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

November 19, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent of the House to switch the order of presentation of our ballots between myself and Mr Perruzza. I have spoken to him about it, I have spoken to Mr Cooke and also to my friend Mr Eves. Because of the advent of the 11 o'clock House leaders' meeting, I would ask that unanimous consent be given.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

STANDING ORDERS / REFORM RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

Mr Elston moved resolution number 31:

That, in the opinion of this House,

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 recognizing that 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 members may speak to only 30 minutes; and

Whereas recognizing that 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 which in turn makes them less accountable to the House and people of Ontario; and

Whereas recognizing that 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 recognizing that 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; and

Whereas recognizing that these rules diminish the rights of the minority to properly voice their concerns and limit their privilege to utilize the mechanisms of Parliament as full and equal members of the House,

Premier Rae and the government of Ontario must 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.

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I bring this to the floor of the House in my private members' time because of several reasons, but one of them certainly is that in order that this place function, the people who are elected to represent their constituents must be able to speak their minds on any piece of legislation.

I have been here since 1981 and I understand, probably as well as anybody, that you will never find a unanimous position in this House on every occasion. In fact, it's very rare that you'll find a unanimous position inside any of our caucuses.

I've been a member of a government caucus, I've been a member of cabinet and I've been a member of opposition caucuses and I can tell you that I understand the dynamic that goes on inside the caucus meetings. I understand that there are days on which cabinet ministers come in to present their material to the caucus members in general and receive a fair bit of intensive questioning as to the ramifications of their particular policy position and whether or not it's within rational, sensible policy to be introduced on the public at large.

I can understand as well what goes on inside opposition caucuses; not just my own, but I can understand what goes on inside the Conservative caucus and the opposition New Democratic Party caucus in the days when it was in opposition. There's intense debate.

The one difficulty beyond anything else is that those debates, in cabinet or in caucus, whether government or opposition caucus, are done in private -- not necessarily in secret, because there are a whole bunch of ways that information gets out. In fact, to the chagrin of government and even opposition caucuses from time to time, the debate itself almost verbatim gets out into the public.

But what happens when this forum, this Legislative Assembly, which is for the very purpose of airing every opinion of every member who represents his or her constituents, is prevented from carrying out its function? You end up with a diminution of the democracy we all respect and desire.

I am putting this obviously from the point of view of an opposition politician who is frustrated, but I can tell you I put it from the point also of someone who believes that some time the Liberal Party will come back to power. Whether that happens sooner or later is with regard to how people vote.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Later, hopefully.

Mr Elston: It'll maybe be later. Who knows? But I do it in the sense that I have an understanding that the people will elect another government at some time, that at some time, perhaps, I will serve in a government administration, and that at some time I will be frustrated in not having the most efficient move of legislation from my desk through this place and into the public domain as a law of this province.

I understand what the desire for efficiency is all about. But I also understand, I think, better than most, because of the issues I handled when I was a minister, that the population in general cannot be expected to understand or even accept the introduction of new policy or changes which radically alter the way the society of which we are members is conducted if they have not had a chance to listen to and to participate, in committee, through letter-writing or some other means with their member, in the debate.

Democracy is an interesting tool. It does allow the majority to have its sway in regard to public policy. That's well known and I respect that, but the element that distinguishes democracy from many of the other forms of government is that it ensures that the minority may speak in a way which puts its position effectively and often, if it wishes, in contrast to the position being established by the majority. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim to have a democracy and you cannot claim to have a chamber which represents a democratic institution.

We've had very serious differences of opinion and the government knew we would have serious differences of opinion with respect to Bill 40, the labour relations amendment act. So what happened? They introduced Bill 40 and the next day they dropped the new rules on the table and they said: "You will accept these and they will be done the way we want them done so that we can efficiently put this bill through this Legislative Assembly. We don't care if you don't like what we're doing. We don't care that there is a substantial group of people in our society that disagrees with us. We will have our way."

So after three days of second reading debate, we ended up losing any other opportunity to speak to the bill on principle, except as was allowed by the time allocation motion that the new rules allowed the government party to introduce. It shut us down. It did not let the members of the Liberal caucus speak against the bill or for it, if they chose. It did not allow every member of the Tory caucus to speak for or against the bill, as he or she chose. It did not even allow the backbench members or any of the ministers, necessarily, of the New Democratic Party government to speak for or against the bill.

In fact, what was happening was that a very small number of people were allowed to speak, when every constituency, right from one side to the other of this province, was affected by this major policy change.

While I understand that policies are not unanimously accepted, there is a sense that there is legitimacy if the people are allowed to put their points, to have their case studied in their council chamber. That's all this place is. Because of the very nature of this place, the majority vote is always going to carry. But what the majority has done with the new rules is to have its way without allowing any venting of any of the opposition -- or virtually none of the opposition -- in this place by those who opposed Bill 40.

It doesn't just stop there. You see, it is a general application of the rule changes, not just for the purpose of that one bill. We have had time allocation, or we have had the threat of time allocation, with respect to several other pieces of legislation since these rules came in on June 22, as I just noted.

We cannot allow this to carry on if we are to allow ourselves to talk about having a democratic society. We cannot allow ourselves to represent our constituents and say, "I will put your case in the Legislative Assembly," when each of the members knows full well here that she or he will have almost no opportunity to put their case when a controversial bill appears.

Most of us don't want to speak to all of the bills. Most of our constituencies are not affected by all of the bills to the degree which requires us to interject on all occasions. As members, we choose the places where our constituents propel us to become involved, or, on occasion, people like me who move from one area of criticism to another to assist schedules of our members speak on more than area so that we can put the case for the caucus as has been determined by our consultations around the legislation.

In any event, we can no longer tell our constituents when we go back that we can assure them we'll speak on this issue, because not only are we not apt to get on the list because of the numbers of people who are present here to speak, but we probably can't even get on the list in committee, because the committee itself is restricted in such a way by the time allocation allowed under these new rules that we are prevented from having any kind of free-rein debate or discussion in those committees that really lets us examine the policy. The rules do that. They shut us down.

They prevent an airing of the views of the minority. They do, by the way, prevent an airing of the views of the majority on many occasions. That also is a bad effect of the rules that we have now, and a reason why they should be thrown out.

I am really concerned that we cannot claim to have a democracy with the rules that we now have. The manner in which the time allocation motions have read for Bill 40 and others is such that there is no way that we can even examine the nature of the amendments to the bill which are being put. You've probably heard me on occasion stand and complain that none of the amendments to Bill 40 were read, or at least a substantial number of them were not even read, during the committee time.

We were also told that it doesn't matter any more. Well, it does matter for the purposes of our constituents. It does matter for the purpose of democracy. If we really want to be democratic, we've got to change these rules.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to be relatively brief, because I want to leave the majority of the time for our House leader, the member for Parry Sound.

When a number of proposals were brought forward by the government House leader to change our standing orders, our caucus took the position of entering into negotiation with the House leader notwithstanding the manner in which they were presented to us, sort of in a very secretive form one Thursday evening, and we found out about those proposals by the government House leader in the Monday morning papers, not through a proper communication with other House leaders about the kinds of changes that the government House leader sought.

The timing of them also was very unfortunate because we were entering into a debate on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation, Bill 40, which we vehemently opposed and which the government strongly supported. But we looked at it in a constructive sense and said yes, the people of Ontario, perhaps looking in on these debates, were not satisfied with the standing orders and the order of debate. So we entered into negotiations and sought some improvements.

Unfortunately, those improvements did not include any of the suggestions we put forward to the government House leader which in our view were not all to the advantage of the opposition but would have been to the advantage of all members here.

In the end, we voted for the changes because we thought of the good intentions, the understanding behind the written words, the understanding not only by the government House leader as to how those rules would be used, in as few instances as possible, but also that the Chair would take the intention of those rules, and in making rulings upon the new wording, would draw an equal line between the government's right to govern and the opposition's right to oppose.

Well, Mr Speaker, I must say that we are not very happy, particularly with the way the Chair has ruled upon these new standing orders. We are not very happy that the Chair evidently now has taken the position that the rules are there for the government of the day and not for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We are not very happy about the way the government House leader has used these rules to cut off debate and to cut off putting forward meaningful amendments.

Our party put forward some 94 or 96 amendments to Bill 40, on behalf of many of the people who came forward during public hearings, during that debate, and some of those amendments were not even read in this Legislature. We find that an insult to the people who came in front of that committee. Therefore, we have found that the working out of these rules, as per our understanding as to some goodwill on the part of the government House leader and a fair

interpretation taking into account both the government side and the opposition side, and the understanding we have about how this place works -- we had hoped that the Chair, the Speaker, would make rulings that were fair to both sides.

I must say that after one of his rulings, particularly on a time allocation motion, there was serious consideration on this side of the House for a censure motion against the Speaker. That doesn't happen very often in Parliament. I think the last time that happened was by a former New Democratic Party leader, Donald MacDonald, against John Turner who sat in your chair in the early 1980s. Mr Speaker, we decided not to do that at this time, but we are that concerned about how pro-government the Speaker has become in using these new rules to shut down the opposition.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that while we considered that, we decided not to go ahead because we believe the integrity of this institution is more important and perhaps we can work this out at some future time.

That is why we will be voting very strongly in favour of Mr Elston's motion today. We do not believe either the Chair, the Speaker or the government House leader has used and interpreted these rules to the best possible way for all members of this Legislature, in the manner in which we thought they would be used when we negotiated and agreed to them back in June.

I guess what I'm saying is that we were perhaps wrong in giving support at that time. At that time, we had thought, in good faith, that we could continue to make this place a constructive, meaningful place for debate of the business of the people of Ontario. Perhaps we were wrong at that time.

At this time, we would urge all members of the Legislature to support Mr Elston and go back to the standing orders, if we want to talk about negotiating the standing orders prior to June 5, and let's negotiate another set of rules so that we can return this place to a meaningful Legislature as it was prior to that date.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane South stood up before you did.

Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to say right off the top that I will not be supporting Mr Elston's motion, and I want to lay out fairly clearly why.

