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

June 15, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's once again that time: Carabram weekend in Brampton. It is a cultural festival that started in 1983 with four pavilions and has worked its way up to 19 this year.

This festival is allowed to take place and is as successful as it is because of the many volunteers in the community who give endlessly of their time to make it a success. In fact, they start immediately after the Carabram celebrations are over and work tirelessly, not just preparing for the festival but also fund-raising. They do this through bingos. Hopefully casino gambling will not take away from this very valuable way of funding their whole operation.

This year it will be held on July 3, 4 and 5, Friday through Sunday. I invite all members to participate. There are 19 pavilions and you can come and savour the sights, sounds and tastes all around the world without leaving the city of Brampton.

I urge you to respond by thanking these volunteers. Obviously the province of Ontario and the city of Brampton would be in great need without these volunteers, who are able to serve us so endlessly. Carabram is a festival I would urge the government to look seriously at. It's one that could be a model not just for this province but also for the country. These volunteers are neighbours. They come together at no cost to the government or any other public body. They are able to bring us closer together to understand one another's diversities and similarities. I urge you to come to Carabram.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I protest the flawed process that has led to the infliction of 57 candidate landfill sites on the people of the communities in the regions of York, Peel and Durham. The flawed process is the result of having a Minister of the Environment who is living with a totalitarian vision, one that is not based on reality. Did she think she could employ draconian measures to force people to accept having a $40-million landfill site in their community?

From the beginning the Minister of the Environment has dictated the way things will be done. She rammed through Bill 143. She tried to deny public consultation. She refused to release the candidate sites until the bill was passed, and she silenced the communities to be affected. The New Democratic majority refused to pass any amendments put forth by the opposition. They closed their minds to the advice of the presenters. The bill is now law and the Minister of the Environment has effectively eliminated any options to waste management including rail shipment somewhere, incineration, or any other scientific method.

Today I tell the people living in communities such as Unionville, Whitevale, Sandhill in the town of Caledon, and other places that we have a government on our hands that is doing the wrong thing. They've been betrayed by this government.

The Ministry of the Environment is out of control. They have no solution to the disposing of waste and have refused to explore options. They selected landfill sites in environmentally sensitive areas like the Oak Ridges moraine and the Rouge Valley, and they selected sites in the middle of communities or on valuable farm land. This government doesn't care. This government needs to get going somewhere, but not stay around any longer.

ENVIRONMENT DAY

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Last week Niagara Falls hosted the sixth annual Environment Day held by the Citizens for a Clean Environment. This local group, led by Al and Penny Oleksuik, has been very active over the last few years on many issues, including pressuring the Minister of the Environment and the Norton company to clean up a chemical spill in the river, known locally as the Chippewa blob.

Environment Day featured many displays by schools, government, environment groups and industry. The panel discussion brought Professor Michael Dickman from Brock University, activist Pat Potter, who operates the environmental vessel called the NIMBI, Now I Must Become Involved, together with Bob Sorley, president of Lubrizol, a local company, for some real discussion.

I want to honour today the work of the CCE over the past more than 10 years of striving to change public attitudes. The environment movement has to keep up the pressure to make change. We as government can't do it without you, the public, with us.

I also have a message and a present for Environment Minister Ruth Grier from Pat Potter of Port Maitland: "This is the way we want to drink pop, in refillable bottles straight from the 1950s. I hope you will agree that refilling or reuse is better than recycling."

DONATION BY PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I hope members will share my view that sound projects of Third World assistance are not only acts of altruism. Of course, if they are well conceived, they benefit the receiving country directly, but by contributing to fiscal soundness and a better standard of life for all peoples of the world, we build a healthier and safer international community and a stronger and more vital world economy. That of course benefits Canadians as present and future trading partners of Third World developing nations.

I am rising, therefore, to thank a number of Canadian pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers for their generous donations of Third World assistance and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The companies concerned are Apotex Inc, Canadian Medical Aid Programme, Life Brand Pharmaceuticals, Nu-Pharm Inc, Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc, Technilab Inc, and especially Novopharm and Genpharm, whose generosity was especially outstanding.

To all these Canadian pharmaceutical companies and suppliers, for their humanitarian service and outstanding generosity, our sincere appreciation.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Last week a 16-year-old Kingston girl was abducted, apparently sexually assaulted and held captive by a forensic patient of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. Thanks to the joint efforts of the Kingston police and the Ontario Provincial Police, the man was arrested, still holding the young girl captive 23 hours after the reporting of the abduction and almost 24 miles from its site.

Many stories are circulating in the Kingston area dealing with the circumstances of the abduction and assault, including a contention that following her abduction the victim was taken to the psychiatric hospital and sexually assaulted on hospital property.

Last year, three months after a murder on the grounds of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, I asked the Minister of Health if she had taken any action to ensure that released murderers would no longer be considered appropriate community escorts for murderers currently incarcerated in forensic psychiatric facilities. She had no answer then and to my knowledge has done nothing about a situation that significantly contributed to that murder occurring.

In the aftermath of the Kingston attack, Mayor Helen Cooper and her council and the citizens of Kingston are looking for answers and explanations. I urge the Minister of Health to, unlike her response to the Brockville murder, quickly, openly and honestly meet that request and address the concerns of the people of Kingston.

RURAL ROUTES '92

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to invite all members of this House to attend Rural Routes '92 in Woodstock on Thursday, June 25, and Friday, June 26. A

schedule of events is being sent to each member's office.

Rural Routes '92, dubbed Ontario's showcase of resource planning by its organizers, is designed to help create a better understanding of concerns relating to resource use and community and rural planning. It will be held at the Woodstock Fairgrounds on Thursday from 9 am to 8 pm and on Friday from 8 am to 5 pm.

There will be a variety of exhibits, workshops and presentations on land use and planning, environmental and conservation concerns and innovations. It costs $10 per day per vehicle, $5 per day per walk-in or $3 per day on a bus, including mini-vans.

There will be a number of bus tours departing from the fairgrounds throughout the two-day event to farms in Oxford county and surrounding areas. Each of the tours will include a variety of farmstead, resource management and rural community development issues. These visits to the back roads of southwestern Ontario offer more than a pleasant sightseeing option. They present an excellent opportunity to learn about the efforts to improve soil and water conservation, to see at first hand how the thorny issues of land and waste management are being handled and how our smaller communities are responding to such pressing social and economic issues as rural day care and economic development.

In conclusion, I'd like to congratulate the organizers for their efforts to present a top-notch program for this two-day event.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thousands of residents of York region are upset and angry. The issue is waste disposal or, in more poetic language, garbage dumps. The question we in York region ask is, why does the Minister of the Environment continue to insist that York region take, on top of its own waste, that of Metropolitan Toronto?

We also ask, why does the minister continue to refuse to examine other options and alternatives? Why has she ruled out any role for incineration? We all recognize that incineration is not the sole answer, but it can certainly be part of the mix in responding to garbage disposal. Germany and Sweden are but two countries that have demonstrated how incineration can be part of the answer to dealing with waste. We continue to ask why she has refused to allow the Kirkland Lake proposal to be put before an environmental review to see if it would also be part of the answer.

It is the minister's adamant and arrogant approach which will force a new dump site on York region, even larger than the one at Keele Valley.

Incredibly, in the four proposed sites set out in King township we have some of the best dairy farms in the province. King township has stated clearly in its official plan that it wishes to maintain its rural heritage. Surely, developing a megadump is not the answer.

The government owes York region some clear answers and new alternatives.

CURRENCY REGULATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Later this afternoon I will be introducing a private member's bill entitled Drop the Penny Act, 1992. This act would create a new acceptable business practice respecting cash transactions in Ontario by permitting cash amounts for goods and services to be rounded up or down to the nearest nickel.

I think most people will agree with me that the penny has become little more than a public nuisance. Pennies are no longer worth their weight in gold or any precious commodity. They are a cumbersome, annoying monetary unit and make little sense considering the cost of producing them, the time spent counting them and their trivial purchasing power.

What many people will not be aware of is that it costs one and a half cents to produce a Canadian penny and that there are about a billion of them produced each year. In addition to saving a lot of aggravation and bother, drastically reducing the use of pennies would save the Canadian Mint nearly $5 million a year.

Some will immediately claim that this is a federal matter, and they are correct if you are talking about a ban or an order to cease mintage and usage of the penny. However, it is possible for Ontario to permit the business practice of rounding up or down to the nearest nickel in a cash transaction, thereby drastically reducing the use and burden of the penny. A move towards a more sterling currency will be appreciated by all.

CHRIS HADFIELD

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and acknowledge the accomplishments of Major Chris Hadfield. Major Hadfield remembers being inspired in his childhood by the first manned flight to the moon and has been named one of Canada's four new astronauts.

Born in Sarnia only 32 years ago, Major Hadfield has accomplished much in his career with the Royal Canadian Air Force. He has won many awards for Canada as a fighter pilot and graduated top of the class from the US Air Force Pilot School. He is currently an integral part of the F-18 departure flight tests.

The Hadfields have a history of flying. Chris's father, Richard, is a former pilot for the old Sarnia-St Clair Air Services and Great Lakes Airlines. He also flew for Dow Chemical. The family no longer lives in Sarnia but maintains a connection with Lambton county by owning a cottage on Stag Island.

Major Hadfield's selection to the astronaut program came after a gruelling process. He was chosen, along with the other new astronauts, by the Canadian Space Agency from 5,330 applications.

I want to extend my personal congratulations to Major Hadfield and ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating one of Canada's superachievers, Sarnia-born Major Chris Hadfield.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we might think of extending the response time for opposition parties, bearing in mind that the Premier has an extremely important statement to be made today with respect to the Constitution and that there is also a statement being delivered today by the Minister of Housing.

