Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Laughren: When the government launched into the lottery business, it made a commitment to use those profits for culture, recreation, fitness and sport. Since that time, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have used every ploy to avoid that commitment.

Bill 119 is yet another attempt by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in this direction. This time, the Treasurer is cynically trying to pit hospitals against cultural and recreational groups. Both are important. Sport, culture and community activity are preventive health care. Any money spent in these areas pays off many times in health savings down the road.

Let me list a few of the groups which contribute to healthy minds, bodies and communities and which this Treasurer would shortchange: the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association, Office of Sports for the Physically Disabled, the Ontario Arenas Association Inc., the National Multicultural Theatre Association, the Ontario Track and Field Association, the Ontario Federation of Symphony Orchestras, Theatre Ontario, Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, Ontario Hockey Association, Ontario Crafts Council and so forth. There are many, many more.

The Liberals themselves have said they are committed to preventive health, yet their reflex action is to fall into short-term thinking. There are better ways to fund the operation of hospitals and there are better solutions which can be found. We will be calling on the government to send this bill to committee so that the people of Ontario can explain to this government the importance of culture, recreation, sport and physical fitness.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Wiseman: Recently, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) announced she would be hosting six regional seminars throughout the province. It is quite clear that neither the minister nor, presumably, anyone in cabinet knows or cares anything about eastern Ontario.

These meetings are said to be interesting, informative and entertaining. Seniors are meant to meet and exchange ideas and information on available opportunities and lifestyle. Why then, especially if so much is to be gained for them, are the people of eastern Ontario excluded?

The minister obviously thinks the province ends at Belleville, the site of the most easterly of these seminars, but I assure her that thousands of seniors live beyond this area, little known to this government, called eastern Ontario. Once again this government has shown its contempt for the people of eastern Ontario.

HEALTH SERVICES

Miss Nicholas: I would like to take this opportunity to thank our health care system and the doctors and nurses who make it work. We should never lose sight of how fortunate we are here in Ontario to have access to excellent medical care. Health professionals are increasingly specializing in a variety of areas of expertise, like the one that recently affected me.

A little over two weeks ago, a team of doctors, Knox Ritchie, Greg Ryan and Dan Farine, nationally and internationally recognized as leaders in the field of high-risk pregnancies, delivered my husband’s and my first child, some eight weeks premature.

Weighing only two pounds, Leahanne is now being cared for at Mount Sinai Hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit, along with 33 others just as small as she. Due to superb staff and medical facilities, a high percentage of these babies will come home and have an opportunity to live life to the fullest. It is truly remarkable.

Ray and I look forward to Leahanne coming home, hopefully by Christmas, when we can attempt to look after her as well as Dr. Jeffries and the nursing staff at Mount Sinai are now. We thank them very much.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: Over the weekend, Hamilton collected a mountain of food for those who are in need of food services this winter and who are growing in numbers. The organizers of the Greater Hamilton Food Share have thanked those who participated in this in order to raise 140,000 pounds of food.

I want to thank the organizers; namely, the Good Shepherd Centre, Mission Services, the Salvation Army, St. Matthew’s House, Neighbour to Neighbour, Wesley Urban Ministries, Community Unity and the Jamaican Relief Fund.

But they also have a message I would like to underline, and that is that we collected only half of the amount that we wanted; namely, 300,000 pounds. Brother Richard MacPhee, who is the coordinator of the whole project, made it quite clear that, inasmuch as they have to feed 20,000 folk per month at each of the centres in the city, 140,000 pounds is not going to be enough to get them through the winter.

I would also like to add another message to this, and that is that, like the social agencies, our party has been trying to get the government to respond to the Thomson report, especially with the implementation of the first stage, which would increase the housing allowances in the increase in rates, which would drastically reduce the amount of food money that has to go in the direction of rent by the people concerned.

Tomorrow, my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) will be moving an increase in the minimum wage, which would help the working poor in the same direction. That would be a great Christmas present for the working poor and the poor of Hamilton.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Sterling: In its most recent report assessing competitiveness in Ontario industries, the Premier’s Council states, “Uninterrupted access to the US markets is vitally important to the continued strength of the steel industry.”

It is also vitally important for the future of the more than 40,000 Ontario jobs which depend on a healthy steel sector. Steelmakers in Ontario support the free trade agreement because they recognize that it provides the security of access they require to remain competitive and the new market opportunities which will translate into more jobs, more growth and more investment.

For instance, Atlas Specialty Steels, a company which employs 1,500 people in Welland-Thorold, supports the agreement because it knows from experience how unilateral American trade actions can hurt its company and its employees.

Stelco, another major employer in Welland-Thorold providing jobs for more than 800 people, also supports the agreement because it will eliminate threats of major reductions in shipments to the US and thereby maintain and enhance Stelco jobs.

If the Liberal government of Ontario is concerned about the future of this vital manufacturing sector, if it is concerned about maintaining the steel industry jobs in places like Welland-Thorold, then it should support free trade. As it stands, the Ontario government is endorsing the status quo and is willing to leave our steelworkers, our steelmakers out in the cold.

1340

CONNIE PEARL CABLE

Mr. Beer: On Sunday evening, several hundred people gathered at the Old Tannery in Newmarket in a vigil to remember the life of Connie Pearl Cable, a 24-year-old mother of two young children, who was brutally murdered in her home on October 15.

Connie had known difficult times in her life. At one point she had been a resident at the Yellow Brick House, the only shelter for victims of family violence in York region. While it is normal practice in shelters not to reveal the names of present or past residents, Connie’s family asked that her circumstances he made known so that her story would focus our attention on the desperate need to eliminate family violence.

As I stood at the vigil and looked at the faces of those present, many of whom had themselves been victims of violence, I felt frustration and I felt anger that this could happen in my community. Connie is not a statistic. She was a human being: a daughter, a mother, a friend to many. She had dreams, she had hopes, she had a future.

There is in our society a horrible sickness that far too often leads to brutal acts against women, children and seniors. We must not let Connie’s death, or that of others who have met a similar fate, go unanswered. We must resolve to find a way to attack the causes of family violence.

As many members will be aware, this coming November is to be dedicated in this province to the elimination of family violence. The minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara) will soon be making an announcement in this regard.

I know that all our sympathy goes to Connie’s family. They have taken a courageous step in letting her story be told so that we will dedicate ourselves with vigour to eradicate the blight of family violence from our society.

SELF-HELP WEEK

Mr. Reville: I am sure that members of the Legislature will be interested to know that the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto have declared this week to be Self-Help Week. As far as I am aware, this is the first time any jurisdiction has designated a week in honour of those groups that do self-help and mutual aid.

The Self-Help Clearinghouse of Metropolitan Toronto, which has been established now for a number of years, has just come out with a directory of self-help mutual aid groups in Metro Toronto. Any representative who works here in Metro Toronto would find this to be a useful guide to the more than 100 self-help groups that have grown up in this area over the last few years. Self-help is very important, particularly in a situation in which government continues to do so little for so many vulnerable people in Ontario.

CHILD CARE

Mr. McLean: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last Wednesday I rose in this Legislature to make a statement to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I asked the minister at that time if he would provide more day care spaces in the city of Orillia. I want to thank the minister for his quick action. I got a news release that he has allotted 25.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NONPROFIT HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À BUT NON LUCRATIF

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It gives me great pleasure to advise members that this government is today launching the largest nonprofit housing initiative ever undertaken in Ontario -- a program called Homes Now.

C’est avec un grand plaisir que j’annonce aux députés aujourd’hui que le gouvernement a donné le feu vert au plus important programme de logements à but non lucratif de l’histoire de l’Ontario, le programme « Maisons ... pour de bon ».

Today, with Homes Now, we are mobilizing all of our partners across the province to produce more housing faster. This new program is predicated on a series of innovations which require everyone’s participation. Individuals and community groups stand ready to play their part. Government must provide them the flexibility necessary to get the job done.

A full series of consultations, begun immediately after the budget, has readied us to go forward. In that budget, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) included $2 billion in special low-cost financing for the creation of some 30,000 nonprofit homes in this province.

Along with our other initiatives, the Housing First policy for government lands, the land use statement for municipalities, provincial agreements with our cities and major individual projects like St. Lawrence Square, we have demonstrated this government’s determination to meet the critical housing situation too many of our citizens find themselves in.

I am today announcing that more than 3,000 of these units, a full 10 per cent of the total, are being allocated to four major nonprofit producers. These community leaders have a proven track record and are submitting plans to produce nonprofit housing. They can deliver Homes Now.

The Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corp., Cityhome, is receiving an allocation of 700 units; the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Corp., 1,000 units; the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp., 800 units; and the Ottawa Non-Profit Housing Corp., 500 units. These are initial allocations. They will be increased when the producers are ready to do more.

Some of our partners are in the members’ gallery today. I would like to introduce them: Debbie Kraus, who is executive director of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association; Gino D’ambrosio, who is manager of development for the region of Peel; Robert Player, who is commissioner of housing for the city of Ottawa, and Jack de Klerk from the Metro Tenants Legal Services. I am very glad they are all here with us today.

We will also negotiate allocations for the groups creating permanent housing for homeless people and with resource groups which develop housing co-operatives across Ontario. Community groups from one end of Ontario to the other will be permitted to find and develop solutions to the housing challenges with which they are most familiar.

A strong and well-organized nonprofit housing sector is essential. Today, I am therefore announcing a new provincial initiative to provide the resources to those whom we know can deliver. Community groups have the unique capacity to create Homes Now. They can build community support for new projects. They can provide expertise and training to those creating homes for the first time. They can act with us as advocates.

Starting immediately, we are providing $800,000 in grants and loans to community groups active in nonprofit housing. This will help them build a healthy and solid base so that they too can create Homes Now.

Today, the government presented the first instalment in funding of more than $150,000 to a new provincial organization, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, which was born just a month ago. We have also presented funding of $10,000 to Metro Tenants Legal Services. Along with the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario and the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations, they are finalizing a proposal to help tenants in privately owned buildings to convert them to housing co-ops. We are providing the financing for Homes Now and the tools people need to make them a reality.

We are anticipating an enthusiastic reaction to Homes Now. Accordingly, in the next few weeks, a single, modest advertisement will appear in newspapers across this province in languages accessible to all Ontarians. By filling out a coupon, many hundreds of community groups can become involved for the first time in creating Homes Now. We are continuing to build on the progress this government has already made. In the last year alone, we have given approval to almost 300 sponsors across Ontario to create some 11,000 homes. People have moved into some 4,000 new homes.

Nous continuons les progrès déjà faits par le gouvernement. L’année passée, nous avons donné l’approbation à près de 35 associations de parrainage en Ontario pour créer quelque 11 000 logements; des personnes ont emménagé dans quelque 4000 logements.

People are demanding homes now. This government, providing leadership to our partners across Ontario, has listened and is acting.

1350

RECYCLING

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our children deserve the opportunity to grow up as environmentally aware citizens with a well-developed sense of responsibility for the quality of life in their community. As part of the enthusiastic response Ontarians are giving to recycling, dozens of schools are starting recycling programs and many more are looking for ways to join their communities’ recycling activities.

Yesterday, at the annual conference of the Recycling Council of Ontario, I announced a new provincial program for recycling in schools. The program is called STAR or Student Action for Recycling. STAR was developed by my ministry, the Recycling Advisory Committee, municipal educators and members of the Recycling Council of Ontario to help schools integrate the recycling with their communities’ blue box programs in the most effective and efficient way.

We will select up to 16 pilot schools in communities with blue box recycling to pioneer the STAR program, starting in January 1989. Students will collect fine paper, cans, bottles and newspaper for blue boxes located in each classroom and take them to the curbside for pickup. We estimate the total cost at $1,500 to $4,000 per school, depending on size, with the province and the soft drink industry paying two thirds of the startup funding for the pilot program.

Based on the lessons we learn in the pilot program, we intend to expand the school recycling program province-wide next September. We hope every school will be recycling within a couple of years and we estimate the total cost of establishing the STAR program across Ontario at $10 million.

I invite any school board located in a blue box community to apply to join either the January school recycling pilot program or the September province-wide startup effort.

Ontario will benefit from giving our children an opportunity to apply their boundless enthusiasm and basic good sense to recycling. The environmental lessons learned at school will come home each afternoon, resulting in savings of resources, energy and landfill capacity.

RESPONSES

RECYCLING

Mrs. Grier: Let me respond briefly to the momentous announcement today from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). We had of course already read about it in the Toronto Star before the announcement was made today, and I am sure that house organ of the government is very grateful for the public recognition it is receiving in the naming of this program. I am also sure the minister will find that the children of this province are way ahead of many of the adults when it comes to protecting the environment and I hope he will begin to follow their lead more closely.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I want to congratulate the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) on a very fine statement today. I thought it was a fine statement when she made it last year and when previous governments have said the same kind of thing many times before. I think one of the difficulties is that there is a need for some translation services here. Although the minister used both of our official languages, the public may inadvertently be somewhat misled.

The name of the program is Homes Now. The public should know it does not really mean homes now; it means homes maybe 12 months from now, maybe 18 months from now, maybe two years from now, but not now. One should not be misled by the title of the program.

I was interested in some of the allocations that were made because I think they are worthy of note. Last week in this House, the chamber was engaged in discussion about some very specific proposals put forward by the past chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to develop actual homes on three specific sites. The ministry last week said no and this week it is announcing new allocations of 1,000 units for Metropolitan Toronto.

It is strange that a very specific proposal made by a person in a position to actually carry it out is turned down and a week later a new proposal is once again renewed. It is interesting to note that for Metro Tenants Legal Services, which, as the minister will know, is one of the few organizations around where tenants can go to see if what they have in terms of a legal right can actually be translated into an actual right, for that very necessary portion of the whole housing situation the allocation is $10,000.

I would warrant that the single modest ad that will go into newspapers around Ontario will cost more than that $10,000 allocation. I look forward to seeing this Liberal government put a single modest ad in the public newspapers around Ontario. It will be a first. I doubt very much it will turn out to be one single modest ad, but I will caution all my friends in the nonprofit sector to buy their newspapers regularly for the next little while for fear they will not see that ad and will miss out on their opportunity.

I note too in passing, and I do not think we can miss this, that last year this very same ministry failed to spend about $52 million of approved allocations, not because the nonprofit groups out there did not have the ideas and not because there was not an opportunity to develop housing starts that would mean affordable housing for people, but very simply because the ministry could not process those applications.

I hope that together with today’s announcement, we will find a ministry that is renewed, reformed, born again and can actually handle the applications that are brought forward by nonprofit groups. We will look forward to a great change in the way the ministry itself handles the applications that come in from nonprofit groups around Ontario. It really needs a change, not of heart and not of good intentions, but of being able to perform.

There is one other point I want to make. It is noticed again here in the minister’s statement, and as one reads the fine print that accompanies these things, I think it needs to be clarified. There is almost -- almost -- a statement here that the government of Ontario, through its budget last spring, allocated $2 billion for nonprofit housing.

That, of course, is not true. The government of Ontario did not do that. What it did is commendable. It opened up access to Canada pension plan money to nonprofit groups for mortgages, which is good. But I caution the minister again that she has played a little fast and loose with what exactly she did. She did a good thing, but there is no need to extrapolate that into something she did not do.

We will watch with great anticipation to see the minister born again, once more, and hope that this time she gets it right.

RECYCLING

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate how really delighted I am today with the announcement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), with the pending presentation in this House of my private member’s bill. Two days from now, this House will have the opportunity to support Bill 89, which is my private member’s bill on the subject of recycling in this province. To have any statement at all by the Minister of the Environment today to do with the subject of recycling obviously makes me very pleased.

I would like to say, however, that I find some of the statements, some of the paragraphs in his statement rather interesting. I recognize that I am not going to criticize the minister for writing his statement because I know he does not do that personally, but I think it is very interesting where he says that “dozens of schools are starting recycling programs.” In fact, I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will agree that the schools have seen recycling programs for years while they have been recycling their portables.

I feel also that there is another area that should be addressed and should be encouraged by this provincial Liberal government, if it really is committed to recycling. The minister refers to the fact that, “Students will collect fine paper, cans, bottles and newspaper.” Would it not be great if this minister could see his way to having a five-cent refundable pop can, as they do in the province of Quebec? We would then guarantee that students would collect cans. They would be up and down the roads, up and down the ditches and we would have more materials for recycling than we do today.

Also, it is interesting that the province and the industry are only paying two thirds of the cost of this program. I am wondering how much input the school boards have had in encouraging this program around the province in terms of the cost. I do not know whether the school boards can afford one third of this cost. I hope they can and I hope that when the province realizes how necessary it is, it will be willing to pay two thirds and the industry pay half. We really cannot put any more expenses on the local school boards at this point in time.

1400

I think it does make basic good sense to have children recycle, but as another colleague of mine in this House has said, children are ahead of adults. We have had paper drives involving children for years. I see this as a further endorsement, however, of what children are already doing. I would like to see as an initiative of the ministry something I have suggested many times locally, that we encourage children to bring their batteries to school and learn about recycling batteries.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Harris: I too want to comment on the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). Like the critic from the New Democratic Party, I want to comment on the name Homes Now, like Assured Housing and some of the other names. One wonders, if the minister spent all the money that she must spend on researching, developing and hiring consultants to come up with a catchy name that implies they are actually going to do something on actually doing something, we might not be in some of the messes we are in now.

I find this statement ironic. The promise was 30,000 units over three to five years. The optimist would say three years and the pessimist five years. That means they would be looking at roughly 7,000 units to 10,000 units a year. Now, we are more than halfway through the year and the minister is really proud that she has announced 10 per cent of the units. We will see after the year whether she actually gets the 10 per cent of the units.

When we look at the track record of the minister and the ministry since the Liberals have taken office, even the optimistic outlook that they will live up to a third of their promise is highly optimistic. We have heard 136,000 units from the previous Minister of Housing, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling). Then 102,000, downgraded in the campaign to 89,000; then we heard still 102,000 by the new minister, but 90,000; then we heard 91,000, then 60,000 new, 40,000 renovated.

The fact of the matter is, the government is on track with about 25 per cent of that, given the amount of time it has had. We will look forward to seeing whether the minister comes anywhere close to her 25 per cent average for this fancy program announcement that she makes.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent of the House to make a statement with respect to the anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution.

Agreed to.