One of the things Mr Elston talks about in his motion is that he is upset, along with some of the people in the opposition, that somehow they've lost their ability to be able to express themselves on a number of views.

First of all, the way the rules applied before, members could get up ad infinitum -- some of the members of our own party have done that in the past -- and speak at length on an issue, not allowing other members in the Legislature to be able to get up in their places to speak.

One of the difficulties we saw under the old rules, let's say during second reading -- let's say we allow, through the process of the Legislative Assembly, two, three or four days for second reading on a particular bill -- is that somebody would get up from one party or another -- and this is not criticizing opposition or government; I think we're all equally into this thing -- one member would stand up and take up most of the time. What then ended up happening was that a lot of members had no opportunity to speak on that particular bill in order to bring forward the views from that person's individual riding, if that particular member had heard from the people there.

One of the things this rule does is that it turns around and limits us as politicians to really try to get to the point in debate, being able to say: "You have 30 minutes in order to put forward your view. If you have 30 minutes to put forward your view, put that concisely so that people out there can understand what your views are. Be more concise about what you're saying."

One of the things that is interesting since the new rules have come into place is that people in my riding and in other places in the province have told me that at least the Legislature is now a little bit more interesting to watch when it comes to debates on bills. Before, they would sit there and watch the same person speak for two or three hours and sometimes two days on a particular bill, and people wouldn't bother watching it.

They said, "That person has repeated himself six times over and that's just enough of that." One thing people -- I'm not saying all, but a lot of people -- are saying is, "At least now we're hearing various points of view, which makes it a little bit more interesting."

The other point I want to make is on the question, Monsieur le Président, faisant affaire avec le processus démocratique devant l'Assemblée législative.

M. Elston dit, dans sa motion, qu'il y a la peur que ce processus-là des règlements qu'on a changés ôte les droits des députés de l'Assemblée faisant affaire avec leurs droits démocratiques dans l'Assemblée. Mais les Libéraux, pour se planter ici aujourd'hui dans l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario et parler d'un processus démocratique quand leur chef fédéral, M. Chrétien, veut appointer quelqu'un pour être représentant à l'élection fédérale sans avoir un processus démocratique pour les personnes de cette circonscription-là pour choisir leur député, écoutez, j'ai un peu un problème. Tu ne peux pas parler des deux bords de ta bouche en même temps.

The other thing I want to say very quickly is that the question is the amount of reduced days within the time of the Legislature. The member has put forward in this resolution the question that somehow, because we're away from this place one additional week per year, it's taking away from the ability of people to be in touch with their politicians in the Legislature. Excuse me, but one of the things most people in all our ridings, including those of members of the opposition, complain about justifiably is that members are never in their ridings. Why? Because we spend a lot of time in Toronto dealing with important business within the Legislature.

I think politics, and the whole system as far as what's happened in the Ontario over the years is concerned, have put us in the position where the people of our ridings demand more time from us to be able to be in our riding in order to deal with the concerns of the men and the women in our ridings.

I think that's an equal criticism all members of this Legislature get: The people of our ridings want us there. It's not to say that we shouldn't be in Toronto. Obviously, we wear two hats in our role. We are legislators, but we also are people who listen to the problems of the people of our ridings and try to advocate for change for those particular things. The losing of the one day within the whole sessional calendar to be able to be in our ridings I don't see as a negative thing.

Mr Elston: One day?

Mr Bisson: Or one week; excuse me.

Mr Elston: Two; you'd better start reading the calendar.

Mr Bisson: It is not a thing that I think takes away anything from our ability to be able to do our jobs. If it does anything, it gives us more of an opportunity to be directly within our ridings to do our jobs.

The last thing -- and I would challenge Mr Elston to respond to this particular point -- is that if he believes this -- and that is his right, and he can express himself and I respect his views; I just happen to have a different opinion on it -- I would ask him to tell me at the end of this debate, if he were elected, if his Liberal Party or the Conservative Party were elected as government the next time around, would they repeal the rules and put them back to the same way? I would challenge to see what would happen the next time, if they're fortunate enough to be able to be elected at the next election.

Mr Elston: I already said that would be my position. Why didn't you listen to my debate? Take the cotton batting out of your ears.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Normally we go in rotation. So you accept?

Mr Elston: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm going to make my comments brief this morning with respect to this private member's ballot item. I want to talk primarily, I guess, about what I think has been a restriction on the role of the Speaker in the Legislative Assembly as a result of these rule changes, and I'd like to get a few comments on the record.

I just heard the honourable member talking about the rule changes shortening the calendar by one week, but that's not in fact the case. The new rule changes shorten the legislative calendar by two weeks, not one. Originally, the government had requested shortening it by three weeks. I think it's very difficult to explain to the public out there, especially in these times, why we don't want to sit in the Legislative Assembly for two or three more weeks a year, shortening our workload here in this place.

I have constituents like everybody else does. In fact, I represent the fifth-largest geographical riding in the entire province of Ontario and I have more organized municipalities than any other single riding in the province of Ontario, so I know all too well demands about constituents and constituency time. But I also understand I'm elected to come here and represent those people at Queen's Park, and I'm not looking for an extra three weeks a year off at the taxpayers' expense when I should be here doing the business of the province of Ontario in the Legislative Assembly.

Then we go to House leaders' meetings and have the government House leader tell us, "Well, we're going to have to sit till midnight the last two weeks, and we're going to have to introduce time allocation and this and that, because we don't want to be here three weeks a year as we used to be here in the past."

It just doesn't wash. You can't have it both ways. Quite frankly, I'm more than willing to be here right up till Christmas Eve, if need be, and we have done that on occasion in this House, when we had responsible governments that wanted to get business done instead of going home three weeks early. That's so much for that point.

When these rule changes were passed, I would like to say that we were told by the government, and in particular by the government House leader, that the government had no intention whatsoever of using time allocation motions on a frequent basis, that they would be used extremely rarely and only under the most extenuating of circumstances would the government ever think about using a time allocation motion.

Well, these standing orders haven't been in this place for more than about six months -- not even six months; about five months -- and out of those five months, the Legislature didn't sit for two of them. In the last period of time since these standing orders have been in place, they used it on Bill 150, on worker ownership, on the third reading debate on July 21, less than one month after the rule changes were introduced, after three hours and 24 minutes of debate on second reading and two hours of debate on third reading.

That is the government's definition, I guess, of only using this under extenuating circumstances. That's their definition of democracy. I find it hard to believe that any reasonable human being would think that a combined total of five hours and 24 minutes on two reading stages of a bill necessitates a time allocation motion. If they do, they come from a different sort of democracy than I'm used to dealing with. We have those types of countries in the world but they're certainly not democracies.

Two weeks after the rule changes were introduced, the government used time allocation again on Bill 40, its labour legislation. Of course we all know that was the primary reason that these rules changes were brought in in the first place, because they wanted to expedite Bill 40.

They wanted to use time allocation on Bill 40 despite the fact -- and I'm sure the House leader for the Liberal Party will remember this -- that when we sat in House leaders' meetings, the government House leader said that the government had no intention of using time allocation motion, had no intention of using new rule changes on Bill 40, the labour bill. That's exactly what he told us. He told us that on more than one occasion and then he turned around and did exactly the opposite two weeks after the rule changes were implemented.

The first piece of legislation the government decided to deal with when it came back this fall was automobile insurance, which is totally baffling to a lot of us on this side of the House. There are so many economic problems out there. The government said it's committed to issues like employment equity and pay equity. They have stated time and time again that this is what they regard as the number one priority.

What did they bring on as their first, most important piece of legislation after we came back? Automobile insurance has been sitting out there on the back burner for about 15 months and all they do is introduce basically the plan that the former government had, after they -- when they were in opposition of course -- criticized and screamed and yelled about that plan and actually ran a good part of their election campaign against it in 1990. Then when the two opposition parties told the government how long they would need to debate automobile insurance, they threatened to use a time allocation motion again.

At the outset, we may have been somewhat naïve, I guess, because we actually believed what was coming from the government's mouth could be believed. We believed that it was honest, forthright and up front and, lo and behold, we find out that wasn't the case at all. It is somewhat disturbing, to say the least.

I also want to say that there are parliamentary precedents for Speakers having the discretion as to when enough debate has taken place on a particular bill at any stage. That's called of course a closure motion, and even a time allocation motion, without these new rule changes.

Really what they've done is taken away almost any authority that the Speakers had. The Speaker would appear under these rules to be a mere figurehead to watch over procedural matters in the chamber as opposed to having any authority whatsoever; and then the government wonders why on some occasions the opposition is a little raucous and the Speaker has a problem controlling the House.

I think the answer is more than obvious. When you don't deal in good faith with other people you can expect them to become a little bit upset, especially in a parliamentary democracy, I would submit.

I also want to say that I'm a little bit disturbed about two recent rulings that the Speaker has made -- not you, Mr Speaker, but the Speaker Speaker. One was about adjourning the House after 6 pm when the mace was on the table, as it is now. I can't help it if the government House leader didn't craft his time allocation motion succinctly enough or particularly enough, but I find it most galling that any Speaker would refuse to recognize that the House is in session when the mace is on the table. I think that is a totally incorrect ruling.

I don't care why the Speaker was in the chair; the reality was that he was and the House was in session. I think the Speaker should very seriously consider retracting or overruling that ruling of his.

The other was a ruling that he made to my friend from Etobicoke the other day when unanimous consent was given to reply. No time limit was set, but the Speaker enforced a time limit arbitrarily.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Thank you.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I beg the indulgence of the House as I have quite a severe cold, so I'm afraid I'll be a basso profondo for my time up speaking.

I would like to say that some of the points that have been put forward by the opposition need to be considered by this House and some I have some sympathy and some resonance with. I would like to say, for instance, that the process by which these changes were introduced into this chamber was certainly questionable. I did not support them. I felt they were a little on the secretive side and did not pay due attention to the form and the respect we need to have for all the members of this House, so I was not very happy with that process.

