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

June 15, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

EVENTS IN CORNWALL

RABIES

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

ACADEMIC STREAMING

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

SENIOR CITIZENS

ENVIRONMENT AWARDS

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, 1992

SOCIAL CONTRACT

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

RACE RELATIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

LANDFILL

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HEALTH EDUCATION

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

TAXICABS

GAMBLING

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

ROSALIND BLAUER CENTRE FOR CHILD CARE ACT, 1993

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the table count for a quorum, please.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN CORNWALL

I would also like to highlight the 11th annual multicultural festival, which will be held on June 27. Despite financial constraints that had threatened the survival of the festival, I am happy to announce that the 1993 gala of food, music, dance and crafts will proceed with the special assistance of the Cornwall Rotary Club.

This year's exhibition is shaping up to be a great success. I invite all members to join me, the leader of our party and the people of Cornwall and area to visit the civic complex in Cornwall to treat themselves to a multicultural festival beyond compare.

And for the eighth year, Cornwall will host a festival of traditional dance and theatre from July 7 to 11. Worldfest/Festimonde involves international performers. Its popularity has caused the event to grow steadily from what was a three-day, six-country exhibit in 1985.

I am proud to represent a part of Ontario that honours not only Canada's founding cultures but also celebrates the people who have chosen it as their home. Any member of the public looking for a fun holiday should consider taking in one of these activities.

RABIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the House and the Minister of Natural Resources of the problem the people of Grey are experiencing with the spread of rabies.

Rabies is a viral disease which attacks the central nervous system. It is spread through saliva, usually through an animal bite, and will kill all affected mammals.

I have received several letters and calls from constituents who fear for the lives of not only their sheep and cattle but their children and their household pets.

The incidence of rabid foxes, skunks and raccoons is on the rise in Grey, and something must be done. I understand that a very successful bait dropping program has been in effect in southeastern Ontario since 1989 and that ministry officials are so pleased with the results that they have prepared a proposal for cabinet's consideration which would expand it to other affected areas of Ontario.

At the present, Mr Minister, your officials tell us that the province is presently spending $25 million a year for case investigation, diagnosis of rabies, livestock indemnity and human vaccinations. We feel that the prevention of the disease would cost no more. I urge you to consult with sportsmen's clubs, which would be delighted to assist you in this endeavour. This partnership with sportsmen and environmentalists would result in the desired elimination of this spreading disease and would greatly ease the concern of farmers who live in constant fear that their livestock and their families are in danger.

I would ask the minister to thoroughly investigate this situation as quickly as possible and press for cabinet approval of your staff's plan to help those desperately in need of it.

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): The Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County is proud to present the Carrousel of the Nations 1993. The carrousel takes place in various locations scattered throughout the city of Windsor. These locations of course deliver food, fun, entertainment and cultural displays.

Multicultural is the meshing and sharing of cultures and ideas with others, meant to open doors to new and diverse worlds. These worlds are filled with exciting foods and displays one is normally not exposed to.

The Carrousel of the Nations is the formulation of years of hard work and perseverance by hundreds of volunteers in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex. These volunteer workers work hundreds of hours to put together what amounts to a city-wide entertainment network.

Last weekend was the first weekend of the Carrousel and the beginning of six days of celebrations among all the races. The menu is as varied as the locales. The food fair will delight and tempt everyone. There's German food, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Polish, Italian and dozens more. This weekend, the culture of India will be situated at St Clair College, Greek at Holy Cross Church on Ellis Street East and Filipino at 935 Northwood Drive in south Windsor. The hours are Friday, 6 pm to 1 am, all the way through Sunday, noon to 10 pm. There are Carrousel passport guidebooks, discount coupons and special lottery numbers for fantastic prizes.

The Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County invites everyone to visit all these exciting villages. We celebrate 20 years of racial harmony. The slogan: "Emphasize our similarities; celebrate our differences."

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House and the people of Ontario the work that this government, and in particular the Minister of Natural Resources, is doing to fundamentally dismantle and abandon the provincial park system.

The provincial parks and natural heritage policy branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources has become the latest casualty of this government in the chaos that it euphemistically describes as management. Under the new and improved Ministry of Natural Resources, responsibility for provincial parks management and policy has been divided and absorbed into different sections of the ministry. This sends a clear signal to Ontarians about the government's lack of commitment to our provincial parks.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has condemned the rationale provided by the ministry for this reorganization. In a letter sent to the minister dated June 10 they state, "The effects of this latest shake-up have dealt what appears to us to be a mortal blow to an already weakened provincial parks system."

Mr Speaker, 1993 marks the 100th anniversary of the provincial parks system in Ontario, a system that started off with the creation of Algonquin Park and has since grown to include 260 parks covering 63,000 square kilometres throughout our province. The NDP has chosen to celebrate this significant milestone by radically and fundamentally altering the provincial government ministry that is responsible for planning and managing these important natural and recreational areas.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. Recently I have received approximately 100 letters, most of them addressed to the Premier, from young students in the gifted program at Churchill Heights Public School in Scarborough.

As a result of this government's destreaming initiative that will place all students, regardless of ability, in the same class, these students and their parents are concerned that the Churchill Heights gifted program may soon be eliminated.

I would like to take a moment to read to the minister a few sections from some of the letters.

Steven Abra writes: "This is my first year in the gifted program and I find it much better than the normal program. Last year I found the work very boring and I didn't concentrate on my work very much."

Rex Lam writes: "The gifted program has given me benefits: the challenge of climbing to the top of the class to gain more skills. In my old school I did not have any challenge."

Prasanna Kirupa writes: "In my former school I would finish my work quickly and I had to wait for others to finish. Now I have more fun learning with my new peers."

Minister, are we not striving for excellence for our education system? Do we want to challenge our students so that they will want to learn more, rather than becoming bored and withdrawn? These students will be denied a gifted program when they enter grade 9 because of your education policies. Is it fair? Isn't our education system supposed to provide opportunities for all of our students? Have you studied the success of the special education initiative, Bill 82, for both advanced and learning-disabled students, all students with special needs, before you change the policies that are working in Ontario today?

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Ontario is at last beginning to recover from the worst recession in my lifetime, certainly the worst recession that all but our senior citizens have ever seen. But in spite of all the initiatives undertaken by our government -- investments in housing, infrastructure and training -- this recovery has been painfully slow in getting on track. I feel that the one group -- small business -- that could do the most to get the economy moving has been held back by the very institutions that should be providing help, and those are the banks.

We all know that small businesses are collectively the largest employers in Ontario. They are the men and women with a dream, a product, a service, and the determination to get things done. But they are starving for capital. At a time when low interest rates can help them to expand, to take on additional staff, the banks have been cutting back on their credit lines and have been making it harder for small businesses to get loans.

Recent amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act by the federal government have increased the willingness of at least one of the major banks to expand its funds available to small businesses, but more, much more, needs to be done. We all realize that banks are governed by federal regulations and there's a limit to provincial action in this matter; however, at the very least we can speak out and urge the banking industry to play their

part in helping to get Ontario back to work by helping small businesses.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): In my previous responsibility as Liberal critic for Colleges and Universities, I tried valiantly to get clarification from the ministry on how Ontario student assistance is distributed. Although the former minister did write me a lengthy letter last fall, my constituents are far from assured about the fairness of the system.

What they're concerned about is the apparent arbitrariness of the approval process. They have seen too many cases where seemingly well-off students receive OSAP,

whereas others in less fortunate circumstances are refused. Surely it should be possible to publish a booklet that would detail the guidelines used by the ministry and give some easily understood examples of how all of this works. This is what I suggested to the minister, and the minister noted my advice with interest, but that was the extent of his action.

I call on the new Superminister of Education to do better. Ontarians have a right to judge for themselves whether or not they or their children qualify for OSAP support. At least, they should be able to get a reasonable explanation from the ministry why they were refused. It's simply not good enough for ministry officials to say, "We know best."

My constituents and I are still awaiting the publication of a well-prepared booklet that details the OSAP approval guidelines for the public.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The month of June is dedicated to recognizing the significant contributions made by our senior citizens. It is also a time to pay tribute to those whose efforts on behalf of Ontario seniors have increased the quality of life for all seniors.

I should like to acknowledge my constituent Phyllis Hawkins, whose efforts to meet the varied needs of Burlington seniors earned her an Ontario Senior Achievement Award. Jane Leitch, the president of United Senior Citizens of Ontario, has advocated effectively on behalf of seniors. When faced with the NDP cutbacks to seniors' health care benefits, Jane has been in the forefront with her recommendations on how the government may save money through ways other than the unilateral cutting of seniors' programs. Certainly at no other time in Ontario's history have good advocates on behalf of seniors, like Jane, been needed more.

In Halton, a first-of-its-kind program was developed involving the Halton Regional Elderly Services Advisory Committee, the Halton Regional Police and the OPP, called Seniors and Law Enforcement Together. The SALT initiative takes aim at reducing elder abuse through partnership with seniors, police and the community.

Many seniors' seminars are also being held this month where seniors can learn about how best to deal with specific problems and how they may obtain improved access to needed resources. I am pleased to say that my colleagues Jim Wilson, Bob Runciman, David Turnbull, Charles Harnick, Don Cousens, David Tilson, Chris Stockwell and others have joined with me in promoting such seminars in their ridings.