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

Mr. Brandt: I would like to thank the members of the House for unanimous consent to make this brief statement.

I want to take this opportunity to remind the members of the House that October 23 is the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. On this date, 3,000 students of the Technological University in Budapest began a peaceful protest which quickly grew into a general uprising against the oppression of Stalinist rule. However, two weeks later the Soviet army and tanks, as we all know, entered Hungary and put down the revolution.

At that time, more than 150,000 refugees fled their country to try to find freedom in western democracies. The then Premier of Ontario, Leslie Frost, played a key role in encouraging the federal government to admit more than 37,000 of these refugees to Canada. A great many of them, as we know, settled in Ontario and are now a vital part of our ethnocultural society. They have preserved their heritage while entering fully into the mainstream of life in their adopted country, and their energy and abilities have made a positive contribution to Ontario.

Most of us who have been born in Canada do not fully appreciate our freedom. We tend to take it for granted. The Hungarians who came here after the revolution know what it is like to be deprived of their freedom and civil liberties. They sacrificed much to be able to live in a free country. We salute their heroism and all those who have struggled and are still struggling to attain freedom from oppressive regimes.

Mr. Fleet: It was at this time 32 years ago that demonstrations against the regime in power in Hungary began, and within a short period of time indeed thousands of Hungarians joined in the revolt. That uprising was eventually put down by the Soviet army, and the events of that tragic time have had a significant impact on Canada. Approximately 200,000 refugees left Hungary in 1956. Some 37,000 came to Canada, many of them settling in Ontario.

Events such as the uprising in Hungary are an important reminder of how precious freedom and democracy are in this world. Many Hungarians paid with their lives in their struggle to establish these values. We remember them today. We remember the people who are still struggling in many parts of Europe and within the Soviet Union.

We also celebrate the fact that the refugees from Hungary who have come to Canada are part of a vibrant and freedom-loving country as part of our community here in Ontario.

I am sure that all members of this House will join with me in remembering the martyrs of the Hungarian Revolution and its enduring legacy for all Ontarians.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to join with my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in commemorating this historic day. I am sure, like many people who are my contemporaries, we can perhaps best remember this event by the arrival in our classrooms of kids from Hungary. I certainly can, going back to the fall and the spring of 1956 and 1957.

I think it is an event which all of us remember and see as a historic world development: the first major and dramatic post-war revolt against the Soviet totalitarian government in Hungary. I think it is fair to say that it marked a really dramatic shift in world opinion with respect to the extent and the cost and the nature of that system.

In commemorating the courage of the Hungarian freedom fighters, we are also celebrating the presence in our own community of literally tens of thousands, indeed now hundreds of thousands, of people in this country who are citizens of Hungarian origin, who have contributed in architecture, law, medicine, social work and many, many different fields across the country and who have become such a vibrant part of our national life.

Finally, we are remembering that despite the reality, which is a reality, of glasnost and of perestroika, the world of political change has yet really to arrive with sufficient force and effect in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Our hearts go out to the democrats and freedom fighters in those countries who continue to fight against an oppressive, brutal system that is desperately in need of change. We all work with those who seek such a change and can only salute those who fight on against great odds and with tremendous courage.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the fact that the number of inspections in the construction industry has declined from 72,000 in 1980-81 to under 40,000 in 1987-88, and while there has been this dramatic decrease in the number of inspections, there has been a very dramatic increase in the number of fatalities, to the point that we now have practically one construction worker a week being killed on the job in the province.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: On the subject of the number of inspections, the reality in inspections within the Ministry of Labour is that the quality or inspection going on now far outweighs anything that was going on in 1980 and 1981. Rather than just the kind of inspections where an inspector would spend a few minutes at a workplace, the new thrust in inspections is to thoroughly examine every workplace during each inspection, particularly in the construction industry.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s answer is patent nonsense, and he should know it. In 1986-87, there were 360 prosecutions, which resulted in 334 convictions. Last year, after the minister took office, there were only 229 prosecutions and only 192 convictions. We have a dramatic drop in the number of prosecutions and a dramatic drop in the number of convictions at the same time as this minister is parading around saying how thorough his new inspections are. I wonder if the minister can explain those figures.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The number of prosecutions increased from 114 in 1986-87 to 176 in 1987-88. There are now some 156 cases pending trial as of this time. Not only am I satisfied with the rate of prosecutions but I am certainly satisfied with the quality of inspections going on by inspectors within the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. B. Rae: The figures that come from his ministry perhaps are less eloquent than the names and the very brief account we have of the people who have died. Obviously, I do not have time to read out every name and the cause of death in 1987, but perhaps I can just read a few names and ask the minister how he feels about the fact that Norman Mundell, for example, died asphyxiated after clothing became entangled in a drill shaft; another, Jan Vanderwal, bled to death after his right leg became entangled in a tower crane; Daniel Neil fell 28 feet; Stefano Rizzi fell 33 feet from the edge of an open floor perimeter; and the cases, the names and the families go on and on.

How does the minister feel about the number of fatalities, which is growing, and the number of inspections, which is declining, when he has yet to change the law with respect to health and safety committees on the construction sites of this province? How can the minister possibly explain this kind of neglect and abuse of working people, which is taking place every day in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that when he names just one person who has died in an industrial accident or on a construction site, it is something all of us in this House and everyone in the province feels for.

Mr. Reville: You’ve got to do more than feel for this.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just hold on a second.

Every night it is part of my responsibility to review events that have occurred in the province. Obviously, none of us can be satisfied until every one of our construction sites and every one of our industries is organized in a way that minimizes to the greatest extent possible, indeed eliminates, the realities of injury and illness in the workplace.

I tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that for the past year I have been working with representatives of labour and management to try to find new ways that concentrate on education, training and development of a workplace context that will achieve this objective. When I present that legislation here in the House, I hope I can receive the full support of the New Democratic Party, because I believe the Leader of the Opposition is equally concerned.

Mr. B. Rae: While the minister talks, the fact is that workers are being killed. His delay in bringing in legislation is costing lives, and there are no two ways about it.

My new question is to the same minister. Given the extent of the number of injuries in the construction field, some 15,000 reported accidents last year, I would like to ask the minister why, in his much-vaunted reform of the Workers’ Compensation Act, workers in the construction industry are entirely exempt from the obligation on the part of employers to reinstate and re-employ workers. Can the minister explain that colossal unfairness to workers in the construction industry?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has raised that issue because I think the workers in this province who will receive some of the most significant benefits from the reforms in Bill 162 are construction workers.

The reason I say that is that, typically, a construction worker has faced this dilemma with the current system: The worker receives an injury that incapacitates him -- perhaps a sprain, a permanent injury to the back -- and typically, that injury is classified and rated at about 15 per cent, notwithstanding the fact that very likely that construction worker cannot realistically be expected to return to work in his previous area of employment.

What the new system does is to provide the board with the authorization to fully compensate that construction worker, so many of whom have suffered from an arbitrary and unfair system.

As to the point of reinstatement, the answer is a simple one. Typically, within the construction industry a construction worker receives his employment, goes to his job, through a hiring hall. He does not have an ongoing employment relationship with an ongoing employer in the way workers in the industrial sector would.

For example, for eight months an individual is working at the SkyDome and then, as a carpenter, he moves from there to help build a new hospital, and his employer changes on an ongoing basis. That is the way in which the relationship is organized and that is why the obligation to re-employ under the bill does not fall upon the construction --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is implying many things. He is implying that all work in the construction industry is fly-by-night, which it is not. He is also implying very clearly that he does not think the construction industry has any collective obligation to its own employees who are injured.

I would like to ask the minister, given his position as Minister of Labour and given his well-known ties to the construction industry, how comfortable does the minister feel with an exemption which means that the construction industry collectively has no obligation to its own employees? There are 15,000 reported accidents a year, and he is telling the construction industry that it does not owe anything to its own workers. Does he not feel a little ashamed, as Minister of Labour, to be making that statement in the House?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to the construction workers of this province. The fact is, no one said anything about a fly-by-night industry.

What is set out in the bill is an ongoing obligation on employers to re-employ their workers, but the fact is, and the member knows this perfectly well, that in the construction industry, the hiring hall method of recruiting construction teams means that a construction worker typically might work for one employer for eight months and then, when that job is done, move on to another job for perhaps 16 months.

When the member talks about the bill and the construction industry, let me tell him that one of the reasons we raised the ceiling on insurable earnings is that, typically, a construction worker may well be earning $40,000 or $42,000 or $45,000 a year and his insurable earnings are only $35,000 a year, and that is going to put a substantially higher premium on the construction industry.

Other than that, the vocational rehabilitation provisions in that bill will, for the first time, give a construction worker the real opportunity, if he is not going to be able to work in that industry any more, to find new work that allows him to re-enter the work force, earning in a way that he earned before.

Mr. B. Rae: What he is basically saying is that somebody who has been working in the construction industry for 20 years can go out and flip hamburgers for the last 20 years of his time in the workforce and the minister regards that as satisfactory. That is what he is saying. He is saying that an entire industry that employs hundreds of thousands of workers in this province has no collective obligation to those employees.

Is the Minister of Labour going to stand in his place and say to this House that the construction industry has no legal obligation to its own employees to provide ongoing employment over their lifetimes? Is that not, in effect, what he is saying in this House today?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What I have said in this House today and what the bill provides for is a situation where employers are under that obligation.

I will reiterate. The reason it does not apply in the construction industry is simply that the ongoing employment relationship in the construction industry with a specific employer is not a long one. Someone might work for construction company A for a month and then construction company B for seven months. It is impossible to identify the employer upon whom the responsibility should be. But one would think that with a new dual awards system that will appropriately compensate construction workers for the real losses they have suffered, and with the raising of the ceiling the people who should he celebrating this bill are construction workers in this province. If the honourable member talks to most of them, they know that.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was willing to talk --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are wasting time. New question, the member for Sarnia.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, the municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and Metro Toronto, in addition to many others across this province, are literally going to exhaust the existing amount of landfill space they have at this particular time. They literally will have no room for the thousands of tons of garbage their municipalities are generating.

Will the minister not agree that we are facing an emergency with respect to this province: in effect, a garbage crisis in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: For a long period now, including the time during which the member who asked the question was the Minister of the Environment and his government was in power, municipalities across Ontario have gone through a process whereby they are attempting to find or are supposed to attempt to find environmentally the best sites for landfill sites, or for other facilities to deal with either the disposal or the management of waste. In fact, right across Ontario, not only are those master plan studies going on, with plenty of input from the people in various areas, but in many cases they are issues that are now before the Environmental Assessment Board to be dealt with by the Environmental Assessment Board.

I believe, with the discussions we have with officials from our ministry, officials of the various municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and others, that we are finding solutions to problems which exist and have existed for some time; but what we want to ensure is that the answers we find are environmentally sound answers. I know that the member, from his time on this side of the House, would be a person who would be concerned about that as well.

Mr. Brandt: I am concerned and I would like to hear the minister’s solutions to some of these problems. The minister did not indicate or agree with me that we do in fact have a garbage crisis, but I would like to remind him of his comments in a speech he gave on October 22. It is interesting how these things come back to remind us of what we have said on a previous occasion. He said at that time, “It is now time to tackle Ontario’s garbage crisis” -- almost the same words I used -- so the minister does agree with me that we are heading into a garbage crisis in this province.

He also knows he has certain powers under the Environmental Protection Act, and I will quote to the minister from a letter he sent to a municipality: “The Minister of the Environment can order waste to be accepted at a disposal site in cases where the municipality generating the waste is not included in the site certificate of approval.”

When Peel, Durham, York and Metro Toronto run out of space, as they undoubtedly will, on the basis of the minister’s own time frames, can the minister tell this House which counties, which regions, which areas of Ontario he is going to force to accept the millions of tons of garbage which are going to be generated at that time?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Tell us simply where it is going to go.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not nearly as pessimistic as the leader of the third party, who is trotting this out on a daily basis, attempting to establish himself some ground in this House. I do not share the degree of pessimism he has, because I think there are people of goodwill across Ontario who are working along with the Ministry of the Environment towards solutions.

Of course, with the snowballing effect at the present time of our recycling programs in this province, we are in fact diverting more and more waste on almost a daily basis from landfill sites and from incinerators across the province. It seems two or three times a week yet another municipality has launched a blue box recycling program.

Last week I was in Guelph, which is one of the innovators in this field. Guelph is going beyond the blue box program. They are into apartment recycling, composting and a number of new initiatives that we believe are going to divert a good deal of that material from landfill sites in this province.

So I am not nearly so pessimistic. But I did watch the member’s party the other day when it had its little emergency debate so that it did not have to deal with other legislation. They had their emergency debate, and every member who got up contradicted the other member. Now, of course, I could ask the member for his suggestions on where he might --

Mr Brandt: If the Minister of the Environment is all done with his response, when we talk about co-operation and not being pessimistic, I would like to remind the minister of what he did co-operatively in October 1987. At that time, the minister forced the Keele Valley landfill site to accept some 25,000 tons of garbage a year from six municipalities in Simcoe because there was no other place for them to put their garbage at that particular time.

The minister did that against Metro’s wishes. I hope that the response from his staff is going to be adequate to the question I am going to raise with him. I will give him time to read it. Without the knowledge of Vaughan township, this particular measure was taken by the minister. I would like to indicate to the minister that, in some two years, Metropolitan Toronto will have no place whatever to put some 55,000 tons of garbage a week.

I call that an emergency. Which counties, using the minister’s emergency powers, is he going to order to accept the waste that is being generated by the municipalities that have no place to put their waste?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting that the member should raise that particular issue, and I am glad he did so. I remember it was his government, and he was the Minister of the Environment for part of that time, that was prepared to allow the Pauzé landfill site in Perkinsfield to stay open, despite the fact that there were identified problems with that.

Now, some of the people in that area wanted to have this government continue to allow the Pauzé landfill site to be used. When we were in opposition we said that we would close the Pauzé landfill site, and we have fulfilled that obligation. Metropolitan Toronto co-operated in this regard and allowed for room in the Keele Valley landfill site, which, in effect, amounted to three weeks’ capacity in the landfill site. I commend Metropolitan Toronto for that.

As for the other contention that the member has put forward that there have not been approvals of waste disposal facilities, that is nonsense. We have a number of those instances.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with. New question, the member for Carleton.

DAVID ATKINSON

Mr. Sterling: This is to the Attorney General. Yesterday I asked him questions relating to one David Atkinson, who was, to put it mildly, a person with a very chequered past. Was the Attorney General personally involved in the decision to grant this man immunity from further prosecution and to give him a new identity under the witness protection program, and was the minister involved in the plea bargaining to give him a suspended sentence for his pending charges?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to answer the honourable member’s question by saying that the director of the witness protection program in the ministry is a staff member of the ministry responsible to the deputy. It is his duty to review applications that are submitted locally by crown attorneys for admission to that program, and he did that. I did not participate in that decision, though because of the honourable member’s interest in it I have reviewed it as carefully as I can.

1430

On the other hand, determinations that are made in the counties and districts of Ontario as to recommendations as to sentence that are made by our crowns are made by them acting as my agents but with the discretion to make the decision that is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, I did not participate in that decision, but because of the honourable member’s interest in it I have reviewed it, I understand it and I think it was the right decision.

Mr. Sterling: Yesterday we heard how important this particular case was with regard to the seriousness of the crimes which other individuals had committed. With regard to the background of this individual, the evidence that has now come to light through newspaper reports and through other reports that have come forward since that time, can the Attorney General tell me: one, since this case was so important, why was he not consulted and personally involved; and two, if he was not personally involved, as he has indicated, does this not in itself point to a problem in the process whereby a deal is made behind closed doors and the public, in essence, is not represented in a larger sense? Can the Attorney General tell me who exactly was involved in making the deal?

Mr. Speaker: You have placed two questions.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The decision as to the conduct of the case is made by the crown attorney of the county of York, who in this case appointed Glen Orr, a senior deputy, to conduct the negotiations. The entry to the witness protection program is made by a senior director in the ministry.

As I indicated to the honourable member yesterday, these decisions are not unique or unusual events. It is constantly necessary, particularly in dealing with gangs devoted to robbery or in the drug trade, to rely on the evidence of accomplices. That has been going on for a substantial period of time and it would not be desirable or appropriate for the Attorney General to be involved in every single case.

However, I do want to bring to the honourable member’s attention, to evidence the importance of the matter, a comment made by one of the defence counsel. One of the defence counsel, the one the Globe and Mail phones, thinks that this witness was unnecessary. The other defence counsel, whose client was sent away for a long period of time, had this to say, and his name is Paul Tomlinson, an experienced member of the defence bar; the quote in the paper is: “‘Although Atkinson is clearly a violent man,’ one of the defence lawyers involved in the case said, ‘the gang would never have been caught without his evidence. Police use informants extensively. Half the arrests would not be made without them,’ said Paul Tomlinson, noting the gang had been under investigation for seven or eight years.”

It is regrettable that the evidence of accomplices has to be used to provide evidence of identification, but it is right to do it. It is done all over the western world and what is important is that it should be done under a regular system and carefully, as it was done here. I thank the honourable member for his interest.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thought this was the last. I didn’t know he got another go.

Mr. Sterling: The Attorney General should know the rules of the House as well as he knows the rules of the court.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I just didn’t know you were going to be chosen as leader. I thought it was Alan Pope.

Mr. Sterling: It is interesting that the Attorney General draws from counsel whose client is presently serving a long term with regard to this particular matter. In that his deputy director of the crown law office, Murray Segal, has said: “Sometimes, in dealing with a witness ... we try to find out about their background.... We try our best, but we are not perfect.”

In that, there is an admission that before a decision was made by the Attorney General’s people, they did not have all of the evidence before them. In the light of that and the serious background that this particular individual has, and since we have seen really a failure of the witness protection program, I would ask the minister to order a public review of this particular case and the whole witness protection program. Will he consider doing that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not agree with the premise of the question. I think the fact that a public servant, or indeed even a politician, admits that not every decision is necessarily perfect does not mean that any particular decision is wrong. We have carefully reviewed this decision. I believe that the right choices, in a difficult circumstance, were made. My friend wants an inquiry. Of course, that is always what my friend wants, an inquiry.

