter is that Mr Romano wrote a letter, the letter was replied to by Mr Kruger very clearly setting out the criteria which the board would follow, and it's extremely clear that there's absolutely no interference with the substance of the application that's before the board.

The government's support for the overall application is crystal clear. This is an issue about jobs; it's about clearing away a backlog. The idea that this government would somehow not have an interest in doing that in an overall way -- it is very clear. The idea that we would interfere with the Ontario Municipal Board in this particular case with respect to the substance of the case is absolutely, completely and utterly false and most unfair of the honourable member.

Mr Sorbara: The Premier is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. I just asked a page to come here. I am going to send a letter over to the Premier.

Remember yesterday, Mr Speaker, the content of the letter sent from the Premier's office asked for an expedited hearing for this very important matter. Now the Premier responds that John Kruger wrote back to the Premier's office saying, "Well, I'm terribly sorry, but frankly we don't have enough time to give you an expedited hearing." That letter was on September 21.

Remember, sir, the Premier has an interest in this, and the Premier also appoints the board. The conflict-of-interest guidelines say you shall not interfere in any decision in any quasi-judicial tribunal, including the OMB.

What do we have after John Kruger's letter saying, "Sorry, I cannot accede to your request"? We have a letter to the applicant, the citizen who is appealing to the board, and the letter to Mr Rosen, signed by the case worker, reads as follows. Remember, this applicant is saying, "I can't handle an expedited hearing."

The Speaker: Would the member place the supplementary, please.

Mr Sorbara: "This letter serves to clarify the hearing schedules for both of the abovereferenced matters. The board, subsequent to issuing its procedural order of August 24, 1992, has received several requests to hear the appeals against bylaw 23-4391 in an expedited fashion. As a result of these requests, the hearing of the OMB file will now commence on November 30."

I show to the Premier a copy of today's Globe and Mail. Here is the story, right here where the Premier says, "Oh, well, nothing was wrong." Right beside it is the Ontario Municipal Board advertisement saying that there's going to be a hearing now --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: -- on November 30, notwithstanding that the appellant himself has pleaded with the board to give him more time. I ask you once again, Premier, in light of the fact that the very case worker on this matter says, "I have received requests and I'm sorry, Mr Rosen, that in view of these requests we are going to expedite the hearing," what do you have to say to Mr Rosen, who is looking for a little bit of fairness?

Hon Mr Rae: What I have to say to the honourable member, because this is the question I'm referring to, is that the Ontario Municipal Board decides on the dates. They clearly indicated the criteria they've used. John Kruger has stated publicly that there's no special treatment, nothing at all of that kind, and the suggestion that there is, is an aspersion not only on me but an aspersion on the municipal board. The municipal board is completely independent. They make these decisions with respect to dates, and they've made the decisions with respect to dates.

The Speaker: The final, brief supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: The conflict-of-interest guidelines that the Premier imposed on his own cabinet are designed to avoid these very sorts of situations. The Premier yesterday said it was unfair to raise this matter in this House and accuse him of interfering with the administration of justice.

Remember what the letter said. The letter to the OMB said, and I am quoting: "I understand this application has met all of the board's priorities for an expedited request. As you can appreciate, all parties, including the provincial government with its interest in this development, are concerned about the effects any delay would have." It also says, "I understand that the applicant himself agrees with an expedited hearing."

Now let's hear about fairness, sir. These hearings before the board are designed to give those who are appealing to the board a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: This is what Mr Rosen, the applicant, has to say. He says, sir -- this is extremely important and I ask you to bear with me -- in a letter to the board: "In closing, I understand that the Ontario Municipal Board has received a number of requests from different parties for an expedited hearing, including a letter from Bob Rae's office. It is not proper for the Office of the Premier to be directing to the OMB on how to proceed on matters under the OMB's exclusive jurisdiction. In addition, the letter from the Premier's office -- "

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: -- "made representations on my behalf without my permission which misrepresented my position" --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I remind the House that we have spent 20 minutes on the first two questions. Members quite properly ask to have an opportunity for many questions to be asked during the hour. A third of the time has gone by and we're still on the second question. Would the member please quickly get to his question.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. I want to know what the Premier says to Mr Rosen, who is a private citizen appealing this matter, who says, "I cannot prepare my case appropriately if this matter is heard in November, and the Premier has misrepresented my position to the OMB and the Premier has violated his own guidelines which say you should not, as a minister, write, ever, to a judicial body to affect a decision of that body."

What does the Premier have to say to Mr Rosen, who says he can now not get a fair hearing because the matter has been expedited completely consistent with the Premier's interference with the board's decision-making power?

Hon Mr Rae: The board determines these matters entirely. The board will determine these matters entirely. The board will decide on the dates for a hearing. There are thousands of jobs at stake here. There are thousands and thousands of jobs at stake here. I would have thought that the honourable member would have had some concern --

Mr Sorbara: You can't write the board like that. They have decided at your request. You're the developer. You can't push the board around like that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please. I first ask the member for York Centre to come to order. He asked a question and I presume he would like to hear the response. I would ask the member to wait patiently and allow the person to respond to your question. Does the Premier have anything further to add?

New question, the leader of the third party.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, there are thousands of police officers outside. On my desk are some 50,000 petitions which will be introduced into the Legislature later today. The police officers and the people who have signed these petitions, feel -- and I understand why they feel this way -- that when it comes to laws and regulations, procedures concerning law enforcement, your government spends more time listening to special interests, more time listening to criminals, than it does listening to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect Ontarians. That's how they feel, Mr Premier.

Premier, don't you think there's something wrong with this?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): In response to the leader of the third party, I want to assure him, as I have done on many occasions now -- and let me look straight at him and tell him again this afternoon -- that I, as Solicitor General of this province, and the officials of my ministry have had an ongoing and long-standing relationship with the police and the police representatives of this province, and that will continue.

I want to assure him as well, as this province moves towards community policing and continuing to serve the people we all support as elected representatives, that they too will be allowed to have a voice in their Ontario and in their home towns across this province, and that was done.

I totally reject and I find very difficult the kinds of assertions the member opposite makes that would suggest this government has anything other than undying respect for the policemen and policewomen in this force.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to the Solicitor General, there's no point in lecturing me or pointing your finger at me. I'm telling you how they feel. They have told me this is how they feel. This is how they feel. You can't replace how they feel. Surely you would agree with me, if you believe they're wrong in feeling that way, that you think one thing, that they're wrong to feel that way, but if you would understand that they do feel that way and that you could resolve all this by simply meeting with them, wouldn't any reasonable person in a position of authority -- Premier, Solicitor General, past, present or future -- do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I realize that the Police Association of Ontario and its president inked a memo to all police forces in this province indicating what the results of the consultations with this government and this ministry and this minister were. I'd suggest, if you haven't read that to date, that you do it.