On behalf of Ontario's seniors, I urge the NDP government to reverse its trend of the cutting and delisting of seniors' services and benefits. During Seniors' Month, let's reflect on the fact that we have an obligation to value our seniors and that they should be able to live with the kind of dignity, respect and security that is their inalienable right.

ENVIRONMENT AWARDS

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It is with great respect and pride that I rise in the Legislature today to congratulate a number of Canadian environmental groups that were recently honoured in Washington.

Members of the Legislature will likely be aware of the US-based Citizens' Clearing House for Hazardous Waste, headed by Lois Gibbs, the famous environmentalist who successfully fought the Love Canal 10 years ago. Her organization acts as a central organization for a tremendous number of environmental groups, local to international, to distribute and share important information and to communicate with each other in the whole area of the environment.

Recently in Washington, the Citizens' Clearing House honoured 14 Canadian environmental groups for their victories and constant efforts promoting a clean environment, protecting public health and safety and advancing the goal of environmental justice for all people. Ralph Nader, the well-known consumer advocate, and Lois Gibbs presented these Environmental Justice awards.

I am proud to announce that of the 14 Canadian awards distributed, 8 went to citizens in my own riding of Halton North. There is a strong environmental movement in my riding, and I believe the rare and natural beauty of the Niagara Escarpment in my riding has a major role in attracting many of those who dedicate their lives to defending the integrity of the environment.

A number of the groups and individuals honoured by Ralph Nader and Lois Gibbs were ICE, Incineration Counteracts the Environment; FOAD, Furiously Opposed to Acton Dumping; HELP, Halton Environmental Land Protectors; Envirowatch; Dr Leonard Landry; Diane Van de Valk; and Rita Landry.

I trust that all members of the Legislature will join with me in honouring these deserving groups and individuals dedicating their lives to protecting the environment.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER, 1992

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, for the period covering January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to refer you to page 24 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly,

section 32(a), where it reads:

"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 time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes" etc.

Recent events caused me some concern and I would just like, as a part of this point of order, to refer back to comments by the honourable House leader in referring to ministers within the government who sit as ministers without portfolio. I would quote the Honourable Mr Charlton from the April 20, 1993, Hansard: "Ministers without portfolio have been specifically assigned responsibilities for which they have sole carriage."

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Who is the real House leader? Will the real House leader stand up or sit down.

Mr Mahoney: Is the Treasurer having an apoplectic attack? What seems to be the problem?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: I know life is not easy for you these days.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Mississauga West address his point to the Chair.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am wondering who the House leader is these days.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm being interrupted, as so often happens when I try to raise a valid point in this place.

Anyway, that is the point that I make on behalf of the honourable House leader, Mr Charlton. Then it goes on to quote the Premier on that same day in response to a question, where he says:

"So I want to say to the honourable member, the purpose of having larger ministries, of having ministers which in other governments are called ministers of state or associate ministers or ministers delegate, which they are in France or in Germany or in England or in any other place you want to look at, the determination was to have a cabinet which would be smaller, that is to say 20, but a ministry which would be made up of the ministers who are there.

"The ministers without portfolio who are working within ministries are working in association with the minister. They are taking" -- and then there's an interjection. It so happens it was by me, where I say, "That's one of the PA's jobs," and the Premier goes on to say:

"The member opposite shouts and says, 'That's a parliamentary assistant's job.' It is in part, but it is a position that carries with it, obviously, more experience and in which it is possible for that minister without portfolio to carry on a significant job for the government."

My point of order in reference to

section 32(a), regarding the factual statement of the minister, would relate to the recent resignation by the junior minister of Health, the member for Perth, and the statement by the Premier that the minister, among other ministers without portfolio, is there to carry on a significant job for the government. My point of order is that we would like to know what the significant job was. We would like the government to tell us who in fact will be carrying out the member's significant job on behalf of the government. In relation to

section 32(a) --

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West will know that he does not have a point of order. However, it sounds as if he may have material for a question during oral questions, which comes along in a few minutes.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to sections 32(

a) and (

b) of the standing orders, which read:

"(

a) 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.

"(

b) The time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes without the unanimous consent of the House."

Mr Speaker, yesterday and in the six days immediately preceding that, a decision has been made by the government which affects every community in Ontario. The mediator, Dr Graeme McKechnie, has presented his report with respect to negotiations between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. His recommendations are precise and full and suggest that a joint committee --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. I ask the member to take her seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member will know she does not have a point of order. There is nothing out of order. Would the member please take her seat.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, the ministry yesterday --

The Speaker: I ask the member to please take her seat. I must caution the member that if she remains out of order, she will be named. The member does not have a point of order. She knows full well that ministers have the opportunity to make statements; there is no obligation on ministers to make statements.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My privileges have been breached because, as Health critic, I've had no information from the Minister of Health. The public's privileges have been breached because they have had no information from the Minister of Health about a singularly important aspect of government policy which is being unilaterally introduced, the mediator's report unilaterally dismissed, and at the same time --

The Speaker: Would the member for Halton Centre please take her seat. She will know that she does not have a point of privilege but, as with the member from Mississauga West, it sounds as if she has material for question period. It should be a lively question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today will be to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario.

The legislation that this government presented in this House yesterday may be the worst piece of legislation that any of us have ever seen. This government is so desperate to pull something out of the disaster of its social contract talks that it is now ready to impose arbitrary conditions on an absolutely unworkable process, and it achieves not one of the goals that the government itself set out to achieve.

I want to start with the fact that this legislation sets up the government to meet its budget target by deferring the bulk of the cost to some time in the future, some miracle year when supposedly there's going to be lots of money to pay the bills and this government won't be around to deal with the problem.

The legislation very specifically states that if employees are required to take special leave, in other words, unpaid leave instead of their normally paid holidays, the employer will grant an equal number of compensating days to these employees some time in the future. That means up to 36 days of paid leave will be owed to every employee affected.

I ask this Finance minister, in the name of fiscal responsibility, how can you possibly defer these kinds of costs to some time in the future? Have you looked at how many people will be affected by this special category? Will it be all teachers, all hospital workers, ambulance drivers, policemen, firemen? Have you even begun to look at the future cost impact of what you introduced yesterday?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the opportunity to clear up the misinformation put forth by the leader of the official opposition.

The leader of the official opposition would recognize surely that simply the imposition of, for example, 12 mandatory days off in a given period of time in some essential services would not provide the flexibility of scheduling in those essential services only that the legislation recognizes and provides for. I think, just to put things in a bit of perspective, that the leader of the official opposition is trying to paint a picture in which this would apply to the entire public sector in the province. That's simply not the case.

But we wanted to make sure that in cases of essential services -- it might be jail guards or ambulance drivers -- it would not be appropriate not to provide that kind of flexibility within the legislation so that scheduling could be done in an appropriate manner.

Mrs McLeod: That, as the Treasurer well knows, is no answer to the serious question I asked. The question was, how much will it cost, who will it affect and how much will some future government have to pay for this government's sheer stupidity? This is nothing more, this particular clause, than a feeble attempt at appeasement. It is one of a great number of tortured ways the government has used in this bill to avoid calling a spade a spade.

Let me give you another one. This is a wage rollback bill. It is a temporary three-year wage rollback, but it is a wage rollback. You disallow negotiated wage increases. You require people to take unpaid leave if that's necessary to meet your budget targets. That, by any other name, is a wage rollback. I ask why you refuse to acknowledge that you are indeed rolling back wages. Why do you keep pretending this is a wage freeze? You know; you've said it yourself; the Premier said it: A wage freeze is not enough to get you the dollars you need. If you're going to bite the bullet, why don't you bite it and stop trying to avoid it by simply deferring horrendous costs to some time in the future?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure what the leader of the official opposition means when she says that this is an attempt to appease. Appease whom? I don't know what she's talking about. As far as the language is concerned, what we said from day one was that there must be roughly a 5% reduction in public sector compensation. That's not using avoidance words. That's not pretending it's anything other than that. What we said was that we wanted to achieve expenditure reductions of $4 billion, public sector compensation reductions of $2 billion, and then there was going to be a tax package in the neighbourhood of $2 billion.

If the leader of the official opposition is saying, "You must not do that to the public sector, what you must do is increase taxes by more than $2 billion or reduce expenditures by more than $2 billion," why won't she bite the bullet and say what she really means?

Mrs McLeod: It is smoke and mirrors, and less than being directly up front with people, to try and lull them into believing that simply a wage freeze is enough to achieve your budget targets when you know very well that is not the case. I would say that this bill puts forward other tortured proposals to try and create another illusion, and that's the illusion that you're giving people job security as a tradeoff. No one really believes that this is job security when you put in place a job security fund for laid-off workers.

But what is even more frightening is what you have previously proposed for the redeployment of workers, what you refer to in your legislation simply as something called "sector redeployment," which is going to be further defined, we assume, by regulation in the secretive way this government chooses to operate.

In the appendix to your last offer, and this is why we're concerned, the government said that employees who are being supported by the job security fund must accept a job for which they are qualified -- in another piece of legislation this would be called deeming -- and employees furthermore will be eligible for similar and related employment within a reasonable geographic area both within and between sectors.

I say to you that this would be a nightmare. I want your assurance that you will not, through a regulatory process which we never see, put this kind of a nightmare into place.