In regard to the 30-minute time, I think that actually in this resolution as it's been put forward by the opposition, unfortunately the focus shouldn't have been on the 30 minutes allotted for members to speak, because I believe that 30 minutes is enough for members to speak. Having been here for two years and heard the speeches of this House, I have to say there are very few members in this House who can speak concisely and to the point in a short period of time. They tend to ramble, and ramblings and sharings of ignorance are not particularly edifying to this House or to the people of the province.

But indeed I will take the point by the members of the opposition, particularly the member for Bruce when he declaims the fact that the time allocations have been used and even, dare I say, abused by the government. He is right when he says that. We have misused that standing order, and I say that in great sadness. There is no need to whip the opposition with time allocation every time the government wants to move ahead, and I think it is unfortunate that we have proceeded in that particular way.

I want to say, in regard to the rest of the resolution, I disagree with the honourable members when they say we should be spending all our time here in this august House. Indeed there needs to be time with our constituents. I have some 30 municipalities, all of them clamouring to have time with me to speak about their needs and their aspirations as municipalities. To indicate that that is not time well spent but rather to be here listening to some of the things we tend to listen to, I would say is wrong and false and needs to be responded to in that way.

As for the role of the Speaker, I agree again with the opposition on this resolution when they say the neutrality of the Speaker has been tampered with because we have removed some of the discretion our Speaker has. But I would go further and say that is not just because of the changes brought forth by this government.

In fact if we look at the standing orders of our House and compare them to Houses across the country, or even the House of Commons or Westminster, what we see in effect is that the standing orders we have used in this House have limited the discretion of the Speaker to the nth degree. We don't have to take all the blame for that. It has to be apportioned as well to the other parties that have led governments in the past.

I know the opposition members hate to hear these kinds of things, an even-handed approach to this resolution, but they're going to have an even-handed approach whether they like it or not.

Let me say also that I agree with the opposition members, dare I say it, when they talk about the concentration of the power in the Office of the Premier. They are right. They are right, but did this begin with Bob Rae? No. It was the same under David Peterson. It was the same under Mr Davis. It has been a tradition in the last 20 years to have that kind of concentration of power.

Again I look at the member for Bruce and I see him saying that this is not true. He was part of the cabinet; he knows the truth of this situation. Power has been concentrated for too many years by too many first ministers and his party is just as much to blame in this unfortunate situation.

Where do we go with this resolution? On many of the issues that have been brought forward I agree with the opposition members. I agree that they have not been able to --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How can you be so stupid and so wrong. It was agreed to by the three parties in resolution. At least get your facts straight.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Drainville: -- exercise their rights. I agree that they have not been able to give debate as they properly should, that they have been restrained in certain ways. I want to say to that I agree with them. But as far as their saying that we should go back to the rules of before June 22, 1992, I can only say that when they were in government in this House, they were not the ones to stand up for parliamentary reform.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order please.

Mr Drainville: If we are to have parliamentary reform, it will have to be reform that is brought about by all the members who forced the power élites within their own parties to begin to change. That includes the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the people in our own government. Changes need to be made and they need to be made quickly or the people will lose patience, as they already, I believe, have.

Mr Bradley: I cannot think of an issue which, in my over 15 years in this Legislature, has perturbed me more than the changes that have been brought through with the government majority in this House under the orders of the Premier of the province of Ontario.

The reason for this is quite obvious. Those of us who are elected to public office are the official spokespersons for the people we represent. If you want the views of your constituents to be adequately reflected in government legislation, in regulations and in policy, it is absolutely essential that elected members from the constituencies, those who are actually accountable to people within constituencies, have the adequate tools and power to be able to present those views to members of this House.

What Premier Rae has done is something which he can get away with. The reason he can do it is that no one is watching. I think you can best judge people and governments on what they do when no one is looking, on what they do when there is not close scrutiny of legislation or regulations that they bring forward, because it is at that very time that it is their own principles, their own consciences that are ruling, as opposed to the reaction to news media reports or to the comments that might be forthcoming from constituents.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Did you apply that principle --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, order please.

Mr Bradley: It is most ironic that in all the years in this House, watching members of the New Democratic Party -- particularly I think of icons such as Jim Renwick and others such as Patrick Lawlor and Stephen Lewis and even the former Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, who fought for the rights of the underdogs, who fought for the rights of individual members of the Legislative Assembly and who fought for the rights of the opposition -- it is most ironic and it is most discouraging to see that the Premier of this province, who in his past days fought for these issues appropriately, I believed, and admirably, is in fact the person who is responsible for beginning to diminish the powers of the elected members of this assembly.

By limiting members to 30 minutes of debate on any one issue -- I must say I recognize that in terms of overall time allocation, there are going to be times when the government is going to decide after a lot of debate has taken place, after the Speaker has had an opportunity to determine how much debate is going to take place that a government may well apply time allocation. I recognize that. But what you are doing in effect is limiting members' opportunity to carefully assess, to carefully analyse and to carefully expose the provisions of pieces of legislation coming before the House.

It may be that there are members within a political party who have a lot more expertise, a lot more commitment and a lot more knowledge about a specific piece of legislation. Yet those persons are limited to 30 minutes while another person who does not have that same background, may not have that particular interest, is faced with the fact that he or she is limited to only 30 minutes.

Out there in the general public we know that issues come and go. The only way that an opposition can bring to the attention of the public the fact that there is important legislation before the House that has major consequences for our province, for the jurisdiction over which we rule, is by extending the debate, is by bringing out all of the issues. I don't mean by reading the telephone book, as happens in the United States Congress -- in other words, delay for the sake of delaying. I don't mean by playing tricks. But what this does is it forces the opposition to simply engage in the kinds of theatrics that I don't think are productive to debate.

The reason is that unless we bring the House to a total standstill with some new procedural wrinkle, no one is going to pay attention to it. There will be no story about it. An editor will not accept from someone covering this House a story that doesn't have a confrontation or a new wrinkle to it. The only way that we can then let the people of this province know there's an important issue -- and they can make the judgement after -- is by having a lengthy and relevant debate on that issue. The limiting of individual members to 30 minutes is ludicrous in this regard.

I had a lot to say on the Confederation debate, on the constitutional goings-on that we've had in this province. I was told by the whip of this party, by the person in charge of speaking, that I could speak for 15 minutes. I must say I was insulted by the fact that with all of the issues that were before us in the referendum, an individual member would have 15 minutes. I suggested that someone else take my 15 minutes and utilize that as part of a lengthier speech.

That is exactly what happens in this House. The debate on significant issues is limited by the rules that this House has, and that's extremely important for those of us who are elected to do our jobs.

The other observation I have around this country is the continued concentration of power in the office of the Premier and in the people who advise the Premier and are not elected. I think if a government -- any government, not just an NDP government -- wants to know what the people of this province are thinking, or any jurisdiction is thinking, the best basis is the Tuesday morning caucus meeting of the government side and the two opposition parties.

We are the people who go home to talk to our folks back there, to get the input on a direct basis -- not just what people here in the capital think; not just what the senior members of the civil service think, although that's important and these are experts; not just what the people who surround the Premier think, and they are intelligent people and their viewpoints are very relevant to what's going on -- but what individuals across the province think about the various issues that confront this Legislature.

So we see a concentration of power, through the rule changes, in the hands of Premier Rae or whatever premier follows Premier Rae, and those individuals who sit beside the Speaker and are in the Premier's office. They should have input, by all means. I hope the Premier enlists people from across Ontario and beyond our borders to advise him on many issues. But ultimately the responsibility for legislation and for governing should be in the hands of this House.

I'm concerned that the House is going to sit fewer days. You know, we don't sit that many days in any event. There's a long recess in the summer; there's a long recess over the winter months. Friday, Saturday and Sunday we have a chance to consult with our constituents to be aware of the issues that are confronting individual constituencies. It seems to me that when the House sits fewer days, the House has fewer days to carefully analyse the legislation coming before it.

Jonathan Manthorpe, when he wrote a book on provincial affairs, made the comment -- and I don't agree with him, but let me tell you what he suggested -- that we should abolish constituency offices. That's radical and I don't agree with it, but the reason he said that was that members have become, as he called them, "glorified social workers," people who work on individual problems on a daily basis.

He suggested that the analysis of legislation, the analysis of policy and the debate of regulations was the loser as members concentrate more of their effort on individual case work. It's a difficult balance for all of us, but we must recognize that when any government brings in legislation, it has very significant ramifications for the province. When there's a policy change, when there's a regulatory change, it can impact upon the province in either a very positive or a very negative way.

I think we should be concentrating our time as legislators on those kinds of issues, not simply leaving it to the so-called experts, because there's a lot of expertise in different fields that exists within the 130 constituencies that are represented in the Legislative Assembly.

I'm concerned as well that the role of the Speaker has been diminished. I think over the years -- and I've observed four or five Speakers over the years -- I have had respect for those Speakers. I haven't always agreed with their rulings, but I've had respect.

I remember Jack Stokes, for instance, when we were in a minority situation. One would have anticipated, if one were observing political or partisan things out there, that Jack Stokes, being a New Democrat, would lean over backwards to support the opposition, and particularly his own party, the New Democratic Party. It didn't happen that way. He was a neutral in the chair. He was a very tough Speaker, and he was one who was very fair to members of the House.

I think we have to have a respect for the Speaker and the power and independence of the Speaker if this House is to operate appropriately. If we simply have a puppet or a stooge, which we haven't had, I'm pleased to say, while I've been a member of this House, if we simply have that sitting in the chair, or perhaps even worse, a person who has no power whatsoever, then I think the House declines in importance.

My observation of political affairs in this province over the years has been in fact that the legislative branch of government has diminished in importance, that this place isn't as important as it used to be. If you want to know why some members won't show up on certain days -- and there are always good reasons why it happens, whether personal, government or business reasons.

But if you want to know why, when there's a choice of being here or not, people won't be here, it's because in some cases they don't consider this place to be particularly relevant any more; that either they can politically benefit more by being back home in the riding or somewhere else, or in their own minds they simply feel they can be more effective somewhere other than this Legislature.

