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

June 8, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We in the north have a tremendous problem when it comes to OPP services. I am not talking at all about the officers and those who back them up. As for the quality of people we have serving on the detachments throughout the northwest, I'm sure we could find no better.

What I wish to bring to your attention is the lack of personnel. Can you imagine -- and this happened the other morning in my riding in the OPP district of Kenora to be exact -- someone calling the district detachment to report a mess of garbage, a hazard, that had just been dumped on the Trans-Canada Highway and being told that there were only two officers on duty and one of them was in court?

This is a detachment that covers 885 kilometres of highway, the towns of Keewatin and Jaffray and Melick, with a population of somewhere around 6,800 people. Then we have their summer boat patrol to cover another 4,000 or 5,000 people on Lake of the Woods. Again, one officer to service these needs.

Let's take a look at the area of the detachment of Sioux Lookout, with a population of 6,500 people year-round, another 5,000 summer residents, 607 kilometres of highways, and as well a marine unit in the summer. Again, with a complement of some 19 personnel, of which only 14 are constables available at any one time, this detachment is often left with only one officer to service their needs between 6 pm and 5 am. In light of these situations, I call on the government to take immediate action to address the needs of these residents serviced by the OPP.

OAKVILLE WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario will open the Oakville Waterfront Festival on June 12, and it will continue through the 13th. I invite everybody to come and share with us in this three-day festival of celebration of our natural harbours and heritage. There will be entertainers, boat shows, street and video dances, a pancake breakfast, boat races and a musical revue. Participants in the festival will form a human chain along the seven kilometres of Lakeshore Road to toast the nation's 125th birthday.

The town of Oakville is alive. The spirit that is Oakville is its people, and that spirit has been very evident throughout the last year of the festival. The combined expertise of the town and the entrepreneurial spirit of the chamber of commerce, supported wholeheartedly by the mayor and the wonderful sponsors, have combined to provide a great inspiration.

What has galvanized the town is the recognition that we can all work together. People are behind the success of this waterfront festival, all the hundreds and hundreds of individual volunteers who gave a little time or a lot of time, but always their enthusiasm and their interest. They can feel justifiably pleased with themselves.

I thank all of you. We are all proud of you. I am proud to be your member of provincial Parliament. We look forward to everybody coming to Oakville during the waterfront festival.

LEONA OLBEY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Last Thursday evening the Minister of Citizenship and the Lieutenant Governor presented the Ontario senior achievement awards to 20 very special people.

It's with great pride that I pay special tribute to one of those recipients, Leona Olbey. Mrs Olbey is a constituent of Windsor-Walkerville and was nominated by the Greater Windsor Senior Citizens Centre for the way in which she lives up to their motto, "Strong spirits, young hearts, active minds."

She puts in many hours raising funds for the centre by checking coats at nights and on weekends at the Cleary Auditorium and Convention Centre. She also makes and sells soup and sandwiches at the seniors centre and has comforted many people as a long-time volunteer at the Hospice of Windsor.

Mrs Olbey is determined to keep her heritage alive as well. She has been volunteering with the North American Black Historical Museum and Cultural Centre in Amherstburg for 10 years and has been a supporter of the museum since its beginning in 1975.

She is a woman who places a very high value on the importance of education and for the last 24 years has been involved with the Hour-A-Day Study Club. Her responsibilities include screening and awarding scholarships and bursaries to young black students in Windsor and Essex county.

Even with that busy

schedule there is still plenty of time to practise her faith at the British Methodist Episcopal Church and to be with her husband, Howard, and their family. Mrs Olbey is a non-stop volunteer. Her caring, innovation and leadership are an inspiration to all of us who know her. It is with great pleasure that I add my congratulations and thanks for her contribution to our community.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I am shocked at the funding shortfall that has befallen the Art Gallery of Ontario. I am nervous about the remarkable bureaucratic Newspeak in the minister's announcement.

The cash-starved Art Gallery of Ontario is one of two or three cultural showpieces that are the spirit of Ontario. During times of fiscal restraint the emotional and spiritual health of our community requires that funding for the arts be maintained.

The Toronto Star noted in its lead editorial on June 6 that the minister "has effectively slashed the operating budget of the Art Gallery of Ontario to $9.5 million from $12.1 million." Close to half of the gallery's staff may lose their jobs.

But there are other questions. Must the second $1 million referred to in the minister's announcement really be tied to a doubtfully needed restructuring and reorganization of the gallery, or could it better be designated clearly to maintain operations and avoid layoffs? Indeed, is the gallery really in need of restructuring at all, or was that idea simply floated to hedge a $1-million grant? Will the gallery ever see that money? Even if we share the NDP government's apparent view that the AGO needs to be brought closer to the people, surely funding cuts are not the way to achieve that goal.

The minister boasts that she has given the AGO an opportunity. Some opportunity; an opportunity perhaps to swallow hard, choke a little and try to maintain service while the rug is being pulled from under this showcase of the spirit of Ontario.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On June 3 the Minister of Culture and Communications revealed her cowardice when she furtively issued a news release announcing drastic cuts in her ministry's funding for its agencies and transfer partners. The minister didn't even show this House the courtesy of making a statement about a decision that will result in massive layoffs at the Art Gallery of Ontario and TVOntario.

Not only is this minister a coward; she is also a failure because she has not met her stated objectives of preserving outreach and access. The Art Gallery of Ontario, for instance, says it will have to cut outreach and education programs. The minister has responded by creating a task force which, as a Toronto Star editorial says, looks like an attempt to take over the gallery's independent board and destroy its arm's-length relationship with the government.

The minister has also caused major problems for her transfer partners by forcing them to go through two months of this fiscal year before receiving their funds. Ontario libraries have yet to receive their grants. Is this because the NDP government is using the interest on these funds to help keep the deficit in check?

Libraries, like other agencies, are worried that they will face major service cuts and layoffs. The chair of one library board has told me that his board will have to close branch libraries if it does not receive at least the amount of last year's grant.

I suggest that this minister take a cue from the Wizard of Oz. She should resign and go on a quest for courage, a brain and a heart.

ANDREW DESLAURIERS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to pay tribute to North York fire captain Andrew Deslauriers, who died last week from injuries he received while fighting an office fire. Captain Deslauriers was a 25-year veteran of the North York Fire Department. He will be missed by his family and by his many friends in the North York Fire Department.

I'm sure I speak for all members of this House when I offer our deepest sympathy to his family. The tragic circumstances of Captain Deslauriers's death remind us all of the debt we owe to firefighters. I would like to extend our sincere appreciation to all the heroic men and women who daily risk their lives in order to protect us.

LEGAL FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Something very unusual, something without precedent in the history of this province, has taken place today in Ontario. Effective today, the government will begin collecting an additional $76 million in taxes through the justice system.

If you intend to seek justice in Ontario courts, as of today, your fees relating to civil matters have gone up by 70% -- this notwithstanding that this government has committed to ensuring that all Ontarians have equal access to justice, even the middle class.

If you intend to buy a home in Ontario, as of today, your costs to obtain title information from your registry office have gone up by $200 to $300 -- this notwithstanding that this government is committed to doing everything it can to spur on housing starts and to ensure that first-time home buyers get the breaks they need to make that first big purchase.

If you intend to die in Ontario, as of today, if your Ontario estate is worth more than $50,000, you are categorized as wealthy and you will have to pay the equivalent of a hefty surtax which is triple the fee charged for those dying with an estate worth less than $50,000 -- this notwithstanding that this government is committed to consulting the public about a death tax before implementing any such tax.

What is precedent-setting about this new $76-million tax grab is that not one word of debate was permitted before its implementation. This government, by edict of regulation, has decided to raise the costs of doing business with our courts by $76 million. Taxation without debate is taxation without representation, and this will not be lost on the good people of Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): National Transportation Week 1992 is celebrated in all regions of Canada June 7 to 13. It is used to honour the heroes and achievers in transportation, to recognize the contribution of this industry to economic and social development and to help talented young people take up careers in the transportation industry.

Safe and efficient transportation systems enhance the quality of life for all citizens and promote economic prosperity and social development. Ontario needs a well-maintained, integrated transportation system that is safe, dependable, effective, efficient and environmentally sound.

People who live and work in the greater Toronto area realize that much of our infrastructure is currently operating at or above capacity. According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, congestion on our roads added an extra $2 billion in 1988 to the cost of business in the GTA, a figure which has increased since then.

Renewing our commitment to transportation infrastructure is only effective when it is accompanied by a plan of action. The expertise of government, business and residents must be brought together to ensure the continued success of growth in Ontario. I call on the government to bring forward a strategy and a timetable for the provision of an efficient and competitive network of transit and roads.

EDWARD JOHNSON ARCHIVE COLLECTION

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): The archive collection of world-famous tenor Edward Johnson has returned to his birthplace in Guelph. The University of Guelph library will house some 70 boxes of cultural history that make up this collection. It includes diaries, letters, recordings and photographs of some of Johnson's famous friends, including Toscanini and Puccini. The collection was donated by Johnson's grandchildren.

Edward Johnson starred in Europe and at the New York Metropolitan Opera. He returned to Guelph in 1950 and lived there until his death nine years later. His name carries on in the Guelph artistic community through the Edward Johnson Music Foundation, which launched the Guelph Spring Festival. This spring the festival marked 25 years of enriching the artistic fabric of Guelph. The Edward Johnson Music Foundation also runs a program which shares some of the world's finest musicians and singers, including Canadian artists, with the community.

The Guelph Spring Festival is one of many community groups that has been working since 1984 to bring a civic centre to Guelph. This broadly based project will have a tremendously positive effect on Guelph and area. The centre was passed by three successive city councils and over $2.4 million has been raised in private donations. The centre will also become the jewel in Guelph's green necklace -- 22 kilometres of river walk along the Speed River, stretching from the west end of town to Guelph Lake.

At a time when we are concentrating on rebuilding this economy, we must remember the arts are important because they reflect and celebrate our humanity and rebuild our spirit.

The Edward Johnson archive joins other world-known collections at the University of Guelph, including the Bernard Shaw collection and the Lucy Maud Montgomery collection.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member for Lambton, Mr David Smith. Welcome.

This is indeed a very special moment for your Speaker as I introduce to you this afternoon a very distinguished visitor seated in the gallery, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Honourable John Fraser. Welcome.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think you should be aware and everybody should be aware that the executive of the York Mills Progressive Conservative Association is seated in the members' gallery west.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.

Also, I would invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon the officer of the House whose report we have just tabled, Ms Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of Ontario. Welcome.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, I would like to table some privileges of mine that have been breached by this government in the disclosure of information and the way it was done last week, through the Ministry of the Environment and the Interim Waste Authority, when they announced the candidate sites. I was told the day before that I would receive them first thing on Thursday morning. I have to point out that that did not happen. As the Environment critic I did not receive them until later that day.

I also have to point out that the county of Simcoe, the town of Markham and various other communities that are impacted by these decisions did not receive this information until much after the fact.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I fully realize the member's interest in this matter. I must regrettably inform the member that while he has not lost a privilege, indeed he speaks of something that could be described as a courtesy, which apparently was not extended to him on this particular occasion. By bringing it to my attention, I'm sure he has alerted the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps that matter can be attended to outside the chamber, but I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

Mr Cousens: If I can just comment further on your response -- and I appreciate very much your response on it -- the minister did not even make a statement in the House on Thursday on this matter, yet it was the issue of the day to people concerned with the environment. Is there nothing I can do as a member of this House to at least convince, coerce or coax this minister to do what she should do so well?

The Speaker: You will recall on earlier occasions that I indeed expressed, as speakers prior to my office have expressed, that it is most desirable that ministers make pronouncements of new policy here in the House rather than outside the Legislature. There is nothing in the standing orders which compels that to occur. Again, the member has registered his concern and it is one which I fully understand.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is a little different from the previous point of order in that, even though it annoys the opposition, I understand what you are saying when you say that if a minister does not make an announcement in the House that's the government's prerogative and we simply complain.

However, there is a situation that has arisen today which I think is of particular interest to the Speaker of the House and all members of the House, and that is when we have the government House leader announcing by newspaper report that there are going to be major and drastic changes made to limit the role and responsibilities of members of the opposition, indeed all members of the House.

The reason I say this is different -- and I don't rise very often on the other matters -- is because every person in this House is affected by these substantial changes. If I were to be partisan, I would say they demonstrate that the Premier and his government are neither new nor democratic.

I am very concerned that we have changes that will affect you in your role as Speaker, that will affect people at the table who give advice and that will certainly affect the House leaders and all members of the House by limiting their opportunity to speak in this House, by limiting the amount of time this House actually sits and by making other drastic -- I know you want me to be reasonably brief, and I will be -- and unprecedented changes in the rules of this House which are going to have a marked effect on the mood in this House, if nothing else, but certainly on the operation of this House.

All of us recognize that the role of the opposition and of government backbenchers and others in the government is to debate in a thorough manner the legislation that comes before this House, with the opportunity to delay until such time as the public is aware of the consequences and to put forward every possible argument. We have, instead, something not even announced to the opposition at all but snuck in on a Thursday afternoon by the government House leader. We're faced with the situation today where he says these new rules are going to be debated today and every possible day after that until they're passed.

Mr Speaker, that does not demonstrate to me any respect for this House, and I ask for your intervention.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order, the House leader for the third party.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to express my concern as to the way the government and the government House leader are proceeding. There will be plenty of opportunity, I presume, with the current attitude of the government, to read into the record many speeches by the current-day Premier, the former Leader of the Opposition, and by the current-day government House leader, where they referred to, Mr Speaker -- I am not using this term but I'm sure they have -- Gestapo tactics of majority governments of years gone by of whatever political stripe.

I just want to impress upon the Legislature and the people of Ontario that what we see today is an abandonment of parliamentary democracy as we have known it in Ontario for the last 125 years and that now we're going to have government by imperial edict. There's a reason why this Legislature has performed as well and as cooperatively as it has for 125 years with the rules it has. The Premier may laugh if he wants to at that suggestion, but I can tell him that before he was in this place there were House leaders like Elie Martel, Bob Nixon and Tom Wells who understood what compromise and negotiation and the art of parliamentary democracy were.

Today we see that this government, which supposedly has championed the cause of democratic principles -- until it assumed power, that is -- now believes that it should be able to govern by a stroke of the pen and by imperial edict. If that is the government's intention, as opposed to negotiating and observing rule changes and creating constructive rule changes -- I note there's nothing in here that improves how the committee system works, which the government House leader has often said needs to be improved upon. There's nothing in here that gives more independence and power to individual members.

I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold would be very interested to know that his debate time will now be limited to 30 minutes.

There's nothing in here that addresses any of those aspects of parliamentary reform. The only things in here are draconian measures so that the government can use its jackboots to walk over the Ontario citizens' and the people's rights and principles.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines and the member for Parry Sound: A couple of points may assist the members.

Of course I am aware that on the Orders and Notices paper today is printed a government resolution which sets out some proposed real changes. The member for St Catharines asked for the Speaker's intervention. The member will know that the Speaker cannot, first of all, deal with hypothetical situations. There is something on the order paper that needs to be called forward before there will be a debate. At the end of a full and complete debate, then normally the question is put and there is a vote in the House. It would not be proper for the Speaker to try to interfere in any way with the procedure which has been set out for some time on the way in which we do our business.

I will say, however, to the member's concern, because I recognize, as the member stated, that he rarely is on his feet with respect to procedural matters in the House unless it is a matter of deep concern to him, that the preference of speakers always is to have things dealt with in a very orderly and timely way. The legislatures that function best are those that function without surprises. I certainly understand that and concur, but the member is asking the Speaker to do something which in his capacity he is not able to do in order to assist the member.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EQUITY IN EDUCATION

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would like to inform members today of some important steps which my ministry is taking to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in our province's school system.

Over the past several months I've been meeting with educators and representatives of diverse racial and ethnocultural communities who are concerned about racism in Ontario's educational system. In this regard I'd like to first thank my colleague Zanana Akande, the Premier's parliamentary assistant, for her participation and for her advice to me. This assistance, of course, has been in addition to her efforts at creating 5,000 new summer jobs, focusing on employment and training needs of primarily black youth.

As members know, the Premier and the member for St Andrew-St Patrick announced Friday an additional $20 million to create a total of 8,500 new summer jobs through Jobs Ontario Youth.

The key issue that has been identified in my discussions and must be addressed is that of systemic barriers in the education system which prevent racial minority students from reaching their full potential. Clearly our education system can and must change to ensure that our schools foster equality for all of our youth. They must change so that racial and cultural diversity are appreciated, respected and are integral to the system and its institutions. I am therefore pleased to inform members of a number of measures that my ministry is taking in cooperation with our education partners and communities to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in Ontario's school system.

As members would know, two weeks ago I introduced Bill 21 for first reading. Amendments in this bill are in keeping with the government's policy with respect to anti-racism, native education and employment equity. This legislation will require all school boards to develop and submit for ministry approval policies on anti-racism and ethnocultural equity as well as employment equity, and I look forward to the collaboration of all parties and members in the House towards speedy passage of this legislation.

I'm also pleased to inform members that I'm establishing a new assistant deputy minister position within the Ministry of Education responsible for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity.

As an assistant deputy minister, this senior ministry staff person will provide leadership in the ministry to ensure the development and implementation of a truly anti-racist curriculum throughout Ontario schools; the development, implementation and monitoring of school boards and ministry corporate policies on anti-racism, ethnocultural equity and employment equity, and effective in-house ministry training for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity. A number of key ministry staff will carry out their work under the direction of the new assistant deputy minister.

In addition to ministry staff I'm inviting the participation of our education and community partners. I will be asking for assistance from school boards, teacher federations and community groups through assignments to my ministry to work with us so that the solutions reached are truly shared by all the partners in education.

The new assistant deputy minister and I will continue to seek advice from representatives of the concerned community groups such as Concerned Black Educators and AMENO, the Anti-Racist Multicultural Educators' Network of Ontario, and I'm happy to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of representatives from these two organizations. We will also expand our discussions to include greater representation from communities concerned about issues of language and culture. This consultation will be ongoing until we have in place the structural changes needed to address systemic issues of racism and to ensure the implementation of ministry policies and activities which address the issues.

Our efforts will only be successful with the active participation of all people who face the systemic barriers that stigmatize race, language, culture and ethnicity. We will take the necessary steps with our partners to ensure that Ontario's education system is responsive to the needs of a multicultural and multiracial province and encourages the participation of all citizens equally.

In doing so, everyone in Ontario benefits. Our end goal is student achievement. We must see dropout rates decrease and more of our students leaving the system literate and with a fuller appreciation and respect for their own cultures and those of all their classmates.

My ministry and this government are serious about dealing with these issues. The initiatives I am announcing today are part of a series of important steps which our government is taking to deal effectively with racism in Ontario.

Finally, as part of this ongoing effort, we obviously look forward to the report of Stephen Lewis tomorrow and his recommendations for improving the environment for race relations throughout Ontario.

RESPONSES

EQUITY IN EDUCATION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am very pleased with the announcement today. I do hope this is a long, long-term commitment. I hope it is also a financial commitment. I hope the consultation mentioned in this document includes students; I didn't hear students mentioned in this document. I hope it will include parents. I know it will include educators, because they have been mentioned, and community leaders.

I am very pleased that this government has appointed an assistant deputy minister, because an ADM in any ministry in this government provides a new level of accountability. It includes a new budget line, and I think that's very important in this matter.

A new leader in an area such as this provides sustained leadership, and for that I am grateful. I am grateful, and speak, I hope, on behalf of the school boards of Ontario, because many boards in this province have been dealing with this issue for 15 years. This is not a new issue to many boards. It hasn't just been discovered by this government.

Many boards in this province began, as I say, 15 years ago, and certainly a lot of boards began five years ago under the previous government, when we developed anti-racism policies. It has been on the ministry's agenda for a long, long time and will be for a long, long time. Many boards have excellent policies and staff trained in these areas and I'm very pleased that you mentioned that you are going to bring them forward in the form of secondments to this ministry.

You mentioned two areas, Mr Minister. You said that curriculum must be worked on and must become more sensitive. I hope, and I didn't hear it in the document but I'm sure you meant to say it, that this curriculum will give minority students in this province a pride in their heritage. That is something they've been looking for; in fact, they have come to this Legislature mentioning that. We must get more reliable knowledge bases in the curriculum of this province. Let's hope your initiative today will do that.

Professional development strategies are also going to be a high item in this agenda. I didn't hear mentioned, but I know again that you must be including secretaries and caretakers and bus drivers as well as superintendents and educators.

You didn't mention professional personnel policies, Mr Minister, but again I know you want time lines, I know you want a mechanism for appeals, and I know you want to develop strategies for recruiting minority people into positions of responsibility.

One other area I would like to mention is the assessment and placement of minority students, students who come from different backgrounds. I hope and trust that parents will be involved in these assessments and that the original assessments that are made in schools across this province will be in every case possible made in the language of that student, and that the assessment of the student will be delayed, if necessary, until a suitable adjustment period has passed.

I hope the ADM will be working with guidance departments across this province, because it is in guidance departments that the hopes and dreams of students are often formed and sometimes, unfortunately, also curtailed. They must be taught to inspire all students to reach their full potential.

I hope the ADM will also be responsible for research in this anti-racism area, research and regular reviews, because, as we all know having lived through this year of 1992, things can change. Things can change very quickly, whether they be instigated by social or economic policies, or both.

So, Mr Minister, I know your intent is, as is mine and our party's, that all students will reach their full potential and that racial minority groups will take leadership roles, from the very first days of student council right through the whole program of the educational system. All school boards in this province must be given every single support they can to respond to the needs within their own community, whether that be in-school activity or extracurricular activity. This must be a commitment of your government for its entire life and for every government that follows in this province.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, I'm going to begin my response by making a statement, using some of the words of the minister himself in his announcement today; that is, his concern about "systemic barriers in the education system" that in my view prevent not only racial minority students from reaching their full potential but prevent many students across this province, whether they be special education students, or students who want to be trained to get a job, whether they be students in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, central Ontario -- not just in the city of Toronto but right across this province -- who are looking for leadership from your government and from you, Mr Minister, to provide the kind of programs that will get them jobs.

We're not going to solve the problems we have in our cities and we're not going to solve the problems of young people getting jobs and enjoying school and staying in school with summer jobs only. These summer jobs, especially for the racial-minority students, should be part of their education program for a period of at least three or four years. We should have a goal at the end of it. Their training in the summer should be their summer jobs. We've known this for a decade and we've done nothing about it. I hope this announcement today isn't just another piece of paper, where no one's going to do anything about it and follow through.

Mr Speaker, I want you also to know that I object to the way the minister has gone about making this announcement today. The statement on Bill 21 was introduced May 26 during orders of the day; we had no chance to respond. The Jobs Ontario Youth was announced last Friday, June 5, when many of us were caught off guard and didn't really know what the minister had in mind when he made that presentation; I was making a speech at the moment. I think these kinds of announcements are important enough to make in the House to the elected representatives before they're made in public; it helps us a lot.

I should also say that I hope this new ADM, who I think is needed because I think these jobs have to get done, is not a new additional ADM in the Ministry of Education; it's not needed. In these times when we are all taking a look at putting our money in the front lines, we don't need more admnistrators. We need someone to do this job, but not a new ADM.

I should also say that as we take a look at groups such as the Concerned Black Educators, with whom I have met and for whom I have a lot of empathy because they are so frustrated in getting anything done, and the Anti-Racist Multicultural Educators' Network of Ontario, who are equally frustrated, I think if they had a chance to stand in my place today and make the statements I'm making, they would say that what we need are long-term changes in the delivery of education in this province.

The reason we have so many young people out there hanging out in shopping malls, causing difficulties at the island, is because they want to be in school, they want jobs, and they want this government to make education for young people a priority.

I challenge the minister with his program. I hope it will be successful. We certainly will do everything we can to help. I would point out that not one new piece of curriculum has been developed for anti-racism and ethnocultural policy, yet Bill 21 will be debated and passed by this government, hopefully before the summer. This bill was introduced for the first time under the auspices of Bill 125 a year ago; and now we are talking about developing curriculum a year later.

I say to the minister right now that I hope his process will change, that I hope our young people will benefit from this program, and I hope it's not just another piece of paper.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This government has failed young people. They've cut back on the ranger program by 37%, they've cut down on tree planting up north, they've cut down on summer experience programs. They forgot about it in their big budget. It was in their Agenda for People. This government has not got an agenda for young people. To say you've got a program now for black young people is good, but what about all the rest of them all over the province? What about the ones in Windsor, northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, everywhere?

You're out of it. You don't understand what's happening and you're not going to solve the problem if you think you can do something just for seven or eight weeks or a short time during the summer. There is the fall, there is a time afterwards. You've got business so discouraged they're not generating jobs. You've got labour reform. So where's the private investment coming in to say, "Let's generate some confidence in the province of Ontario"? This government is destroying that confidence. There isn't confidence in the government.

Why not work with private enterprise so that everybody can work together to generate jobs rather than turn jobs away, which is what you're doing with your other government policies?

LEGAL AID

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It arises out of a question asked by the honourable member for Eglinton of the minister responsible for women's issues last week on June 2, in which the minister indicated that she could not comment on a rumour that the legal aid plan was being amended so as to prevent married women and children who are in family court from selecting their own lawyers. The minister said that as the announcement had not been made she could not and would not comment on it because it is speculative.

I understand, Mr Speaker, your ruling, made many times, as recently as today, that you can only encourage ministers to make their announcements in the House. We have a special opportunity today, however, in respect of this point, because the Attorney General is going to make that announcement tomorrow in Ottawa, and I would ask him and the Premier, who is present, to listen to your exhortation, which I expect will be forthcoming very shortly, to make announcements like that in the elected assembly of Ontario, where we can comment on them as well as others.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St George-St David, I appreciate the fact that he has listened carefully to previous rulings, and indeed I suspect that every member in the assembly is well aware of the rulings which have been made from this Chair, and no doubt they will do their best to keep that in mind as government policy comes forward.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe my privileges as a member have been breached. Last Thursday, the Interim Waste Authority released its long list of candidate sites for the landfill site search in the Metropolitan Toronto-York region. One of those potential sites, M6, is located on land which is part of the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek watersheds and which is recommended for inclusion in phase 3 of the Rouge Valley park.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that on November 20, 1989, all parties in this House unanimously passed the Progressive Conservative opposition day resolution in my name which called on the provincial government to designate the Rouge Valley system as a provincial park.

More recently, this government's own terms of reference for the Rouge Valley park project directed an advisory committee to prepare a strategy and time frame for preparing a parkland for the area north of Steeles Avenue. In response, the advisory committee recommends in the preliminary park management plan that the park include the valley and stream corridors extended to their headwaters and all the publicly owned lands within the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek watersheds which were acquired for the north Pickering and federal airport project.

According to this management plan, the implementation of phase 3 of the park for lands north of Steeles Avenue is of vital importance to the integrity --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member indicate succinctly which privilege she believes has been lost?

Mrs Marland: Because this land is important to the integrity of the entire Rouge system and because this means that the provincial government must not even consider locating a landfill in M6 --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate very much the subject material she has brought to the House's attention. There is no particular privilege which has been lost here. However, she does I think have material that might be the focus of a question during question period, and that portion of the program we're about to begin. It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week the Premier indicated in this House, if I can quote him almost directly, that Ontario had gone through the recession. On Friday the unemployment figures came out, and those statistics showed that in Ontario the unemployment rate had risen to 10.9%, the highest rate now in nine years. Communities such as Thunder Bay, Windsor, St Catharines and Ottawa saw their jobless rates jump substantially in May, just at the same time when the Premier said there are signs the economy is picking up in Ontario.

I would ask the Premier how he can reconcile the bad news this province received on Friday with the statement he made on Thursday that we had begun our recovery, that we had come through the recession.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What the figures showed for Ontario were similar to what they showed for the United States and for Canada, that is, at the same time as the rate of unemployment has increased in Ontario and as it has increased across the country and increased in the United States, the number of people who are employed has also gone up. It has gone up quite substantially. I would say to the member that what we are told this means is that there are more people who are returning to the labour force to look for work and that this in itself is a sign that some recovery is taking place.

I'm not denying that the recession has been very tough. I'm not denying that it's had a serious impact on the province. I'm not denying that a combination of things have been tough over the last two or three years. What I am saying is that there are some signs of increased employment. They are contained in the statistics that were revealed last week by Statistics Canada, which show that employment in the province last year was up by 20,000, a fact which I would have thought the honourable member would be applauding today.

Mrs McLeod: The reality is there were more people in Ontario in unemployment lineups looking for jobs that don't exist at the end of the month of May then there were even in the month of April.

In the government's budget, the Treasurer indicated it would be our housing industry that would lead our economic recovery. We see today that in that very industry there are reported 7,000 fewer home starts last month than in the month of April. There are 109,000 fewer people employed in this industry than when this government first came to power. It is the increase in housing starts which is the traditional sign that a recession is beginning to turn around, that economic recovery is at hand. Given these statistics, we would have to say the economic recovery is not at hand.

I wonder what the Premier would have to say to Aldo Pinero, who is an unemployed carpenter with a family of three who's been out of work for five months, or what he might say to Paul Michelin, who's an unemployed mason with a wife and two children. I wonder if the Premier can tell these construction workers and others like them what part of his industrial strategy, whether it's the Labour Relations Act amendments or the worker ownership plan or the investment fund or the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, is going to put these people back to work.

Hon Mr Rae: What I would say to the people you have mentioned, what I would say to the people across the province, what I would say to all of them, is that, first of all, with respect to the housing industry in particular, the last budget contained information about the government's commitment to non-profit and cooperative housing which clearly demonstrated -- and if you talk to people in the housing industry they will say: "Yes, times are tough and they've been difficult. If it wasn't for the investment the provincial government has put into plans, unemployment would be even more severe than it already is."

The Jobs Ontario homes fund will expand our support for non-profit housing programs by 20,000 units, creating 2,400 jobs and generating $2.1 billion in capital activity in the construction industry.

The fact remains that the measures the member has described, as well as other measures, we do believe are contributing and will contribute to recovery in the housing industry, as in other industries in the province.

Mrs McLeod: This government over and over again talks about its hopes, its beliefs, its wishes and its prayers. The reality is that there were 7,000 fewer home starts in May than in April. I come back to the government's economic strategy, its plans for renewal and its hopes to be able to turn this reality around.

They promised the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in the spring session of the Legislature; we haven't seen it yet. They promised the worker ownership bill; it's tied up in committee with the Ontario Federation of Labour itself opposing it. They promised, as part of their industrial strategy, an investment fund which is being opposed by the very pension fund holders who are supposed to contribute voluntarily to the fund.

The industry minister makes a statement about an industrial strategy and says he can't implement it until the economy picks up. The government's budget is committed to creating 125,000 new jobs this year. We are two months into the year already and we are still in a situation in which there are some 64,000 fewer jobs in this province than there were a year ago.

I would ask the Premier if he could tell this House whether he still believes the Treasurer's job creation forecast of two months ago, and what part of his proposals are going to create all of these jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic, because the Liberal Party has taken now to becoming the party of gloom and doom.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mel Swart was right. You haven't got the guts to be a good NDP Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: If the member for Renfrew North would just control himself --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Mr Conway: -- what everybody else stands for. What else does Bob Rae stand for, you gutless wonder.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Now don't make a ruling about "gutless wonder." You'll leave us with nothing.

The Speaker: I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order. The member for Renfrew North, I know the respect which he has for the assembly and for Parliament and I know that he would not want language to be used which would cause disorder.

Mr Conway: On that point, Mr Speaker, I can assure you I appreciate what you've said. I will not be calling people liars in this place. But my concern is that while I am prepared to take lectures from a lot of people, I'm not prepared to take a lecture about consistency in politics from a man like the leader of this government who on key questions like integrity in government, like public auto insurance, like gaming and casinos --

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North take his seat, please.

Mr Conway: No wonder that Mel Swart --

The Speaker : I ask the member for Renfrew North to take his seat, please. Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour. When the Minister of Labour introduced his amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this House last Thursday he stated that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this legislation is going to kill jobs. Again that falls into the category of wish and prayer more than a willingness to look at the evidence.

Since the minister made his announcement, the auto parts company Hayes-Dana has indicated that it has cancelled plans for an $8.3-million steel casing expansion because of the uncertainty created by the labour act amendments. These jobs will go elsewhere because investors see Ontario as a poor place to do business.

I would ask the minister if this does not in his mind constitute clear evidence that this legislation, coming in the midst of a harsh recession, will in fact discourage investment and ultimately kill jobs in Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The answer to that is no. I think this legislation, if we can start changing around the confrontational approach to one of cooperation in the province, is a very positive move.

Mrs McLeod: In the absence of any evidence that the legislation can create jobs, and when there is evidence that it will cut down on and kill jobs, I don't know how the minister simply can keep denying the evidence that is building. Again the minister and his government have done no studies of their own to indicate whether this legislation will kill jobs. The only study this minister or the Premier has referenced, as we have asked for some understanding of the impact of this legislation, is one that was conducted by Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto.

The minister says that the Meltz study indicates that the amendments could be positive, that they could lead to lead to more productivity. Hardly strong words and, I suggest, more of a wish and a prayer than anything else. I have a copy of the Meltz report. It is exactly four pages long. This report suggests that it is difficult to assess the impact of the proposed reforms and that to do so would require a detailed examination which he has not undertaken in this paper.

I ask the minister if he does not feel that this issue is serious enough to merit the kind of detailed examination and study that his own consultant has called for. How could he possibly base this initiative on a four-page paper which in itself calls for more examination?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition conveniently forgets that we've had probably the most extensive consultation on this issue that we've had on any legislation in Ontario. I think if she read the Meltz report, it would also say that consultation and a change in the attitudes with which we deal with labour relations in Ontario could very well lead to improved productivity in this province.

Mrs McLeod: I'm really not trying to conveniently forget anything. I am trying to raise real concerns that we hear being raised out in the communities. Surely the minister can't simply shrug off the fact that there are many sectors of our economy that fear this legislation is going to destroy jobs and will permanently harm Ontario's competitiveness and productivity. We're not trying to be simply obstructionist.

We recognize the fact that on Friday the Premier announced the appointment of a labour-management advisory committee that he has mandated to look at the ways in which management and labour can work together, presumably in the context of the proposals the government's bringing forward. We ask that the government undertake this as a very serious and constructive approach to resolving the concerns we believe exist about the legislation.

I ask the minister whether he will do what he did for the agricultural sector and refer his proposed Labour Relations Act amendments to this advisory committee before second reading of the bill, so that a thorough examination can be carried out by this joint committee of the impact of these proposals, and if he will go a step further and suggest that this advisory committee set up sectoral subcommittees to look at the impact of the proposals on each of the different sectors, whether it is tourism, retail, manufacturing, agriculture or the construction industry.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have real difficulty in understanding why the leader of the official opposition doesn't understand that legislation far beyond anything we've brought into the province of Ontario doesn't seem to be hurting the economic realities in most of Europe. I also can't understand why she doesn't realize that it's about time that instead of putting down workers in Ontario, as she does every time she raises one of these questions, we started involving them in the decisions that are made that affect them and their future in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Third party. New question, the leader of the third party. The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last Thursday my caucus colleagues and I introduced 20 pieces of legislation in response to your labour bill. In those pieces of legislation we are calling for an impact study or an inquiry into the effects of your labour legislation changes on jobs, investment and competitiveness in the 20 regions of this province.

Premier, since your Minister of Labour has refused to do any impact studies, or at least to table them with the House if he's done them, will you tell us how many jobs will be threatened, lost or perhaps even created if you think there'll be any created? Will you agree to undertake the inquiries we called for in the 20 regions of this province last Thursday?

Hon Mr Rae: I just don't think you can take one piece of legislation out of context.

You have to look at the overall approach which the government has taken with respect to the reduction of the corporation taxes on investment; the way in which, for example, on manufacturing processing we've taken action together with the federal government; the way in which we've worked with the private sector in solving a number of individual problems; the fact that financial support from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to businesses to create new jobs this year is 96% higher than in the last year of the former government, 96% higher in terms of the kind of actions we've taken in the middle of this recession.

As I said on Friday, we are looking forward very much to a very constructive dialogue with the members of the labour and management communities in looking at improving the overall climate, including, obviously, this particular legislation, but a number of other factors need to be taken into account as well.

I would say to the honourable member that we are looking forward to a balanced debate in the House, we are looking forward to a consideration by the committee and a study by a number of people of what is being proposed, and then to a conclusion of the debate in the fall, which I think is, after all the consultation has taken place, a perfectly reasonable line of direction coming from the government at this time.

Mr Harris: I am not debating today the time frame or the government's right, of course, to deal with legislation, but the 20 regional bills we introduced call for an inquiry into the effect of this piece of legislation. You don't want to isolate it. If you don't want to isolate it, why deal with it?

We are dealing with this particular bill, and what we are interested in knowing, and I think all members would want to know, particularly the backbench members of your party, who have been given a new-found freedom to vote their conscience on these issues instead of how they're told -- I think they'd want to know what will be the impact of this legislation on workers. The bill calls for that for all workers, including specifically women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and older workers.

My caucus believes very strongly -- and I believe the business community believes, everybody you spoke to in Japan believes -- that your labour legislation proposals are a payback to the union bosses and will destroy investment, will cost jobs and will close factories. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Hon Mr Rae: I think there is very substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, I was interested to read an editorial in the Montreal Gazette on Saturday indicating that it's hard to understand the kind of rhetoric which this legislation has produced in Ontario, given that it's been in place in the province of Quebec for 14 years and given that there are some features of our bill which are less restrictive than the legislation in Quebec.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Editorial in the newspaper. Real good. It came out after your legislation.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that the committee will have a chance to call witnesses and to call people who have expert testimony to provide. The committee will have the opportunity to do precisely the kind of study the member is referring to. If it's a study he wants, then I would ask what better place for a study to be overseen than within the committee that will be dealing with the legislation?

Mr Harris: On Friday, as we've already heard from the leader of the Liberal Party, Hayes-Dana announced that it is putting the brakes on an $8-million expansion in St Marys. The reason is your labour legislation. We have heard from a number of investors and potential investors and employers from around the world that they are reconsidering creating jobs in Ontario because of your legislation.

I would ask you this, Premier: Can you tell the 2,000 employees at Hayes-Dana and the thousands more who depend upon the facility and the new ones who may have been hired why you are proceeding with this legislation and taking away their jobs? Also, can you explain to every member of this Legislature, in government and in opposition, why you refuse to do any impact studies of this legislation on jobs, existing and potential, in this province? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member again that if he would look at a balanced approach and look at the decisions that have been made by Chrysler, look at the decisions that have been by Ford, look at the decisions that have been by a number of major companies, they clearly point to a continuing confidence in the workforce in this province. I'm convinced that a reasonable, balanced dialogue with the business community and with everyone out there will reinforce the sense that Ontario is a good place to do business and that we have everything to gain by improving the climate of labour-management relations in this province -- everything to gain from that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, we all agree that if we could improve the climate, things would be better. Everybody I talk to says your legislation's way of proceeding is destroying the climate, not improving the climate. When you understand that, then we'll get the kind of consultation we need.

The Speaker: Is this your second question?

Mr Harris: My second question, Mr Speaker, is to the Premier as well.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Premier, your government House leader has served notice that no legislation will go forward in this House until he passes rule changes. We're not opposed to discussing rule changes in this House or outside of this House or in any forum in which you'd like to do it. But I find it a sad excuse for governing, when unemployment in this province is at its highest level in nine years. I wonder if the Premier would tell me this: How many jobs will be created in the province as a result of this urgent and important discussion on rule changes?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer all questions involving the rule changes to the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to rule on whether in fact the government House leader is entitled to answer this question. If I'm not mistaken, Mr Speaker, you have ruled on a previous occasion that the government whip could not be asked a question in her capacity as whip but could only be asked a question that related to her portfolio. She was not permitted to answer the question, in accordance with your ruling.

I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, with all respect, that the other portfolio the government House leader has as Minister of Municipal Affairs has nothing to do with the rules of the Legislature, and therefore he cannot answer the question, on the same logic you used on a previous occasion.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point. He will recall that on an earlier occasion the question had been directed directly to a minister without portfolio. In this instance the question was referred to a member of the cabinet by the Premier, and in that capacity the member is allowed to respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Allow the member to respond. The government House leader.

Interjections.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, if I might be given the opportunity to answer the question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, ever since the Premier asked me to serve as government House leader, I have had many opportunities to engage in discussions with the House leaders from the opposition parties to talk about the need for changes in this place. If ever there was an example of why there needs to be changes, we can see it happening this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think what the people of this province want the Legislature to do is deal with the public business that is before it. It's been clear in the last several months that this government has not been allowed to proceed with the government agenda. That has been absolutely clear.

The statistics are clear. When the Liberals were in power they were allowed to pass about 31 pieces of legislation per sitting, the Conservatives about 32 pieces per sitting. We've been allowed 12 to 14 pieces. The opposition parties have to understand. We respect the ability of the opposition parties to oppose; that's their job. But I don't think the opposition parties have demonstrated very clearly that we also have a responsibility to the people of this province to govern.

How many jobs are going to be created? I guess I could ask the leader of the third party how many jobs were created last Thursday when we listened to private member's bill after private member's bill as a tactic to have nothing done in this place.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This morning you, Mr House Leader, said in a statement, "We simply don't have time to play these games while the public awaits job-creating legislation." Mr House Leader, I couldn't agree with you more. We're all waiting for legislation that will create jobs. I can name any number of proposals you've talked about dealing with, any number of bills, some requiring up to 200 amendments, any number of directions that will kill and destroy jobs in this province. Can you name one bill, what piece of legislation you're so anxious to get on with, that will create jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: I served in opposition for a long time, so I understand the role of the opposition parties --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- but if you take a look at this place, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the budget bills from the 1991 budget were passed. The opposition wouldn't even let this government proceed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- with budget bills from the 1991 budget. Now, if that isn't an example of this place not working and the opposition not allowing the government to govern, then I don't know what a better example is. We've got to reform this place. We've got to make this place modern. All we're suggesting is that we bring the Ontario Legislature in line with other legislatures across the country. It's about time that's done, and this government is determined to do that.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is incumbent for all members of this House to tell the truth, and I believe you would substantiate that. The government House leader has not mentioned a very vital point of truth, which is that this House was due to come back by the calendar on March 8, and this government delayed it till --

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. The member will know that's not a point of order. The leader of the third party with his final supplementary.

Mr Harris: Regardless of when the House comes back and when it sits, I assume that the minister not being able to name one piece of legislation is an admission that there is none, that in fact there is nothing the government wishes to call that will create a job. That's what I infer.

I see him looking. Let me suggest to the government House leader that you do have a bill that we believe could create some jobs -- that is, the Sunday shopping bill. Let me also suggest to the House leader that the only reason I can see for you wanting to limit speeches to 30 minutes for job-creating legislation is so you can shut up your own backbench members and get that bill through the House, because we could pass that bill today except that there's a filibuster by NDP members brewing to stop the one job-creating piece of legislation.

By way of final supplementary, the truth is that other than that bill that we've been pushing and calling for and we're ready to deal with and pass today, there is nothing on the books that will create jobs. I understand how desperate you all are to take the heat off your job-killing labour legislation and the fact that you have no agenda to create jobs --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: I would really, seriously suggest to you, Mr House leader, and through you to the Premier and your cabinet: Why don't you call a real piece of legislation this afternoon that might have a chance to create some jobs instead of playing games with the rules and tying up this House for the next two weeks on that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party can make whatever arguments he wants to make. The fact of the matter is that he wants to take a look at the budget this government introduced, which had thousands of jobs created. He'll want to look at the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order and I would ask the member for Oriole --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's a lie. That's not even a white one.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole needs to withdraw the comment that she just made. It's unparliamentary, and I believe she knows that.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, the House leader has clearly stated something that is not factually correct. I withdraw the word "lie" and say that he has been not factually correct.

The Speaker: The fact that a member withdraws an unparliamentary remark is all that's required, and I do appreciate the fact that the member did that. Now that order is restored, perhaps the minister could continue.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to run through all the proposals and all the programs the government has introduced. They've been reiterated --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): He Martelled. Keep Martelling.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Cooke: Rather than continuing to try to talk, I think the opposition parties have clearly made my case: We need rule changes in this place. The place isn't working.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Willowdale: Perhaps just prior to the issuance of a writ the member for Scarborough-Agincourt could ask a question.

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with your credibility. You may recall, Premier, that I think a solemn commitment you made was that you would eliminate Ontario income tax for the working poor. You not only have not done that, Premier, as you know, but you've actually gone in the opposite direction. In three weeks every single person in Ontario will see his or her Ontario income tax go up more than 5%, including the working poor.

My question to you is this, Premier: What possible justification do you have for breaking this commitment and for increasing the personal Ontario income tax on the working poor by more than 5% on July 1?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Any tax changes the government has had to bring in I think are a clear response to the fiscal reality facing this province, which I'm sure the member is aware of. The prospect of a deficit that would be unacceptably high and would face all of us with a common problem in the future has led the Treasurer to make the recommendations in his budget that he has made.

Mr Phillips: I can understand the need to deal with the deficit, and I can understand the need to raise taxes in certain areas, but on this particular one I sincerely question, Premier, why you would choose to attack the working poor.

We've now seen case after case, Premier, where you've gone back on the solemn promises you made in the election campaign, whether it be the common pause day, whether it be the tax on the working poor, whether it be public auto insurance. All these things were solemn commitments made by you during the campaign.

Premier, you remember that in this building you called the previous Premier a liar for this very thing. You said he was a liar. It was the "Honest Bob" campaign. You weren't going to do that. You called him a liar. My question to you is this: You used to call these actions lying. You said that where a political party promises one thing and does something different is a lie. Premier, how would you describe your promising one thing in a campaign and doing the exact opposite now that you're in power?

Hon Mr Rae: The facts as I understand them, and I know the Treasurer would be glad to answer this question even more fully than I'm going to be able to answer it today, are as follows: Ontario's personal income tax is now the third lowest in Canada. The net impact of the measures that have been put forward by the Treasurer is that for lower- and middle-income taxpayers -- that is to say, individuals who are earning less than $53,000 -- there will be no increase in the combined federal-Ontario income tax as a result of the federal and Ontario 1992 budgets.

Mr Phillips: I ask the Premier to get the facts and report back to this House before we adjourn today. That is not a fact. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer ordered the Minister of Education to send out a retraction to all his households for that particular reason. I ask the Premier to come forward with the facts before the House adjourns.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the Premier wish to respond? No?

New question, the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm prepared to wait if the Premier wants to answer that question.

The Speaker: The member for Markham has the floor to pose a question.

Mr Cousens: No, I said I am prepared to wait.

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take it that the third question being asked by the honourable member was some kind of third supplementary being allowed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the House comes to order, then I can address the question.

Indeed the Chair was wrong. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt was very quick to his feet and the Chair should not have allowed what the member was posing as his second supplementary since we were into the rotation where there was simply one supplementary. The error was the Chair's, for which I apologize. We are now on to the third party, and the member for Markham has his opportunity to ask a question.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Do you have the Hansard?

Mr Cousens: I have the Hansard. On November 2, 1988, with regard to the Rouge Valley, when you were opposition critic for the Environment you said:

"Surely, if this government really means to preserve the Rouge Valley, it must realize that such a corridor, freeway or expressway is entirely inconsistent with preserving the Rouge Valley. Why has the minister not requested Scarborough and Metro to delete the corridor from their plans? That is how one preserves the Rouge."

The question I have is, does one preserve the Rouge and other environmentally sensitive areas such as the Oak Ridges moraine, the Ganaraska and Lake Ontario by placing a landfill site near them? Simply, can you preserve environmentally sensitive areas by placing a landfill site close to them? Certainly when you said that's how one preserves the Rouge -- you wouldn't put a road through it -- can you say the same now with regard to landfill sites being in close proximity to the Rouge?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I suspect the member is referring to the statement made by the member for Mississauga South earlier today, which alleged that the Interim Waste Authority had selected, as one of its potential landfill sites, land within the Rouge. I know the member, having been through the committee that dealt with Bill 143, is very familiar with the process this government has set up, a fair and open process where the Interim Waste Authority determines environmental criteria, applies them and develops a list of sites.

I just want to draw the member's attention to one of the criteria that has been selected by the Interim Waste Authority and is very clear. It says, "Screen out the portion of the Rouge River Valley where the provincial cabinet has declared a provincial intent to establish a park in the Rouge River Valley to include buffer zones." I think that's the answer to his question.

Mr Cousens: Two words sum up your response, and those are that you have become "environmentally dishonest." You proclaim that the Rouge Valley --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat. Adding an adverb in front of a word that is not parliamentary does not help any. The member for Markham will know this, and I trust he'll withdraw the remark.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw "environmentally," Mr Speaker, and certainly I would --

The Speaker: I don't think I heard that one properly.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw any offence in the words, but there's something the matter with the minister's response.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order.

Mr Cousens: The minister proclaimed that the Rouge Valley would be protected at all costs, yet the Interim Waste Authority has different plans for the Rouge Valley. All of us who suffered through the public hearings on Bill 143 know that you are the Interim Waste Authority. You have legislated the mandate for the Interim Waste Authority and you've restricted its options to landfill sites only. You can't look outside the greater Toronto area; you can't look at incineration.

Placing the responsibility for the site selection on the Interim Waste Authority is green hypocrisy and calls into question your credibility as Minister of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment is out of control. The Premier has said that the Rouge will be protected, yet the Interim Waste Authority says it is a possible site. You have said it is the responsibility of the Interim Waste Authority and you've referred to some of those guidelines. I ask you, Madam Minister: Who is setting the environmental agenda for the province of Ontario and can we trust it?

Hon Mrs Grier: The answer is, he can trust it absolutely. This government has dealt with what have been crisis headlines in the GTA for the last decade: "Nowhere to Put the Waste"; "Put the Waste all over the Province"; "Put it in Plympton"; "Put it in Marmora." This government has laid down key environmental policies, incorporated them into legislation and established a crown agency to implement those policies and to take future landfill sites through an environmental assessment. That's a first, Mr Speaker, and that's something he can trust implicitly.

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question will be asked in a more gracious tone. It's for the minister responsible for the Office for the Greater Toronto Area. It has come to my attention that the office is using StarPhone as a vehicle to talk about some of the long-term issues affecting the greater Toronto area, of which Durham East is a part. Why is the government using StarPhone? What kind of information will be provided to my constituents of Durham East who may be interested in this service?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The Office for the Greater Toronto Area, in cooperation with a number of other ministries and in consultation with the 35 municipalities within the greater Toronto area, has been developing a strategic plan to guide the future growth of this area, a growth that's expected to take the population from the current four million to six million over the next 25 years.

What we have done with StarPhone, which is an information service available by telephone to people within this area, is to provide messages and information about transportation, economic vitality, greenlands and sustainable communities. We're monitoring the effectiveness of the program on an ongoing basis, and we believe that use of StarPhone provides the member's constituents in Durham East and all the residents of the greater Toronto area an opportunity to get information in a timely and convenient way.

Mr Mills: I guess we're all obsessed with costs these days. What is that service going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm pleased to tell the member that it's a very cost-effective way of distributing information. The cost for 13 weeks of use of the service is $5,350, and in the first three weeks the Office for the Greater Toronto Area made use of the service, we had over 2,000 calls. Many of those people merely wanted to listen to the recording. Many others left their names and addresses and asked for follow-up information and to be involved in the consultations that are ongoing and that are so very important about the future of the greater Toronto area, and we think it has proven to be a good way of disseminating that information.

LEGAL FEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question was for the Premier, but he's disappeared from the House so I guess I'll have to find another minister. But he's responsible for everything that happens over there. I guess I'll go to the Attorney General with this, in the absence of the Premier, who has left early.

The people who voted for the Premier's government probably didn't necessarily agree with all the policies this government had in its platform and probably didn't believe that this government could manage the economy of the province particularly well, but they did believe that Premier Rae and others in the government would be different, that in fact they would be open and would be honest and would be upfront in their style of government. In light of that, could the Attorney General tell us why he tried to sneak in a $76-million tax grab through the back door, a tax that, for instance, will triple the cost of probating a will, even for a modest estate by today's standards?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member knows full well, I believe, that over the past six years the Ministry of the Attorney General under this government and the previous government looked very seriously at all court fees, and in fact over the last six years has increased a number of court fees, simply to provide the funding we find necessary to make provisions for the justice system. A number of court fees were raised this year and there were some increases in probate fees. Those increases are not out of line with other increases in court fees. Neither in this year are they out of line, nor are they out of line with increases in past years.

Mr Bradley: If this money was so important to the government of the province, one would have thought a measure of this kind would have been at least mentioned in the provincial budget.

My colleague the member for Ottawa South in his statement today raised the fact about housing costs, and in view of the fact that, with a good deal of publicity and fanfare, the Premier headed to a federal-provincial conference talking about making housing more accessible to people of modest incomes, could the minister of justice of the province, the Attorney General, tell the House why the registry offices all over the province have now increased the cost of a house by $200 to $300, simply by increasing the fees that the government is bringing about through the back door?

Hon Mr Hampton: I take issue with the assertion that there's a $200 to $300 increase. The fact is that with respect to property transfers, part of the province does work under the Registry Act but an ever-increasing part of the province works under the Land Titles Act. As I've indicated, some fees were increased across the province. They were neither of the magnitude the member suggests, nor in their eventual impact are they anywhere near the amount the member suggests.

I simply point out that in increasing some of the fees of the court system, we looked at increasing those fees which we felt would not have an impact on access to justice. In other words, they would not block deserving people from having their issues resolved in our courts. I think we've been effective in doing that. We've increased those fees which would not impact on access to justice. We've increased those fees where we believe there would be relative ease in paying those fees.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SPENDING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I want to reiterate: It's to the Minister of Transportation, not Hans Christian Andersen. We don't want a fairy tale today when he answers. I'd like a very simple answer.

The Premier and the Treasurer have been talking a great story about the need to renew Ontario's crumbling infrastructure and to stimulate Ontario's weak economy. In the light of these commitments, could you explain why the Ministry of Transportation capital budget for this year, on an estimates basis, is some $310 million less than last year?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I take a great deal of pride to answer what, a priori, seems to be a shortcoming or a pitfall. Suffice to say that after the budget tabled in this House by the Treasurer a couple of weeks back, we remain the largest capital budget in the province of Ontario. We spend more money on transportation to put people to work than any other ministry. That's the truth, that's the reality.

You will also recall so vividly, because I do as if it were this morning, that the Treasurer has made the announcement that $2.3 billion over the next five years will be used for capital programs, and this year, as we speak, $500 million will be used for capital programs to put people to work. We remain confident at Transportation that we shall secure a very large chunk of that infrastructure money.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased I made the admonition that I didn't want to go to Hans Christian Andersen, but as usual we have had a fairy tale.

As I said before, the capital budget, on an estimates basis, if you can read these, Minister of Transportation, is some $310 million less than last year. The Premier has trudged around the country talking about the need for massive spending. He's been begging the Prime Minister to fund infrastructure, and yet you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. How can you possibly say you're going to fund infrastructure and you want massive development of Ontario roads when you are reducing the budget?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, if only the member opposite could focus and inform the House as to what project or projects have been either delayed or cancelled. There's been none. Everything is business as usual, everything is on stream.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Pouliot: But the member must be aware that this is an open-minded administration, and therefore we are looking at new and innovative ways to secure capital so that projects will not be cancelled nor delayed. Quite the contrary, sir, they will be accelerated so that more people will be working and, just as important, people will look forward to the kind of programs and services their tax dollars so well deserve.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, I'd like to raise with you a question of public safety that is causing a lot of concern in my riding. It has to do with a nuclear power facility across the lake.

As you know, the question of accidents at nuclear power plants is of great concern to many people. They realize that accidents don't respect international boundaries, and this reactor is actually quite close to us. It's only around 50 miles across the lake.

I know there are constituents in my riding who are prepared, in the case of an accident, to leave immediately, but the problem is that they have to know about the accident before they can take action. On March 23 of this year an alert was called at that plant, yet the city was not informed.

I would like to know, Mr Minister, what types of procedures are in place for municipalities to be informed of these types of incidents when they occur, and further I'd like to know what your ministry is doing to ensure that the type of incident that occurred in March does not happen again.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): In most cases like the one the honourable member has described, a call is made to city officials from the emergency planning Ontario branch of my ministry to inform them of a situation that is ongoing.

In the specific case the member refers to, the reason the city of Kingston was not informed by the province of the incident at the Nine Mile Point reactor was that the state of New York did not inform the province of Ontario of this circumstance. New York state officials stated that the alert was simply a technical compliance with the regulations and there was no danger to public safety, and therefore they didn't call.

Quite frankly, however, we don't perceive that to be acceptable here in the Ontario, and officials of the emergency planning Ontario group have been in contact with the officials of New York state and have come to a situation where we have ensured that they will in fact contact us whenever that kind of event occurs; in turn, our ministry will inform the municipality of Kingston and other municipalities that may be affected.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, as you know, this wasn't the first time an incident happened, and I'm sure it could happen in other nuclear power facilities. Certainly it has come under quite a bit of discussion at the Kingston city council. I would like to be assured that the kind of information people need will be there, not only when an alert happens but before, so they'll be ready to take action; certainly that there will be pressure on nuclear power plants to make sure they are as safe as possible.

Is there anything that your ministry can do about this problem of making sure that people are well informed of the operation of nuclear power plants?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes, we can, and one of the greatest things we can do to avoid these kinds of difficulties is to communicate with one another. As I indicated in the original response, these communications have been built on and enhanced and I think will satisfy everyone.

In the particular case of the city of Kingston, the members of the Emergency Measures Organization have agreed to meet with the officials of that municipality to discuss the circumstance with them to keep them fully informed. I think that kind of briefing will stand everyone very well.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): To the Minister of Culture and Communications: Ontario only has one provincial art gallery, and the effect of the minister's present policy is to reduce its operating budget from $12.1 million to $9.5 million in one year. The effect of this is that 200 employees, almost half the gallery's staff, will immediately lose their jobs.

Today in the Globe and Mail the president of the two unions at the art gallery says, Minister, that one of your paid political speechwriters is Susan Crean.

For reasons of her own, this speechwriter, Susan Crean, who lives in British Columbia, has been a vitriolic and long-time critic of the provincial art gallery. The union president says in her letter, as the editorial in the Star did on Friday, that your speechwriter is trying to drive a wedge between the gallery and its employees on one hand, and the ministry on the other, and that the gallery has not been fairly treated by you.

Does the minister endorse the views of Susan Crean? Why does she use this paid political speechwriter to do her hatchet work?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Susan Crean was contracted once within my ministry to do a function for us regarding gathering 100 artists from all over Ontario. She was hired as a scribe to do a report on that gathering, and opening remarks.

If the honourable member thinks that freelancing for the government amounts to a gag order, he is incorrect. We do not require people who are contracted under this ministry once never to have anything to say against something they themselves don't like. Susan Crean has been writing on the art gallery since 1974, and I hope she continues to do so. That is her right to do so.

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

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Given that the NDP unanimously supported my Rouge Valley park resolution, and given that the terms of references in the government's management plans call for the preparation of a park plan for lands north of Steeles, I contend that my privileges as a member have been breached in the inclusion of site M6 in the long list of candidate sites for the Metropolitan Toronto-York region landfill site search, and I therefore request, through you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the Interim Waste Authority, be required to withdraw site M6 immediately from the long list of candidate sites.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member may know that the status of resolutions passed in the House is not the same as the status of legislation which is passed in the House. While I appreciate very much her concern in this particular instance, she does not have a point of privilege. Of course, she has a point about something which is of intense interest to herself and many other people within this chamber and without.

PETITIONS

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF YORK NORTH

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have two petitions, the first to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by some 30 persons:

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

"That the Ontario government change the name of the riding known as York North to York-Mackenzie."

I signed this petition in support.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The second petition reads as follows, opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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."

I signed that as well, Mr Speaker.

BRONTE CREEK PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents who live in my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bronte Creek Provincial Park is used by families throughout the Halton region and the province for pleasure and recreation throughout all seasons of the year;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the Bronte Creek Provincial Park, with its present boundaries, remain open to the public for pleasure and recreation through all seasons of the year."

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator at a landfill site in the heart of Ontario's farm land in Niagara;

"Whereas toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the Ontario Waste Management Corp."

On this petition are 498 signatures from residents of Niagara. I also affix my signature to this petition.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by a number of residents in my riding and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative of Assembly of Ontario:

"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."

Mr Speaker, I have signed my name.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

That is signed by some 225 people from Unionville, Toronto, Markham and Aurora, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 27 members of my constituency and immediate area in support of legislation for the regulation of social work in Ontario in order to protect the people of Ontario from unskilled, unethical and incompetent practices.

I have signed my name to this petition.

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by a number of individuals in my riding which is dealing with irradiation, and they are asking the Legislature to take all steps to do anything against irradiation, to permit irradiation to appear on the supermarket shelf but only with proper identification and labelling to that effect.

I have affixed my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 460 people from Prescott, Owen Sound, Welland and Ridgeville. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 49 constituents from Middlesex county who ask the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the Brant report, in view of the opinion by these constituents that their concern around agricultural land and their wishes that there be a limited annexation were not met in the Brant report.

I have signed my name to this petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

It's signed by 44 individuals from my riding of Wellington.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition with 42 names from the communities of Peterborough, Bethany, Fraserville, Cameron, Woodville, Millbrook, Havelock and Bancroft, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity of the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution and/or any amendments thereto will mean to each of us and then make provision for a final say by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have the first of many petitions here today from a group of 68 organizations regarding the inclusive neighbourhood campaign.

"Whereas there is a shortage of affordable rental housing units in Ontario; and

"Whereas this shortage most affects individuals and groups facing discrimination and social and economic disadvantage, for example, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees, first nations people, women, gay men and lesbians, seniors, youth, single parents, people with children, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors and people on social assistance; and

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Code affirms that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, handicap or receipt of social assistance, and that any policy or factor which results in this exclusion of people who come within the prohibited grounds of discrimination is illegal; and

"Whereas people who cannot afford to buy a house are often excluded from the lower-density neighbourhoods, which are generally well served by community educational and recreational services; and

"Whereas many thousands of home owners in all municipalities across Ontario have created additional units in their homes that have not changed the quality of life in their neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas tenants in such illegal units are not guaranteed the legal rights and protection that tenants in legal units have, therefore creating two classes of tenants; and

"Whereas zoning practices are exclusionary and are a violation of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario agreed to

article XI of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

"We therefore petition the government of Ontario, in particular the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Citizenship responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Code to immediately put an end to this widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so as to require all municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet health and safety standards in neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing."

I affix my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition from eastern and western Ontario with 283 signatures. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to the Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province;

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition from Arn and Shirley Small and their hardworking staff at the local Beaver Lumber. These hardworking people are opposed to Sunday shopping. That's what the petition is about.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

This is signed by 23 citizens of Lucan and area. I have signed it myself.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario containing 99 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel and surrounding area.

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people,

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 26 members of my constituency who object to the expense related to the erection of bilingual signs in Ontario. I have not affixed my name to the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"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 impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

This is a petition signed by members of Slater Steels, Wellington Plumbing and Heating Ltd, Bravo Cement Contracting (Toronto) Ltd, Victaulic Co of Canada Limited and Le Page's Limited. I have signed my signature to this.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that has been signed by 388 people living in Sioux Lookout, Milverton, Elmira and Mississauga. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition that reads:

"We, the residents of a land-leased community, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on the resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been a confusion resulting in the status of residents with long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report for the land-leased communities and to propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

It's been signed by people like the Kings, the Moffats, the Smiths and the Pattersons, and I affix my name.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is a deferred vote. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The House divided on Mr Charlton's motion for third reading of Bill 118, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 63

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 38

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Scott, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion 7.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will not speak at length because I think these matters have been before the Legislature on many occasions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As the chairman of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, this is the first time I am aware of that we have been required to discuss a matter in this Legislature before my caucus has had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposal the government is putting forward. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think it's quite inappropriate that this government order of business is called at this time.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, I wish to support my colleague who has just spoken to the Legislature in regard to what the government is doing this afternoon. I think it is highly unfair of the government to introduce such a massive package.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That is not a point of order. It is not a point of order.

Mr Mancini: So you're going to allow the government to change all the rules? That is what you're going to allow to happen here.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke, you have the floor.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, if it's a right point of order, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, I believe the minister stated that this Legislature has discussed these rules before and that he therefore would not take time in explanation.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, thank you.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Please take your seat. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that over the period of time that my party has been in office the whole issue of whether there were going to be rule changes discussed in the Legislature or not --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South, order please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, only you have the floor.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, obviously with the kind of concern that's being expressed by the opposition, I will be very brief indeed. The rule changes as they are being proposed will, in my view --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Essex South. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The rule changes that we are proposing to the House today would simply bring the rules of our Legislature --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm getting exercise anyway, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the best way to approach it would be to allow the opposition to speak. I or colleagues of mine can make comments at an appropriate time. I put the rule changes. They're explained. They were on the Orders and Notices paper. I ask the House to debate them. I'll turn it over to the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, I warn you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We just can't go on this way.

Minister, do you have further remarks? Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Unlike many others, I am delighted to participate in this debate and, at the risk of being slightly immodest, I think it is right and fitting that I should begin this debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, you have the floor.

Mr Conway: I repeat that unlike others, apparently, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to begin what I expect --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Very what? Say that again. What was that word?

Mr Conway: I look forward to beginning this debate --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Sean, you can't be pleased about this.

Mr Conway: Well, I am pleased in a perverse kind of way, because I think it is right and fitting that I should be the one, of all people, to begin this debate.

Let me be perhaps a bit indelicate. We have some members in this chamber who don't know the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside as well as I do. I know him better than anyone in this place. I have been in the parliamentary trenches with the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside, and I must say that it is a very particular and idiosyncratic pleasure to be with the government House leader in these matters.

It is no secret that I relate to him like Stephen Lewis related to Morty Shulman. I don't like the member for Windsor-Riverside. In fact, on a number of occasions I can tell you that I have behaved badly because I dislike him so completely. I give him credit as a resourceful and hardworking fellow who has I think done very good bidding for his colleagues; I take nothing away from him on that account. But in my dealings with him I have often found him to be a man whose word is not worth the paper it is written on. I find him to be someone of a very disagreeable kind.

I'll tell you, three years ago in a similar debate I found his disagreeableness endless. I found that it verged on the despicable. I'm glad he's leaving, because it will make --

Interjections.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): He's leaving because he's a coward.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, I don't accept that type of language in this House. Please.

Mr Scott: I withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I understand the harshness of this language and I don't offer it lightly, but I tell you that I have a history with this honourable member on this file. The things he's done and the utter worthlessness of his word in this debate over the years has been, as I say, from my own personal point of view, absolutely breathtaking. So unlike others, what I have today surprises me not a whit -- not a whit.

I would have thought the leader of the government would crawl out of here today, however. I would have thought he would crawl out of here on his virtue and his long face today, because in a session of NDP flip-flops we have another one. I want to say to my friends opposite that before this debate is over we are going to have

chapter and verse as to how government notice of motion 7, offered by the honourable government House leader today, is at complete and absolute variance with everything that David Cooke and Bob Rae and David Reville and Ross McClellan and Elie Martel have stood for and fought for all the years they have been in this Legislature.

I'm sorry my friends from the Globe and Mail aren't here -- I saw one of the reporters here a moment ago -- because I want to begin with the beginning of this public notice. We didn't get it, of course, in the regular way. I think it's important to observe how members of the Legislature got notice of this significant government public policy.

Let me say, in ways that I suspect again put me at variance with a number of my colleagues in the opposition, I am very willing, probably much more willing than most members of the opposition and many in the government, to consider rule changes. I'll be very mischievous in telling you why: because there is one group of jackboot artists in this place that I would like to have some tightened rules to apply to. That group is the NDP.

I have been bad. I will admit that over the 17 years I have done some things that don't do me much credit in retrospect. My party has done some things of which I did not approve, and I will be specific. In 1982, 10 years ago this month or last month, when I was away in southeast Asia, my friends undertook the ringing of bells, a copycat of what had gone on in Ottawa. I wasn't here, but had I been I would have fought that with every ounce of my being, because I find that kind of tactic fascistic. I find it absolutely outrageous. It contradicts the very reason we have a Parliament. I don't think it was a very creditable day for the Liberal Party of Ontario when my colleagues rang the bells.

I think I'll let others speak about my friends in the third party. They've had some anxious moments themselves, where they've engaged in some tactics that I suspect, over time and with some reflection, they might not have perhaps wanted to be highlighted in their parliamentary résumé.

I know I'm not the most dispassionate and objective observer in this matter, but in my time in this Legislature, generally speaking, the group of people that has been most consistently outrageous in the twisting and bending and flouting of the rules of this Legislature and the Mother of Parliaments from which we descend is none other than the New Democratic Party. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that no two members have been more predictably outrageous in their jackboot tactics than Dave Cooke and Bob Rae.

To be piously lectured to now by the member for Windsor-Riverside, as he has in the statement made to the Globe and Mail today, is to lie awake and hear the tones of Elmer Gantry, is to read Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale, to see hypocrisy on stilts. There's no other phrase for it. It would be like me coming to this House and advocating the virtue of short speeches and silence; I would expect all my friends on all sides to simply throw up their hands in laughter and incredulity. But to get a lecture from Dave Cooke and Bob Rae about the need for a kinder, gentler, more productive Legislature is hypocrisy itself.

I mean, I ask my friends of some standing, who was it that denied Bob Nixon --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask you to be very careful in the choice of your words.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your advice. I understand, in a particular way, yo