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

October 15, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Bradley: What a difference a year makes. To hear the member for London Centre, now former Minister of Education and in years gone by a staunch advocate of 60% provincial funding for education and a harsh critic of previous governments on the issue of educational finance, now lecture local people with the statement, "Boards must understand that the province does not have an unlimited supply of money," is indeed revealing and must send shivers through the provincial executives of the affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation that so enthusiastically supported the New Democratic Party.

What a lesson the member for London Centre has taught to coterminous boards of education, which after many months of difficult negotiations reached an agreement on the transfer of schools only to have the minister delay and dither and then overturn an amicably reached accord. As Lincoln trustee Dalt Clark stated, "Frankly, the public school taxpayers in Lincoln county have been shafted by the Ministry of Education."

The lesson is clear. Those who reach an agreement without public rancour, insults, violence or recriminations are rewarded with the short end of the stick. Those who demonstrate, shout, threaten and throw their local problems in the lap of the province get their way. The people of Lincoln county will not soon forget the cruel lesson from this government that good-faith negotiators will be kicked in the teeth.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Tilson: I rise to protest the cavalier way in which the Premier breaks his promises. I am referring to the case of Mrs Wilma McNeil of Sarnia. She has spent two years fighting to have the LCBO outlets closed on November 11, Remembrance Day. On October 4, the Premier sent Mrs MacNeil a letter that said in part: "Our government has the utmost respect for those brave men and women who represented our country in times of war. You'll be pleased to know that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlets will be closed Monday, November 11."

Those are fine words in that letter signed by the Premier. Unfortunately Mrs McNeil has learned that with this government talk is cheap. She has since received a telephone call from the Premier's office explaining that he really did not mean what he said, that liquor stores will be open on Remembrance Day and that the letter from the Premier was not really a letter from the Premier. It was signed by an autopen.

The Premier must realize that when his word cannot be trusted, it adds to the distrust people feel towards all politicians. I urge the Premier to honour the letter sent to Mrs McNeil that bears his name and make good on his promise.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY SESQUICENTENNIAL

Mr G. Wilson: On October 16, 1841 -- 150 years ago -- Queen's University was established by royal charter issued by Queen Victoria. Classes began five months later when Queen's College at Kingston, as it was called, opened in a small, rented, wood-frame house at the edge of the city. There were two professors and 13 students.

Throughout 1991-92, that tiny college celebrates its sesquicentennial. Known as Queen's University since 1912, the school is one of the oldest and most distinguished universities in Canada, with a long-established tradition of service. There are now two large campuses with more than 17,000 students in five faculties, 10 schools and one affiliated college, taught by a faculty of more than 1,100 and supported by a staff of nearly 3,000.

Growth was not always easy. In the 1880s there was much talk within university and provincial circles that Queen's should move from Kingston and merge with the University of Toronto. Queen's overcame adversity to become a major influence on eastern Ontario and beyond.

Locally it has contributed millions of dollars to the economy as well as to providing public access to its many activities, enriching the intellectual, spiritual and recreational life of the community. With more than 70,000 graduates living in all provinces and territories of Canada and over 100 countries around the world, Queen's has truly earned its reputation as a university of the first rank.

In celebrating its sesquicentennial, the university is hosting an array of conferences, lectures and symposia on a range of contemporary issues. By focusing on questions of public concern, Queen's is not only paying tribute to its past but continuing its mission of public service.

I know all members of the Legislature will join with me in congratulating Queen's on its magnificent achievement and in wishing it well over its next 150 years.

THUNDER BAY SHOPPING PLAN

Mrs McLeod: I rise in the House today to congratulate the citizens of Thunder Bay for their ingenious and proactive response to the issue of cross-border shopping. This Christmas, Thunder Bay's credit unions will be offering shoppers interest-free loans of up to $5,000. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with Thunder Bay credit unions, have devised this plan to persuade residents to do their shopping in Thunder Bay rather than crossing the border to purchase goods in the United States.

The plan has garnered the support of more than 50 local businesses in Thunder Bay. This Christmas, residents will be able to shop in the city stores using "Shopping Spree" cheques that have been issued by Thunder Bay's credit unions. In this innovative move, residents will be given six months to pay back their loans interest-free.

I would like to commend the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, the credit unions, the local retailers and the citizens of Thunder Bay for their initiative. It represents a community solution to a problem that is national. While the problem of cross-border shopping cannot be eradicated by municipalities alone, I am proud of the initiative the people of Thunder Bay have exhibited at the municipal level.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Jackson: I bring to the attention of all members of the House yet another case in which Ontario seniors are being treated unfairly by the New Democratic Party government. I would like to quote directly from a letter in my possession from Medicare International Insurance.

It says, "The new OHIP rules have caused rates for out-of-country medical insurance to skyrocket and this class of insurance is now a very lucrative source of income for travel, general and life insurance broker agents." It goes on to say: "The best is yet to come. You will receive a 30% commission cheque every time your client activates their card after the initial trip, even though your brokerage agency may not continue to be associated with this client."

This letter raises a number of significant questions. Why did it take the NDP government six months to approve rate reductions requested by auto insurance companies, but only two months to fast-track increases for out-of-country medical coverage for Ontario residents? According to the letter, they made it very lucrative. Can the NDP Minister of Financial Institutions explain what exactly he has done to bring this situation about and why? Can he also explain the hardships this NDP action has inflicted on senior citizens, many of whom travel to warmer climates for health reasons? This flies in the face of what the NDP Minister of Health said about the subsidizing of seniors by her government.

It is unacceptable that the NDP, which made affordable auto insurance an election issue, is now completely ignoring the legitimate pleas of Ontario seniors for fair and sensitive treatment with respect to out-of-country health insurance.

DONNA LAILEY

Ms Haeck: I rise today to tell the House of a unique person from my riding of St Catharines-Brock who has made a valuable contribution to the Ontario wine industry, 1991 Grape Queen Donna Lailey.

Donna Lailey has been a full-time grape grower in Niagara-on-the-Lake for almost 20 years. This year her 20-acre vineyard along the Niagara Parkway was judged to be the most outstanding in Ontario. Besides having this honour bestowed on her, Queen Donna also is the first woman to receive this prestigious crown in the 35-year history of the competition.

With the help of her husband David, who is a schoolteacher, Donna grows mainly Vitis vinifera grapes and sells to Cartier Wines of Niagara Falls. Table wine varieties at the Lailey Vineyards include Chardonnay, Riesling, Pinot Noir and Cabernet. Besides her commercial activities, she also developed an innovative marketing program to supply an estimated 600 amateur winemakers around Ontario. In fact, last year's winning Chardonnay at the Amateur Winemakers of Ontario competition was made from Lailey grapes.

The crowning of the Grape Queen is just one of the many events at the annual Niagara Grape and Wine Festival, which has recently been held for the 40th time. Over the next year Mrs Lailey will be busy representing and promoting the Ontario wine producers. Already this year she has participated in the Great Ontario Grape Stomp for Easter Seals held at Nathan Phillips Square and today she will be a special guest at the Speaker's wine-tasting reception here at Queen's Park. The member for Lincoln and I encourage all members to attend a very interesting function this evening.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Beer: On November 23, 1989, Bill 20, legislation which provided boards of education with the opportunity to put in place lot levies to raise money for the construction of new school buildings, received royal assent. Today, almost two years later, the implementation of that legislation has not yet taken place.

Those boards of education which are experiencing significant growth have been waiting for 22 months for the government to act. Boards in Durham, Peel, Halton, Simcoe, Dufferin and my own region of York have had their rate of grants for capital purposes reduced drastically during this period -- in York region from 55% to 27% -- but remain frustrated by their inability even to hold public meetings on the issue, let alone pass the necessary bylaws. While the months have passed, this NDP government has avoided taking action. The growth boards of education in this province remain angry and frustrated.

I hold in my hand a letter to the former Minister of Education from Mr Harry Bowes, chair of the York Region Board of Education and the chair of the Growth Boards Coalition, which speaks of their frustration. Mr Bowes is normally a calm and reasoned man who avoids extremes. When in the letter he uses words such as, "In 17 years of trusteeship, I have never been involved in such a frustrating and depressing experience," one knows the problem is a serious one.

To the new Minister of Education I say, put a stop to this disgraceful situation. He has several problems to address in his new portfolio, but none more serious than this. More delay and more procrastination is not the answer. He should act responsibly and deal with the issue now.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: As members are aware, I have been a very active participant in the fight to secure the eligibility of all residents of Nipissing and Parry Sound districts to participate in the northern health travel grant program.

As of July 1, 1991, the Minister of Health finally recognized the northern status of the riding and changed the regulations to allow residents of Parry Sound riding to qualify for this program. However, further regulation now dictates that the general practitioner who refers the resident for specialized medical treatment must be a northern Ontario physician in order for the patient to qualify for the program. As a result, some residents in the district of Parry Sound are denied access to the program.

For example, a constituent living in Sprucedale or the southern part of the riding who naturally goes to a doctor in Huntsville, which is closer, is now not given access to the northern health travel grant program. I view this as being inconsistent, to say the least, with the commitment the minister gave to the House.

There also appears to be a great deal of confusion within the Ministry of Health about this very stipulation. Information released by the media liaison officer of communication and information -- in itself a mouthful -- in the ministry indicated to a newspaper in Parry Sound riding that the program was based solely on the home address of the applicant. This is not true. Upon contacting the northern health travel grant program people in the ministry, they indicate that in fact if it is not a northern physician referring the patient, the patient is not covered.

I would like to clear up this misinformation and confusion. Perhaps the minister could address this issue once and for all.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Ms Carter: I am making this announcement on behalf of the parents and family of Nina de Villiers. Her uncle, Johan de Villiers is my constituent.