I think it's important for the government to be as accountable as possible. If we diminish the number of days that we sit, we diminish the opportunity of the opposition and backbench government members to question members of the executive branch of government, the members of the cabinet. I think in a democracy it's healthy that they be held accountable as often as possible; that there be a scrum, as it's called, or a gathering of the news people in the hallway to interview people who are from the cabinet and other places about the major issues of the day.

When you're a minister, you dread heading out into the hallway because you feel that perhaps there's an issue that you haven't dealt with, or an issue that you're perhaps weak on, but that's what keeps us sharp; that's what keeps us accountable. When sitting on the government side, if I know I have to face the opposition with potential questions, if I know I have to face the news media on a daily basis, I'm going to be much sharper as an individual. I'm going to keep much more on top of the issues than if there is not that sense of acute accountability that exists when this House is in session.

I would like to see the full powers of the Legislature restored. I don't agree with the rules which said opposition members should ring the bells for ever. It was a tactic. It works because when you turn on the 6 o'clock news and you hear the bells in the hallway and the news people say, "The bells are ringing," people know there's something happening at Queen's Park.

I hated that. I don't like having to do that as a member of the opposition. I don't like the reading of a number of lakes into the record, but that's been the only way the opposition's had a chance to make its point. I think better it should be made in debate. I think the opposition members, if they cannot carry a relevant debate -- some would call it a filibuster; I call it a lengthy and relevant debate -- if they can't carry on their opposition in that way, then they can't carry out the responsibility appropriately.

I hope the government will reconsider, yet I have the fear that in the back rooms of the government, unbeknown perhaps to members of the Legislature who sit even on the government side, they are cooking up even more rule changes which will restrict and limit the powers of members of this House.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton has had some interesting and, I think, relevant suggestions, as have the member for Mississauga West and others who brought forward resolutions in this House on how individual members can be more effective, because there's a lot of talent in all of the benches. There are a lot of different backgrounds in the benches of the government and the opposition that can be helpful to debate.

I look at the committee system, and that can be much more effective. The member for Victoria-Haliburton has again suggested that the committee system can be much more effective and a less-partisan scene, although that's very difficult under present circumstances. We understand in this House there is going to be partisanship; we are elected as partisans and one might expect that.

I implore members of the opposition, in this case the governing side -- as individuals, not as members of a government -- to support this resolution, to send a signal to Premier Rae and to the government House leader and the chief government whip that they would like to see the changes; that if they are ever in opposition again, they would like to be able to utilize the rules to the full extent to ensure appropriate debate and proper representation in this assembly.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): It's a pleasure to rise to speak this morning. It's been an interesting debate and I've listened to it with great care. However, I have some difficulty with the motion that has been presented to us. It would suggest, for example, that the problem in this House is the Premier. Unfortunately, that is just too narrow, too partisan and, quite frankly, wrong.

The problem in this House, I suggest to you, is the responsibility of every individual member of the House. It's the responsibility of the leadership of our various caucuses. I heard the opposition speak, for example, in terms of the government back rooms. Well, there are government back rooms, but there are opposition back rooms, and to suggest that machinations do not take place within opposition back rooms would be far from the truth.

There is no question indeed -- and I only have a limited experience; I've only been here five years. I've had a few years in opposition; a couple of years now on the government benches. There is no doubt that there is frustration both in government in getting legislation through and in opposition in having one's voice heard. But I have watched with considerable admiration House leaders, my own House leaders, both in government and in opposition.

I've watched the House leaders from the Liberal and Conservative parties, the member for Bruce and the member for Parry Sound, knowledgeable and certainly wise in organized manipulation of procedures, and at the same time they can stand with righteous indignation and say, "You know it isn't working." Yet all House leaders have had a part, with the support of their caucuses, in the breakdown of the democratic process which would allow voices to be heard.

I suggest to you that the greatest tragedy of all is the lack of respect for the office and the Chair, for the Speaker of the House. It is extremely sad when the Speaker has to fight for control in a chamber where that control should be absolutely given by every individual member when a Speaker asks for order. Members on both sides of the House can take some responsibility and blame for this.

If we want this House to be truly effective, then we must cooperate with the authority and the direction of those we elect to sit in the chair. That, I suggest to you, from the constituents in Cambridge, from residents across this province -- when they look at this chamber, it is not the manipulations of the House leaders and the various caucuses; it's not the directions laid down in terms of procedures by government. What is at stake? What is at stake when people tune into this place and in horror say, "Is that the way to conduct business?"

They're not talking about the fact that a member has 30 minutes to speak on a subject. I believe 30 minutes is more than ample to speak on a subject. What people see is a lack of respect for authority, and that authority, Mr Speaker, sits in your chair, and in any given question period you can come into this House and you can see that authority abused. It is too sad, but if all of us in opposition and in government could get our act straight and abide by the authority of the Chair, we would be far advanced.

Mr Elston: It's pretty obvious that the government will shut us down on this again, and I don't say that I'm surprised. I know they don't want us to raise opposition to their policies and their programs.

The people who have spoken in opposition to this resolution have a hollow ring to the language they have used to construct their arguments. People who pretend that something is happening in here that approaches democratic activity are being unhappily fooled by their leadership. I cannot understand how these people can stand here and defend the elimination of the freedom of speech in this place.

I wish to thank the member for Carleton, the member for Parry Sound and particularly the member for St Catharines, people who have had long experience here and who have gone through both opposition and government time. While all of us experienced the frustration of not being able to resist the Davis government in the days it was in power, and while those of us in the Liberal Party witnessed the frustration of being a government that couldn't always get its legislation through in a timely fashion, none of us wished to replace the democratic institution we have with something which prides itself in pure, unadulterated efficiency for the passage of public policy.

Democracy is not about efficiency. Democracy is about allowing people, particularly the minority in this province, to speak out and have their minds and their feelings understood in their opposition. If it was the right of every member to stand in his or her place to speak for 30 minutes on any bill he or she chose, perhaps that would be helpful. But the new rules prevent that from ever happening. No member will ever be able to speak for 30 minutes if he or she happens to be the 35th member of the Liberal caucus. We have to allow the members the right.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

TAX REFORM

Mr Perruzza moved resolution number 32:

That, in the opinion of this House,

whereas housing is a basic human right; and

whereas our current property tax system is regressive and bears no relevance on ability to pay; and

whereas successive, large, property tax increases have propelled property taxes to the highest levels ever; and

whereas the unemployed, low-wage earners, pensioners and others on fixed incomes have great difficulty in paying their property taxes; therefore, priority should be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation.

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

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I introduce this resolution here this morning because in my life as a politician, as a trustee on the school board, as a municipal councillor and now as a member of this Legislature, the single biggest issue people have taken up with me in my years in politics is precisely the issue of property taxes and their effect on people who can least afford to pay.

The property tax is generally seen and regarded as being a very regressive tax, a tax that essentially bears no relevance to ability to pay, a tax which is inherently unfair and quite frankly punishes the middle class of this province. It punishes very directly the middle-income earners and the low-income earners and people on fixed incomes and pensioners across the province.

I'd like to start off by putting the property tax in some kind of perspective. As you know, property tax in this province has been around since the province has been around, right from the first days of settlement in fact, and has progressed as such. It's traditionally paid for municipal services. It's traditionally paid for local school services as well.

But in recent years it has become abundantly clear to all parties and to former governments that this particular tax is very regressive and very difficult to deal with. We often hear the Progressive Conservatives talk about the good old days when they were in office in this province. Quite frankly, they tinkered with the property tax. They often tinkered with the education portion of the property tax: In 1969 they brought in their variable percentage grant plan, in 1971 they introduced ceilings, and so on and so forth.

The reason why they kept tinkering and adjusting it was because you could never achieve any sense of fairness. There will always be inequities built into the system. There will be inequities between communities; there are inequities between municipalities; there are inequities between regions. In some areas more moneys have been spent on education; in some areas less moneys have been spent on education. They continually tried to make those kinds of adjustments, and quite frankly, that never worked.

We often hear the Progressive Conservatives talk about the good old days when, in 1975, the provincial share of education funding was at 61%. What that means is that education is essentially funded in two ways: One is through the local property tax base; the other is through provincial grants which try to offset some of the inadequate assessments across the province.

So in 1975 the former Progressive Conservative government funded education to the tune of 61%. Well, by the time they were booted out and by the time they left office in 1985, that share had fallen to 44%. What this means is that more of the burden, more of the emphasis was placed on the local property taxpayer.

The Liberals were no better, quite frankly, because when they came to office in 1985, between 1985 and 1990 what you had in the province was unprecedented growth. In fact, they had so much money coming into this place they were literally buried under it and they didn't know what to do with it. They threw it here, they threw it there, they threw it everywhere, but very little went to education, because during those very heavy growth years the education portion of property taxes across the province increased to the tune of 45.4%, as listed here in this document that's printed by the Ministry of Education.

So that was essentially the Liberal solution to the property tax quandary, to the property tax dilemma, and here we are. To backtrack a little bit, both parties did all the studies, did all of the research with respect to this particular issue. Going back to 1985, I have here the Report of the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Ontario, a report commissioned by the Progressive Conservatives and essentially handed over to our Liberal colleagues when they were the government.

In this report the experts and the analysts spoke very clearly. I quote from the report from the experts. It reads:

"We recommend:

"24. That the government of Ontario introduce an education property tax credit program for residential and farm ratepayers and that the program be financed by an education tax on personal income."

Did the Liberals listen to this advice? No, because the Conservatives had received a similar kind of advice from their experts, advice which was left unheeded. Quite frankly, in 1990 the people in this province had enough of the Liberals as well and you know what happened to them.

In 1990, another further report commissioned again by our Liberal colleagues, a report entitled the Third Report of the Select Committee on Education. What did they do? They did precisely what the previous analysts and experts did. They recommended that you move towards a more progressive form of taxation, that education be removed from property taxes because low-income earners, middle-class Ontarians, people on fixed incomes and pensioners couldn't pay the heavy increases in the education portion of the property tax.

I quote from the report, to quote just very briefly the experts:

"The local share is raised virtually entirely from property taxation, which is seen to be more regressive; falling more heavily on those with less ability to pay than income and other forms of taxation. The question then becomes: Are all citizens being asked to pay a fair share of the costs of education? Is education finance being raised in an equitable way?"