The reality is that there has been a full inquiry. The matter was carefully canvassed in the preliminary inquiry court before a judge because the defence lawyers were trying to illustrate -- and this is their duty -- that an advantage had been given under which this evidence was procured. No judge has accepted that proposition, notwithstanding that the matter has been fully disclosed in evidence and debated at considerable length. The inquiry, in fact, has been held.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister explain when he is going to open up his new parks policy in this province for province-wide consultation, as was promised by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) on the Labour Day weekend in Temagami?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have provincial parks to the number of 217 that are under regulation. We have some 53 that are still to be regulated.

There is going to be very much public involvement in the regulation of some of those remaining parks.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not what we’re talking about.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not care to hear what the member says as a supplementary until he puts it. So if he will just listen for a minute, I will explain the whole situation.

The fact of the matter is that the member was absolutely right, that the remaining parks to be put --

Mr. Wildman: That is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Is the member going to listen or is he going to talk? The fact of the matter is that the remaining parks that are to be put under regulation are going to have widespread public input on their planning.

I am pleased that a member from northern Ontario has taken that kind of interest and that he is going to participate in those hearings as to the planning of those remaining parks. If he has a different interpretation, so be it. He generally has on every issue, as was the case yesterday when he made comments on interim supply that were not appropriate and, in fact, were not the case at all. So I take with a grain of salt the kind of things that he says in this House because most of them are patently untrue.

Mr. Speaker: I know the minister was very, very careful, but it just seemed as if -- I would like to ask the member to withdraw those words.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have the evidence, but if you do not wish me to put it, I will change the point I made and say they are generally unfounded.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad you have retracted. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wildman: An official of the minister’s own staff in his ministry, Norman Richards, stated flatly and is quoted in the Northern Daily News on Friday, September 16, in this way. He says that the ministry is not reviewing its provincial parks policy.

Who is telling the truth? The statement was not in regard to new parks that have not yet been regulated. It was in regard to the parks policy the minister announced last spring. I would never say it, but there are many people in northern Ontario and many in Timiskaming who are accusing the member for Timiskaming of trying to have it both ways and not being prepared to tell the truth to his own constituents. Which is right? Is the minister reviewing the parks policy or not?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As I said before, I have difficulty with the member because of the comments that were made during his debate in interim supply. So really I have to take with a grain of salt the way he is posing this question.

The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of public input yet to be participated in in the regulation of many of the parks in this province. I am very certain that the member he is talking about is going to participate. He does an excellent job representing the people of that area. He will continue to do that, and I am proud to be sitting with him over here.

1440

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), if he is not out managing something or other.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see the Chairman of Management Board. Perhaps you would ask another minister, or another member.

ONTARIO FARM-START

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister give me the exact date when his Ontario Farm-Start program ran out of money?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not too sure I can give the member the exact date; I do not always have those specifics at my fingertips. I will sure get the information for the member, but it does show how popular that program has been.

When we established that program, we thought we could maybe help about 2,300 new entrants into the farming enterprise over the next five years, on the basis of the historical entrance over the last five or 10 years. It just so happens that we received well over 300 applications for this Farm-Start program within a period of a few months after we announced it, so I am very pleased that it has struck a real chord with the young farmers out there.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister’s press release is dated July 25, and it was initiated as a five-year program. It lasted barely five months and ran out of money.

When we couple this with the performance of this minister and this government -- the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program was cut by 60 per cent, the Farm-Start program is out of money about 40 months before it is supposed to be, and there is a whole litany of things happening here where agriculture is being relegated to the very bottom of the ladder -- what is the minister going to do to replace his very, very unproductive Farm-Start program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Agriculture has not been relegated to the bottom of the ladder. I am going to tell the member opposite that never was there the spending on agriculture over the many years the Tories were in government that there has been since the Liberals formed the government three years ago.

Mr. Villeneuve: What are you going to do with this brochure? Replace it.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I trust that the honourable member posing the question can also read. If he cares to read the brochure, he will find in that brochure that there was so much money made available for the Farm-Start program, and when the applications were received and considered, once the money was spent --

Mr. Villeneuve: It said five years. Five years.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, the program runs over five years; but once the money has been committed, there are no more applications accepted. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe I should remind all members of standing order 24(b), that when one member is speaking, all other members should not speak.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Get ready, Margaret; here it comes.

The residents in the region of Peel are very concerned about the controversy surrounding the selection process for a landfill site in that community. The ministry has been criticized by members opposite, most notably by a former member of Peel regional council, for ordering Peel to revisit five previously discarded sites. Regional council has loudly criticized this decision but, as time goes on, the people are learning the true facts surrounding the minister’s decision and the original decision of Peel council to eliminate those five sites.

My question is, can the minister explain the reasons for his decision and tell the House if Peel council is unanimously opposed to that decision?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To answer the second part of the question first, I would simply say it is not the case that it is a unanimous decision of criticism. In fact, I have a letter from Councillor Peter Robertson, who indicates that he is certainly in agreement with what I have had to say. He said: “May I congratulate you and your government for the courage you took to intervene in the region of Peel’s landfill search. The process was certainly flawed. Not only has the region not completed a fair comparison of A to E to the numbered sites, but it has acted in a prejudicial way on several occasions.

“Your decision saved us all a costly court challenge, saving us both time and money.” He goes on to say, “The present posturing and theatrical orchestrations of some particular politicians to freeze land development is simply to divert the attention from the region and to place the pressure from the development community on to the provincial government and your ministry.”

The question was asked, is this unanimous, and I say it is not unanimous. The reason it was selected, of course, was a straight environmental reason; we want to ensure that every site that has environmental potential is looked at very carefully. I am optimistic that could be done in a reasonable time frame.

Mr. Mahoney: By way of supplementary, I was there --

Mrs. Marland: You were there.

Mr. Mahoney: -- as the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) points out --

Mr. Brandt: How did you vote?

Mr. Mahoney: I am quite willing to stand and be counted. I was there when the five sites were discarded. Site B, the first site eliminated, was thrown out for economical reasons, not for environmental reasons, and the rest of the sites were discarded for purely political reasons. I am proud to say I voted against discarding those sites for political reasons.

Mrs. Marland: How can you say that? It was a unanimous decision except for Ellen Mitchell.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Mahoney: Some members in this House and regional council are blaming the minister for --

Mr. Brandt: Oh, you’re out on a plank on this one, feller.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Callahan’s contradicting you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I don’t mind waiting. I will once again ask the member for Mississauga West for a supplementary.

Mr. Mahoney: My supplementary question to the minister is that he is being blamed for delays caused as a result of his decision. Could the minister comment on these delays and give some details of the time required to correct the errors of the past?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I just happen to have that information and I will reveal it very quickly.

In August 1981, the region of Peel began its waste selection process. In December 1983, site B became the preferred site. May 23, 1984, Peel region council rejected site B shortly thereafter. The council decided to drop all five sites, A through E, and to begin the environmental assessment process over.

At the time, Peel council was told that its actions were wrong by its lawyer, David Estrin, by the director of waste management and by the commissioner of public works, Frank Conlin and Bill Anderson respectively. Peel was also warned by the Ministry of the Environment staff that this was a flawed decision.

In June 1987, they received two further letters from the former Deputy Minister of the Environment, Rod McLeod, who on both occasions indicated problems. In March 1988, the region of Peel finally submitted --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

1450

INCINERATOR ASH

Ms. Bryden: I have a tougher question for the Minister of the Environment.

Just after residents in my riding in east-end Toronto succeeded in getting rid of the biggest single source of dioxin in Ontario -- namely, the Commissioners Street incinerator -- they have now learned that incinerator ash from the recently expanded Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant is being dumped by the Metropolitan Toronto works department in unlined pits on sewage plant property within a few hundred feet of the 250 community vegetable gardens and less than a mile from thousands of homes in my riding and the riding of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). It does not appear that ministerial approval was sought for this operation, and Metro works has admitted that there are dioxins in it and Pollution Probe has expressed concern about the content of the ash.

I would like to ask the minister, will he exercise his mandate to protect east-end residents, plant workers, Leslie Street Spit users, vegetable growers and the general public from potential air, land and water pollution from this stockpiling operation by issuing a stop-work order?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member for the question, first of all, and the detail she went into in asking the question, because it has been a matter of some public interest in the last few days. I believe there was a press conference that was called by one of the candidates for public office and there was a revelation at that time of this material.

As a result, we immediately put to work the investigations and enforcement branch upon learning of this complaint, and our investigations and enforcement branch is continuing its investigation to determine whether in fact there has been any violation of laws of Ontario, of a certificate of approval of the Environmental Protection Act. They are taking into consideration all of the factors that exist in this case as to what responsibilities Metropolitan Toronto would have in this case as to particular placement and the conditions under which that was placed.

In addition to that, I understand that the health department of Metropolitan Toronto has also been involved in this and has brought a report to the attention of the council.

Mrs. Grier: The minister must recognize that this incident in Metropolitan Toronto has exposed yet another enormous loophole in his regulations, that loophole being that incinerator ash is exempt from being described as hazardous waste. The minister also knows that incinerator ash is often highly toxic and, because of this exemption, is going into landfill sites that are not engineered to take it properly or to hold the leachate.

Can the minister give this House some assurance that the loophole will be closed, that it will be closed quickly and that, in the meantime, there will be no further dumping of incinerator ash into unlined landfills unless that ash has been thoroughly and independently tested?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, there are two kinds of incineration processes that take place, and I know the member would want me to clarify that. One is the incineration that takes place as a result of an energy-from-waste facility or a garbage incineration facility. The other is the facility that is located at Ashbridges Bay, which is for the purposes of sludge incineration. So we have two different circumstances, but I just know the member would want me to clarify that.

I can simply tell the member that the investigations and enforcement branch was in attendance, for instance, at the public announcement that was made, has been in the process of interviewing officials of Metropolitan Toronto and will complete a full investigation.

As for the issue of ash, the member would be interested to know that I believe I read in the paper today that the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board combined joint hearing in Peel approved an incineration process there that is an energy-from-waste facility, and listed a number of conditions that I think the member and I would both find rather interesting and that I believe offer a good future in terms of any of these facilities, because they address the very issue that I have expressed concern and the member has expressed concern about.

LITHOTRIPSY MACHINE

Mr. Eves: Could the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet tell us whether he would be in favour of saving the Ontario taxpayers some $2.2 million a year and, at the same time, improving the quality and the availability of a health service to the residents of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are always interested in suggestions that provide better service to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Eves: The Chairman of the Management Board has exactly the opportunity to do this. All he has to do is approve the funding of an additional lithotripsy machine in Ontario, which pulverizes kidney stones -- as I am sure he is aware as the former Minister of Health -- to realize this saving. Ontario now spends in excess of $3 million a year to send patients out of the province. If done in Ontario, it would cost the Ontario taxpayer only $735,000 a year.

The issue does not need any more study, as was suggested by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) last Friday. The need for lithotripsy has already been examined by the Scott task force. Any urologist across Ontario will tell you the effectiveness of this treatment.

Will the Chairman of the Management Board be in favour of immediately approving the acquisition of one of these machines right now in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Because of my previous role, I can feel a speech coming on, actually. I have dealt with this before. There are, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the procedure and the piece of technical equipment that is required, several details which might be of assistance. On your direction, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to go into some detail about those items. However, if you wish me to address myself more particularly to the question, I will.

There is no question, as the member says, that there are advocates around the province with respect to every piece of high-technology equipment that is available and that there are uses which are being promoted right across the province.

The reason I answered the member’s first question on the basis that we are always willing to consider suggestions that will provide better health care to the people of the province is that my colleague the Minister of Health has been very firm in letting the people of the province know that we will pursue all of those areas in which the health and the quality of health care in this province will be promoted.

That being said, we will take the lead from the ministry that has the expertise and from the studies that are being undertaken. As the honourable gentleman has just said, the Scott task force and others are looking at utilization and other particulars with respect to technical equipment. I can tell the member that in the opinion and judgement that will be brought to us by my colleague, the Minister of Health, we will consider all kinds of opportunities to increase the quality of health care.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services respecting the Social Assistance Review Committee. The SARC report, to its credit, dispels many of the myths and misconceptions surrounding who actually receives social assistance. In fact, 41 per cent of the people receiving social assistance in Ontario are children. This translates into 210,000, or nine per cent of all children in Ontario, a number of whom obviously live in my own riding.

I am concerned that the financial disadvantages experienced by these children may affect their academic performance and length of stay in the school system. Could the minister comment on the academic performance of the children in receipt of social assistance as compared to other children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is a reference in the report to the Ontario Child Health Study that was done at McMaster University by Dr. Dan Offord. It indicates that, when compared with other children in the province, those who come from welfare families -- that is the expression that is used -- exhibit three times the likelihood of having difficulty in school or of having serious emotional or behavioural problems. The report refers to that as one of the bases for improving the ability of welfare families to become, once again, independent.

1500

Ms. Hart: Many people, and I am among those people, believe that education is the primary means by which one can improve his or her lot in life and become self-sufficient. Could the minister tell us what recommendations are contained in the SARC report that would provide incentives to children receiving social assistance to remain in school? Is there anything we can do to help these children out of the cycle of poverty?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would suggest that the major recommendation in the report, which would impact directly on children and indirectly on their families, is that which suggests a children’s benefit should be part of a national-provincial scheme. The main impetus behind that recommendation is that the children’s benefit would follow the family whether it was on income support or not, depending upon the total income of the family.

However, there are a number of other suggestions in the report. There are at least three that speak to the whole question of literacy. There are a couple that speak to the question of improved child care for welfare parents. There is one that speaks to the school system with respect to co-operative education and the advantages it has for all children, including those from welfare families. So there is a significant recognition and a series of recommendations within the report that speak specifically to this issue.

ENERGY PRICES / LES PRIX DE L’ÉNERGIE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development with regard to an economic development initiative that was brought up in the final report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which reported on the free trade issue just last week. This recommendation is of particular interest to northern Ontario. It asks that “the government of Ontario implement a program to reduce energy prices in ... areas such as northern Ontario to encourage economic development ... while at the same time presenting a direct challenge to the dangerous energy provisions of the free trade agreement.”

This is one worthwhile initiative that definitely came out of this report, supported by members from all three parties on the committee. I would ask the minister whether he is supportive of that recommendation that we use energy pricing as an economic development tool in the north, at the same time challenging the free trade agreement, and if he is supportive, what he is doing in order to see that such a policy is implemented.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Monsieur le Président, à la question du député de Sault Ste. Marie je dois répondre que, depuis trois ans, mon ministère et le Premier Ministre (M. Peterson) de cette province préconisent l’utilisation de l’énergie dans le Nord de l’Ontario comme outil de développement. Cette idée-là ne vient donc pas seulement du Comité.

Alors, je suis certain que présentement, au sein du ministère de I’Énergie, on étudie cette recommandation-là. Moi, je ne l’ai pas lue mais j’en ai entendu parler. Une chose que je peux dire, c’est que je suis d’accord, en principe, qu’on doit utiliser l’énergie du Nord de l’Ontario comme outil de développement. Ce sont des choses que j’ai dites pendant au moins trois ans dans tous mes discours.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The minister claims he agrees with the initiative, but I would request that he look at what specifically his government has done about it.

The minister knows that Hydro-Québec uses lower energy prices in northern Quebec to stimulate the economy there, and I understand the minister has made positive statements about that in the past.

At the same time, we have recently had released a survey from the Ministry of Transportation, Public Attitudes Toward Provincial Highways, in which it clearly shows that northern drivers in fact have double the mileage, because of the distances we have up there, compared to the south, which means we have a tremendous penalty in terms of gasoline taxes that we are paying to the province of Ontario.

Why does the minister not do something and bring this up within his government so that we see a positive initiative now challenging the free trade agreement and at the same time one that could provide some real economic stimulus for development in northern Ontario? What specifically is he going to do?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: En réponse à la question du député de Sault Ste. Marie, je peux lui dire, premièrement, que je suis encore le ministre du Développement du Nord. Je crois que le point qu’il soulève, ça fait longtemps qu’on y regarde et qu’on y travaille.

I want to remind the member for Sault Ste. Marie that I am not the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I am sure the Premier will make his point on free trade with his cabinet. Second, I want to remind him that I am still the Minister of Northern Development. Still, I know sometimes he wants to act as minister, but I want to remind him that we are working on these specific issues.

I want to remind the member for Sault Ste. Marie that a year ago we put some more money into highways. Instead of lowering the price of gas, we put the money into highways. I asked my ministry today at the management meeting to review again this price of gas policy, which every government has studied. The previous government had a royal commission on it, but it did nothing. At least last year we made a decision to put the money into roads instead of reducing the price of gas. That is what we did.

About the hydro rates, I want to remind the member for Sault Ste. Marie that Quebec is Quebec. They have different rules from Ontario. Ontario is under the Public Utilities Act. Right now I am sure the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), together with Ontario Hydro, is looking at this point to see what they can do to encourage Hydro to participate more in the economy of the north.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question to the Attorney General. In spite of repeated requests, from both the town of Almonte and the town of Carleton Place, both of these municipalities have been without a justice of the peace for an extremely long period of time. In view of the importance of the justice of the peace function and the fact that my constituents now have to drive to Perth or Smiths Falls to see a justice of the peace, when will the minister appoint those justices of the peace, both in Carleton Place and Almonte?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member was absent the day we congratulated members who had served -- I forget whether it is 17 or 117 years -- in the House, I would just like to offer my congratulations to the honourable member. Perhaps I should ask, is the honourable member thinking of retiring? Is that what focuses the question in the honourable member’s mind? If he is, he has only to write me.

Having said that, I want him to understand that I am looking seriously at making these appointments. As the honourable member will know, there is in Orders and Notices a justices of the peace bill that will reorganize in a fundamental way and in a very progressive way the justice of the peace system. We are very anxious not to expand it until that bill has come forward and we have had the comments of members of the House on it.

Having said that, I recognize the need to provide service, I would be glad to look into the question that the honourable member has raised, if he does not ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Wiseman: I appreciate the fact that the minister has offered me a job if I intend to resign, but I want something a lot better than that if he wants to get rid of me.

The minister knows I have written to him many times with suggestions not only from the townspeople who have brought names forward but from the Liberal associations in both Almonte and Carleton Place, which have put names forward. This has been going on ever since the Attorney General assumed this position, in the case of the town of Almonte. I believe one or two of the people who have been recommended by not only myself but the Liberals should be appointed to that. We should not have to wait another two or three years to have a justice of the peace in those two municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member begins by saying that in order to provoke his resignation we will have to do better than that for him. I want to say clearly that I take a different view of the office of justice of the peace. I regard it as an important judicial office. On behalf of all those who serve in the office, including those in Lanark county, I want to say that I do not accept the honourable member’s comment. I regard this as an important office.