I also understand an ad was placed in the Toronto Sun and issued to every Ontario Provincial Police officer in this province, by the OPP executive, condemning, and not condoning, the actions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I know that as well. What I know is that if we can stop this degree of emotion and rhetoric and those trying to feed into that kind of disdainful rhetoric, I along with the leadership of all these police organizations can come calmly to a table and resolve this conflict, I believe, to the wellbeing of every person in this province of ours.

Mr Harris: Let me say this to the Solicitor General: It is very easy for you and the Premier and for me to take this above an emotional level, but it's very difficult for police officers and families of police officers whose lives are on the line every day not to have a little bit of emotion creep into their concerns.

Mr Solicitor General, they feel you do not understand. I understand those feelings. Every action I've seen from you and your Premier reinforces that. Mr Solicitor General, last week your Premier said: "Do you think that former Premier Bill Davis would respond differently if this happened to him, or former Premier David Peterson, or former Premier John Robarts? Does anybody honestly believe that any Premier would respond in a different way?" I'm here to tell you that I honestly believe all three of those premiers would have responded in a different way.

Mr Solicitor General, I also honestly believe that all three of those premiers, while they may have had disagreements with the police from time to time, had the trust; they had the trust that they, their solicitors general and their governments had the best interests of the police officers in mind. You do not have that trust, Mr Solicitor General. Your Premier does not have that trust.

I appeal to you today and suggest to you that you can take one very small step towards regaining a little bit of that trust by offering to put aside this game of chicken, to put aside this "them or us," to put aside this "who's right and who's wrong" and meet with the police officers of Metropolitan Toronto. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have done nothing other than to extend a hand so that we might meet and we might solve this particular problem.

I want to remind the member opposite -- putting the rhetoric aside, let's review for just a moment some of the factual situations. That, as you know, is what police do: Deal with facts. It's a fact that we've supported the Ontario Provincial Police this year, in their request, by authorizing some 241 additional officers. Will you answer for me the last time it was when your government or that government responded to that kind of staffing request to that degree?

Let me give you another fact while you're thinking of your response to that one. Will you also remind me of when the last time was that you assisted them in their estimate problems and provided an additional $45 million? Perhaps he could answer that one.

Perhaps you could respond on the last time a government built an entire new general headquarters and administration, as this government is doing in Orillia for the Ontario Provincial Police. And maybe you could remind me when it was last, as this government has done, you have brought forward additional training and the dollars to go along with it to enhance the effectiveness of our police men and women. Perhaps he could address those facts and get off the rhetoric and understand how this government in reality --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- is trying to support the men and women who wear the uniform in this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I guess that comment by the Solicitor General just proves the old adage: "You can't buy somebody's trust. You've got to earn it."

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): From a curbsider, that's some comment.

Mr Stockwell: That's awful. Mr Speaker, I'll continue; I'll ignore that comment.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'll go to the Premier, Mr Speaker. Mr Premier, I also have a copy of this letter that Mr Jeff Rosen sent to the Ontario Municipal Board. He says very clearly in this letter, on page 3, that in addition to the letter from the Premier's office, which he said you shouldn't have done, you made representations on his behalf without his permission, and those representations in fact misrepresented his position for an expedited hearing date.

My question to the Premier is this: Your staff wrote a letter to the OMB, a quasi-judicial board, clearly in conflict with

section 22 of your conflict of interest guidelines, to the chairman of the board, asking that a date for an OMB hearing which was scheduled for the latter part of January be moved up to November 30.

In that letter your staff, who represent you, Mr Premier, misrepresented the position of those people who were fighting this development. You had the date moved up from January 25 to November 30. They say so themselves at the OMB. They've had representations to get this date moved up.

Premier, my question is very clear. How can Mr Rosen feel that he is going to get a fair hearing? And if he in fact does lose at the OMB, how are you going to explain to him that you had nothing to do with it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We're talking about a scheduling question, which the board has to determine and which the board normally determines. The board, in the ordinary course of events, determines it.

The board establishes its priorities. The board knows perfectly well, as a matter of public policy, the interest that we have, the interest that the Ministry of Transportation has, the interest that the Ministry of Housing has, the interest that other ministries have, that the GTA has and that the municipality has with respect to the city of York. The board is aware of that. The board makes the determination on the basis of the representations that are made to it by the individuals involved. Those are the facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting this is a scheduling problem. I submit to you, Mr Premier, that you appointed Mr Dale Martin, a well-known NDP hack, to expedite through the OMB those projects that were of scheduling priority. If it were simply a scheduling problem, why would you have not simply called Mr Dale Martin? Because Mr Martin, as we all well know, is in charge of moving forward those kinds of important projects.

The Premier's staff didn't call Mr Martin. The Premier's staff didn't just talk about a scheduling problem. The Premier's staff, which is the developer in this instance, talked about all levels of government supporting this project. He talked about not any unnecessary delays for fear of the detriment to this project.

My question to the Premier is not a scheduling question. Your letter puts you on record as supporting it. Your letter says that we need to move the date up. The date was moved up. Mr Rosen wasn't consulted and you didn't represent his views truthfully in the letter. My question stands: How is Mr Rosen going to believe that he got a fair and honest decision, when he's up against the province, the cabinet and the Premier?

Hon Bob Rae: I take it that what the member seems to be saying is that if Dale Martin had written the letter, that would be okay.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh, I see. Now I'm really at a loss.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The issue is jobs, the issue is jobs, the issue is jobs. The issue is dealing with a problem with respect --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I just say again to the honourable member, the issue is jobs, very clearly. It's one in which a number of people involved in the project have indicated their concern. I would say to the honourable member that the government's interest in this matter has been perfectly clear from the very beginning. There's no question about that. There's no division about that. There's no conflict about that. It's very clear. No one's tried to hide it. We were all at the signing ceremony together. It's a project we all support. We want this project to go ahead.

What the OMB does with respect to the date, what the OMB does with respect to the substance, is entirely up to the OMB. But let there be no doubt: I think this is a good project and I hope it goes ahead, but it's up to the OMB to determine the manner in which that takes place. That's a matter of public record.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Premier, the issue is not jobs. All the developments that go before the OMB have a job component in them. That's not the question. The question isn't jobs, jobs, jobs; it's influence, influence, influence, and who's peddling that influence.