Hon Mr Laughren: Once again, I think the leader of the official opposition is reading something into this legislation that's not there.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Firstly, we don't trust you, Floyd.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm just saying to the leader of the official opposition that I believe a job security fund and redeployment among sectors is to the benefit of people in the public sector. That's why I think it's terribly important that there be sectoral funds, sectoral agreements, so there will be an understanding that if an employee is laid off in one institution, for example, there will be an opportunity for that person to be employed in another institution, because some institutions will be expanding, some will be contracting and so forth.

I think, to be fair, the redeployment language which was at the social contract table, I might add, as well, is something that is of potentially enormous benefit to employees in this province and, quite frankly, important in the restructuring of government all across Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the minister that I only hope people listen very carefully to what he just said because it is absolutely, completely unworkable. I am even more alarmed than I was before I asked the question that this is exactly the direction this government is going to take. If this government set out to create the most cumbersome, unworkable, irresponsible legislation it could possibly devise, it has certainly been successful in that one respect, at least.

Last week, the Premier said, "Comprehensive solutions will not work." He said he had heard that message from both employers and employees. He heard it eight weeks too late, but at least he finally heard it. We thought that the legislation you were bringing in yesterday would finally open up local negotiations to achieve the financial targets that you put in place. Instead of that, we have an unbelievable process that is not even going to be able to get off the ground. Let me just describe it.

You have put in place the process of sectoral negotiations that have to lead to agreements, that meet government's conditions and then get the minister's approval, we assume yours, although that's not even specified. Then you have to have local negotiations to reach 9,000 local agreements that fit with the sectoral agreement. Then there is an appeal and a sort of arbitration process if employees feel they have not been dealt with fairly, and all of this has to be done by perhaps August 10 at the very latest.

I ask you in all seriousness, do you really believe this can work? Has anybody over there ever negotiated a collective agreement?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would say to the leader of the official opposition that any number of my colleagues on this side have individually negotiated more contracts than every member on that side combined, I suspect. Lots of our members have done that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: It doesn't take much to tease the bears today, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Gee whiz. I would say to the leader of the official opposition that the legislation does indeed allow for individual agreements at the local level. It encourages sectoral agreements, because we think that in the long run that's much better and allows for redeployment to take place across the sector and so forth. If anything, this legislation both encourages and provides an incentive for agreements at the local level and for sectoral agreements as well.

It seems to me that's a responsible way in which to encourage people to reach an agreement. At the same time, we recognize the fact that this may not happen, just as it didn't happen at the social contract table, and because of that we need legislation that says that if this is not achieved by August 1, then the legislation takes effect. I think that's the most fair and reasonable way in which to proceed.

Mrs McLeod: I actually did make an assumption that there were some people over there who had some idea of what it takes to reach an agreement. That's why we cannot understand how you could put this absolute insanity into legislation. The fact is that I just don't think there are any longer any really constructive or workable ways to get us out of the absolute mess that this government has created.

We supported your need to find $2 billion in cost reductions in public sector compensation. We said, "Set your financial targets, negotiate with your employees to achieve those targets, and give other employers and employees the tools that they need to achieve the goals you set." Instead of that, we have had eight wasted weeks of a social contract circus and the situation now is made even worse, which I hardly thought was possible.

Why did you have no faith that people could actually find better ways to meet the financial bottom lines that you put in place? Why did you not give local negotiations a chance to work?

Hon Mr Laughren: Now let me get this straight. I want to be perfectly clear. I don't want to misrepresent her position, because I think I've found one. The leader of the official opposition says that she and her colleagues support -- I presume this means the entire Liberal caucus, including the House leader -- the target of $2 billion, support the target of achieving that $2 billion in public sector compensation, support our attempts to get it through the negotiating process. I think that's what I heard her say.

Mrs McLeod: No, a basic difference: not your attempts; they're disasters.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, so now wait a minute. Now she's not supporting the attempt to get it through negotiations. So presumably she has now bought into the Mike Harris bang, bang, bang way of achieving the reduction targets.

I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that while the social contract table didn't work, I will never regret for one moment our attempt, a serious attempt, to achieve the reductions through collective bargaining, because I think that was worth the effort even though it failed, and we feel so strongly about it that we're willing to give it another six weeks, till the end of July. I don't see why that's such a ridiculous proposal. Perhaps you don't have the faith in the exercise that we do, and I don't expect you to have, but if we're able to achieve an agreement worked out by employees and employers, then I think that's the best solution.

Mrs McLeod: It is exactly because I had faith that people could work out better solutions than can be imposed by this government on 9,000 collective agreements that I said in April, before you ever devised this social contract nonsense, that this government had two responsibilities. The first was to bring in a realistic and responsible budget that would set financial targets, and the other was to negotiate with its own employees for whom it was responsible to negotiate. You never even began to put in place a process like that which had a hope of working from the beginning.

That is why I am just so totally frustrated today that after all the time and all the anguish, we are actually now, in June, in mid-June, further behind than we were eight weeks ago.

I just say to you, Minister, that these are critical times, that people are frustrated and anxious, that we desperately need strong leadership in this province, that we needed strong leadership last fall when you knew your budget was in trouble and did nothing about it, and we needed strong leadership even more when finally you convinced somebody that you had to deal with your deficit problem. We still need it, and I wonder when we are going to get leadership that deals with reality. When are we going to get some leadership that works?

Hon Mr Laughren: I gather rhetorical questions are in order today. That's certainly what that was.

I would say to the leader of the official opposition that we did bring in a budget that set targets. We did that. We did set up a negotiating process with our employees. That's what you're now saying we should have done, and we did it. We did it for about eight weeks. The fact that it didn't work surely is a separate argument. Negotiations don't always come to a successful conclusion. I hope you appreciate that.

The leader of the official opposition is saying she doesn't like what we did and what we're doing, but she hasn't told me what it is that she would have done. I suspect that if the leader of the official opposition were standing over here now, she'd do what they did between 1985 and 1990: raise taxes, spend more money, layer program on top of program on top of program.

For the first time, there's a government in this province that recognizes the problem and is dealing with it head-on and is not running away from a difficult problem. We're dealing with it.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance. For the past eight years, you and the Liberals have increased the size and the scope of government to the point now where we just can't afford it any more. The costs are out of sight; the size is beyond our ability to pay for it. Finally, it's become so obvious even to you that you've had to do something about it, and we see the social contract legislation.

The problem is that you've still missed the point. My leader has made it very clear that he and our party will amend your legislation, because it is not about downsizing government, it's about downsizing Bob Rae's political baggage, if anything. So I ask you a very simple and straightforward question: Why is there nothing in your legislation to encourage your transfer partners to downsize? Why is there nothing in this legislation to act as an incentive to limiting the size and scope of government?

Hon Mr Laughren: The purpose of the legislation is to reduce compensation in the public sector, and as part of the whole process -- I think the member for Markham would understand this -- we are encouraging early retirement, voluntary exits. As to the broader public service out there, the reduced expenditures have already taken place, in one sense, in our expenditure reduction program, which was $4 billion worth of downsizing out there, if you will, and now we are taking $2 billion more out of public sector compensation.

I know the Conservative opposition would opt for a much tougher position on slashing programs and jobs in the public sector. I understand that. His leader's been very clear on that. What I think we've done is to take a very responsible position by raising some taxes, by reducing expenditures and by reducing public sector compensation. I think that's a much more reasonable solution and it protects jobs and services out there all across the province.

I can tell the member opposite that if he thinks he can simply wave a wand and reduce expenditures without affecting the services that people out there want, he's sadly mistaken.

Mr Cousens: The last thing we need is to have you telling the Conservatives what our policies are. We've had enough difficulty getting you to come to the realization that you've got a problem. You've finally realized it, but for you to come along and say that we have policies to axe and tax the way you are doing, you're absolutely wrong. Our policies don't begin to do the long-term damage you're talking about, but you have not begun to address the long-term solutions. What you've got is a short-term fix to a long-term structural problem.

At the end of three years, the government will be the same size, if not bigger, than today. In 1996, employees who have taken a wage freeze for three years will be asking for large increases to make up for the freeze, and for those employees who banked their vacation time because of enforced unpaid time off, government may have to make massive payouts or be saddled with unmanageable amounts of time off.

Can you tell those of us who come to clean up the mess three years from now just how much your short-term fix will cost Ontario in the long run?

Hon Mr Laughren: The exact opposite is the case. What we've done on the expenditure reduction side is to take out $4 billion in expenditures. That becomes annualized every year, in the form of reduced expenditures every single year. On the public compensation side, the $2 billion in expenditure reductions is not a one-year program; it's not a deferral of public sector compensation. To answer the member directly, this is a long-term solution to expenditures in the province and to public sector compensation so that we can put the financial house of Ontario back in order for the first time in a long time.

Mr Cousens: I don't think you're reading the same legislation that we are, because what you're saying is 12 days off this year, 12 off the next year, 12 off then, and then what happens? They're all going to be wanting their time off and they're back into the whole long-term problem again.

Structurally, you have not begun to deal with the long-term problem. What you're doing is short-term, it's panic-driven, it's nothing more than a fix to '96. You're grasping for anything to help meet your targets, regardless of the long-term effects.

The Premier himself has said that the wage and price controls imposed by Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s led to a catching up by the unions in the 1980s. That's what ultimately was destructive to the economy, and it forced prices up.