While both are equally important, I think the nature of the first-mentioned will perhaps require an extension of a little bit of time so that both my leader, Lyn McLeod, and also the leader of the third party or his representative would be able to adequately address some of the items raised by the statement of the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the point of order. We require unanimous agreement. Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Il me donne grand plaisir de donner aux députés de l'Assemblée législative des nouvelles sur les allocations aux logements à but non lucratif.

The Ministry of Housing today has given the go-ahead to more than 100 non-profit housing sponsors to work on 6,500 non-profit homes across Ontario. These non-profit homes are being built in 44 communities across the province as part of the Ontario non-profit housing program announced in last year's budget.

Last October I announced the first 3,500 approvals from this 10,000-unit program and today I am pleased to announce the second phase.

We have allocated 10,000 non-profit homes in less than one year. That means 10,000 new, affordable homes for Ontarians and thousands of jobs for workers in the construction and related industries.

This spring there were more than 28,500 non-profit and cooperative homes under construction in communities all over the province. These homes mean jobs. This year, non-profit housing will provide more than 38,000 jobs in construction and other related industries, and there will be more jobs when the sponsors I have announced today are ready to build. The non-profit homes today getting the go-ahead today will provide an additional 11,000 jobs in communities across this province.

Our commitment to a job-creation and building affordable housing program is a continuing commitment, and there will be more job creation when we begin delivering the Jobs Ontario homes fund, the 20,000 units of non-profit housing we announced in this year's budget.

I'd like members of this House to know that people from across this province fought hard for those units. I received hundreds of letters before the budget, letters from people living in non-profit housing, from workers and from a range of small businesses; they all rely on non-profit housing.

The units we're announcing today will be built under the direction of sponsors from community-based housing sectors, and that includes municipal and private non-profits and housing co-ops. At this stage, sponsors can now prepare for construction: They can hire consultants and architects and start the planning approvals process.

Today's announcement brings us one step closer to the official opening of 6,500 more affordable homes in communities across the province. These units will house people who cannot find homes in the private market for a variety of reasons. They may not be able to afford a place to live or they may have special needs like the single mothers living at Massey Centre here in Toronto or the seniors living at Au Chateau in Sturgeon Falls.

I know many of the members in this House have attended opening ceremonies of new non-profit buildings in their own communities. Last week I had the pleasure of opening a new

section of Au Chateau in Sturgeon Falls. The residents there have built a community where they can live in their own homes and still have the security and help they need to preserve their dignity and independence. I think that's what non-profit housing is all about: helping people in ways the private market cannot.

Today I visited another development. It's 28 units. It's in the College and Spadina area. The residents will be street people, and some of them are now working on the site, which is a historic building. So in that development we're creating homes for those in need, we're creating construction work for some of the very people who have been on the street and will be looking for affordable housing in the development on which they're working, and we're preserving a building which has a history of its own.

I'm proud of what the ministry and this government are doing for people looking for affordable housing. When we invest in non-profit housing we're investing in the future, because non-profit housing we're approving now will be a source of affordable housing for generations to come.

C'est un investissement pour le futur de l'Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I'm tabling in the House today the so-called Status Report of the Multilateral Meetings on the Constitution, the rolling draft as of June 11, 1992, and the possible elements of political accords which have been provisionally agreed upon between a number of governments.

I want to talk to this House about the Constitution again today, and I've had the opportunity to speak briefly to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party, with regard to my statement today and also with regard to where exactly we are in these discussions. I want to take this opportunity to speak to the House about the Constitution because last Thursday my colleagues across the country and I completed an important and productive phase in the process of constitutional renewal.

After a 10-day break, during which I made my last statement to this House -- and I appreciate that this has a certain quality of a continuing saga which I'm presenting to the House -- we reconvened in Ottawa last Tuesday for three days to continue the discussions we had not completed in Toronto. The three days were productive. In particular, some interesting new ideas came forward on the Senate, which I'd be glad to answer questions on. So for the first time since these discussions began there is now fluidity and movement on this issue, which is a prerequisite for finding a solution.

It is important to convey to all of you something about the dynamics of these discussions. You should know that all the participants in the process are dedicated to achieving a package of reforms that will help keep the country together and will allow Canada to function well socially and economically.

Everyone has agreed that the current Senate needs to be replaced. Finding further consensus has been difficult. The amending formula in the current Constitution may well point the way: On some issues, all premiers have equal say; on others we rely on the formula of seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

L'Ontario a en outre affirmé qu'une nouvelle Chambre de deuxième niveau ne doit pas avoir la possibilité de bloquer le fonctionnement de nos institutions fédérales. Le défi que nous devrons relever pour l'avenir sera de créer de nouvelles manières pour les gouvernements de coopérer et de mieux concerter leur action, et non simplement de créer des mécanismes de contrôle et d'équilibre.

Beyond the fundamental goal of keeping Canada united, however, the participants do not always have exactly the same view as to what is best for Canada, for all the regions and for all Canadians. These differences are sincere and deeply held views about the appropriate balance in the federation between the central government and the provinces and about the best way for a democracy and the economy to function in a renewed Canada.

What all participants in the process now have to do almost every day is to represent the interests and aspirations of their people and their governments, while working in good faith to find accommodation and compromise.

As I've said inside and outside this House, I believe the challenge is to construct a package that is inclusive of provinces, regions, communities and individuals.

The results of the work of premiers, ministers and aboriginal leaders over the past 12 weeks have been released in a status report. Along with this brief statement I'm making today, I'm now tabling this status report so that all members of this House could read it and share it with their constituents, with the goal of hearing from them in return.

As you will see when you read this report, the work is not yet finished and the results are provisional. But the package has come a long way; it is 90% there. In fact, progress has been made on every single issue on the constitutional renewal agenda. With continuing dedication to finding a compromise and some more hard work by all the participants, we should be able to complete this constitutional round successfully within the time available.

Canadians are now asking -- and I'm sure they're asking all across the province of Ontario -- what the next step is and what the plans are to get the last 10% in place. For my

part I continue to believe that the best way to reform the constitution in a federal state is through multilateral negotiations. Governments and aboriginal leaders must continue to be fully involved in the process to protect what has been achieved and to present a complete settlement to the Canadian people.

As you know and as the document I am tabling emphasizes, what we've been working on is a series of provisional -- not final -- agreements. Each of the compromises we have reached is, by necessity, dependent on the rest of the package, and of course it's going to be subject to further refinement. This is why the constitutional reform process must continue to involve all participants fully. That is the most effective way to build on the consensus already established.

As well, the continuation of multilateral negotiations is crucial to the success of this round because the ultimate goal is the ratification of a reform package. To ratify constitutional amendments, provincial legislatures as well as the federal Parliament must pass resolutions approving the proposals. I want to stress this point: Under the current Constitution, this is the only way reforms can be successfully concluded. To have the buy-in, support and approval of provincial legislatures is, in my view, essential for this process to come full circle.

The full involvement of the provinces in finalizing a package is the best guarantee of their legislative support. After a time for reflection and listening to the public, it's my view that the Prime Minister or Mr Clark should call a meeting of all delegations, including Quebec, to take stock, to review what was done, what remains to be done and to agree on how the multilateral process should proceed from here to ratification. We must now focus our eyes and our energies on this target of ratification, of getting it done. Getting it done is something all Canadians want to see happen this year in 1992.

During this time, members of the governments will be doing a lot of listening. We'll also be talking to colleagues in other provinces and the federal government to share ideas on how these outstanding issues might be resolved.

In the weeks to come, we intend to continue the very productive cooperation we've had with representatives of both opposition parties who've joined us as members of the Ontario delegation to all the meetings so far. I have deeply appreciated their participation, their commitment to the process and the very real help, advice and perspective they've given us throughout. I cannot say enough about how much all of us in Ontario have benefited from this approach, from our ability to work together to make sure this is not a partisan issue.

Mr Speaker, this week is for discussion and consultation. I will continue to keep this House informed and listen to your responses. I look forward to your advice and I hope, needless to say, for your continuing commitment and support.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing. This is one more time when this government is using smoke and mirrors and big numbers, consistently big numbers, to try to delude the people of this province that it is actually acting. I'd like to talk about some of those numbers and what they really mean. First of all, the minister proudly says that there are "28,500 non-profit and cooperative homes under construction in communities all over Ontario." This was not the result of an NDP program; this is the Liberal program of over two years ago, Homes Now, that they are finally acting on and creating jobs with.

Second, she talks with pride about how they've finally "allocated 10,000 non-profit homes in less than one year." Those 10,000 homes were promised over a year ago in last year's budget, yet it is only now, some 14 months later, when they're finally allocating the second part, the 6,500 homes. Then they say that these 6,500 units "will provide an additional 11,000 jobs in communities across this province." That is true, but not this year. Any construction worker out there waiting for relief from these 6,500 units will not find jobs today and they won't find them this year.

Third, she talks about the 20,000 Jobs Ontario homes. Again, this was announced in this year's budget but it will not provide one job this year. What we need are those construction jobs now. One could consider this delay worth while if, for instance, the Minister of Housing announced that she was studying the effectiveness of the program or studying whether what they're doing is actually meeting the need, but she has not done this. She has not made any attempt to speed up the approvals process to cut the red tape and the bureaucracy.

This government has said that all its ammunition is going to be in one pocket and that is what it has done. It's going to be non-profit and co-op homes. It has ignored the rest of the housing framework. It has ignored the fact that housing starts for ownership homes in this province is at an all-time low compared to what we wanted it to be, that they are on the decline. It has done nothing for this. It has not encouraged the rent-geared-to-income programs to provide immediate need to those who need shelter and need it now.