Mr Premier, you're saying to me that if you had talked to Mr Martin, everything would have been okay. Do you not know why you appointed Mr Martin? You appointed Mr Martin to handle issues and cases just like this. He was appointed to facilitate projects through the OMB apparently as a non-partisan, outside person. You appointed him, Mr Premier. If you had called him, he would have easily slid this one through. You didn't.

The question, Mr Premier, is this: How is Mr --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member could proceed directly and place his supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member for Etobicoke West will place his final supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: I'll say it again, Mr Speaker, if it's going to raise their hackles again. Mr Martin was appointed to facilitate projects through the OMB. That's why he was appointed. He was going to make a hit list of the important projects --

The Speaker: And your supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- and push them through, like the Palladium in Ottawa that they took a lot of bows about.

Mr Premier, Mr Rosen said in his letter, has said to the OMB, that he's not ready nor prepared to start dealing with this issue at the OMB at the latter part of November. Mr Rosen doesn't feel he'll be capable. Now, you have asked the OMB to move this date. You have told the OMB that you support this project. Your staff has come forward and said, "We've got to speed it up so we get it on track."

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: Can you answer the question I asked the first time? How is Mr Rosen going to believe that he got a fair and honest hearing when the Premier of Ontario gets involved, asking to move a project up, telling the OMB that he's in favour; Mr Rosen, when he's not? How can he honestly think he's going to get a fair hearing?

Hon Mr Rae: Because the simple question of scheduling is a matter that's going to be decided by the OMB. That issue is going to be settled by the OMB, and it will be settled on the OMB's assessment of the interests of all the parties and of the inconvenience to the parties.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the job of a tribunal to make that assessment. It's not my job to make that assessment; it's the job of the tribunal.

With respect to the substance of the application --

Interjections.

The Speaker : Could the Premier take his seat, please. No, would the member for Renfrew North be seated for a moment. New question, the member for Renfrew North.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also for the Premier, and it builds upon the question asked by my colleague the member for Mississauga West earlier this afternoon in question period.

It's quite clear, Mr Premier, with thousands of police officers on the lawns of this Legislative Building this afternoon, that there clearly exists a very real problem and a very real tension between the police community in this province and your government.

As the member for Mississauga West so eloquently observed, the police men and women of this province themselves are saying that they believe that your government neither likes nor trusts the police. That is what the police community is telling this Legislature today, and that's what they've been observing over the past number of months.

I ask the Premier this: Having regard to the fact that it's only four months ago that his own parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick, made comments in Hamilton that were viewed by many of us, and certainly most in the police community, as absolutely inflammatory -- and I ask the Premier to remember what Ms Akande said in Hamilton in June of this year -- having regard to what his own parliamentary assistant has said, can he really be surprised that the thousands of police men and women who've gathered on the lawns of this parliamentary place today are concerned about the lack of trust and respect that seems evident from the Ontario government today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Point of order?

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, he cannot refer a question about one of his former parliamentary assistants. It belongs to his ministry; he must answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that in the rules, a question directed to a minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will know that under the standing orders, when a question is directed to a minister, if the minister believes the question should properly be redirected, the minister has the opportunity to do that.

Mr Elston: He's running away, Mr Speaker. He's trying to --

The Speaker: I'm sorry to disappoint the member for Bruce, but there is not anything out of order. The Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The Ministry of the Solicitor General has --

The Speaker: Point of order, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On the same point of order, are you telling us that it would be acceptable for a question about transportation to be directed to the Minister of Health? I would suggest you would know right away that that is unacceptable and out of order. We have a question here that has nothing to do with the Solicitor General. I wonder why, now that you understand that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, I appreciate there was a question with respect to policing, and the Premier decided to direct it to the Solicitor General. In my view, there is nothing out of order about that. The Solicitor General has authority for the police forces in the province of Ontario.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have no comment with respect to the question of a member by one of the elected representatives here, because, quite frankly, the efforts we are making on behalf of policing in the Ministry of the Solicitor General are well beyond any single remark.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Pilkey: They reach very deeply and rather directly into every municipal and provincial police force we have an association with.

I have indicated to the member opposite in my earlier remarks the very positive, the very direct, the very kind of partnership initiatives we have undertaken which will add to the structural framework of policing in this province, and I know, as sure as I am standing here, we will see the benefits of that training, we will see the benefit of those procedures, and every police officer and every citizen in this province in the future will be enhanced and improved. We will have a growing and more positive relationship as a result of these programs, and that includes the race relations programs we are entering into with the police of this province.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I think all thoughtful members know that the relationship between any government in a democratic society and its police force is one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult one can find in the community.

It is a question to the government, and it was a question because it's got to be a question to the leader of the government: Is it any wonder that in Ontario, in 1992, we have come to this very regrettable and worrisome situation where we have, for the first time that I can recall, thousands of policemen and women coming to this parliamentary place telling us they believe there is a serious, dangerous want to trust and respect on behalf of the government with respect to the police in the community?

Is it any wonder that we've got this situation, when but weeks ago the parliamentary assistant to Premier Rae said in Hamilton, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us," namely the black community, "when they want to shoot us," a comment that infuriated and inflamed the community at large and the police community specifically.

I ask the Premier, as leader of the government, in light of these kinds of comments and other actions by the leadership within the New Democratic Party and government of Ontario, what measures is he going to take, as leader of the government and leader of the province, to repair and repair quickly this most important and this most strained of relationships?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There are any number of people inside these chambers and outside these chambers who make remarks from time to time. I don't attempt to countenance them or anything of that nature.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: But what I am here to tell you, Mr Speaker, and through you the citizens we represent, is that we are not about single remarks or comments from any and all quarters. What we're about, in this multicultural and multiracial society here in Ontario, which, as everyone knows factually, is a growing situation where we'll have, I believe, some 45% of our fellow citizens by the year 2000 -- we will all be here together as one in this multicultural, multiracial society.

We have enacted a variety of programs through the ministry, in cooperation with our police departments, to enhance race relations, to give that kind of training, to have interactive videos so that all of us can move towards community policing, an all-embracing community, a community of one, and we can live and we can police in that kind of harmonious situation. We shouldn't be led off and distracted from that by trying to peg single comments in the way of that very positive initiative.

The Speaker: New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order which flows out of the answer the Premier gave to a previous question. It's under standing order 23, where it says, "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an act of the Legislature."

The Premier commented very clearly, and I think Hansard would show it, on the merits of the case before the Ontario Municipal Board by saying that it is a very good project and it should go forward. I think if you review Hansard, the record will show that.