The answer is no; very clearly it's no. So further experts recommended that this be done. In fact, they have a recommendation here in the back and they say they recommend that:

"23. The minister should establish a task force to examine options to make the tax base for education funding more progressive."

They should have done that, but obviously, as you can see, it isn't something they moved on, and quite frankly I think Ontarians spoke loudly in 1990 and they said, "Enough is enough."

I say again that the education portion of property taxes is regressive. It unduly penalizes low-income earners, people on fixed incomes and middle-class Ontarians and seniors, and they haven't been able to deal with the successive property tax increases that have been heaped on them. Quite frankly, this problem will continue to grow.

So the question begs to be asked, why is it that the PCs didn't listen to the experts? Why is it that the Liberals didn't listen to the experts? Is it a question of money? It may have been. For the Liberals in 1985 to do what the reports and the experts have said would have cost them $1.5 billion to phase in over a number of years. That wasn't excessive.

I think the issue for them was an issue of governance. They didn't want to deal with the sticky question of education governance. It's a tough question to deal with, there's no question, but I think that at some point someone's going to have to move in this direction. I think the issue of education governance is something that has to be dealt with. I think we have a responsibility to deal with it and we have a responsibility to move in this direction.

I'd like to conclude briefly, before I give my colleagues an opportunity to be able to debate and speak on this question, by saying that we have the studies, we have the experts and they have all spoken very clearly and very loudly. It's time to move now, and I ask my colleagues to accept these recommendations and move now in this direction.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I am pleased to rise today to participate in private members' hour to debate Mr Perruzza's resolution, which on the face of it repeats, as he pointed out, the recommendations of a number of studies over the course of a number of years.

His resolution, however, is very simplistic in light of that enormous work that has been done. It's simplistic because what Mr Perruzza has not acknowledged in this resolution is that if you remove one form of taxation or one form of revenue, you have to replace that with another. A resolution that comes forward after all the years and the studies of work that just says, "Only do one-half of the equation," is bordering on the deceptive to the people of this province, who would want to know what would be the implications of supporting this amendment.

I want to share with you, Mr Speaker, what I believe some of the implications of support for this amendment, in its present form, would be and why I believe it is wrong, premature, simplistic and irresponsible to support this amendment and this resolution in its present form.

The reason I believe this is that if you were to remove education from the property tax system -- let's say you were moving to the personal income tax. You would have to raise the personal income tax rate in this province by 13%. That's what the shift would be. Imagine what an increase in personal income tax would do to those very people who the member opposite has expressed concern about: a 13% income tax increase for middle-income earners, a 13% income tax increase for seniors, a 13% income tax increase for people on fixed incomes.

Do you know why what he's suggesting is so impractical? Because without looking at what those implications are for those people, you don't take into consideration the fact that many of them pay their property taxes through their rent. How would you ensure their rents went down? You couldn't guarantee that. So not only would they see a 13% increase in their personal income tax rate, but they would probably be double hit because you couldn't guarantee that they would see a reduction in their property tax through their rent.

You start to now see the complications of this very simplistic resolution, well-meaning as it is, and I'm not questioning the member's motivation; I am questioning the approach he's taken because it is extremely simplistic.

I would also question this member because he's been ranting and raving about what previous governments did or did not do. I want to point out to him what his own government did in the area of tax reform. First, they set up a tax commission. They have sent to that tax commission a whole host of issues relating to how we are going to pay for the important and valuable services that the people of this province expect, need, demand and require.

They have sent to the tax commission the whole question of how we're going to fund education, and more than that, education finance. I think that is an appropriate referral, because I've come to the conclusion, after having spent five years in government, that maybe there are two or three people in the Ministry of Education who actually understand how we finance education; those funding formulas are so complicated.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: I see the member for Sault Ste Marie agrees that there might be three who understand. I certainly do not understand education finance. It is very complicated.

When you're looking at a system of funding, you also have to look at clarification of how it's financed, and a simplistic change in how you fund it may not have the result you expect it is going to have.

One of the other things his government did, while professing concern for those people who are having difficulty paying their property taxes, which he suggests are regressive, is that his government removed -- hello, are you listening? -- the seniors tax grant, the $600 that was designed to help those people pay for their property taxes.

What you did was you turned it around. You took it from a grant to a tax credit. That tax grant was designed to give senior citizens relief in paying their property taxes. In the name of tax reform, you didn't do anything about that, but you did remove that tax grant. You took away that $600. You changed it into a tax credit so that it is even more difficult now for some seniors who had relied on that grant to assist them in paying their education taxes, in paying their property tax bill.

I would say to you that your change from a tax grant to a tax credit was hurtful to some of the seniors of this province because at the same time you removed $100 million overall from that program which the seniors of this province had relied upon.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Hurtful to whom? Which ones?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No, it's not. Be fair.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: I'm just laying out for the members of the government and this House the implications, the effects of their own programs. They don't like it, and I understand why --

Mr Wiseman: Be fair, Elinor. You've been briefed.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When the speaker says "order," he expects the members to obey. These are the procedures of the House. I would ask you to respect that.

Mrs Caplan: I do understand that the members of the government caucus are feeling a little provoked. Certainly, the member for Downsview, when he raised this issue, had to expect that the record of this government would be discussed and debated at the same time as this important issue that is before us today.

I want to point out to the member as well that there are a number of programs in place that help senior citizens and medium- and low-income earners. A number of municipalities have what they call their loan program, and that gives people with equity in their homes an opportunity to borrow or put a lien on their property to pay their property taxes. That's especially helpful during this time of recession.

I know in the case of North York that is a no-interest loan that's payable and due when the house is sold. So there is no additional burden on the person. They get to use the equity they have in their home and it allows people to stay in their home rather than having to leave it and move on at a time in their lives when perhaps they would just like to relax and enjoy their home environment and not have to think about moving.

How we are going to raise the revenues to pay for all these services becomes very important. I noticed just this week that when it came to a discussion of tax reform, this NDP government sent out a very mixed message to Metropolitan Toronto council.

They said, on the one hand: "We accept the fact that you are an autonomous, duly elected body that has responsibility for property tax reform. You should have the power, as every other municipality has, to change the way you levy your property taxes so that it will be fairer." We all know how unfair the present property tax system is in Metropolitan Toronto. "We are going to bring in enabling legislation to let Metropolitan Toronto proceed with its tax reform." Then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in the same breath, said: "We, however, are going to tell you what we're not going to permit five years from now.

We are going to tell you, Metropolitan Toronto, that we're not so crazy as to think we're going to be in government five years from now, and so we're going to make some political comments and send this back to you for further consideration as part of your legislation."

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that under Metropolitan Toronto's plan my constituents would benefit. Under Metropolitan Toronto's plan many of the people the member for Downsview has expressed concern about, those people who are middle- and low-income earners, senior citizens and tenants, would benefit, yet we've seen this government try to have it both ways. They talk about fairness, they talk about equity, they talk about tax reform, but when they realize the implications of what a specific proposal means, they get cold feet or they try to have it both ways on both sides of the issue.

That's why I believe Mr Perruzza's resolution is so misguided. You cannot have a thoughtful debate about how you are going to raise the revenues you need for the education of the children of this province unless you take a look at, "If you don't do this, what are you going to do instead?"

I would say to Mr Perruzza and to the members of this House that if you vote for Mr Perruzza's resolution, what you are saying is that a 13% provincial income tax increase is acceptable to you. What you're saying is that this kind of huge shift is acceptable to you. You haven't examined the burden or the implications or what that would mean, not only to individual taxpayers; you don't know what that would mean to the businesses, which also pay. Businesses also pay a very significant portion of education tax through the commercial assessment. What would you do about that, Mr Perruzza? Would you remove commercial assessment as well?

There are many, many questions that this resolution raises. It offers very few answers and I do not believe it is worthy of support. I believe it is simplistic and I also believe it is another example of a member of the NDP caucus saying one thing that sounds good -- a lot of rhetoric and, frankly, a lot of hot air. When it comes to doing anything, they do nothing, or in fact they do the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do.

I will not be supporting this amendment. It is misguided and irresponsible.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. We normally follow the rotation, but if you allow Mr Sorbara to speak the last two minutes and twenty seconds, I will do so. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence of the other members in the House.

I think this is one of the really significant resolutions that have appeared during private member's hour, and while I wouldn't agree with all of the

preamble of the member for Downsview's motion, I simply want to put on the record that I support this initiative wholeheartedly. I think it is long overdue that this Parliament and the government of Ontario begin to look at the dramatic transformation of the taxation system that this implies.

I agree with my colleague the member for Oriole that not all of the pieces of the puzzle are present here in this resolution, but we need to start somewhere. Education is too important and too thoroughly a provincial responsibility to leave it as a matter to be put on the backs of property taxpayers.

Certainly, my colleague the member for for Oriole is right that the property tax that individual citizens would pay would go down, and that those funds would have to be replaced from some other tax from some other source. My own recommendation is that in conjunction with this, we would undertake the first dramatic reform of the income tax system in the province of Ontario in years and years and years.

Yes, there are other problems involved there as well, because for the time being we use the federal tax base to determine what the rate of provincial income tax would be, at least for individuals, not for corporations. But the bottom line is, is it fair any longer to put the cost of education on the backs of property taxpayers?

My answer to that is no. I say it is high time to start to change that system, and I want to congratulate my friend the member for Downsview for bringing forward this resolution. I myself will be voting in favour of it. I hope that we see a large number of government members standing in their places and supporting this resolution, because that would send a clear message to the Minister of Education, who frankly has shied away over the past two years from all the big issues. This would get him out of his seat and into the arena where we really need reform.

Again thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence in letting me speak at this time.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to this resolution. On the surface, the resolution looks quite constructive and it appears quite positive. I'm just going to read the last part of the last sentence: "...priority should be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation."

On the surface it sounds great. All of us who pay such a major portion of our property taxes towards the cost of education couldn't help but think, "Well, this looks like a good idea," but that's where it ends. Unfortunately, that's where this resolution ends. It says "a more progressive form of taxation." It doesn't say what that form will be.

