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

October 20, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think we have a quorum in the House.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WEEK OF THE CHILD

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): This week the Association of Early Childhood Educators initiated its 13th annual Week of the Child. This is a tradition that was initiated by the association following the 1979 United Nations International Year of the Child.

This week serves as a reminder that we must always be responsive to the needs of children in our society. Children of today are our future -- our future workers, parents and decision-makers of tomorrow's world. Children are in fact our most precious resource, and we always keep this knowledge uppermost in our minds.

The Week of the Child is a time within our communities across Ontario when we should reflect on the rights and needs of our children and renew our commitment to improve the quality of opportunities for all children and their families.

During the week communities across this province will be hosting workshops and seminars, displays in local malls, concerts and open houses in schools among many other activities. The weekend will bring early childhood educators from all over the province to Toronto to discuss issues that will promote the wellbeing of children.

We wish the Association of Early Childhood Educators all the best during the Week of the Child celebrations and throughout the year and commend it and its membership for the outstanding contribution they are making to early childhood education in Ontario.

MPP CHALLENGE RACE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): You will remember that last summer I challenged all interested members to a stock car race at the Varney Speedway on Friday, July 24.

Fourteen members from all three parties accepted my invitation and competed in one of the two qualifying heats. The top eight finishers raced in the final run. All members drove WOW-class -- women on wheels -- vehicles, which are six-cylinder, automatic cars donated by the track's registered women members.

There were disappointments, of course, like the member for Brampton North, who qualified for the final run and then, because of engine trouble, was left at the post. But on the whole it was a very successful evening, and I know most of the members really enjoyed themselves.

I would like to thank Tom Donnelly and Doreen Watson from the speedway, who organized the races and did so much to make everyone feel welcome, as well as Durham's mayor, Floyd Lawrence, and his council and surrounding councils for hosting a reception for us following the race.

I hope to see everyone who competed this year as well as other interested members next July 16 for the second Bill Murdoch Challenge Race, which I hope will be a yearly event.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the 1992 trophy winner, Chris Stockwell, MPP for Etobicoke West, and congratulate him on a race well driven.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I don't need to tell members that this House is a very partisan place. As members together, though, there are times when we work together, say in committee; but again, that's a very partisan place. There are occasions when we attend our colleagues' ridings, for example, to speak at an annual general meeting; of course, again that's a very partisan place.

But the member for Grey arranged a non-partisan event. It was an event held at the Varney Speedway which was an opportunity to show his constituents that yes, we as members of this Legislature can work together. Though it made you wonder whether we did have little partisan advantages at times, for example, when the seat broke on the back of the car that I was driving, with three laps to go. I managed to finish third hanging on to the doorpost and the steering wheel at the same time.

Driving at this event showed that there are times when we can be non-partisan. Perhaps this isn't the place we can be non-partisan, in this House, but I guess there are times we do come together. For example, with the referendum, the majority of this House has been coming out very supportive towards the Yes. That does happen from time to time.

As a member of the New Democratic caucus, I want to congratulate the member for inviting us. As all of us came there, and I don't know whether it was a setup or not, but at least I placed in the top three so that our caucus was well supported.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to comment on the race as well. I'll try not be overly partisan, but when we got to the track it was clear it was an NDP track. The whole thing turned to the left, and it was banked to turn to the left faster.

Then we got into the pits and it reminded me a little bit of the Legislature around here, where there were parts all over the place, people working to try to get things started, a lot of stuff not rolling along too well, and even when it did get rolling there were still parts in the pit.

Then when we got to the race itself, Mr Speaker, it reminded me a little bit of question period. You will appreciate this, I think. We all got our helmets on and got in line to come out for question period and then the starter, a bit like you at question period, drops the green flag, we race around, bump into each other with a lot of noise and shouting. Finally we get to the end and, like you, Mr Speaker, the flagman drops the finish flag and we stop, and there we are back exactly where we started. That's sometimes how I feel here in question period, so it reminded me a little bit of the Legislature here.

The only disappointment to me was that Chris Stockwell and I had a little deal. He was supposed to allow me to finish first at the end, but he got a little confused and thought the checkered flag was the flag for the last lap and finished first, ahead of me. So I'll present the trophy to Chris Stockwell.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Metro's plan to base property taxation on 1988 so-called market values is the most serious threat to the existence of Toronto and North York's commercial and residential neighbourhoods since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Temporary capping is designed to lull owners and tenants into thinking they do not need to worry. In reality, it is only to postpone the full impact. The fact that the artificially high boom year of 1988 was selected should be enough to throw the whole scheme out. But those whose focus is limited to the present are fighting for the few extra dollars this plan may put in their pockets for next year.

As the effects of market value assessment are felt, as stores close, as the value of homes drops and businesses leave, the tax burden will increase on all those left. A look at the tax impact on some of the commercial properties in my riding shows why we must fight this unfair location tax.

A gas station goes from $45,000 to almost $200,000. A small store has a 120% increase; a bank, 170%. These stories are repeated endlessly throughout the central core of Metro. No business can afford these massive taxes, not now and not in the future. The NDP once believed in saving jobs and neighbourhoods. It's time for them to get back to their grass roots. I call on Premier Bob Rae to refuse enabling legislation. Defeat MVA.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I rise today to make a statement on behalf of my neighbouring MPP in Don Mills, Margery Ward. Margery asked me to read this on her behalf because of the importance of science and technology to our school system and our future development as a province.

This week is Science and Technology Week, and it is only appropriate to recognize the Ontario Science Centre, which is located in Margery's riding of Don Mills.

The Ontario Science Centre was established by this Legislature in 1965 as Ontario's project celebrating Canada's centennial. Opening in 1969, the centre has educated and entertained more than 27 million visitors of all ages with interactive exhibits and programs.

Since 1990, new exhibits have included Mindworks, Matter Energy Change, Space, and the Challenger Learning Centre, as well as the return of the popular exhibit Sport. Currently, a major new exhibit is being developed called the Living Earth.

Programs at the centre provide a human link with the visitor. Almost a quarter of a million students participate in educational programs each year. Other programs include lectures, presentations and conferences. Weekend programs and children's summer camp are designed to open minds to science and technology.

As it approaches its 25th anniversary in 1994, it's most fitting for this House to acknowledge the Ontario Science Centre's international stature as a lifelong learning centre.

NORTH YORK GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise in the House today to congratulate North York General Hospital, located in Oriole riding, as it celebrates its 25th anniversary year.

During this time of recession and severe economic constraint, North York General Hospital has been able to provide new facilities for child development and counselling services, day surgery facilities were expanded and inpatient services improved. A teen clinic was established to address the problems encountered by adolescents in the community, and a state-of-the-art electronic link now connects North York General Hospital with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This electronic link puts North York General Hospital at the leading edge of health science technology in the world.

Through continuous improvement processes in their organizational review and consultation with many groups in the community, North York General has become a leader in total quality management. Congratulations to the North York General Hospital board, its outstanding volunteer board, dedicated staff and excellent administration for their many successes, especially during these very difficult and challenging times. You should be most proud of yourselves, but the whole community is proud and thankful for your 25 years of outstanding service.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): This is Public Library Week, and I'm pleased to say that the staff at the Kingston Public Library is marking it in some very creative ways.

There is an amnesty on fines and overdue material that is returned this week. Patrons celebrating library week in this way are given the opportunity of matching the library's generosity with a donation to the Partners in Mission Food Bank.

Tonight, Audrey Thomas, a pioneer in adult literacy in Canada, will be discussing this important topic at the central branch. Thursday night will see the inaugural meeting of a Friends of the Library group in Kingston. It purpose will be to promote and enhance the services provided by the Kingston Public Library. Finally, there is a competition under way featuring submissions on how the library can save you money in hard times. There are prizes in both adult and children categories, and entries will be accepted until the end of October.

These activities show how vibrant our public libraries can be. Thus, what better place to be challenged to think about food banks than in a library whose resources can be used to look for ways to put food banks out of business. Or think of the great issue of the day, the referendum; the library can help voters make up their minds about this question by providing them with the wording of the accord as well as a great variety of commentary. The library can also provide the historical context in which we can see the difficulties overcome in building this country since 1867 and before. In this way, we gain a deeper appreciation of the constructive nature of the Charlottetown accord.

Whether you are looking up the stats of the Blue Jays or are trying to decide Canada's future, the library is the one place to look. I know my colleagues join me in commemorating this essential service in our community.

ALEXANDER RUNCIMAN

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My leader and some of my colleagues are absent from the Legislature today to attend the funeral of Alexander "Sandy" Runciman, who died Friday night at the age of 75. Sandy, as many of you may be aware, is the father of our fellow colleague Bob Runciman, the MPP for Leeds-Grensville.

Sandy was active in community life on many levels. His concerns covered a wide area, including industrial development, the health field, education, conservation, sports, politics and, very much, music. In fact, he had his own band for 20 years and played the saxophone, violin and bass viol.

Sandy played a major role in Brockville's industrial development. He was a founding member of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. He helped established St Lawrence College. He sat on the board of governors for the Brockville General Hospital for many years and was director of the children's aid society. As well, Sandy had a long and notable journalistic career with the Brockville Recorder and Times. In fact, he was the voice of the Brockville Recorder and Times for many years.