Mr Speaker, I'm bringing this to your attention as a matter that is totally inappropriate for a member, let alone the Premier of the province, to be commenting on. In addition, contrary to his own conflict-of-interest guidelines, he is debating in a manner that is totally contrary to the rules. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider the rationale for this particular rule. Why would this rule be there, and how would it apply to the comments that the Premier made in response?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Ottawa West, I appreciate the matter which he's drawn to my attention, and while I'm not sure whether he has a point of order or not, I'd be very pleased to take a look at the matters to which he refers.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Premier and is related to the demonstration that occurred on the lawns of Queen's Park today. I think it's specifically related to him and we're hoping that he will respond, because certainly policemen and policewomen across this province are hoping for a response from the leader of the government.

The Premier may recall some time ago a shooting in Metropolitan Toronto. It involved Constable Robert Rice chasing a suspected drug dealer through back alleys, being confronted by this individual with a knife, and the shooting occurred.

Mr Rae, the Premier, arranged a meeting over a weekend, I believe, with representatives from the Black Action Defence Committee and others.

Interjection: Sunday afternoon.

Mr Runciman: To quickly respond, I'm advised it was on a Sunday. We have the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, thousands of police officers right across this province asking for the same opportunity the Premier afforded a special interest group on a weekend, on a Sunday, and he's not prepared to do that for men and women who are out there putting their lives on the line for us on a daily basis.

I ask the Premier to stand up here in the House today and tell us why he continues to refuse to sit down with these people, hear their concerns, hear from the people who are out there facing those challenges every day.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that again to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I very much appreciate the question from the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Interjections.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Come on, Bob Rae, answer the question. Just answer one question.

Hon Mr Rae: Do you really want to know the answer to that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: He says that the Premier of this province was quick to convene a meeting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to respect the traditions of this chamber and allow the minister the opportunity to be heard.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We don't want to hear from him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Oral questions; the member for Halton North.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Bruce.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There has been a remarkable cutback in the manner in which people are able to speak in this assembly. It has caused me to rise on several points --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: It has caused me to stand on more than one occasion in this chamber, Mr Speaker, to complain to you that we are not able to put our questions to people at a time when we think it is necessary to question the merit of public issues.

The Premier of this province has been absent on several occasions for good reasons. He has already planned to be out of this place for a period of some 16 days during regular sitting time of this House. He has chosen to

schedule meetings and filmings of his blather for publication in the public airwaves during the time when he should be in this place one hour of the day required under our routine proceedings. He has really conspired to prevent us asking the questions of him.

Mr Speaker, it is for me to point out to you that if he plans not to attend, if he plans as well to frustrate us, it is your duty as the Speaker to stand in and find a way of making sure that our rights as the minority in this Parliament can be appreciated, and in fact that we will have a chance to put the questions which we have for him, and in that way address issues of immediate and important public interest.

The Speaker: I understand --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I wish to announce to you that we will not be in this place today because of the Premier's unwillingness to be with us here.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I appreciate --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Point of order.

The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?

Mr Cousens: Yes, it is.

The Speaker: Okay. I've heard the point of order -- I understand that it's a fairly simple one to deal with. While I appreciate fully the member's interest and the concern which he has expressed, the member will know that there is nothing in the standing orders to compel the attendance of any member of the House.

Mr Elston: You are supposed to protect members of the minority.

The Speaker: Your Speaker is powerless to compel the attendance of anyone. If the rules were changed, of course, then it would be up to the Speaker to try to enforce those rules.

It is time for an oral question. The member for Halton North.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Speaker: A new point of order? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Referring to the question that was asked by the member for Leeds-Grenville to the Premier, the Premier has abused the privilege of Premier in not coming forward and giving a straight answer to the member for Leeds-Grenville. The member has posed a question that pertained particularly to the Premier's ability to meet with the police and the fact that the Premier had met with another group on a Sunday afternoon. He has laid out that question. It did not --

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham please take his seat. I understand his point of order, but I must tell him that there is not a point of order. The question was asked. It was within the prerogative of the Premier to redirect, which he did, and there's nothing out of order about that.

I will recognize the member for Halton North with his question.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege.

The Speaker: A matter of privilege?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Point of order over here, Mr Speaker.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, taking this as an issue, if in fact this is on --

The Speaker: The member for Markham, just take your seat for a moment, please.

There seems to be a tiny bit of confusion. Whether we are inside question period or not, a point of order takes precedence. I have a responsibility to recognize it. I have told the honourable member for Halton North that he will have his question. I see the clock. The member for Markham.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, I have a question of procedure at this point in time. Would it not be appropriate for us to have the supplementary question before it goes to the government? That was our intent.

The Speaker: No. The person --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The person who posed the question is not in the chamber for the supplementary.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a point of order. We have a supplementary.

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Etobicoke West please come to order and take his seat. I recognize the member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege dealing with the same issue that I referred to as a point of order, and if incorrectly calling it a point of order, the privilege of a member of the opposition has been abused by virtue of the fact that the Premier has failed to answer a question directed to him, that pertained to him, and that totally touches on his responsibility as Premier. It did not refer in any way to the activities or potential work of the Solicitor General. So by virtue of the fact that the member for Leeds-Grenville asked the Premier a question about him, the Premier incorrectly referred that to another minister.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, in the interests of the House and in fairness to all, and for the privileges of the member for Leeds-Grenville, that you look at the rules of this House in light of the fact that it was directly a question to the Premier and was not one that could easily, logically or rationally be referred to any other person.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point, and while the ruling I made stands, I'm more than happy to take a look at Hansard and to take a look at the standing rules to assure myself that a correct decision was made.

I must say to the member that the subject material of the question allowed the Premier, or indeed any other minister, to redirect the question. In fact, that's what he did, and I did not see anything out of order about that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, your responsibility in the House, as you know, is to maintain order and decorum in the House. It is very difficult to ensure that there is going to be decorum in the House when the Premier of the province is never in the House. In the interests of decorum in the House, in the interests of preserving some kind of sanity in this building, it's going to be essential for the government -- I understand not necessarily for you -- to produce the Premier.

He has been here in the House only the second time in the whole session, to my recollection. He announces he's going to head for Asia for three weeks. The Premier is never accountable and that's why we have lack of order in the House.

The Speaker: I understand the point which the member for St Catharines makes and I trust the member will realize that this is far beyond my control. It is a matter perhaps of discussion for the three House leaders at some point, but it is not a matter for the House and it is not a matter for your Speaker.