I ask you again, how can your plan work? It's so full of short-term approaches rather than a long-term structural reform of the government.

Hon Mr Laughren: His own leader, rather than taking a long-term, responsible, reasonable approach to the problem said: "Go get 'em. Bang, bang, bang." You tell me that's responsible and a thoughtful way of downsizing the public sector in this province? Absolutely not.

I can tell the member opposite, if his colleague behind him will stop frothing at the mouth, that what we've done is to downsize the public sector, reduce compensation in the public sector, and if you'll read the legislation, you will understand. I think you're making the same mistake the leader of the official opposition did: that the deferrals to which you refer deal only with difficult situations with essential public services, not for the public sector at large.

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. You're the minister who's responsible for overseeing the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. I will tell you that the Interim Waste Authority has recently asked Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways to provide quotes on the construction of necessary rail infrastructure to ship waste to each of the sites identified as the potential landfill sites in the greater Toronto area regions.

Are you aware of this request by the Interim Waste Authority, and do you support it?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The answer to the first question is yes; the answer to the second one is, I'll wait to see what the results might be.

Mr Tilson: As you're no doubt aware, the Canadian National Railway has been working with other interests to have Metro's waste shipped to the abandoned Adams mine site outside Kirkland Lake. This system is already in place, the rail line is already in place, the infrastructure is already there.

Obviously, the recent proposal by the Interim Waste Authority to consider shipping waste by rail from Toronto to Georgina will require major investments and construction at a time when this province can't afford them. We have your Treasurer on the one hand saying you're going to cut civil servants, and on the other hand you're saying you're going to build a new railway.

The IWA has already spent some $30 million, as of the end of April, on a questionable process. How can you possibly justify spending more money on new railway lines when you already have a complete system in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't justify it; it wasn't my idea. Any suggestion that will be considered will have to be considered by the IWA very seriously before coming to any conclusions as it might relate to any particular site that might be chosen, and then if it is part of a proposal that is decided upon by the IWA through its thorough process, it will be subject to the environmental assessment process. All of those processes will determine whether or not they are economically, environmentally and socially acceptable.

Mr Tilson: You know, the difficulty is that you say you didn't. Of course, your government was the government that created Bill 143, and that was the start of this whole process which simply is looking at the superdumps in the greater Toronto area and not looking at anything else, notwithstanding that there's an area that's prepared to consider the long rail haul.

Your essential assumption behind Bill 143 was that communities will not initiate the 3R activities with a distant landfill site, if it's located beyond its immediate region. That was your essential assumption. The record of the city of Seattle, as I'm sure you are aware, totally destroys your theory. This city has one of the most progressive waste reduction programs in North America. While the target you announced several weeks ago was 50% diversion by the year 2000, Seattle has achieved 60%, yet all of this is being accomplished while it's sending its waste to a site 325 miles away from the city.

The system is now in place to consider sending waste by rail to Kirkland Lake --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Tilson: I'm asking the question, Mr Speaker. Why will you not allow this to be compared to sites selected in the greater Toronto area? Why will you not allow the site in Kirkland Lake to be considered by the Interim Waste Authority?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is fully aware that I've stated and the government has stated clearly that if a proponent wishes to initiate an environmental assessment on any proposal with regard to any site, whether it be rail haul or otherwise, they are welcome to do it.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Deputy Premier should be aware of the increased activities of hate groups across the province. We've seen a recent spate of violent, racially motivated criminal attacks, which has heightened the concern in all segments of our society. The people of this province want to know what specific plan is in place to deal with increased racial tensions and to protect those innocent citizens who have been victimized by these hate groups.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): The Attorney General is not here today, nor is the Minister of Citizenship --

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): We know that.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'll let me finish. One reason they are not here is that they are at the anti-racism round table, which for the first time is allowing people to have direct access to political decision-makers in this province. I think that's an important initiative, and those are the kinds of issues they'll be dealing with at the round table.

I agree with the member for Scarborough North that there are no more important issues than the ones he is raising in this regard, and I'm hoping that some of the advice that will come forward from the round table will be helpful.

Mr Curling: I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the Deputy Premier and the apologies for all these ministers not here, but all they do is talk the talk and never walk the walk. We have more discussions going on and groups getting together to find out what we should do. These groups want to know, what action are you taking, Deputy Premier?

Three groups had press conferences today: the B'Nai Brith, the Human Rights Commission and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. They're appealing to you, appealing to this government to live up to some of the promises -- not the talk, not the rhetoric, not the apologies that they are not here, around a round table, because it doesn't solve racial problems in this province.

These groups suggested that this government has not committed enough resources to deal with hate literature and hate groups. Furthermore, they are calling for amendments to the Human Rights Code that would facilitate the commission's ability to deal with hate literature and hate groups. They were promised some time ago that you would have dealt with this issue. When are you going to act and stop talking?

Hon Mr Laughren: Normally the member for Scarborough North is very fair in his comments, but I really think he's being unfair in this regard.

One of the signals that has come to us from the individuals most affected by racism or hate literature has been that they want to be part of the decision- making process. They want to have input into the way in which we should address these very serious problems.

I'm not sure whether or not I heard the member for Scarborough North saying that he didn't approve of the anti-racism round table process, because I think he's wrong: People all across the province who are most affected by racist tactics are the very ones who are endorsing the whole idea of a round table. All wisdom does not reside in government, and I think it's a very good process to have direct input from people who are most affected by the problems to which the member refers, and I know the Attorney General is herself dealing directly with these problems at the round table.

So I hope that the member for Scarborough North will allow us that, that at least we're trying to do something about it and we're meeting directly with people who are most affected by it.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Etobicoke West.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Stock -- that's me -- Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Finance minister. This piece of legislation, apparently your piece of legislation, has been pretty much universally condemned as being chaotic and incomplete. The unions don't like it; your alleged partners don't like it; there appears to be diminishing support within your own caucus, as every day we hear of a new member who's gone astray.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Every day?

Mr Stockwell: Well, every day: It's only been out for a couple and you've lost two, so I can only say "every day."

In a matter of seven months you're asking municipalities to compress cost-cuttings for a full year. For 5% wage rollbacks it means they're going to have to look at an 8% to 10% wage rollback. For one person laid off they're going to have to look at two people laid off.

Your partners have said that this is going to cause a chaotic situation in the municipal sector, in education, in the hospitals. We're not talking about not cutting a lawn one day, we're talking about not doing open-heart surgery.

Can you not understand the chaotic mess that you're going to create if you continue down this single-minded, error-prone road? Would you please contact your partners and meet with them and decide exactly how much of an impact this is going to make on them and possibly rethink the position of this government?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I knew that when the leader of the third party was absent today the member for Etobicoke West would have a chance to ask a question, and I welcome him.

It's the first time I've seen the Tory opposition in this House question the need for expenditure reductions, so I'm not sure what the member for Etobicoke West is saying.

On one specific point he raised, however, such as the municipalities attempting to achieve reductions in the balance of the fiscal year, I indicated yesterday, and certainly the municipalities know this, that while there's only from now till the end of December for the calendar year, there is from now until the end of next March for our fiscal year, and that is the year in which the savings must be achieved, not necessarily in the fiscal year of the municipalities or our other social partners out there.

I disagree with the member for Etobicoke West that there's only a half a year left in the fiscal year in which to achieve these savings. There is most of this fiscal year to achieve the savings.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Minister, we're not opposed to cost reductions. We've never suggested we're opposed. You see, the difference between this party and yours is, we're in favour of planned, reasonable, acceptable cost reductions that the partners understand and the community accepts. That's the difference. What you have done is create a complete and utter mess, an incompetent piece of legislation, and suggesting that we're not in favour of reductions compounds your problem, because you have no friends left. You may as well cultivate the few you potentially have.

I say to the minister, we are not opposed to the processes. We understand that if they're going to get these cuts in place, the best they'll do is September 1. We know an August 1 deadline can't be implemented till September 1. Take your fiscal year, and there are only seven months left. Now, be straight with the people. Be upfront. If you're going to make cuts in seven but you insist on a full year, if you still have this disbelief you're going to get your $2 billion, then tell your partners outright that for every job they lay off there are going to be two; for every 5% rollback --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- it's going to be 10%; for every pay pause day it's going to be two; and three years out, whoever sits on that side of the House is going to be faced with a huge, huge bill from your short-term fix for '96.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Stockwell: Be frank and upfront, Minister. You can't possibly tell me you can save 12 months' worth of saving in seven and not have a chaotic --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Stockwell: -- painful mess out there.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll pretend I heard a question in that rant. First of all, it's reassuring to hear the Tory party call for central planning in the province of Ontario. The next thing they'll be calling for are five-year plans.

The member for Etobicoke West, my friend, should understand that the reductions to our transfer partners out there don't start in October or September or August; they start on July 1, and the fiscal year ends next March 31. That's not five months or seven months; that's almost the entire fiscal year. So I wish the member for Etobicoke West would stop trying to frighten people out there --

Mr Stockwell: When's the deal?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West, all I'd ask him to do is sit down and think about it. July 1 to next March 31 is the length of time during which the savings must be achieved.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is for the Minister of Health regarding the right of psychologists to admit patients to Ontario's hospitals. As you are aware, psychologists have provided services in hospitals for 75 years and have been a regulated profession for 40 years. They have a high level of training and education and play a unique and vital role in our hospital system in promoting wellness.