1510

Having said that, I want to acknowledge publicly that the honourable member has certainly sent to me the name of probably every person he knows in Lanark county who might by any stretch of the imagination be eligible for the appointment. The question for me is not to collect names in that fashion, but rather to determine the needs of the community and to determine how those needs can be most effectively met, as we move forward to the important act of considering and passing the Justices of the Peace Act.

I want to look very carefully, and will do so, at the needs of the county. If we can respond and if it is appropriate to respond in the way the honourable member suggests, I will do so. I of course will look very carefully at the names, many of which will be known to other members of the opposition, that the honourable member has been good enough to provide.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition containing 102 signatures. The petition originated in the village of Arthur but contains signatures from people in Guelph, Mississauga, Cambridge, Kitchener and many other municipalities. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“This letter is in protest of removing the Lord’s Prayer and Bible scripture reading from the public schools in Ontario.

“There are many children who would benefit from hearing and learning the Lord’s Prayer.”

This is signed by 102 people, and I have a similar petition signed by 22 people.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition. It originates with the Stratton Senior Citizens Friendship Club in the village of Stratton and is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It bears the signatures of some 27 individuals, and I have affixed my signature to it.

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

Mr. Wiseman: As well as 748 letters, I have brought today a petition with 33 of my constituents’ names, which reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Re: Madawaska Highlands Regional Trust.

“A proposal has been set forth to establish the Madawaska Highlands Regional Trust, controlling an area of approximately 4,000 square kilometres of crown and private land. This area affects the counties of Hastings, Lennox and Addington, Renfrew, Frontenac and Lanark.

“We, the undersigned, are in full support of the efforts of the Ministry of Natural Resources in effectively managing this area and are definitely opposed to the establishment of the proposed Madawaska Highlands Regional Trust.”

I support this petition and these letters and have affixed my name to them.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: This morning a young woman walked into my office, a woman I had never seen before, and handed me this petition. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 539, as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984, chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985, chapter 17, and Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 64, section 69.”

Members can see the amount of research she did. The petition goes on:

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until 1 April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Eves: I have a petition signed by 16 of my constituents.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed with the legislation he has announced, but instead to strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; not to pass the responsibility back to local government; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. Eves: I have another petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 387 of my constituents.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That the government of Ontario address the deletion of the Lord’s Prayer in our East Parry Sound schools. We are appealing to you to move to have this ruling changed, so that this prayer may be returned as a fit and appropriate beginning for each school day. We think that it is valuable as a prayer and also part of our Canadian heritage, as is our national anthem, containing the words, ‘God keep our land glorious and free.’ It is the right of all Canadians to have these both, the Lord’s Prayer and the national anthem, preserved within the overall educational experience of our children and their children as a lasting heritage from our glorious forefathers.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition which was dropped off in my office by a resident of Hamilton who wished to bring to the Legislature’s attention her views on Sunday shopping.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“I, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to change the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

1520

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“I urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I will sign this petition; I support it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 183, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: This particular bill is introduced to address a situation that was discovered in my riding in the small community of Kinburn. In that community, many of the people found to their surprise that the Ministry of the Environment had issued a certificate to allow an owner of land to dispose of human waste over a 10-acre parcel. Evidently, this kind of certificate can be issued by the payment of $36 and is done without public hearing.

This bill requires that public hearings be held and that the residents who would be affected by the giving of the certificate would have an opportunity to have a say and to put forward environmental and important water quality issues before the certificate was issued.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not intend to speak too long on this matter this afternoon, but I think it is worth having a discussion. I certainly appreciate the fact that yesterday the government decided that since there is an unusual nature to this appointment and the process that has been used, it would be more appropriate that it be given a proper debate in the Legislature here this afternoon.

The first point I would like to make is that I hope, and I am sure the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) understands, that this discussion and debate that is taking place in the Legislature on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with him on a personal level, that there are no concerns or upset being expressed on this side of the House about him personally in this matter, and the same with the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts). I will certainly, I think, speak for most members of the Legislature -- probably all members of the Legislature -- in our support and the confidence we had in the member for Elgin who occupied this position until yesterday when she submitted her resignation.

I think it should be made clear that there are no personalities involved in this discussion at all. This is a discussion on the process that has been used by the government and the government House leader in seeing that this position is rotated as the government has decided, a process that we simply cannot accept as being appropriate or proper for these positions, which are positions for all members of the Legislature, not just members of the Liberal caucus.

I want to run through very quickly what has happened over the last few weeks and why the opposition is so upset about what has happened. I gather the government decided that the parliamentary assistant positions, the chairman of committee positions it appoints and this position would be rotated on an annual basis. We cannot say anything about the appointments of parliamentary assistants; that is certainly totally within the power of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the cabinet of the province. We are not able to nor should we be able to have input into who should receive those appointments, just as appointments for cabinet are obviously at the discretion of the Premier.

But this position is the position of an officer of the House and it is totally and completely unacceptable and inappropriate that the government would see this position as being one of the positions that can be rotated on an annual basis so that all the backbenchers within the Liberal caucus can share the wealth; in other words, access some of the additional money that is available for people who have these types of positions. It is totally unacceptable.

In the past and even under the Davis regime, when Premier Davis and the Conservatives were in power, there was normally a phone call put in to the leaders of the opposition parties checking with the opposition parties to see whether they agreed with the person’s name that was going to be put forward for Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House. While I am under no illusion that if we had said to Mr. Davis we did not agree with the names he put forward for those positions, he would necessarily have listened to us, those jobs were, in the past, assigned on a consensus basis and there was consultation with the opposition parties.

That was not the case in this instance. In this particular instance, last Monday, when the Legislature reconvened, is when I first heard that this job was being treated like that of a parliamentary assistant and would be rotated on an annual basis so that all Liberals would have access to parliamentary assistant jobs and this particular job. That is when I first heard about it.

The government House leader then, on Monday afternoon, was talking to me about something else and I asked him about it and he said: “Oh, yes, that’s right. We’re going to be rotating these jobs and Mr. Ray is going to get the appointment and the motion will be coming forward.” That is the first conversation there was about this matter at all. I raised it with the government House leader a week ago yesterday here because I had heard the rumour.

I then went and spoke to the House leader for the third party who had not heard about it at all. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the House leader for the third party, had to hear about this through me. There was no consultation from the Premier, no consultation from the government House leader. “We have 94 members and we’ll do what we bloody well please in this place. Be damned to the opposition” is basically the position the government has taken on this matter.

That is simply not going to be acceptable. We cannot stop this particular appointment. The government House leader will know that we raised it last Thursday at the House leaders’ meeting. At that particular time I said we did not like the process, that it was unacceptable. The whip for this caucus, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) said -- to make it very clear to the government House leader because I had raised the matter with the government House leader and asked when the motion was going to be coming forward -- just so that there could be nothing misinterpreted by the government House leader, the whip for our party said to the government House leader: “We want this process stopped. We want the name withdrawn and we want a proper process of consultation.” That was exactly the statement the member for Riverdale made at the House leaders’ meeting last Thursday.

Mr. Reycraft: You have a wonderful imagination.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The whip for the Liberal caucus is either deliberately forgetting what happened at the House leaders’ meeting or there is something seriously wrong with his memory. That was made very clear by the member for Riverdale when he said that we did not agree with the appointment and the process and we wanted it stopped. At the end of the House leaders’ meeting last Thursday that point was made.

1530

We then checked with the government House leader on Thursday to find out when this motion was going to be coming forward. We put a phone call through on Monday morning, yesterday, as well. We did not even have the courtesy of a return phone call. Yesterday, with five minutes left to go in question period, we got a copy of the motion and an indication from the government House leader that this was going to go forward yesterday -- five minutes’ notice.

I have not been a member of this Legislature for that many years; I have been a member for 11 years. There were some reforms, as I understand it, between 1975 and 1977 when there was minority government. Before that, I understand that the business of the House was normally just given to the opposition parties with minutes to go and that there was no preconsultation or anything like that at all, but that was changed, as I understand it, in 1975.

I think yesterday was the clearest example that what the Liberal caucus wants, what the government wants, is to turn the time back in this place and go back to the way it was in the early 1970s and 1960s. They want to say to the opposition parties: “We have a majority. We are going to do what we want to do and you cannot stop us.” If anything, the message we were trying to convey to the government yesterday was that we are not going to allow that.

We do not have many tools at our disposal, but we will use them in this House if the government continues to proceed in the way it has been proceeding. I want to run through just a few examples of what has happened over the last number of months. If this were one isolated example of what the Liberals were doing, we could say: “Okay, it was a mistake. You should not have done it. Try not to do it again. There are three parties in the Legislature. Try to operate with some consensus.” Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm with this particular government.

I am not going to go into all the details, but let us remember last year at Christmas when we had before us the free trade resolution that was brought forward by the government House leader. I cannot remember all the details, but I think there was 24 hours’ notice. We had been told there was going to be one motion to refer the matter to committee. Instead, there were two motions, one condemning the deal and one referring the matter to committee. There was no consultation on that; just a word outside the House: “Two motions are coming forward. Pass them if you want to get out for Christmas.”

We did not get out for Christmas. We did not agree with the position the Tory caucus took. We wanted to pass a resolution to condemn the deal, but in terms of the process and the lack of consultation, the process stunk and the government was showing its arrogance at that point.

The Sunday shopping bills: Earlier, the government took the position very clearly that it wanted those bills passed quickly, that it did not want public hearings. We had to go through all sorts of processes to get a commitment --

Mr. Faubert: Not so, not so.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is absolutely so. If the member had been in the House leaders’ meetings, he would have seen that there was no commitment from the government House leader for public hearings across the province at all. We had to go through bell-ringing, petitions and all the rest of the things that happened in this House in order to tell the government that the opposition parties are going to have some say on how legislation is dealt with in this place.

The workers’ compensation bill, as late as last week: The government House leader obviously learned a lesson with the Sunday shopping bills; he did not let the debate and the wrangling go on for a long period of time on the workers’ compensation bill.

But when we had a House leaders’ meeting the Thursday before the House convened, we made our request that the workers’ compensation bills be sent out for public hearings and there was a discussion about why we would deal with the workers’ compensation bills first when we were simply going to be doing them for second reading and referring them out to committee, and public hearings when the House breaks during the winter break.

We did not get a response from the government. We did not get a commitment that there were going to be public hearings across the province. But at the same time, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) was having a meeting with our critic the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) and said very clearly that the bills were going to be passed before Christmas, which of course means there was no intention for the workers’ compensation bill to go out to committee and have public hearings across the province.

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that committees do not travel across the province when the House is in session because there are responsibilities here in the House for members. It was not the intention of the government to send the workers’ compensation bill out for public hearings across the province, the major changes to the bill, to the way that compensation is provided to injured workers across this province. They did not intend to consult the public; they did not want to. They were going to just rush these bills through before Christmas.

Again, this party said that process was just not going to be allowed. I do not particularly like using tactics like petitions and bell-ringing, but I know the rules as well as the member knows the rules -- perhaps not as well as you, Mr. Speaker, but I am beginning to understand the rules. We had no other options but to try to use those tools provided for in the rules in order to force the government to have public hearings on the workers’ compensation bill. We used those, and we intend to use them again. If the government wants to try to ram its legislation through without consultation, without consulting the people of this province, we will use those tactics time and time again.

I would suggest that members of the Legislature should review the proposed rule changes that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly recommended to the House quite some time ago. I am going to get back specifically to the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House because I think that these proposed rules, which were, as I understand it, unanimously approved by the Legislative Assembly committee and recommended to the House --

Mr. Reycraft: Not true.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was not unanimous? There had to be all-party support.

Mr. Laughren: I remember that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: But there was pretty much all-party support. Was there support on the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole? There certainly was when the three whips discussed that section and recommended it to the House leaders. I want to read that section:

“During this parliament and the previous parliament, it is becoming increasingly apparent that an additional presiding officer is required to assist the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole. During those periods when the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House must be absent due to House business, committee business, constituency matters or illness, it would be of considerable benefit to have a fourth person knowledgeable in the procedures and practices of the House and the committees of the whole House and take the chair. It is therefore proposed that a second Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House be appointed. Such a proposal would not require an amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act.

“In the provisional amendments to the standing orders of 1986, provision was made to ensure that members representing all the recognized parties in the House serve the House as chairman of standing committees and gain important experience in the rules and procedures of the committees of the House.

“It is likewise important that members representing all of the recognized parties in the House have an opportunity to gain experience in the rules and procedures of the House and the committees of the whole House. It is not in the best interest of the House that all of the presiding officers be appointed from only one of the recognized parties in the House. The presiding officers are the officers of the whole House and must represent and protect the interest of all the members in the House. To this end, it is proposed that every effort be made to ensure that two of the four presiding officers be appointed from recognized parties in opposition to the government.”

I admit that these proposed rule changes were not adopted by the government. I can say that there was a consensus worked out between the whips from each of the parties and --

Mr. Reycraft: Not true.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Well, I do not know; one of us is suffering from something. There was a meeting that the House leaders held and there was a proposal that came to the House leaders; the member’s caucus rejected the consensus that had been reached. That is why we do not have rule changes in the House.

Obviously, there is a principle that the Legislative Assembly committee was trying to communicate to the House, and that principle is that the officers of the House have to be independent, have to have the confidence of all members of the House and have to be representative of all the parties in the House. That is why they were suggesting a fourth officer, and that is why they were saying that out of the four officers, one at least should be from the opposition parties.

Obviously, also included in that principle is that these appointments are made by consensus and by all the members coming together and agreeing on a particular appointment. Whether that means the election of the Speaker, as we have talked about and was recommended, or whether that means consultation on the other officers of the House, I think the principle remains the same.

1540

No matter how you view the principles in this recommendation, there is no way anyone could agree that the principle of consultation and the principle of a consensus for appointments for the officers of this House could be achieved or recognized in the way that the government has proceeded with the proposed appointment of the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

There has been no attempt at consensus. There has been no consultation. There has just been a name put forward with minimal notice, no formal notice at all, and an expectation that because the Liberals have 94 members in this place they are going to do whatever they want to do.

I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think most members of this Legislature think it is appropriate. I certainly think that if the government House Leader were honest in this place, he would say that if he were sitting here in the opposition he would not stand for it; he would be just as upset as this party was yesterday when they tried to ram this proposal through.

I ask that the government reconsider this process. I ask that they take some time to see that this appointment is done by consensus. More important, I ask that they really reconsider this for the future. If they think that the opposition is going to stand for this same thing happening again next year when they rotate their parliamentary assistants, it simply will not. They might be able to ram it through this time, but they will not ram it through next time. It simply will not happen next year. They had better reconsider the process and do it properly next year or else there will be even bigger disagreements in the Legislature.

However, because I and this caucus are always attempting to find compromises and solutions so that this place can work better, I would like to put forward a proposal that I think all members of the Legislature could live with. It would see that this appointment is made with consensus and with support from all members of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. D. S. Cooke moves that the motion that the member for Windsor-Walkerville be appointed Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session be amended by adding thereto the following:

“and that the whole procedure and circumstances concerning the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House and of all future appointments to this position be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for review and report to the House no later than November 14, 1988, and that Mr. Ray’s appointment be not concurred in by the House until such time as the report of the committee is received and adopted by the House.”

Mr. Harris: I would like to talk about the amendment and indicate my party’s support for the amendment. To be expeditious and to try to facilitate the business of the Legislature, I also would like to address some remarks to the main motion in the unlikely possibility that the amendment does not carry when the time comes. If it does carry, the comments will be appropriate to the amended motion.

My colleague from the New Democratic party, my fellow House leader, has reiterated some of the history of some problems that we as opposition parties have experienced since the September 10 election. He has reiterated some of those events, and I do not want to go through those save to say that I hope, I trust and I sincerely do believe that some lessons were learned through the history of some of those events -- the free trade shemozzle last Christmas and the hearings on Sunday shopping, those two in particular -- leading up to events of the past week.

I say that because they were difficult times for us as opposition parties and they were difficult times for the government House leader. My own perception of what occurred is more of arrogant, 94-seat Premier, who ordered his House leader to run roughshod and demonstrate to the two opposition parties who was in charge after September 10. I believe that put the government House leader in a very difficult position.

I think the example of what occurred at Christmas ought to have taught that arrogant Premier you cannot govern that way. There is a role for the opposition parties, and you must respect that role; you must respect their right to oppose and you must respect debate. There are traditional rules that have been followed by premiers of majority and minority governments from time immemorial in the history of this province.

When it came to Sunday shopping, I think it is apparent that the Premier’s and the cabinet’s decision was to whistle this through and to deny the full and complete hearings that the opposition parties wanted and indeed that were wanted around the province. I can only speculate but I have every confidence that my colleague the government House leader advised the Premier fully as to the implications of that. The Premier decided to bull ahead anyway and he lost that one.

Given those experiences and given the talents of the government House leader and certainly the abilities he has, which I have come to respect in my time in the Legislature and in my time working as House leader, I think it is apparent that last week we lost a day of estimates time in this House over the matter of hearings on the Workers’ Compensation Board legislation.

I think it is quite clear that the Premier, the cabinet and the Minister of Labour had made a decision: “We’re going to have this by Christmas. It doesn’t matter what the opposition thinks. It doesn’t matter what the injured workers think. We’re going to jam it through and have it by Christmas.”

I have great sympathy for the government House leader -- we owe our positions to our leaders -- who must take those marching orders and be the messenger of what I consider to be irresponsible and bad news. You saw what happened, the politics of it; and there are politics involved, let’s face it. It is our job to point out to the media, to the public and to the injured workers that this is the agenda of the Premier and the Minister of Labour.

Once that was pointed out, I am sure the government House leader then got his way. I would like to be party to some of these discussions, because I am sure he would have said: “Premier, you saw what happened when you tried to do this with your free trade resolution; you saw what happened on Sunday shopping. Surely you understand that these two opposition parties understand the process and are determined that due process and democracy prevail, that the rights of those interested in the legislation come through.”