The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the supplementary that was supposed to be placed by this party was not by the member for Leeds-Grenville; the supplementary was being placed by the member for Burlington South. Mr Speaker, that supplementary was properly before the House and I ask you to recognize --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): He vacated his seat.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Burlington South did not leave the chamber, although that should have nothing to do with the point of order. The member for Burlington South is prepared to put the supplementary at this point, in due process and proper order.

The Speaker: I understand full well the point of order of the member for Etobicoke West. What I must remind the member is that I stood and waited for order to be restored. The moment when order was restored, I looked and there was not a person standing. Many of the members had left the chamber. I then recognized, in rotation, by our standing orders, the government side. Indeed, the member for Halton North had stood. Therefore, I recognized him, and I now recognize him for his question.

LANDFILL

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister well knows my opposition and my constituents' opposition to the proposed landfill site by Reclamations Systems Inc and the Acton quarry.

The minister is well aware that when RSI first announced the proposal in 1987, residents formed a group known as Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources. This group, along with many others, including the town of Halton Hills and the region of Halton, has been very active in its opposition, along with myself, to the proposed landfill site. They believe it to be unsuitable and inappropriate in its location within the Niagara Escarpment area.

The minister is aware that a joint board, established under the Consolidated Hearings Act, sat this last June to hear and consider the necessary approvals. On September 16, the board released its decision. It determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to consider the matter set out and the hearing was terminated. For the sake of my constituents and myself, does the minister support the board's decision?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I know how much work this member has put into his opposition to this particular hearing and I'm glad to be able to tell him that the board, as he knows, decided not to continue hearing the case because it felt that the matters under discussion had not progressed far enough and had not been brought far enough along by RSI. In fact, what the board said was that, in other words, it was the opinion of the board that RSI, the proponent, had not done enough work.

My ministry is satisfied that the result of the board's decision with respect to the RSI proposal is reasonable. We are also satisfied that this ruling will not jeopardize the continuation of other hearings that are already in process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for questions has expired.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, point of order.

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I would like to serve notice that with regard to the question I asked at the beginning of question period to the Premier, I'm totally dissatisfied with his answer and will be filing the papers to require the late show, which I believe will have to be held tomorrow night after the House.

The Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the member realizes he needs to file a paper within the necessary time frame and, indeed, our late show is on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

It is now time for petitions. The member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, according to standing order 34(a), with regard to the Speaker's ruling relating to oral questions that are not debatable or subject to appeal, it does say, "However, a member who is not satisfied with the response," and it goes on to say, "or who has been told that his or her question is not urgent or of public importance, may give notice orally at the end of the oral question period that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House and must give written notice to the Speaker not later than 4 pm the same day and file reasons for dissatisfaction with the Clerk at the table before 5 pm."

Mr Speaker, I will be giving notice that I'm dissatisfied with the ruling. I felt that the supplementary ought to be ours and that that ought to have been the order that you should have received the questions in at that point in time. We will indeed be making that statement in writing to you, Mr Speaker, before 5 o'clock.

The Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, you will know that both you and I have served in this chamber for a good period of time. Over that period of time, a certain tradition and certain procedures have in fact been built up as to when the Speaker calls grave disorder and when the Speaker adjourns the House.

Having watched you adhere to those particular traditions over the last couple of years and having sat here and having seen you announce to the House that you concluded that there was in fact grave disorder on certain occasions, adjourn the House for 10 or 15 minutes and had the House then reconvene, I wanted to ask you, because I could not understand why today, after approximately three minutes of grave disorder, the House was not adjourned, as you would have customarily done. It would have given everyone a chance to calm down, probably given the Premier a chance to return, if his

schedule would have allowed it, and would have allowed --

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): More questions.

Mr Mancini: More questions. It would have allowed the retention, from what I could see, of approximately six to seven minutes of question period, which would have allowed members of the opposition to continue questioning the government on the important issues of the day.

I'd like you to explain to me, sir: What was the difference today between the disorder we had and all the other occasions when you and the previous Speakers have in fact announced there was grave disorder and adjourned the House?

The Speaker: To the member for Essex South, I'm not sure it's a healthy exercise to be comparing disorders one to another. What I can tell the member is that at any given moment in time your Speaker attempts to assess the situation and to handle it as appropriately as the situation prescribes.

I can say to members that I suppose the best remedy would be to maintain order within the chamber, and that rests with the House itself. I can only continue to ask members --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That's exactly what the New Democrats want -- that we'd be sort of silent and whimpering like children. They can abuse us all they want and you won't step in.

The Speaker: I would ask all members to respect the chamber and to try to exercise restraint, even when we have contentious issues on the floor of the House. Any more than that I don't believe any Speaker is capable of doing, and perhaps in future days we will have a better chamber.

It is time for petitions.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: My privilege concerns what has taken place in this House this afternoon. Mr Speaker, I think I'm one of the first to recognize the difficulty of your job. I also recognize the difficulty of the Premier's job, and I recognize the responsibility all of us have in this Legislature to perform our individual jobs.

What we have seen this afternoon is a matter of opinion depending on which side of the House we sit on, and I respect that, but the fact is that I would implore you to review the Hansard and, if possible, the electronic Hansard of what took place this afternoon. I feel that if we're going to have a fragile --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Point of privilege.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): But she's a very nice lady and I wouldn't interrupt her if I were you.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Privileges are intact.

Mrs Marland: You see, I can't even speak about a point of privilege without the Minister of Housing rattling away from her seat. I feel that I have a right to stand on a point of privilege without being interrupted by the Minister of Housing.

I would suggest that all of us take a very close look at what happened this afternoon and all of us, respecting each other and respecting our individual responsibilities, try to assess how we can avoid this kind of chaos in this House again. As a member, I believe my privileges were affected this afternoon by what took place here. I think that if some good judgement would be considered by all members, including the people who apparently inflamed the situation, albeit on both sides --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Your solution is walking out of here. That's her solution. Is that yours?

Interjection: You can answer questions.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, perhaps we could avoid a recurrence of what took place this afternoon.

Hon Mr Wildman: On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: In a moment I'll recognize the member for Algoma.

May I say to the member for Mississauga South that I truly appreciate her comments. I know all members try to conduct themselves in an honourable way. I realize that. Sometimes the emotional issue of the time intrudes upon that and causes us disorder. Perhaps on other occasions we will have a more orderly chamber. I recognize the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you. On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I want to say that I agree completely with my friend the member for Mississauga South. I believe that the privileges of all members of the House were abused and obstructed today. I think all of us should reflect on the fact that members, whatever side they were on, decided, through hammering their desks, to make it impossible for the question period to proceed, then subsequently vacated their seats and then subsequently requested that they be given the right to place a supplementary question, even though the individual who wished to place that question was not in his seat at the time he should have been to place the question.