This tragically bereaved family is circulating a petition to the House of Commons in Ottawa, which reads in part:

"We, the undersigned residents of Canada, in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"That the murder of Nina de Villiers on the 9th of August, 1991, has exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.

"That statutes governing the criminal justice system in Canada must be revised to reflect societal attitudes.

"Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly."

Copies of this petition can be obtained free of charge from all members of the House of Commons in Ottawa, so please contact your local MP. Mr Johan de Villiers will assist members of the public in obtaining additional copies for circulation. His telephone number is 705-745-5600.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

The Speaker: On Wednesday, October 9, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Elston) raised a point of order with respect to statements by ministers of the crown made outside the legislative chamber. The members for St George-St David (Mr Scott), Parry Sound (Mr Eves), Parkdale (Mr Ruprecht), Oriole (Mrs Caplan), York Centre (Mr Sorbara) Willowdale (Mr Harnick) and Etobicoke West (Mr Stockwell) joined the Leader of the Opposition in expressing concern over ministerial announcements made outside the legislative chamber.

Statements by ministers of the crown have been given a recognized place in the routine proceedings. Standing order 31(

a) specifically provides that "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

The standing orders do not require or compel ministers of the crown to first make statements of public policy or new directions to be taken by the government to the House. Standing order 31(

a) is permissive; a minister of the crown "may" make such a statement in the House.

Statements of government policy or ministry action made outside the legislative chamber by ministers of the crown do not constitute legitimate points of order. This has been confirmed on many occasions by me and my predecessors as Speaker in Ontario and by Speakers in other legislatures in Canada and the Commonwealth. The definitive statement on this matter was made by Speaker Lamoureux of the House of Commons of Canada on October 30, 1969. In his ruling Speaker Lamoureux stated:

"The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether honourable members are entitled, as part of the parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion. There may be, in such circumstances, a question of propriety or a question of courtesy. There may be a grievance. But in my view there cannot be a question of privilege."

Although I have no power to force ministers of the crown to come before the House and make a statement on government policy or ministry action, I am of the opinion that the members who spoke on this matter have a valid grievance of which the government should take serious note.

I concur with the statement of Speaker Weatherill of the House of Commons at Westminster on July 16, 1991. The Speaker stated:

"Time was when ministers always made statements to the House before they made them outside. I hope that we can get back to that practice. This chamber is the forum of the nation. This is where statements should always first be made, not to those outside."

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker: On Wednesday last, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Elston) rose on a question of privilege soon after the oral question period began. He informed the House that a member of the Premier's staff seated in the government

section of the under press gallery behind the Speaker's dais had just directed a remark to the member for Brampton North (Mr McClelland) as he was placing a question to the former Minister of Community and Social Services (Ms Akande).

Members will know that such matters are covered by our standing orders. Standing order 13(

a) empowers the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the chamber. Standing order 17 reads as follows:

"Any stranger admitted to any part of the House or gallery who misconducts himself or herself, or does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or a committee of the whole House is meeting, may be expelled from the precincts of the House by the Sergeant at Arms, or anyone acting under the direction of the Sergeant at Arms."

And standing order 18 reads as follows:

"All strangers may be excluded from the House or any committee thereof on a motion properly moved and adopted by the House or the committee, as the case may be."

It is clear then that members' staff, the press and members of the public are permitted to be in the galleries when the House is meeting, but only as long as they do not misbehave or disrupt the business of the House.

The 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states the following at page 115:

"Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or committee will constitute a contempt, which may be committed by strangers, parties or witnesses. Strangers have been punished for contempt for disorderly conduct for having interrupted or disturbed the proceedings of either House or a committee...."

The 2nd edition of Australia's House of Representatives Practice states the following at page 161:

"To perform its functions the House must be protected from physical disruption, disturbance and obstruction and there is no doubt that the House has the power to protect itself from such actions."

I have to say, at the time in question, I did not hear anything untoward from the under galleries, but I undertook to investigate the matter. I have had an opportunity to review Wednesday's Hansard, but it contained no record of a remark by a stranger. I am satisfied that the Sergeant at Arms dealt with the matter in the appropriate way. Members can rest assured that I will continue to be vigilant to ensure that order and decorum are maintained in the House. Misbehaviour by occupants of the galleries will not be tolerated.

In closing, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising what I took to be a very serious matter. This incident also affords me an opportunity to encourage members to do their

part in the maintenance of order and decorum in the chamber. Members will recall that there were many interjections in the chamber at the outset of last Wednesday's oral question period, as has been the case in other recent question periods before and since. In such circumstances, it can be difficult to hear what is being said by members who properly have the floor, let alone ascertain whether inappropriate remarks are being made from the galleries. It would therefore be most helpful if members would speak one at a time and after having been recognized by the Chair. This would help the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in this chamber.

LAND REGISTRATION

The Speaker: On Thursday, October 10, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) raised a question of privilege with respect to remarks made in a court of law by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The member for Dufferin-Peel was of the opinion that the remarks constituted a question of privilege or contempt in that they were insulting and obstructed members in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to the House and its committees, by prejudicing the results of a committee of the Legislature and by calling into question the validity of the powers and integrity of the members of the House.

The member for Essex South and Chair of the standing committee on general government (Mr Mancini) also spoke to this question of privilege. He indicated this was a matter which was before the standing committee and that the clerk of the committee had been asked to obtain the court transcripts so the committee could see for itself what was said and whether the remarks attributed to the ministry lawyer were true. This is clearly a matter which is before the standing committee on general government and ought to be settled in the committee, not in the House.

After considering the court transcripts, the committee may make a report to the House on matters which affect its proceedings. There being no report from the committee, the matter may not be raised as a question of privilege in the House.

Hon Mr Rae: I think there is unanimous consent that I make a very brief statement without the benefit of paper.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

CABINET MEMBERS

Hon Mr Rae: I simply want to advise the House officially that subsequent to the resignation of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the new Minister of Community and Social Services is the member for London Centre, that the new Minister of Education is the member for Dovercourt and that responsibility in an administrative sense for long-term care has been given to the Minister of Health.

Mr Elston: This arrangement came about in the House so I was not exactly sure how the response was to be handled, but I might just first of all take this time to congratulate the new ministers on their new positions.

I must say I have somewhat of a difficulty in learning that the Chairman of Management Board, a place I served at for some length of time, is going to have an easy time implementing the program that his mentor, the storyteller from Nickel Belt, has foisted on all the ministries. The minister at Management Board, although I know he is not involved in all of the day-to-day fiscal planning around the cutbacks, or whatever those are being described as inside government these days, will have to deal with the issue of personnel and other matters.

He will find himself engaged fully, I suspect, in trying to discover what in the Ministry of Education is going to allow him to meet his constraints, plus being able to do what I am sure he was advocating at one time as chairman of a school board in a large municipality whose name is well known to us all. A big issue for that minister is 60% funding, and I suspect that in his new incarnation he will want to discover how at Management Board he can assist that ministry to deliver the goods this time, since his colleague the last minister was unable to convince the Treasurer of the day that this in fact should be carried out.

I do wish him well. I wish the Minister of Community and Social Services well, except there is one particular difficulty I note full well for her, which is that there has been a new dissection of responsibilities inside the Ministry of Community and Social Services as it shares the duties and obligations of providing long-term care for the people of Ontario.

That has been removed now from Community and Social Services to the Minister of Health. It is an interesting movement back and forth of these obligations. It is not so many months ago that I recall receiving letters from medical officers of health complaining about the fact that they had been taken off the delivery of a lot of community services and their budgets moved over to Community and Social Services administrators.

These new ministers will find challenges that are daunting. I wish them well. I do want to set out for a short period of time some concerns that will confront these people. I noticed that the Minister of Community and Social Services has again obligated her government to end the existence of food banks. We will have some questions to ask about that particular specific plan. I am sure we will find a very good answer in a very few minutes from now.

Mr Eves: On behalf of our party, I rise to wish the new ministers well in their new duties. I have some idea of what the Minister of Community and Social Services goes through every day and I wish the member for London Centre nothing but the best in her future endeavours.

If there is anybody who can deliver on the 60% operational funding commitment, the member for Dovercourt, being Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, can. I am sure he will be able to persuade Pink Floyd and others down here that this indeed should be done, and I assume it will be done during this fiscal year.

I note the government has chosen this opportunity to again shuffle, as the leader of the official opposition has indicated, the on-again, off-again Health-Community and Social Services ongoing saga as to who has the responsibility for long-term care. This is yet another opportunity, I guess, to shuffle it to a new ministry again. Hopefully this time something will be done with it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MIDWIFERY

Hon Mr Cooke: I am tabling in the House today documents which were distributed this morning at an announcement by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to the establishment of a program of education for midwives in Ontario. With the establishment of this program, Ontario will become the first province to offer a bachelor's degree program in midwifery.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members that the Ontario government and the Algonquins of Golden Lake have signed an interim agreement on hunting. This agreement flows from the commitments the government has made in the course of the land claim negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake which began on June 15.

In announcing this new agreement, I want to indicate that we have met our commitments to consult with the public before signing this arrangement. The agreement demonstrates that the consultation has been meaningful and that the Algonquins of Golden Lake are being reasonable.

The province discussed the ideas of this interim agreement with interested parties during the course of negotiations. Then we went back to these parties with a draft of this agreement to discuss it further and to receive their comments and input before the government signed the document.

Indeed, there have been several additional items placed in the agreement as a direct result of the consultation. For example, every effort will be made to ensure that hunting does not occur in nature reserves, wilderness zones or historic zones. The agreement also specifically recognizes the need to protect rare, threatened and endangered species as well as wolves and loons.

Other matters raised by interested parties will be dealt with on an administrative basis during the course of the agreement. The interim agreement identifies those areas, within the territory the Algonquins claim as their traditional territory, where they will hunt moose and deer for food. The claim territory includes a large portion of Algonquin Park. The agreement ensures that hunting will be within biologically sustainable limits.