It is kind of interesting, I think, and probably significant, that this motion comes from a member of the current government, the current government that has raised taxes even more than the previous Liberal government did, the current government that continues to reduce its support for the cost of education at the local level.

The percentage of support from the provincial government to the local school boards has decreased to the point where this year it was a whole 1% increase over last year, but overall the proportion of support between the province and the local municipal taxpayers for the cost of education has been going in the wrong direction for the last seven years.

I will tell you that although the provincial average is 53% of the property tax for education, in the region of Peel and in the city of Mississauga that proportion is 62%. In Mississauga, 62% of our taxes go to the cost of education.

It's also of course really interesting to hear a member of the current socialist government say that the people of Ontario spoke loudly in 1990. If the member for Downsview thinks the people of Ontario spoke loudly in September 1990, all I can say to him is, he ain't heard nothing yet.

Wait till the people of this province speak loudly whenever this Bob Rae socialist government has the courage to call the next election, be it 1994 or 1995. There will be such a resounding statement by the people of this province at that time, when they say to the Bob Rae socialist government, "We have had it up to here. We are finished with the unnecessary taxation and cost-of-living increases in this province," which are directly attributable to this government.

I think it's terribly sad, and those members of his government who are laughing this morning will be laughing on the night of the election, because I hope they'll laugh instead of cry when, as my colleague the member from London likes to say, "They kissed their seats goodbye."

That's really what is going to happen to them, because the public understands very well when you change the rules for the property tax rebate for seniors. That's a very significant thing that took place with this government, just as it was equally significant when the former Liberal government added to the burden of the school boards the cost of employer health tax and reduced class sizes.

The Liberal government didn't go out and talk to any of the administrators or the school boards of our educational systems in this province and ask them if reduction of class size in grades 1 and 2 was a priority. They certainly didn't come to the region of Peel and speak to my school boards, where in the Dufferin-Peel separate school board almost half the students, 43%, are in portables and they already didn't have enough room for classes in the sizes we already had.

Those kinds of decisions have cost the taxpayers of this province million of dollars which they could not afford. The irony is of course that when you change the rules down here in the ivory tower at Queen's Park and say, "Thou shalt do this, this and this in the school boards," which add to the cost of the education system across the province, they don't first go and talk to them and say: "Is this your priority? Is this your choice from your point of view?" Oh, no. The government down here mandates the programs, tries to make itself look good and then falls flat on its face when the reality hits that all it means is a heavier, increased burden to the property taxpayers.

I think it's important to place on the record that there are other provinces in this country which have the same responsibilities we have in Ontario and their governments seem to be able to provide a different level of support for the cost of education. That's significant for their property taxpayers, because they don't face the same burden we face.

In Quebec it's 91.1%; in British Columbia it's 80%; Prince Edward Island -- you wouldn't think they would have an awful lot of money -- pays 100% of education funding; in Newfoundland it's 95%; Nova Scotia, 80%; Manitoba, 71%; Alberta, 63%; and Saskatchewan, 51%. Isn't that significant, when we can't even struggle our way back up to 60% on average across this province, let alone the fact that it's less than 40% in the region of Peel. Pretty significant figures, I think.

Certainly, the position of our caucus is that we agree that the current education funding formula is clearly inequitable, complicated and places too much of the burden on the residential tax base. Our party strongly supports the need for a new funding formula based on the principles of equity and fairness.

I also would like to place on the record that the impact of this resolution of the member for Downsview, if in fact it were to become a policy of his government, which is highly unlikely of course, is that it would require a 17% increase in provincial income taxes.

One other thing that I think should be said here this morning, because I totally support it, is that in addition to other positions by our party on this subject, we have endorsed the idea of unified school boards. The unified school board model would allow the public and separate boards to maintain their curricula and programs, but they would share administrative support services. Cost savings could be achieved in the areas of transportation, purchasing and administrative overhead.

Our party is committed to a full review of the education finance system. We will be developing a position in conjunction with the work of the Fair Tax Commission on this issue. Obviously, when we look at the situation as it exists today, it cannot continue. We are taxing people out of their homes. They've finally -- I'm particularly speaking of seniors -- reached the point where they've eliminated their mortgage and they can't afford to keep their homes because they can't afford the property taxes.

The property tax burden is a direct reflection of the downloading from the provincial government, particularly the last two provincial governments, on to the local municipalities and school boards. That situation cannot continue. It is totally unjust and unfair. I will support any changes that we can help to bring about where we can have a more equitable system for funding the educational cost in this province. I would like to leave the balance of my time to my colleague the member for Simcoe East.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I'm happy to speak today on the resolution of my friend the member for Downsview concerning property tax reform. It's a private member's resolution and it may not be framed in the context in which I would have placed it myself. Nevertheless, as an individual member, I will support his resolution.

Members of this House are aware that work is currently being done with regard to property tax reform by the Treasurer's Fair Tax Commission and through the Ministry of Education's education finance reform project. Once the work is completed by the ministry's reform project group, the Minister of Education will then be in a position to prepare options for a new framework for funding of elementary and secondary education in Ontario and to bring these suggestions forward for consideration.

We do not know what those options will be at this stage. In this respect, I would like to speak on tax reform regarding education. Currently, our funding system for elementary and secondary education is based on a 1968 model that is based on two principles: first, equality of educational opportunity for all pupils in Ontario and, second, equality of tax burden on local ratepayers.

This model is not adequate to reflect the educational system that is in place today as the two principles are no longer being met. Therefore, a new funding framework must be developed. The present model does not address equality in the tax burden on local ratepayers, nor does it address the requirements of equality in education for all Ontario students.

It is a fact that in 1976 the provincial share of education expenditures was 60%. Today it is much lower, standing at 39%. The reason for the decrease in cost-sharing by the ministry is not, however, because of cutbacks, but rather because school board budgets increased faster in the past 10 years than provincial grants and the consumer price index.

In 1991-92 expenditures by school boards were $12.7 billion. Of this the province provided $4.9 billion, and the remainder was raised through local taxes on residential property, commercial property and businesses. This year the total expenditures are estimated to be close to $14 billion. Reform of the current system of tax collection is necessary, but the solution is not easy and the task cannot be taken lightly, nor can we expect quick-fix solutions. This is not the style nor the approach of this government. Tax reform and education finance is extremely complicated. We must take the necessary time to fully explore all the implications of such reform.

It will, however, be achieved through a partnership, the true cooperation of all involved. School boards, the province, municipalities, parents and community organizations must work together, and we must keep in mind that we all share the same goal, to provide the best possible education for our children in a healthy learning environment.

Along with education finance reform, the Fair Tax Commission is looking at the entire property tax system. Any changes or reforms of either must coincide so that tax changes are fair to everyone, to both the property taxpayers and indeed all taxpayers.

In concluding, I just want to note that in bringing forward this resolution, the member for Downsview continues an approach that he has taken in this House of being logical, thoughtful and sensitive in areas that require reform. He's to be commended for his resolution.

He will be encouraged by the fact that property tax reform is currently under review through the Treasurer's Fair Tax Commission and the Ministry of Education's education finance reform project. Members of his riding and property taxpayers across Ontario will appreciate his efforts to promote fairness and equity for property taxpayers and will no doubt applaud his initiative. The member for Downsview sets a good example, a good role model for all members of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: There are six minutes left, I believe, for the member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to take

part in this debate this morning dealing with this resolution with regard to removing the education portion off the property tax bill.

For many years I have indicated that the tax portion on many property tax bills has been a burden on many people in this province, and especially on our seniors who have lived in their homes for many years and have sat there and are paying property taxes and have seen this education tax increase. It's really put a lot of seniors in a position where they may have to sell their homes.

In debating this resolution this morning, I want to relate back to an item I read with regard to the Agenda for People, "Restoring Education Funding/Property Tax Relief." This is the very issue we're talking about here this morning, and this is what the Premier said:

"The Liberals like to talk about international competitiveness and preparing for the next century. Yet they've broken their promise of 60% funding for elementary and secondary schools, putting the squeeze on quality education and property taxes.

"New Democrats propose raising the provincial share of education costs to 60% over five years, providing a solid base for a better education system and lifting some of the load of property taxes.

"The cost of this initiative over the next two years would be $1.5 billion. That's also $1.5 billion in property tax relief for Ontarians. We want to reverse the punishing increases in property taxes which hit seniors and low-income people especially hard."

That's this very same government that on August 19, in its Agenda for People, when running for election against David Peterson's Liberals, made this promise, made this commitment on property tax funding.

What we have here this morning is a backbencher from this government bringing in a resolution to remove the taxes of education off the property tax. I find this an unacceptable type of legislation to be dealing with when they made a promise, they made a commitment, of 60% funding to be restored within five years, and in essence it has gone down. What types of games are these people playing with the taxpayers of this province?

Sure, I agree with the resolution with regard to reducing the property taxes. As I've indicated, there are many people out there who find it an extra burden on the property taxes. Then we look at the budget of the ministry of the Treasurer with regard to the seniors' tax grants and how they have been changed. We look at the costs and the increased levies they are allowing the municipalities to charge, thereby increasing the cost of housing in this province. And that's part of this resolution: "whereas housing is a basic...right." That's what we agree with.

But this resolution, in putting these issues forward, is very contradictory to what they said when they were running for election. I find it hard to accept, when this government indicated with regard to education taxes how it wanted to increase the levy, what the province pays, back to 60%. In essence, it has gone down.

You know something? We sat here, and yesterday the Minister of Education made the announcement he's going to make an announcement today of what's going to happen with regard to the capital funding. What should have been announced back six months ago is being announced today.

We find it difficult to look into all the aspects of the effects of this, removing this property tax with regard to education. It's been indicated this morning that 17% would have to be added on to the income tax. But there's got to be a better way, there's got to be more accountability in the whole education system in the province of Ontario.