I would like to have been party to that, when, I am sure, the government House leader -- He is not that type of fellow, but the Premier must have felt, “Well, I better just nip this in the bud before somebody says ‘I told you so’ again.” Of course, now there are full, public hearings scheduled for the workers’ compensation legislation and that will proceed after second reading and after the House rises for Christmas and takes some break. That may be a misnomer -- “rises for Christmas” -- but at some point, if we get a break between this session and the next session, there will be some time for those hearings.

1550

Again, I do not think anybody can fault the government House leader for what this Premier decided to do with what he considered to be his right as head of the Liberal Party or his right as Premier as to what were his appointments. I think the arrogance is still showing through. Here we have a man who said, “I am the Premier, so I now have the right to do whatever I want with all these things.” He started with the cabinet minister shuffles. I am sure he considered intently whether there was anybody he could bring in to shore up a flagging cabinet on a number of fronts. He could not find anybody. Quite frankly, I think he may have erred in that decision, but the point of the matter is that it is his decision and his prerogative. We accept that one.

Then the parliamentary assistants: that is his prerogative as well. We understand that historically and precedent-wise it is not our prerogative to be involved in who is going to be a parliamentary assistant. But I think it is arrogant, I think it is wrong to include in that one of the presiding officer positions. I want to talk about that.

The House leader for the New Democratic Party has pointed out historical precedent whereby consultation on these positions has been the order of the day.

The common precedent has been that there be consultation on the presiding officers, certainly on the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and on the deputy Deputy Speaker, as I call the position, but I think it is officially the Chairman of the committee of the whole House.

There may have been occasions when that was not followed. I think the New Democratic Party pointed out to me that it thought there was a year when the former Premier Bill Davis had certainly left it to the last minute or that it felt he had not consulted widely enough. My recollection is that there was an occasion because I remember talking about it in caucus. I think the Premier of the day said, “Yes, I erred.”

Yes, that is the precedent, and yes, it does make good sense that if we are going to have people in the presiding officer positions who will be respected and will be considered neutral in those roles by all parties and all members of the House, then at the very least there ought to be some consultation and some consensus on those positions.

When we have a Premier who now lumps it all in with the parliamentary assistants and the political appointments which he is entitled to make, it shows that perhaps he does not care much about the House. Either he just did not put very much thought into it or, indeed, in my view, he is being arrogant about it. He said: “I don’t care about tradition. I’m the Premier. I have 94 seats. This is what I’m going to do.” That bothers us. I do not think that is healthy. I do not think that leads to the healthy respect one wants for the presiding officers by all members of the House. I think it puts the candidate, the anointed one about whom the Premier has said, “This is my choice, whether anybody else likes it or not,” in a very difficult position. I have some sympathy for the member for Windsor-Walkerville who at some point is going to occupy that position because he has been put in a very difficult position through this process.

My colleague, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) has also pointed out not only the tradition -- what would be expected, what would be normal practice, acceptable practice -- but also he has pointed out that we are dealing with a Premier who has been quick to point out that he has disagreed with some things that occurred in the past. He wants changes. He wants House rule changes.

I was surprised when I heard the whip from the government party interject that, in fact, there was not the agreement that we thought there was, at least among some representatives of all three parties, and that on the rule changes the position of Speaker would, indeed, be an elected position as it is in Ottawa, that there be four presiding officers instead of three and that the opposition parties would be represented in at least two of those positions.

It seemed to be that they are comfortable with floating out that: “We are going to do things differently. We are going to be fairer. We are going to be more open than those Tories were.” They want the credit for that. They want the image. They want to sell out there that this is, indeed, “I’m David Peterson -- new open government.”

They want that. Yet now we are faced with a situation where, obviously, that is not being considered, even though I would have thought out of goodwill they would be saying: “This is the way we want to go in the future. This is where we want to end up, but you might consider that as practice now.” In fact, there is a total lack of consultation by the other two parties to even try to arrive at an informal consensus.

I do not know whether the government whip in his interjection was saying that he disagrees with the presiding officers that the process should be one that would provide for the greatest deal of acceptability and neutrality, once the decisions have been made or not, or whether he just was debating whether his party had agreed with it. Either way, I would suggest to members that his party would be very remiss if it did not agree with that.

That bothered us. How was that brought up? I am one who does not like discussions in public of what happened at House leaders’ meetings and who said this and who said what. I do not like it. I guess when we get into these situations and a day is wasted, as yesterday was wasted, everybody is asked to justify to the public why, essentially, a day was wasted yesterday. One has to justify that.

The matter was not brought forward by the government House leader (Mr. Conway) at any House leaders’ meeting. The matter was brought up last Thursday by the House leader for the New Democratic Party saying, “Rumour has it, or we hear a rumour that this is what you intend to do. You made this decision when the Premier announced his parliamentary changes. He was going to do this and he considered it his prerogative without any consultation to do it.”

The government House leader, my recollection is, confirmed: “Yes, it is not just a rumour. That is, indeed, what the Premier has ordered. That is, indeed, what we intend to do.”

At that point, we expressed our extreme displeasure. We indicated that there would be debate on this matter. Everybody can argue as to when, or the rest of it, but I have to tell members that my recollection is that we would receive some notice of when that debate would be. Normally, when a matter comes up new on Thursday, there is some consideration to allowing parties to caucus.

1600

Mr. D. R. Cooke: What about today, Mike? Is today going to be wasted on it?

Mr. Harris: The turkey interjects, “Is today going to be wasted?” Let me say to him that I hope today is not wasted. I hope the lesson is learned today, because there will be a lot more at stake than one day of the Legislature’s time if the lessons are not learned today.

The whole matter of when there is going to be debate, and the whole reason for House leader meetings, is to schedule those debates to provide time to provide caucus time, so that parties can assess their positions and be prepared for it.

I have had subsequent discussions with the whip from the Liberal Party, who indicated to me that he thought that there was an indication that this would come forward on Monday. That was not my understanding, but I want to tell you something. If that was his perception, then it would have been the perception of the government House leader and I respect that.

There was obviously a misunderstanding, because neither the House leader for the New Democratic Party nor I understood it that way. We understood they planned to proceed. We did not know when and we did not have a chance to caucus it.

Yesterday, upon learning that, had the government House leader said, “Oh, okay, I understand your position, you should be allowed to caucus it; let’s put it off to tomorrow,” we would not have wasted the day. I can only presume that the Premier said, “Jam it to them again and let’s go.”

I do have respect for the government House leader. I do think that he is learning a very new and difficult role, and my only possible conclusion that I can arrive at is that the Premier still plans to operate, whether tradition has it or not, whether it makes sense or not and whether it is the right thing to do or not, as if he has a 94-seat majority and that does not just entitle him to win all the votes that he wants to win, that entitles him to run roughshod over the process and over the opposition as well. We object to that.

There has been a little time taken yesterday. I think everybody respects our right to debate the motion, which we are doing today. I have told you why I think this process is wrong and why I will not support and my party will not support the motion that has been put forward by the government.

We will support the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the House leader for the New Democratic Party, the member for Windsor-Riverside, which will try to put some semblance of what everybody, I think, anticipates should be the case, to arrive at a consensus on the presiding officer.

If that amendment carries, then I believe we can go back to what should have happened in the first place. If that amendment does not carry, I want it clear that we will not support the motion and I want it clear that it has nothing to do with the individual involved. It is that process that we take great exception to.

I am not happy to be debating this in this way today. I am not happy that we were not able to deal with supply for more of the day yesterday than we were able to, but I think surely all members of the House must respect and understand the position my party found itself in, the position the New Democratic Party found itself in and, indeed, the position all members find themselves in if the presiding officer, that process, is tainted, if it is not a process that is likely to give nonpartisan confidence in the position.

I hope when this process finishes, whoever ends up in that position -- and if it is the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I will certainly not prejudge his merits as an individual, I will assume that he will do an excellent job. I am just disappointed that the process has tainted the method by which it has come about.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am quite delighted this afternoon to engage in this debate on the amendment standing in the name of the member for Windsor-Riverside, and actually, all the more so because my very good friend the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) has joined us. According to the House leader for the third party, the member from Orono and environs is likely going to engage in some of this debate. I am just very pleased he is going to do so.

I thought earlier, quite frankly, that the third party was going to absent itself in its entirety since there seems to have been a sea of empty blue seats there, but now I see a couple of blue suits. Again, I am very much looking forward to the intervention of my friend the former Deputy Speaker of this Legislature.

I really appreciate what my friends opposite -- the member for Windsor-Riverside and my friend the member for Nipissing -- have said so far because I have to make a confession. I had a few things to say yesterday and I think, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would probably know, I was a little annoyed. I went home last night and I thought, “Why did I get annoyed?” I thought: “You idiot. You got annoyed because you took your friends opposite more seriously than you ought to have.”

That is really the truth of it. I sat here and I thought, “Well, listen to what they are saying and try to square that with your experience elsewhere in these matters that are at issue.” I was really getting angry. I went home last night and I had a good stiff drink of water.

Mr. Breaugh: Holy water.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not holy water; not at all. I had a good stiff drink of ice water and I said: “Now, tomorrow this matter is likely going to come back and do not make the same mistake twice. Do not let them get to you,” because it is true what the member for Oshawa says; they did get to me yesterday. I have to make a confession to my friend from Jarvis. It was most particularly the member for Windsor-Riverside who got to me because he said and did some things that were, quite frankly, remarkable.

So I begin my comments today, speaking to the amendment, by promising my friends in the assembly that I am not going to be annoyed today. I am going to be my usual, friendly, helpful self.

I have to say to my friends that what really sets the stage for this today is that the two speeches that have preceded this comment make my case marvellously. They make the case that the issue here is not the matter before us, but it is surely the games people play, the antics of the opposition.

My friend the member for Nipissing is a very shrewd political operator. He has taken that Nipissing seat from its old heyday of Liberalism, and I have to say, turned it around to something of a Harris fiefdom. Living not too far from him, I pay tribute to his not inconsiderable political skills. They are developing apace and I gather he may very well announce his intentions to seek higher office in the not-too-distant future. I just want to say to my friends in the government caucus that those are the reports I hear from Demarco’s in downtown North Bay. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the present status, the past accomplishments and the future prospects of the member for Nipissing.

But did the members hear him today? Did they hear what he had to say? The bulk of his speech was the arrogance of the member for London Centre. That, of course, is the message he wants to convey. I think, over the last 12 or 13 months, regardless of the facts of the case, that is the almost predicable refrain of our friend the distinguished member for Nipissing. I do not fault him for that. There are imperatives in the third party that we respect, and that we particularly respect in the third party of Ontario in 1988.

One of my friends said to me the other day: “How could you explain the delaying tactics of these Tories at Queen’s Park in 1988? Do they think the business of the Legislature is like the Tory leadership convention in Ontario, something to be delayed to some date in the future, Yet to be decided?” I said, “No, I wouldn’t ever conclude that.” I would not take that view, because I have to believe my friends in the third party want to get on with the public’s business.

1610

That is what most of them say. My very good friend the squire of Manotick is now here and he of course has always shown himself, in his time as a member, to be particularly purposeful in all of these matters, whether they are here in the Legislature or, God forbid, involving some travel out of Toronto.

I have to say again that it was interesting when we listened today to what the third party House leader had to say. He really focused his attention on what he thought was the particular arrogance of the Premier. What that has to do with this is of course quite beyond my understanding, but it was the speech that was made yesterday. I say to my friend, because he is going to be a leadership candidate, he is really a very charming fellow.

Mr. Faubert: They’re all leadership candidates.

Mr. Reycraft: Aren’t they all.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, after yesterday’s oration from the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) on multiculturalism, I think our friend from Burlington has taken himself out of the race. What else could explain that outburst?

The thing I like about the member for Nipissing is that he is shrewd, and most of the time he is as charming as it is possible to be. He is so smooth, he is so clever as to be a first-rate instructor for those of us who were new to the House leaders’ and whips’ table.

But what I have to say, having not interrupted anyone in the second party, is that it always bothers me when I see the putative leader of the Tory party, the member for Nipissing, when he gets into that kind of nasty mood. He does not do it very often. Yesterday, I was walking in the outer precinct and he was saying some things that were really cutting. I cannot imagine that he meant them, but I sometimes get the feeling that regardless of the facts of the case, the Tories simply have this mindset that whatever the government does, it has 94 members and must be a priori arrogant and insensitive and it must all be the Premier’s fault.

I have of course altogether too much regard for the capacity of the member for Nipissing to take him seriously on that account, but I just want to say that this is their line; that is the game in which they seem to be deeply occupied. I want to make the observation that it does not appear to matter what the issue around this place is, whether it is this motion, this amendment or whatever else.

What I heard here today about the specifics of this government on its willingness -- and the chief government whip is going to get involved in this a little bit later, because in a friendly, helpful way, we want to tell our side of the story to the people out there in Sandwich West and in Sturgeon Falls and elsewhere, because we do not want them, as we can imagine --

Mr. Laughren: Welland-Thorold.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Nickel Belt says “Welland-Thorold.” My friends from the peninsula tell me that yesterday morning our dear friend the former member for Welland-Thorold was announcing on the local radio station, “The whole NDP caucus is coming down here tomorrow afternoon,” and I said to myself, “That may explain a few things.” I do not know whether it is true or not, but they were advertising the fact widely yesterday. The NDP in Welland-Thorold was saying, “The by-election is on and the whole caucus is coming down here tomorrow,” on radio.

Mr. Laughren: It is amazing what you can do with mirrors.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the member for Nickel Belt says, it is amazing what you can do with mirrors.

What are we to make of these people? I thought we were elected here to do the business of the province in a serious and purposeful way. I say to my friend the member for Nipissing that we, as a government, are very anxious to engage our friends in the opposition, to have a tough debate, to decide, because we believe over here that to govern is to decide and we are prepared to make the tough decisions.

We want to get on with that. Why? Because this government was elected by the people of Ontario to get on with the business of addressing the pressing issues of our economy, our social agenda, our resource development field. That we are doing under the very able leadership of the Premier; that is what brings us here on a daily basis.

We want to get on with the business because we have important, positive and constructive business with which to deal. That is why I wonder when I hear my friends opposite say to me that the government has been somehow unwilling or unco-operative. I have to say I do not feign any perfection. I have to admit that I have made my mistakes. There is no question about that. I will probably make mistakes in the future.

I just have to say that from our point of view, we have accommodated the opposition to a very great extent -- far greater, I must say, than I can remember any majority government or minority government led by the Conservatives in the time that I have been in the Legislature ever accommodating us.

I want to come to one of those precedents involving the member for Durham East a little later in this debate. But what can be said of the House leader for the NDP, the member for Windsor-Riverside? I have to make a confession again because I am disposed to like the democratic socialists of this province. I do not know why, because when I think about what they say on the major issues, I sometimes wonder just where it is they are getting some of these ideas but, by and large, my experience over the years with my NDP colleagues has been a very positive one.

Sure, they are tough-minded and they drive a tough bargain. You have not lived until you have sat around a steering committee on a legislative exercise with the member for Oshawa or the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). I have learned things in those encounters that I shall not soon, if ever, forget. I appreciate that, I say to my friend from Oshawa.

But then there is the member for Windsor-Riverside, and what concerns me is that he is so unhappy. If I ever see the man smile, I will not know where to look or where to turn. This may be unparliamentary, but I sometimes think the House leader for the official opposition is very nearly paranoid. If that is unparliamentary -- it might be and I am no clinician.

I tell my friends that in all of my experience in dealing with the New Democratic Party, a wonderful part of our political culture, I have never encountered the likes of the member for Windsor-Riverside. He is so unlike his colleagues. His colleagues, by and large, are tough-minded hard bargainers, people who can really do it to someone, but in a way that -- well, what can I say?

Mr. Breaugh: It makes you the government. That’s what you can say.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is said perfectly. It makes us the government. But this is background to the amendment because I have to deal with my good friends. I want to deal with them in a very optimistic and open-minded and constructive fashion.

I am just a country boy from the Ottawa Valley, I will admit. I have none of the urbanity and none of the sophistication of the Treasury critic for the official opposition or the Justice critic for the third party. I do not profess to have any of that, but I must say, in the hills and vales of the Ottawa Valley I have never encountered anyone like the House leader of the official opposition, because of this unhappiness, this profound disappointment with his lot in life. I worry about that. I worry about the impact that will have on the progress of public business. I worry about that in terms of the honourable member’s political future. I worry about that in terms of his own relations with his colleagues.

The member for Riverdale is the New Democratic whip. I have to tell the members that dealing with the member for Riverdale is an experience quite opposite to the experience that I have in dealing with the member for Windsor-Riverside. The member for Windsor-Riverside comes in --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Well, we are there to balance each other.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I find it extraordinary what it is the member for Riverdale remembers. By and large, I think the member for Riverdale has one of the best memories in this place and I find myself most often in agreement with what he remembers.

The thing that troubles me most about the member for Windsor-Riverside is that he recites things that I think bespeak a malady that may be more serious than paranoia. I sometimes wonder where this man has been. Has he been to the same meetings in which the member for Nipissing and I have been engaged? What kind of fantasy is he recounting? What kind of experience has he had in that meeting that few, if any, of the rest of us appear to have had?

1620

I know that in the business of politics we all bring a different perspective, we all have a somewhat different agenda. I repeat that the agenda of this government is to get on with the important public business the electors of Ontario sent us, as this Legislature, to do one year and some months ago. That is the priority and that is the commitment of this government, and we intend to pursue that objective in spite of all the delaying tactics and all of the frustration and all of the obstruction.

The other day, the member for Windsor-Riverside engaged yet again in one of his recitations of what he thought had transpired at a House leaders’ meeting. I have to say to all of my friends that I sometimes think that maybe the way to do business with the member for Windsor-Riverside is to have an elaborate exchange of letters, put it all down in neat typescript so that no one, least of all the member for Windsor-Riverside, is under any wrong impression. The member for Nipissing and I would never want to do business that way because we generally seem to have the same recollection. Of course, so do the member for Riverdale and myself.

Let me just say that in speaking to the amendment he put, the member for Windsor-Riverside engaged in some -- what shall I call it? The member for Windsor-Riverside gave a report of what he thought has taken place in respect of this particular motion and the position of the appointment of a new Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House. I am going to get back to that in one moment.

Again, I say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside that I wish he would just stop scowling because it is so off-putting; it ill becomes him. It is time, after 11 years around this place, he became more effervescent, that he became more popular, because we cannot, any of us, stand to look at what is a constantly depressing, unhappy gaze. It is, quite frankly, upsetting and we just do not, I say in the interest of occupational health and safety, want that to continue.