So, Mr Speaker, all I can say is that this is one more example of smoke and mirrors and big numbers to say that this government is indeed doing nothing.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the Premier's statement on the constitutional talks and once again express appreciation for his bringing to this House a regular update on the progress being made at that negotiating table.

I appreciate the fact that considerable effort is going into overcoming some of the potential areas for impasse. I recognize that much of the effort over the past week has focused on the question of the Senate and how the Senate can be reformed. As I've indicated to the Premier, I'm not quite sure how the Ontario proposal to abolish the Senate and replace it with an equal number of additional representatives in the House of Commons is likely to meet with agreement, particularly of the western provinces for which this issue of Senate reform is such a critical issue.

But I do recognize, having said that, that the matter of abolition of the Senate might strike a somewhat sympathetic chord in many other quarters.

I appreciate the fact that there is a very creative search for solutions going on and that there should be a willingness to explore any possible alternatives which could lead to resolution.

I want to express to the Premier some growing concern about the kind of atmosphere of crisis management that's beginning to prevail. In an atmosphere in which there is a sense of urgency that leads to late-night sessions behind closed doors, the kinds of solutions that can emerge from those kinds of sessions too often can be not thoroughly enough explored, not carefully enough considered, not broadly enough examined. I feel such solutions could potentially be a recipe for disaster.

Nevertheless, again I would say that I think those kinds of alternatives, the kinds of alternatives that were being put forward to deal with this issue of Senate reform last week, deserve consideration and they deserve considerable open discussion. The issue of Senate reform may not be one which catches popular attention very often, but Senate reform done badly, it seems to me, could leave us with something less than an ineffective Senate; it could in fact render this country virtually ungovernable.

This issue of Senate reform has to be an important focus. I wonder if the Premier might consider calling together again the people from this Legislature who have spent so much time on our committee on the Constitution to begin to examine in some detail the various proposals that are put forward, not in any way wanting to delay the discussions that are taking place between constitutional ministers and first ministers, but to begin to look in a more detailed way at the impact of certain proposals and what that impact would be on Ontario. I feel that might give us a bit of a head start in the kind of informed discussion that needs to take place among the Ontario electorate.

The second area of concern I would like to raise with the Premier this afternoon is one I've touched on in previous responses; that is, whether or not this government is really preparing for the possibility of an early national referendum or for the possibility of some Ontario alternative should a national referendum not be called. From anything we hear -- and I admit it's a little bit in the realm of rumour right now -- the federal government is in fact preparing for a national referendum and could be in a position to call a national referendum on very short notice.

I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether he has an assurance that the kind of time for discussion and consideration at a provincial level before ratification is called for is time that will in fact be given to the provinces by the federal government. Does he have that assurance from the Prime Minister, that we will not suddenly find ourselves in a position of having to respond to a national referendum? Is his government preparing now to know how we can ensure the Ontario public will have an opportunity to be fully informed on the proposals that are ultimately reached as part of a constitutional package?

Will there be forums created where there can be some reasoned debate of those proposals? Will there really be an opportunity for careful consideration of whatever question might be posed in a national referendum? Whatever that question might be, this is clearly a very unique and very critical question.

I don't think any of us should make the mistake of assuming easy passage either in Ontario or elsewhere in the country. I think it would be a very considerable error if we were just to hope that somehow people would respond with an emotional surge of optimism, almost a response to the kind of national spirit that we hope the celebration of our 125th birthday will engender.

All of us hope there will be that kind of positive response from Canadians to the future of this country, but I believe it's absolutely essential that this government do everything possible now, even at what may seem to be a somewhat early stage, because the proposals aren't finalized, to prepare the ground for that kind of informed discussion, careful consideration, and eventually, hopefully, positive response.

I don't think there's much question that people in this province are anxious to see a resolution. Personally, I believe a majority of people in this province want to provide support to a strong and united Canada, but I also believe the people of this province want to have a final say in giving their consent to the proposals which will govern the future of this country.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to respond to the Minister of Housing's statement on the acceleration of the non-profit housing policy of this government. I must say that we in our party find it rather astounding that this party and this government would continue on with the policy of non-profit housing, specifically when it has restricted funds for hospitals, universities, schools, school boards, and more important, social services.

The policy with respect to non-profit housing -- and it has proven to be a very expensive policy -- continues to accelerate and yet in these other areas there have been major cutbacks. This government refuses to re-examine the focus that has been taking place with non-profit housing, notwithstanding the facts that have been produced that show it's too expensive a policy to embark on.

I note, for example, on the first page of the minister's statement where she says, "At this stage, sponsors can now prepare for construction -- they can hire consultants and architects and start the planning approvals process." It's this very process that we oppose, the very fact that developers, lawyers, accountants, consultants and architects are going to be charging top dollar in a market where the subsidy program would clearly be more beneficial and faster for the people of this province who need a form of shelter assistance.

We in this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, have put forward a more efficient, equitable and cheaper alternative in the form of a shelter allowance program. The cost of not only setting up this housing but also the annual assistance is cost-prohibitive. Clearly the cost of subsidizing this non-profit housing is extremely high. Information we have from the ministry's own staff, that it's in excess of $425 million a year, is probably quite conservative. The annual subsidy for a typical non-profit project is approximately $11,000 per unit and approximately $13,750 per unit for the 80% of the units that may be rent-assessed.

In our view shelter allowances are clearly more equitable because they give similar assistance to people with similar needs, can be delivered faster, can apply to a far broader selection of rental units and allow people to remain in the housing of their choice.

Non-profit housing, on the other hand, helps only those people who are lucky enough to get a unit. It neglects those on the waiting list who are too discouraged to apply. It's slow to respond to the need because the housing must become vacant or be built. It requires a subsidized tenant to move to a specific project, which we find inexcusable.

How can the minister stand in this House and be proud of the fact that she knows it will take years to actually provide a roof over anyone's head when our subsidy program would provide assistance now? Our subsidy program helps more people, and for fewer tax dollars, than this expensive and wasteful non-profit housing program. Our party assists people. This government, on the other hand, assists the wealthy developers, the consultants and the lawyers.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party to the statement made today by the Premier with respect to the state of negotiations on the Constitution.

I would first like to point out that a great deal of progress has been made if one looks at the status report of the multilateral meetings on the Constitution. I think the fact must not be forgotten that there are many people who represent many different regions and areas of Canada who are approaching this in a very sincere spirit of generosity and cooperation. It's all too easy, I think, to focus in on what has not been accomplished as opposed to what has been accomplished.

If anything, I'd like to stress that now is not the time to create an atmosphere of crisis. I think we must proceed on a positive plane towards resolving the differences we have among many different provinces, many different peoples and many different regions in this country.

If one talked to the average Ontarian about Senate reform and what it means to him or her, I think you would get the response, "Not very much, thank you very much," other than that it probably usurps about $100 million to $120 million of the taxpayers' money a year in Canada and doesn't, at least to them, seem to serve any useful purpose whatsoever. While it's fine for a lot of us to say personally that we advocate its abolition -- I'm sure many of us in this place do -- I think you have to realize the sensitivities and the importance this issue has for other regions of the country, the west and the Maritime provinces in particular.

We have many different proposals on the table as to how to deal with this. Of course we have the triple E proposal, the equal proposal, the equitable one, what's now being referred to as the Romanow formula or proposal about a different, weighted voting system. Perhaps some spinoff or some version of that may ultimately reach approval of the first ministers and the various provinces and regions in Canada.

The Premier points out in his statement on page 5 that, after a time of reflecting and listening to the public, meetings of the provinces should be called; the ministers should reconvene. I would like to stress that perhaps we've gone as far as we can go with the current type of negotiating rounds that have been going on and that we should be trying to stress a first ministers' meeting to deal with these crucial remaining issues, because at the end of the day any agreement is not going to be ratified and these most difficult issues are not going to be resolved unless we have the participation of the first ministers across this country, as well as native leaders, of course.

Quebec must be brought back into the process. Obviously, the sooner the province of Quebec is brought back into the process and is at the table, the more rapidly we're going to be able to resolve our differences and come to a proper resolution of the matter.

I would stress that Ontario should be taking a leadership with respect to this, and that although we sometimes face a lot of criticism by provinces in other parts of Canada, I think previous administrations and premiers have always taken a leadership role. When you think back to Robarts and Davis and even Mr Peterson, they all took leadership roles, being careful -- I realize it's a very fine line you have to walk as the Premier of this province -- not to offend or alienate other regions in this country.

I would also like to add a couple of final comments, Mr Premier. Yes, you have had our commitment to the process. That does not mean, of course, our unqualified stamp of approval or support for every single position you or the province might have taken at some of these meetings.

I would like also to talk for a moment about the issue of a referendum here in Ontario, because I strongly believe, having gone through the Meech Lake process and Meech Lake 2 or the amended version, whichever you want to refer to it as, that at the end of the day the people of Ontario, as indeed the people all across Canada, are going to have to be happy with whatever the first ministers agree upon. I can't stress this too strongly. I know my leader has urged this and the Leader of the Opposition has also mentioned this point today. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the people must decide. Thank you very much.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to ask for unanimous consent for the Premier to make a statement on the report by Stephen Lewis. As you'll know, Mr Speaker, this is the third day on which we in the opposition have expected some indication by the government of a stance, or at least an acknowledgement of Mr Lewis's report made to the government. Mr Lewis had a press conference. We expected it Thursday; in fact, we were informed so. We're informed that it would, again, be today. I would ask now that you put the question for unanimous consent to have the leader of this government, Mr Rae, give us a statement concerning that important report.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, in response to the point of order, I share the sense of urgency that's expressed by the member for Bruce, and I want to give him my assurance that, after some discussions with my cabinet colleagues today and tomorrow morning, I'll have a statement to make to the House at 1:30 tomorrow.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I thank the Premier for that advice. I wonder if you might then ask for unanimous consent for the people of this House to listen to the government House leader tell us a little about the Municipal Affairs policy announcement he made on the weekend in London. He had indicated that he was entertaining changes to the London-Middlesex bill, which, as you know, gave rise to a series of interruptions of the House last week as I inquired of you whether its status was such that he could compel its passage even though it were introduced into this place in the last eight days of the session.