Under the Regulated Health Professions Act, psychologists have the right to diagnose and treat mental disorders, yet psychologists do not have the right to admit patients to hospitals, even though studies show psychological intervention reduces costs through a decreased length of hospitalization. In cases where a psychologist has an acutely suicidal patient, that psychologist will have no right to admit a patient to a hospital.

I would ask you whether you are considering implementing a necessary change to allow psychologists the right to admit their patients to hospitals and when psychologists can expect your decision.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I've had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the profession and I understand the vital role that psychologists play in the hospital system. I have to say in response to the member's question that the decision about hospital privileges for the professions, particularly those under the Regulated Health Professions Act, is going to be part of the ongoing review of the Public Hospitals Act.

As the member is aware, there has been some consultation around some changes to the Public Hospitals Act. We are currently reviewing feedback from those public hearings, which were held across the province last summer. I must also say to him that the matter of practice privileges is a broader issue than just hospital privileges and requires more study of both policy and legislative implications.

Mr Winninger: Do you have at this time a definite time line for consideration of the recommendations being made on the basis of your public consultation and, in the meantime, what are we to tell the psychologists with regard to their consumer-based desire to gain the admitting right for their patients?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm afraid I can't at this point give the member a definite time line. As I said, there has been consultation around the Public Hospitals Act. We are currently reviewing that, and I would certainly hope that before the end of this year we might have some amendments in the House. But it is a broad issue and an issue that will require some considerable consultation both with this profession and with other professions before we come to a definitive conclusion.

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Last month you released a regulation ostensibly to deal with substances that critically damage the ozone layer and threaten human health as a result. Your regulation includes hydrofluorocarbons, which have absolutely no ozone-depleting potential -- in other words, they pose no threat to the ozone layer -- but excludes halons, which are used in fire extinguishers and which constitute as much as 40% of ozone-depleting substances.

Why have you chosen to ignore a major source of ozone-layer destruction and include instead one that poses absolutely no threat at all?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member for his question. He will know that when I made the announcement I made it clear why we were including what we did, beyond CFCs themselves. He'll also know that I announced that we will be dealing with halons this fall, and we will have a regulation to deal with the spray elements and the uses in things like fire extinguishers and so on this fall, so that by the end of the year we will have a regulation that will cover 100% of the ozone-depleting substances.

Mr Offer: There's no question that the regulation that has been introduced by the minister involves a substance which has no ozone-layer depletion effect whatsoever and excludes one that does.

Parents are concerned about the amount of sunlight they and their children receive. There is widespread concern about direct sunlight. Children do not go out of doors now without hats, without sunblock. This past weekend the ultraviolet radiation levels were as high as 8.4 on the UV scale.

When can the people of Ontario expect your government to take concrete action in protecting their health and their environment through regulating all sources of ozone-depleting substances in the province and excluding those substances which have no impact on the ozone layer whatsoever?

Hon Mr Wildman: I can only conclude from that question that the member didn't listen to my first answer. I told him that we would have regulations dealing with halons this fall, so that by the end of the year we will have 100% of ozone-depleting substances covered by the regulation.

We all share the concern about UV exposure in sunlight, and the concern is shared by all members of the House and all who are concerned about the environment. That is why we are moving so quickly to have such a comprehensive regulation that will be the leading regulation of all jurisdictions in North America, and I welcome the member's support for our efforts.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The municipalities are still totally confused by your announcements on the social contract, but I must say they are still trying to help with your deficit. You have said to freeze wages. Most municipalities have already frozen wages. You have said to have the employees take a day off without pay.

There will be no negotiated agreements before July 1. There will be no negotiated agreements before August 1. As a matter of fact, before it gets implemented, practically it could well be September 1. That will leave the municipalities with either seven or eight months by the end of March that you've indicated as their deadline. There won't be enough months to make the savings. There will have to be layoffs.

What the municipalities would like to know is how much do you expect from the municipalities, how much of a cut will they have to take, not only by the end of your fiscal year, but they need to plan on their fiscal year. Will you tell them how much will they have to cut by the end of their fiscal year, which will probably be about three or four months after this has been legislated, December 31, 1993?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): To the member for Don Mills, I think it's a fair question. Each municipality will receive, probably tomorrow -- the letters have been approved already -- from the Minister of Municipal Affairs a letter which provides to it its reduction target, not only its own but everyone else's as well, every other municipality's as well, because I think it's appropriate that they see the whole picture of other municipalities. It has been indicated to them that the transfer reductions will take place and that they will be encouraged to work out whatever system they can.

I don't know, quite frankly, whether or not there is going to be a sectoral agreement in the municipal sector. I can't answer that question. But I do believe that through a combination of the freeze which will be dropped into place, if it's done voluntarily or through the legislation, along with numbers of days off, it should look after the bulk of the problem. I have never said, nor would I say now, that I don't think there may be some layoffs associated with this exercise; that is, it is conceivable that there will have to be some.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is my hope that will be minimized.

Mr David Johnson: In your response you continue to put a great deal of emphasis on the days off, the pause days, although the municipalities, in my estimation, will have only seven or eight months to implement that policy. The problem is that municipalities have different areas of jurisdiction. For example, in day care and homes for the aged there are legislated staff complements. They cannot have people take pause days. They must have staff in place.

There are essential services -- the police. I understand from your previous response that these are not all of the public servants across the province of Ontario, but we are talking about thousands and thousands of people in legislated areas. In essential services there are 6,000 police officers in Metropolitan Toronto alone, 72,000 pause days, about $14 million a year worth of pause days.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr David Johnson: What do you expect the municipalities to do in those situations? Do you expect them to bank those days for three years? What is the cost? What sort of cost have you estimated that the taxpayer will have to pick up after three years, the burden on the taxpayer at the end of the social contract?

Hon Mr Laughren: There's no question whatsoever that as we go about this exercise of downsizing government and of reducing expenditures in the public sector through compensation, days off and so forth, it's going to be felt at the local level in the delivery of services. There's absolutely no question about that. People must understand that when they call for lower expenditures, cuts in government, that's what it translates into at the end of the day. There is no avoidance of that. There is no easy way out of that.

All I would say to the member for Don Mills is that it's going to require employees and, in this case, municipal employers to sit down and work these things out in the most creative way possible. If the member is asking me what's going to happen in 1996, I think at that point there already will have been a freeze, presumably for three years.

At that point the days off to achieve the overall public sector reduction targets will have been achieved and municipal governments, as the provincial government, I hope, at that point will have gone through a restructuring exercise that will allow them to deliver their services in a more cost-efficient and effective way.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. As you may be aware or not aware, on Saturday, June 5, several hundred Georgina residents came to Toronto. They walked from Nathan Phillips Square to Queen's Park to a rally.

The community is united behind an environmental group called GAG, Georgina Against Garbage. They held the rally here in Toronto to make the people of this city aware of the garbage crisis. They have very many concerns, and so do I, about the Interim Waste Authority process, the potential damage to the local community up there and to Lake Simcoe.

If you were to drive down Woodbine Avenue -- and I invite you to take the trip some time -- you'd see many signs along the side of the road. In fact there's one every 20 seconds as you drive which shows how many trucks will be going down it.

My question is, will the IWA take a look in consideration of the huge potential negative impact the truck traffic will have on the local environment as well as the wellbeing of Lake Simcoe?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The answer is yes.

Mr O'Connor: When you take into consideration the distance between downtown Toronto and that remote community that I represent up in Georgina, it's a huge distance. What I want to know is, will the IWA take seriously in the selection criteria, the process, this whole distance, because it's a huge distance?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I know of his concern as well as his constituents' and I appreciate the fact that he has raised this matter so vociferously on behalf of the communities in his riding, particularly Georgina, over the last number of months.

Obviously the IWA, in choosing sites, will have to take into account questions of transportation. We had an earlier question during question period on this today. The decisions with regard to truck traffic, which are very important to the people of the area, as well as the quality of Lake Simcoe, will be central to deciding how a site should be selected. The IWA will take those matters into account in choosing a site.

Then again, whatever site is chosen, as I've said so many times in this House, will be subject to a full environmental assessment, and questions of transportation, truck traffic, dust, noise, effects on the local communities and environmental effects on water quality will be matters which will be central to any environmental assessment.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. A few days ago I asked the Premier a question about wasteful advertising expenditures to advertise the budget. The Premier admitted that you are wasting over $300,000 of taxpayers' money on NDP propaganda in several major newspapers.

Today I have yet another example of wasteful expenditure and wasteful spending habits. It seems that you have distributed yet another piece of advertising on the budget which proudly advertises a 1-800 number that people can call for answers about your budget. When people call this number, they're simply referred to the federal government. How can you justify a 1-800 number, costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, that simply refers them to the federal government?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm not aware of the 1-800 number the member refers to, but the publication she's holding up is not a government publication. It is in fact a caucus publication.

Mrs Caplan: The number advertised in this piece of advertising is the budget hotline number. When a constituent called that number to ask about provincial income tax increases in your budget, to her utter amazement she was referred to the federal Department of Revenue. She was just told, "Call Revenue Canada," and she was shocked.