I want to say that the facts of the case are not at all like the honourable members opposite have recited. Again, of course, we have to remember that I do not believe that the facts of the case are really a principal concern. There are opposition tactics: delay, frustrate, do whatever is possible to not proceed with the public’s business. That is apparently their real objective.

To be fair, the member for Windsor-Riverside has made it clear to everybody, at least west of the Grand River, that those are his objectives. He has not said it in quite that way here, but if you monitor the Windsor-Essex County press, there is no question what the objective of the House leader for the official opposition is: “We’re going to do this and we’re going to do that. We’re going to move heaven and earth to stop the government from doing the important things it was elected to do.” We, of course, as a government, expect a strong and vigorous opposition but we expect an opposition that is going to be sensible and constructive.

Let me just quickly recount what has happened in the last number of days. The government caucus has decided to elect a chairman for its caucus. Our very good friend and esteemed member for Elgin indicated a willingness to stand for that position. I must report to the House that at an election held in the government caucus this morning, the member for Elgin was successful and she is now the newly elected government caucus chair. All of us, I am sure, would want to congratulate her on that.

When the member for Elgin decided she wanted to run for that elective position, she indicated her intention to resign her position as the Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House and she so indicated by letter earlier this week to the Speaker. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), those are the facts of the case. The member for Elgin decided to run. She was successful. But before the election was held today, she indicated, by letter to the Speaker, her intention to resign from her position, thereby occasioning the vacancy that this main motion seeks to address.

The comments made opposite about a statement from me or from someone else that these House positions were somehow going to be rotated along with all of the other parliamentary assistant positions, I say to the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins), is patently absurd and simply not the case. I say that to anyone who cares to concern himself or herself with the facts of the case, recognizing that there are other imperatives and some people may not be particularly anxious to deal with the facts of the case.

That is what happened. We have had an election, we have a new caucus chair and we have put before the assembly a motion to deal with the vacancy occasioned by that decision taken by the member for Elgin, not the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Obviously, you are not too concerned about the facts, Sean. You know those aren’t the facts. Your own caucus knows that.

Mr. Reville: There you go.

Hon. Mr. Conway: There he goes again. I say to the member for Riverdale --

Mrs. Cunningham: Is this your normal behaviour? I haven’t seen this level of behaviour.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my very good friend the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), I have tried a new mode in here. I have tried to be quiet and to be very laid back, but I am sometimes energized to my old self.

I just listened yesterday and then I listened again today to the opposition House leaders in particular and I thought, “Well, it is important for me to make the case for the government as to what has actually gone on.” I have no intentions of circumscribing the political licence of my friends opposite. I have no intentions of doing that at all.

Coming back to the amendment, I just want to take the opportunity to state again that we have seen things in this chamber over the last number of months that are quite remarkable. Again, it is interesting to see the member for Windsor-Riverside who, I repeat, has made it very clear what his objectives are to fight the government, to just do anything -- there is some wonderful stuff in the Windsor Star. I did not bring it, but boy, that is his job. Go get ‘em. What he is not going to do to stop certain things around this place. He will move heaven and earth to stop this and to stop that and to stop something else, to delay and to frustrate. Listen, I have played the opposition game. I know what some of those pressures are.

I have to say to my good friend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), who settled down after the question period, that we have seen some things here over the last number of days and weeks and months that indicate very clearly what the opposition game is all about. I sat here the other day and I watched a relatively new member, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), elected in 1987, and I saw something that I have never seen before. I saw a member stand up and in an effort to introduce, as you would expect, uninterrupted or unobstructed, a first reading, I saw him thwarted in that by no less a group than his own colleagues.

1630

I have been here 13 years and I have engaged in a few tactics of my own, but my copy-book is not blotted with that kind of obstructionism. I have never, ever seen a situation where a caucus gangs up on one of its own to deny that honourable member an opportunity to introduce a first reading in an unobstructed fashion. I have never seen that.

Why did they want to do that? It was clear what they wanted to do, I say to my friend the member for London North. They wanted to do what they did, ring the bells for a couple of hours. Opposition without effort, that is what they wanted to do. I must say, what could be more clear?

Then of course we have the bell-ringing without the noise of the same sort. We have the mindless, endless reading of petitions in which and for which our friends on both opposition benches bear the full measure of responsibility: more obstruction, more frustration, more delay, and to what end? It is not yet clear.

The member for Nipissing has said: “We want to get on with estimates. We want estimates. Give us estimates.” I say, well, all right, I cannot deny or delay that kind of passion. If he wants estimates, we will give him estimates, I say to my friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). On the first chance we get to give the Tories what they say they want, then they want something else. They want an emergency debate. Which is it? I ask my friend the member for Mississauga South, one of the saner members of the third party. What do they want? Do they want estimates?

The chief government whip is going to go through in some detail, in the short period of time, some of the efforts we have made in trying to accommodate the opposition in the call for estimates.

And oh, the member for Windsor-Riverside: What is so interesting about the member for Windsor-Riverside is not his strategy and it is not his tactics, because in here you would think you were dealing with Edmund Burke or Charles Fox, Mr. Parliamentary Principle. Yesterday, he was quite prepared to put a motion for adjournment that he had to believe, because he is no fool, that he had to know was out of order before the chamber.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, it seemed to work.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Oshawa would never do that.

What is so interesting is watching the member for Windsor-Riverside stride about this place imagining that he is Charles Fox or Edmund Burke, Mr. Parliamentary Principle, and then listening to him outside or reading the Windsor Star. A more bare-knuckled partisan I have never, ever seen, and that is to his credit, but he cannot have it both ways, I say to the member for Mississauga South; it must be one or the other.

What is amusing, if at times disappointing, is the spectacle of the member for Windsor-Riverside trying to dress up this bare-knuckled, partisan, “We’re going to stop this government at any cost on a number of issues, irrespective of the democratic will in this assembly and in the land beyond,” that strategy, and then he tries to dress it up, tries to tart it up in the clothing of parliamentary respectability. I must say, as the former leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, Ambassador Stephen Lewis, would say if he were here, “That is chutzpah with a capital C.”

I do not begrudge -- that brought a smile to the face of the member for Windsor-Riverside; let Hansard show that.

An hon. member: Oh, he can smile.

Hon. Mr. Conway: He can smile. How would Stephen say it, I ask the member for Nickel Belt? What breathtaking, shameless, impossibly clever chutzpah would beat that, I say to my friends in this chamber today? It is watching the member for Windsor-Riverside, with his strategy well known to the press and the world beyond, come in here and just dress it all up as though it had something to do with parliament. It has everything to do with the tactics the opposition has decided upon. That is their decision. I am not here to challenge the efficacy and the intelligence that might have gone into the consideration of those tactics, but I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It’s nice to know you’ve got over your anger.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Well, you know, he has provoked me. How many times has the member for Windsor-Riverside given the appearance, offered the veneer of the rules of parliament, the proper decorum?

The other day, one of my friends in the great southwest came to me and said, “Mr. House Leader, are there not rules by which we members are governed in some matters, for example, the printing and the distribution of the Queen’s Park report?” I said: “Oh yes, it is quite clear what the rules are. The rules in the manual for members’ allowances and services say, ‘It is implicit that the contents [of these members’ mailings] be nonpartisan in nature and restricted to outlining legislative developments in the House and committees.’” That is quite clear to all members, particularly those members who serve on the Board of Internal Economy, like the member for Windsor-Riverside. They know only too well what the rules are.

Mr. Reycraft: Don’t they make the rules?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Nipissing stood up the other day and complained to you, Mr. Speaker, about something that appeared in the riding brochure of the member for Fort York, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) is quite right that the Board of Internal Economy has a lot to do with the making and enforcement of those rules, as always under your able guidance and leadership, Mr. Speaker.

One of my friends came to me the other day and said, “If that is so, Mr. House Leader, how can one explain this” -- the Queen’s Park report of the member for Windsor-Riverside -- “if rules mean anything?”

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, I am not going to go through chapter and verse of this householder, because the surprise will be too much, the pain will be too great and the recrimination might be almost uncontrollable, I say to my friend from Osceola, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty). I recommend to him and anyone in the gallery -- I see a member of the press here -- that if they are interested in rules and the degree to which and the way in which the member for Windsor-Riverside --

Mr. McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am curious how much longer we are going to have to stand this punishment.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to tell my friend from Oro that he will not have to wait too long. He will not have to wait as long as the government members have had to wait patiently for the antics of the opposition to be concluded.

We have been asked by the member for Windsor-Riverside to reflect upon the rules. If members are interested in the rules, they will be interested in this householder, because a more shameless, barefaced breaking of the rules I cannot imagine. I ask my friend from Manotick, mindful of the tentative accord as between the House leaders from the third and second parties, will he promise to do me this favour? Please do not show this to my friend the member for Nipissing, because this will send him into paroxysms of upset and rage.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the government House leader wants to read my householder, that is fine, but I do not think the government House leader is permitted to come in the House and say I have broken rules and accuse me of breaking the rules set by the Board of Internal Economy and make that accusation here in the House. I do not think you can permit that. He will have to withdraw it. If he would like to file a complaint about my householder, I would be more than happy to come before you, Mr. Speaker, or the Board of Internal Economy to go over my report, but I would ask that he withdraw an accusation in the House.

1640

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me help you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I will withdraw any impression I might have given that I have unilaterally decided this. I think quite properly, Mr. Speaker, at the behest of the member for Nipissing, you have the matter before you and I just would take this opportunity to add this to the body of that which you are surveying and about which you will pass some judgement.

I will not get into the fact that the Windsor press, among others, has raised some questions. From my point of view, I want to simply make the point --

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have not reviewed which order it is but I know there is an order that does not permit a member of this House to speak without your first identifying him or her. With respect, the government House leader has just risen to speak without being recognized by you.

Mr. Speaker: The member had the floor.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I can tell that the late afternoon is upon us and I want to accommodate. I do not want to be too difficult, but I introduce this as evidence because we are being invited, as members of this assembly, to consider the points made by the member for Windsor-Riverside. I think, with all due respect, he is about the last person who ought to be giving us any advice on the rules, by dint of his present and past conduct, stellar fellow in the official opposition that he seems to be. I just want to say that one can lead by example and the examples being provided by the member for Windsor-Riverside are not the kinds of examples on which I would construct any argument for leadership.

Let me just say in conclusion that there was consultation; it is quite true, and the honourable members opposite adverted to this, as they would say at the Cochrane bar. There was discussion last Monday --

Mr. Breaugh: That is one bar I have never been to. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me be clear: the Cochrane legal bar. All my lawyer friends use that wonderful word “adverted,” and it makes me think of lawyers. That is the point I am trying to convey.

Last Monday at the board, I indicated that it was the intention of the member for Elgin to seek the chairmanship of the government caucus. I indicated it very clearly. On Thursday, at the regular House leaders’ and whips’ meeting, I made it even more clear that that was going to happen, that it was the intention of the government to nominate the member for Windsor-Walkerville for that particular vacancy. It was very clearly spelled out at that time what our intentions were, so the argument that there was no consultation is simply, from my point of view, not correct.

It is correct to say, I am sure, that there was a consultation that was not satisfactory to the wishes of the official opposition. I am prepared to accept that, but I ask my friends to reflect upon the wishes of the opposition. The wishes of the opposition are that the public business in this chamber and in its committees not proceed, that it be frustrated, that it be delayed, that it be obstructed, and that every and any tactic in and outside of the rules will be applied to that end. That is their objective, that is their strategy and that is on their head.

I conclude by saying that the government does not favour this amendment, because we think we have proceeded fairly and reasonably. Of course, I am prepared, in the normal course of events, to engage my friends from Timmins and Orono and elsewhere on how we ought to do the business of this place.

Mr. Laughren: You have done the business --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Assuming, I say to my friend the member for Nickel Belt, that that is the business of the business in this place, but these mixed signals have got to stop. If it is estimates, it will be estimates. If it is rules to facilitate the improved progress of the legislative agenda, I am prepared to deal. But if the agenda is the agenda that is made plain, outside of this House and in here, by the antics, and those antics are a frustration and an obstruction, then that is not the government’s concern.

We were elected to lead, to decide and to get on with the important business that the audience and the voters out there expect and will receive from the Liberal government led by the member for London Centre. For those reasons, we reject this amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are indeed fortunate the House leader stopped when he did. Five more minutes and you would have had to send out for hip waders for all members.

I have been here a while and I have seen the government House leader on both sides of the aisle. I have enjoyed, on many occasions, what he had to say, the way he said it and the ferocity with which he put his point. But I tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall a time when I have seen a government House leader spend quite so much time berating any member of the opposition in very hot, personal terms, not disagreeing with what the member said, not disagreeing with what the member put across, but making a very personalized assault.

I think the government House leader is going to regret that. I have waited for some time for the government to address the issue and it has not happened yet. I think people who are observing the process may have some difficulty understanding why members would be upset about this. Members on the opposition side have no say and want no say in what a government does, nor do we want anything to do with who gets various government jobs or who is a minister of the crown. That is not our business at all. We would prefer, in most instances, to let the government do what it wants and then we will make our positions known at a later time.

But there are some positions that members of the assembly feel belong to the assembly, and this is one of them. A committee of the assembly has tried, on a number of occasions now, to make that abundantly clear. I have served on that committee, as have members from all parties. On many occasions, since I have been a member here, we have worked collectively as individual, ordinary members of the assembly of Ontario to establish a way of conducting our business that makes a little more sense to us.

When I first became a member here, things were not very good for ordinary members and I think the member for Renfrew North was one of the first to take up the cause that ordinary members on all sides, not government or opposition but ordinary members of the assembly on all sides, were at a decided disadvantage. The disadvantage was very simply this, that the Legislature was run from the Premier’s office, that there were times when no other member, none, other than the government House leader knew what the next order of business would be: and that there were times when no member knew when the House would adjourn for the evening; the House sat regularly until one o’clock, two o’clock, three o’clock, four o’clock in the morning.

Members on all sides said, “That’s fine if your only agenda is to pass the government’s laws and if you believe that the role of the ordinary member is to stand up at the right time.” But a number of us, in all parties, said, “There must b a better way to organize the business of the province and to organize the way in which the Legislative Assembly does its business.”

We started by saying that there are some officers of the assembly who are important to all members on all sides who, we all agreed, should be nonpartisan, that they cannot fulfil their duties unless all sides believe they are not going to take an advantage of one side over the other. The position we are discussing today is one of those.

The Legislative Assembly committee said a little more than that in its reports, which are, in my view, a magnificent compromise, because they offer to the government side some advantages in getting its business done a little faster than was usually the way, and to the opposition side a little bit of how it can get its points across during the legislative agenda. But most of all, it is for those of us who are not party leaders. Most of all, those reforms were about the things a member of the cabinet cares nothing about, because their prime responsibility is to deliver programs and probably they do not participate as much as do many of us who are ordinary members in the chamber.

So those reforms were are all headed towards enhancing the role of this chamber and enhancing the role of each and every ordinary member. The reforms seemed to be rather well under way for a while, but I would say, as one who has worked for them, as the member for Renfrew North has for some time, they now appear to be stalled. The government has lost its enthusiasm for this. I think that is a sad day. It is sad because it reverts members on this side into some things we really would rather not do.

1650

Let me give some reasons the government of Ontario ought to pause and think about its position, which is essentially what the amendment does. It says: “Just wait a minute. Send this back to the Legislative Assembly committee and let’s all sit down and think about how we want to proceed over the life of this parliament.” I really beg government members to do this. I know they have enough votes to win. That is not the point. To accept that as their premise is to misunderstand completely the parliamentary system.

The parliamentary system is quite different from a congressional system or any other system one would care to look at. If this were the Congress of the United States of America and the President had enough votes to get something through the Congress, it would happen on schedule, on time as he called the shots. That does not happen very often there, but that is the theory. A parliament is not like that. A parliament is different. A parliament has as its basic premise that all honourable members on all sides do not have to agree -- they rarely do -- but they all have to believe that what is being done here is reasonable. That is a key difference.

It is fine for the government House leader to say, as he just did at some length, that somebody did not understand what he said. It is fine for him to say, “Well, they understood what I said but they didn’t like it.” That, unfortunately, is not what is being discussed here. If it chooses to continue on the route it is, and it may -- it certainly would not be the first government in this chamber to do that -- I think it is fair for us on the opposition side to say it: “You leave us no option. We watched you in opposition. We will simply repeat all the things you did.” As I listened to the government House leader say how horrible it was for an opposition party to cause the bells to ring, I was reminded of those occasions when he was in opposition when that is precisely what the Liberal Party of Ontario did in opposition.

I listened to him lecture us about people on the opposition side giving long speeches, and I recall the speeches given in this chamber in opposition by the member for Renfrew North. I will be happy to read them to the members if they want because they are all written down. That is one of the curses of Hansard; it writes down every single word you say and attributes it to you. We are not allowed to say that is hypocrisy, but whatever it is, it is true and it happened here.

My personal assessment of what is transpiring here is that we have slipped into an unfortunate set of circumstances. I notice that the government House leader, when he was here, was most upset that he was being given a lecture on arrogance by a Conservative. I could be a little facetious and say they are experts in the field, but it would take away not one whit from the accuracy of what was said here this afternoon.

They can try, as others have before them, to say that is the reality of September 10: “We have a huge majority. We will do what we want.” The Liberal government in New Brunswick can do that because there is not one opposition member there, but the Liberals in Ontario, however popular they are, however many seats they have, however wonderful they are, cannot. That is the only thing the opposition side has to work with.

We cannot ride around in the limousines. We cannot appoint people to the cabinet. We cannot appoint royal commissions or select committees or do a great many things a government can do but in this chamber we have a tool. The tool is to do what opposition parties have done since there were parliaments; that is, when a government decides it does not want to bother consulting with the opposition, it will pay a price for that. It can make as many hysterical speeches as it wants; it will not get away from paying that price. The minister can stand up and personally say nasty things about every single member on the opposition side and it will not do him any good.

The Liberals are not the first ones to think of that. I have been here when the pros were at work, when those benches were occupied by people who had been in government for 30 and 40 years and by members who knew nothing but being on the government side. There are no new stunts. We have seen them all. I have seen Tom Wells, when he was government House leader, get up and do very much like what the member for Renfrew North did today. He did it with a lot more class and a lot more clout, and when the day was over, you knew that you could go outside and talk to him.