Many of my fellow members here will remember Sandy as a political adviser to some distinguished politicians: Jimmy Auld, Johnny Matheson, Tom Cossitt and, of course, his son Bob. Father and son have sat through more than one election campaign together, Sandy not only being a successful campaign manager and political adviser but a confident father and, most of all, a great friend to Bob Runciman.

Today I would like to extend my sincere condolences on behalf of all members of this Legislature to Sandy's wife, Thelma, their family and, of course, our colleague Bob Runciman.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? It is time for oral questions and the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of interest, Mr Speaker, which is always kind of hard to get by you. Is there a reason that the outdoor elements are coming into our chamber today?

The Speaker: I trust you're not referring to anything that's live. I realize that the temperature is a bit on the cool side in here. We have experienced a little heating problem. We are attending to it, and aside from the normal source of warmth in the chamber, I suspect we will soon have a chamber that is at the appropriate temperature.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Before we get to question period, Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like to raise with you. It revolves around our continuing saga with Bill 40, and on a matter of interest, some of the carryings-on with respect to the way in which the amendments have been dealt with in committee.

As you know, our standing orders, starting at

section 67 and going fully through

section 79, lay out the procedures by which bills are to progress through this place and in fact how they are to be amended and the manner in which certain things are done in the committee.

I have in particular probably, when it's all boiled down, two particular points of interest that I would like you to look into in relation to the manner in which this bill has been dealt with. It has nothing to do with the fact that a time allocation motion was put in effect by the government party under the new rules, which really prevent us from doing much extra work in the committees or even really performing our job of analysing bit by bit all the pieces of the legislation that we would want to.

But it does have to do, in an indirect way, with the manner in which the business of tabling amendments and then voting on those amendments has been carried out in this place -- in actual fact in the committees -- in this Legislative Assembly.

First point --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: If some people will let us carry on this little point of interest, the first point is this: There were nearly, I understand, 200 amendments brought forward to be dealt with in the Legislative Assembly's committee dealing with Bill 40. Because of the time allocation motion, it was deemed that our last day in that place would really comprise only about half an hour's time in which to deal with the votes on all of those amendments.

The time allocation motion which was presented by the government party and passed -- over our great concern because it meant that we wouldn't be able to examine the amendments and the sections properly -- really said that all the amendments would be deemed to have been moved in committee. It seems to me that this is one element which we can take, because the will of the majority of this place, the New Democrats, has said that it doesn't really matter whether or not we actually get to read those amendments as long as they deem them all to have been read into the record.

What concerns me is this: that when the vote was to be taken, the time allocation motion was silent on whether or not we should dispense with any of the other rules of procedure around this place in regard to taking the vote, namely, that when a piece of legislation is to be amended, it is the right of each member in this place to have the amendment read to her or to him so that they know precisely what is to take place with respect to the vote. It is quite clear that none of us can do our business if we are unsure or if it is possible that something new can be put on the table to be considered and we are unaware of it.

I would like to read not all seven pages, but at least a couple of examples of how the conduct of our committee business carried on with regard to the last stages of Bill 40. Here is the dialogue -- sorry, this is the script for the Chair of the committee:

"Shall

section 1 of the bill carry? Shall

section 2 of the bill carry? Shall

section 3...?" and so on, until they come to an amendment. It says, "Shall

section 6 of the bill carry?" Then it says, "Shall the deferred PC amendment to

section 7(2)(4) carry?" without having any opportunity for the people to reacquaint themselves with the text of the amendment.

I'm sure it was a sound piece of work done by my colleagues sitting to the left, but far to my right, and I have to say that it really does take away from the business of this place to prevent the reading of the amendment in the committee when the vote is to be taken.

My view is, under the current --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: Some of these guys don't want to listen, but it's important business for us, Mr Speaker, so that we can do the will of the people.

Under the circumstances here, the people expect us to know exactly what we're voting on, and there is nothing, in my view, in the time allocation motion which prevents the reading of each of those amendments as they are to be voted on. Yes, they've been deemed to be moved to make sure they don't fail for being out of time -- that's fair; I have no problem with that -- but each of us has the right to have the amendments read as we vote on them, and nothing in that time allocation motion takes away that right.

It is my view, therefore, that not only is it a bad piece of procedure; it is a piece of procedure which now cannot be perfected after the fact. It is, in my view, a nullity, and we therefore must reconstitute the committee to redo the votes with respect to the amendments which were pledged to be taken up in the Legislative Assembly.

I appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I've gone on long, but these are important pieces of information.

The second point is this: In our standing orders, and contained in the sections which I have enumerated for you, is a provision which says that if there are amendments to be filed during consideration of the bill in committee, there shall be, time permitting, a filing of those amendments with the clerk of that committee some two hours before the bill is to be considered.

Last week, late in the week, in fact, some 26 new amendments were brought forward by the government party at the last moment for consideration, without any of the two-hour notice, and it seems to me it really violated our opportunity to consider those amendments in their full sense.

From my point of view, not only were they filed late, but the fact that there remained only 30 minutes yesterday to deal with the balance of the amendments really precluded, by that late filing, any discussion of the texts of those amendments whatsoever. They, like every other of the amendments, were deemed to have been read in and then not even read when they were voted upon. It seems to me that likewise is a nullity as a result of the fact that it really does violate the spirit of our ability as members to do our work by seeing, by discussing, by questioning and then reporting.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to look into those two issues: one, the late filing of those amendments, which really did preclude the opposition from doing any real work on those late amendments, and secondly, why or how it was that the committee felt it was in order to not even have read, prior to a vote being taken, any of those amendments as tabled.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to find that yesterday's work was in essence a nullity and that it should be sent back to be perfected only by actually doing the work, as required by our standing orders, and that work, in my view, has not been compromised in any sense by the stringent provisions of that time allocation motion which those majority government people foisted upon us earlier in the year.

The Speaker: To the House leader for the official opposition: I appreciate the matter which he's brought to my attention, both items, and while I am pleased to consider what he's brought to my attention, I must note that the work of the committee was by the order of the House and that the very points which he raised might best have been raised in the committee itself.

However, having said that, I am pleased to consider what he's brought to my attention. I realize it is a matter of importance to him and no doubt to other members as well.

It is time for oral questions and the member for Bruce.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On the same point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order, the member for York Mills?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, on the same point of order: I too am concerned with the way in which this was handled in the respect that the government filed many of its amendments just a few hours before the end of committee hearings, which didn't give us an opportunity to review them.

Additionally, the government committed, in a public announcement, that it was going to bring in certain amendments with respect to replacement workers. The amendments which were filed did not include that.

As a further comment I would add the following: I think, in view of the very serious situation we find ourselves in in this country today, where we have a referendum in a few days' time, it would be appropriate not only that the clause-by-clause in committee hearings be extended, but in addition to that, that the hearings in the House of this very important matter, which affects everybody in Ontario, should be deferred until after the referendum.

The Speaker: To the member for York Mills, I believe that the items he's brought to my attention are indeed what was brought to my attention by the member for Bruce. As I stated to him, I'd be pleased to consider the matters, and I note, of course, that perhaps the member for York Mills would have been better served had he raised the matters in the committee, and that the actual sitting was at direction by the House. None the less, it's an important matter and I will be pleased to take a look at it.

It's time for oral questions.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Matter of privilege?

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, if you would please bear with me, I feel that my privileges as a member have been infringed -- and probably every member on this side of the House, at least, has had his or her privileges infringed -- by a recent memo.

"Memo

"To: All MPPs

"From: Sharon Murdock, chair, personnel committee

"Subject: Stress management sessions

"As a follow-up to the stress management sessions held at caucus retreat, two sets of sessions on coping with stress will be provided this fall. Descriptions of the sessions are attached. Please note that each session consists of four two-hour sessions. To benefit most, you must commit to attend all four sessions in each program."

First session: "Coping with midterm stress, Mondays 8:30-10:30 am, November 2, 16, 23 and December 7."

Second session: "Chaos management and strategic planning."

For this government, I think that goes without saying.

"Wednesdays 6:30-8:30 pm, November 4, 18, 25 and December 9.

"Sign me up for: (please circle one) Coping with midterm stress or chaos management and strategic planning

"Member name

"If you plan to take part, return this form to Leslie Kerr in caucus services by Wednesday, October 21, 1992, by FAX."

I gather this was to go to all MPPs and I'd like to know why I didn't get one, and I'm sure a lot of members over here would like to know the same thing.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure that the House leader for the third party could come, but I think he probably didn't get one because we know that therapy can't work miracles.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sure it's not related to my stress management. Perhaps we could start question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I know we're just getting warmed up, but I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, with whom I've had some interesting dialogue from time to time.

I'd like to talk to him a little bit about the study of the Bruce A generating station and ask the minister what he meant to say with respect to the many months of work that was done already by a team of multi-sited Hydro people with respect to the study of the retubing and rehabilitation at Bruce A. Is he telling us that the studies that have been prepared by those people over several months are deficient, and in what sense are they so deficient?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member's question is an interesting one because the member makes the assumption, as he's made a number of times, that somehow because the Hydro board made a decision for further review, this minister has decided the studies were deficient or in some other way questioned.

The Hydro board made a decision that in its view the study in question did not answer all of their questions in terms of either the efficacy of proceeding at this time or the cost-effectiveness of doing so, and the Hydro board, of its own decision-making process, has decided to proceed with a further review -- a much more extensive review, I might add.

Mr Elston: Everybody in the province of Ontario knows that this government passed Bill 118 to ensure that the Premier and the Minister of Energy could have their hands fully around the throats of every board of directors member that sits on the Hydro board.

I want the member to tell me what he intends to direct the Hydro board to do. Do you intend to have the Hydro board immediately convene a panel of its members to immediately begin the review of the detailed study work that has already been done inside Bruce A plant and which has already been publicly indicated to generate a reasonable return on any invested capital with a reasonably priced product?

Hon Mr Charlton: What the minister intends to do is neither of those things that the member opposite has suggested. In fact, what the minister intends to do is have Hydro and its board of directors make their own decisions about how this review should be conducted.

In the meantime, over the course of the six months while this review is under way, the minister intends to consult with Hydro and a number of other stakeholders in this province who've been having a dispute for a decade now about what the real costs are of refurbishing nuclear plants and retubing the reactors and their cost-effectiveness and to see that there's an independent public review that occurs of this study when it's completed.

Mr Elston: I'd like to ask the minister, then, if he is going to take six months to have the study reviewed by Hydro, can he tell us how long his public review of the result of that study will take and of what composition the review panel will be of that second study of the second study?

Hon Mr Charlton: Obviously the member, because he prepares his questions in advance, doesn't listen to answers. I just got through saying that during the course of the six months, while Ontario Hydro is reviewing the matter of the cost of retubing unit 2 at Bruce A, the minister will consult with Hydro and a number of other stakeholder groups out there in the real world as to which is the most acceptable process for that review. When we've made those decisions, we'll announce them publicly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and I'm wondering if, with your indulgence, I might stand it down until the third party has put its questions.

The Speaker: The minister is here. Would the member care to place his question now?

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Minister, as you're taking your seat, I remind you, and obviously you need no reminder, that the Countdown Acid Rain program requires Hydro to make a significant cut in its sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions. In a news release yesterday, referring to the capital restructuring or review of Ontario Hydro, it was stated that Hydro would review the timing of the installation of its fossil fuel emission controls on its thermal generating stations.

Minister, can you tell us if this review will affect Ontario Hydro's ability to meet its commitments under the Countdown Acid Rain program?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm certainly aware of the coverage in the press that the member has alluded to with respect to Hydro's plans. I've not had an opportunity to look at what's being proposed in detail and I can only assure the member that whatever proposals Hydro has my ministry will very carefully evaluate.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate your commitment to evaluate it, Minister, but there's something more at stake here and it's this: The issue at hand is, should Ontario Hydro choose to cut back on its emission controls, you will effectively be seeing the environment of Ontario being put at jeopardy in terms of acid rain. We know the devastating effect that has on this province and on the environment of this province; in addition to that, the cutting back of the capital cost measures. We know that the compliance will be out of whack.

We also know that there's a very real possibility and probability, in fact, that Ontario Hydro is going to have to purchase its power elsewhere, including sources such as coal-fired generation plants in the United States. The result of that is that the net effect on the environment in Ontario is compromised. So whether it happens by way of allowing Ontario Hydro to cut its capital costs in terms of emission controls or the result of deferment of capital expenditures that will provide adequate power resulting in the purchase of coal-generated energy Stateside, the result is increased acid emissions affecting the province of Ontario.

Minister, the question that I want to put to you in your capacity as Minister of the Environment is: What are you doing to ensure, number one, compliance of Hydro and, secondly, the net effect of purchasing in the States is not visited upon the people in Ontario by way of acid emissions?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member well knows the support for me in my capacity as opposition critic and from this party for the Countdown Acid Rain program, and certainly our commitment and our satisfaction that the levels that were imposed by your government have been lived up to by the Big Four emitters.

I think the member in the

preamble to his question is making a whole lot of suppositions about things that may or may not occur with which there is absolutely no actual facts or any realistic possibility of that happening. I can assure him that my commitment to the protection of the environment of this province is as it has always been: unwavering and unyielding.

Mr McClelland: In response to my question, you say that there is very little possibility that will occur. I want you to review carefully your answer. The minister says that I'm speculating about what may happen. I'm not speculating about what may happen in terms of the question, Minister. The possibility exists. In fact, acid precipitation may increase as a result of a plan being contemplated by Hydro. That possibility exists. What are you going to do to ensure that does not happen?

Secondly, what are you going to do to ensure that Hydro, when the requirements down the road are such that Hydro has to go elsewhere to acquire the necessary energy for this province, doesn't, as a result of its cutting back now, do so in a manner that hurts the environment of Ontario? You're talking about that being speculative. If there's a possibility that exists -- you just said in your answer that the possibility doesn't exist, so I'm asking you again to unequivocally say that possibility doesn't exist while you're on watch at the Ministry of the Environment. Because if that's what you're saying, the people of Ontario will want to know, then: What are you going to do, together with --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr McClelland: -- your colleague the Minister of Energy, to ensure that possibility doesn't come to pass?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member sets up a hypothetical possibility which he acknowledges we won't know for sure is going to happen but might happen, and then asks me to respond as to about what I'm going to do in the event that that happens. Let me repeat to the member: Our commitment to the Countdown Acid Rain program was one that we made in opposition and one that we have fully complied with, supported and encouraged in government. I see nothing in the information I have with respect to Hydro that would indicate any change in that position.

BUDGET

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Treasurer. The Treasurer is no doubt aware that there have only been two previous claims over the past 30 years for the federal stabilization program and that when those claims were made it took from three to four years of negotiation between federal and provincial officials to establish if the provinces qualified and what amounts would be paid. In one case they were refused and in the other case they were given 75% of what they had asked for.

Mr Treasurer, why do you continue to insist that a $l.2-billion cheque is in the mail with regard to your claim on this fund?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member opposite is correct that the previous two claims that were paid out to British Columbia and Alberta did take a longer length of time than the time allowed for in our fiscal plan. I would remind the member, however, that while those claims were both legitimate and deemed to be legitimate, they were much more complicated than is our claim. They dealt totally with resource revenues.

Ours has to do with the entire purpose of the stabilization fund, which is that when there's a decline in economic activity and revenues fall as a result, the stabilization arrangements kick into place. Since the previous claims were honoured, the whole issue has been simplified, and I saw no reason, and continue to see no reason, why that claim could not be paid in this fiscal year.

Mr Sterling: In talking to several officials at the federal level with regard to this application, the Treasurer was described as being ambitious and naïve in his expectations. Mr Treasurer, are you really being naïve? Do you really believe that you're going to receive this money in this fiscal year?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, it is money to which we are fully entitled. Let's get that straight. We're entitled to that money in the province of Ontario.

Second, if there were not a per capita ceiling on the fiscalization arrangements, the claim would be much higher than it is. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government not to be able to make that payment this year.

If I could add as well, I was most unhappy with the leader of the third party, the boss of the member who just asked me that question, when he implied that we were going to Ottawa with our hand out and asking for a bailout. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. This is money to which we are fully entitled. The sooner the third party gets on side and supports us in our claim to that money, the better off we'll all be.

Mr Sterling: Talk about being naïve in terms of what his expectations are. I'd like to talk about being naïve in his revenue projections with regard to another item on page 81 of his budget for this year: the $1.2 billion he is forecasting for the sale of assets.

We were told this morning by his officials that they have not made one sale yet. There are only five and a half months left out of 12. Mr Treasurer, when are you going to hold the fire sale? When are you going to have the sale? What items are being sold? Are there any deals that are going to be consummated before March 31 of this year? What are you offering for sale? Mr Treasurer, does anybody out there believe you are in fact going to hit the $1.2 billion in sales, when you haven't sold one asset in six and a half months and you've only got five and a half months left to do it?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite makes a good point about a fire sale. If we had said, the minute we brought down the budget on April 30, "Now we've got to sell these assets in the next couple of months," it would in fact have been a fire sale. We are doing it methodically. We are searching the market assiduously and making sure we get a full return for any assets we sell.

Just because we haven't sold them in the first half of the year doesn't mean we won't sell them in the second half of the year, and I have every intention of achieving the targets in the budget. There would be nothing to gain for any government to lay out numbers --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You did it last year. You did exactly the same thing.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, we did not do it last year. There would be nothing to gain by putting out phoney numbers in terms of our revenues. We'd have to end up living with them at a later date. That would make no sense whatsoever. The member who asked the question should put out of his mind any conspiracy theory. There is none.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Treasurer as well. My question regards a meeting of the district health councils that took place in Hamilton this weekend. I see I got the Solicitor General to wake up.

The question I have is that some 400 district health council officials gathered in Hamilton on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week. Some thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money were spent on this particular meeting of 400 people, including, I assume, air flight for some, mileage for others, hotel rooms for two nights, food, drink -- whatever. We know it's going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Considering these economic times, Mr Treasurer, couldn't some other process have been put in place that would have informed these people of the upcoming social changes in the Health department that wouldn't have cost the taxpayers so much money?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): How much?

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Housing would like to know how much. As far as we can see, it's at least $100,000 of taxpayers' money. It would seem there's got to be some other method by which we could have asked these people to be informed about the upcoming year and what was on the plate for the Health ministry without spending potentially hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question, but I really would want more information about the conference. Without knowing all the details, I'd be foolish to speculate on whether or not the money was well spent.

However, it does seem to me that when we are making a very serious attempt, for the first time in many, many years, to control health care spending in this province, we do need to get together with the people who deliver the health care system out there in the province and who have responsibility at the local level. I don't think that simply imposing decrees from on high is the answer; we want to involve our partners out there in the health care system so they are a part of our efforts to restructure and make the health care system more efficient and better.

Mr Stockwell: It seems rather counterproductive, if that is your goal, to go about assembling these people in Hamilton at a huge cost to the taxpayers. The Minister of Housing doesn't seem to think hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money is a huge amount of money. I think it is, considering that the member for Wellington stood up yesterday and spoke to you very sincerely, Mr Treasurer, about the developmental disability children in his riding who are being rolled back, who can't get government services because there's not enough money.

Yet there seems to be enough money to transport 400 people to Hamilton, put them up in a hotel, feed them, do all it takes for the weekend of meetings, to talk about the conference agenda: "conflict of interest issues," "media workshop," "models of health councils," "volunteer burnout" and so on and so on.

You've got food banks opening up around this province like never before, more people out of work, unemployment people moving on to the welfare rolls; we need job creation; taxes have never been higher. And you seem to say that this kind of meeting in Hamilton of 400 people couldn't somehow have been circumvented by simply sending a troop around the province to meet with these on an individual basis. It would have cost considerably less than what it cost in Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe your priorities need to be reviewed. Maybe you could look at it under that notion.

Hon Mr Laughren: We've said for some time now that we welcome all suggestions for containing expenditures in the province. We've said that to our employees and we've said it to the public at large, and I appreciate the suggestion from the member for Etobicoke West.

But I would remind him that we have in this province an approximately $17-billion health care budget. We have made serious efforts; the Minister of Health has worked extremely hard to contain the growth in the health care system. You don't achieve the enormous savings she's already put in place in the health care system by simply going around and meeting with 400 people individually. There has to be an agreement among the people who are involved out there at the local level, the people who know, quite frankly, exactly what the priorities should be, community by community.

I will look into the matter further and talk to the Minister of Health, but I think it's not fair for the member for Etobicoke West to simply write off the beneficial aspects of such a conference.

Mr Stockwell: No one is disagreeing about setting the priorities of the government. No one is suggesting that you can't set the priorities and outline those priorities to the people who are going to deliver them. Let's be clear to the Treasurer. No one is arguing that you have that right as a government. The question I have is how you choose to implement it.

You told us about the Comsoc-SkyDome fiasco some year or so ago, that these kinds of episodes wouldn't happen again. Mr Treasurer, it's hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars, when we have food banks, when we've got financial constraints all round. Surely to goodness a comprehensive package, mailed out to these people, with someone who could travel and explain it, is a far more advantageous decision-making process than bringing 400 people to Hamilton.

Do you consider this kind of expenditure more important than feeding those people lining up at food banks?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West is putting the question in a most unfair way. One way we're going to be able to free up dollars to implement programs to which the member refers is by savings in the major programs such as health care. There's nothing magic about that. If the member opposite thinks that if we don't work very hard, well -- a couple of members opposite are snorting.

Health care costs in this province were increasing at double-digit rates until this government came to office. This is the first government that has made any serious effort to control health care costs in this province while maintaining essential services at the same time, and we'll continue to do that.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Labour, I would like to pose my question to the Deputy Premier.

Deputy Premier, you will know that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency is the agency created to set standards for certification under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. You will also be aware that it is made up of eight labour representatives and eight management representatives, each group having a vice-chair. You will also be aware that the agency has always operated on a consensual approach.

I have been informed that last week, on Thursday, a vote was forced upon the members in the area of certification standards. I understand that as a result of this forced vote, a number of resignations from the management component have either been submitted or are pending. My question to the Deputy Premier is this: Will you confirm today whether that has taken place, and will you undertake to look into this serious matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I am aware of the issue to which the member refers. It had to do with the legislation concerning the Occupational Health and Safety Act and an attempt by the agency to put in place training of joint health and safety workers, I believe.

I also believe that an agreement was reached at the board; that not everyone agreed with the decision that was made, but that indeed a majority agreement was reached by the agency and that there were some people who sit on the board who were dissatisfied with the results of that agreement. As you know, it's a joint board, and there were some people unhappy with it. But I think that the process was honoured.

Mr Offer: In response, the Deputy Premier should know that it is felt by the many members of that agency that this was a forced vote. Mr Deputy Premier, you will also know that that was the very first vote in the history of that agency ever to have taken place and be forced upon the agency, which, I would remind the Deputy Premier, is a

schedule 3 or non-arm's-length agency.

It was supposed to be a bipartite group based on consensus. There are serious concerns, Deputy Premier, that this agency is in fact exploding.

As you review this matter, I would ask you to look into whether there has been any Ministry of Labour interference in bringing about a forced vote on this issue, which is resulting and will result in resignations from the management component of the agency.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the member opposite should understand that the agency had an obligation to come up with a solution for the certification of -- for training. They were assigned that job, and I commend them for reaching the milestone where they achieved that.

While there may be some who will claim that the process was rushed, they've been working on it now for, I believe, two years, and that is a long time to achieve this when they were assigned this responsibility. I'm not aware of any interference by anyone in their activities, but I'll take the suggestion by the member opposite as notice.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is directed to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer.

Treasurer, you should be aware that $38 million has been spent on the OHIP health card system. That's these little red cards that Ontarians need to access health services in this province. The system was introduced by the Liberals in March 1990 and it was intended to limit abuse and prevent fraudulent OHIP claims.

Since the new cards were introduced, over 11 million cards have been issued by the Ministry of Health. Deputy Premier, with so many cards currently in the system, could you tell this House what your government has done to ensure that fraud is not occurring and that Ontario taxpayers are not being ripped off?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I think I would be well advised to take that as notice and talk to the Minister of Health about that and ask her to respond to the member directly.

Mr Jim Wilson: Deputy Premier, that simply isn't acceptable. You're the second-highest official in your cabinet. The Health minister's not here to answer questions. In fact, we're told she's pondering over some reports in her office across the street today and that she is not going to appear in question period and be accountable to the people, so I have no choice but to once again ask you the question.

On July 8 of last year the Minister of Health issued a press release that said "more than 98% or 9.7 million of eligible Ontarians now have their cards." So at the most we have an eligible population of 10 million people. With more than 11 million health cards issued, it's clear that more than just eligible Ontarians have Ontario health cards. Based on the number of health cards issued, there's a great potential for our health care system to be hijacked by fraudulent claims.

You're the Treasurer, and I'll repeat my question. What measures have you or your government taken or are there in place today to ensure that fraud is not occurring in our Ontario health card system?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not at all offended by the member asking me the question and I am concerned about any potential fraud in the system, but I think the member would appreciate the fact that I don't believe in attempting to answer any question unless I'm absolutely sure of the answer.

JOBS ONTARIO HOMES FUND

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question's for the Minister of Housing. Minister, you'll recall that in the budget of May our Treasurer and this government made a number of initiative announcements. One I can recall is the Jobs Ontario Training fund, a $1.1-billion training fund over the next three years to put up to 100,000 workers who are currently on social welfare back to work. Minister, over 800 people in my riding of Brantford will benefit from this program.

You will recall another initiative, Jobs Ontario Capital, which is used to strategically rebuild our infrastructure. Minister, some schools in my riding, some roads in my riding, have benefited from this initiative.

One very important initiative announced by the Treasurer was the Jobs Ontario Homes project. Minister, I think this is a third key component to our initiatives in battling the recession. The other two initiatives have been implemented, but I don't recall hearing any news from your ministry about this very important initiative. Could you give us a status report for the people of Ontario?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to do that. Earlier this year I was able to announce the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Earlier this year I was able to announce the allocation of 6,500 units in the remaining part of the P-10,000 program which came out of last year's budget, and we'll be moving ahead with allocations under the new commitment made in this year's budget. A proposal call will be going out in November and we hope to have those allocations in place by the end of the year. Getting just into the new year, we expect that groups will be able to start proceeding with allocations.

I should point out that as of August 31 in Ontario, we were building on an average about 24,000 units a month. People were working on 24,000 units a month. That includes all the programs we have been allocating over the last several months -- a very high level of activity.

Mr Ward: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Judging by the response of some members of the opposition, maybe they don't feel non-profit housing is an important component to implement. Let me tell you, Madam Minister, that last week I was at the opening of a non-profit housing project in my riding of Brantford conducted by the YM-YWCA which provided 60 units for geared-to-income and market income people, families, in my riding.

I think if they would look at that particular project it would be an asset, not only because it meets a social need in my community of Brantford but it also would be an asset to any neighbourhood. Anyone would welcome a project like that, not only because it has a social need, but because it created short-term work in the construction sector. We all know it's been decimated by the recession.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ward: Minister, for the benefit of the opposition, can you tell us what short-term benefits non-profit housing has?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the member for the work that is going on in Ontario in non-profit housing.

We know in fact from CMHC statistics that the work we're doing in non-profit housing really has kept the construction industry at work this year and without it the one-third unemployment level we've seen in the construction industry would be even higher.

We also know that this is a period of time when land prices are at a low, when construction costs are at a low and when people most desperately need affordable housing. It's a good time to be doing this work and that's why we're very pleased to be able to continue with our non-profit housing program.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it again concerns the issue of destreaming. Minister, yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague the member for London North, you attempted to answer a question about destreaming. Frankly, I think that if anything this issue is even more confused today than it was at the end of last week.

Through discussions with teachers and with school boards, I am aware of a tremendous amount of confusion. The member for London North referred to it as chaos and I think it is bordering on that around exactly what is happening with respect to destreaming and what the government's policy is.

Minister, I want to go back to the specific question asked of you yesterday from my first question. Are you now saying September 1996 is the beginning of the total destreaming program of your government, or are you saying it's September 1993? Out there people don't know and they don't understand what it is they're being asked to do. Have you changed your mind and is it now September 1996? Is that the government's policy?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): No, there has been no change of mind. I think I've been trying to say, as I said from the very beginning on this, that we have put in place a three-year implementation period which begins in September 1993 and goes to 1996.

What we have also said very clearly is that -- if people are interested in the answer, I'm trying to give it -- what we have said in the memorandum we sent out was that starting in September 1993 the formal destreaming would end; that is, the labelling of courses into basic, general and advanced would no longer apply. As well, as a consequence of that, the formal credit system would not apply, starting in September 1993.

But we recognized from the very beginning that in terms of the full implementation -- and by full implementation I mean the change in the teaching methodology that needs to happen for a full destreaming to occur, for a move to a more common curriculum to occur -- it's not a question of simply saying, "That will happen as of September 1993." It takes a period of time for that change in teaching methodology to occur and that's why we've allowed the three-year period --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Silipo: -- to allow school boards and schools to go at some reasonable pace based upon the particular experiences they've had.

Mr Beer: That again is a very curious answer, because the minister's saying, "We're going to stop doing things even though we don't know what we're going to put in its place," and that is precisely what teachers, trustees and parents have been asking and saying, "We need a clearer explanation."

I have here a letter from the head of the history department at Agincourt Collegiate, Mr Ken Smith. I talked with him today and I'm using this letter because here is an individual who received this year the highest award of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Hillroy Fellowship Award. I had written to congratulate him on being the recipient of that award.

He wrote back to say, "Look, one of the biggest concerns we have as teachers right now is, we don't understand what the government is doing with destreaming," and in particular, that it has not evaluated the pilot projects and has not brought in the kind of in-service programs that are needed to really give teachers the resources and support they need.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Beer: My question is, will you not recognize that there is this confusion out there, that there is this chaos and that people want to see an evaluation of the pilot projects and they want to see the in-service programs before we change what we've got? You've got to get your direction in order.

Hon Mr Silipo: Quite frankly, I find the request a little strange, given that what I've done with the September 1993 deadline is push from September 1992 a deadline that had been imposed by the previous government. Let's put that on the record first of all. Second, let me also say very clearly that we have lots of information from the pilot projects that is being shared with school boards and with teachers.

But having said that, I also have recognized and acknowledged here in this House and elsewhere that there is some confusion out there. I've also undertaken as a result of that to put out to schools some very clear information, very detailed information that will tell them exactly what we mean. We'll spell it out to the umpteenth detail we need to so that there is no confusion.

I also want to emphasize again that we have understood the need for in-service training. Right from the beginning, I've said that's a significant area we need to do. We've embarked upon two initiatives particularly: one in which we are providing funds in the amount of about $3 million to school boards for in-service programs; the other is a project with the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which it has developed at our request, that provides for the sharing of information among teachers throughout the province. We think that through those kinds of initiatives we'll also be able to put the best teaching practices at use throughout the province.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Last week, Minister, I questioned you about possible further cuts in budgets to agriculture or increased levies to the agricultural community. You admitted that further restraint measures might be necessary, but you didn't really tell us what they were. Maybe the minister can tell us today if his ministry is looking at new fees to levy against farmers, such as licensing motorized equipment or possibly removing the farm fuel tax exemption that farmers have benefited from. Explain that to us, Mr Minister.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am not the Minister of Revenue and don't collect taxes or fees. The member should know that.

I mentioned in the member's last question -- I believe it was last week when he asked the same or a similar question -- that we are looking at ways to save money, to restrict spending as much as possible and still to provide the best service. But I want to assure the member that no decisions have been made. We are looking at a number of things, but no decisions have been made in terms of fees or in terms of cutting programs. We will have consultation with farmers and the food industry before any decisions are made.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister knows that agriculture has not been treated very well by this government. Farm leaders have openly stated that farming and agriculture are clearly not a priority of your government. As a matter of fact, you spend more money on jails than on agriculture in this province right now. Minister, can you explain to us why the Ministry of Labour got a 16% increase and your ministry got a 10% reduction in the last budget?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am not here to explain what happens in other ministries. I do want the member, though, to be reminded of the fact that Agriculture and Food did get money for new initiatives last year. It's one of the few ministries across the government that got money for new initiatives.

As we look at investment strategy, putting money into agriculture in terms of providing the necessary support for loans, the commodity loan program that we have put in place has become very popular. It's managed to leverage dollars from lending institutions to actually put money back into the pockets of farmers. Better still, we don't take that money out of their pockets and give it to lending institutions.

We have put money into agriculture. We've tried to take the money we have and spend it wisely. The measure here of success is not necessarily quantity but the quality of the programs we've put in place, and I think the member should take a look at that.

HYDRO PROJECTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Abrasive Industries in Niagara Falls is extremely concerned about industrial power rates. I have been meeting with Norton Advanced Ceramics, Washington Mills and General Abrasive on an ongoing basis for some time, and they have also been working, in the last few months, with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, Hydro, the Ministry of Energy and AMPCO.

You may remember that General Abrasive was one company that, in the press last month, threatened to "move across the river." When I met with this company three weeks ago, I went there to see its manager, Mr Chris Ciccarelli. We discussed all the options that were available. One was what he called "real-time pricing." What he told me was that over the next three months, this program alone would save him $300,000 and would make the difference. He told me that 24 companies across Ontario had applied for this program, and only 20 spaces were available. What I need to know is if this program will help my company in Niagara Falls.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for the question. I'm pleased to tell her that Ontario Hydro has decided to set up a new experimental program. The time-of-use rates program, which was created several years ago, will be incorporated into a new real-time pricing program that will start in January 1993.

Specifically relating to the company in question, my understanding is that all of the companies that have applied for this experimental program have been accepted into the program.

Ms Harrington: Yesterday, Hydro announced some major cutbacks in capital projects. The people of Niagara Falls, I'm sure, do want to know the status of the Sir Adam Beck 3 project, which is a project to twin the huge tunnels under the city of Niagara Falls and build another generating station at Queenston. Could you please let us know what's happening?

Hon Mr Charlton: With respect to the Beck 3 project, first of all, it was not one of the projects that was deferred by Ontario Hydro as part of the announced deferrals of the other day. My understanding is that Hydro intends to proceed to seek the appropriate approvals, including environmental approvals, to proceed with the project. As far as I understand it, those actions will continue to be pursued by Hydro.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I also have a question for the current Minister of Energy. The question concerns Elliot Lake and region. I ask this question mostly to get your views, as you are the third minister in about two years. You fired the president of Hydro. The chairman and CEO of Hydro will abandon ship shortly.

As you know, your government instructed Hydro to lay off 1,100 men and women at Denison Mines. Your government instructed Hydro to give notice to another 600 workers at Stanleigh mine that their employment would end in 1995 or perhaps 1996. This betrayed a specific campaign promise that you've made, but you would know all about that kind of thing.

Given your track record on keeping promises, given the total disarray at Ontario Hydro, given the parade of ministers in your portfolio, the people of my riding, my constituents, ask that you reaffirm the Energy-Hydro package to the people of Elliot Lake. Can you do that for us, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question relates to a multifaceted package that was agreed to in terms of Elliot Lake. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of one item which has been deferred -- not cancelled, but deferred -- that package remains intact.

Mr Brown: Mr Minister, almost two years ago, Mr Eliesen, Mr Wildman and Ms Martel, in a lot of hoopla, promised Elliot Lake at a news conference that two very important hydro projects would go forward in that area. They would be fast-tracked.

One was the hydroelectric project at Patten Post. It was to be expedited. It was a project that made sense, according to your government, from both Hydro and the area's point of view. It was a project that included at least $300 million of capital spending. It would employ hundreds, if not thousands, Mr Minister. It was to be going by 1994.

The second was a commitment to a cogeneration station, which appears to be rapidly evaporating.

Minister, you've deferred these projects too long. Your government promised to make them happen. The people I represent and the people Mr Wildman in Algoma represents want these things to happen. I don't want you to tell me anything but that, yes, within the next year, there'll be people working on the north shore of Lake Huron in these two projects. Can you do that, Mr Minister?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Another broken promise. Just Martelling again.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Elinor, put a sock in it, okay?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Cochrane South, it's not helpful. I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw the comment, Mr Speaker, but ask not to be badgered.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): He doesn't have to withdraw it. What's unparliamentary about a sock?

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if we could just calm a bit and allow the minister to respond to the question in an orderly way.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question is a very important one. I think it deserves a response and I'm happy to make that response. As I said in response to his first question, my understanding is that the package that was designed for assistance in Elliot Lake as a result of the decision around the uranium contracts remains intact.

There has been a deferral and the deferral has to be understood in the context of the whole province and of Elliot Lake itself. Projects are being deferred because Hydro does not need the power. Any corporation that was out soliciting and buying power that it didn't need would be criticized by all the members across the way in terms of its inappropriate business decisions. To purchase power that's not required would have an impact on rates in this province in excess of the high rates that we've been attempting to deal with.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said, the package will remain intact. Hydro has just deferred $7 billion in capital projects because it does not need the power. Hydro's responsibility is to operate in the best interests of the whole province, the ratepayers and the industries right across this province. The government has to weigh the balance between proceeding and pushing rates up, and dealing with the very difficult economic circumstances and high rates that we have at the present time. Both the projects the member has raised will proceed at the appropriate time.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, in May of this year you appointed Graeme Kirby to study structural reform in the Ottawa-Carleton area. This is the fourth study by government in Ottawa-Carleton over the last 12 or 13 years.

In the initial document, Mr Minister, it was pointed out by your officials that there was a problem in perception that there was too much government, not a real problem. In your document, it pointed out that it would be unlikely that there would be any financial savings or economies with regard to going to one-tier government.

The 11 municipal governments in the area commissioned Price Waterhouse to study the financial impact of what was going to happen. Price Waterhouse said it was going to cost $77 million more to have one-tier government, and in addition it was going to cost $30 million to set it up. Mr Minister, why are we doing this?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think there is a general understanding in the Ottawa-Carleton area that that area of the province is overgoverned, that there are many elected politicians, that we could have smaller councils and we could perhaps have fewer councils. But I think it's also important to understand that in the Price Waterhouse study there were certain assumptions made that led to the $77-million assumption. If you change those assumptions, if you don't level off and have the same service provided in every one of the municipalities from one end of Ottawa-Carleton to the other, then it wouldn't result in that kind of increased cost.

No one on this side is advocating that we move towards one-tier government. What we are advocating is that we have to move towards developing an accountable, rational system of local government in Ottawa-Carleton that doesn't exist now. Most everyone agrees that there has to be reform. Maybe you don't, but most of your constituents do.

Mr Sterling: I don't think most of my constituents do, Mr Minister. In fact, at every meeting held that I have read about, the overwhelming response to Graeme Kirby is, "Why don't you wrap up your study and go home? Municipal government is not our major problem here." When he came to see me, Mr Minister, I told him that out of priorities of 1 to 100, this was either 99th or 100th on the scale of concerns to my area. It's no secret, Mr Minister, that the city of Ottawa is experiencing severe financial problems. That comes from the free-wheeling government of New Democrat Marion Dewar and the Liberal spender of Jimmy Durrell.

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: Well, you look at their books; you look at their deficit. What my people want, Mr Minister, is an assurance from you. If you buy the one-tier government option, will you assure my people that they will not end up paying for the mismanagement of the city of Ottawa over the last decade?

Hon Mr Cooke: There's no assumption that there's going to be one-tier government. There will be reform of local government in Ottawa-Carleton. We'll wait for the Kirby report and we'll go from there.

I don't know why the member always has to attack his own local governments. I know he pointed the finger at Durrell today, he pointed the finger at Marion Dewar from the past and he's having a fight with the Tory regional chair. Who do you get along with in Ottawa-Carleton?

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I only have one question now, because I appreciate the clarification he's given with respect to the implementation of the core curriculum for grade 9. I know my constituents will be relieved to hear that it will not be mandatory until September 1996.

However, I do have another concern about the introduction of the core curriculum which has been expressed to me by many of my constituents; that is, I wonder what the minister could advise my constituents with respect to their concerns about the maintaining of educational standards with the introduction of the core curriculum.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): That again is a concern we certainly heard about and keep discussing with people. I must say I appreciate the interest that is being expressed on both sides of the House around some of these issues in education. I think it bodes well for the interest there is in this whole issue.

Let me just say that I don't find there is any inconsistency at all between moving towards a common core curriculum and heightening within that a greater sense of excellence within our system and a greater sense of heightening the quality of what we deliver.

We've talked and know quite clearly about the needs that exist out there, to have a system in which we clarify and say very clearly what we expect for our students in the system and to be able to then have some clear ways of measuring that progress. In the work we'll be doing over the next little while, some of those issues will I hope become clearer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wessenger: As part of ensuring this quality in education, will the Benchmarks be part of that process of ensuring we have excellence?

Hon Mr Silipo: The Benchmarks process, as I've indicated on other occasions, is indeed one of the key ways in which we hope to be able to set, first of all, the standards our schools should be achieving at various points in a child's education and, secondly, to provide a clear way for us to be able to tell our system and our parents and the general public how well our students and our schools are doing.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Carleton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning Bill 154. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I've got a petition here from the Greek Orthodox community of Mississauga and district, called Prophet Elias. The petition is to members of provincial Parliament:

"Re: The amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It's signed by appropriately 120 constituents, and I will sign it myself.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented;

"Now therefore the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

That's signed by 486 people -- I have thousands more, Mr Speaker -- and I've added my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 34 constituents of the county of Middlesex, and they petition the Legislative Assembly as follows.

They would like the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the report of Mr John Brant, the arbitrator for the greater London area, because it does not reflect the express wishes of the majority in the county of Middlesex. It awards far too extensive a land area to the city of London and it will jeopardize the viability of Middlesex county and the way of life that we cherish in Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from the Knox Presbyterian Church that says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

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

Signed by about 60 members of the church.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a second one I would like to put in place from St Bartholomew Catholic School, 51 Heather Road, Agincourt, and it states:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterparts;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

It is signed by about 30 members of that area.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by 19 citizens of the province, including some constituents from Mr Speaker's riding. The petition says:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend less than $1,678 on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two provincial education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature of support.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that has been signed by a number of residents in my riding:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterparts;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I submit this to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, adamantly oppose the current NDP government's proposed labour legislation changes, Bill 40. We feel that if the government follows through with these changes, Ontario will be much poorer off in terms of international competitiveness, investment opportunities, business flexibility and creativity, personal freedom and privacy."

It is signed by 53 of my constituents and I too attach my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament that is signed by about 70 people in my riding and the vicinity. This petition reads:

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

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

"The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name to it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from Grace Anglican Church and Fairview Mennonite Church in the city of St Catharines that reads as follows:

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this, as I agree with the petition.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view.

"These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks approved in circular 14 dealing with the question of origins."

This has been signed by numerous constituents of mine in the city of North York.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition before me signed by a number of farmers from Listowel, Durham, Goderich, Bruce and Renfrew. The context of the petition is around the stable funding issue that's being proposed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and it states that the farm organizations do not represent two thirds of the farmers and they are concerned and have strong objections to the proposed legislation that hopefully may be coming before us, and I affix my signature to it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition which, by the day, becomes more important, I think, to the proceedings here. It says, "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario," and I'll cut some of it out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, I will attach my signature to that.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding from Orangeville, Shelburne, Caledon and Grand Valley. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, members of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, do not want our pension funds invested in the Ontario investment fund; and

"Whereas we cannot jeopardize our retirement income by allowing the government to decide where our hard-earned capital should be invested; and

"Whereas it is very tempting to dip into our piggy bank without using the democratic process; and

"Whereas this is not how you protect the welfare of the workers,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen to our concerns and 'hands off' our pension funds."

Mr Speaker, I've affixed my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament re the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have signed it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allocated for the presentation of petitions has expired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 40,

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, in relation to this report, I have both a point of order and a point of privilege.

The first matter coming to bear, I suspect, ought to be the point of privilege since as a matter of fact I raised the issue about whether that particular legislation could be reported to this House with amendments or not at all, as a result of the terrible travesty and violation of the standing orders carried in the committee, which renders, in effect, in my view, all those amendments as passed in the committee or determined to be passed by the current chairman a nullity.

Mr Speaker, my point of privilege is this: You have undertaken to make a decision with respect to my point of privilege about the members being unable to carry out their duties and obligations to their constituents as a result of being prevented from knowing, or even having read, each of the questions to be placed as a voted item. It seems to me that under standing order 21, that report now, today, is a violation of the privileges that I have as a member to understand and have determined for me the relevancy of the application of the standing orders to the work carried out not only in this House but in the committee.

Mr Speaker, from time to time you have indicated, and you did today, that some questions ought to have been better raised in the committee itself. The committees exist not separately from this House but as an extension of this House. The work they do is done at the behest of the people here. We have no other way of getting business done. As you know, we just cannot do it all in this chamber. We have standing orders which set up standing committees that allow us to refer matters out for clause-by-clause and amendments from time to time. In fact, it happens a lot.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that under all circumstances in which business of this place is to be done, it is to be done in compliance with the rules as are established from time to time by this House and as are carried out under your particular guidance. It seems to me that in this circumstance, you, as the presiding officer over this House and over the members and over the work of these members, are required to intervene when there has been a decision which, in my view, violates the privileges of the members collectively in this place.

It seems, Mr Speaker, because this matter has come now, that I must repeat for you now, again, the arguments I made earlier, not to use up time but because if I fail to raise them, they will not and should not be considered as part of the point of privilege about which I speak now. To be perfectly -- to be perfected, I guess I should say -- when I stand on this point, I cannot ask you to refer, in my view, to previously related information, when it is about that request made further to my earlier comments that you were going to make some decisions.

Mr Speaker, therefore, I wish to raise --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Now, if it's of assistance to the member for Bruce, it perhaps isn't necessary to reiterate the original points that he made earlier and brought to my attention. If, however, he has some further detail that would be of assistance, then naturally I'd be quite pleased to hear from him.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, you misunderstand me. I raised the point of privilege earlier about the manner in which it was carried on. You said that you would take those into consideration. I think, under that question, you have enough information at least to make a determination.

My point of privilege herein relates to something similar, and to complete my point of privilege in relation to this report coming on anyway, it seems to me that I must go back and repeat all of those other points so that I can make the case that my privileges have been violated. It is for no other reason, Mr Speaker, unless you're going to tell me that you will take into account all of the earlier detail when you determine the second point of privilege.

This is a point of privilege separate from but related to the first, because it seems to me that as soon as the member for Welland-Thorold rose to make a report on a bill with amendments as he has just done, he has violated my right, my privilege, to have you determine whether or not the standing orders were violated.

The question in each respect really revolves around the one point; that is, can a report from a committee include a bill with amendments when the contention of this member and members of my caucus is that the amendments themselves fail for a violation of the standing orders?

The standing orders, just to repeat for you, Mr Speaker, require that when we do business, we not only require notice of the particular amendments but we are allowed to debate sections of the bill to which they apply. We are in fact entitled to receive explanation with respect to each of those amendments and each of the sections.

Under the time allocation motion about which I read a petition not that long ago, it was easily seen that we were precluded by the motion from requiring each of the amendments to be read into the record and discussed. Mr Speaker, just for your edification, I will read this particular resolution which was passed under the name of the government House leader, Mr Cooke. It is Mr Cooke's resolution:

"That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collecting Bargaining and Employment. At 5:45 pm on this day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put the question without debate."

In that regard, it is quite clear that the rules were all neatly wrapped up and that you had no option to put this matter further in the committee. But let me talk about the referral to the committee, which I say has been deficient in the way it has dealt with the amendments to be passed and to be then reported today in front of the House:

"That the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider the bill as follows: five weeks, including up to three evening meetings per week, to receive public submissions, commencing Tuesday 4 August 1992. Further, that the committee be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following routine proceedings on the first eight sessional days of the fall meeting period of the House. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm on the day prior to the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause.

At 4 pm on the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date provided, that bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House."

That capsulizes the manner in which this bill is to proceed through the standing committee on resources development. It has come to this stage, where we agree that the document here, this time allocation, really rams this stuff down our throats without our being able to make the arguments necessary, we think, to properly consider its merit. We understand what is contained here: We're forced to have the amendments deemed to have been read.

But it is a requirement of this Legislative Assembly that when the question has been put, each member can have that question read to him or her so that he or she knows precisely what is required to be done. In this place, people yell out saying, "Don't read it again, don't read it again." "Dispense," in fact, is the short form. It is the requirement for every member to know what he or she is voting on before the vote is called.

I read to you earlier, and I will just go back to it again if I can find it here, the script which was provided to the committee Chair, which sums up the manner in which the standing committee on resources development really worked through the votes that were required with respect to this bill in the last half-hour. I could read all seven pages, but I'll just read a few excerpts so that you know just how tightly this thing was scripted and just how much the privileges of the members to hear each question as it was put -- what was really done to them. I'll read the first series of questions that were on this first page.

"Shall

section 1 of the bill carry?" Not an unusual question; it's done quite regularly where there is not an amendment. "Shall

section 2 of the bill carry?" Again, the same thing transpires. "Shall

section 3 and 4, and shall

section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry?" And so on. Those are not unusual.

But when we come to, "Shall the deferred PC amendment to

section 7(2)(4) carry?" it seems to me that under any form of etiquette, let alone standing orders, the deferred PC amendment ought to have been read out to make it clear exactly what each of the members was being asked to vote on.

The point comes out that this was scripted, that there was no way we could have had those matters read out for our consideration. That, in my view, is a violation of the privileges of the House. It is, therefore, a defective vote. Even though I understand that the PC motion on its own failed in this case, there are several government amendments which were deemed to have been read which were put in the same nature. I won't bother finding them, but they will eventually show up in the Hansard of the resources development committee, I understand, later today because that Hansard is not available as the official record for me to refer to.

Mr Speaker, my view is that if the proper procedure were followed, there would be no dispute, but in this case the members' privileges under

section 21 have been violated severally and collectively when each of the questions was not read out. There is nothing, when I read through this particular time allocation motion, that takes that right away from the members. The script took that right away from the members. In fact, all we heard was "vote on amendment under 7(2)(4)" or "vote on amendment under section" whatever, whatever. That is not proper.

That, in my view, makes the voting on the amendments a nullity and, as a result, we cannot accept the report of the committee until we determine whether or not the bill is actually reported with or without the amendments now contemplated by the government.

One point with respect to the time allocation motion itself: While the time allocation motion specifically speaks to a deviation from what is usually the case provided under the standing orders of this place, it is silent with respect to the manner in which votes are to be put in front of the members.

My view, Mr Speaker, if you interpret it in accordance with the way that normally is done, is that the specific nature of the standing orders with respect to both members' privileges and the manner in which votes are to be put and the custom under which votes are put to the members -- that is, giving them the question to be voted upon -- is to be complied with unless specifically violated by this time allocation motion.

There is nothing, Mr Speaker, in the reading I have just provided for you -- or even further, if I were to complete the full reading; I won't -- that says the principle of having the question read independently of its number or of its location on some script provided to the committee Chairman will preclude the usual custom and habit of our place coming forward.

Mr Speaker, that's my point of privilege: that if you do not comply with the standing orders in all respects, the amendments must fail because they have not been passed properly. I urge you, Mr Speaker, therefore to make a ruling on that first point of privilege but that you uphold my privilege now to receive that ruling before this committee report is brought forward to you, and in fact that you do not allow my privileges to be violated by having that motion tabled now for the adoption of that report prior to you making a determination of my privileges. That in itself would be a violation of my privilege on the second part of my point.

There are a couple of other things I think I could speak about in relation to the manner in which this material was dumped on our table. I raised earlier in my point of privilege the fact that some 26 amendments were dumped late in last week's session on the table of the committee.

Although I know it complies with the words which are in this time allocation, namely that by 4 o'clock on the last day the amendments be tabled, when you understand, Mr Speaker, that we fully anticipate that when 4 o'clock is the deadline we will have some time to debate those amendments, I would ask you to consider just what the violation of my privileges might be when the Minister of Labour knew what his amendments were going to be -- and in fact the press release is about those amendments coming -- and when he knows there's only going to be half an hour for us really to consider the nature of those amendments.

That, in my humble submission to you, means that the privileges of the members of the Liberal caucus and the Progressive Conservative caucus have again been violated by the concept that they have been provided with a giant surprise and in fact are precluded from preparing amply for the defence of the public interest when it comes to dealing with those particular amendments.

I think I have raised some serious concerns. I refer you, obviously again, to the same sections that I did earlier, but I want to say it is a separate point. Sections 67 through to 79, I think, of the standing orders are the areas in which we deal with the process of public bills. I ask you particularly to pay attention to the custom of the members here generally, once they know what the amendments are, yelling at you or anybody else who may be in charge of the meeting and saying "Dispense," when the question is to be read, before the question is put.

This is a serious piece of business. We have been compromised by the change to the rules. We feel extremely strongly about that. We have been compromised to the extent that the time allocation motion, which you have heard me read part of here, really takes away a great deal of our flexibility.

My contention is that it fails to take into account all the standing orders. Those orders must survive. The question must be read, and our privileges are otherwise really defeated if you don't preclude the rushed, jamming activity that has gone on in that committee. You must sustain us, or we cannot ever expect to do our business. I'd ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule now that the report of the member for Welland-Thorold to this House is out of order.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on the same point --

The Speaker: No. To the member for Bruce and the House leader of the official opposition: First, may I say to him that I fully appreciate and understand the point which he raises, which I take in

summary as the timely and orderly consideration of public business, whether that occurs in the House or in committee. It is a principle which I think guides all parliaments: to provide an orderly and timely way in which to do public business. So I understand the concerns which he raises.

I have had an opportunity during the afternoon to consult the table, and if I could -- if the member for Bruce would --

Mr Elston: Now, just a minute. When? You've been in the chair the whole afternoon.

The Speaker: I draw to the member's attention --

Mr Turnbull: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: No, I have the floor right now, and I would ask the member --

Mr Turnbull: I had it before you started speaking.

The Speaker: If the member for York Mills raised earlier a point, if it is a different topic I'd be more than pleased to listen to him after I've dealt with the point of order which is brought to my attention --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, it's the same point of order.

The Speaker: Well, that's terrific, then -- same point of order, and I'm about to rule on it.

I draw to the member's attention, starting with the principle found on page 232 of Beauchesne,

section 822, that "procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House."

I also draw to the House's attention our standing order 118, part (a), which reads that: "The Chair of a standing or select committee shall maintain order in the committee and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal by the majority of members of the committee to the Speaker. No debate shall be permitted on any decision of the Chair.

"(

b) If the majority of the members of a standing or select committee appeal the decision of the Chair of the committee to the Speaker, the Chair shall at the next meeting of the House present a report which accurately states the matter on which the Chair decided, the arguments raised by members of the committee and the decision made by the Chair and the Speaker shall confirm or vary any decision of the Chair."

Lastly, I draw the member's attention to a ruling made on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, by Speaker Edighoffer, and I won't read the entire ruling. It's found on page 7 of that day's Hansard, but the essence of it which applies in this case is:

"This, in my opinion, has to be the correct

interpretation put upon standing order 98, in that it is extremely important to preserve the principle that what happens in a committee must be decided by the committee, and only through the Chair of the committee is the House to be apprised of the committee's proceedings and decisions. It is not therefore permissible for a member to appeal a Chair's decision directly to the Speaker. A member wishing to appeal must do it by way of the Chair reporting the matter to the Speaker immediately."

So in summation, as Speaker Edighoffer has found and indeed which is in keeping with the general tenor of what's been raised, matters which are of importance within a committee, matters of order, must be raised in the committee --

Mr Elston: It's a matter of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce, no, this is not a subject for debate.

Mr Elston: It's a set response, but you didn't hear what my privilege was.

The Speaker: I understand fully the matter which the member has brought to my attention, and what I'm saying is that the matter with respect to whether or not the procedure followed within the committee was a proper procedure is a matter which should have been brought to the attention of the Chair of the committee and, indeed, if the committee so chose, would then do a report, bring that report immediately -- ie the next sitting day -- to the House and report to the Speaker that an improper procedure had been followed. That's not what has occurred, and therefore, as much as I understand the concern by the honourable member, there is not anything out of order.

I would in conclusion indicate, as I believe I have done on other occasions, that whether it is within this chamber or in a committee of the House, I think it serves all of us well when we allow ample time for discussion and ensure that every person who should have the opportunity to speak is given that opportunity. When that doesn't occur, then there are difficulties; I understand that, but I cannot find anything out of order, and indeed, in keeping with the rulings made by previous Speakers, it is well in order. But I appreciate the concerns raised.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, on a different but related point: Just let me --

Interjection: No.

Mr Conway: No, but just bear with me. Thank heavens, I wasn't anywhere near the resources committee, though I'm a member of it.

Listen. I've been around here long enough and I know a charade when I see one, but I accept your ruling, as obviously I'm bound to.

My point is simply this: I was listening to a number of people who were there talk about the experience yesterday, and what I would request that you and the Clerk do is advise ways and means that we might consider to change the mechanisms. What we really need now in these situations is a good accountant from someplace like Peat Marwick, where we can save ourselves all the trouble of even going, because I'll tell you, it is perfectly ridiculous to submit any thinking human being to the kind -- and, I might add, any member of the public -- who was there to witness the spectacle.

For a long period of time one simply reads off numbers that absolutely mean nothing at all to most members of the committee and certainly members of the public.

I accept the ruling. We have got a situation that is both in order and absurd, and what I would look for, since I have no intention of participating in some majoritarian absurdity, is some kind of mechanism where we could have a duly constituted committee, where from our offices we can simply transmit a non-verbal communication that indicates where the various caucuses are on the issues.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, it is an affront to thinking human beings that they should be asked to go and participate in some kind of a process such as we've now got. It may very well be in order, but I submit it is absurd and I'm asking for some help on the administrative side from you and the Clerk as to how we can relieve members from these kinds of perfectly absurd situations.

The Speaker: I understand the member for Renfrew North's concern.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to please take his seat. What I can --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

If various members of the assembly, including the member for Renfrew North, have an interest in trying to effect a better system, I know that in previous parliaments, on occasion, meetings of the chairs of committees have been convened to try to find a system that is appealing to all the members.

If the procedures that were adopted in a particular committee are not working very well, by the committee chairs meeting, as they once did on a somewhat regular basis, I believe on those occasions they were able to find a little better system so that members were satisfied that proper procedures had been followed and that the committee was functioning efficiently and effectively. That may be something that committee chairs would wish to do, and if in any way I can be of assistance in that process, along with the Clerk, I would be more than pleased to do so.

Mr Conway: My point, if I might just add one final observation, Mr Speaker, is that the --

The Speaker: I ask the member to be brief, please.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, you have a new point of order, I trust.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, my point of personal privilege is that the standing orders require you to recognize me when I have a point of order. I had a point of order which was in connection with Mr Elston's point of order and point of privilege and you did not recognize me. You then went on to recognize the member for Renfrew --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Turnbull: You recognized the member for Renfrew --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. I have just recognized the member for York Mills, and perhaps he would kindly place whatever point of order he believes he has.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, you made the ruling before you recognized me. Since I am the only member of the Legislature on the opposition side who was in the committee yesterday, I thought my comments might be relevant.

You have in your decision noted that we should have made our concerns known to the Chair and that in fact the concerns should be brought back to the House by the Chair. In point of fact, we did make our concerns known to the Chair about the inequity and the inadequacy of the arrangement that allowed the government to drop approximately 40 amendments on the table late in the day, in the day prior to the last day of hearings for clause-by-clause. The last day commenced at 20 to 4 in the afternoon and, by the rules that had been pushed through by the government, ended at 4 o'clock.

So in 20 minutes we weren't able to have any discussion about these approximately 40 amendments that had been dropped late in the previous sitting day.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Not only is it unacceptable, it violates the spirit of the rules that the government had in fact imposed on this process. How can the opposition parties be expected to do their job, which is clearly to review government business and to comment on it and to discuss it?

I suggest that my privileges have been violated. Not only that, I wanted to mention this prior to you making the ruling. It isn't acceptable, quite frankly, to the third party that you should ignore our wishes. Further, when I asked to be recognized on a point of order, you ignored me. You said, "Sit down," and then you went on to recognize the member for Renfrew North prior to recognizing me. Mr Speaker, that is not the acceptable method of this Parliament.

The Speaker: To the member for York Mills, if indeed I have inadvertently offended him by the practice in the chamber, I of course apologize. I had seen the member for Renfrew North and thus I recognized him and allowed him to speak.

I do appreciate the concerns you've brought to my attention. I must reiterate to the member that, under our standing rules, what would have been necessary was for a report to have been passed by your committee and then that report brought to this chamber. I gather that no such report was created.

I take the larger issue, however, which both the member for Bruce and the member for York Mills have raised, and that is the orderly conduct of business. It's something which is always of concern to me. I've felt, and I suppose as a private member as well, that we in a Parliament deserve to have sufficient time in order to deal with public business appropriately. I understand his concerns full well. The standing orders are just as I have read them and indeed as other Speakers have ruled on similar matters, so I find that I have no other recourse.

I offer again, if it's of any assistance, that I'd be more than pleased to meet with committee chairs to see if in future we can find a way that is more agreeable to all concerned so that the opposition, the minority parties have the sufficient protection they're entitled to with respect to the debating of legislation.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: The reason that a Speaker is elected -- at least now elected; the person was appointed, but I think the duties of the Speaker have not changed that much over the years, whether elected or appointed. Mr Stokes, Mr Turner, all of them knew, as you do, that one of your primary roles in here is to make sure that the protection of a minority in this Parliament is processed to the fullest.

Mr Speaker, while I commend you for having been able to do your research while still sitting in the chair, I find it very difficult, when the question is of this serious nature, that it could have been done with full consultation and consideration.

That apart, I won't raise more, but I will say this: Because the Speaker has the obligation to protect the minority and the way in which the rules are applied to the minority, your reading of your ruling now really means that as long as the government members hold a majority and wish to put their business through the committee, nobody who is oppressed as a minor member of a committee will ever get to complain to you, to have you intercede on her or his behalf.

Mr Speaker, that cannot be the result of the office of Speaker, who is sworn to uphold the rights of the minority to have the rules, the standing orders, applied fully and fairly right across the line.

Mr Speaker, for you to request that a majority of the members of the resources committee come to you to say, "Fix this for us," would never possibly be able to occur. It cannot happen, because there