You have provided, at taxpayers' expense, a 1-800 number designed to answer questions about your budget, yet when people call, they are simply referred to Revenue Canada. I say to you today -- you're always asking for good ideas -- why don't you simply scrap this number and in your self-serving advertising put the number to the federal government directly? Why have a 1-800 number that simply refers people to Revenue Canada? Will you scrap this 1-800 number and simply advertise the Revenue Canada number and save the taxpayers of Ontario hundreds of thousands of dollars of waste?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think I could deal with a number of the issues the member has raised here. I want to start out by making it very clear -- because the member implied in both her original question and her supplementary that we had wasted government money on the publication in question -- it is not a government publication.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the specific number the member is referring to. She obviously says it's a Ministry of Finance number. I'm prepared to look into that matter. I would assume it is a number that deals with questions associated with the budget and specific tax matters in the budget. However, the member will know that any publication put out that's intended to provide people with information sometimes has to provide people with information from other levels of government as well as this one.

PETITIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Yesterday I had the opportunity to present a number of petitions from the Sir James Whitney School in Belleville, being from students, parents, teachers and members of the union at that school. Again I would like to present this petition today which consists of in the range of about 1,500 people who have signed it. It reads:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education proposes to substantially modify the provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled by either downsizing, closing parts of or restructuring the schools, resulting in significant hardship for students, families, employees and the local community, for the purpose of saving money; and

"Whereas the Sir James Whitney Parents' Association believe that quality education delivered today within the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled provides the lowest total-cost option available while allowing deaf students to wholly develop within their own culture and to receive the best education possible,

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

"

(1) Maintain the current provincial schools for the deaf and learning-disabled until an acceptable model from all interested parties has been developed; and

"

(2) Empower local boards of trustees, as set out in model 5, to manage their own budgets within ministry guidelines and funding."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HEALTH EDUCATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that's signed by some 400 people from my part of Simcoe county. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Toronto Board of Education is already endangering the health of children, discriminating against heterosexuals by distributing the dangerous and heterophobic sexual orientation guide as well as the so-called AIDS education flyers which condone and recommend buggery and teaching that anal sex with a condom is safe; and

"Whereas the Education Act guarantees the right to withdraw from instruction that is in conflict with the religious belief held by a student, guardian or parent,

"We demand that the Ministry of Education immediately prohibit any instruction in the school system that offends against the Criminal Code or conflicts with the personal values and beliefs of most people, including the teaching of homosexuality, any homosexual counselling and any homosexual hotline service in the schools or promoted by the schools and the distribution by any person of so-called AIDS education flyers."

This is signed by some 400 people from Collingwood, Stayner and throughout my Simcoe West riding, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition that contains the signatures of 26 constituents from the St Catharines-Niagara area, and it relates to casinos. The "Be it resolved" reads:

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

'Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

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

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 440, employed at the Brockville Jail, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it, and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I have affixed my signature in support.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition that adds some more signatures to the thousands that we have presented against casino gambling in the province of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I am very glad to affix my signature against this terrible bill.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Mr Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, members of the executive branch cannot read petitions into the Legislature, so I have been asked by Frances Lankin, the member from Beaches-Woodbine, to enter this petition on behalf of her constituents:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That read on behalf of Frances Lankin, Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by several of the good parishioners of Trinity St Andrew's United Church in Renfrew, which petition begs the government of Ontario to cease all moves with respect to establishing gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

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

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That has 200 signatures on it, from Chapleau to Bobcaygeon to Picton, all over Ontario, and I've signed it.

TAXICABS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I too have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, Metropolitan Toronto electors, being persons involved in the taxi industry, hereby petition the Lieutenant Governor to investigate or cause an investigation into the activities and the relationship between the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Metro council, its legislation and licensing committee of Metro council and the Metropolitan Licensing Commission."

There are about 100 signatures, and it's the second of two that I'm introducing.

GAMBLING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I also have a petition, from a number of residents in the Erin Mills community of Mississauga West which reads:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): To the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government has decided to discontinue funding education programs at the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to seriously consider reversing your decision to close the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology."

This is a matter of great concern in my riding and it's signed by some 222 concerned constituents in my riding. I have affixed my signature thereto.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here from 63 residents of the city of Niagara Falls asking that Bill 164 be withdrawn.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994,

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

"To reverse the decision to close the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory diagnostic lab located at Centralia's campus."

I have signed the petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition from the constituents of Etobicoke West and surroundings, as well as the constituents from Etobicoke-Rexdale and Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mr Mahoney: What about Etobicoke Centre?

Mr Stockwell: No, it's federal, but Mississauga centre. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly and Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship" -- due to this government -- "high unemployment" -- due to this government -- "and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases" -- specifically due to this government, I might add parenthetically, as my friend from Scarborough does -- "and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums," -- and that's not debatable -- "for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," -- and it's very simple --

"That Bill 164" -- and it's this simple so they'd understand it -- "be withdrawn."

I will sign my name to this and hopefully get it entered in to the Clerk's table.

GAMBLING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

This is signed by about 27 constituents of my riding, and I have signed this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I am signing it as well.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition from the riding of Timiskaming.

"To Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren, Minister Buchanan:

"We, the undersigned, request that you seriously consider reversing your decision to close the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology."

I'll sign this.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ROSALIND BLAUER CENTRE FOR CHILD CARE ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Haeck, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Rosalind Blauer Centre for Child Care.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr80,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 4:

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on June 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 1993, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the House leader have any introductory remarks?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Yes, I do, thank you, Mr Speaker. In moving this motion, I want to note just a few things for the House that I think become important in terms of how we deal with and consider the questions that will face us, both over the course of the rest of the next week and a half and any time beyond June 24.

The members opposite will know that although we haven't debated a motion to sit beyond June 24 yet, I have tabled that motion and in my discussions with the House leaders opposite I have made it very clear that the government has a priority legislative agenda and that we intend to finish that agenda during the course of this spring session.

We have had a situation since the beginning of this Parliament, for the last two and a half years since the election in September 1990, when the behaviour of this House in terms of its attention to legislation has changed quite dramatically.

I made reference both during a debate on a time allocation motion a week and a half ago, and provided some further information last week on a similar debate, about time spent on legislation in this House. We have heard a number of accusations from the opposition on a fairly regular basis that changes to the standing orders of this House that were implemented last year about this time have gutted the democratic process. But the reality is that the members opposite, both the members of the official opposition and the members of the third party, have been and are still spending more time debating legislation than has been true in the history of this Legislature.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Charlton: Facts are facts. Some of the members across the way say, "Oh, Brian," but facts become facts.

I talked a week and a half ago about the amount of time that was being spent on third readings, and I talked last week about the fact that overall, in general, on every single piece of legislation we're now operating at 240% of the norm, the tradition in this House.

The members across the way like to talk about the traditions in this House, and the traditions in this House have been, throughout all of the 16 years I've been here -- at least until recently -- that opposition members debated at length on particularly controversial pieces of legislation, they debated at length on those things around which they had very primary fundamental disagreement with the government direction, but for the most part, as to the government's right to govern and to implement administrative and policy and program changes, although opposition has commented, it hasn't used all of those pieces of legislation, on a consistent, ongoing, repeated basis, to tie up movement of government programs through the Legislative Assembly.

Interjection: What about the budget, Brian? One day.

Hon Mr Charlton: A member opposite is again referring to time for budget debate. I have said, and I will repeat here this afternoon, that if the members of the opposition want to have extensive time to debate the budget, this government House leader is prepared to see that they get that when they're prepared to bring the time spent on average legislation in this House back down into a normal domain.

As I said a few moments ago, for two and a half years now this House has been operating, in terms of debating time on legislation, at 240%, 2.4 times the amount of debate on each and every single piece of legislation that the traditions of this House would indicate. That doesn't say to me that members are just taking up their normal right to speak, express their opinions.

That says to me that when you look back over a decade or 15 years or 20 years and find that the old norms, the old traditions, held and held well, in fact the members of the opposition are abusing the debate process in this House from the perspective of a very intentional tactic to slow down the government legislative agenda.

This government is not going to put up with that any longer. Even with all of the rule changes that occurred last year, rule changes which, as I said a few moments ago, members across the way would suggest have gutted their right to speak, they're still speaking at 2.4 times the rate on every piece of legislation than what has been the norm. Now, in any democratic parliamentary system, there should be a right to speak. There should be a right to be heard. But that right to speak and that right to be heard, when it becomes consistently a tactical abuse, has to be dealt with.

One of the reasons why the rule changes were made last year and one of the things that could drive this government, or any other government for that matter, to consider further rule changes and further restrictions on the practice in this House is that continued abuse of time in this House, both on controversial legislation and on non-controversial legislation.

But, more importantly, one of the reasons this Legislature has always had among the most small-l liberal rules in its standing orders, one of the reasons this Legislature hasn't proceeded as quickly as others to toughen up the rules, to restrict members by standing order and set-out procedures, is because traditionally the House leaders' process in this place has worked.

It has worked because, when I was in opposition, along for a time with Liberals and along for a time with Tories, the House leaders sat down with the government House leader and, yes, took tough positions on controversial, fundamental legislation around which there were differences, but also facilitated in a significant way the passage of non-controversial government legislation.

The reason I raised two weeks ago what has happened with third reading debates is because third reading debates become a very important reflection of what's gone on here for the last two and a half years. I'd like to repeat some of those figures so that perhaps they can start to sink into some members' heads.