Mr Speaker, our privileges have indeed been abused, and abused in a most unsatisfactory and terrible situation. I agree with the member for Mississauga South. We should ensure that this kind of behaviour does not recur.

The Speaker: I'm not sure if we actually reached agreement on that, but I appreciate the contribution of the member for Algoma.

It's time for petitions.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which has in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

This is part of some 50,000 signatures that have been gathered from all across the province of Ontario, some of them from my riding of Nipissing, and I too have signed this petition.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of petitions signed by people from Bruce county, from Grey county, from Wingham and from Renfrew. What the petition is saying is that two thirds of the farmers in Ontario do not belong to any of the farm organizations and they are asking that:

"The undersigned strongly object to the proposal that is being put forward to the Minister of Agriculture and Food empowering stable funding in the province of Ontario," and I affix my signature to it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I've signed my name.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I'm proud to add my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by people in Amherstburg, La Salle, Harrow and Charing Cross, Blenheim and several areas in Essex county which reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I attach my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

It has my signature of support and is part of approximately 50,000 petitions today.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a second petition, briefly, if I may, Mr Speaker. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

That has my signature of support along with approximately 5,000 signatures and it is submitted to Her Majesty's loyal government in Ontario. God save the Queen.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

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

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

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

That's signed by G. Munroe of 25 Wood Street, J. Wood of Harbour Square, G. Anand of Yonge Street and a whole lot of other people, and by myself with enthusiasm.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from concerned residents of my riding which says:

"Whereas there has been a marked increase in crime, particularly violent crimes and crimes against women and children; and

"Whereas there has not been adequate support for law enforcement agencies on the streets and in the courts; and

"Whereas the morale of police forces in Ontario has been undermined,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to join with the citizens of Ontario in demonstrating significant and strong support of our law enforcement agencies."

I have signed that as well, Mr Speaker.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I have affixed my signature to this, Mr Speaker.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I have affixed my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of the Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite the representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed this petition.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of the Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite the representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past has made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

This is signed by many constituents and citizens across this province. I affix my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition which, without editorializing, is quite apropos on a day when the Premier walks out on us. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I affix my signature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Sorry to disappoint the member for Wellington and others, but the time allocated for the presentation of petitions has expired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr44,

An Act to revive Pinecrest Community Association

Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive Grand River Home Improvements Building Products, Supplies & Services Ltd

Bill Pr59,

An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council

Bill Pr62,

An Act to revive Fefferlaw Developments Limited

Bill Pr67,

An Act to revive Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Toronto (Incorporated)

Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting Nipissing University

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of York, not be reported, it having been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr59,

An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting Nipissing University.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 16th report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Runciman presents the committee's 16th report. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

PUBLIC BILLS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wish to rise today under the auspices of standing orders 67 and 69 to give you, through you to the Clerk, notice orally of our intention to file an amendment on the motion for third reading of Bill 40 when we get that far.

Whereas the standing orders are quite silent as to when the material may be filed and in what form, it says only that I cannot file it later than a certain date, and it does not say that I cannot do it orally. In fact, I intend to give you full oral notice today, and through you to the Clerk, of all of the aspects of this particular amendment.

I will begin now to read this amendment, and I wish you to give notice to the Clerk that in fact we will be filing this at an appropriate time. I ask you to listen now and receive notice, as is required by the standing orders of you and of the table.

I will move that the motion for third reading of Bill 40 be amended to add after the words now:

"That Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Standards Law Amendment Act, 1992, be returned to the standing committee on resources development because the committee did not debate the essence of amendments, as evidenced by the following script used by the committee Chair, which reads as follows:

"Shall

section 1 of the bill carry?

"Shall

section 2 of the bill carry?

"Shall

section 3 of the bill carry?

"Shall

section 4 of the bill carry?

"Shall

section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall

section 6 of the bill carry?

"Shall the deferred PC amendment to

section 7(2)(4) carry?

"Shall

section 7 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall

section 8 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall

section 9 of the bill carry?

"Shall the Liberal amendment to

section 10 of the bill,

section 9.2 of the act, carry?

"Shall

section 10 of the bill, as amended, carry?

"Shall the government amendment to

section 11 of the bill, subsection 10(3) of the act, carry?

"Shall

section 11 of the bill, 'as amended,' if applicable, carry?

"The Liberal motion to strike out

section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"The PC motion to strike out

section 12 of the bill is not in order.

"Shall the PC amendment to

section 12 of the bill, subsection 11.1(1.1) of the act, carry?

"Shall the PC amendment to

section 12 of the bill, subsections 11.1(2) to (7) of the act, carry?

"Shall the government amendment to

section 12 of the bill" --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: I don't ever like interrupting the member for Bruce when he's in full flight, but if it will be of help to him, all he needs to do is to present his material in writing to the table at his earliest possible convenience and therefore it can be on the order paper. That's our procedure and I'm sure that the member can --

Mr Elston: No. It can be but it does not have to be, Mr Speaker. There is nothing that prevents me from giving oral notice of this under our standing orders. In fact, I wish to give you oral notice of this particular piece of information.

The Speaker: I'm reminded by the table that our practice in this regard is quite strict.

Mr Elston: It is not. Where?

The Speaker: I've asked the member to please comply --

Mr Elston: Show me the written precedents. I've looked and there are none.

The Speaker: It surely is not a great inconvenience. There's nothing out of order about him presenting the material which he wishes to have on the order paper in writing to the table so that it can be put on the notice paper, rather than occupying the time of the House with this matter at this point in our schedule, so that we can proceed.

Mr Elston: I would like to refer you, on the point of order, to sections 67 and 69, which say I only am required to give notice. It does not say it is written notice. It does not say it is oral notice. I have chosen an option, which is the oral notification of the table, through this place. It is my right as a member of this particular place to put a matter orally on the table for consideration. I cannot find any precedent that prevents me from giving oral notice of this particular motion. I ask that you allow --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I realize that he doesn't want to be seen as debating a ruling by the Speaker. I would remind the member that -- without my being reminded by the table, I certainly recall that notices are to be written. They are to be written so that they then can be printed in the order paper.

While I appreciate his kindness in attempting to assist the business of the House by notifying us orally, that really isn't necessary. What would be helpful is, if he has a document all ready, that he indeed simply file it with the table. That will help us expedite our public business, and what he wishes to accomplish will have been accomplished; ie, the matter to which he refers will appear on the order paper, which I take it is what he wants to have happen at some point in time. The sooner he can file that with the table, the better.

Mr Elston: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: You have been, with the great advice of numbers of authorities, holding us relatively to the word and the letter of the standing orders recently. I appreciate that it is your job to do that. What I am doing now is not precluded by these particular standing orders. I would like to just read for a moment exactly what it says under standing order 67, in the public bills

section of our standing orders:

"No notice is required for motions for second or third reading of bills or for hoist motions, such motions being ancillary; but a motion for a reasoned amendment to a motion for second or third reading does require notice."

It does not state that it has to be written. It does not state that it has to be orally done. That, in my view, allows the option to go to the member whose privilege it is to alert the table and to alert this assembly to the business that is being proposed for them some time in the future.

There have been occasions when notice has been given orally. In fact, we changed the new rules really to give oral notice with respect to the motions for the time allocation. We now require us not to be notified as House leaders any more by the Orders and Notices papers, but by the intervention of some kind of message from the House leader, followed by a motion.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): There is no provision for oral notification on the time allocation.

Mr Elston: Basically, you told us that you were going to inform us when you were going to do it and then it would follow. But, Mr Speaker, there is nothing to preclude me, on the standing orders -- and I ask you to read this. I ask you to read it and I ask you to defer any business as a result until --

The Speaker: I understand the member for Bruce's point. Indeed, I'm familiar with the standing order. He's right, as he reads it, that it doesn't preclude him from presenting it orally. But I must remind the member that it is our practice to provide written notification to the table. It is that practice upon which predecessors of mine have relied and, of course, naturally I rely as well.

Mr Elston: Where is the ruling on this?

The Speaker: I'm more than pleased to discuss this at some length with the member at another time. I'm pleased to review the matter, as I always am. But I must say to the member that the practice of our assembly is very clear, and that's the practice I don't care to break at this particular point in time.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I've heard it now, you've given a ruling three times on this. You have a choice here. Are we going to debate this all afternoon or are we going to get on with orders of the day?

The Speaker: We are not debating the Speaker's ruling. It is time for orders of the day.

Mr Elston: Can I have a point of privilege, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: If this is something a little different than what we've --

Mr Elston: It is something a little different. Mr Speaker, you have told me, on a point of privilege, that I cannot do what is not prevented by the standing orders. I would respectfully ask you, sir, to file with me, or at least to file in this House, your written reasons and tell me why it is and from whence all of this learned information comes so that when we misunderstand the rules again about giving notice and otherwise, we will be able to refer to the written material. Can you undertake to provide us with your written research?

The Speaker: In essence, what the member for Bruce is asking for is a ruling. Of course, I'm always pleased to assist members in any way to appreciate the rules, not just our standing orders but our practice. So I'd be pleased to accommodate the member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Chair, could the minister bring his staff on the floor?

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Certainly. Please direct the staff.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, please, as the ministerial staff is coming, I understand that yesterday, the last day that this bill was debated, there was an agreement that the time would be evenly split, to be used as each caucus so wished. I recognize the motion that we are operating under and ask if it is most appropriate for that procedure that commenced last Thursday to continue on today, so that each caucus would have 45 minutes to deal with the sections in the way and manner it feels is most appropriate.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it agreed on all sides of the House that we split the time evenly three ways? Is there agreement? Agreed. We will have a free-ranging discussion, then, continuing on. Who would like to lead off the debate?

Mr Offer: The first comment that I wish to make in the time allocated deals with subsections 4(2) and (4) of the bill. I want to be very brief in this area, not because it isn't important but because of the very limited time that we have to deal with the matter.

As we all recognize, there is currently, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, an exclusion to employees in agricultural and horticultural operations. Under Bill 40 that exclusion, which has operated in this province and has worked in this province for years, has been changed. It is now under Bill 40 that our agricultural and horticultural workers may find themselves within the purview of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, through regulation, at the whim of the Minister of Labour. This would, without question, curtail the rights of those involved in agricultural and horticultural operations from dealing with the issues which will affect them.

In this chamber and in committee, we have put forward an amendment which would repeal those provisions of Bill 40 and reinstate the status quo. In other words, we believe that the exclusion which has operated in the past and has worked successfully in the past in the area of agriculture and horticulture should continue, and if there are to be any changes in those areas by way of separate legislation, then it should not have any impact on this bill.

I have received a great many concerns from those involved in the agricultural sectors of our communities throughout the province. They are concerned that they may find themselves one day within the ambit of the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the first time in this province and that it will be done by regulation, without their being given the opportunity for input, without being given the opportunity of debate in this Legislature and without being given the opportunity for public consultation throughout the committee process. They are concerned; we are concerned.

Our amendment speaks to reinstating the status quo. If there are to be any changes, then let those changes result as a consequence of public consultation, and let there not be an opportunity for that Minister of Labour or any minister of labour to include agricultural and horticultural workers in the Ontario Labour Relations Act against their will without consultation, without any discussion, without the opportunity for debate. We have made those changes, those motions to make certain that the wishes of the agricultural workers in this province are listened to. By agreeing to those changes and reinstituting the status quo, we will do so.

I am disheartened to hear that the government will not be supporting this, that it will be turning its back on the concerns of the agricultural workers in this province. This is just the first of a series of concerns by many people throughout this province, concerns that they have with respect to what these changes mean to their way of life, to their being able to operate in this province, to their being able to continue to deal with the issues at hand in a way that is sensitive to their concerns.

This bill, these concerns, these amendments as proposed by the Minister of Labour, and the adamant refusal to listen to the concerns from the agricultural community, fly in the face of those concerns which I have heard throughout the province, especially from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister have a response?

Mr Offer: I didn't ask for one.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Go ahead.

Mr Offer: No, if you wish to make a response.

The First Deputy Chair: Just for the honourable member's information, I ask the minister after each person speaks in the House if he has a response. Does the minister have a response?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait for another speaker or two.

The First Deputy Chair: Further discussion? Questions?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes, I would like to continue now. This is the second day of debate concerning Bill 40. We only have two days to discuss the 600-plus presentations that were presented this summer to the committee that sat for five weeks, and unfortunately two days does not do justice to the concerns and the many valid suggestions for amendments that were made by people in this province.

However, we shall endeavour to do the best we can to make sure that the views and the opinions of all people in this province are at least heard and as many of those views put on the public record as possible. However, it is unfortunate, and I have to say this again, that the input is not being given adequate consideration.