Some members have indicated that Bill Davis and the government previously brought in the full funding for the separate schools. We all know that Trudeau and Chrétien brought the Constitution home, and in that Constitution it said, "There shall be two fully funded school systems," those being the Protestant school system and the Catholic school system. Bill Davis was right in what he did, because that was in the Constitution. He had no choice, because if it had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, he would have been challenged and he would have lost. He did what he thought was right in the interests of the taxpayers of this province and for the education system of this province.

There are many people sitting over here now, chirping away, who don't know what happened within the Constitution. They don't realize what's going on with regard to the education system. We know what's happening. We know there was a promise made of 60% funding and we have now seen this promise has been broken.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): The economy and taxes are the two key issues in the province today. Last week I had a chance to speak with a lot of my constituents, and those are the two key issues.

I commend the member for Downsview for bringing a proposal for some reform of property taxes. This has always been an issue in my riding, and until we address it, it will always be an issue. In my riding, the seniors are upset. In my riding, the people on fixed incomes are upset. They claim and they feel that the amount of taxes they pay on their property is too much, it's just too high. They can't afford it any more and they're losing their homes. This gives us some hope.

I can tell you, when I came to this Legislature this morning, I felt there was no way that anybody in this Legislature could vote in opposition to this particular resolution, but after chatting to some of my colleagues in the House, I find there is a possibility that some people may turn their backs on these seniors. They may turn their backs on these individuals on fixed incomes who cannot afford their property taxes.

I want to make it very clear that's what you're going to do if you vote in opposition to this resolution. How could you possibly live with yourselves in turning your backs on those seniors who are on fixed incomes and who can't afford their property taxes? How could you possibly live with yourselves if you vote against this resolution?

It gives us some hope, and hope is what the people of Ontario want at this point. The economy and taxes are the two key issues. This addresses one of them. Actually, it addresses both of them; they're both tied in.

You are going to hear a lot of argument from those who perhaps have a little more money than some of us. The ability to pay taxes, a system that would allow for that, has never been high on the priority list for those who have money, those who are going to have to pay a little bit more in taxes, but it's fair. I commend the member for Downsview for having enough guts and enough stamina to put up with those arguments.

I share the same area pretty much that the member for Downsview shares, and I know a lot of the problems he is encountering I encounter as well in Yorkview. We're side by side. I can tell you that property taxes are --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you please keep your conversations down.

Mr Mammoliti: I don't know why people don't want to listen to this very important speech.

As I was saying, I can tell you that property taxes in our two communities, mine and Downsview, is the key issue. A change in property tax would provide some hope for those in our communities.

I urge every one of you in this Legislature today to vote in favour of this resolution. I urge all the backbenchers, all the MPPs in this Legislature, those who aren't paying attention at this point as well, to vote in favour of this resolution. It's important. I hope this goes through.

Mr Marchese: I stand to support the resolution introduced by Mr Perruzza as a very good resolution, and I want to make four points.

The first one is to agree with Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, who has taken a very balanced and reasonable position on this. We do not always agree, but on this particular issue I have to say we agree. That's my first point.

The second point has to do with the current tax system. The current tax system, as the resolution says, is a very regressive one. It's regressive because it's not based on ability to pay. It bears no relevance to their ability to pay, as when we speak of seniors and when we speak of people who are on low income. We have situations of people living next door to each other, one making $200,000 a year or $100,000 a year and someone making only $20,000 or $30,000 a year, paying the same amount of taxes. That's how unfair the current tax system is, and that is why we need to be able to change it.

It's true, as some members have said, like the member for Oriole, that there are some concerns. They are legitimate and they have to be addressed. She says, for example, that some tenants, who would be paying income tax if we change from the current system to an income tax system, would continue to be paying income tax, but would they be able to get their rebate once property taxes went down, once we've removed the education portion? She correctly raises a good point. We would have to make sure, once we have worked the details out, that that is addressed, and I agree with her.

There are other issues of governance, and it is true that if we collected income tax, there may be no reason for boards of education to exist, and we would have to look at that. It has serious implications in terms of income tax concerns, governance concerns and concerns for tenants, and they have to be addressed. But let's not confuse the principle or the concept of this resolution with the form or detail of the principle. As Mr Sorbara says, the pieces will come later.

Mrs Caplan, the member for Oriole, raises another interesting concern. She says we've removed the tax grant for seniors now and we've shifted to a tax credit, and she suggests by it that we will hurt seniors. I question not only the veracity of her remarks but also the honesty of her remarks.

What we have done is very consistent with a principle similar to the kind of motion that we put forth. What we're saying is that those seniors who are making $23,000 or less will continue to have the $600, and in fact in most cases they'll be making a lot more. Is that inconsistent with the kind of resolution we have here? Absolutely not. In fact, we're saying consistently that those who have less should be getting more.

As a concluding remark, I want to say that we want our government to address the issue of education funding reform and begin in a gradual way to achieve equality and equity for those who have the least.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, you have two minutes, plus whatever remains.

Mr Perruzza: I'd like to pick up once again very briefly where I left off. The point was made by one of my Liberal colleagues, the member for Oriole -- and she spoke very directly to this particular issue; that is, the issue of removing education from property taxes, getting the burden of education off the backs of middle-income earners, middle-class Ontarians, seniors, people on fixed incomes and low-wage earners. She talked about the difficulties this would pose, because if you did this, you would somehow have to go to some other form of revenue and find the same amount of money.

To put that in perspective, what that says is that we cannot move away from a regressive form of taxation because we raise X amount of money and therefore we would have to go to another, more progressive form of taxation and raise exactly the same amount of money. That's the argument. That's the point that the member for Oriole was trying to make.

What this says to me very directly is that what she's talking about is, "Let the poor pay not in proportion to their income, not in proportion to their abilities, but in proportion to the house that they need to live in, that they must live in." That's what the member for Oriole is saying.

What she is saying is: "Don't make it progressive, don't touch the top wage earners, don't touch the fat cats, my friends, because if you go after them and they are making $100,000 a year, $500,000 a year, $1 million a year, their share is exactly the same as that individual or that family which is making $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year in combined income." That's what the member for Oriole, my Liberal colleague, is saying, and I find that obscene. I find that kind of argument, that kind of rhetoric coming from my Liberal friend totally unacceptable.

She talked about tenants. How do you ensure and how do you secure that you give back to tenants any scale-back, any reduction in the property tax portion they must bear? You only need to go through the reports. You only, I say to my Liberal friend, read the reports you commissioned. It's in here. You can do it a number of ways. One of the most direct is just simply giving them a rebate. Send them a cheque. We have the facilities in the Ministry of Revenue. We have the high-tech computers. Calculate what their portion is, how much they've paid, and send them back a cheque. That's simple enough. It's not as convoluted and as complicated as she would make us believe.

My Conservative friends' classic argument is, "Raise the provincial share to 60%." Well, doing that doesn't lower the property tax rate that people can't afford to pay.

I will not yield, I will not bend on this issue. I hope many of my colleagues do essentially the same and I hope that we do not rest until the task at hand is done.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired. Will the members please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, I would ask you to refrain from talking.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Mr Elston. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I'll wait. When you're ready I'll continue.

Mr Elston has moved private member's resolution number 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Please take your seats. Pursuant to standing order 96(f), the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

TAX REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr Perruzza. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Perruzza has moved private member's resolution number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Call in the members for a vote on ballot item number 32; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the members please take their seats. Mr Elston has moved private member's resolution 31. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Jordan, Kormos, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Nays

Akande, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27, the nays 31.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 27; the nays are 31. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here today to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services to intervene before it is too late.

The Community Network of Childcare Programs is a non-profit, community-based organization that has worked closely with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This organization is providing essential, cost-effective support for members of the city of North York child care community. The CNCP has been a great help to the community-based, non-profit child care system in North York. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has benefited from CNCP, as well as the citizens of Ontario.

It's for this reason that I was alarmed to hear that the ministry has not yet committed to continue to support CNCP for 1992-93. CNCP will not be able to survive on its current membership fees and fund-raising revenues alone. They're not in a position to ask their members to provide more funds. It's imperative that CNCP receive a commitment to continue funding in order not to jeopardize the important services that ensure quality child care is provided in Ontario. CNCP provides services to child care centres which are funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

They're not asking for new money. They're simply asking for security and a commitment to what they have. Time is running out. Action must be taken. Please, Minister, intervene and do not betray your commitment to non-profit child care support.

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It's with some regret that I must again draw attention to the silly and harmful behaviour of bureaucrats who are attacking agriculture again in this province.

In recent weeks, Ministry of Health bureaucrats have been charging cheese plants for not refrigerating cheese curds immediately upon manufacture. Anyone knows that cheese curds, for as long as cheese has been made in this country, have not been refrigerated, and curds are meant to be eaten fresh and squeaky. In fact, modern science tells us that the lactic acids produced in cheese curds at room temperature kill harmful bacteria that would actually grow if curds were refrigerated, another example where plain common sense does not prevail.

Unfortunately, the fact that traditional measures are safer and have been proven safer means nothing to the bureaucrats working for the Ministry of Health. These bureaucrats play God, and nothing changes their opinion. Ontario's milk and cheese producers are being forced to absorb unnecessary court costs in order to defend themselves against these irresponsible and ill-informed bureaucrats who are allowed to run loose.

If the Minister of Health is looking at ways to trim her budget, I can point out that these so-called inspectors are the first ones she should be cutting. No matter what the excuse is, there is no legitimate reason why these charges should have been laid before any reasonable and sane investigation. Cheese curds are made to be eaten fresh.

ZIGMUNT SOJKA

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of the death and life of one of the greatest environmentalists my riding has produced: Zigmunt Sojka, known better as Ziggy. My friend died November 5 at the age of 74.

Less than two years ago Ziggy received an Ontario Senior Achievement Award in recognition of his brave fight to save our environment. Ziggy, a resident of Fenwick, was president and founding member of the Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal, a citizens' group which today continues to battle Ontario Waste Management Corp's bid to construct a toxic waste treatment plant in west Lincoln.