From 1981 till 1985, during the last Conservative administration, the average time, although it varied from session to session -- in the first session of that Parliament, the average time spent on third reading was four minutes. In the second session of that Parliament, the average time was 10 minutes. If you'll recall, Mr Speaker, because I think you were here at that time, that was 1982, the year in which we had a number of very controversial pieces of legislation, and even with that, we only got up to 10 minutes average time spent on third readings.

In the third session, 47 seconds was the average time, and in the fourth and last session of that government, an average of three minutes was spent on third readings.

Now, it is true that during the Liberal years -- not all of five of them, because for two of those five years we had a minority government and an accord between the official opposition and the government around a number of issues, so obviously there wasn't the same level of debate that occurred in those two years. But for the three years from 1987 to 1990 during the Liberal administration, in the first session of that Parliament, we spent an average of seven minutes on third readings. In the second session of that Parliament, we spent an average of 15 minutes on third readings.

Again, Mr Speaker, you were here and you will recall that in that last session before the 1990 election, we had a number of very controversial pieces of legislation, including the Liberal auto insurance legislation, which for many of us became a quite famous and memory-burning piece of legislation. But even with those controversial pieces, we only achieved an average of 15 minutes for third readings.

During and throughout this entire Parliament, we have seen a continuous escalation of opposition tactics against government legislation that is, in my view, beyond the call of anything reasonable or acceptable. In the first session it was 48 minutes, on average, for third readings. In the second session that jumped from 48 minutes to an average of 122 minutes, on an average debate on an average bill, on third reading, and in the current session we've jumped to 171 minutes, on average, debating third readings.

Mr Speaker, that doesn't reflect a set of standing orders and rules in this place which is slowing down or restricting, silencing opposition members. That in fact reflects the opposite, which I've suggested to you, which is an intentional abuse of the process of this House by opposition members.

When we take into account first reading, second reading, committee stage and third readings, on average, uncontroversial legislation and controversial legislation, we're now operating at 240% of the norm. I repeat that that is unacceptable to this government. It is happening, though, because the House leaders' process has failed.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Get a new House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: One of the opposition members, in fact the chief whip, would suggest that we should get a new House leader. My response is that the members across the way had either better get a new House leader, give some direction to the one they have in terms of normalizing the process in this House, or have to face, somewhere not too far down the road, further rule changes.

As I've said on a number of occasions, and I'll repeat it again today, this government has a legislative priority agenda. We have some two years left to complete that agenda. We can no longer afford to continue to bump dozens of pieces of legislation from one session into the next.

I have said before in this House, and I want to repeat it again this afternoon, that this session will continue until our legislative agenda is complete. This House will continue to sit. A number of opposition members approach me daily trying to find out when we're going to get out of here, and I want to suggest to all of the opposition members that we're going to get out of here when the members across the way come to their senses and start dealing with legislation in a responsible and reasonable way.

None of us likes sitting late in the evenings, either. The motion we're dealing with here today will have us sitting late tonight and for the next eight evenings. We will sit late because the opposition has made it necessary for us to sit late, and we will sit past June 24 if the opposition decides to make us sit past June 24, and we will sit past July 1, because we will proceed to finish the government's legislative agenda.

And if we can't re-establish the tradition of this House around a useful, workable House leaders' process that can help us in a reasonable and effective way to deal with the orderly business of this House, albeit from time to time there will be controversial pieces of legislation around which the opposition feels a need to have a prolonged debate -- that's not unacceptable, but it is unacceptable on every single piece of government legislation -- we will either re-establish a reasonable process around here or we will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The last time I dealt with the issue of rules of this House, I was certainly exercised and not in the same jovial mood I'm in this afternoon, I must say.

I always find it difficult when the government House leader, who always has to be a heavy, is in the House threatening the opposition with what's going to happen if the opposition isn't compliant.

By the way, if the government House leader feels he must leave for other business, I won't be offended when he leaves, because I know he'll read the full Hansard of all my remarks.

What I want to indicate, first of all, is the cooperation of the opposition in this regard. It's difficult for ministers and members of the House to have to sit well into the evenings when they have already been at meetings all day.

I should point out, for those who might be watching this program, that many ministers are starting at 8 o'clock in the morning at some of their meetings. To go through right to midnight is a very compelling

schedule and very difficult, so I wonder why the government House leader would want to torture his colleagues within the cabinet in this regard. But they are bears for punishment, I suppose, and will continue to work hard. I do want to indicate that they work very hard. I've always supported the considerable pay that members of the cabinet get, which is over and above the rest of us in the House, particularly those who have special responsibilities, because it is a very onerous task.

I want to deal with a couple of issues that this particular motion permits me to. First of all, I don't know that legislation gets the kind of intense scrutiny that it should in night sittings, but it does allow the opportunity for more people to be able to speak on the various bills that come before the House.

I expressed a great concern last year when the Premier rammed through the House, with his majority, some rule changes that were certainly contrary to what he stood for in his entire life in both the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislature, but we have seen 180-degree turns by the Premier on many occasions so I suppose nothing should surprise me today.

What does surprise me is that the Premier has abdicated his position this week, a very important week for the government. The Treasurer, now called the Minister of Finance, had to bring a very important bill in. Today there were some significant questions directed to the government, and of course the government caucus meets on Tuesday morning.

I would have thought it would have been appropriate that instead of hobnobbing with the Rhodes Scholars -- I know he's a Rhodes Scholar and I congratulate the Premier on being a Rhodes Scholar -- he should have been in this House answering questions and being with his caucus, to assure them of some of the difficulties they'll be facing and that he believed these difficulties could be overcome.

I have objected strenuously to the Premier's absence from this House on many occasions. I've done so -- this gets into the issue of why we're sitting at night -- because the House never seems to sit. I point out to members of the House, who may not recall this, that the House sat on December 10, 1992. The next time it sat was April 13, 1993. That's over four months that the government did not have this House in session.

That meant that the Premier and members of the cabinet could avoid the news media, who line up outside the Legislature each day to ask questions, and, of course, avoid the kinds of questions that come not only from members of the opposition, but I've heard some sharp questions that have come from members of the government, who are obviously feeling heat on certain issues at home and want to bring to the attention of the ministers the concerns that are being expressed by the people there.

So I must say that I think it's unwise for the Premier to be down in Washington. If he wants to go to Washington in the summer and talk to those people or in the winter break, that's fine. I think he has a role to play; I don't deny him that opportunity. I just think it would have been wise in these times of crisis that the Premier not simply leave it to the Treasurer, who's a very capable individual, and a few other ministers to carry the game in the House while he heads to Washington on so-called more important business.

Perhaps it's just an opposition point of view, and I have no statistics to substantiate this, but it's an observation that we seem to have a lot of absences of ministers. Now, ministers have a lot of things to do and some ministers are quite faithful in their attendance in the House.

I must give them credit for that, because I know the many responsibilities that they have, but there seem to be more absences than usual and again, perhaps that's just an observation because I'm now on this side and see that and because I have a special responsibility as deputy House leader to arrange question period and I see that there are several ministers absent from time to time, but I always felt, particularly with the House sitting as few days as it does, that it would be nice to have the ministers here for not only the members of the opposition but members of the government to direct questions to them.

One of the reasons we may be sitting at night is because the government wants to bring in legislation which is clearly contrary to established NDP policy. Two I think of; one, for instance, is the -- and I have a piece of information that will be useful a little later on in my discussion, provided by the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell. But I do want to say that perhaps it's Sunday shopping, perhaps it's casino gambling that will consume some of the time that this House will be spending on legislation.

I would not have thought there would have been a need for either bill because I clearly listened to the Premier during the last election campaign and I have his speeches in the Legislature on this and I was certainly supportive of his position on this when he said that he didn't want to have a wide-open Sunday in the province of Ontario. But we're going to have that as a result of the Premier's initiative.

Second, I happen to know that one of the strongest opponents of casino gambling has traditionally been Premier Rae. He is now, if not -- I can't say complicit in -- he is the initiator, as the Premier of this province, of casino gambling, something which the NDP has stood against for years. Mel Swart, the former NDP member for Welland-Thorold, who will be celebrating very soon his 74th birthday in the town of Thorold, on Richmond Street where he resides, is a person I know who would be opposed both to the position of the government on Sunday shopping and the position of the government on casino gambling.

I think one of the reasons we're sitting at night is so we can put these bills through. That's most unfortunate because I agreed with the original NDP position on both of those particular issues, that of casino gambling, which I think is not in the best interests of the province of Ontario, and of course Sunday shopping or a wide-open Sunday, which the NDP used to stand against.

I want to indicate, as well, that I note over there some signs of dissension, and that's perhaps normal when there are some difficult circumstances facing the government. I happened to have a chance last night to watch on television the comments of the present member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos, who is not complimentary of legislation that was brought in by the government. I think Mr Morrow as well had indicated his disapproval. Both of them are carrying on in the tradition of being frugal.

I remember when there was the retreat at the posh surroundings of Queen's Landing in Niagara-on-the-Lake; I even went down there to see it. I went down to see it because I had read about it in the newspaper and had seen it on television, and they kept saying this place was posh. So I went down, I drove past, I encountered one of the cabinet ministers in the street, asked this person if it was as posh as everybody said it was. He indicated clearly to me that they had a special deal and it wasn't posh and that there was no need for Mr Kormos and Mr Morrow to be having a brown-bag lunch in the lobby while everybody else ate caviare, whatever it was they had, in the establishment itself.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): It wasn't caviare.