I spoke the other day concerning my private member's bill for mandatory secret ballot for certification, and I'd like to move now to

section 26 of the bill. One of the amendments the Ontario PC party is moving, one of 94 amendments we have introduced, is to

section 26.1 of the bill. We would like to amend that

section of the bill by adding the following section:

"26.1

Section 51 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"Mandatory secret ballot

"

(2) For a collective agreement to come into effect, a ratification vote by secret ballot must be taken among the employees in the bargaining unit defined by the agreement and more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast must have been cast in favour of the collective agreement."

Thus again, as I said a few days ago, we believe it's absolutely essential that in the process of unionization all workers have an opportunity to cast a secret ballot to determine and make known their wishes as to whether or not they want to join a union. We also support the need for a secret ballot vote on the issue of ratification. Again, more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast need to support the collective agreement. I will be introducing a further amendment in support of a secret ballot vote for a strike.

Our overriding concern on Bill 40 is the fact that we do feel it infringes the rights and freedoms of individuals, and these amendments that we have introduced in three areas are an attempt to ensure that people, men and women, throughout this province have an opportunity to clearly be informed on the issues of what it means to join a union if they're voting for or against certification; also what is contained within the collective agreement and what are the implications of a strike, and that after these people have been fully informed, they then have an opportunity to cast a ballot free of coercion or harassment from any other source.

We feel this is one method we can put forward that would protect the individual, because unfortunately Bill 40 takes away rights and freedoms. It really does much to facilitate unionization and also does much to put power in the hands of the union leaders.

We are very concerned about the impact on the individual. I've heard from many people in this province who are union members, or who are not yet union members but perhaps will be some day, and they are very concerned about the consequences of Bill 40 and the fact that their rights and freedoms have been removed.

I would hope that this government, which talks about being democratic, which talks about respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals, will support this amendment we have put forward.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister have any response to make?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'll wait for the first round, Mr Speaker.

The First Deputy Chair: Fine. Further discussions or questions?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I wasn't going to speak to this particular bill, because Lord knows enough has been said on all sides of the fence with respect to this particular issue. However, as you will know, some of the public campaigns that have been launched, both against the bill and this party, and a lot of the misinformation that has been perpetuated out in the public quite frankly warrant some debate, some dialogue. I think that enough members who are in support of this particular legislation must stand up and address a number of the issues that have been raised and that are being perpetuated to the public through the media and through paid advertisements.

As I sit and watch some of the commercials and some of the literature that is being put forward by a number of the interests that would like to see this labour legislation derailed, it's misleading for me, to say the least. That's putting it in the mildest language I can find that is acceptable in this place and will prevent you from ruling me out of order if I use the kind of language that in my gut I feel should be used in retaliation to this kind of rhetoric.

I sat the other day and I watched this commercial that was played on television. I believe it's entitled "Kill the Bill," and then the glass crushes on the television screen and it has this number 40 and this number 40 is angular. If you watch this commercial, and obviously if you don't know anything about the specifics of the legislation and what the legislation is intended to do, you would immediately assume and you would be aghast and say: "My God, what is happening in this province? My God, that's why we have the kinds of problems we have," because it renders a sense of alienation.

What you have is an individual out there who's looking for work and his plant is being shut down and he's being terminated. Quite frankly, it lends itself to a certain amount of uncertainty, an uncertainty that is being felt by a number of people in our society. Basically, the caption says, "If you want to protect your job, if you want to protect working people, if you want to stand up and fight for working people, then what you must do is kill the bill. Kill Bill 40."

As I sit back and I watch that particular commercial, I can't help but think of all the working people it would take to generate enough money, working people who would have to contribute $5, $10, $1, $2 each across the province to hire the consultants, to hire the scriptwriters, to hire all the other people it would take and you would need to hire in order to be able to put together that kind of campaign, that kind of advertisement, quite frankly, that kind of propaganda. I sit back and I see all these working people it would take in order to do that.

All the working people I've spoken to, all the working people who find themselves out of work, haven't contributed to any such organization, haven't contributed to any cause, haven't gone out and hired any consultants. They haven't hired the spin doctors, the scriptwriters, all those individuals out there who are being paid enormous amounts of money to shape public opinion, and they're shaping public opinion in such an inflammatory, underhanded, seedy way that, quite frankly, that's what's contributing to the downgrading, to the collapse in the economy that has taken place.

Just to bring you back to the commercial, if working people aren't the people who are contributing to these campaigns and if they don't have the resources to hire the people -- the spin doctors and the scriptwriters and the cameramen and the actors -- to put together these campaigns and these advertisements and these commercials, then who is? The question is, who is?

I'll tell you who it is. It's the big corporate interests. It's the big business interests. Those are the people who can afford the spin doctors. Those are the people who can afford the media campaign. Those are the people who are forking out not $1, not $2, not $5 each, but are forking out tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to run this campaign.

That lends itself to another question, the question you have to ask yourself as you watch this commercial, as you sit there in your living room, out of work. You say: "Are these the interests, the big-money corporate interests, are these the people who want to help me out? Are these the people who want to put me back to work or are they just simply concerned with their own bottom line?

Are they just simply concerned with preventing me from gaining some rights in the workplace, some rights for me to be able to defend myself, some rights for me to be able to stand up, for both myself and my family, in my workplace to ensure that their future is relatively secure? That's the question you have to ask yourself.

When you ask yourself this question in the face of the interests that are running the show, that are running the campaign, that are feeding into the media the fearmongering that's taking place out there, that is to me the most irresponsible act of all, because that is what undermines the structure of our economy. That chips away at the foundations that our economy is built on, and that's confidence. Quite frankly, when you erode confidence, that's when our economy and the ability of our people to carve out a living for both themselves and their family all begins to flounder. Quite frankly, that is the most irresponsible act of all.

As I sit back and I watch this particular campaign and the propaganda campaign around the OLRA, I have to ask myself, who is it? Who are those people who are pinning up the posters, who are writing the commercials, who are taking out the advertisements, who want to give themselves the semblance that they're really trying to protect me, the working guy who is out of a job? Who is it?

It's certainly not the people who want to help me out. That's the bottom line.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the honourable minister wish to make any comment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Three brief comments, Mr Chair, the first dealing with the member for -- my colleague.

The First Deputy Chair Mississauga North? Downsview.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Downsview. Forgive me.

I think the point he raises is an extremely valid one, and I want to indicate to this House about the comments he makes about the kind of information and the kind of misinformation that have been out on this particular piece of legislation, that they have not b