I put this fear on the record this afternoon, which I think the Liberals should pay some attention to. Maybe they have not yet learned how to govern. Maybe they honestly think that all they have to do is yell at us that they have more members than we do. It does not work on the playground and it does not work in here. Maybe they think they can bully us around. Let them try it, for as long as they like.

Maybe they think that just because they are the most popular group of folks in Ontario, all of the opposition members on this side will lay down at their feet. We will not. We never have and we never will. If they do not like the confrontation, the option is obvious: Consult with us; put together something that is reasonable.

Let me say a couple of other things that I think have to be said. I am one, with many members on all sides, who worked very hard to change the way this place functions, to try to make it a better place for the people of Ontario, to make it a better working place for the ordinary members of this assembly.

I do not think I am telling tales out of school when I say that all of us in all parties are frustrated. We thought we had made the compromises that are necessary. It is not that any of the reports of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly were ever written with me or any member of that committee in mind or that we thought we had devised the perfect compromise. We are all practising politicians; we knew that was not true. But what we had in terms of a way to discuss estimates, a way to discuss the appointments of positions like this, was something that was acceptable to all of us, in all political parties, on both sides of the House.

When this government began, it said, “We agree with those reforms.” Some small measure of them got through, but the bulk of them did not. They said to individual members such as me, “Help us understand what the committee wanted to do; meet with us and explain it to us,” as the government House leader did, and we did that. The answer now is sadly clear. Now they do not want to. Now they are unhappy that there is an opposition here.

Let me put this caution to a government that probably is in no mood to listen to cautions. I think there is a better way to do this. I think it has been laid out for them. I think they are quite silly in rejecting that option, just as I would say that this afternoon there was a chance for the government to pause and rethink.

I know that many members are rolling in the glee of having a huge majority. They earned that right. I say to them, do not throw it away; do not abuse it. If they want to hear the chapter and verse of what it is like, of what the abuses are, for a government that has a big majority over a long period of time and how wrong that can be -- they do not even have to do it publicly; they can do it privately -- they can talk to some of the members of the caucus that is just to my left about what it was like to be in a government that had a big majority, off and on, over a lengthy period of time, what that was like for the ordinary member there, what that was like for the government, and how wrong a system that is. My observations are that the Liberals are just embarking on that.

For what it is worth, the rumour mill tells me that the government has finally made up its mind that it will now exercise its authority as a government and will exercise its majority in a way that it wants to and that it has made certain personnel changes to see that this happens. They can certainly try. They are trying now. They will try again. They will regret it, they surely will. The others I watched do this were a much more polished and professional crowd. They had run governments in this province for four decades. They ran into their problems. Ultimately, it ran them into the ground. They paid the price for what they did, and this government will too.

1700

I am not a great fan of this Liberal government, and that is no surprise, but I believe there are those who want to do something a little better than what we have had here in this chamber before. I believe there are members on the government side who sincerely want a process that makes sense to them, who do not want their time at the trough. It is only natural that some among them will say, “Give me a parliamentary assistant’s job every couple of years and let me ride around in a limousine and give me an expense account and that will keep me happy; that is why I am in politics,” but I hope there are not many of them.

I hope that the vast majority of the government members want to be here, want this chamber to be an effective place for decision-making in Ontario, want their committees to be able to actually do something, want an estimates process that makes sense and allows for a reasonable amount of scrutiny of the expenditure of public funds, want their table officers to be clearly nonpartisan and respected by members on all sides. They should stop and think about what they are doing this afternoon. Do they want to put someone in that chair so that some afternoon members of the opposition will say, “We know how you got there”? We are trying as hard as we can to separate the individual member from the process. The government seems intent on forging that process through.

Many of us have been here for a while. The government is not going to show us anything that has not been done before. To be honest, we are not going to show it anything that it has not done before either. The number of tricks and stunts and things that an opposition party can do is relatively limited. Once every century or so someone comes up with a new way to make a point, but it is that rare, and all people do is read the books. What did people do in different times when they wanted to protest? The truth is, of course, that an opposition member and an opposition party have a very limited array of tools. You have to use what you have.

I believe that the amendment in front of the House is sensible, if members take the hysteria of the House leader out of the picture this afternoon. I understand that. The member for Renfrew North is a friend of mine who has been here for many years. He used to entertain us many afternoons with speeches just like that. Of late, one of the things I miss is the opportunity to listen to the member for Renfrew North entertain us for a while. He is not allowed to speak very often, but in part that is what it means to become the government: to take on a different role, to take on different responsibilities.

I think there is an opportunity here this afternoon for the government to pause and rethink its position. It may be able to win a vote, but it will pay an ungodly price for it. The government may not pay it now, it may not happen for a little while, but it will get the government in the end. In all parliaments, whenever the government party decides that it has no time to listen to what the opposition has to say, the one thing we can be sure of is that it will to make time to listen to what the opposition has to say. Whenever a government says, “We have no concerns, we simply disagree and we have more votes than you have,” sooner or later it will find that process does not work very well, particularly if it uses it on more than one occasion.

This parliament, this process that we live and work in is a different one from what we will see in operation in many other parts of the world. It is old, it is sometimes kind of silly. I am sure if people came in, they would say, “Why are there people in black dresses sitting around, particularly since some of them are men?” Some of those traditions are to remind us of what a parliament used to be, what its roots and traditions are. It is different from many other forms of governing that we see in all parts of the world.

I caution this government to rethink what it is doing, and whatever silliness it might have seen from the government House leader today about individual members of the House, that is not what a government House leader is here to do. A government House leader, quite frankly, is here to facilitate the business of the government. If he seriously thinks he does so by ridiculing other members of the assembly, he is sadly mistaken. It is kind of like where you work, if you work in a situation other than this. If you think you advance your cause by ridiculing other people in that workplace, it will not take very long to learn the lesson that you do not. You may get somewhere by calling somebody names one day or making fun of them on one occasion, but sooner or later, the time will come when you need their help and they are not likely to help people who have ridiculed them.

This is a funny process. This is a process built on the premise, however wrong some might think it, that members on all sides are honourable, that they are reasonable. This process works well as long as that remains true, as long as members on both sides of the aisle think the other people can be completely wrong about something but are in fact reasonable people; so long as we feel that the people who chair these sessions are there because members on all sides agree they are good choices and members on all sides agree they were consulted fully before they got there. If that is not true, this process breaks down. You might attribute that to being arrogance in government; quite frankly, I would attribute it more to being stupid in government. If they really think a government and a government House leader can ramrod this stuff through, they are incredibly naïve; they cannot, Members on both sides of the aisle need to believe the other side is a reasonable group. If they do not, if one breaks that trust, then a parliamentary system does not work.

Today, the government House leader may ridicule someone on the opposition side; tomorrow, he may ridicule someone on his own side. If members sit here today and let that happen, if they sit here today and chuckle, as some are, about this process, let me be the first to tell them they will not be chuckling very long. Today somebody else is getting gored; tomorrow it will be them. It sounds funny if one takes a particularly partisan stance on it, but write this down and remember it: If members thought this was a funny speech this afternoon, when it happens to them, I will read it back to them. If members thought there was no relevance in saying it has to be seen to be a reasonable thing on all sides, write it down and when this process stops, when it grinds to a halt, I will read it back to them again. Take my advice: What we have before us is hardly a radical thought; it is, in fact, not a totally unsensible thing to do. Pause a little bit.

Let me leave government members with this thought: They may not want to do it this afternoon; they may decide they want more warfare, want more arguments and want this process to break down completely. Sooner or later, they are going to come to the very simple realization that if members on all sides do not think that what they are doing is reasonable, this parliamentary process does not work. They can have all the programs in the world and stand up every day and berate the opposition for what they think is a totally ludicrous way to proceed, but they will not get what they want either. That is kind of the compromise of the parliamentary system. They will do it today or they will do it tomorrow or they will do it the next time there is some kind of impasse reached, but sooner or later they will realize they cannot get around this.

If members on all sides do not agree that what they are doing is a reasonable way to proceed, they simply cannot proceed. They do not have to agree with what they are doing. They certainly do not have to agree with your policies. They do not have to agree that David Peterson is a great leader. All they have to agree on is that the process is a reasonable one.

If we can argue it out here and go underneath the gallery or outside in the lobby and decide what we will do tomorrow, the process will continue. That, of course, is the trick of any of the House leaders; they cannot afford to let a personal argument stop them from proceeding with their duties, and their duties are to organize the business, not to organize an agreement that we will all vote the same way on an issue. We are from three different political parties. That will be unusual.

But if we do not agree that it is a reasonable way to proceed -- that is basically what we are being shown this afternoon, that two of the political parties in this House do not think that the government has proceeded in a way that is reasonable. It is one of those occasions when they can win a battle and lose a war. That is their choice. They will not avoid this choice. They can avoid it for today, but it will come back to them again the next time there is a disagreement of this type. It will get worse. That is the choice that is before the government.

1710

I regret the government House leader has left us for the moment, but I know he will be back. I enjoyed, in a sense, what he had to say this afternoon. I regret, in a sense, that he made it such a personal attack. I do not believe that was necessary. I think that will make it pretty difficult for that member and the member who is the House leader for our party to sit down tomorrow and discuss what we will do tomorrow afternoon.

It is one of those things for which he will pay a price. The House leaders in particular are charged with perhaps the most difficult task of how to organize the business of this process and how to see that all members get their chance to speak and decide when votes will be held. It is not a process, a forum, that lends itself well to having those I three members of this assembly attacking one another publicly and putting on the public record the kind of things that were done this afternoon. But that is done and it cannot be resolved.

What can be resolved is that members can look at the amendment that is being proposed this afternoon which, as I read it, simply says, “Let’s send this off to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and let them have a little look at whether the process is enough.”

In my reading of it, it does nothing, in any sense of the word, to even stop or delay for any real purposes the appointment the government wants to make to this chair, but it does say that there is a problem here and a problem that should be addressed, and that we might just as well get this out of the way now. If we do not, it is going to be a long, cold winter here. It is going to be a very difficult parliament. It does not need to be that.

I think there are lots of things that can be done, that should be done and that lots of members on the government side know should be done and that they want to do. This amendment deserves their support. I wish they would stop and rethink what they are doing. I think they are on the wrong track here altogether. I do not know how they got here. I am not privy to their private decisions on that. I caution them that if some measure of caution is not put into the process now, they will surely regret that later. So will I because I am not here to engage in the kind of stuff we have had this afternoon.

There are people I represent who have very real problems. I want the Legislature to address those problems. I do not want to waste my time in committees where the work is not very productive, particularly when I sense that there are people on all sides who could do very productive work in committees here. I do not understand why governments deny them that chance. I do not understand why governments delude themselves into thinking that if the Office of the Premier wants us to go in that direction, we will all stampede like lemmings over the cliff. That is one of the things that is dreadfully wrong with the parliamentary system.

I urge members to support the amendment that is before us. I urge them, more than that, to rethink very carefully what appears to be a direction that has now been established by a government that is just beginning to feel its oats. It is a direction that will cause them great pain. It will cause the opposition members here a lot of difficulty. But worse than that, it will cause the people of Ontario to have a Legislative Assembly that is not nearly as productive as it should be.

That, of course, is the great crime. The great crime here is not hurt feelings among the members. We will all get over that. The great crime here is to have a legislative process that is nowhere nearly as good as it should be.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is indeed a privilege for me to speak to my colleague’s amendment. Indeed, I am somewhat humbled by following the government House leader and my NDP colleague, both of whom were elected some 15 or 18 months prior to my election. As fate would have it now, as years have gone by, after one or two other successful elections, we have become so-called senior members in terms of our experience here.

I say to the honourable member, who is now so pointedly placed way yonder over from, if the new seating plan can be read, the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), although he is not in his seat, that I have had the experience, for those of you who have listened from time to time over the last year, to participate in one or two debates, some of which will come forward to us again.

I can think of Sunday shopping. I can think of the free trade debate approximately a year ago. At those times, they were different marching orders in terms of the particular process at hand. In this afternoon’s participation, it grieves me to say that my approach will be taken, to a degree, in a somewhat less humorous vein. It will be more the experience I have encountered over the last number of years here, to the degree of not prolonging for all of you one or two thoughts I have, and lo and behold, to be a little more concise than is my normal bent.

The strangest thing is that, of course, I am just the humble barrister and solicitor from the Kendal hills out in my great riding of Durham East, whereas the learned Liberal House leader from the great Ottawa Valley has had years of experience in terms of his educational process in the history of our province and our country.

Needless to say, the time has been such that I, too, have been endowed with the responsibility of some aspects of these chambers, in which I was very proud to serve in the past. The strangest thing is that when I served in the capacity of Deputy Speaker from 1981 to 1985, or 1980 to 1984 -- I forget the exact numeration of it -- above all, above anything else, in terms of my approach, which from time to time was in terms of some levity and humour, I took this book with sincerity and severity.

Actually, in those days, it was not even a book and I got quite annoyed. With the sincerity of the approach to the job that I took, I had written a paper on the rules of procedure of the Ontario Legislature, and lo and behold, as Deputy Speaker, I was severely reprimanded by, yes, my own caucus, some members of the then large majority government under Bill Davis. What was this upstart doing coming forward with some ideas about how the chamber should be run, if you can believe it?

But as I sat in the various positions, it became obvious to me that if all of us were to function in terms of our elected process to have a useful meaning in these places here, then there should be some movement, in terms of what I have to say to my NDP colleagues who were correct, to a reform of the process.

Interestingly enough, in that paper which was reported in the Canadian Parliamentary Review a long time ago -- in a galaxy far away, just like in Star Wars -- a number of aspects were centred in on. And do you know what? Funnily enough, the first aspect was something very simple, very procedural.

I had written to all the parliaments of Canada and to Australia and to various Commonwealth countries and came back with a wealth of ideas. One was that we should do away with the old standing orders in terms of the little pamphlet we had, which was stapled together, because from time to time rules would change. I said, “Let’s do something practical like a hard cover, loose-leaf binder, indexed and readily available.” Why? So that each parliamentarian here would feel comfortable opening it up, because it was important that we all learn the process; anything to get the members involved so that they would have a working understanding, because goodness, when I sat there, I say to the Clerk Assistant, as he well knows, from time to time it was most frustrating trying to educate the members time and time again about the various aspects, and if they could be helped along, so be it.

1720

Of course, one of the other interesting items was the time of sitting in these chambers. They were a little ridiculous. I do not know what the reason for that was, I say to the House leader for the Liberal Party as he comes forward. Goodness, I sat in that chair and listened to him berate the large Conservative majority government for hours on end about, among other things, our rules.

I say to the then Liberal opposition, as I was Deputy Speaker I said in my mind -- I did not say it too openly. I say to the New Democratic Party, which was then the third party -- heaven forbid, I say to the member from Sudbury, I cannot believe it is the official opposition now -- maybe there was some truth to what the member for Oshawa said in terms of, “Behold, your day will come again.” I want to get into that speech about how 30 of them at least will be gone. They are finished. But I will restrain myself; I will save that for another time.

This is the interesting thing. I said, “You know, we should be looking at the hours this House sits.” Then it was from two to six and then from 8 to 10:30. Actually, it was a little ridiculous. For some reason, the old guard in the old days on the front bench of the Conservative government would not move on that whatsoever, whether it was Bill Davis, Robarts in those days, I guess, and Frost and maybe Drew. I do not know the reason.

But I will say this about the 1985 election. For the eight long weeks, I say to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) -- for whom we are preparing one or two questions later on, finally at long last, so he should get ready, but I will not advise him what they are at this time -- what happened? We lost the government and part of the negotiations, I say to the Liberal House leader, I remember sitting in cabinet and Bob Elgie came in and said: “We’ve lost it. Conway and McClellan have struck the deal.” It was a sad, sorry day. I finally had the limousine. I did not bother with a driver, because I could sense what was happening. I drove myself. I knew the way the then third party was feeling. I thought, “We’re finished.”

Surprisingly enough, I was overly shocked to hear the Liberal House leader in his castigation of the House leader for the NDP, because the NDP went to bat for the Liberals. They did not have as many seats as the Conservative Party did, fewer if memory serves me correctly, and they went to bat -- I want to allude to that in a moment -- in terms of their bringing in saner hours around here. For whom? For the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals.

It made sense, so that we could have a proper working day, to have our evenings so out-of-town members, if they were close, could maybe get back to their constituencies or attend the various functions we are all asked to attend while the House is in session.

I give credit to the NDP and to the Liberals in those minority government days for making some reform movements, on what? On the procedure, something very practical, because actually, as regrettable as it was to lose the government, I have to tell members that back in 1985 I felt that at least there would be some movement where the private member would have the opportunity to have some valuable input into the process, because for too long I saw, yes, a large majority government in 1981 in terms of the tactics that we are seeing now from this large majority government, the intolerance of having the opposition have its little say.

This boils down to one word, I say to the Liberal House leader. If he takes back one word as he drives from Toronto along Highway 401 and Highway 115 and 35, up into that wonderful riding of none other than Renfrew North, he should think about this one word. I feel sad that he was upset yesterday. It hurt me to think, with the number of years he has been here, that he would get to that state, but he is taking it all a little too in the perspective of this large majority. The one word is “sensitivity.” He has forgotten the sensitivity of parliament, of the rules and what they are all about.

Mind you, I was a little sensitive when I was Deputy Speaker. I did not put into that paper the possibility of television. I knew that would be the death knell. I would have been finished if I had mentioned TV. I asked the former Clerk in a haphazard way what he thought about TV. “Are you kidding? Television? It has never been and never will be part of the process of parliament here at Queen’s Park.”

Well, what do we have here? We have a camera over there and a camera over there and two behind me. That is where TV went to, and all for the better, so the fine people of Ontario could have the opportunity to be, among other things, listening to the interesting debate which, I say to the people at home, goes to the manner in which this place is run. I can tell them that at the moment this large Liberal majority government has crossed the line.

My understanding, from my own House leader, is that the NDP House leader has always been reasonable in negotiating the process on how this place operates. None of the Liberal backbenchers can tell me from day to day that they are going to come up and exactly explain what is taking place in these chambers. There is no way. What an eye-opener they all had when they were elected. The three House leaders organize what is the process here at Queen’s Park, and there has to be a give and take.