Mr Bradley: I'm told it wasn't caviare. Mrs MacKinnon, the member for Lambton, says it was not caviare, so I will take her word for it, because she is a person who does not try to betray this House in any way. I'll take her word for that.

I see that there is considerable dissension. I understand why. Perhaps those people are annoyed that they're going to have to sit at night when they had many obligations back in their own ridings. For instance, I know that OPSEU and other public service unions are holding rallies and other meetings back in the constituencies. I wish I could get back to some of those meetings so I could discuss with the brothers and sisters the problems that exist with this government, because I know that many of them worked very hard to unseat the previous government and elect this government.

I think they probably thought that with the number of people who came from public sector unions who are sitting in the government caucus this time, they could probably count upon this government to at least be fair.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been in this House eight years now. I always know that the member for St Catharines has very valuable comments to make.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Your point of order, please.

Mrs Marland: My point of order is that I think it would be to the benefit of more members to be present to form a quorum in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. The honourable member for St Catharines can resume his participation.

Mr Bradley: I thank the member for Mississauga South for her kindness in attempting to ensure that there are sufficient people in this House.

The report that the government House leader always gives out -- and there are certain news organs that take it as said, that print verbatim the government line, and others that do not. But the line that they will put out in this case is that the opposition is delaying all this legislation and if only they could get it through, all would be fine. What has to happen, as you understand as a long-time member of this House, Mr Speaker, is that the government has to actually bring this legislation forward.

Very often there are some relatively minor bills that can be processed in this House very quickly. They have the consent of the three parties, perhaps a few very brief remarks from representatives of each of the parties and they can pass. What the government does is it hides all these bills in the background and then tells the people in local municipalities that these bills will never pass because the opposition's holding them up. But I'm sure there would be acquiescence to allow these relatively minor bills, if only the government would bring them forward. They seem to bring bills forward at the very last minute for consideration.

I'm awaiting the casino gambling bill. I wish I had more than 30 minutes to speak on it. But Bob Rae has limited my ability to address an issue of that importance to some 30 minutes. I wish there were more flexibility. The Premier, by bringing in his rules, has almost ensured that the opposition takes 90 minutes, as they are entitled to, as their initial remarks on any particular bill. Subsequent speeches are usually 30 minutes.

In the past, my recollection has been that in this House members have spoken less than that on bills which were not particularly significant to them. But there seems to be an obligation now to speak at length because of the rules that happen to exist. I think those rules were ill-conceived. They were ill-conceived for a few basic reasons.

They limited the amount of time that members of this House can address important legislation and issues of the day. What reminded me of this was the constitutional debate, the referendum debate that took place in this House. I refused to take 10 minutes to speak on something of that importance and instead yielded time to one of my colleagues so that it could be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.

If we had the flexibility, I think we would find that members of all sides would be able to participate in a more meaningful way. But the rigid rules that the Premier has set ensure that there are going to be some lengthy speeches when we don't always want to have those lengthy speeches.

The government wonders as well why some lengthy debate does take place. I submit to the House that some of the legislation -- not all of the legislation, but some of the legislation -- submitted by this government is clearly at odds with what the majority of the province believes. This is essentially a group of people who are very committed to their cause, or have been in the past until reality has changed a lot of that, but essentially I always looked at the NDP as a group of people who are very committed to specific causes which had the support of perhaps 20% or 25% of the people in the province.

So when you bring forward controversial legislation, you must expect that there's going to be considerable debate on it. It will still carry. The government has a majority. The government was legitimately elected as a majority. There are people now who complain, "Well, the government got just under 38% of the vote." Those were the rules of the day when the government was elected. Nobody said, before the election, anything about those rules. So if they didn't like them before and they don't like them after, it's too bad. The government was legitimately elected and can pass legislation.

I'm simply suggesting that debate in this House should be meaningful, that it should move the government to make some changes in its legislation to make it more acceptable to mainstream Ontario.

I look at the attitude of the Premier to the Legislature. I was always a person who, from a distance, admired Bob Rae when he was in the federal House. He had the quick turn of phrase, he was the darling of the news media, particularly the CBC, in Ottawa when he was in Ottawa, and he was quite articulate. He was described as articulate and bright and so on and a fresh face on the scene, and indeed, when he was in Ottawa, I think he maintained that reputation throughout.

Well, he came to Queen's Park -- and it's a different venue; I understand that -- and was not quite so successful, but was still considered to be a member of this House who had principles and who stood for parliamentary democracy. That is why I found it so annoying and so disappointing and discouraging when we had the new rules of the House implemented last summer which in fact limited the role of members of this House.

What it did, and why I remain annoyed about those rules, is that it really gives power to the people who sit under the press gallery. These are people who are not elected. At least the people who sit in this House, whether one agrees or disagrees, are people who are directly accountable to the electorate in their particular constituencies and therefore tend to reflect the views of people in those constituencies. The people in the constituencies, rather, can get at these people. They can't get at the brains trust in the Premier's office, they can't get at the brains trust in the ministers' offices, but they can get at those of us who are elected members.

That is why I was particularly annoyed that we saw these changes. They took power away from the Speaker, they allowed ministers, almost at will, to dictate how much time would be devoted to each of the bills. I know there are government members today who will no doubt like to speak at some length to the legislation the Treasurer introduced just the other day because they will want to debate fully the ramifications of that legislation, either to defend it or in some cases to be critical of it.

I heard a threat at the last minute from the government House leader, the kind of threat one doesn't like to hear, because he said in effect, "If you don't behave now, if you don't behave the way we want," then there's a veiled threat of some new rule changes, not just the ones that exist now, which are draconian enough, but new rule changes which will further limit the role of individual members of this House, particularly those in the opposition. And when this government goes back into opposition, if the electorate chooses that to be the case, they will find themselves very restricted in their ability to carry out their responsibilities as elected members.

I wanted to leave some time to my colleague the member for Mississauga West, who indicated I should stop at 1:18, which is a short period of time. I still have some further time.

I wanted to say that I have been reading with a good deal of interest what some of my former colleagues in this House have been saying about the government. Mike Davison, the member for Hamilton Centre in years gone by, is someone I always admired in this House as being an independent-minded individual, a reformer. The member for Etobicoke West, who used to watch this House on television and read about it, probably admired Michael Davison, the former member, even if he didn't agree with him.

He's had some interesting things to say about the government, a couple of articles in fact. He said Bob Rae must be defeated as leader at the NDP convention. I don't know whether that means this weekend; I think this is just a provincial council this weekend. I would like to attend the provincial council this weekend to remind the members of the government caucus where they stood on various issues.

From time to time I found myself in disagreement but, as I've said in this House on many occasions, I always thought the other parties perhaps didn't adhere to policies as close as the NDP; that what the rank and file of the NDP had to say about the various issues before the government of Ontario counted; that Bob Rae and his cabinet and members of the caucus were truly accountable to the provincial council which represented the NDP across Ontario.

It ought to be a good accountability session this weekend. I hope it's in the open. I hope the Premier doesn't shut the doors, as he did on previous provincial councils, and not allow that accountability session to be in public.

I remember when I used to have to go to the annual meeting of the Liberal Party, we would have an accountability session where the news media were present, members could ask anything they wanted and sometimes those questions could be pointed and could be embarrassing.

The Premier, who is a great believer in removing the doors and being wide open in his policies of openness towards government, decided he would shut the doors, and all of the questions that took place, all of the criticisms that took place and perhaps some of the praise, that was all conducted behind closed doors, contrary to what I would have expected from the New Democratic Party, which over the years has had a tradition of being in favour of openness and democracy.

I know the member for Mississauga South would certainly agree with me, having observed this since her election to this House.

Mrs Marland: I do.

Mr Bradley: She has confirmed that indeed she does.

Now, the final conclusion of Michael Davison is -- he says: "The NDP is losing its way in Ontario. It is dragging down the federal party and it must, in my view, now begin the long journey home."

The long journey home may in fact begin in Gananoque this weekend. That may be the beginning of a long journey home, but part of this long journey home is going to involve debates in this House which will take place over the next period of time, some of them till midnight.

I hope government members get a chance to speak on legislation. I know that in order to get the bills through the House, the government House leader and others are sometimes restricting the government members.

I suspect that one of the annoyances of the member for Perth, who recently resigned from the cabinet, was in fact -- I remember one debate in here where she was told she could speak a certain period of time. That was reduced, reduced further, and then she was told she couldn't speak at all on a particular piece of legislation or a resolution.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who was that?

Mr Bradley: This is Karen Haslam, the member for Perth, who has resigned from the cabinet because of her disagreement with government policy.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No, she was speaking in the House on a piece of legislation. It was most unfortunate. I understand why the government does this. I understand the limitations in a debate. This happened in the House. That may have been one of the reasons, besides the fact that she in principle believed this legislation is wrong. Karen Haslam, the member for Perth, as a person of principle said she could no longer sit in the cabinet, a cabinet which was making decisions which were clearly contrary to everything the New Democratic Party had stood for over the years.

I am sure there are many in the public sector union movement who will compliment her on the stand she took. I'm su