Under Ziggy's leadership, the citizens' group successfully lobbied municipal, regional and provincial governments. Ziggy was smart in his fight against the OWMC. He refused to use a negative approach. Instead, he suggested positive alternatives. Newspapers throughout Niagara have written colourful stories on Ziggy and his crusade against OWMC, a crown corporation created a decade ago by the Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis.

A native of Poland, Ziggy immigrated to Canada from England in 1954 with his wife, Sheila. Ziggy's four children were raised to be "environmentally friendly."

Ziggy was an active and well-liked member of his community. Prior to his retirement he was a boat builder, construction worker, carpenter, farmer and store owner. He was a soccer coach, president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an active member of the St Catharines District Labour Council and an active member of my riding association.

It is individuals like Ziggy who make Ontario a wonderful province in which to live. He'll be missed dearly by those who knew him and those who will be fortunate enough to live in a cleaner, safer world because of him.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It's really a sad day when the NDP government is forced to dredge up two-year-old announcements in an effort to generate good economic news. Witness this week's declaration by the Premier in Asia that because of his visit, Japan's Kubota had decided to expand its Orillia plant to the tune of $10 million. The Treasurer stood up in this House and said that this is why Bob Rae went to Asia.

Well, the Premier and the Treasurer should have searched back a little bit in their clipping files, because Kubota made this announcement two years ago. They made the announcement before this government's string of $10-billion deficits; they made it before its changes to the labour law; they made it before the NDP government destroyed this economy with its foolish economic policies. But the Premier is still trumpeting this news as if it happened just this week.

With 547 jobs disappearing every working day in the province of Ontario, Bob Rae should have stayed home in Ontario and not tried to stage-manage this old news to justify his junket to Asia. The Premier should stay here, should be talking to the people at General Motors, to the people at Ford, to the people in this province about their economic future instead of going over there and bringing out old news, trying to pretend that he's made some major coup and misleading the people of this province.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The Interim Waste Authority will announce the dump short list tomorrow, and this will continue the unwelcome process of locating three megadumps in York, Durham and Peel started by Bob Rae and Ruth Grier.

There will be no rejoicing. What the IWA and the government are doing is wrong.

Bill 143 takes away property rights and legal rights of individuals and municipalities. It's wrong because it's touching on environmentally sensitive lands and prime agricultural lands. It's wrong because the government refuses to look at other options such as rail haul or incineration. It's wrong because submissions to the IWA were denied after August 6. It's wrong because the boundaries are limited to the greater Toronto area. It's wrong in so many ways.

But, I'll tell you, we will not surrender. The people in York, Durham and Peel will not give in to this government.

Front 1 will be against the government itself. We will have a political battle against Bob Rae and Ruth Grier. The garbage queen of this earth will be run off it. This government will be put to ashes. We will not allow these government policies to be initiated.

The second front will be a technical front on the IWA itself, to make the IWA examine all the facts. The people out there are ready for battle. We've had two months' rest while they've been putting this together, and when we start into this, the people will triumph and this government will fall, and one of the reasons it will fall in 1995 is because of its dump policy, its garbage policy -- and all its policies are garbage as well.

EVENTS IN OXFORD

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'd like to comment, on a more positive note, about two key events that I attended during constituency week.

The first one was on the weekend. I attended the third annual Monte Carlo night put on by the Princeton Optimist Club. I should say that the Princeton Optimist Club has been in existence for only three years but in that time it has been very active in serving the needs of the community. I was very pleased to be at the Monte Carlo night and to make the draw on the raffle for a brand-new truck. I was very pleased to do that, and the winner lives in the village of Princeton. The Optimist Club continues to do very good work in that community and the community was certainly out in full support. I want to congratulate all the organizers of that.

The second event I attended on the weekend was the opening of the new facility by the Good Beginnings Day Nursery. They have been able to finally, after moving around from many temporary sites, find a permanent site at the old Berean church on Devonshire Avenue in Woodstock.

The Good Beginnings Day Nursery has a very strong reputation of providing good quality day care for the community. It is a non-profit day care centre, operated mainly by the parents of those individuals. These two examples show, when people put a great deal of dedication in, what they can accomplish in the community of Oxford.

LANDFILL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): His worship the member for Markham made a statement with respect to the Interim Waste Authority and the list that will be released tomorrow. I say to members that the Minister of the Environment has again misrepresented the situation; these sites will not be interim at all. They will have a lifespan of at least 20 years. The interim sites that belong to this minister are the expanded sites at Keele Valley and Britannia.

The news that's going to be made tomorrow has many communities in the region of York, Durham and Peel shuddering with dread. Many of the groups were formed to fight this government's heavy-handed, dart-board, ill-advised, nonsensical, absolutely outrageous selection process and they're gearing up for another round of rallies and demonstrations, the likes of which Mrs Grier, as Minister of the Environment, has never seen nor ever could have contemplated.

I want to remind members and the minister that she has only herself to blame for the incredible chaos that exists in the regions. It's her own fault that she's now commonly referred to not as the Minister of the Environment but as the minister of garbage.

The minister's Interim Waste Authority promised residents who live in the vicinity of potential dump sites that they would have at least two days' warning before the short list was announced. None of the residents had that warning and had no idea that the list would be announced until they read the government's PR spin as reprinted in this morning's Globe and Mail.

Residents and citizens groups feel betrayed once again. They feel let down by this government. That PR spin, reprinted, talks about Mrs Grier as an ardent environmentalist -- an environmentalist, I say, who has betrayed the trust of the people of this province, who has violated every fundamental environmental principle as she has started this terribly ill-advised, absurd process.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise to once again bring the matter of the northern health travel grant program to the attention of the Minister of Health.

As the minister is aware, there are three requirements which Ontario residents must meet in order to qualify for this program. First, the applicant must live in an area designated as part of northern Ontario, for the purposes of the program. The second requirement is one of distance. The third requirement dictates that the general practitioner who refers the resident for specialized medical treatment must be a northern physician.

As a result of the third requirement, there are still some residents in the district of Parry Sound who are being denied access to the program. I have held several discussions with the Minister of Health regarding this matter.

I do want to recognize the fact that it's under her supervision that changes have been made to the program allowing most Parry Sound residents eligibility for the program. However, the third requirement still prevents some Parry Sound constituents from receiving specialized medical treatment because they are ineligible for the program.

The situation has been further exacerbated by the closing of the Burk's Falls and District Hospital and the recent death of Dr Bev Hallam. Many residents of the southeastern part of the riding must now travel to Huntsville in the district of Muskoka in order to consult a general practitioner. These residents are barred from participating in the northern health travel grant program.

The minister has been reviewing this regulation for close to a year now and I believe sufficient time has passed to allow the ministry to come to a decision on this matter.

SHAW FESTIVAL

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to congratulate the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake on its record-breaking 1992 season. Members will have received a press release from the Shaw Festival outlining details of its success, and I would just like to take a few moments to highlight some.

The Shaw Festival was so successful this year it broke all previous records set for paid attendance, with almost 279,000 people taking in this season's performances. This represents an increase of more than 33,000 tickets over 1991.

The Shaw is clearly a cultural force in Canada and indeed in North America, and for the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake it holds special significance as one of the town's principal employers and as a leading tourist attraction.

Most recently, the chamber of commerce paid tribute to the Shaw by naming it the Business of the Year in Niagara-on-the-Lake. While the company as a whole is responsible for this success, I feel certain individuals must be singled out and congratulated for their outstanding efforts. These individuals include the artistic director, Christopher Newton; the administrative director, Elaine Calder; the marketing director, Anne Trites; and the publicity manager, B.J. Armstrong.

It is indeed a tribute to the administrative and artistic creativity of the Shaw Festival that it would achieve its most successful season to date in some of the worst economic times we have experienced in decades. After such an outstanding year, the people behind the Shaw have certainly earned their moment in the spotlight. If you missed the 1992 season, join us for 1993.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member from the riding of Port Arthur, who's seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Jim Foulds. Welcome to our gallery.

APPOINTMENT OF CLERK ASSISTANT AND CLERK OF COMMITTEES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is my great pleasure to announce to you today the appointment of Mrs Deborah Deller as clerk assistant and clerk of committees in replacement of Mr Smirle Forsyth, who resigned recently for health reasons.

Mrs Deller has worked for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in various capacities since 1979, and we all wish her the best of good fortune in her new responsibilities. I would ask members to welcome her to her new position.

Interjections: Speech.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to move unanimous consent that Ms Deller be given 30 minutes to address the Legislature.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Agreed.

The Speaker: I don't know, from the table.

Mrs Marland: But the Clerk doesn't know that.

The Speaker: Not normally.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): That's not normal? When has that ever stopped us?

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I must say before beginning a ruling that the normal courtesy of providing a ruling only when the member who rose to his or her feet to bring a point of order to the attention of the Speaker has been set aside at the request of the member for Ottawa South, as he expressed to me that he felt the ruling was more important than his particular attendance. With your indulgence, we set that courtesy aside.

On Tuesday, November 17, 1992, the member for Ottawa South (Mr McGuinty) rose on a question of privilege concerning developments arising out of the proceedings that occurred at a meeting of the standing committee on resources development during its consideration of a matter designated pursuant to standing order 125. The member for Bruce (Mr Elston), the member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves) and the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) also spoke to this matter.

At the outset, I want to remind the House of previous rulings related to proceedings in committee. The Speaker cannot rule on a procedural matter that occurs in any committee of this Legislature unless the request to do so comes by way of a report from that committee. As Speaker Edighoffer indicated at page 44 of Hansard for March 21, 1990, "Matters arising out of the proceedings before committees should be settled in the committee, and only if a report comes forward from the standing committee to the House dealing with the member's question of privilege could this matter be studied by the Speaker." This has been our practice both before and since that time.

I have to say, then, that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to clarify the procedures with respect to the issue raised by the member for Ottawa South.

Members will know that there is a well-defined procedure for the issuance of a Speaker's warrant and that the requirements of

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act must be met before the Speaker exercises a discretion to issue a warrant.

Section 35 of the act states that:

"

(1) The assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly or a committee thereof of such persons, and the production of such papers and things, as the assembly or committee considers necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations.

"

(2) When the assembly requires the attendance of a person befor