The member for Windsor-Riverside has made at least a couple of announcements on the weekend, and now that the policy of the government apparently is clear, I ask for unanimous consent for the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to tell us what story they are peddling today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement for a statement? No?

Interjections.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As you know, we are now in the course of discussing rule changes, the rules which have appeared in front of you and in front of all of us with respect to how this place is going to be conducted in the future. I say "will be" because the people on this side of the House acknowledge that the numbers are such that once this motion gets placed to a vote, it is but a matter of simple counting one after the other. The fact is that we in the opposition will be inundated by the hordes on the government side of the floor.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to tell me whether it is your view that the role of the Speaker will in fact be curtailed by the current proposed change to standing order 45(a). With respect to 45(a), which is currently in -- and I will read just a portion of it -- there is a particularly critical sentence which really highlights the role of the Speaker in protecting the minority. These words are as I repeat them now:

"Unless it appears to the Speaker that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith...."

The proposed standing order 45 as brought forward by the government House leader now omits any reference whatsoever to the abuse of the standing orders or in fact to any reference with respect to infringement of the rights of the minority.

I stand here now because it has been, in my sense, a privilege of each member of this House to be able to speak not only within the realms of the standing orders but, in a sense, within the ambit of the common law which has governed the operation when the standing orders are silent.

It has always been the position of this House and of every Speaker I have had the pleasure of serving with that the minority rights are to be guarded by the Chair: by you or your successor. In fact, it seems to me that the way this is written it is seen to be a direction to the Speaker that he or she should in the future disregard that particularly critical rule of the operation of this House.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to provide me with some guidance with respect to how the new standing order would be read, were it adopted. I know you might say this is hypothetical, but since these are about to be thrown at us, I should like your assistance in determining whether the Chair would see its very important role in protecting the rights of the minority as being abused by the elimination of this particularly important sentence from the proposed standing order 45.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I appreciate the matter he has raised and, of course, the interest all members have in the current standing orders and in the debate which is under way with respect to new orders.

Indeed, I don't believe the member was suggesting that the Speaker would have an opportunity to be involved in the debate, although of course your Speaker follows very closely the debate itself and reads Hansard afterwards to determine exactly what was said.

The matter he addresses is one which he and others may wish to consider during the course of the debate. I note that, because it's a motion before the House, it is amendable and members may wish to consider amendments to various rules that have been put forward.

Finally, he is absolutely right. I assume that every member of the House realizes that the standing orders must be protected by the Speaker, and that the Speaker has as his or her first concern protecting the rights of the minority on the principle that the majority will always take care of itself, but I appreciate the approach by the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. On May 26 the Premier called a meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association to talk about its labour negotiations with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. At the meeting the Premier asked the OHA to hold off on its scheduled arbitration hearings and return to the bargaining table for further mediation of outstanding issues. The Premier indicated that he did not believe it was in the best interests of the parties or the province for these negotiations to go to arbitration.

Given this government's commitment, as clearly stated in the Labour Relations Act amendments, to encouraging the process of collective bargaining, I ask the Premier if he can explain his unprecedented personal intervention in the ongoing collective bargaining process between the OHA and CUPE.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'd be happy to do so. First of all, it's not at all unprecedented. In fact, it's my understanding that the person who was in the room with me serving as the president of the Ontario Hospital Association had himself, as the Minister of Health in a previous government, with the Premier at that time had a meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association to discuss the breakdown of bargaining and the prospects of an illegal strike in the hospital sector in 1981.

The purpose of my intervention was precisely, and has been consistently, to encourage collective bargaining. That has been the whole nature of the efforts by the government, by the Minister of Health, by all of us involved in this process. I take some pride in that.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier gives as precedent a situation which seems to me to be not at all comparable. It's my understanding that there had not been a breakdown in the collective bargaining process, that the collective process in this situation had been lengthy but that the parties had agreed that having reached an impasse this collective bargaining process should now go legitimately to the arbitration process.

To the best of my knowledge or the memory of the people on this side of the House, no government has interfered in the hospitals' collective bargaining process in this way before. If we look back even at last year's nurses' settlement, it was reached without government intervention, at least so the government claimed. Yet ironically, this is the Premier who in response to my question has again talked about enhancing the collective bargaining process.

There is more. It's our understanding that at that meeting on May 26 the Premier also told the Ontario Hospital Association that he wanted the hospitals and CUPE to reach a settlement based on the government's agreement with OPSEU, which he holds up as a model of restraint. He is therefore not only telling the parties what to do, he is telling them specifically what their settlement should be.

If the Premier is going to dictate the terms of the collective agreement, why doesn't he simply impose the agreement on the parties? He has clearly already violated the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm afraid the information the honourable member has is quite wrong. I did not suggest any particular settlement to the Ontario Hospital Association, any more than I would suggest any proposed settlement to any of the parties. I simply pointed out to the Ontario Hospital Association privately what I said publicly in my statement of January 21 -- that is, that the government is taking action with respect to its own employees and that we are also taking action with respect to transfer payments. Those transfer payments are there and are there as a matter of record; they are not a floor, but are an essential part of the government's overall fiscal strategy and framework.

In that context all I did, and continue to do, was to encourage the parties to bargain and indicate that our good offices were available. I indicated as well that with respect to the question of retraining and of looking at the hospital sector training and adjustment fund the government saw a real need for there to be more information shared with the parties with respect to the purposes and the framework of that fund in order to allow effective collective bargaining to take place. That was what I did. To be perfectly direct with the honourable member, I think to do otherwise would not have been doing my job.

Mrs McLeod: If the Premier says that he has not proposed a settlement, that he has only encouraged continued bargaining, he may wish to set the public record straight. The public record is all that we on this side of the House have to go by since we are not privy to the private meetings. The public record of that particular meeting is that the Premier stressed the government believes it would be in the best interests of both CUPE and hospitals to negotiate a settlement comparable to the OPS settlement rather than proceed to arbitration. That sounds like more than encouragement, and in fact it is not the first instance of interference by this government in the collective bargaining process.

On April 22 the Minister of Education stated in this House that he would use transition funds to support school boards that arrived at something called balanced contracts with their teachers in return for negotiated benefits. At least the Premier is much clearer and much more blatant in imposing his settlements than the Minister of Education, who has simply created confusion with his proposals. I would just ask why this government seems to want to support the collective bargaining process only when it likes the outcome.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's because we've expressed the concern. I'll go on; I'll tell you what else I did with respect to the situation, because I think it's important to know. We've found, on the basis of the professional advice we received from our mediators who are involved at the scene, including the deputy minister, Mr Pathe, a feeling that was clearly expressed that there was not enough real bargaining going on in this sector, that in fact there were too many settlements in which the parties were simply taking the way out of saying, "Let's just refer this to arbitration," instead of trying to encourage real collective bargaining.

All we have tried to do in this sector, as in others, is encourage genuine collective bargaining with all of the parties being fully aware of all the facts and parameters. One of the facts that has to be put to the parties is that the 1%, 2% guideline with respect to what we are going to be putting forward this year and next year as a transfer to the hospital sector is a very real number. It's on that basis that we wanted to encourage collective bargaining, and we continue to want to encourage collective bargaining, to take place.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): First of all, I'd like to welcome the Premier back to the House from his negotiations.

I would like to direct to the Premier a question in his capacity as leader of the government of Ontario, but also make a personal request to him that the Premier himself respond to my question and that he not punt it off on someone else.

Premier, while you have been dealing with matters of national and international focus outside of this elected body your House leader introduced without consultation with the opposition or your full caucus, without an attempt to reach consensus, a procedural motion which would strip the opposition and your own backbench members of many of their opportunities to play a meaningful role in the democratic process.

Why would a person with your record of fighting for the underdog, with your reputation as a defender of the rights of the opposition, with your respect for the parliamentary process, permit such a heavy-handed, autocratic, muzzling motion to be placed before this House in the name of the government you head?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I refer this to the government House leader.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I indicated to the members of the Legislature on several occasions last week that the package of rule changes the government is proposing is very much in line with the rules that are followed in other legislatures in Canada and the federal House of Commons as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The opposition House leaders last Thursday indicated that we were going to meet this afternoon to look at the package of rule changes the government is proposing and any proposals the opposition parties might have. We're going to sit down and talk about those matters this afternoon.

Mr Bradley: I ask the supplementary question of the Premier on behalf of not only the opposition but of all elected members of the Legislative Assembly. We have seen a move in many jurisdictions towards the consolidation of political power in the hands of non-elected people: the civil service, the political staff of government, particularly the Premier's office and the Prime Minister's Office. This has been imposed at the expense of members democratically elected by voters in constituencies across the province.

As an individual who has believed all of his life in democracy, who has fought all of his political life for the right of the opposition to be heard and the government to be held accountable in an open, effective manner, how can the Premier initiate a motion which will severely restrict the ability of the opposition to do its job by, for instance, substantially reducing the time available for members to address the House by chopping three weeks more from the sitting of the assembly and by removing discretionary powers from the elected Speaker, whose role it is to protect the rights of the opposition and all members of this assembly?

Hon Mr Cooke: Every example the member just gave in the rule package the government is proposing is a rule that is in fact in place in other legislatures in Canada and in the federal House. I don't see how it's democratic when you have the unrestricted ability for people to speak for hours and hours, which usually means that the backbenchers in my party don't get an opportunity to participate in the debate -- that's what happens under the current rules -- or just two or three members of the opposition parties get to speak. There is not ample opportunity for members to participate, and the rule changes we're proposing will guarantee that participation from all members of the House.

Mr Bradley: I can't believe that the Premier of this province would necessarily align himself with the Prime Minister of Canada who resides in that office at the present time on matters related to parliamentary democracy. The Premier and I have both served in this House, the Premier for some 10 years and myself for some 15 years, and I've admired the role the Premier played in opposition -- we were both in opposition at one time -- even when I was in government, watching the Premier play the role of defending the opposition.

But if the Premier is determined to shove his new parliamentary rules down the throats of the opposition and his own backbench members, many of whom have been striving to enhance the role of all elected members of the House, and if he's determined to further concentrate power in his own office, what is the use of any of us remaining as members of provincial Parliament and why would anyone wishing to serve his or her community bother to run for this elected office?

Hon Mr Cooke: I always thought the premise of this place was that the government did get the opportunity to propose and the opposition got the opportunity to oppose, which is exactly what the opposition parties are doing. It wouldn't have mattered what rule change package we came forward with; they would've opposed it. That's their role. That was our role when we were in opposition as well. That is the job of Parliament.

But the government should also have the opportunity to vote on things in the House. The fact of the matter is that the opposition has -- and I can give you the examples. Last fall for six weeks we had no opportunity to vote on any legislation. We've had tax bills that have taken over a year to get to a vote in this House. The member who has asked the question has been one of the people who has participated in those kinds of games. The public says to me that it doesn't want to see that any more; it wants to see this Parliament produce. The only way that can happen is with a change in the way this Parliament operates.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I've received documentation from your ministry that confirms you have awarded a contract to FP Labour Consultant Services and its president, Mr Wally Majesky. This contract is worth $160,000 and is for a human resources study. Can you confirm (1) that this study was proposed by Mr Majesky and not solicited, and (2) that this contract was awarded without tendering?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the question from the member. We have a meticulous contract procedure at the Ministry of Transportation. Some of them are massive. They're all consequential, but some are of lesser importance. Soliciting in terms of due process does not apply here.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It does not apply here. It's a very important question and we're very ethical in terms of Transportation. I don't know about this contract --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Did you tender or didn't you, Gilles? Just answer the question and sit down.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why don't you just keep quiet -- with the highest of respect, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What I will do, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be most helpful if the minister could address his remarks to the Chair. Of course, that would also be aided if there were no interventions.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I apologize. Perhaps I was a little too spontaneous in responding to a response contravening

article 20(

b) of the standing orders -- an interruption, Mr Speaker.

I will look into it, because this kind of question is insightful. You must never be too vigilant, Mr Speaker. My responsibility as the Minister of Transportation, as a member of the executive council, is to make sure that we are nothing short of meticulous in the awarding of people's money. We're looking at full value for money. I'll come back to the member in short order.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I'll never accuse you of being too vigilant. This is just something Wally Majesky dreamed up. In fact, the Amalgamated Transit Union, whom Mr Majesky represents, says, "Without question, this project represents an important first step in developing a broader range of trade union skills that are necessary to our ATU leadership."

In other words, this contract was awarded to trade union bosses. Minister, do you really think we should be spending $160,000 of taxpayers' money to fund a prep school for up and coming transit union bosses?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I have made the commitment that I will look into it. I will do so in short order and I will be honoured to come back to the member.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, that really isn't acceptable. This proposal was unsolicited, untendered and most of all unnecessary. Your ministry funded an earlier study by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. In the words of your assistant deputy minister, the previous study would be very relevant to and may duplicate much of the research proposed by Mr Majesky. In other words, you didn't need the study, but a labour crony needed a few bucks. Minister, the time when your ministry is slashing the capital budget spending, how can you justify spending tax dollars to line the pockets of your backroom buddies?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Those are mere allegations. I'm not going to fabricate or make up an answer. I will look into it and I will come back to the member.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Health. She will be aware that last week a 16-year-old girl in the Kingston area was abducted, apparently sexually assaulted and held captive by a forensic patient of the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. Thanks to the joint efforts of the Kingston and Ontario Provincial Police, the man was arrested, still holding the young girl captive, 23 hours after the reporting of the abduction and almost 24 miles from its site. Could the minister tell the House today and the people of Kingston how this could have occurred and how her ministry is reacting to it?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): As the member well knows, I can make comments about the general status of Lieutenant Governor's warrant patients at psychiatric hospitals and procedures. While this is before the courts, he knows I cannot comment on specifics of the individual case.

Let me say to the member that I take seriously the kinds of concerns the community has in response to this kind of very serious incident. He should know that an internal hospital investigation has been put in place. It involves both management and treatment teams internal to the hospital as well as an external expert. We are looking at steps to ensure whether the procedures taken with respect to privileges in this particular case were appropriate and to review the status of privileges for all forensic patients.

Additionally, I note that the member made mention in his statement at the beginning of question period today of the kinds of community concerns there were and the concerns of the mayor and the city council. The director of the mental health facilities division will be meeting directly with city council, and the hospital, the union and the community advisory board have been undertaking meetings to set up community consultation to try and ensure that there is an open process of dialogue with the community to address these concerns.

Mr Runciman: It is another confirmation that everyone has rights in this province except the victims.

I want to talk about last year. I raised an issue three months after a murder on the grounds of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. A patient was murdered. Two men were charged. One of them, who had been responsible for the murder of three children in Toronto a number of years ago, was on pass. His approved community escort -- approved by your officials -- was a former forensic patient, a cop killer. This was the man your officials approved to escort this gentleman out into the community. In my view, it was a significant and contributing factor to that murder taking place.

Minister, we are now talking about a 16-year-old victim. Apparently -- and this comes from members of the family -- the victim was assaulted in the community, taken back on to the grounds of the psychiatric hospital and assaulted on the grounds of the hospital. Minister, I think you owe it to the victim, her family and the residents of Kingston to be much more forthcoming than you are today and not to hide behind patient rights and court proceedings, as you have done in the past, and take absolutely no action.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I didn't hear a question directed. I think there was a general statement made. I assure the member that I do take these sorts of situations very seriously. I remind him that the Criminal Code Review Board, which operates under federal jurisdiction, sets the level of privileges for Lieutenant Governor's warrant patients. It is important for him to remember that. The administration of those privileges is done at a provincial level and this government takes seriously, as did the previous government, the concerns and considerations around how those privileges are exercised.

I've indicated to him that with respect to the exercising of those privileges in this particular case, and for all forensic patients at this particular hospital, there is a review going on right now. I think that from that review we will find whether any further steps need to be taken.

There is in fact the reality that the level of privilege has been set by the Criminal Code Review Board, and in Ontario, in our psychiatric hospitals, we are responsible to that level of privilege set by that procedure under federal legislation.

Mr Runciman: This minister is doing what her predecessor, the member for Oriole, did. In fact we have different words. This minister says she is going to "take it seriously." The former minister said, "I'm concerned." I will give the member for Oriole credit, though: When I had leaked documents and provided them to her, she took action and tried to remedy the situation. We're getting nothing from you. You're a puppet of the bureaucracy, apparently, in this situation.

I want to put on the record another concern in the community. This apparently comes from very valid sources. Not only was this young child, this 16-year-old child assaulted on the grounds of the hospital; the patient from the hospital tied this young lady to his wrist, put a coat over the wrist, went back on to the hospital grounds and received an extended pass with this victim tied to his wrist.

We're talking about security provisions at the psychiatric hospital which this minister is responsible for. She tries to hide behind the review board. I talked about approving a former cop killer as a community escort. That is something she could do something about. She has known that for a year and has done absolutely nothing. I think it's time she got off her tail, started looking at what is happening within the forensic system, took action and put public safety above patient rights.

Hon Ms Lankin: Again I didn't detect a question, but let me say to the member opposite that although I understand he sees himself as a self-styled crusader on these issues and likes to get very angry and likes to yell and use provocative words, we are dealing with a situation in which there --

Mr Runciman: You don't care about the community. You don't care about the victim. You are always holier than thou. Why don't you address the victim? Holier than thou. Baloney, pure baloney.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Hon Ms Lankin: I don't think I have anything further to add to the comments I've made already with respect to this issue.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with incorrect information he provided to the House last week. I'd like to give the Premier an opportunity to correct the record and let the people of Ontario know what's really happening.

As the Premier I hope now knows, as of July 1, in two weeks, the Ontario income tax rate will be going up for all the working people in this province by more than 5%. In answer to a question I asked last week in the House, Premier, your answer was, "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."

That information is incorrect; it's wrong. Will the Premier now admit he was wrong and would he confirm that people earning as little as $30,000 or $20,000, indeed $10,000 a year will have their Ontario income tax rate increased by more than 5% effective July 1?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I certainly wouldn't want to give any information to the House or give any impression to the House that was out of keeping with the facts. I can only say to the member that I will certainly take his question as notice. I'll get back to him with respect to the answer. If he feels the answer I gave was incorrect, then I'll discuss it with the Treasurer as soon as possible. I believe the tax policies which our government has introduced are tax policies that are fair.

I believe the net impact those increases will have, when a number of other things are taken into account, will be no net increase for 1993. If I've given any information to the member that leaves a false impression, obviously I will correct that, and I'll ask my people to correct it as soon as possible.

Mr Phillips: The Premier ran on a platform, and I can recall him very clearly going across the province and saying, that he was going to eliminate Ontario income tax for people living at or below the poverty line. It's a very important question for this reason: The Premier is clearly confused. The facts are that as of July 1, for people earning as little as $10,000 a year, their income tax rate is going up 5%. Those are the facts. It's obvious the Premier has made his decisions on the assumption that people earning less than $53,000 will pay no more income tax, combined, this year. That's not right; that's wrong.

Premier, my question to you is this: If the facts are as I believe them to be, will you undertake now to change your budget to reflect what you believe the budget to be? Will you undertake now to say, "Listen, I'm committing to the people of this province that if you're earning less than $53,000, you will pay no increased income taxes in 1992," because that's your understanding of the budget? If that's your understanding, will you commit to ensure and carry that out?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, for example, didn't mention the fact that senior citizens who are on a low income will be receiving an increase in the amount of their tax credit, which also relates to the tax system. I'm sure he would want to share that fact with the members of the House. He would also want to share with members of the House the fact that the overall impact of what the Treasurer has done in the last two years has been to remove tens of thousands of families from the income tax rolls altogether. But I will say to the honourable member that obviously he's looking for some information, and I'll be happy to share that information with him.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Government Services, surrounding the same issue I asked you questions about last Thursday, Mr Minister.

I've spoken with a Mr Ron Gotts in your office, executive director of the real estate service division, Ministry of Government Services. This gentleman has said to me that concerning the issue surrounding the tendered contract to the company that had previously done work for you and is now working for the ministry, which didn't carry any worker's compensation or had run out and which didn't have any liability insurance or had run out, your ministry had paid some $13,000 in bills at Christmastime that it had absolutely no responsibility to pay: "Because it was Christmas" was their explanation.

Further to that, my office asked Mr Ron Gotts if in fact an investigation was being done into this entire kerfuffle. His response, Mr Minister, was that you had done an investigation, a full inquiry. My office asked, "Well, when will this information be made public?" and Mr Gotts said, "That's already been done." The question was put, "Well, if it's been done, when did it happen?" Their answer was, "It happened last week when the minister responded to your question."

I reviewed Hansard and the minister's response was, "My staff has thoroughly examined the contract and have assured me that it was publicly tendered and awarded in accordance with the ministry's procedures." Some investigation.

My question to the minister is, when will you make this investigation public? When can we look through these files? I have a number of bits of information here that certainly cause concern for me, and I'm certain for the people in the province. When can we air this out? How come this happened? How come they got the job? How come they were pulled off? How come we paid $13,000 we had no responsibility to pay? How did they get on the job site without any workers' compensation liability insurance etc?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question?

Mr Stockwell: Can we expect the public inquiry information to be made public very shortly?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I think the member and I have danced to this tune before. Let me just give him some of the new words. I mentioned last week that I had no connection whatsoever before, during or after with the letting of that tender. I also said that my staff had also done all their work in accordance with procedure. I reiterate that today. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the tendering process.

Upon investigation and subsequent inquiry, I have found that my staff worked to the letter in accordance with procedure. As far as the investigation is concerned, I am quite satisfied that there was no wrongdoing whatever among my staff, and of course not with myself, but --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: I'm happy the minister is quite satisfied. The difficulty is, Mr Minister, that I'm not satisfied, nor I think would a number of other people be if they review the documents.

The suggestion has been made that this was in accordance with government rules and regulations. I put to the minister it is not. You're not allowed to take a tender in this province without supplying your WCB number, certificate etc. You need liability insurance and you need to post a 10% bid bond. You need to do a lot of things that didn't happen on this tender.

Now, the question to the minister is: These things didn't take place. Sir, this is not in accordance with your rules, admitted by your own staff. You, sir, have admitted yourself that "somebody played Santa Claus here and I need to get to the bottom of it." When will you make this information public so we can decide whether or not it was acceptable? Quite frankly, sir, I don't think you're capable of doing that on your own.

Hon Mr Wilson: Let me put it this way to the member: If you would like very much to have a personal, private briefing with my staff on the subject, where everything can be laid before you, I will arrange that, after which --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: You heard my offer, sir -- after which, I will say to you now, we will have another discussion on this subject and I'm sure you will agree with the facts laid before you. In any case, put up or shut up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Cochrane South.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est pour le ministre des Collèges et Universités. Est-ce qu'on peut avoir un peu de silence dans la Chambre, s'il vous plaît ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would certainly be helpful if all members in the House would attempt to use temperate language both when asking questions and when responding. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Cette question-ci fait affaire avec les collèges, et avant de commencer la question -- ça fait assez longtemps qu'on essaie de faire avancer le dossier et que nous attendons nos collèges. Je souhaite que les interventions ne vont pas prendre de délai sur ma question autant qu'on voit.

L'hon Richard Allen (ministre des Collèges et Universités) : Comme le député de Cochrane-Sud l'a mentionné, j'ai bien signalé cette fin de semaine à l'assemblée annuelle de l'ACFO que le Conseil des ministres de l'Ontario a pris une décision très importante touchant la proposition pour élargir le réseau des collèges francophones en Ontario.

J'ai également profité de cette occasion pour souligner que ce projet pourra voir le jour seulement si le Conseil des ministres fédéral donne son appui pour le partage des coûts de ce projet-là.

M. Bisson : Pour la deuxième

partie de la question : je sais que je pousse un peu, mais jusqu'à quel point peut-on s'attendre à ce qu'on ait une annonce faisant affaire avec ce dossier très important, que je suis sûr que tous les députés de l'Assemblée sont intéressés à connaître.

L'hon M. Allen : Comme je l'ai déjà signalé, nous serons en mesure de faire l'annonce formelle de l'accord entre les deux gouvernements, le provincial et le fédéral, sur ce dossier aussitôt que possible, aussitôt que le Cabinet fédéral aura pris sa décision.

Cependant, je peux vous dire que le secrétaire d'État, M. de Cotret, s'est montré très sensible à ce dossier. Il travaille très fort et sans relâche sur ce dossier en ce moment pour avoir l'appui de son Cabinet fédéral. Aussitôt que possible, quand nous aurons une décision fédérale il sera possible d'avoir une annonce officielle.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Mr Solicitor General, you'd agree that nothing in the Stephen Lewis report was in any way new. In 1989, the independent Race Relations and Policing Task Force, headed by Clare Lewis, submitted to the then Solicitor General a report containing 57 specific recommendations on improving the relationship between minority communities and the police services.

Of the 57 recommendations, 56 were implemented by the government of the day, the Liberal government, including the establishment of a special investigative unit, improved race relations training for police services and legislated mandatory employment equity in police services.

Stephen Lewis, in his recent report on race relations, made a number of specific recommendations concerning policing and race relations. Will the Solicitor General today make a commitment to ensure that all of these recommendations are fully implemented?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General) : I agree with the member opposite that the report has been a very valuable report and is one that requires immediate attention. I believe the Premier will be making certain comments with respect to that report tomorrow, and I as well intend to make a statement to the House with respect to some of the provisions of the report the member opposite referred to, more specifically in terms of code of conduct and the use of force, which were items that will be delineated by regulation under the Police Services Act and which I believe as well flowed from the recommendations of the original Lewis task force.

Mr Curling: It's unfortunate that it took Stephen Lewis to tell you the things that should be done. You say you were waiting on Stephen Lewis and that he made some rather important recommendations. These recommendations were made a long time ago. I'm asking specifically, as 56 of those 57 were implemented, will you do that?

Two years ago the Police Services Act was passed in this Legislature. Two years later we are still waiting for the Solicitor General to introduce regulations to this act on such important matters as the use of force by the police and police training. I recall that your previous Solicitor General had promised to do so.

Last year the ability of the special investigations unit to conduct independent investigation was severely compromised as a result of a private agreement between the police chiefs and the SIU, which you all denied when I raised that point last year. One year later the public is still waiting for this protocol to be revoked and replaced by new operating procedures which will allow the unit to fulfil its mandate.

What assurance can you, Mr Solicitor General, then give us that these issues will be acted upon immediately? Given this relative inaction on these matters to date, can you tell us why the public should now believe you?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Police Services Act was changed some time ago, I believe when the members opposite were in power. However, the regulations that were to be delineated never happened under that government. We certainly are trying to do just that, particularly the ones the member mentioned in terms of use of force and code of conduct which have been under active consideration for many months in the ministry and will be brought forward tomorrow.

Secondarily, the member mentioned the SIU and he wondered if I could bring some immediate report with respect to the protocol he mentioned. I can do better than bring him an immediate response and action to that. I can advise him that the work's already done. The new protocol has been written, stakeholders have been brought in, it's been reviewed with them, it has been given to police forces. It is in fact the order of the day and in use right today, and has been. The member's information, I'm sorry, is badly lacking and outdated.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday Jim Thomas, the Deputy Minister of Labour, hosted a meeting with 60 American senior business leaders in Detroit. Automobile manufacturers were strongly represented at this meeting. That same day, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, you stated that you did not believe the changes outlined in Bill 40 would have a negative impact on jobs and investment in Ontario. If that is the official position of the NDP government, why was the Deputy Minister of Labour in Detroit?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. We have been in the process of consulting, not only through the process of our paper but also since, with all the various groups that might be interested in the new legislation in Ontario and some of the outside business people.

Mrs Witmer: If your government is so sure that Bill 40 is not going to have a negative impact on jobs and investment, is not going to affect just-in-time delivery in the automotive sector and is not going to affect the viability of Canadian branch plants, I am sure you would not have rushed the deputy minister down to the United States to reassure American investors. I have been told that despite the deputy minister's best efforts the reaction from the American executives was overwhelmingly negative.

Minister, is it not time to admit that you have absolutely no idea what the true economic impact of your labour law changes will be? Is it not time to set up a tripartite committee to examine the economic impact of Bill 40? Don't tell me about the recently announced labour-management committee, because it does not have a mandate to examine Bill 40.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me to be fairly obvious that we're likely to have more effect, in terms of investment in the province, by some of the scare tactics coming from across the way. If we have not made a clear decision that one of the things we have to do in this province is to involve workers themselves in the decisions that are made, we're certainly not going to compete in today's world markets.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Solicitor General concerning Sunday openings. I've had a lot of calls in my office from retailers in malls and franchise stores asking whether mall management or franchise owners can force them to open on a Sunday if they wish to remain closed. Mr Minister, can you at least shed some light on this problem?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I think we had indicated a brief time ago in discussion with respect to this matter that the government does, through its legislation, provide protection for retailers and those who have franchise agreements. The government has every intention to protect those people to the extent that it can do so by legislation. I hope your constituents who have offered these concerns to you will be satisfied by the protection this bill and these amendments will bring.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. It's becoming increasingly clear that the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act as introduced by the Minister of Labour are not reflected in the minister's statement to this Legislature and the press releases on this same subject matter.

The Minister of Labour indicated in his statement that agriculture was not included. In fact, his own press release on the OLRA changes stated, "No further changes will be made to the agricultural exclusion until the government has had an opportunity to study the agricultural task force report to be released later this month." But in the minister's own legislation as introduced on that same day, subsection 4(2) states that the act does apply to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation.

So not only do agricultural workers appear to be included under the OLRA changes, but the rules for farm employees can be changed by regulation outside the scrutiny of the House.

Can the minister tell the House why agricultural workers are included in the changes to the OLRA even though the minister has said they were not? Why did you, Mr Minister, not wait for the results of your own task force before deciding on a course of action?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): As I've said, we haven't decided on a course of action. The placeholders are there so that when we get the report, which should be down in a matter of days now, we can make a move if we so decide.

Mr Offer: I will only ask the minister if he might take some time to read his own legislation, which states, notwithstanding what you just said now, that the act does apply to members of the agricultural and horticultural operations, and you have done so by regulation.

I ask you to clearly indicate why you have made this type of statement. In other words, because you have done it by regulation, members will not get the chance to debate the inclusion of agricultural workers in these changes. The minister -- you -- can decide how to treat this industry without justifying these moves to the House. Can the minister explain to the House why you've decided to amend the agricultural worker provisions by regulation and not by legislation? Why did you decide to take away from the Legislature the right to examine labour changes in the farm sector? Mr Minister, by your own amendments you have already included agricultural workers.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No. What we really wanted was an intensive consultation, which we've been carrying out with the agricultural community.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and also the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): And the minister of garbage.

Mr Cousens: And the minister of garbage. It can only be called a green betrayal. First you introduced Bill 143 without serious public consultation. Then you tried to ram it through the Legislature. Then you ignore worthwhile amendments put forth in public hearings. Finally you refused to release the landfill site list until Bill 143 was passed. As a result, thousands of people are now facing the very real possibility of having a 40-million-tonne landfill site in their community.

Property values throughout the greater Toronto area are dropping. New additions to people's homes, swimming pools and construction that they would put into their homes in those communities are being put on hold. New construction will slow down. You have dropped a garbage bomb. Who would have thought that a government elected on the premise of improving consultation between the people and the government and one that would uphold the environment as sacred could betray its people so callously? Now the people in those towns and villages near the 57 possible sites would like to know what they can do to save their communities from having a landfill site in them.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'd be glad to respond to that because I certainly can understand the concern those communities and those people feel when they are identified as being on a list of candidate sites by the Interim Waste Authority. I'm glad to be able to say to the member that they will have every opportunity to participate. That's precisely why the Interim Waste Authority was created: to have a fair and open process. Community information centres are open.

Opportunities for participation, review of the technical documents for evaluation and comment on the criteria that the Interim Waste Authority will use to move from the long list to the short list to the preferred site are and must be open, participative and consultative. People have to participate to make sure it is a fair and open process. I know they will and I know they will be welcomed and encouraged to do so.

Mr Cousens: They'll participate all right and they're going to participate as much as they can. Unfortunately the Interim Waste Authority offices are not necessarily where the people are and they're not necessarily open when people want to go to them. The one in Stouffville is closed till Thursday, I hear, and then when you invite the Interim Waste Authority to come to a public meeting it won't even come.

Aside from that, the question I really want to ask has to do with the fact that you've dropped an environmental bomb in every community across the greater Toronto area and you are also the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. You have a responsibility for the total growth and needs of that community. Our communities are now saying, "Something's gone wrong." It's so serious that they just don't know what to do about it, and your answer is "public participation."

I want to ask you, Madam Minister, why, when you set up the regional consultation network, you didn't even have representatives in it for York region from the communities involved. You've got someone from Etobicoke, your area, but there isn't someone from Unionville, Sharon or Schomberg when you've got sites in Durham --

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

Mr Cousens: -- and you've got people left out from Whitevale. The people in the greater Toronto area would like to know how you and the Interim Waste Authority came about deciding who would sit on the regional consultation networks.

Hon Mrs Grier: I can't answer that question. It was decided by the Interim Waste Authority and I know that people who wish to participate have merely to so indicate to the Interim Waste Authority and deal with it with respect to that issue.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. Last week I held a press conference and meetings in my riding about the location of seven landfill sites around the town of Whitevale. As I pointed out last week, the difference was that instead of being arbitrary and underhanded in doing it behind closed doors, as the Liberals did, this one is being done through a process. One of the questions that did come up in these meetings was about Kirkland Lake. My constituents would like to know why Kirkland Lake isn't an option for Durham.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say that I know how difficult it is for the constituents of the honourable member and that I really appreciate the very strong statement this member made to his community last week, encouraging it to participate in the process that's been set up by the Interim Waste Authority.

What I want to say to him in response to his question, "Why not Kirkland Lake?" is that there is a basic flaw in the thinking of those who say it is easy to go to Boston township near Kirkland Lake and have an environmental assessment of going to Kirkland Lake.

The two things don't jibe. The environmental assessment process doesn't start with a preferred site; it works towards finding a preferred site, which is exactly what the Interim Waste Authority is doing within the greater Toronto area. If you were to examine sites all across the province it would not be simply Kirkland Lake; it would be Plympton, Marmora, Nottawasaga and all the others that were previously on the list.

Second, environmentally, shipping waste all across this province does not lead us towards a conserver society and does not encourage the three Rs.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham is asked to come to order.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with the whole question of transportation of waste by rail. Some of my residents, in Pickering in particular, see this as a possible solution that could help them and the railway industry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will ask the member for Markham once again if he will come to order.

Mr Wiseman: I think my constituents have every right to hear a question in this House that they put to me, whether or not I know the answer, and have every right to have --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Wiseman: -- the ministers of this government be responsive to what their questions are without having to be interfered with --

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Wiseman: -- or lectured to by the hypocrisy of the Tory Party, especially that member.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I asked the member twice if he would place his supplementary. If you have a supplementary, please place it quickly.

Mr Wiseman: I will do that. Some of my residents in my community see the possibility of rail haul as a solution to the problem. They would like a detailed explanation or any kind of explanation they can receive to explain what the rationale is for not using rail haul. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind and courteous attention.

Hon Mrs Grier: I know the question of rail haul of waste around the province was raised again last week at a press conference that was sponsored by the development company that has an interest in ensuring that the waste in the greater Toronto area goes to northern Ontario.

Rail haul is a very efficient way to travel, but the problem is that hauling waste around the province is not a very efficient way of dealing with waste. What we have to do to deal with waste is get serious about reducing, reusing and recycling, and that won't happen as long as we create ever bigger and bigger holes farther and farther away from where the waste is generated.

In response to that press conference, I'd like to quote to the member a release that was issued by a group in Kirkland Lake, which said, "Long-distance rail haul of garbage has greatly to do with billions of dollars in profits and very little to do with the problem of overproduction of garbage." They went on to say, "It is in the interests of a long-distance rail haul system that society produce more waste in order to generate more profits for hauling that waste."

That's precisely the kind of approach this government has not supported and it's precisely the reason we have not seen rail haul of waste as an adequate way to deal with the crisis within the GTA.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Solicitor General. Last month I asked the Solicitor General if he would establish a public inquiry into the events of the former Grandview Training School For Girls. In his response to me the minister said that the establishment of an inquiry was, in his words, "somewhat premature." I would like to ask the minister if there perhaps is another reason for his delay.

As Solicitor General the minister is responsible for the police and for their investigations into this complex matter. He is also responsible for the office of the coroner and for the Ministry of Correctional Services, both of which are being investigated. Many members of this Legislature and the public are asking how it is possible for this minister to be impartial when he, as Solicitor General, is the member of the executive council responsible for at least two other branches of the government being investigated: corrections and the office of the coroner.

Mr Minister, you are responsible for both investigators and those being investigated. You appear to be in a serious conflict of interest. Mr Minister, do you not believe that under these very delicate circumstances of an appearance of a conflict of interest the only fair and impartial resolution to this matter is to call for an independent provincial public inquiry?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): In the words of the member's own question, it is indeed a complex issue; with that I agree. I believe the Ministry of Correctional Services has cooperated fully, notwithstanding that all the files have long since left that ministry. There is not any particular active investigation or participation there and those files have gone to the public archivist. One of my colleagues, the Honourable Karen Haslam, addressed that question, I believe, in the House a week or two ago.

In terms of the Solicitor General aspect of it, the investigation continues through the regional police in that particular area. I am hopeful and encouraged that all of the information will come out when the investigations are completed and that everyone will be well satisfied with the conduct of the investigation. I don't particularly see that there's any conflict beyond an appearance of two ministries I represent, when one looks at the factual participation of those respective ministries.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's really a point of personal privilege. During the weeks following Christmas and the passing of second reading of Bill 143 a committee was struck to review all aspects of that bill, and for four weeks we had public hearings. During that period of time we heard from people who favour and oppose -- more people were opposed -- Bill 143. One of the members on that committee was the member for Durham West, Mr Jim Wiseman, who voted with the NDP bloc on all issues in support of abolishing consideration of the rail haul option, which is the question he asked today, and he voted against every amendment put forward by ourselves.

Now what we're seeing in the Legislature is the same member who was on that committee who voted with the government on the government side coming along and asking questions that were all answered at that time in committee. Why is it that he has to waste the time of this member of the House when he had a chance to ask those questions in committee for four weeks and he asks the question today?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Markham: He would know that every member of the House, whether that member serves on a committee or not, unless the person is a member of the executive council, has the opportunity, when recognized by the Speaker, to place a question during question period. The placing of questions has nothing to do with the member's participation in committees of the House.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have stood on this item before and asked for your intervention. Today I'm pleased to say that you did allow an extension of question period because of certain things happening. But I note that on two occasions ministers of the crown, in responding to members of the opposition, and sometimes to interjections -- and I understand interjections are out of order -- have used language that in my own view offends standing order 16, which talks about the place being brought to grave disorder.

I believe that in those two cases we consumed almost six minutes of question time. In fact, it is my opinion that with the outburst of the member for Durham West it probably contributed to somewhere close to seven or eight minutes' worth of question period time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry; I can't be heard over the yelling. It seems to me that the language which has been chosen by the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Government Services, together with the member for Durham West, has been designed to bring in some extra debate from the opposition benches, in fact using up the time and offending against the placing of questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the member for Bruce conclude his point of order.

Mr Elston: I will conclude very quickly, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that this sort of strategy, placed to eliminate the time to have the questions has been effective. It has brought us from usually having six questions, two leader's questions and four questions here from the backbench, if I can describe it as that, of the Liberal Party to a point where we very seldom now get the third question asked.

It has been consuming time and it has also been moving the question period to such an extent that when the Premier leaves this place, which he does regularly now at 3 o'clock, we are unable to place our questions to him, he not wanting to answer. It's up to him, but at least he's here when we place some of the early questions.

If it is the design, and it looks that way to me, of the government to prevent us from asking our questions in a timely fashion, or even indeed asking those questions at all, I think you ought to intervene and protect us against those types of shenanigans from the government.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, a couple of observations: First of all, with respect to the language that was heard in this chamber today, I must report sadly that provocative language came from both sides of the House.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Not from this side.

The Speaker: I am not referring to any specific member, but clearly provocative language was heard on both sides of the chamber.

There's no question that intemperate and provocative language causes disruption to the point where we must halt the proceedings, and that indeed, as the member has pointed out, takes away time that otherwise could be used by members for asking questions.

I will add that he will know that I watch the clock very closely. Today, when the turn came for the government side there was ample time, in the view of the Speaker, for both that question and another question. As the member will know, while we have a time clock, the Speaker sees the clock. I note with interest that today we did manage 14 questions in total, which is the average number of questions this House can normally accomplish when the questions are put speedily and there is a response in a speedy fashion as well.

But his point is well taken, and what will be of assistance to all the members is if everyone could resist the temptation of using provocative language. I understand his point full well and I think the concern he raised was recognized today by the Speaker.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It has to do with a specific word that was in fact used. The word "hypocrisy" has been known to be unparliamentary when it has been used. I know you could not have failed to hear it -- you should have heard it anyway -- when the member for Durham West used it to describe the Conservative Party in his

preamble to his last supplementary. I know that it had also been used by another member, but clearly the statement by the member for Durham West would be recorded in Hansard since he was given the floor.

Is it your view now, Mr Speaker, with respect to that word that if it is used to describe a political party as opposed to a member, it is parliamentary to use that word in this place when a member has the floor? If not, I would ask that you invite the member for Durham West, who is now here with us, to withdraw that comment and correct that record.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, there are two items here. No, first, I did not hear the precise words. I trust the member will appreciate that there seemed to be a number of other voices that were operating at the same time. He is partially right. The term "hypocrisy" or to be "hypocritical" or to be a "hypocrite": It depends on the precise usage of the word. It depends on how it's used as to whether or not it can be deemed to be unparliamentary at the time, so it depends on each and every situation.

As has been my custom, if there is something which has been said which offends someone on the other side of the House, or indeed any other member of the House even within the same caucus, and the Speaker has not heard it, I then certainly invite the member to acknowledge what has been said and withdraw it.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is a really interesting discussion that we're having here about the use of the word "hypocrisy." I remember having used the phrase some time earlier on in my career here, at which point the Speaker ruled that it was not acceptable to use it. Then a little while later on one of the members from the official opposition used it. I rose on a point of order in the House and asked the Speaker under what circumstances it was acceptable or unacceptable to use the word. The ruling at that point was that in the context the member used it, it was not unparliamentary at that time.

That has created some confusion in the whole discussion around the use of the word because it has been used a number of times in the House. I would agree with the solicitation from the members opposite as to under what circumstances it would be unparliamentary to use it, and should, Mr Speaker, the ruling indicate that I used it in an unparliamentary way at that time, I would be more than willing to withdraw it but I would like some clarification from you.

The Speaker: I do not propose at this moment to go into a discussion about the use of particular words. If the member may wish to visit my office at some point, I'd be more than pleased to discuss it with him. He was simply given an opportunity, that if he felt he said something which offended the other side, to withdraw it. I take it the member is not prepared to do that. It is time for motions.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm rising to seek your advice and direction under standing order 32(a). If I might just, sir, quote the opening words of

section 32(

a) dealing with oral question period, it reads as follows: "The oral question period shall be limited to 60 minutes, including supplementary questions and points of order. Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance." It's on that last phrase, sir, that I seek your direction and advice under that standing order.

If I might just, sir, point out that over the course of the past week, if you just take the Hansards for the past week, there have been several questions asked by members of the government caucus directed to ministers in the government caucus which I would submit to you, sir, do not come within the heading of being of "urgent public importance." For example, there was a question delivered by, I guess it was, Mr Mills on June 4 to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ms Haslam, which provided an opportunity for the minister to in effect make a minister's statement.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What ministry?

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, did I get the minister wrong? It was the Minister of Culture and Communications.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member quickly get to his point of order.

Mr Sorbara: Well, sir, to argue the point if you'll indulge me for just a moment, we had the same situation today from the member for Durham-York, directing a question to the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the GTA. We had a similar question on, I think the date was Wednesday, June 10, this time from Mr Hansen directed to Ms Gigantes in her capacity as Minister of Housing.

My point is simply this: I would not argue, sir, that government members ought not to be allowed to ask questions, to put questions to ministers in question period. Certainly if you examine the standing orders, as I have on this case, there is every indication that all members ought to have a right to place questions to ministers who are here in the House.

But, sir, if government members are simply putting questions to ministers in order to take up some of the 60 minutes allotted to question period, then I think you, sir, have an opportunity and indeed I would suggest to you a responsibility to intervene to ensure that that part of the standing order which says: "The Speaker shall" -- it's not may -- "The Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider to be urgent or of public importance" -- now if I might just --

The Speaker: No. I understand what the member is attempting to do.

There are a number of points here. First of all, if any member of the House feels a question is being asked which is not of public importance, that is a point of order and should be raised immediately. Second, I believe the member would agree that it is extremely difficult for the Speaker to determine what is not of public importance.

Third, and finally, the member will know that the standing orders prescribe a rotation by three parties for the purpose of asking questions. Once the question has been placed, provided it satisfies the criteria of being of public importance, then the question must be allowed. I appreciate the concern the member raises, and indeed I'm sure that all members want to bring to this chamber, through their own vetting system -- as I understand it -- each of the caucuses' questions which are of importance to them and trustfully to their constituents.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to mention that there's an informational picket line, as all know, at the east doors of this building. We're gathering tomorrow afternoon at 1 o'clock to show some solidarity for the striking workers at The Toronto Star. We hope many people come out. Mr Speaker, much to my better judgement, I'd like to see Derek Ferguson back to work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That is not a point of order, although certainly a point of information for all members.

PETITIONS

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 Ontario Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

Mr Speaker, that petition is two pages in length. It has been signed by, I guess, something in the area of 35 or 40 people and those individuals are individuals who are employed with ITT Fluid Products Canada, located in Guelph at 55 Royal Road. I sign my name to this petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents from my riding of Oakville South which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to legalize casino gambling in Ontario to increase provincial revenue."

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition 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 fruit land;

"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."

I also have another petition to the Legislature of Ontario on a scroll of over 700 feet long, with more than 6,000 names of residents of Niagara against locating, by the OWMC, a toxic waste facility in Lincoln. The large size of this petition shows the large opposition to the OWMC locating in Lincoln.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind all members that demonstrations within the chamber are out of order. I would like you to remember that, please.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition which has been signed by representatives from 68 organizations, including the Metro Children's Aid Society, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, the Metro Tenants Legal Services and the Scarborough Housing Work Group plus 64 other organizations.

"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, which is

section 2(1), and that any policy or factor which results in the 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 protections that tenants in legal units have, therefore creating two classes of tenants; and

"Whereas zoning is only supposed to control land use, in practice it has excluded members of disadvantaged groups from living in many neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas such zoning practices are exclusionary and are a violation of the 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, a treaty signed by Canada and 96 other nations, which recognizes that housing is one of the fundamental human rights, an aspect of which is the right not to be discriminated against in housing choice and location;

"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 have affixed my signature to this petition.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by 176 citizens of the province of Ontario, most of whom live in London and Middlesex county. It is organized by Ruth Woods, the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee. 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;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for 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."

I've signed my signature to this petition, and I will forward it to the Clerk of the House.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVE

Mrs Irene Math