As we have indicated from the outset of the discussions with the Algonquins, the interim agreement clearly recognizes the commitment of both Ontario and the Algonquins to conservation of wildlife, the preservation of the values of Algonquin Park and the protection of public safety.

The agreement has been designed to ensure that there will be no infringement of the public's ability to enjoy hiking, camping and canoeing in Algonquin Park.

The agreement also ensures that public safety and private property rights are protected outside the park.

The interim agreement expires at the end of August 1992, but I believe it will provide a framework for other agreements while the land claim negotiations continue.

I would like for a moment to highlight some of the key terms of the interim agreement.

1. Within Algonquin Park, the Algonquins will hunt moose and deer from today, October 15, 1991, to January 15, 1992.

2. Hunting inside the park is restricted to an area north and east of the Shirley Lake Road in order to ensure that as much as possible, hunting is not in an area frequented by park visitors.

3. Within the park, the Algonquins will not use all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles for hunting, and there are important restrictions on the use of cars, trucks and motor boats.

4. Outside the park, but within the land claim area, the Algonquins will hunt moose and deer from September 1, 1991, to January 15, 1992.

The hunt limits set out in the agreement are well within the level that is biologically sustainable for the area populations of moose and deer. The harvest levels represent a relatively small percentage of the total number of moose and deer hunted annually in this area.

There are other measures in the agreement to ensure enforcement and to ensure that the terms of the agreement are observed. Funds will be provided to enable the Algonquins to hire a person to be responsible for ensuring that the agreement is observed. Ontario's conservation officers will also be responsible for the enforcement of the agreement. Conservation measures will be enforced by a tribunal established by the Algonquins. Issues of public safety and private property may be enforced by the Ontario government. Both sides are committed to guaranteeing the protection of public safety and that laws are observed with regard to private property.

A joint co-ordinating committee will be established with the Ministry of Natural Resources to gather information necessary for the proper management of hunting, including game inventories, and harvesting and biological reports. In addition, discussions are continuing on developing an interim arrangement on fisheries management.

I am pleased to be able to announce that we are making significant progress in resolving outstanding issues with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. They first asked to have their rights recognized in the late 18th century. In 1983, they lodged a claim with the federal and Ontario governments that covers approximately 14,000 square miles of land within the watershed of the Ottawa River. The negotiations on the land claim will be complex and it is essential that the federal government be fully involved. So far, Canada has named an observer to the negotiations.

I believe that with patience and understanding, we will find a way to settle the historic grievances and to create a harmonious climate for everyone.

RESPONSES

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: All members of this House understand and I think have an appreciation of the sensitivity of this issue, and understand the tremendous challenge this minister has had in bringing forward this agreement.

But I must say that for the minister to stand in his place today and pat himself and his government on the back for the consultation process that has been involved in this, when it was merely a week ago less a day that the minister brought forward an interim agreement proposal that really allowed four working days for the people of this province to consider this agreement, that is really not a consultation process at all.

Let alone the fact that the Minister of the Environment on Thursday of last week received a request by the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park for an environmental assessment, on which we have had no response to date. I take it the minister has rejected that, as the agreement is now signed. We would still like to hear a statement from the Minister of the Environment.

The agreement is couched with qualifications and phrases of conditionality: "may try" to do this; "with every attempt" to do this. It is a grave concern that public safety and public security are not going to be protected. The agreement speaks of restricted zones. We have wilderness zones and nature reserves in Algonquin Park. There is "an attempt" to do this but I think it should be mandatory that this hunting does not happen in the wilderness areas. I ask the minister, what of the newly proposed wilderness areas of Algonquin Park? These have not been brought into being yet.

The agreement, again, only recognizes the need to protect threatened species and endangered species and rare species.

Hon Mr Wildman: They won't be hunting those.

Mr Ramsay: The minister says they will not be hunting those. We need that certainty. We want to make sure they will not. I would also ask the minister to make sure that non-game species are not included.

On the quota of 100 moose, biologists have said that in Algonquin Park itself most areas could not sustain a moose hunt. I ask the minister to consider a quota whereby the 100 moose that are to be harvested may be from within the park and outside the park so that we could have some certainty that the moose population within the park will not be endangered.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Phillips: In response to the statement by the government House leader, on the good news side of it, clearly we are supportive of these two statements. They follow very much the proposals the previous government had made. We welcome the bachelor program for midwives, particularly the Michener Institute. We think that is the right place for the program to be. Certainly we support the breadth of choice midwives will present to the women of Ontario.

There are two things we want to register with the government. The first is that I hope you can appreciate the anger we feel on this side of the House when ministers have the time to make a public statement elsewhere but cannot find the time to be in the House to make the statement themselves. The government House leader simply tables the two statements and we do not have an opportunity to hear either of the ministers make those statements in the House, nor do we have an opportunity to question either of the ministers in the House today. I hope the government House leader and the Premier in particular would recognize that this is another example of the thing that concerns us.

The other thing -- this would be directed to the Premier -- is that this program was a program that my House leader, the member for Bruce, announced in 1986 and was followed up by our last Minister of Health, the member for Oriole. As the government looks for co-operation from this side, I have scoured this material now and there is not one mention made of any of the work of my colleague the member for Oriole.

I suggest to the government there are many people thanked in this document. The grace and the good common decency to acknowledge the work of the previous minister would go a long way towards establishing a kinder, gentler place here in the Legislature.

Mr Daigeler: I find it unbelievable that last week in this House we had a very strong presentation by our leader that it was unacceptable that ministers make statements to the press before they make statements to the House in here, and today, on the first opportunity the government has to correct the situation, what does it do? The government House leader, on behalf of other ministers, makes a statement. I certainly hope that will not be the new practice, and if that is his idea of democracy and of participating in this House, he certainly is on the wrong road.

Mr J. Wilson: I too am pleased to respond to the announcement tabled by the government House leader today concerning the province's intention to offer a bachelor's degree program in midwifery. We congratulate the government on that. We have no qualms about that. But like the previous Liberal speakers, I emphasize that our party takes very strong issue with the fact that once again this government has made a very important announcement outside this Legislature.

It seems in light of your ruling, Mr Speaker, and in light of the raucous debate we had last week in this House, that the government must take seriously its responsibility to report to this Legislature and to have respect for the parliamentary process.

I would add to the previous points by saying that as the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Health critic, I sit on the committee that is studying the Midwifery Act right now. I am extremely angered that the ministers are not here today and that the government House leader would simply table an announcement that was made at 10:30 this morning and not give us an appropriate opportunity to respond, as should be the case with respect for our parliamentary traditions. We want assurances from the government that this will not happen again.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: I want to comment on the minister's announcement with regard to the draft agreement. The minister seems quite proud of his consultation record. However, the public has a different opinion of his consultation record and he has had very little public support, from what I have observed.

We have serious concerns about the draft hunting agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake which was made public last week. We are concerned that the government appears to be turning its back on its own commitment to public consultation. This document was released on October 8 and the public was asked to comment within 48 hours. Not only was the comment time extremely short, it is also unlikely to have any effect on the process since the document was to have been signed today. It is already signed.

In spite of his comment that he did not anticipate major concerns because we have dealt with major concerns, conservation groups have found serious deficiencies in the document. In the short time frame the minister has allowed, how is it possible to deal with these questions?

"1. It is misleading to suggest that 100 moose will be taken throughout the whole land claim area. Since the east side of Algonquin has the highest concentration of moose in the area, and it is free of other hunting pressures on moose, it is realistic to assume that the moose will be taken in the park.

"2. Conservation is supposed to be the top priority of the agreement, but conservation is defined nowhere in the document, nor are we given any indication of how the numbers were determined" to ensure that conservation was being looked after.

"3. The provision in number 2 appears to promote open season on all species....

"4. Sections 6 and 17 imply that changes to laws and agreements regarding hunting may be made without public consultation.

"5. The use of 'may' in number 5 with respect to the co-ordinating committee does not inspire confidence in the committee's powers to review data and supervise proper implementation or enforcement.

"6. Although 'Algonquin law' is referred to as a basis for part of the agreement, it is never defined. How then is it possible to judge whether the provisions outlined in number 12 are adequate to ensure 'that conservation takes priority'?

"7. The hunting agreement conflicts with the minister's acceptance of the parks council's recommendations on increasing the nature reserves (largely on the east side of the park) and studying the feasibility of a large wilderness zone on the east side of the park. Both these undertakings are in direct conflict with hunting.

"8. There is evidence which indicates that any added pressure on the moose population within the park will place a strain on dependent species such as wolves.

"9. Use of cars and trucks 'off-road' is unofficially permitted by allowing their use for retrieving game.

"The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has publicly stated its support for a just settlement of the Algonquins' land claim outside the park. But they have also stated that the band should have a stake in the park's future by being enlisted to take an active role as stewards within the park.

"The hunting agreement is a violation of the minister's commitment and responsibility to the park. Algonquin's centennial is almost upon us. Let that year mark both a just and publicly negotiated settlement of the band's land claim."

There are no checks and balances in this agreement. The funds will be provided to enable the Algonquins to hire a person to be responsible for ensuring that the agreement is observed. It is a sellout of Algonquin Park.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to indicate to the House that at 11:30 this morning I was visited by two officers from the Ontario Provincial Police, who are investigating the manner in which I received the spin document accompanying the release that the Treasurer had with respect to his cutbacks.

I feel this is an attempt to prevent me from doing fully the work I must do if I am to raise questions about the issues of the day. The two gentlemen who appeared took full pains to suggest it had been the Deputy Treasurer who was sending out the investigative unit from the anti-rackets group. This is the second member who has stood in this House with a document which came from inside the government, who has been visited by the OPP at the behest of a deputy minister, at least ostensibly so.