I want to centre just briefly on some sensitivity aspects the honourable House leader for the large Liberal majority government would have appreciation for, and I do not want to unduly waste the time of the chamber here. I can remember, interestingly enough, when there was legislation being brought forward on wage and price controls. I will tell members, when the Conservatives were the government, there was nothing that brought greater anxiety to the then opposition parties than that piece of legislation. I forgot how it got out of second reading but somehow very quickly it wound up in the committee of the whole House. I sat in that committee for a year and a half. If we looked up in Hansard, maybe it was a year and two months, but it was a long time.

I will tell you how long it was. We did not get out of clause 1(a) for a year and three months. It went on and on and on. Even I was getting a little frustrated, as tolerant as I am in terms of the process in these chambers. I then finally almost jumped the brink. Do members know what I almost did? Talk about timing. When I was in that chair --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: On timing, I will say to those Liberal backbenchers that I will be interested to see how many of them are back here. We will see how good their timing is. We will go down to Las Vegas, and he is running to be the mayor of Mississauga. We know his whole story, we say to the member for Mississauga West.

I pushed the vote on clause 1(a). I got that close. I said, “Members of the committee, I am about to call the vote.” Do members know what happened? The then leader of the Liberal Party, now the esteemed Treasurer, the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), stood up in a big panic. Members should have heard his impassioned speech. He said, “Mr Deputy Speaker, I implore you to reconsider -- ” He was very stern. Members know how jovial he is, but he was tough on me that night.

He said: “I implore you to reconsider what you have just said. Why, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Because the process in these chambers requires a degree of sensitivity, and you are pushing the process in a manner for which there is no precedent. We have yet to see a Speaker or Deputy Speaker call the vote in the manner in which you are proposing.”

I got a little nervous that evening because suddenly I thought he was right, that maybe I was stepping out of bounds, that I was weighing up the parliamentary process and that maybe it just was not my place to push it that much further. Lo and behold, like an angel flying out of the clouds, do members know who came to my rescue? Bette Stephenson, good girl. She stood up and she said, “I put the motion.” She brought in closure while I was wondering what I was going to do with my ruling about pushing the vote.

Happily enough, I was saved. Little did I know that the government House leader and the then Premier had worked it all out. They were bringing in closure that hour anyway. It just happened to have unfolded a little faster than we all anticipated. But it goes to the point of the sensitivity of the manner in which this parliament operates. I can remember an amendment to the human rights bill. It was extremely controversial.

1730

I say to the Speaker that I understand it is 5:34 or 5:35, and not the hour on the clock, so we will try to hurry up our comments.

I can remember at about 10:15 the galleries were packed with people from the city of Toronto concerned about a particular amendment. Suddenly there was a great holler and shouting and I believe newspapers came down from the galleries. They chained themselves to the railings. It was quite an evening.

I adjourned the House and rushed back to the chambers, wondering at the back office what I was going to do. I asked the pages to call in the three House leaders of the parties -- Tom Wells, Elie Martel and Bob Nixon -- and I said, “Well, fellows, what do we do now?” We sat down and decided we would have to call upon the guards with the wire clippers and cut those individuals who had chained themselves to the gallery and wait until the gallery had been dispersed and then we would carry on with the legislation.

That co-operation I would call a degree of sensitivity. There was an understanding among all three party House leaders in terms of the manner in which this place would operate. What have we seen now today?

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the whip of the Liberal Party, who undoubtedly is in trouble in his riding in London, when I know our candidate, whoever he or she will be, will be reminding the fine voters there about the Sunday shopping aspect: What have we seen about the sensitivity in these chambers? I say to him, Sunday shopping.

I will save that speech for another day because, as the member for Oshawa indicated, there will be other days. If members think this is tedious now, just wait until we get going on Sunday shopping. Do members know what we saw in terms of the sensitivity of having public hearings on Sunday shopping? We saw the Premier and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) coming out with statements saying that the core of the legislation will not be altered.

I will save that speech for another day and I can hardly wait. It is too bad I cannot be at the standing committee on administration of justice right now. If I could be at both places at once, I would be reminding all the Liberal backbenchers on that committee, again and again and again, about the fallacy of the approach the government took. I say to the Liberal backbenchers, it was so easy. I have never had it so easy, beating them over the head, day after day and the groups coming in and the Premier and the Solicitor General.

Right off the bat, I say, “Pull the rugs from underneath them,” and say basically: “The committee process is useless. We’re not even going to alter the major core of the local option.” That is the kind of sensitivity we saw in the committee dealing with Sunday shopping.

Talking about sensitivity, I was driving into Queen’s Park this morning, tuning in CBC Radio 740, where you really find out where all the action is. If the backbench Liberals want to find out what their government is doing, they should not go to caucus; they should listen to CFRB and CBC at eight o’clock in the morning. That will tell them the whole thing for the rest of the week. They will not even have to come, they have such a large majority. They should look after their ridings. They had better, because most of them are gone.

I tuned into the radio and who did I listen to? There is the Treasurer on his car phone somewhere between St. George and Earl’s Shell Service, and we had the House leader for the Conservative Party and the House leader for the New Democratic Party talking about Bill 162. Have I got the number right? Bill 162 is the reform to the Workers’ Compensation Board legislation.

Talk about sensitivity. The opposition House leaders were saying, “We would like to have some public hearings on this process.” Do members know what the Treasurer said? I almost ran into the guardrail. He said, “Oh, well, it’s up to the committee to decide.” So he said.

We all know that the Premier and the House leader and the Attorney General and the Treasurer are running this government; they are running all of the Liberals and they are trying to run this parliament -- the sacredness of these chambers. We know only too well that not until those four give the blessing to that committee would there be public hearings, and the Treasurer is trying to convey to people across the province, “Oh, it is up to the committee to decide.” Here we are now this afternoon with this process, this degree of lack of sensitivity to what is taking place. The Liberal backbenchers are so new yet that they do not have the appreciation.

Actually, when we got wiped out the last election, among other saving graces was the fact that the process was improving, that individual members would be having the opportunity, that there would be no bias in the chair. This has nothing to do with the recommendation of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who in terms of his capacity would no doubt do a very fine job. It has to do with negotiations and the manner in which the business of parliament is operated at Queen’s Park so that we in the opposition feel comfortable that we have -- albeit there is a very large Liberal majority government, notwithstanding that -- a little bit of say and something at stake in the business of these chambers. I remind all of the members that we too were elected, as humble in numbers as we are for this go-around; but there will be another time.

While we are here, I do not understand for the life of me how the House leader for the Liberal Party could have blown this very simple method of the degree of sensitivity in terms of negotiating a call to the House leaders of my party and the official opposition to come up with an understanding, instead of what we see as the ramrodding and the interference with all of us in the process of the business of these chambers.

Mr. Reycraft: I cannot help but think, as I rise to participate in this debate, that the people who are watching the proceedings of this House on television and have done so for the first six days of this sitting that started a week ago yesterday must be wondering what in heaven’s name is going on at Queen’s Park. We are again, for the second day in a row, spending a considerable amount of time talking about what is basically a procedural matter.

I listened to my friend the member for Oshawa, who I know has a great love for this place, for its traditions and for its rules, a member who I know has expended a great deal of personal effort in trying to negotiate a new set of rules for this House, a set of standing orders that would allow the Legislature to function in a better way than it has in the past. But it seemed to me, as I listened to his comments and I listened to him talk about the need for co-operation in order to have the business of this House move smoothly, that there was a principle behind what he was saying that placed the onus for that co-operation entirely on the government.

That is certainly not the case. That co-operation in this House is very much indeed a three-way street. It requires the good-faith bargaining of all three parties, through their designated House leaders.

I cannot agree with what the member for Oshawa has said about the need for the government to acquiesce in this matter in order to avoid confrontation or some kind of effect that is going to make future business arrangements more difficult to achieve.

1740

Mr. Wildman: I thought you were one of the few over there who wanted the rules changed.

Mr. Reycraft: The member for Algoma mentions that he thought I was one of the persons who wanted to see the rules changed in this House. I do. I have been involved with the member for Oshawa and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) in trying to put together a package that all three House leaders and all three caucuses would find acceptable. Unlike the member for Oshawa, I have not yet given up on the possibility of achieving consensus on significant rule changes in this House.

I want to comment on this debate as one who has been a participant in meetings of the House leaders and whips for the three parties over the last two weeks and perhaps even a period of time before. Perhaps I can offer something from my perspective that will help enlighten those of my colleagues and people who are watching about some of the things that have happened in here in the recent past.

Many of us have had the experience as a parent of taking a child who has had his own way perhaps too often into a toy store. Some of us may have had that experience as grandparents as well. But those of us who have done so will have experienced the frustration that sometimes results when we give in to that kind of a child who creates a fuss, who throws a tantrum to get something that he particularly wants because sometimes, after going through all that fuss and all that tantrum, the child will decide he no longer wants what it was that was the object of his attention, or that he wants that and something else. Sometimes he takes what is given to him and just casts it aside. It seems to me that there is something about that experience that has a direct application to what has happened here from time to time.

We have found, from time to time, that the opposition party House leaders, particularly the House leader for the official opposition has, on the one hand, said that he wants some particular item. When that is offered, on the other hand, he will say that is no longer enough. Now something else has to be added to it.

I would like to use a couple of specific examples to illustrate my point. We heard as long ago as June from the opposition parties about their desire to move forward fairly soon with this matter of estimates. We agree with them about the importance of estimates.

We mentioned at that time that there was a possibility of dealing with those in an expeditious manner by allowing committees to consider estimates during July, August or September when the House was not sitting. We said: “We will agree to have estimates done very quickly. In fact, we would be quite happy to have them dealt with next month.”

I ask my colleagues, what do they think the opposition parties said when we offered them the opportunity to do estimates during July, August and September’? They said, “No, we want estimates, but we don’t want them that badly.” When we came back earlier this month, we again started to talk about estimates. We said again to the opposition House leaders: “Yes, we still agree that estimates are important. We would like to deal with as many as we can as quickly as we can. Instead of just dealing with estimates in the five committees that normally consider them, we are prepared to expand that. So that we can deal with more estimates sooner, we’re prepared to put estimates in front of eight different committees.”

Again I ask my colleagues: Guess what the opposition parties said when we offered them that option? They said: “No. We want to do estimates but we don’t want to do them that badly.” It is very difficult to know just how badly the opposition parties want to proceed with estimates when, on the one hand, they tell us they are very important but, when we make offers to them, they say: “We want them, but we want them our way. We don’t want them your way.”

We have also had difficulty within these first two weeks on this matter surrounding public hearings on Bill 162, the amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. Last week we heard from the House leader for the official opposition, the member for Windsor-Riverside a number of allegations that the government was going to ram this legislation through, that the government did not want to put it out to committee for public hearings.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is what Greg Sorbara said in a meeting with our critic, so don’t give us that.

Mr. Reycraft: I heard the questions placed to the Minister of Labour during question period, and I heard the Minister of Labour say that he had no objection to public hearings. He also said he could not guarantee it because no minister can make that kind of guarantee. In fact, if a minister tried to make that kind of commitment for a committee, to run roughshod over the autonomy of a committee, the opposition members, particularly the member for Oshawa, would be the very first to be on their feet defending the right of committees to order their own business.

I listened last week to the House leader for the official opposition and his protestations about public hearings on Bill 162, and I kept asking myself: Who has said there will not be public hearings on Bill 162? I did not hear the third party say there will not be any public hearings on Bill 162 or that we do not want them. I did not hear the minister say in question period that there would not be public hearings on Bill 162. The minister did not say that. He said he had no objection to public hearings. I did not hear the government House leader say he had any objection to public hearings on Bill 162. The only person I heard saying there were not going to be public hearings on Bill 162 was the member for Windsor-Riverside.

I would also say to my colleagues in the official opposition that they should consider the record of this government with respect to public hearings on legislation. I do not believe they can name one single piece of controversial legislation which this government did not refer to a standing or select committee for public hearings, not one single piece of legislation. In fact, I do not think there has been a single piece of legislation that either of the opposition parties has asked to have before a committee for public hearings when it has not happened. If anything, I believe that open, public hearings have become a trademark of this government.

I think back to what happened here last Wednesday when we had, first, a very large crowd demonstrating outside the chamber as well as outside the building. I asked myself last Wednesday why that crowd was here. Why did it come here? What I heard was that they were here because they had heard, they had been told that the government was going to push through Bill 162 without sending it to a committee for public hearings.

1750

I go back to what I asked earlier, who said there would not be public hearings on Bill 162? The only persons I heard saying that were the member for Windsor-Riverside and perhaps the member for Sudbury East, the critic for Labour for the official opposition. I did not hear anybody on the government side saying there would not be public hearings on Bill 162. The only people who were talking about that were the official opposition members, and they were running around like Henny Penny and Chicken Little saying, “There aren’t going to be any hearings on Bill 162.” The government never, ever intended to proceed without putting that bill before the committee for public hearings.

Let me tell the House, if I may, what happened last Thursday at the House leaders’ meeting when we talked about the public hearings on Bill 162. When the House leader for the official opposition raised the matter, we said, “Yes, we agree that Bill 162 should go before a standing committee and we agree that there should be public hearings on that bill.” We agreed that committee should travel around this province to hold hearings on these amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

We said, “We’re so interested in moving this legislation forward, we would be prepared to give our consent to allowing that committee to travel around the province as soon as the bill is out of this House on second reading, even with the House sitting.”

When we offered public hearings with travel around the province as soon as the bill was out of this House on second reading, again, I ask my colleagues, what do they think the representative for the official opposition said? He said: “No, we don’t want to do that. We want public hearings, but we don’t want them that way. We want them our way when we want them.” That is what they said.

We offered something else. We suggested, “All right, if you do not want the committee to travel while the House is sitting, perhaps the committee could start its hearings here in Toronto while the House is sitting and then continue to do the travelling when the House adjourns.”

Again, I say to my colleagues, guess what the official opposition said to that. Did they say, “Yes, that sounds like a good idea.” No, they did not. They said, “We want Bill 162 to go before the committee for public hearings, but not until the Legislature is adjourned,” and who knows when that is going to be? It seems to me it is unlikely it is going to be before the end of January.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We couldn’t do Bill 162 while we were doing estimates in committee because we had accepted that offer you had made earlier.

Mr. Reycraft: The member for Windsor-Riverside, who is complaining now, has complained earlier this afternoon about the fact that we are uncompromising as a government, that we refuse to negotiate with them. It seems to me that his idea of what is responsible behaviour in this House and what are reasonable negotiations is considerably different from my idea of those things, because he believes that whenever there is a difference of opinion between the House leader for the party with 18 members and the House leader for the government with its 94 members, the solution always has to involve some compromise.

He believes that when he makes a request, whatever that request is, there is an obligation on the part of the government to make some concession to him. He believes it is unreasonable, irresponsible to say a simple “no” to that kind of request. Negotiation and compromise to him always mean that there has to be concession, and when it does not occur, he believes that his party is being wronged. His approach, it seems to me -- and I have illustrated it with the matter of estimates and with the matter of public hearings on the amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act -- is, “My way, or at least partly my way, or the doorway.”

I go back to what I said at the beginning in response to the comments from the member for Oshawa. Co-operation in this Legislature is a three-way street, and while we, as representatives of a caucus with a large majority, have to be sensitive to opposition parties --

Interjection.

Mr. Reycraft: A three-way street, I say to the member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: How can you have a three-way street? Have you ever driven on a three-way street?

Mr. Reycraft: There are four different directions, I say to the member for Algoma, four different directions, and three parties in this Legislature.

I say the co-operation has to be displayed by the representatives for all parties. It is not solely the government’s responsibility to make sure that these negotiations do not break down and to make some kind of concession, to acquiesce in some way, when either of the opposition parties refuses to give in.

As I said before, I agree that we, as a large majority, have to be sensitive to the situation within the opposition parties, but I also suggest that there is an obligation on the part of those opposition parties to be sensitive also, not only to the situation in this Legislature as it relates to numbers but also as it exists in this province.

It being almost six of the clock --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct the record. I seem to have confused the chief government whip. I would like the record to clearly show this afternoon that I never give up, I always get even. Ask Frank Miller, wherever he is.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, having heard that very unco-operative and uncompromising admonishment, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Mr. Reville: It is not quite six of the clock. The member for Middlesex, normally a more careful netminder than this, has left a rebound and the puck has come out to my stick, so I am going to stickhandle.

An hon. member: Very clever.

Mr. Reville: It was clever. I am a very clever fellow, as the member shall learn to his sorrow.

There are a few moments of the clock. I just wanted to say, following the lead of the member for Middlesex, my counterpart, at least in terms of an office in this House, although I was never a netminder myself, he started off by saying, “What in heaven’s name is going on at Queen’s Park?”

I think the answer is clear, and if people are puzzled, as they may well be puzzled, they have only to watch, to listen to or to read the speech of my colleague and seatmate, the member for Oshawa, and they will know well what is going on here at Queen’s Park. They will perhaps be moved to indicate to the members of this vast majority, under which we groan from time to time, that in fact the advice of the member for Oshawa is good advice indeed and that, in fact, if we cannot in this Legislature at least agree on the rules we will follow, then we will find it very difficult to get to those matters of policy on which we must, because of our differing ideologies, differ from time to time.

It seems to me it is necessary for us to develop rules within which we will live and which we will all pledge to operate with, and I do not believe that has been the case in this instance. I will not attempt to match memories with those others who have spoken before me, although it has been said from time to time that my memory and a steel trap have some similarities. They are both outlawed.

Mr. Campbell: The period is over.

Mr. Reville: I am glad the member was paying attention.

On motion by Mr. Reville, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

October 25, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

EASTERN ONTARIO

HEALTH SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

STEEL INDUSTRY

CONNIE PEARL CABLE

SELF-HELP WEEK

CHILD CARE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NONPROFIT HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À BUT NON LUCRATIF

RECYCLING

RESPONSES

RECYCLING

NONPROFIT HOUSING

RECYCLING

NONPROFIT HOUSING

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

DAVID ATKINSON

PROVINCIAL PARKS

ONTARIO FARM-START

LANDFILL SITE

INCINERATOR ASH

LITHOTRIPSY MACHINE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ENERGY PRICES / LES PRIX DE L’ÉNERGIE

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTINUED)