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

April 27, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Je demande que le gouvernement rende justice aux francophones du nord et verse sans délai les sommes à leur éducation postsecondaire qu'on leur avait promis dans l'accord de 1989.

DONALD BUTT

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to announce that Dr Donald Butt, who practises family medicine in my constituency, has been recognized as the 1992 Family Physician of the Year by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Dr Butt celebrates his silver anniversary in practice this year, having served Mississauga families for 25 years. In fact, there are some families with four generations under his care. He works six days and two nights per week in his Clarkson office, makes house calls and tends to patients in nursing homes.

Dr Butt also has a long history of service at the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, where he has been an active staff member for 25 years and rose to become the chief of medical staff in 1979.

An associate professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, Dr Butt is a preceptor for family medicine residents. He is past president of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, for which he presently chairs the committee of annual scientific assemblies.

His talents are not limited to medicine, however; Dr Butt is also an accomplished symphony flautist and a former tenor with the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir.

Dr Butt will be presented with his award during the Worldwide Conference on Family Medicine in Vancouver on May 10.

On behalf of my community, I am happy to extend to Dr Butt our appreciation for his outstanding service and our congratulations upon receiving this well-deserved recognition as Canada's Family Physician of the Year.

SCIENCE FAIR

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I want to tell you the story of Elaine Gladu from St David's school, 12 years old. She has done a science poster, as you can see, on the importance of science in our society. Sean Robillard, 13 years old, and Justine Mansourian, 12, also from St David's, are students of Olga Bradley.

Sudbury is very proud to be celebrating the Canada-wide Science Fair 1992. Four hundred and seventy-five students and 150 adults are participating. Taiwan, Sweden, Australia and Japan participating as well. There are several venues throughout my city and, as usual, Sudbury will show everyone a good time with our wonderful hospitality.

The other thing I would like to tell everyone is that this event has been going on for a number of years, and Sudbury has been lucky enough this year that all 10 provinces and the two territories are involved. It's an annual event where all of the students put their scientific minds to work and get things looking to the future.

Last, the corporate sponsors in our town have been wonderful with all the money they have provided. On behalf of Sudbury and the Canada-wide Science Fair, I would like to present you all with a pencil which will remind you to be there between May 10 and May 17.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): This morning the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario held a press conference here at Queen's Park. The association had some very important points as it presented the results of its recent public opinion survey, that "84% of Ontarians believe parents should be entitled to choose between the two types of child care settings for their children": independent and tax-supported.

I regret to report that the $100 million directed towards the child care envelope in this province in 1992 does not help one more parent get back to work, does not create one more subsidized child care space, does not create one new job and in fact puts the jobs of the 6,500 women now employed in independent child care centres in jeopardy. Small business operators are in jeopardy, as are their staff. Parents in communities right across this province will have fewer and fewer choices. Thousands and thousands of children who meet all the qualifications for fee-assisted spaces will remain on the waiting lists.

Can Ontarians afford a tax expenditure of this magnitude, $100 million, in 1992 with no results, no real returns?

YORK TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today I am very pleased to share with members of our Legislature and with the province of Ontario another success story that is taking place in northeast Metro, in the south York region. For the 10th year, the York Technology Association, which has been in existence that long, will place before the public its own annual directory of services and membership so people can know what is being done and can be done within a community by the private sector.

The York Technology Association is one of the largest high-tech associations in the country, and through our activities we hope to involve all kinds of companies that are involved in high technology in helping one another by helping resolve issues that are of concern to the industry.

This publication was put together by our communications committee, which includes Gary Bryson of Sun Microsystems, Veronica Cluett, Dan Legault of A.V. International, Janice Murray of Burson Marsteller and Donald Pounsett of Fraser and Beatty.

The association is there to serve our industry, and it's really impressive when you start realizing what people can do for themselves. This is an example of that. I happen to be the honorary chairman of the association, and we happen to have two very strong chairmen. From what we have seen with Chris Stait-Gardner -- and here I've forgotten the co-chairman -- they are doing a job for our community.

I say we all have to work together to help industry to survive.

LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the first class of graduates from the local employment assistance program. LEAP is sponsored by the YWCA, the Scarborough Board of Education and Employment and Immigration Canada. The program is specifically designed to address the educational and social needs of women who are over 40 and have been on social assistance for one year.

It is through innovative partnerships and programs such as this that people will be assisted in developing the independence necessary to control their personal and financial destiny. It is also an opportunity for these students to develop new relationships that will give peer support as each new milestone is reached over the coming years.

On March 13, 1992, I had the pleasure of watching the following women graduate from LEAP after attending the program for 28 weeks: Rosemary Arch, Etula Butler, Lucja Hoffman, Vidalyn James, Norma Kasparian, Lynn Keeley, Janice Kirk, Cheryl Machinter, Dulcie Morgan, Norma Salmon and Iona Samuels. I salute the courage, strength and dignity so demonstrated by these women in their desire to better themselves. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House the graduates and students of the LEAP program of Scarborough.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): As members are aware, a tentative agreement was reached last Thursday evening by the Ottawa Board of Education and striking school teachers. This agreement was ratified yesterday and will bring a five-week-long strike to an end. While we are all happy and relieved to see students return to the classroom, we are at the same time concerned about their ability to make up for 23 lost school days.

The Education Relations Commission had ruled that the students' school year was not in jeopardy. While that may be the case, we must also recognize that it is exceptionally difficult for borderline students to make up for five weeks of lost instruction. The minister owes it to all students and their parents to ensure that whatever additional academic support is required is in fact provided.

The second point that needs to be made is, what have we learned from the Ottawa experience? What does it tell us about how well the collective bargaining process is working? Are students' rights being adequately protected? Do the role of the Education Relations Commission and the whole question of jeopardy need to be reviewed? Does the government now not recognize the painful dilemma in which it has placed school boards by its 1% transfer payment? Would the minister now agree it's time to bring together school boards and teachers' federations to work out a fair solution to salary and benefit negotiations during these difficult economic times?

Surely what we have all learned from the recent Ottawa school board strike is that the process must be made to work better. What is important for the future is that the students have a chance to learn. Now, Minister, let's make sure the Carleton strike is quickly resolved.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I also would like to talk a little bit about the Ottawa Board of Education settlement. I'd like to say shame on the board of trustees at the Ottawa Board of Education, shame on the teachers for having excessive demands and shame on the NDP government for not showing any leadership in terms of holding restraint within the public sector referring to teachers.

Where on earth is there social justice in this province? Last fall the Minister of Community and Social Services announced an increase of some $627 to a single mother and two children in this province. This excessive settlement which was given by the Ottawa Board of Education -- they caved to the demands of the teachers -- gave teachers an increase of some $2,400 for this year, four times what a single mother trying to operate on $17,000 a year is going to receive from the government, while the teachers are trying to operate on a salary of some $60,000 a year. Where is the social justice?

Is it any wonder that the people of Ontario have no faith in government and no faith in our institutions?

EXPO 98

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It is with much regret that I bring to the attention of this Parliament and to our communities at large that Italy will be supporting Lisbon's bid for Expo 98 and not Metro Toronto's. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House that from 1988 to the year 2000, Europe has and will continue to host all significant world fairs while North America, and Canada in particular, will have none.

As you are already aware, Canada is home to one of the largest Italian communities outside of Italy; over 300,000 Italians reside in Metro Toronto alone. Metro is within one day's drive of more than 130 million people. With that in mind, let me also point out that Metro Toronto does have the infrastructure in place to be able to deliver a very successful event like Expo 98.

In addition, an event of this magnitude would bring the province hundreds of millions of dollars in direct investment and would create many needed jobs. I'm in the process of writing to officials of the Italian government to lobby the members of Parliament to support Metro Toronto's bid. I call on my colleagues in government to do the same.

[Remarks in Italian]

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome a special guest to our assembly this afternoon. Seated in the Speaker's gallery is Mr Indulis Berzins, a member of Parliament, leader of the Popular Front Faction and the chair of the foreign relations committee, from the Parliament of Latvia. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BREWING INDUSTRY

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to inform the House of the outcome of Canada's negotiations with the United States on the GATT panel report on provincial beer policies.

On Saturday, April 25, 1992, Canada and the United States reached an agreement in principle on how Canada will implement the panel's report. This agreement will allow the two countries to pursue talks within a set of agreed principles. There will be further consultation about the technical details of implementation over the next few weeks and months.

I am very pleased we have been able to resolve this issue quickly and to the benefit of both countries. It has been a very difficult process for all and both sides have made concessions to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding. I am very glad that the situation did not, in the end, result in retaliation and counterretaliation.

Ontario, with the invaluable support and cooperation of industry and labour, has worked closely with the federal government during the course of negotiations with the US. Ontario's efforts were instrumental in helping the federal government achieve a satisfactory agreement. The US has accepted the continuation of minimum pricing and the other policy changes Ontario is planning to make. It has also agreed to a transition period of 18 months for the Canadian beer industry to adjust to more open competition in the global market. The brewing industry has accepted the transition period in the interests of reaching a settlement.

This summer, Ontario and the other provinces will be dismantling their interprovincial barriers to trade in beer. During the transition period, we will be introducing the legislative and administrative changes required to bring Ontario policies into conformity with the GATT panel report. The panel report on Canada's complaint against US beer practices will be tabled on Thursday at the GATT council meeting in Geneva. I hope that the US will agree to the adoption of this report and will move equally quickly to implement it.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved, specifically representatives of both the beer industry and brewery workers, for their dedicated hard work and constructive advice. This has been a positive example of successful partnership between government, industry and labour in Ontario.

RESPONSES

BREWING INDUSTRY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to respond to the statement by the minister. You can perhaps excuse our chagrin and our astonishment that this government has managed to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. Having heard many of the comments from the heckling Premier in the past, perhaps the Premier should have read the statement. Perhaps it's the Premier who actually negotiated this free trade agreement with the United States.

The minister says she wishes to thank all the parties involved, and she says the beer industry. I understand that. I've requested information about meetings between Labatt's and this government in Orders and Notices and I've been told that it's too costly to provide me with that information. I wonder when this government decided to abandon the workers in the beer industry. I wonder when this government decided --

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Saved thousands of jobs.

Mr Mahoney: Are there not going to be job layoffs, Mr Premier, who seems to be in a rather antsy mood today? I can understand that, considering that he is one of the proponents of the first free trade agreement since he's been elected to office. I can understand why he would be somewhat excited and nervous about this agreement. I'm not even sure he understands it.

This government has agreed to a transition period being changed from 36 months to 18 months. What a transition period is for in this issue is to allow for complete restructuring of the industries so that the workers who are going to be laid off as a result of this government and this policy have an opportunity to find additional work and alternative means of employment.

The Premier doesn't seem to be concerned about that any more. We now have the new free trade socialist government in office, which was prepared to abrogate every other attempt at free trade in dealing in the global market but which now, curiously, seems to be leading the way.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Unaccustomed as I am to speaking on these matters, I would like to say a couple of things about what we have seen coming out of the legislative maze at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There has been a real change in the way this government is now doing business. These people used to make some interesting speeches about what they would do when it came to cooperating with what is really in essence, as my colleague said, a free trade arrangement with the United States. They used to have interesting things to say about gambling, casino gambling in particular.

They used to have interesting things to say about a whole lot of things, but what has gone unsaid is much more remarkable.

Where is the consumer protection legislation that had been talked about by my colleague the member for York Centre for some substantial period of time? Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when it comes to protecting consumers? Where is this minister when she is talking about protecting the consumer dollar from the ravages of a Treasurer so hungry that he virtually leaps at any penny he sees falling to the streets in Ontario? Where is this minister as she is supposed to guard against the full-scale retreat of protections for the consumers of this province?

She is busy constituting panels to help her and then congratulating them for helping her do free trade arrangements between Canada and the United States.

Does anybody remember when the Premier used to talk in different terms about what he would do about free trade in Ontario? Do we remember what this man used to say about casinos in Ontario? Do we remember what this man used to say about protecting consumers? When we talk about protecting consumers, I remember this man at the beginning of the 1990 election indicating he couldn't believe anybody in the Liberal administration because it had raised so many taxes.

It appears the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations forgot to tell us in this little statement of hers about beer that she had a lot of work to do to protect the consumers' disposable income from the Premier who loves to raise taxes, from the Treasurer who is loath to do anything else but raise taxes and spin these magic tales.

There should be a consumer protection bill from this minister to protect us from the information coming in the budget. The budget will be cast in terms that will mislead almost everybody about the real state of affairs in the treasury. It seems to me we will be hearing this minister protecting the consumers against the Treasurer's spins when he starts talking about only operating deficits. We should be reminded that there are both operating and capital budgets to be dealt with in this next budget. Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on those?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the Canada-United States agreement on beer. What an utter waste of time to listen to a statement about an initiative that's been taken by the federal government for a problem that's been solved by the federal government. This government has had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of this problem, and it has the gall to read the newspapers, indicating how this problem is being dealt with by the federal government. They feel they can stand in this House and tell us how they're solving the problem.

In fact, when you look at the final statement the minister has made as to what she has done, it has nothing to do with Consumer and Commercial Relations; it has to do with labour. She says, "This has been a positive example of successful partnership between government, industry and labour." Labour, of all things; this is to be in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, not a matter involving labour. I would say it's political opportunism at its worst for the minister to stand up and make a non-statement, and I will say nothing further in response.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Maybe I'm missing a point here in this announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I thought she represented the consumer, the person who bought a beer at the local pub or bought a beer at Brewers' Retail. Her announcement today and her actions of yesterday or last week are about protecting the beer industry, which made substantial profits last year. They are about protecting brewery workers, but they have nothing to do with the poor worker who wants to go in and buy a beer, and I thought she represented the consumer.

The sooner we can lower beer prices in this province and in this country, the better it will be for the consumer, and therefore that is where we stand.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I think it is a perfect opportunity to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to review, come Thursday, the budget the Treasurer is going to bring down, for just these kinds of reasons. There is going to be a lot of spin-doctoring and interesting phraseology the Treasurer is going to use, and I think it is incumbent on this minister, in protecting the consumer and the taxpayer, to take the language the Treasurer uses and translate it so the average taxpayer will understand. The point that was made by the member for Bruce I think is very important.

I think you as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should explain to the public when your Treasurer tries to tell them he is separating the capital debt from the operating debt and re-explain to them that debt is debt is debt, and quit trying to kid the troops.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing with our routine proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a long-standing former member of the House, and indeed the author of our daily prayer, the former member for Yorkview, Mr Fred Young, seated in the gallery.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. The Premier continues to exercise a personal judgement that denies people in communities like Windsor the right to open their stores on Sunday. The Premier has decided that Sunday shopping is wrong because it would be damaging to our sense of community and family, even though the people of Windsor and other communities say they desperately need Sunday shopping to stave off their economic catastrophe.

It seems the Premier is prepared to respond to municipal calls for casinos, but he continues to ignore their calls for other alternatives, like Sunday shopping, to assist them. It is quite obvious the Premier believes there is something to fear from Sunday shopping but nothing to fear from casinos, and quite obviously the logic of this decision seems to escape more than just the members on this side of the House, so I would again ask the Premier why it is he responds so readily to the call for casinos but refuses to listen to the pleas for Sunday shopping.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I would say that generally speaking we are listening to people, but with respect to the specific example she has raised, she'll realize that I am at something of a disadvantage, as is she, since as of this afternoon this matter of the proposed bylaw from Windsor is now before the Ontario Municipal Board. I am sure that given the comments that have been made by the former Attorney General and others, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything which could affect the outcome of that hearing.

Mrs McLeod: I was of course quite well aware of the presentation being made to the Ontario Municipal Board and it is very much the focus of our supplementary question, but before asking the supplementary question, I would like to present our understanding of why the government has responded in such a differential way to the calls from communities for a response to what they believe would help their situation, because it seems to us quite evident that the decision to consider introducing casino gambling was made with greater haste because of the government's desperation to get new sources of what it is now calling non-tax revenue.

It is quite clear this government is prepared to listen and to respond to people in communities only when it serves its very most immediate purposes.

In light of the fact that some 70% of Ontarians have indicated they want Sunday shopping, will this government now stop imposing its judgements on municipalities and stop making necessary the resort to the Ontario Municipal Board to defend a decision made by a municipality? Will the Premier agree to introduce legislation allowing municipalities simply to decide for themselves whether or not they want Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Rae: I know the urge to ask certain questions on certain days, but since she herself started her entire question focusing on the Windsor subject, all I can say to her is that the matter is now before the OMB.

Mrs McLeod: Obviously the thrust of the supplementary question was to propose that there are ways to respond to municipalities without putting them through the process of having to respond on an appeal to the OMB. It might also tie into some of the government's other stated initiatives, like streamlining the processes at the Ontario Municipal Board. But perhaps I can take the Premier to another aspect of the question, since he's not going to deal with this particular one on this particular day.

I suggest that most people understand the economic benefits that would come from Sunday shopping, in terms of its impact both on cross-border shopping and also on the maintenance of retail sales in the province. It seems that the main difference between casinos and Sunday shopping is that with Sunday shopping the government can't quite readily identify its own take as easily as it could with casino revenues. That's the difference and that's why this decision is being considered.

We wonder whether the government has really analysed what its take is going to be and what the actual benefits to the province will be. Last week the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was asked about impact studies on horse racing and charitable organizations. In response she indicated that she was certainly going to talk to those people. There is a considerable difference between talking to people and carrying out detailed impact studies. I ask the Premier whether his government in fact has carried out impact studies on the possible costs and benefits of casino gambling, and if so, will he share the results of those impact studies with the Ontario public?

Hon Mr Rae: I can assure the honourable member that when a decision is made with respect to the question of gaming generally, obviously the impacts that various proposals may or may not have with respect to other elements of the gaming industry are among the factors that will be considered.

Mrs McLeod: I am truly surprised that a Premier and a government that talk about openness and consultation would not want to have any information the government is using as a basis for making its decision shared with the public before the decision is in fact made, so there could be greater understanding and acceptance of the ultimate decision. But that is not the subject of my second question, which I will also direct to the Premier.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With this question I want to raise matters of statements that have been made recently by the Minister of Education that are causing considerable concern and confusion across the province. On a Focus Ontario program a little better than a week ago, the minister suggested that the boards would have to stop behaving and spending as they have been. When pressed the minister went on to acknowledge that of course he had always felt the boards were underfunded, yet in the absence of the necessary funding he would not approve of boards that were cutting either staff or programs.

Anyone listening to that discussion would have understood that there was clearly only one other resource for school boards, and that was salary contracts, yet the minister has been very unclear as to what his government's role will be in direct intervention in salary negotiating processes.

Last Wednesday the Minister of Education made his announcement about transition funds and indicated that transition dollars would support the "establishment of balanced and affordable contracts" that are to be achieved through "lower wage settlements in return for enhanced employment security and other negotiated benefits." Does the Premier understand what his minister meant by the term "balanced and affordable agreements"? Can he tell us how his government is going to decide which boards will be rewarded for following the government's bargaining strategy? Does the Premier himself not consider this to be direct intervention in the collective bargaining process?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Given his depth of knowledge in these areas, I think I'll refer the question to the Minister of Education.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The answers to the two parts of the question from the Leader of the Opposition are as follows: With respect to what we mean by effective agreements, we mean collective or other agreements that can be reached between school boards and their employee groups which balance what I think all in this House understand to be more reasonable wage packages with a number of other benefits and protections that are important to employees. That's the kind of thing we want to encourage and I think all members in this House would agree with that.

In terms of the process, we have been meeting and will continue to meet with representatives from the school boards, the teachers' federation and the support staff unions to come up with a system for requests and approval of the transition funds, because we also believe that's the best way to deal with that issue in terms of having them involved with us in setting up a process we think makes sense to everyone as far as the distribution of those funds is concerned.

Mrs McLeod: I am not at all surprised that the Premier would have referred this question rather than accept any responsibility for statements the Minister of Education has been making. It seems quite amazing to me that the responses we're hearing from the Minister of Education would be made by somebody who has the knowledge of a former chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, who fully realizes how completely unworkable, at least based on any information we've been given, these transition fund guidelines are going to be.

It would seem to us that the transfer payments to school boards, when they were announced, essentially left the school boards with de facto wage controls, although the Minister of Education will use every possible kind of wording to refuse to acknowledge that fact. Again, I recognize that in the statement made by the minister last Wednesday, he said he wanted boards to offer enhanced employment security as a tradeoff for lower wages. Surely the minister and even the Premier realize this is direct intervention in the collective bargaining process without any clear guidelines for that intervention.

I would ask the minister, can he be very specific today about the kind of tradeoffs he expects boards to make with teachers and how those tradeoffs are going to be managed through a selective application of his transition funds?

Hon Mr Silipo: I have to say I'm a little bit puzzled by the question, because again we seem to be getting this "we want to have it both ways" approach, with all due respect. We are being accused now of interfering in the collective bargaining process when some time last week or the week before we were getting calls from both opposition parties to bring in wage controls and to legislate solutions.

What we are doing is recognizing there is a collective bargaining responsibility and relationship at the local level between school boards and their employee groups. What we have done is to set out some criteria which we believe will help in that process and fulfil our responsibility at the ministry level and as a government to oversee the functioning of our school system. It's exactly because I know what it's like to be a school trustee, to be at the local level, responsible for dealing with these kinds of issues, that I believe this responsibility needs to be supported. We need to do that in the way we have been doing, by working with school boards.

We have examples of these kinds of things beginning to happen even on their own. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would know very well the situation in the Lambton County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, where the teachers at both levels have come together with the board of their own accord and repackaged an agreement they had into something that is more sensible for them, and we think for everyone.

Mrs McLeod: We know well what is being achieved with voluntary, cooperative efforts at a local level. It's the minister's own announcement of his intent to intervene directly in school board contracts that we're questioning today. This isn't something mythical; this is something the minister announced in a written statement last week. We're simply asking him to tell us and to tell boards across this province what his government intends to do, what the strategy is. I don't believe he can answer the question because I don't believe the government has a strategy.

I think the government has created chaos from the time it went from an 8% transfer payment a year ago to a 1% transfer payment this year. I believe the government is now trying to redeem the situation by presenting something it terms to be guidelines, which is really direct intervention without any kind of plan at all. This threatens to leave the education system in as much chaos in the future as it is right now.

I simply ask the minister how he can possibly justify this kind of direct intervention without any clear guidelines as to what is expected, without any clear plan as to what his government intends to achieve. With all these tradeoffs, what kind of legacy is this minister leaving future school boards and future taxpayers in the province?

Hon Mr Silipo: As the Leader of the Opposition would fully understand, it isn't the place for ministerial statements to outline in detail all the guidelines we will be following. Those guidelines are there; they're being developed. We have another meeting set up for next week to conclude them with the stakeholders I mentioned and for us to talk with them about the specific process of approving these funds, because we believe that's the way in which this should be done, not simply by the minister, without that kind of discussion with people at the local level.

LOAN GUARANTEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. This Thursday, Premier, we'll find out just how deep a hole the Treasurer has dug for Ontario taxpayers. Given Ontario's current financial woes, would the Premier tell us why you are even considering offering loan guarantees to Olympia and York?

Does the Premier not realize that by letting it be known that you are considering offering loan guarantees, both you, the Ontario government, and the federal government have sent a signal to the banks that virtually guarantees they'll offer no form of bailout package or no form of restructuring without the taxpayers being on the hook federally and provincially? Do you not realize you have done that, and why are you doing it in the first place?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party, who's looking particularly well today, and say to him that there have been no guarantees given to the financial institutions or to the company in question and that he would be among the first, I think, who would think it among the responsibilities of this government to be working with the federal government to monitor the difficult situation which we know O and Y has been in for some time. But beyond that monitoring, no decisions have been taken by this government.

Mr Harris: I realize no decisions have been taken. My question didn't deal with the decision; my question deals with why you have served notice that you are prepared to consider. Why have you done that? The taxpayers of Ontario, I suggest to you, Mr Premier, cannot afford to bail out Canary Wharf. Let's let John Major guarantee their loans and look after their problems with the Canary Wharf project in England.

Premier, you will likely kill more jobs in your own budget on Thursday than Olympia and York will save with your loan guarantees. Given all of that, will you today send a clear message to the bankers, who have advanced the money to Olympia and York and are now looking for the taxpayers to get them off the hook? Will you send that clear message to the bankers and Olympia and York and all the negotiators who are there that they will not get one cent of loan guarantee from the beleaguered Ontario taxpayers?

Hon Mr Rae: The only thing this government has been doing, which I think any government in this situation would be expected to do, has been to monitor, through its officials, with federal officials, with people from the Bank of Canada and from elsewhere, with respect to the situation the company finds itself in, and that is the extent of whatever has been put forward by the government of Ontario. We have obviously been listening and learning about the situation from the people involved, as well as from others in the private sector and in the public sector, and that's the responsible thing for us to do. Beyond that, no decisions have been taken.

Mr Harris: This document contains the names of 1,500 companies that have gone bankrupt since your government took office, Mr Premier. Thousands -- hundreds of thousands, many will say -- are out of work in this province as a result of this. Belleville Furniture and Appliances, Frank Furlong Auto Repair, Hart Marine Ltd -- I suggest to you, Premier, that your attention should be on these economic problems. What forced these businesses to go under? You say in response that you have done nothing but monitor.

Will you then assure this House, and therefore send a clear signal out to the taxpayers of this province and the negotiators for the banks, that the Ontario government will not be receptive to any advance to guarantee any of the Olympia and York loans?

Hon Mr Rae: The Ontario Development Corp, as the leader of the third party knows perfectly well, has been involved for many years under all three governments in responding to different situations across the province with regard to companies. To suggest, for example, that we have been unreceptive to the difficulties facing a number of companies across the province would be quite unfair, or that we are favouring one company or one group of companies over another would be an accusation without any foundation.

All I can tell the honourable member, as clearly as I possibly can, is that if we were not monitoring the situation and looking at it together with the federal government in terms of what is taking place, the leader of the third party would be the very first person on his feet saying that's what we should be doing. Beyond that we have made no commitments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Harris: It is totally incorrect for you to suggest what I would be doing. I am clearly telling you, Premier, that what you are doing is telling the banks they would be foolish not to ask for the loan guarantees, and you know that's what will happen --

The Speaker: Is this the member's second question?

Mr Harris: -- and second, to every other business, "If you've got a problem, come to the Ontario taxpayer" --

The Speaker: Order. Does the leader of the third party have a second question, and to whom does he wish to address his question?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. Earlier this year our caucus asked, through a survey, 50,000 businesses in Ontario what they thought about your proposed labour legislation. The response to the survey was overwhelming, some 10 times the statistical average for response to surveys of this type; the response rate was some 10 times greater. Forty-eight per cent of the responses said that they will cut back on staff if you proceed with your plans and the direction you are going in.

Premier, knowing that you will kill jobs in this province if you proceed unilaterally, will you immediately place a moratorium on your labour legislation changes as they are proposed to go forward by the Minister of Labour before we lose one more job in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, we've had a consultation. We've now had an opportunity to hear from a lot of people. Cabinet will obviously be considering any proposals coming forward from the Ministry of Labour with respect to the legislation, the House will have an opportunity to debate the legislation and committees will then have a chance to consider it. This will be the year in which this discussion will take place.

That's the way this government intends to proceed. I also say there are some very clear examples I can offer the member quite to the contrary. I doubt very much whether the Ford Motor Co would have invested $1 billion in Oakville and $1 billion in Windsor if the Ford Motor Co felt the general approach taken by this government would be one that would be antithetical to or hostile to that company's plans to invest. We welcome investment in this province, we welcome positive labour relations between employers and employees, and we welcome the investment we have seen coming so far to the province.

Mr Harris: I think the president of Ford Motor Co is very clear and explicitly on the record as to what he thinks of how you are proceeding with the labour legislation changes. He has indicated that it is over great objections, but that in spite of that, some other factors, none of which have to do with that or your government, are enabling him to proceed with the plans they had already made several years ago to invest in Ontario.

Fifty-four per cent of the businesses we surveyed said they would consider leaving Ontario if you proceed unilaterally. This will cost thousands of jobs. Premier, are new and expanded powers for union bosses more important than workers' jobs in this province? That is what it boils down to.

Hon Mr Rae: The idea that trying to ensure workers have a right to organize, that the right is made real, that we reduce the amount of counterproductive and lengthy delays in dealing with certification applications -- to characterize that as giving more power to union bosses is rhetoric worthy of the 1920s or 1930s and has nothing to do with a modern industrial province.

Mr Harris: I read in the clippings this morning, Mr Premier, that you supported the comments made by Mr John Tory in a recent speech. I would like to quote from Mr Tory's speech: "In the case of the government, their timing is appalling; their attitude is suspect. Just as we need confidence and stability, just as we are faced with global economic restructuring, the NDP decides to conduct a one-sided revolutionization of our labour laws."

Mr Premier, business has offered to sit down at the table with you. I have asked you repeatedly to take them up on their offer for a tripartite committee of government, business and labour to set the agenda, to look at labour legislation changes as part of that agenda and to find solutions together. Given that jobs must come first in this province, will you today finally sit down at the table, as Michael Harcourt is in British Columbia, with business, labour and government to deal with the future changes to the labour legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that's exactly what we have been doing and that's exactly what we will do.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is about jobs as well, and it is to the Premier. Last Friday, Placer Dome announced the layoff of 99 workers at its Campbell gold mine in Balmertown, a community of some 1,569 people. Here are some of the facts that brought about this decision: Hydro cost increases are escalating -- 12.9% last year and they are facing 8.9% increases this year; as well, they face a 49% tax burden on their operating earnings; Workers' Compensation Board costs are rising through the roof and much uncertainty on where they are going to end up has been placed. We don't know where they are heading.

During the past year Placer Dome has reinvested in high-technology improvements and new production equipment to enhance its environmental and economic performance and has done well in this area. In spite of this, the company still had to lay off 99 of its workers.

Mr Premier, this is one of the stars in the mining industry in Ontario and yet this government is forcing it to lay off people. What is your government doing to ensure that companies like Placer Dome will not be forced to make similar layoff decisions?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I will refer that to the Minister of Mines.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): It was with some dismay that I was advised by Tim Mann, the general manager at this particular mine, that in fact they would be laying off 99 people effective on Friday.

I can tell the House that, in correspondence sent to me by the mine manager, he indicated very clearly that the two reasons for the layoffs were, one, the very low price of gold which the company is experiencing and having difficulty responding to, and two, a review that was done by a management consultant one year ago to try and look at the overall operations in order to determine where further cost-cutting measures could take effect. Indeed, the consultant study unfortunately did show that cuts in costs could come. This happened at the managerial level, hence the layoffs that occurred.

The member raises a very good point: What are we trying to do with other mine operations in order to deal with the very serious problems they are having? While there is not much we can do with respect to international prices either of gold or other metals, there is certainly a great deal we can do with respect to dealing with environmental regulation and with incentives. In both those cases, the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer have asked me to deal with mining companies in particular to see where we can move in those two important areas.

Mr Miclash: Madam Minister, I'm talking about jobs. We know these 99 jobs are gone. Some four hours down the road from Red Lake we have a development ready to go. Madam Minister, you'll be aware of the Consolidated Professor Mines development that is ready to come on track. We know this will create 175 permanent new jobs. We know it will pump $53 million into the local economy during the mine's pre-production period. As well, we're looking at another $14.3 million into the local economy on an annual basis.

Madam Minister, you'll be aware as well that a redesignation under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act has been requested by this company. In light of the announcement made by your government -- and you referred to the Minister of the Environment earlier -- to streamline that process, what are you doing to help Consolidated Professor Mines, and more important, the mining industry across the province to get back on their feet?

I've just cited an example of 99 miners in Balmertown gone -- no jobs left for those 99. What are you doing in terms of helping other mining industries to stay in this province?

Hon Miss Martel: The member should know that I did indeed have an opportunity to meet with Mr Cunningham-Dunlop of Consolidated Professor at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention. I was also very pleased to meet with representatives of one of the band, who are very interested in having the project proceed because they know full well that a number of native members of their communities will receive employment from that.

I can tell the member that discussions are under way among several ministries, and at the federal level and with the province of Manitoba with respect to the Shoal Lake project. He will know this was designated under his government. There has been a request for that project to be de-designated and we are looking at what the implications of that might be.

I cannot make any commitment to the member at this time as to what will happen in that regard, but I can tell him that a number of ministries are involved at the present time in seriously looking at that request to determine what we can do.

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Public opinion research conducted for the Better Roads Coalition reveals that 82% of Ontarians want the provincial tax money collected through gasoline, tire and other road taxes to be invested in road maintenance and construction.

You're already spending approximately $1 billion less than you raised from these transportation user fees, yet this year the reduction in transfer payments to the municipalities is forcing cuts in road maintenance and the cancellation of new projects. Presently your government is following the Liberal example of allowing our infrastructure to crumble while spending money on such items as propaganda phone lines and buying out private day care centres. Can you explain why this $1 billion is being allowed to be frittered away when the condition of roads is so desperate?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): In terms of the money being spent and the achievements of the Ministry of Transportation, this fiscal year indeed represents the highest it's ever been. The total amount is $2.8 billion. Transfer payments, money that's flowing from the province to municipalities to fix bridges, to address the road system, has gone up 1% from $727 million to $735 million. At the Ministry of Transportation these are difficult but far from impossible times. We're capital-inclined.

I recall so vividly when these people formed a government. During good years they spent money like drunken sailors, except that at least drunken sailors spend their own money. Not only are we doing the best we can; this is an open-minded administration and we are seeking new ways, putting literally our best foot forward so that the investments of yesteryears will be improved both in terms of transit systems and in terms of transportation.

Mr Turnbull: This minister displays his lack of understanding of his own ministry. He's just suggested that he is spending more this year on roads than the total ministry budget, not counting transportation transfers. At the Ontario Road Builders' Association you mentioned that you were considering toll booths on Ontario highways as a source of revenue. Minister, all of these new taxes are just going to disappear in the general revenue unless you put something in place to guarantee that doesn't happen. The figures you just quoted are incorrect. You are not spending $2.8 billion on roads. You're just plain wrong.

Tell me: If you're going to introduce toll booths, are you going to guarantee that money goes into road building and not your stupid propaganda projects?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The same polls will also indicate that the people in Ontario -- the motorists, the 6.3 million people who have a valid driver's licence -- in their position are way ahead of the third party because 64% of the people are saying go and find an imaginative way to meet the cost, for instance, of Highway 407. It's $20 million a mile.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Later today I will be presenting a petition on behalf of the York-Finch Hospital Foundation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mammoliti: This is a very important issue. I hope they don't decide to shout me down again. Later today I will be presenting a petition on behalf of the York-Finch Hospital Foundation. Nine thousand people have signed it, supporting the hospital's request for urgently required funding. My question then is to the Minister of Health.

Honourable Minister, my community has requested that I bring their concerns directly to your attention. York-Finch General Hospital opened in 1970, and even though Yorkview has grown fantastically and is still growing, the hospital has not kept up. Today our hospital not only services the Yorkview area but outlying areas as well, including Woodbridge and Etobicoke. We urgently need funds to expand our current hospital services. Our planned expansion fulfils your ministry's guideline for providing more outpatient and ambulatory care services for communities without increasing hospital operating costs.

Madam Minister, could you please inform me of the status of York-Finch General Hospital and its request for funding?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question from the member for Yorkview and also receiving a copy of the press release from his press conference that he held today jointly with the CEO of York-Finch hospital. I appreciate his expression of the level of community support. He asked for an update on the status of this project. The project was originally supported by the district health council back in about 1986. In 1987 they started doing some planning work but the project's never been given ministry approval and they have been awaiting that status and a response to that.

Right now, the member will know that as of January 21 we announced that we are conducting a major review of outstanding capital commitments. Those commitments are for projects that have been approved that are not currently in the ground but have already been started. A number of them have tenders already out. We are currently trying to get those cleared up and get responses to those hospitals and those communities as soon as possible because we recognize, yet again, holding them up is a real problem.

Until we do that, until we get those projects in line with the new guidelines and the hospital funding program, as well as the strategic directions of the ministry, we won't be able to get an answer to some of those hospitals that haven't got approved projects. I appreciate the member's concern and we will try to get him an answer when that's possible.

Mr Mammoliti: I look forward to hearing from the ministry.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. In January, the Premier spent $62,000 of taxpayers' money telling Ontarians that times are tough and that we have to tighten our belts. Talk is about the only thing that's cheap with this government.The latest example of wasteful spending is the move of the Cabinet Office to the fourth floor of the Whitney Block at a cost of $2.5 million. This minister moved his colleagues from perfectly good offices here in the Legislature to new quarters in the Whitney building. I just want to point out to the minister that $2.5 million could support 100 families annually at $25,000 per year.

I would ask how the Minister of Government Services can approve spending money so frivolously in these difficult economic times?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): The member for Oriole is quite correct and the Cabinet Office has been consolidated in the Whitney Block from four former locations. The total cost for that move was $1 million --

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Wilson: As I was saying, the Cabinet Office was consolidated in the Whitney Block from four former locations, one of which was in the Legislative Building, two in the Whitney and one in the Mowat Block. This consolidation was done in response to the recommendations of an all-party committee on the parliamentary precinct and is part of the overall plan for the restoration of the Legislative Building. The approximate cost for that was only $1,940,000 -- far under budget. The quality of the operations and new furniture are comparable to the standard for government or private use; 60% of the existing furniture and equipment were reused.

Mrs Caplan: I think, on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, the Minister of Government Services should know that I believe, and I think the taxpayers believe, that in excess of $1 million is a lot of money. He misses the point when he stands up and rhymes off an apologist's justification for what has been done.

What has been done is clearly wasteful and it is just part of a list of wasteful expenditures which include $200,000 for putting police officers up in the Sutton Place Hotel for budget security measures; $170,000 to publicize the throne speech, which was already published in full text in the paper and televised on the legislative channel; $500,000 for a completely useless legislative inquiry, and a $25-a-call NDP propaganda hotline.

This minister keeps justifying wasteful expenditures. I would ask him, why doesn't he change the name of his ministry to the Ministry of Government Waste?

Hon Mr Wilson: I imagine that last remark from the member for Oriole referred to my having the 3Rs program within my ministry.

Nevertheless, the consolidation of the cabinet office in the Whitney Block is part of the long-range plan, which I am sure the member is familiar with, of the refurbishing of the legislative precinct. It will in fact free up space within this very building in which we sit to allow us, for instance, to move members back into this building.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, the Treasurer is poised to make some pretty dramatic cuts in social services on Thursday. At least that's what we are being led to believe.

Faced with that predicament, rather than possibly reducing the number of children who are impoverished and need meals in this province, rather than dealing with the 12,000 children on mental health waiting lists, rather than providing a safe environment by not cutting the budgets of children's aid societies, you and your government have decided to proceed with a rather expensive plan, worth about $105 million, to wipe out private day care and the day care spaces it is providing to thousands of children in this province.

How can you justify this expensive ideological experiment that will be of no direct benefit to children in this province, especially to children in day care centres who will lose their spaces, women workers who will lose their jobs, women owners who will lose their businesses and their life investment and, last but not least, taxpayers who will lose value on their $105 million instead of putting it into children's services?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I am sure the member is well aware, I will not comment on the first bunch of allegations he made about the budget. On Thursday you will hear about the budget and understand the commitment we have to those who are most in need in the province.

In terms of the issue around the support for private child care centres to convert to the non-profit sector, we believe these dollars are well spent on behalf of the children, their parents and indeed the staff. Of that $105 million, $30 million is specifically to pay support for the direct operating grants and the wage enhancement to people in those centres.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take her seat, please. With the cooperation of the member for Etobicoke West, the member for Burlington South can ask his supplementary.

Mr Jackson: The truth of the matter is, Minister, that you have $105 million of open-ended funding which, by your own testimony before a committee of this Legislature, you indicated was going to pay for non-profit centres that were closing. You were propping them up. A lot of that money is not going to conversion and saving spaces; it is to save a system that isn't working in this province fiscally. That's where you're putting your money, Minister, so don't try and suggest to this House that all that money is saving day care spaces. Thousands of spaces in for-profit and independent centres are closing.

I repeat my question: You have an opportunity now, faced with the difficult cuts you are going to have to make, with the news your Treasurer shares with you, you have the option of dropping this expensive ideological experiment and allowing those children's services to be retained in this province. A poll was announced today that showed that 80% of the citizens of this province support choice and the most inexpensive way economically of delivering day care in this province. That's what 80% want.

On television in January, in an address on the economy, the Premier said, "I want your input." The province has spoken, and 80% of people want you to go back to the system of allowing this sector to survive. Will you respond and will you change this offensive ideological priority for spending when children's spaces are closing all across this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are allowing private child care centres to stay open. Those that are now receiving grants will continue to receive grants and we continue to say that choice will be available to parents. We are saying that we will not put our scarce public dollars into profit centres when we need to strategically place those dollars to create a child care system in this province.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, on Friday you announced the relocation of government jobs from Toronto to communities across the province. In Kingston I announced on your behalf that the Ontario Heritage Foundation will be moving to Kingston with 60 jobs. However, the people of the Kingston area were expecting 230 government jobs. Can you explain why this change was made?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): As the member knows, we went through a review of the relocation program and as a result of that managed to identify over $300 million in savings as well as making what we think are a number of improvements to the original proposal.

With regard to Kingston particularly, we have I guess three points I could make to the member. First, we believe the move of the Ontario Heritage Foundation to Kingston is a better fit than elsewhere, and we think for that reason that's more sensible.

Second, we know there was some concern with respect to the number of jobs and will continue to work with the community in Kingston and within ministries about further possible relocations. Also, we've indicated that we are looking there at the possibility of alternative economic development funds we can make available to Kingston as the community is looking at what other industrial development activities it wants to undertake.

Third, we were able to confirm that a number of jobs from the Ministry of Transportation which were in some possibility of being moved out of Kingston will in fact be confirmed as remaining in Kingston. That's about 225 jobs. We think that with all of those things together, we have been fairly fair with the Kingston community.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, the chairperson of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission is concerned that the Kingston announcement shows a lack of support for eastern Ontario, and we need that support. For example, on the very day I was announcing the move of 60 jobs to Kingston, Celanese Canada was announcing that it was closing a production line at a cost of 160 jobs. What is the government doing to promote the economic development of eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can certainly give at least two very specific examples. With respect to Renfrew, which was one of the other communities that was involved in the relocation program, we came up, as a result of discussions with people in the Renfrew community, with an alternative economic development fund of $3 million from our end, which replaces the relocation move, which from their point of view makes a lot more sense as well in terms of the discussions we've had.

We anticipate that's one of the options that's available with respect to Kingston. We realize the discussions there have not gone as far as they have in the Renfrew community, but that's, as I've indicated, one of the options that's there and that will be discussed further, certainly with the member and with the mayor of the city and with other people in the community.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Minister of Government Services last week admitted that the government is going to conduct more polls. The Minister of Transportation today quoted a poll saying 70% of the people were for something so the government was going to be doing it.

This question is for the Premier. At a time when his NDP government is closing hospital beds, is laying off nurses, is cutting educational programs, is shutting down kindergartens and is denying essential prescription drugs to elderly patients in Ontario, how can the Premier justify spending government funds, taxpayers' money, on more public opinion polls?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the upcoming --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Speak right to the TV audience, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the helpful suggestions being made by the member for St George-St David with regard to question period. His ongoing commentary is a source of education and amusement to all of us and it's a period we all look forward to.

My answer to the member would be to say that I think the estimates discussion and the budget discussion will give the member an opportunity to see the priorities of this government with respect to public services and with respect as well to information.

I think it's important for us to always remember that our first obligation is to serve the public and make sure the public is getting the services that it needs, and as well from time to time to let people know what we're doing and from time to time to ask people, which I think all institutions do -- in fact, the leader of the third party asked a question today based on a 50,000-firm survey that was presumably carried out by the Progressive Conservative Party. I would think --

Mr Bradley: That is party funds, not government funds.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whose funds they were, whether it was done by the caucus or whatever. These are things we all have to do from time to time.

Mr Bradley: In his earlier days in opposition, in his politically pure days, when he dismissed casino gambling and offtrack betting as politically evil, the Premier believed that government-commissioned polls paid for by taxpayers represented a cynical manipulation of the political process. Why, now that he is Premier, has he abandoned his principles of the past? Why does he not do what he vowed to do in opposition and cancel this costly, strictly political exercise?

Hon Mr Rae: I suspect for the same reason that, when the member was the Minister of the Environment for five long years and polls were conducted by his cabinet, he sat back and participated in that: for the simple reason that there is a normal process by which governments try to seek out and listen to people. There are a variety of ways of consulting with people, of which polling is simply one. The results are shared with the public and shared with members of the Legislature. That's the traditional practice in the Legislature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Premier. Employees at the Cambridge Reporter recently attempted to get their union decertified. Thirty of 54 employees, the majority, have signed a petition requesting that the union be decertified. Apparently several union cards were obtained by the organizers at a union party where a number of people under the influence of too much beer and good cheer were given cards without paying the requisite $1 fee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has turned down the petition because an application to terminate bargaining rights cannot be made until after the first collective agreement is settled. The first contract is currently pending before an arbitrator. The 30 employees, the majority, do not feel that their voices have been heard on the issue of certification. They are frustrated by a process that is not responsive to their wishes.

Would the Premier not agree that this case clearly demonstrates the need for a secret ballot vote for certification to protect the democratic rights of workers in this province and to ensure that all voices are heard?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think I'll have to take your question as notice.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Premier, you would agree that labour legislation must be responsive to the interests of all working people in the province. Your discussion paper gives unions additional rights but no accompanying responsibilities. There is absolutely no onus on a union to provide employees with copies of recent collective agreements, the union constitution, discipline procedures and information on the amount of dues payable in order that employees can truly make a well-informed choice.

Today you talked about providing workers with the right to organize. However, that right must be balanced. They also need to have the right not to become unionized. The only way to ensure that the democratic rights of all employees are protected is to provide them with the ability to vote on the issue through secret ballot.

Premier, when you introduce your bill to amend the Labour Relations Act, will it contain the requirement for a secret ballot vote for certification, ratification of agreements and the decision to strike, as I put forward in my private member's Bill 152?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only to say to the honourable member that I find that ironic coming from an élite member of the third party. After all, it was her party that was in power and passed legislation over many years providing for the pattern of certification that is in place today. Her complaint does not appear to be simply with the legislative proposals that have been made by this government; her complaint appears to be with the labour legislation that was passed by 42 years of Tory government in the province of Ontario.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. She should know that across this province volunteer organizations, be they groups like the Rose City Snow Seekers or the Welland Snowmobile Club, sports groups, hockey teams, bowling leagues, what have you, know they can't go with hand out to municipal governments, or indeed even to the provincial government, expecting grants and funding. What they are forced to rely on is that labour-intensive effort of fund-raising. They are ready to do it. They are eager to do it. They are eager to spend long, smoke-filled nights in bingo halls trying to raise money for their volunteer activities.

The problem is that they are experiencing a phenomenon where they are finding it more difficult rather than easier to engage in this fund-raising exercise. This is untenable and totally unacceptable. These people work too hard to provide too much to their communities to have stumbling blocks presented to them by the government.

My question is this: It is no secret that there is a gaming services act being resurrected and scheduled to be presented at some point. What is this minister going to do to make things easier for these small-town groups like the Rose City Snow Seekers, the Welland Snowmobile Club, minor hockey and baseball teams to make it easier rather than more difficult?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It is always a pleasure to get a question from my colleague, formerly of my own ministry. Given the short time left today, I would just like to tell him that of course I am an advocate for the little guy and the little gal out there. I agree that there have been numerous roadblocks for people. I believe that is what he was talking about. There has been confusion for some time before last week about who has been eligible for charitable licences, as I said, starting with the Liberal government.

We are in the process of reviewing some of that eligibility. We want to be fair, we want to obey the law, but I am certainly aware of the problems the member is pointing out here today and am in the process of reviewing some of that and making sure their voices are heard in my ministry at last.

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

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a supplementary for the member?

The Speaker: While I appreciate the member's interest in both questions and responses, the question period is one hour in duration, and the time has expired.

Mr Stockwell: Unanimous consent.

The Speaker: With unanimous consent we can do just about anything. Do we have unanimous consent to continue question period?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: No. I realize this disappoints the member, but we continue with the routine proceedings.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Mr Cooke moved that the membership of the standing committee on regulations and private bills be amended by Mrs MacKinnon being substituted for Mr Fletcher.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Turnbull exchange places with Mr Tilson and Mrs Witmer exchange places with Mr McLean in order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have here a petition that has been put together by the Tebrik subcommittee of the St Paul's Home and School Association. Some 250 persons have signed the petition, which reads as follows. I note that this group of parents has done an incredible amount of work in putting this together, and I support it fully.

"We, the undersigned, find unacceptable the level of financing from the Ministry of Education towards (

a) alleviating the overcrowding at St Paul's Catholic School, Newmarket, Ontario, and (

b) meeting the needs of this growing community for further educational facilities.

"We support the board's bid to seek additional funds for Tebrik, phase 2, as proposed in the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board's capital expenditure forecast dated March 16, 1992. We most strongly recommend that the Ministry of Education approve financing of Tebrik, phase 2, in order to provide adequate and appropriate facilities to meet the educational and health and safety needs of the children of our community."

As I mentioned, I have appended my signature to this. It has been put forward by close to 250 people from Newmarket.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lanark-Renfrew to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving

interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Incredibly, I have 9,000 signatures from my community. York-Finch General Hospital Foundation this morning gave me the petition. Frankly, I'd like not only to read it but tell you how important it is to me.

"Whereas the York-Finch General Hospital has been working with the Ministry of Health in developing an expansion program that will help in meeting the health care needs of the community it serves;

"Whereas the planning for this expansion has been ongoing for approximately eight years;

"Whereas the community has donated and pledged funds towards its share of the building costs for the proposed expansion;

"Whereas the population in Yorkview and Downsview ridings continued to increase dramatically;

"We, as community residents, request that the government of Ontario provide approval and funding for the York-Finch General Hospital expansion program so that this hospital may more appropriately accommodate the health care needs for its population."

I have certainly affixed my signature to the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have been asked to present this petition by 68 people in my riding. I say I present it; I do not agree with what it has to say. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is the duty of the free people to constantly guard and, if necessary, defend their freedoms, including linguistic freedom;

"Whereas the equality of all before the law is a fundamental principle of a democracy;

"Whereas the French Language Services Act creates a lawful but unjust special status for one linguistic group in Ontario and overrides the equality principle of a democracy;

"Whereas this act was passed by a minority of the members of this Legislative, as only 55 of the 125 elected members of this Legislative Assembly were present to vote;

"Therefore, to return true democracy to Ontario, wherein all are equal before the law, and to promote harmony and goodwill among all the citizens, we ask this House to repeal the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, at the earliest possible moment."

As I said, I've been asked to present this and I've presented it, but I do not agree with the contents of it.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wish to present a petition to the Legislature on the subject of the government considering legalizing casinos. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the current government is considering legalizing casinos in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in the racing industry; and

"Whereas studies show these proposals could affect some 50,000 jobs within the industry;

"The government stop looking to casinos as a quick-fix solution to pay down the deficit."

CENTRES D'ALPHABÉTISATION

M. Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : J'ai en main six pétitions. Par contre, je vais consolider les six en une.

En 1986, le gouvernement de l'Ontario met sur pied une politique d'alphabétisation pour l'Ontario. En 1990, Statistique Canada dévoile dans une étude que plus de 38 % de la population canadienne est analphabète.

En mars 1992, le gouvernement de l'Ontario annonce une coupure minimum de 22 % pour les centres d'alphabétisation. Ces coupures mettent en danger la survie et l'avenir des centres d'alphabétisation. Le gouvernement de l'Ontario doit accepter de prendre sa responsabilité et d'assurer un financement adéquat pour les centres d'alphabétisation.

Nous demandons au gouvernement de l'Ontario de maintenir au budget les montants affectés aux différents programmes d'alphabétisation.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition signed by 203 Ontario residents representing both management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, including Servocraft, Covertite Eastern, Bel-con Engineering, Dineen Construction, Twin Masonry and Zan Dall Construction, which reads:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I here affix my signature.

TAXATION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by a number of people from the Ottawa-Carleton area. I have affixed my signature to it and agree with it:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I present to the Legislature of Ontario a petition, which I have affixed my signature to, and it is signed by 30 residents of Ottawa-Carleton:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation bill, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a number of petitions here signed by tenants in three apartment buildings in North York -- 50, 60 and 70 Ruddington -- as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens the permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

I have attached my signature.

GAME AND FISH BILL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 162 has been introduced to amend the provisions of the Game and Fish Act, RSO 1980,

chapter 182; and

"Whereas the undersigned are opposed to the amendment of the Game and Fish Act pursuant to the provisions of Bill 162;

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

"The undersigned respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to amend the Game and Fish Act, RSO 1980,

chapter 182, by the enactment of Bill 162."

This is signed by over 300 citizens of the province, and I have affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr Winninger moved first reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

Motion agreed to.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Very briefly, the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Code would extend protection against discrimination in employment against persons aged 65 and over.

CAMBRIDGE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ACT, 1992

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 28,

An Act respecting Class Proceedings / Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Bill 28 is

An Act respecting Class Proceedings.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): We are here to see if you get approved.

Hon Mr Hampton: We'll be relying on you, Ian, for your help on this.

Bill 28 received second reading on November 8, 1991, and by an order of the Legislature it has been continued as a bill of the second session. A number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 can be proclaimed. I should mention that there is a companion bill along with Bill 28. It is Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings. The two bills come together.

As I mentioned, a number of steps must be taken before Bill 28 and Bill 29 can be proclaimed. The first step is to design the class proceedings fund. Part and parcel of this legislation is to establish a fund for the purposes of funding class proceedings.

Part of that step will be the need to establish an advisory committee to develop the structure, administration and procedures for the fund. Second, we need to select members for the advisory committee. We believe there should be representation from the Law Foundation of Ontario. We believe that actuarial expertise is required and would be helpful here. We want to ensure that we're able to determine how the fund can be made self-funding through the appropriate levies from damage awards and settlements. The advisory committee will have to resolve a number of issues relating to the fund before we're able to put it into place.

Second, we will need to work out the applications in other forms to provide for class proceedings and we will need to give considerable attention to the Quebec experience with its class actions assistance fund. As you know, Quebec has had class actions for some time and it has considerable experience with some of these things.

Next we'll have to deal with adapting the rules of court. Under Bill 28 the rules of court do apply to class proceedings. Consideration will need to be given to whether it is necessary to amend any of the rules to accommodate class proceedings or whether forms of notice for class proceedings should be added to the rules.

After that, and this is all part and parcel of the nuts and bolts which some members may want to discuss or allude to here, we will have to of course consult with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Class proceedings raise certain ethical issues, such as the potential conflict of interest between the lawyer's duty to the representative plaintiff and to other members of the class.

Finally, one of the issues which will be germane here will be judicial education. Class proceedings will mean a major change for the judiciary. There may be concerns about the impact of this legislation upon the judiciary. The Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, which did the general discussion of the issue, recommended that special efforts be made to educate the judiciary about the new procedures. We need to be prepared to assist the judiciary in any judicial education programs or other measures that the judiciary initiates for its members.

Part and parcel of what may be this third reading discussion will be the need for a communications public information package. Consumers and business organizations, though we have consulted with them widely on these reforms and the legislation, will need the benefit of a great deal of public information if we are to be able to utilize these new procedures in the optimum way.

Finally, the legislation entails a number of regulations, specifically regulations that will have to deal with the class proceedings fund, and there may be some discussion here about what ought to go in some of those regulations.

We need after that to establish the class proceedings committee. The committee will be responsible for the administration of the class proceedings fund. We believe five committee members must be appointed. There should be one by the Law Foundation of Ontario, one by the Attorney General and three jointly by the law foundation and the Attorney General. There will need to be consultations with the law foundation and, finally, if the committee is to work hand in glove with the legislation, training and orientation for the members of the committee, because they, after all, will be new to this as well.

These are all items that are yet to be done that flow out of the legislation. They will represent the culmination of all the hard work that has been done on this legislation, and I acknowledge here that much of that hard work was done by my predecessor, the member for St George-St David. I understand he may want to speak to some of this today, so I will make no further remarks at this time and leave this perhaps to him and to other members of the official opposition who want to speak at this time.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I am fascinated to hear the way the minister introduced the bill, because he described in detail, more elaborate than I would have thought necessary, the work that has to be done ahead of us, all this education and so on. I drew from that the inevitable conclusion that the minister has no early intention of proclaiming this bill if it's passed.

The reason I'm concerned about that, and the question I have, is (1) when does he intend to proclaim the bill and (2) is he going to be able to get the funding from the law foundation that was promised to support the second bill in light of what the Treasurer and the government are inevitably going to do to the law foundation at or around the time of the budget?

Hon Mr Hampton: In answer to the member for St George-St David, we anticipate, and I tried to outline this in my brief remarks, that we will need at least six months to implement the legislation. Following passage by the House and royal assent, we will have to work through all the steps I have indicated: designing the class proceedings fund, adapting the rules of court, consultation with the law society, some attention paid to judicial education and then, finally, drafting the regulations which must be in place and establishing the class proceedings committee.

We will have to do all that; that will take about six months. We acknowledge that the act does require money. However, I've received no indication at this time that this will create a difficulty. It's my understanding that we will be able to manage that.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): At the outset I want to say that we obviously support the legislation and will be voting for it, but I will be less delicate than the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, when he just posed his particular question.

What we have just seen from the Attorney General is a very transparent attempt to further delay this legislation. I think it's very important that we look at the process that has unfolded since this government has been elected with respect to these two bills.

The former Attorney General introduced this very bill -- these two bills, 28 and 29 -- in June 1990, and of course those bills died in Orders and Notices with the calling of the election. The NDP government was elected in September 1990, and we thought this government and this Attorney General were committed to this legislation, because on December 17, 1990, it was introduced for first reading. However, we then found out that it took some full year before this government brought this legislation forward for second reading and further debate and vote in principle. We could not at that time guess why this government was delaying these bills.

The next thing that tipped the hand of the government in terms of its true intentions occurred in the standing committee on administration of justice. When this Legislature referred this legislation to the standing committee on administration of justice we saw the spectacle of the government side filibustering its own legislation.

In November 1991, at second reading, the opposition parties both spoke to this legislation and both wanted it to proceed as quickly as possible. We finished the debate in about 15 or 20 minutes. The government had no further matters to bring forward and the parliamentary assistant, in effect, filibustered the government's own bill, the class action legislation, at that time on second reading.

The matter was referred to committee. In committee, both opposition parties had no amendments to bring forward, the government had no amendments to bring forward, and yet despite the request of the opposition parties, the government refused to bring the legislation back in December and have it voted on for third reading and royal assent before the Christmas break. That was in December 1991.

We had discussions off the record, the opposition parties and some other interested parties, as to why this government would want to delay this legislation. We now see that it is brought forward for third reading and upon introduction for third reading the minister lays the groundwork in great detail, which we did not see before, which we did not hear before, as to why he is being prevented by some other forces from going forward with this legislation, on which there is an overwhelming consensus right across the board, all the stakeholders, the public, the ministry, the opposition parties.

What has happened since this was introduced for first reading back in November 1990 that the Attorney General has to now say, "We are going to set up an advisory committee and we are going to consult with an advisory committee on implementation and on funding, and we have to consult with the law society"? The minister knew he had the full support of this Legislature, the full support of the legal profession, the full support of the public and he sat idly by.

I believe the reason and the rationale are that this government is not now committed to this legislation for some unstated and unknown reason which we can only speculate on, and which I will speculate on because we believe that the agenda for this ministry is non-existent. The agenda of the previous administration, for which there is a total consensus, is being stymied by this Attorney General and this government. The Attorney General raises his eyebrows. I simply have a question for the Attorney General: Why has it taken so long?

To put it in context, we have to know that the public in Ontario is very disenchanted with elected officials at all levels. In fact, they are disenchanted with the administration of justice and in many cases with the legal profession. The conduct of this government, where there is something that is very easy to rectify in terms of the process, is not defensible. It's not defensible to the public and it's not defensible to the legal profession. The public will continue to have a growing cynicism when governments cannot respond in ways that are obvious, in ways that are necessary and in ways that are affordable.

As I mentioned the other day, the legal issues in this province and the problems they are creating are growing in a geometric progression. This minister and this ministry cannot even deal with them on a level playing field or an arithmetic progression. They're falling further and further behind in almost every component of the administration of justice.

One might blame it on the fact that there was internal turmoil in the ministry. There was trouble with the Deputy Minister, Mary Hogan, and so forth, but this agenda item was agreed to by all parties in the previous Parliament with the previous government. It was introduced by this government within a couple of months after its election. There is no reason why it didn't come forward other than there being some force within the ministry which is causing the government and the Attorney General to be frozen on the spot and unable to act on anything.

I do want to go over and put this legislation in context, because it is long overdue. As I said, there is no reason the government is not going forward with it. The push for class proceedings legislation has been long-standing in many jurisdictions including Ontario. I just want to itemize some of them for the record at this time to remind the Attorney General that in my opinion he is being negligent. It's a derogation of his duty not to proceed full speed ahead and not to have done the consultation and not to have drafted regulations beforehand.

I want to review some of the background for the Attorney General. Perhaps he's been too embroiled in turmoil within his own ministry to recall where this legislation comes from and how it got to his desk and our legislative agenda at the present time. The impetus for reform in this area came from a number of sources. The Supreme Court of Canada, in General Motors of Canada Ltd v Naken, in 1982 noted the inadequacy of the existing rule 12, which was then rule 75, for meaningful class actions. The existing rule did not and does not provide the court sufficient guidance for managing complex litigation.

What the court basically was saying was that even though there's good intentions to increase access to the courts, the present legislative regulatory structure of the rules of court did not provide an adequate framework for class proceedings. What that means is that even up to today there are people who ought to have a say in court and who ought to have the protection of the courts, who do not have the protection of the courts. That was an

interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1982.

In 1982 the Ontario Law Reform Commission published its report on class actions, which recommended new comprehensive procedures. I guess new in 1982 at this stage is pretty old and it still hasn't been done. The Ministry of the Attorney General hosted a conference called the Access to Civil Justice Conference in June 1988 in Toronto. Participants called for a new class action procedure as a way of increasing access to the justice system. That initiative was taken by the Liberal government at that time under the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David.

Additionally, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, at its August 1988 meeting in Toronto, also approved in principle class action reform along certain specific lines.

It's interesting to see the terminology "reform." The NDP government and the NDP agenda are supposed to be all about reform. Reform was undertaken by the Liberal government by introducing this legislation and this supposedly reform-minded NDP agenda has put a full stop to it. Even though the legislation is here, the Attorney General today is creating excuses why it probably will be at least a year or longer before this long-requested reform is actually implemented.

If I can on go with some of the background, in January 1989 the Alberta committee on fair dealing in consumer savings and investments published its report entitled A Blueprint for Fairness. The committee recommended that consumers have a civil right of action on a class basis allowing government to participate where consumers suffer losses due to breach of the proposed Consumer Savings and Investment Information Act.

We have similar consumer legislation in Ontario. There are groups such as the Consumers' Association of Canada. There's such a broad consensus for this legislation, I still cannot understand why today, effectively, the minister announces additional delays. Quebec has had class actions available to litigants for over a decade. Ontario is lagging far behind and this Attorney General is creating additional delays.

The United States has had class actions available to litigants at both the state and federal levels for over 25 years. We're 25 years behind the times. We're 10 years behind the time when everyone in this province was advising various governments to proceed. The Attorney General stands in his place today, believe it, on third reading and creates excuses why he's not going to implement this bill as soon as possible. We can only guess at the reasons for that.

The former Attorney General introduced for first reading the Class Proceedings Act, 1990, in June 1990, which would make available a comprehensive procedure for claims on behalf of numerous persons who have suffered the same loss or injury. The procedure is designed to provide a more efficient and streamlined method for the court to deal with complex litigation affecting the interests of hundreds or even thousands of persons.

I want to give a little additional background because I want to relate this background to the statements that were made by the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Attorney General back in 1990 when they decided to reintroduce the former Attorney General's bill. The Attorney General at that time -- this is 1989 -- announced the formation of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, which was to be made up of representatives of business interests, consumers, lawyers and environmentalists.

I mentioned earlier that there was a broad consensus among the public and the legal profession, and in fact within the ministry. This advisory committee was composed of the following: the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Council of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Energy Probe, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Advocates' Society, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario.

That committee, which consulted on a very substantive basis with the government, made a number of recommendations. There were certain terms of reference for that committee. The committee's terms of reference require that it design the legal infrastructure of a class action for Ontario within certain parameters. The parameters were as follows:

1. The consultations would start from the premise that the class action remedy would treat plaintiffs and defendants in a fair and equitable manner and would impose no unnecessary burdens on the courts.

2. The remedy would include a structured certification procedure in which a judge would screen potential class actions according to specific tests.

3. A rule that all class members who do not specifically opt out would be included in the action.

4. A presumption that notice would be given to class members following certification, unless otherwise ordered by the court, would be included.

5. There would be a controlled contingency fee arrangement. I will say more on that a bit later.

6. There would be no special role for the Attorney General in class actions.

7. Undistributed awards would be returned to the defendant following the expiry of the relevant limitation period except with respect to environmental cases, which would be given further consideration by the advisory committee.

8. The new class action remedy would apply in all types of claims and that balanced court rules and procedures should apply to this unique remedy. In particular, it would be applicable in environmental litigation and consumer litigation.

9. The ministries of the Environment and Consumer and Commercial Relations, which have been considering introducing class action remedies in their legislation, would contribute their expertise and would leave the creation of the class action remedy to the Attorney General's consultation process while its work was ongoing.

The committee delivered a unanimous report to the Attorney General in February 1990 recommending a specific design for the procedure and its methods of delivery to litigants, the courts and the public. The committee approved the Class Proceedings Act, 1990, as introduced by the then Attorney General.

We had a framework within which the committee was operating. We had a unanimous report from a very broad public interest group. We had legislation drafted and we had unanimous consent on it. That is the background against which the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, introduced the class proceedings legislation which now finds its way into Bills 28 and 29.

I want to read into the record the statement of the then Attorney General when he introduced this legislation in 1990. I think it's instructive because at the end of that statement the member for St George-St David, on behalf of the government and I believe speaking on behalf of that overwhelming consensus that produced this legislation, indicated that it was the hope of everyone that it would be passed quickly for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

We now see that is not the case and that this government and this ministry is really creating impediments to its implementation. Again, as I said, I do want to read the member's statement of that day in June 1990. He said:

"A little less than a year ago, on 29 June 1989, I announced in the Legislature this government's intention to undertake class action reform.

"Members will recall that a class action or a class proceeding is a special procedure that permits numerous individuals who have suffered a common wrong to seek redress in one lawsuit as a group, rather than in numerous lawsuits as individuals. It can be a valuable tool for litigants since it will provide an effective means to achieve compensation for widespread harm or injury while at the same time saving limited court time and resources.

"Our society will unfortunately continue to see incidents of mass loss similar to the Mississauga train derailment, the Dalkon Shield case, mass environmental damage, defective products and other consumer losses."

If I can interrupt my reading of the remarks of the member for St George-St David, I want to say that this is the type of action that this government at this time is saying it's going to delay implementing. There are thousands of people out there who are crying for this type of remedy, including the legal profession, the Consumers' Association of Canada and all kinds of other groups.

"These are all examples of the kinds of claims that may be treated...more efficiently in a class proceeding.

"On 29 June 1989, I set out...several principles of reform to which the government was committed. Around those principles, I formed a broadly representative advisory committee to make recommendations. That committee has produced a unanimous report which is being tabled today and on the basis of which I am pleased to introduce a bill entitled the Class Proceedings Act, 1990."

Again if I can interrupt my reading of the quote, that was in June 1990. Again I repeat, we have the Attorney General standing up here today in opposition to that unanimous consent saying why there will be impediments put in the way to implementing the class proceedings legislation. I continue the quote of the then Attorney General:

"The act builds upon the important work of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which completed an exhaustive review of this field in 1982 and published a report that has been hailed as an important contribution to scholarship in the class action area. Although the report presented a powerful case for reform, none was forthcoming at the time.

"This government did not feel it would be appropriate to prepare legislation affecting so many people without the advice of business, environmentalists, lawyers and consumers. It is for that reason that I established the Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, whose membership included representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Environmental Law Association, Energy Probe, the Advocates' Society, the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada."

What we see today is the Attorney General saying he is going to consult further with respect to regulations, funding and implementation. This is a disgrace. After the amount of consultation that has gone forward, the commitment that this government, the commitment that this Attorney General had to this legislation when he was in opposition as the critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, to come forward now after lengthy delays since September 1990 and meekly put forward a series of excuses for additional delay is beyond all credibility. We have to ask why. Perhaps the minister will explain why.

The explanations he gave as to what he is doing do not answer why he is just starting to do that now, why he is going to start drafting regulations, why he is going to consult on regulations now. He knew this legislation was going to be passed when it was introduced for first reading. He could've had it passed in one day. In November 1990 he could've obtained first, second and third reading from this Legislature, this legislation was so supported by this House and his own government. Yet he waited a full year between first and second reading and now he is raising a whole series of reasons why he is going to delay further.

If I can continue with the comments of the former Attorney General with respect to this legislation, the then Attorney General gave a word of thanks to the members of that advisory committee who worked as volunteers on a complex subject and produced sound and unanimous advice for the former government. I must say that given the delays that this Attorney General is seemingly implementing, I don't think much thanks would go to this particular government.

"The highlights of the proposed procedure" -- in the legislation -- "are as follows: The class proceeding will include a step in which a judge will screen potential class proceedings according to a specific test; members of the class who do not wish to participate in the class proceeding will have the opportunity to exclude themselves, or opt out, of the proceeding; the representative plaintiff will be required to ensure that the class members obtain notice of the proceedings; and once certified by the court, the proceeding would continue in a manner similar to other civil litigation, but with some significant differences, namely, that one judge will hear all the motions up to the trial and the court will have the ability to make aggregate judgements in cases where the only issue is the assessment of damages for many individuals.

"Normal cost rules for litigation will apply, but lawyers and their clients will be permitted to engage in special fee arrangements for such proceedings, subject to the court having final control over all fees and disbursement arrangements.

"The bill's provisions ensure that plaintiffs and defendants are treated fairly and that the class proceeding make a positive contribution to the resolution of civil disputes."

As the member for St George-St David said at that time:

"I am also pleased to announce the establishment of a class proceedings fund in the amount of $500,000, to be administered by the sole contributor, the Law Foundation of Ontario. This fund, which was a part of the advisory committee's unanimous recommendations, will provide financial assistance and some cost security to those litigants who are prepared to undertake the class proceedings on behalf of themselves and others."

It is very strange, given the establishment in principle of that fund back in June 1990, that the Attorney General stands in his place today and says, quite sheepishly I might add: "We've got to consult. We've got to speak to the law society. We must look at regulations, and it might take six months." As my colleague says, what have they been doing? They have been doing absolutely nothing with respect to this legislation. They've been delaying their own legislation that they supported in opposition and introduced in November 1990. It's just unbelievable that the Attorney General could be so irresponsible with respect to this legislation.

In concluding my quote of the member for St George-St David's statement when he introduced the bill, he said at that time, "I hope that we can enact it quickly in order that the people of Ontario can finally benefit from this important access to justice" initiative.

That last quote is significant, because the Attorney General and this government supported the legislation when it was introduced in June 1990. Now we on this side cannot believe when, in introducing it for third reading, the Attorney General stands in his place and says: "Well, we're going to have some delays now because we have to start consulting. We have to look at how the funding will go into place. The law society has a few things to say about it."

We can only speculate, as I said earlier. We can only speculate that this legislation is being delayed for specific purposes. The specific purpose is that this government does not have the financial commitment to it, and the Treasurer and the Premier are tying the hands of the Attorney General. Alternatively, the ministry and the Attorney General have a much larger agenda that they're not prepared to talk to us about at the present time, that they're looking at this legislation in a much larger context. They're looking at it in terms of an environmental bill of rights.

They're looking at it in terms of consumer legislation, and they want to tie together class proceedings on a whole series of fronts with various pieces of other legislation.

I only say that because one can infer that from the statement from the Attorney General when he introduced the class proceedings legislation in December 1990. I want to refer to the minister's news release of December 17, 1990, with respect to this legislation, because I think it's very instructive. It's dated December 17: "Attorney General Howard Hampton introduced legislation today which will support the government's plans to develop an environmental bill of rights."

There's nothing in this legislation talking about the environment or any particular type of action, and yet this bill is introduced in the context of an environmental bill of rights. Now what do we have here? Do we have the Attorney General usurping the Minister of the Environment's area of responsibility? She is the person who responds on the environmental bill of rights. Yet in the news release in December 1990 it says, "Attorney General Howard Hampton introduced legislation today which will support the government's plans to develop an environmental bill of rights and provide another important avenue of access to justice in Ontario."

I'm glad the Attorney General has put the class proceedings legislation in a broader context, because I do in a few moments want to make some comment on that. The legislation, Bills 28 and 29, was introduced basically in identical form to the legislation that the member for St George-St David, the former Attorney General, had introduced. Obviously it has very broad application, and yet it is now being taken over by the Attorney General. In the very first sentence of his news release, his communiqué, he is calling it a piece of environmental legislation.

We now see the Attorney General in this Legislature delaying implementation of the class proceedings legislation. He's delaying it in the same fashion as the Minister and the Ministry of the Environment are delaying the environmental bill of rights. A secret agenda exists which neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Ministry of the Attorney General is addressing.

Mr Speaker, I want to bring to your attention this news release of the Attorney General when he introduced Bills 28 and 29 in the Legislature. It's very relevant.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): What date was it?

Mr Chiarelli: December 17, 1990. The press release goes on:

"An advisory committee on the law of standing has also been created to examine the basis on which individuals have access to the courts when raising important issues of public interest."

Now we have the Ministry of the Attorney General doing a bill of rights on environmental matters. We have this other committee with respect to the law of standing. We have the class proceedings legislation which I believe the Attorney General thinks is ahead of its time, because there is an agenda that exists somewhere in the deep caverns of this NDP government which it is not talking about, and it has specifically, expressly, caused a process of delay on Bills 28 and 29, class proceedings; it has specifically caused and created delays with an environmental bill of rights.

We see government members having set up a committee with respect to standing in the courts which is very significant with respect to access to justice.

So if there is an agenda with this government it is not stating it. If there is an agenda, government members want to come out with a monumental propaganda machine with environmental bill of rights, law of standing, contingency fees and a whole series of other matters. But in the meantime, at what cost? At the cost of the implementation of Bills 28 and 29.

Justice delayed is justice denied. There are all kinds of people being denied access to justice by reason of a number of issues, not the least of which is the lack of an opportunity to proceed with class proceedings before the courts. This government supposedly is committed to