I suggest there is an attempt to prevent the release of documents, and perhaps that is how these people want to do it; that is, get the police after all of us who stand in the House to raise issues about important public business when we receive documents.

I was interested to have the document I received, a spin document, described as a government document. It is interesting to note that this spin document, a series of questions and answers that were then made widely available to people, was a government document scheduled, I am told not by the two officers but by others, to become the exclusive property of members of the government caucus as they were going out to spin the message that the perfect, tiny storyteller from Nickel Belt was trying to give us.

While I have no question about people wanting to deal with their own internal security, I find it unrealistic that the OPP is asked to investigate with respect to the members of the opposition coming into possession of documents that somebody believes would be of interest to the public.

These are interesting times. We have the release of Ministry of Labour material written in a manner which would be highly inflammatory to any reasonably unbiased mind, we have the information about the signature of the Minister of the Environment on a document which showed a new direction for her policies and now we have the spin document. In each case there are important public issues.

Why these people are using the police to come and talk to us to do the investigation is beyond me, but I feel there is a real attempt to prevent us from doing the public business. Mr Speaker, I think you should look into this and approach the chief government representative, the Premier, and ask him to explain to you, as Speaker and representative of all of us here, why the provincial police is dispatched to our offices at every release of a document to investigate that.

Even more than that, I suggest this is the type of abuse against minorities which is unacceptable in a democratic government. It is particularly important when put against the announcement of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, who released a paper on whistle-blowing. When he talks about wanting to have whistle-blowing covered under the guidelines and then we are faced with OPP investigation after OPP investigation, I believe there is something out of whack.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will want to look into this matter, but I point out to you and to the Leader of the Opposition that I think it is quite unfair for him to characterize this visit by the OPP to his office as some instruction from the minister or the politicians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The Ontario Provincial Police is obviously entitled to carry out an investigation. We do not instruct them how to carry out that investigation.

The Speaker: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate the serious matter he has brought to my attention. Indeed, I will take the opportunity to look closely at this and will report back later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mr Elston: I was doing a little reading not that long ago, which I do now and again. I like to go back to old Hansards, and particularly Hansards that deal with recitals by the then leader of the official opposition, the member for York South.

It was not that long ago that he was in this House asking us about food banks. This being a week when there is an extension on for the food banks in the province so that they can get enough food to cover the need that is now felt out in the community, I thought the Premier would want to tell us exactly what he is doing about food banks. I wonder whether he could tell us what specific plan his government has to relieve the need for food banks, bearing in mind that the new Minister of Community and Social Services has declared, as the government's first minister declared, that there was an end coming to food banks.

I ask the Premier to tell us what his specific plan is for the elimination of food banks.

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me stress what we have already done and what we are doing. As of now, I believe it is fair to say we certainly have the highest social assistance rates anywhere in the country. We have done this in the face of a $1.5-billion cutback from the federal government.

The former minister announced a $215-million program to implement the Back on Track recommendations, of which $50 million will be allocated to back-to-work initiatives, which include full recognition of child care costs in calculating net earnings, continued general welfare assistance eligibility for persons working full time but still in financial need, an increase in the percentage of earnings that recipients of general welfare and family benefits can retain, and a total of $111.5 million to initiatives to provide assistance to those in greatest need.

Mr Elston: How are you eliminating food banks?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is shouting across to me, "How are you going to eliminate food banks?" I believe we are doing as much as can be done in the circumstances by providing for the most sustained support for people in the greatest need in our province. There is always more that can be done with respect to providing assistance.

We are now spending $2 billion more than we were spending two years ago with respect to welfare assistance and there is always more to be done, but it is going to take the participation of all levels of government, including the federal government led by the Conservative Party of Canada, for us to be able to address this issue in the way we have to be able to address it.

Mrs McLeod: We appreciate and anticipated the recitation, although there are some things we do not know, such as what has actually happened with some of those programs. We understand, for example, that at least some $10 million of the $30-million back-to-work-initiative program is in Management Board and that those funds may not be released. The facts we do know are that there were almost one million people in this province on social assistance in September of this year, that food bank usage has grown by 44% and that the government's own statistics show there is a 42% increase in the number of people who receive social assistance who are using their food money to pay their rent bills.

I remind the Premier that last October after the election he renewed the government's commitment to tackle the food bank problem. I remind him too that in opposition his party had a one-year time frame to end the need for food banks. I ask the Premier to explain why, during a recession, when the need is the greatest, when the Premier himself has said the province would not fight the recession on the backs of the poor and the sick, his government sacrificed the election promise to end the need for food banks.

Hon Mr Rae: I have just done a head count and have asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Chairman of Management Board and the Deputy Premier whether the $10-million figure which the former minister has come up with is correct. It is my understanding that it is not correct. In fact, the funding which has been allocated in this budget for Back on Track is intended to proceed and is proceeding on track.

I do not expect a member of the Liberal Party to take note of this, but which government increased the minimum wage to the point where we now have the highest minimum wage anywhere in North America? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. Which government has announced a $32.5-million program for laid-off workers at a time when other governments have been cutting back and cutting us back? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario.

Which government has announced a $700-million anti-recession fund which is the largest capital works program of any government in Canada at this point, just as we are faced with billions of dollars in cutbacks from the federal government? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. Not only have we done this, but we have increased social assistance rates higher than inflation, a 10% increase with respect to shelter allowances.

None of us in this House takes any joy in seeing what has happened to the economy this past year, but I ask the honourable member to tell us how much more money we should spend in comparison with the money we have already been spending in dealing with the needs of people in need in this province.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier's rhetoric is not putting food into anybody's stomach. It is his government's responsibility to set the priorities for the dollars it has to spend. I simply make the point that the Premier at an earlier time said that hunger was an Ontario problem that his government would tackle.

We also acknowledge that the same Premier very recently presented a proposal to enshrine a social charter in the Constitution. I ask the Premier how he can reconcile the goal of that proposed social charter to reduce child and family poverty with his government's inability to act on its pledge to end the need for food banks, even though he has said this is a problem his government would tackle.

Mrs Caplan: Rhetoric; it is all rhetoric.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole shouts "Rhetoric." Is $175 million in a wage protection fund which is going to be passed by the House today rhetoric? I do not believe it is rhetoric; I believe it is action.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines says, "What about food banks?" I say to the honourable member for St Catharines that the money we are putting in people's pockets today is going to make a difference, we believe, over time. It is not going to happen overnight. The hard reality is that in fighting this recession as hard as we have, yes, of course we have run up a deficit. Yes, we have; we confess to that. We have had a $1.5-billion cut in Canada assistance plan payments alone from the federal government as we encounter this change.

The fact of the matter is this government is putting more money into people's pockets than any goverment in the history of the province in terms of dealing with this recession.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Sorbara: I have a question for the Solicitor General. I remind the Solicitor General that we have just concluded the Thanksgiving weekend. For many there was precious little to be thankful about, and I think about the thousands of people who had to resort to the Premier's food banks in order to put a Thanksgiving meal on the table.

I want to remind the Solicitor General of the thousands and thousands of shopkeepers and retailers in this province for whom the Thanksgiving to Christmas shopping period is absolutely critical. He should know, now that he has been in his portfolio for a while, that most retailers expect to do a full third of their business during this very busy shopping season.

I want to tell him as well that retailing in Ontario has dropped by some 8.9%. The Solicitor General has an opportunity, not to solve all the problems of the retailers but to realize that his Sunday shopping bill is deadlocked in the standing committee on administration of justice. I want to ask if he will now realize that he could make a significant difference to one sector of this provincial economy by introducing in that committee some amendments that would give more freedom to some retailers so they could simply stay above water and keep their businesses going during this very hectic period.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government has of course presented itself at the clause-by-clause hearings. I have been present on each and every occasion where we wished to proceed with the amendments so that we might get the bill into the House to meet the various concerns. I continue to be available to do that. I invite the opposition to help us move along in this process because we are very concerned, with the passage of this bill, to ensure a common pause day and also add protection for retail workers in this province. As do all members of the committee and the government, I stand ready to proceed as soon as possible with this bill.

Mr Sorbara: We have absolutely no quarrel with the Solicitor General's provisions to protect retail workers in this province. We are all ad idem on that. They are not even his amendments; they are the amendments of the Minister of Labour and the Employment Standards Act, and that is not a problem.

The problem is that we went through a month of public hearings. We found that virtually no group or individual had anything good to say about the government bill. Some 75% of the people who spoke to the committee said they would favour a more flexible approach to who can and cannot buy and sell on Sunday.

After all that, the government introduces not one but two amendments that have nothing to do with the central issue. One amendment is entirely out of order and cannot come before the committee, and the other amendment is so patently unfair that it probably represents a violation of the Charter of Rights.

I just want to suggest, by way of supplementary, that the Solicitor General has an opportunity tomorrow in cabinet to take to his cabinet colleagues proposals to provide some bit of flexibility to this totally inflexible bill. Will the minister undertake, here in this House now, to bring forward some proposal or other to his cabinet colleagues so we can get out of this terrible logjam we are experiencing in the committee on this foolish bill?

Hon Mr Pilkey: This government introduced Bill 115 for first and second reading some time ago. The committee has gone across the province and has had input from a great number of citizens. We have presented ourselves at the clause-by-clause hearings on numerous occasions, all of which I have personally attended. We are anxious to proceed with this bill, and as soon as the opposition are prepared to join us in the speedy movement of it, we will accomplish it.

Quite frankly I have specific answers to the specific questions raised by the member opposite, and at the proper place and forum, which is in clause-by-clause, I am again willing to present myself in order to proceed as quickly as possible. I agree that every day that passes with respect to this bill and its non-passage creates some cause for concern in the minds of some. As soon as the opposition is prepared to proceed, I stand ready to do so as well.

Mr Sorbara: I could not give a whit about the minister's personal attendance at the committee when there is nothing to discuss.

Quebec has a common pause day in its Sunday shopping legislation, but even in that province there is an exception for the Christmas period. There is a provision in the Quebec law that gives storekeepers the right, if they so choose, to stay open from Thanksgiving until Christmas. It helps the retailing sector enormously and it helps the individual consumer enormously, because that is such a busy period of time.

I recall the Premier of this province saying that fighting the recession was going to be his number one priority. He could add to the fight a little bit, and the Solicitor General could add to the fight a little bit, by simply bringing forward an amendment which would allow those storekeepers who so wish to stay open during the Christmas period. If he were to do that, the logjam in the committee could end. We would not need his attendance and we could get through the bill in very short order.

I ask him once again: Will he undertake, here in this House today, to bring that amendment to his cabinet colleagues and fight like the devil for the retailers in this province who are looking for a little bit of help when they fight in a very difficult market?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am very pleased to see the member opposite so eager to discuss Bill 115. As I suggested to him just a moment ago, we are equally eager to deal with that item. We are prepared to answer specific questions in the committee, and we look forward to meeting him there to do just that.

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier. The United States Senate confirmation hearing concerning the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court is, I am sure we agree, a most important event. While the process in the United States Senate may have been poorly managed, to say the least, the idea of fully reviewing appointments is right. I do not do this often, but I want to compliment the Premier for having introduced an improved process of review for appointments to agencies, boards and commissions in Ontario. However, it must also be recognized that our process still needs improvement.

Some of these appointments are paid for by all the people of Ontario. Surely all the people's representatives should have the right to say yes or no. Is the Premier now prepared to complete the job and make all appointments to agencies, boards and commissions subject to confirmation by the Legislature?

Hon Mr Rae: There are some practical considerations in regard to that in terms of the sheer numbers.

Mr Bradley: I hear a no.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines again is shouting out. He is saying, "I hear no." He is not hearing "no." He should listen carefully to what I am saying.

I would say to the member for Leeds-Grenville that I look forward to some discussions with his leader and with the Leader of the Opposition or among the House leaders with respect to how this process can be improved. I would say to the honourable member that there are some practical considerations and that we are prepared to look at it in a positive way. I would say to him that we are considering this, on our side, in the context of overall reform of the rules of the House. That is the way in which we would like to address this question, and we look upon it in that regard.

I appreciate the suggestions made by the member for Leeds-Grenville and I do not dismiss them lightly at all; in fact, I am not dismissing them at all.

Mr Runciman: For the clarification of the Premier, I said "subject to review"; I did not necessarily say "review." In the United States there are something like 50,000 appointments subject to review by the US Senate, and obviously it does not review every one of those.

The standing committee on government agencies has proven, for all intents and purposes, to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for all appointments and reviews. We do not have the resources to investigate the background of appointees --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Runciman: We cannot call witnesses to appear before us, so in essence the committee has no real power. A good example of this is that each of the opposition parties had only 20 minutes to question Marc Eliesen, the government's appointment to chair Ontario Hydro. I do not think anyone, even the Premier, believes that anyone could determine in 20 minutes whether Mr Eliesen was competent to manage a $7-billion enterprise, $7 billion of public money spent each year. Is the Premier prepared to give this committee the expanded mandate it needs to properly do the job and fully review all appointments it considers?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the member that the time they had to interview Mr Eliesen was 40 minutes more than we ever had in opposition, or indeed any opposition party had with respect to any Tory appointment for 42 years. Maybe that is worth pointing out.

I would say to the honourable member that I look forward to a discussion on these questions. I do not think it is unreasonable to say, in terms of the general reforms we would like to be able to make with respect to the House and the conduct of public business, that I see this as the context in which we are going to be having these discussions.

I take the member's views seriously. I would say to him that the effort we have made has been to allow people to be interviewed and questioned, and for there to be a fair consideration of the candidates who are put forward, recognizing that all processes in this regard are imperfect. We are of course always open to improvements or suggestions for improvements.

Mr Runciman: I guess from our point of view we would rather have no time at all than 20 minutes, which sends out a message to the public that these people are being appropriately reviewed, which is not the case. It simply is not the case. A year ago the Premier promised major changes to the appointments process. They are actually minor changes and they may end up becoming no changes. This was an important election promise the Premier made, one that Ontario residents clearly want him to keep.

Can the Premier tell us why he is running for cover on this issue -- effectively that is what he is doing -- and why he apparently is not prepared to take the principled stand Ontarians deserve and make it his government's principled stand?

Hon Mr Rae: If answering questions in question period and establishing a precedent for the House the way we did last year is running for cover, then the member and I have very different

definitions of what running for cover is. We are very pleased with the suggestions. If the member is saying he would prefer to have no time, I gather the time allowed for Mr Eliesen's discussion was decided by the opposition itself. So I would say to the honourable member that we are quite opposed to his saying we are looking for cover. Not only are we not looking for cover, but we are delighted to have various appointments considered by the committee and that will continue to be the case.

I believe we have lived up to the commitment we made in the last election campaign. I believe we have lived up to the commitment we made in the last speech from the throne. As I say, it may not be up to the pristine standards of the member for Leeds-Grenville, but I do not recall him making speeches on this subject when he was Minister of Government Services in the Davis administration.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier as well. The Premier is obviously aware of today's Toronto Star-CTV poll with respect to the federal constitutional proposals. I believe he shared his impressions of the poll results with the media this morning. I wonder if he would be so kind as to share those impressions with the members of the assembly.

Hon Mr Rae: When I come into the House or into the Legislature, sometimes I get interviewed by the media. I was asked this morning for my impressions of the poll, which I saw on television last night and had an opportunity to read in one of the Toronto newspapers, the Toronto Star, this morning.

My impressions are that there is considerable ground still for consensus in the country. I believe no one should be surprised about the fact that, first of all, there are a considerable number of people who are undecided, who have not yet expressed an opinion. I think it fair to say that a great many people across the country are preoccupied with other matters, and that is quite understandable given the state of the economy and the state of the country generally.

I am encouraged by the fact that there is still room for movement, I believe, and still room for dialogue and discussion across the country. That is the basis upon which I take what I have heard so far. That is the basis upon which I responded this morning.

Mr Eves: One question the media addressed to the Premier this morning had to do with the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. Apparently the Premier was not quite as forthcoming or willing to expound upon the results of the Star-CTV poll with respect to that issue. I wonder if he might share not only with the members of the media but with the people of Ontario and the members of this assembly what his thoughts are on that matter.

Mr Scott: How much dialogue are you going to tolerate on that, Bob?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David is shouting out to me and asking how much dialogue we will have on that. I think we will have a great deal of dialogue on that. I look --

Mr Scott: I know how you feel already. You are not going to change your mind.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to hearing from the honourable member for St George-St David on this question.

Mr Scott: I know where I stand. Where do you stand on it?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the comments he is making.

The Speaker: It was the member for Parry Sound who asked a question, but we will have a rotation of opportunities. Perhaps the Premier could respond to the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that with respect to the question of property rights, I look forward to hearing the views of people across the country, from a variety of groups with respect to its impact.

Last week I spoke with Premier Ghiz, who expressed his very strong concerns to me about the impact that the clause would have on Prince Edward Island. There has been a very strong traditional opposition to that. I have heard from Peter Lougheed, who expressed a similar concern to me last week when I met with him on Thursday.

There are a number of issues that need to be looked at in that regard, but of course the protection of people's civil liberties, the respect for people's rights of ownership are a very important part of the Canadian tradition. How exactly we deal with it in a constitutional sense still needs to be determined.

Mr Eves: The Premier has enunciated on several occasions that he is certainly in favour of entrenching a social charter in the Constitution of the country. The Star-CTV poll points out that 80%, I believe, of Ontarians would be in favour of such entrenchment and 12% would be opposed. The same poll says that 65% of Ontarians are in favour of entrenching property rights and the same percentage, 12%, are opposed.

I believe it is the Premier's responsibility as the first minister of this province to take both of those suggestions and proposals, along with others the overwhelming majority of Ontarians believe in, to the constitutional bargaining table and the negotiating process. He indicates that he has talked to other premiers about the entrenchment of property rights. We know he has talked to other premiers about the entrenchment of the social charter. Does he not agree that it is his responsibility to take all those matters, including the entrenchment of property rights, the social charter and other things that it was indicated Ontarians are in favour of, to the negotiating process?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I have a responsibility to participate and to listen carefully to what people are saying. As I said to the honourable member with respect to the poll generally, obviously it is a factor one takes into account and an important one.

The point I made last week and tried to make in two speeches I have given over the last two weeks is that the creation of a strong and effective social and economic union for Canada is a very important objective of this government. The symmetry I see is between the creation of an economic union and the recognition of the social obligations we have to one another as well. That is a very important symmetry.

I would invite the honourable member to discuss with other members of his provincial party, with colleagues across the country, premiers and others the particular items he has raised, because I think he may be surprised by the variety of opinions he hears on that subject.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: My question is also to the Premier. I think the Premier can appreciate in these very difficult recessionary times that the farmers and loggers of my part of eastern Ontario are facing some very difficult economic times, some of the worst times in living memory.

Those same farmers and loggers were told a few months ago by the new chairman of Ontario Hydro that their hydro rates would be increasing by not less than 44% over the next three years. Those farmers and loggers have also been reading in the press that the newly appointed chairman of Ontario Hydro has asked for a salary of $400,000 a year and a pension apparently of some 75% after six years.

Having regard to all the problems the Premier faces -- and I am sympathetic to the problems of food banks and trying to moderate particularly the wage demands in the public and the private sectors in this province -- I ask the Premier, and the Premier only, because Marc Eliesen is his friend and his appointment, to confirm that Marc Eliesen has asked for and is receiving a salary in the range of $400,000, which would represent something like a 300% increase from what he was earning just months ago as Deputy Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Energy is itching to answer this question.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am glad the member raised this question, because I think it is time we clear the air. The member will know that the Liberal appointee who was the chair of Hydro did not earn $400,000 a year; that individual did not earn $450,000 a year; in fact that individual did not earn $500,000 a year. They kept from the public that their appointee earned $540,000 a year.

I can tell by the look on the Speaker's face that he must be asking himself, with two weeks' vacation and assuming a 4% vacation rate, how did this individual survive two weeks on over $20,000 for vacation pay? I have asked that myself. That is the answer to the question.

Mr Conway: I want to say that what we just saw from the Premier was what I would call gilt-edged, silver-stocking hypocrisy because he has the nerve to ask members of the Legislature and public servants to tighten their belts while at the same time he has appointed his alter ego, his good friend Marc Eliesen, at a salary of some $400,000. They have turned one job that Bob Franklin held at roughly $400,000 into three jobs that will be a total of some three quarters of a million dollars.

How can the Premier expect to have any credibility when those loggers and farmers I represent say to me, "How can this government and you as a member of the Legislature ask me to conserve and pay more than 45% more over three years for something as vital as my electrical bill, which is absolutely essential to my farm and my lumber business" -- to name but two resource economies that are in dire straits --

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

Mr Conway: -- "when at the same time I read in the paper that Marc Eliesen, the Premier's good friend, goes from a salary of $125,000 approximately to $400,000, plus pension benefits that are absolutely unbelievable"?

Does the Premier, as the leader of this government, not feel that it is one thing to make the speech in Honey Harbour asking us to pull in our belts, but it is another thing and it is perfectly obscene to --

The Speaker: The question has been placed. Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: What the member should know is that today, October 15, Mr Eliesen is not earning $400,000; he is earning his deputy minister's salary. All the Hydro jurisdictions across North America, the boards of directors of each utility, decide the salary of the chief executive officer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If a questions is asked, we must assume that the person asking would like to hear a response. Has the minister concluded his remarks?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Recognizing that it is a large amount of money and that it is not only that salary but the salary of many other individuals at Hydro that ought to be examined, I will be asking the Ontario Energy Board to do a review of all the salaries of the executives at Ontario Hydro.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General. On October 3, the Solicitor General announced a new regulation that he assured us would guarantee political rights of municipal police officers and ensure fairness.

In response to that contention, I would like to raise the issue of Bill Hallett, a first-class constable in Brockville, who resides in the neighbouring rural township of Elizabethtown and for the past three years has served on the municipal council for the township. He has filed his papers to run for deputy reeve but, under the minister's new regulation, if elected, he has to give up a $46,000-a-year job for a $6,000-a-year job -- not very realistic.

Can the minister advise us how his new regulation in Constable Hallett's case ensures fairness and guarantees Constable Hallett's political rights?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot speak on individual cases, but I remind all members of the House that the regulation brought in under the Police Services Amendment Act, 1991, was brought in by the government with the support of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and the Police Services Board of Ontario. These political activity rights, which were approved, gave police in this province a wide variety of political rights and activities in which they might participate.

This particular amendment we brought in allows officers to be involved in political office under certain limitations. The fact that there is some particular difficulty in a given circumstance -- I am not totally aware of those details except to say that I believe the legislation allows people to run, does not prohibit them, if they can meet the criteria established and approved by all stakeholders.

Mr Runciman: This minister's answers are not very satisfying to most people across the province, neither to the question he had earlier nor to this one.

This is not an isolated case. My colleague the member for Wellington today drew to my attention the case of Andy Knetsch who is a councillor in the village of Drayton. He is a member of the Waterloo region police, serves his community well and receives very little remuneration for his efforts, effectively donating his services.

The policy the minister is defending here today is essentially one drafted for the big bucks environment of Metro Toronto and is yet another example of this government's virtual ignorance of small-town and rural Ontario. This regulation effectively excludes small-town and rural police officers from getting politically involved in their communities. In essence, they have taken away a fundamental right and freedom that constables Hallett and Knetsch exercised as councillors for the past three years.

In the spirit of fairness that the minister talked about in his October 3 statement, will he commit himself today to immediate cancellation of the elements of the regulation that clearly discriminate against policemen and policewomen in rural Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, these rights were totally supported by all the representative organizations. They really provided the widest range of political rights ever given in this province. Quite frankly, we did have one caveat with respect to these regulations that were passed, and that was that the police service must remain impartial and neutral. We believe, short of the collection of funds, which was one restriction, that these bills allowed everyone to run on the conditions that were outlined under the act. They prevented no one.

VISITOR

The Speaker: This might be an appropriate moment for the members of the House to welcome to our midst, seated in the members' east gallery, the Honourable Luigi Sandirocco, a member of the Italian Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Mills: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There have been a number of articles in the newspaper recently on the GATT trade talks and their possible effects on Canadian agriculture. Will producers of milk, eggs and poultry in my riding of Durham East and across the province be able to continue to operate a viable supply management system following the conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations?

Hon Mr Philip: Ontario fully supports the balanced position Canada has put forward in the agricultural negotiations, which includes the strengthening and clarification of

article XI, dealing with the rules governing the operation of supply management systems. This aim is especially important if supply management is to remain an effective part of our agricultural farming.

Mr Mills: Will provincial agriculture support programs in Ontario have to be reduced as a result of the multilateral trade negotiations?

Hon Mr Philip: We do not expect that the provincial agricultural support programs will have to be cut. Any commitments made by the federal government resulting from an agricultural agreement will apply only to the federal programs and expenditures, and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture of Food has asked that consultations be initiated on how Canada's reduction commitments can be translated into cuts to specific programs. We are concerned that the federal government not use these trade talks as an excuse to cut its program spending, and we are certainly expressing that concern to the federal government.

USE OF COURIER SERVICES

Mr Scott: The Premier is always complaining that he cannot find any money for food banks. I want to make a suggestion to his government.

On October 10, I received a copy of a letter from the Minister of Citizenship to a group in my constituency, announcing a grant. The letter was nothing more than a copy of the original announcement. It was not to me, it was not personal and it was not urgent. Indeed, it arrived some 10 days after its date. The interesting thing about the letter is that thousands of these go out every year, and apparently the minister has made a decision not to use the government mail or Canada Post, at 39 cents a letter, but instead to use a private direct courier, who came to my office in this building, which costs between $5 and $7 a pop, if honourable members want to know.

It seems to me that a government that is mewling all the time about its expenses and that does not have any money for food banks would not want to extend this wasteful practice. I want to ask the Minister of Government Services if he has given a directive to any ministers on the use of cabinet couriers, and in particular whether he condones the practice of the Minister of Citizenship in delivering this form letter by courier to me.

Hon F. Wilson: I will take appropriate action on this matter.

Mr Scott: As the question has not been answered, I simply draw to the minister's attention -- he must be aware of this; he has been a minister, unlike some of his colleagues, for several months now -- that the extent to which courier service is being used by this government is absolutely unbelievable.

The Ministry of Correctional Services increased by almost $500,000 the expenditure on couriers this year over last year. I am ashamed to say the Ministry of the Attorney General is up 44% and the Ministry of the Environment, no doubt sending missives by courier that projects will be exempted from assessment, is up 51%. Members will be interested to hear that this is not peanuts. One courier firm alone, Purolator, billed the government last year for almost $4 million.

Can the minister come clean, admit he is in charge of this use of courier services, which is the responsibility of Government Services, and tell this House first of all what he estimates the government will spend this year on private courier services and how he is going to explain the really extraordinary increases, between 25% and 40%, that have occurred over the last 12 months?

Hon F. Wilson: This use of private couriers and courier services stretches back to a former regime and is under review at this time. I will get back to the member with the appropriate answer.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. She was quoted in last week's Kitchener-Waterloo Record as saying that if she was aware that the Niagara Escarpment Commission members, with whom she met in June, were formulating their recommendations on the five-year plan, she was not conscious of it. Yet she stated that she asked for a social evening to avoid discussion of the plan. She is sending out mixed signals. Which way does she want to have it? Is she in charge or is she not?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am in charge.

In response to that, I think what the member is trying to elicit is the position I have taken on the review of the Niagara Escarpment plan. That is a five-year review provided for in the legislation, and it is not appropriate, nor have I taken any position or any

part in the discussions of that review. When the review is completed, it will be submitted to hearing officers. Those hearing officers are currently having hearings and then the report will be submitted to me.

Mr B. Murdoch: The minister claims to be impartial in this issue. She claims in the media that she is only one in 1,000, but she is the minister; she is the one who will make the decision. To avoid any conflict of interest, other ministers have removed themselves from the issue. As I see it, she has three options with this plan: (1) she could sell her property on the Niagara Escarpment, (2) she could move the Niagara Escarpment plan to the Minister of Municipal Affairs where it should be, (3) she can resign as the Minister of the Environment. Which will it be?

Hon Mrs Grier: The question was relating to the review of the Niagara Escarpment plan, and the member is incorrect. The decision at the end of that process will not be made by me; it will be made by cabinet.

BORDER COMMUNITIES ASSISTANCE FUND

Ms Harrington: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. We all know cross-border shopping is a significant drain on the economy of Ontario, and in fact of Niagara Falls. Agreements were reached last July to try to alleviate this problem --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would like to avoid members having to courier their questions. I would like to be able to hear the questions.

Ms Harrington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Agreements were reached last July to try and alleviate this problem, in conjunction with the municipalities and with local business groups, such as the chambers of commerce. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology announced in September a procedure for communities to access some provincial funds, and for Niagara Falls, $50,000 was earmarked. This past weekend I had people in my riding come to me with different proposals to access these funds. Can the minister please tell this House what the funding is for and to whom people should be going with their proposals?

Hon Mr Philip: The border community assistance fund has been established to finance local community initiatives, such as service excellence programs, community awareness campaigns and campaigns targeted at specific consumers and local retail marketing groups. I can tell the member that communities must form a committee consisting of representatives from local government, business, labour council and consumer groups, and after that, then locally planned proposals will be formed and funding will be forthcoming.

Ms Harrington: Who will actually be making the decisions on this funding?

Hon Mr Philip: Once the community's committee has been formed, it will be making the proposals. These proposals will be proposed by the local community, and those decisions will be made at that time.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Labour. On December 18, 1990, the minister announced in this very House that he planned to extend the benefits of Ontario's pay equity legislation to a further 420,000 women, such as child care workers, who were in predominantly female establishments. The minister said he was going to introduce this legislation in the spring session and was going to add two new methods for making job comparisons: the proportional value method and also the proxy method.

The minister did not introduce the legislation as promised. Instead, it was a stall job and all we saw in February was another discussion paper.

In the past, the NDP was very clear about its commitment to building reforms to assist women such as underpaid child care workers, but this minister continues to stall. We are now in mid-October, with no legislation in sight. Why does this minister not just admit that with the loss of the member for Scarborough West, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the demotion of the member for Sudbury East, the NDP's much-vaunted women's caucus has collapsed? Why does he not just admit that without them there to prod him, this minister is not going to produce what he promised on pay equity?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to assure the member that the women's caucus in this party of ours has not collapsed and that we will have legislation there.

Ms Poole: Somehow the minister's answer gives me absolutely no reassurance. He says we are going to have pay equity. When are we going to have the extension of pay equity that he promised? Is it this year? Is it next year? Three, four, five years? Is it going to be during their term at all?

The irony is that the Treasurer released a statement just a few weeks ago in which he said very proudly that they were going to save $50 million as a result of delay in passing legislation on proportional value pay equity. I want the minister to confirm for us in this House today: Is the government still committed to passing legislation relating to proportional value and to the proxy method, and if so, can he tell us what is his new deadline for passing this legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are committed to passing the legislation for pay equity when we have the right approach to it, and that is what we are looking at right now.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the new Minister of Education. I congratulate the minister and advise him that I am looking forward to working with him as I did the previous minister, my colleague the member for London Centre.

Two weeks ago I met with Mr Kevin McKittrick, the chairperson of the London Industrial Training Board, many members of that board and Mr John Jarrel, vice-president of General Motors. They were concerned, as we all are, that our education system is not producing the number of technically trained workers that Ontario industry requires now and will require in the future.

The minister is aware that 27% to 30% of our young people drop out of secondary school. They tell us they do not feel the curriculum is relevant. As the new Minister of Education, working with his colleague the Minister of Skills Development, who is also the the Minister of Colleges and Universities, will he quickly develop a long-term strategy to train our young people in both technical education and apprenticeship school programs in secondary schools in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I thank the member opposite for her good wishes and also look forward to working with her. I followed with some interest, as she can well imagine, the questions she put to my predecessor over the last number of months on various issues related to education. Members will appreciate the fact that I obviously have not had an opportunity to get very much into any of the issues that will concern me as Minister of Education, but let me say equally strongly that the issues the member has raised -- dropouts and the relevancy of the curriculum to our young people -- are things that I know a little bit about and that concern me a great deal.

I certainly hope to be a minister who becomes very active in those areas and in the other areas the member mentioned, particularly with respect to skills training. There is a great deal we need to do, and can indeed do, to make sure our school system does prepare our young people for the myriad challenges they will face in the world. There is a great deal that is already under way, a lot of good things that are happening, but there is certainly a lot of room for us to improve. I look forward to being, I hope, a positively aggressive minister in that area.

Mrs Cunningham: Positive aggressiveness is what is really needed in this province, especially when it comes to training young people. Over the last decade we have seen little movement on the part of co-operative education programs. They have increased by 33%, but that is not enough. The number of students is irrelevant. We have been taking a look at SWAP; that is, the school-workplace apprenticeship program. As I take a look at the numbers, even in the board the minister represented, he will know we have something like 42 students involved in the Toronto public and separate school boards, with one registered apprentice. We are making no headway. It has been going on for 10 years.

I would like this minister to stand today and say that, at least for him, it will not sit on the back burner for the next decade but will be up there as a priority for education of young people, along with training programs, apprenticeship programs and our competitiveness in the global marketplace for Ontario now, for this government now.

Mr Eves: Tony will have this solved by next week.

Hon Mr Silipo: I do not think I will have this resolved by next week, as one of the members opposite indicated, but I will try. Let me make this as clear as I can: I remember in one of my previous incarnations, as a trustee on the Toronto Board of Education, advocating very strongly for the action a previous minister from the Conservative Party was not taking in this area of co-operative education. I do not need to be convinced of the merits of the argument that was made.

Mrs Cunningham: What about the Liberals?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, I did not see as much action under the Liberal government. The member is quite right.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: This is an issue that concerns us all. It is an issue that my predecessor, the member for London Centre, was also quite interested in. It is something I am very interested in and I will do my utmost to ensure that it becomes and continues to be a priority for this government.

CONSERVATION

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am aware that there has been an ongoing review of the conservation authorities program over the last year. One of the issues scheduled to be discussed was provincial appointments. I recall that last year a number of these appointments were extended for one year while the liaison committee reviewed the process for making appointments. What will be the process for this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: Two weeks ago I met with the liaison committee to finalize the consensus we had reached on how appointments to conservation authorities should be made. The member will be pleased to know we have agreed to proceed with the appointments for next year. In September, advertisements were placed in newspapers across the province inviting residents of the watershed for a particular conservation authority to apply and indicate their interest in being a provincial appointee to the conservation authority. We have had an excellent response from interested individuals and I will be happy to report further when we are able to make the appointments, before January.

Mr Johnson: I assure the minister there are many interested parties in my constituency who would like to sit on conservation authorities. I will encourage them to get involved.

My supplementary follows up on another item the liaison committee has been looking at, the all-important issue of funding. Throughout the 1980s, the ministry, municipalities and authorities have struggled through numerous reviews and yet the issue of funding is still outstanding. The constituents in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings would like to know whether there has been any progress on this front.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is quite correct in pointing out that over the last few years there have been a number of reviews and studies done on the conservation authorities program and the funding and the mandate for the conservation authorities. There was the Burgar report and then the Ballinger report. They led to a lot of concern and problems. Conservation authorities did not really agree with some of the proposals made.

The liaison committee has been working very diligently with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, along with the ministry. We have not quite finalized the arrangements with regard to funding, but we are very close. We have made very good progress. At the meeting two weeks ago we agreed to meet again on October 23 to consult and review the ideas and options put forward.

I look forward to a swift completion of the agreement and to finalizing the agreement so that we will know exactly what the funding will be in order to ensure that the conservation authorities will be able to meet their mandate. I will be happy to report to the House when we make progress.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr McClelland: I think it appropriate that my question go to the Minister of the Environment. I think the Minister of Natural Resources has learned from the former Minister of the Environment about running down the clock.

The Minister of the Environment will know about recent press reports that indicate there has been illegal dumping on the Six Nations reserve near Brantford. In my view and in the view of many, that one incident is merely an indication of what is happening right across the province. An official in the ministry's Toronto west district said: "There's a tremendous amount of illegal dumping going on and there's going to be a lot more. The amount keeps growing."

The minister has known about this problem for several months. She knows there is a potential health risk, particularly when biomedical waste is involved. What is the minister doing to end that problem and deal with that problem?

Also, the minister will be aware there is a tremendous amount of dumping outside the province. She knows it has been going on for some time. Up to 500,000 tons of waste are being dumped stateside. It is disturbing to realize that the minister has allowed a method of diversion to contribute to her reduction. The gap between the minister's rhetoric and what is taking place really astounds me, particularly given the strong position she took last April, demanding that the regions within the GTA dispose of their waste within their own boundaries.

What is the minister doing with respect to existing landfill sites that are not being used appropriately? Illegal dumping is taking place. There are illegal dumps. In addition to that, the minister knows a tremendous volume of waste is being dumped in the United States. How is the minister going to address that?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the question is, what am I doing about illegal dumping? I assure the member I am very concerned about that. I agree with him that there has been a growth in illegal dumping. It has occurred because of changes in tipping fees that have taken place, without any commensurate increase in the ability of people to find sources that can reuse the material being dumped in landfill sites.

What we have done, and what I am very proud we have been able to do, is begin to put in place an integrated waste management system in this province, a system that relies on reduction and reuse and that puts in place the infrastructure where we can begin to reuse those materials that have hitherto been considered as waste, as garbage to be landfilled.

With respect to specific incidents -- the member refers to an unfortunate one recently on the Six Nations reserve -- my investigations and enforcement branch is attempting to find whatever evidence there is as to the source of that material. We will investigate and take whatever action we can to make sure those particular incidents do not recur.

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Mr White: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. There has been a report recently in a Toronto tabloid alleging that I have called for air-conditioning in this building. That is not at all true. The building of course falls under your jurisdiction.

The report further goes on to indicate that an air-conditioner fell out of a press office on the fourth floor on to my car. I and many members of the government have suffered gratuitous attacks from the press. This is not one of them. My car, although 12 years old and much abused, was not abused by an air-conditioner. The reporter involved states that a maintenance worker lost his grip. The reporter involved obviously lost his grip, because he is reporting something which has no basis whatsoever in fact. My car, though abused, was not abused by that air-conditioner.

The Speaker: I am not sure who is losing his grip. Thank you. I appreciate the point of privilege raised.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: It is a privilege to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

This petition is signed by a number of good residents of Loretto, Tottenham and the township of Adjala and my grandmother, Mrs Mary Wilson. I will continue to bring this petition to the Legislature until this government changes its mind on this issue.

Mr Beer: I have a petition from the Niagara South Young Liberals Club. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance in service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario Regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario Regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

This is signed by some 100 members of the Niagara South Young Liberals Club. I affix my signature thereto.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Carr: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens,

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs McLeod: I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign; and

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form; and

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

TOBACCO TAXES

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition that is signed by 1,247 people from across Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low and modest-income citizens,

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr80,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr86,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comite plenier.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYES)

Resuming consideration of Bill 70,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Suite du debat ajourne sur le projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

The Chair: Pursuant to the order of the committee of the whole House on Thursday, October 10, I call in the members for the deferred divisions on Bill 70. I remind members that this is a 10-minute bell.

The committee divided on sections 1 to 4, inclusive, which were agreed to on the following vote:

Les articles 1 a 4, inclusivement, mis aux voix, sont adoptes :

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre 16.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's first amendment to

section 5, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's first amendment to

section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's second amendment to

section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's second amendment to

section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's third amendment to

section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The committee divided on whether

section 5 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 5, mise aux voix, est adoptee.

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre

Section 5 agreed to.

L'article 5 est adopte.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's first amendment to

section 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's second amendment to

section 6, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's third amendment to

section 6, which was negatived on the same vote.

The House divided on whether

section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 85; nays

Section 6 agreed to.

L'article 6 est adopte.

Sections 7 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 7 a 15, inclusivement, sont adoptes.

The House divided on Mr Offer's amendment to

section 16, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The House divided on whether

section 16 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 16 est adoptee.

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre

Section 16 agreed to.

L'article 16 est adopte.

The House divided on Mr Sterling's amendment to

section 17, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The House divided on whether

section 17 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 17 est adoptee.

Section 17 agreed to.

L'article 17 est adopte.

The committee divided on Mr Arnott's amendment to add

section 17a, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 17a est rejetee.

Ayes/pour 16; nays/contre 85.

The committee divided on whether the bill should be reported to the House, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi devra fait l'objet d'un rapport.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

A la suite d'une motion presentee par M. Cooke, le comite plenier de la Chambre fait rapport d'un projet de loi sans amendement.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYES)

Mr Mackenzie moved third reading of Bill 70,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

M. Mackenzie propose la troisième lecture du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The detailed analysis of Bill 70 by this House sitting as the committee of the whole is now completed. When it is passed, Bill 70 will establish the employee wage protection program. I can tell members I am proud to have been the Minister of Labour who has introduced and shepherded Bill 70 through the House and through the standing committee on resources development, where the parliamentary assistant played the major role.

The employee wage protection program, which has received great praise from all corners, is designed to protect workers by helping them recover unpaid wages. Current bankruptcy laws in Canada consign workers to the level of unsecured creditors, which means they are usually among the last in line to collect when their employer is bankrupt or insolvent. Bill 70 has been designed to address this unfairness. Once it is in operation, the employee wage protection program will provide a statutory mechanism to allow workers to collect money they have worked for in good faith and are unable to recover through other means.

There are many workers in Ontario who have become victims of their employers' failure to pay, mostly due to the effects of the current recession. Last October the Premier announced the government's intention to establish the employee wage protection program. Since then the employment standards branch of my ministry has received more than 17,000 claims for compensation for wages owing. These 17,000 people are relying on us to help them recover the money that is rightfully theirs. They must rely on us because they have no other alternative.

A few weeks ago the standing committee on resources development reported back to the House on its hearings into Bill 70. The report included amendments that the government had put forward to address some concerns voiced by business and the not-for-profit sector about the liability provisions for directors and officers.

We have amendments to enhance the guarantees of a more efficient appeals process. While we want to be sure that the program pays out money only in cases where there are valid entitlements, we do not wish to tie up employers, directors or employees in lengthy and protracted appeals procedures.

I would like to assure the members of this House that we are actively working with our federal counterparts to harmonize our program with the federal proposal once its long-awaited Bankruptcy Act amendments are passed. Workers who need this assistance will be able to access it easily without undue complications.

We can now proceed with third reading and proclamation, and once the employee wage protection program is operational, workers will have the security of knowing that the money they earn will not be lost due to circumstances beyond their control. I want to thank the members very much for the assistance to individuals.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Are there any comments or questions on the minister's remarks?

Mr Sterling: I only have two minutes but I want to participate in the third reading debate. I want to ask the minister if he would confirm the calculations I have now made of the amount he will be transferring to the federal government as a result of this legislation.

I understand from what his officials have said and what he has said in the House that the average claim -- I wish he would pay attention, because I am asking him a question -- is $4,200, that the number of claims is 18,000 to date, that the number of claims due to bankruptcy and receivership is 66%, as noted by one of his officials in committee, that the percentage of claims that are termination and severance pay is about 90%, as estimated by him. That adds up to $75,600,000.

When we calculate 90% of the $75 million, it equals $68 million; 66% of the $68 million equals $45 million; the UI system pays 60% of an employee's wage and when this is factored in the net amount the provincial government will be transferring to the federal government as a result of Bill 70 will be $27 million because of the clawback provisions of our UI system.

Would the minister confirm that this figure of the amount of money his government will be transferring to the federal government as a result of Bill 70 is about accurate under the present laws of our country and our province?

Mr Bradley: I wanted to have the opportunity to indicate to the minister, hearing his statement on third reading, that this bill has gone through quite a ride over the past several months.

When the legislation was first introduced, it provoked among the population of Ontario, particularly those who were involved in businesses of any kind, a good deal of opposition. I think a consensus of the people of Ontario would be that it was a valid concern that was being expressed by many people who were going to be placed in a very vulnerable position, that in fact the original bill would have had the effect of driving business out of Ontario and discouraging new people from putting new investment into our province.

The minister will face the charge by some who are on the other side of this issue that he is backsliding. He will be said to be in full retreat. He will be accused of having capitulated to the major business and commercial and corporate interests of Ontario by many who have been his strongest supporters.

But the recognition, obviously, of the government is that we must have a favourable climate for business in Ontario. So the retreat in which the government has been involved in this bill is one, in my view, that can be justified. As I say, the minister will have a difficult time because he has a long tradition in the trade union movement. Perhaps even some of his caucus will have been concerned about this particular retreat on the part of the government, this backsliding, as some might say.

I think it is a situation that has resulted in a better bill coming before the House, a bill that has a much broader base of support in this province than the one originally brought forward. That of course is the way the Legislature and the legislative process should work.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There is no clawback as such, but if the federal legislation, as we now understand it, makes them secured creditors, then they would have no claim on our money at all and there would be no payback to the federal government. If it is UIC that we are concerned about, there could be a delay before the money is paid out if they have collected severance pay and termination pay.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to rise and participate in this third-reading debate. I know there is some agreement as to when a vote is to take place, but I believe that as we are here today, there are some things that must be said.

The first thing that must be said is that this is a bill that started off, as its principle, with the protection of people who are the victims of the recession. As a result of the severe economic downturn, of the number of bankruptcies, insolvencies and the number of places that closed their doors, people who had worked all their lives, who had never, ever been out of a job, had never missed a paycheque, now found themselves without work and without any real opportunity. This bill had as its genesis the stated desire to meet those needs.

This bill was announced to be forthcoming last October. This bill was not forthcoming in October or November or December or January or February or March. The government did not bring this bill forward until the last session. Though we had second-reading debate in the last session, we were only able to deal with the bill through the public hearing process and through clause-by-clause deliberation in this session and in the last recess.

This is in many ways the very earliest opportunity we had to deal with some of our concerns, some of our attempts to make this a better bill, a more balanced bill, a bill that not only met needs of those people who were the victims of the recession, but the needs and the concerns of many people who came before our committee process.

It is, at the outset, somewhat disappointing for me to have seen the government, in its participation in the process, not accept an amendment by either of the opposition parties, amendments that I believe were well-thought-out, that were balanced -- I speak from our caucus's point of view -- and that did not erode the rights and privileges of those who were the victims of the recession.

To put the bill in some context, we have to recognize that the bill was first announced, in terms of its intention, at the very same time the government announced it was going to allow Varity to leave this province, that it was going to allow Varity to move down the highway to Buffalo and allow a lower employment level.

Those who are aware of the transaction between the government of the province and Varity recognize that there were guaranteed employment levels in the understanding. In fact, the government not only allowed Varity to leave the province, but allowed those particular employment levels, in the depths of the recession, to be reduced. It was at that point in time that the government announced it would be bringing forward a bill to deal with those people who were the victims of the recession.

We waited for this piece of legislation while the recession raged in Ontario, while bankruptcies were at an all-time high. As we stand here today, almost 300,000 jobs have been lost in this province. The jobs lost are not of a cyclical nature where people who are laid off are going to be recalled. Over half of those jobs that have been lost have disappeared, and those people who maybe in their lives were never without work now have a more difficult time finding work.

We have all recognized the need to make the province more competitive, to send out a positive message to business, to send out a message to our small business person that this is a place where he can open up, where he can create wealth, where he can expand and create jobs. There were opportunities as we went through the deliberations in this bill to deal with those types of concerns, to deal with the concerns of those people who came before the committee to talk about how we could send out a more positive message to the business community.

We have to recognize that when the bill was first introduced major concerns were voiced, concerns that the bill in its first incarnation carried the liability for both directors and officers of corporations, and that personal liability to those individuals was not limited to wages and vacation pay but also to severance and termination, and thirdly that there was in fact a non-exclusion; in other words, non-profit corporations and charitable corporations were included.

There was great and grave concern about what this meant to those people, to those officers, to those directors, to those non-profit, charitable organizations, volunteer associations across the province, all of which are vibrant and running within our own constituencies