Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think we have a quorum in the House.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WEEK OF THE CHILD

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): This week the Association of Early Childhood Educators initiated its 13th annual Week of the Child. This is a tradition that was initiated by the association following the 1979 United Nations International Year of the Child.

This week serves as a reminder that we must always be responsive to the needs of children in our society. Children of today are our future -- our future workers, parents and decision-makers of tomorrow's world. Children are in fact our most precious resource, and we always keep this knowledge uppermost in our minds.

The Week of the Child is a time within our communities across Ontario when we should reflect on the rights and needs of our children and renew our commitment to improve the quality of opportunities for all children and their families.

During the week communities across this province will be hosting workshops and seminars, displays in local malls, concerts and open houses in schools among many other activities. The weekend will bring early childhood educators from all over the province to Toronto to discuss issues that will promote the wellbeing of children.

We wish the Association of Early Childhood Educators all the best during the Week of the Child celebrations and throughout the year and commend it and its membership for the outstanding contribution they are making to early childhood education in Ontario.

MPP CHALLENGE RACE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): You will remember that last summer I challenged all interested members to a stock car race at the Varney Speedway on Friday, July 24.

Fourteen members from all three parties accepted my invitation and competed in one of the two qualifying heats. The top eight finishers raced in the final run. All members drove WOW-class -- women on wheels -- vehicles, which are six-cylinder, automatic cars donated by the track's registered women members.

There were disappointments, of course, like the member for Brampton North, who qualified for the final run and then, because of engine trouble, was left at the post. But on the whole it was a very successful evening, and I know most of the members really enjoyed themselves.

I would like to thank Tom Donnelly and Doreen Watson from the speedway, who organized the races and did so much to make everyone feel welcome, as well as Durham's mayor, Floyd Lawrence, and his council and surrounding councils for hosting a reception for us following the race.

I hope to see everyone who competed this year as well as other interested members next July 16 for the second Bill Murdoch Challenge Race, which I hope will be a yearly event.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the 1992 trophy winner, Chris Stockwell, MPP for Etobicoke West, and congratulate him on a race well driven.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I don't need to tell members that this House is a very partisan place. As members together, though, there are times when we work together, say in committee; but again, that's a very partisan place. There are occasions when we attend our colleagues' ridings, for example, to speak at an annual general meeting; of course, again that's a very partisan place.

But the member for Grey arranged a non-partisan event. It was an event held at the Varney Speedway which was an opportunity to show his constituents that yes, we as members of this Legislature can work together. Though it made you wonder whether we did have little partisan advantages at times, for example, when the seat broke on the back of the car that I was driving, with three laps to go. I managed to finish third hanging on to the doorpost and the steering wheel at the same time.

Driving at this event showed that there are times when we can be non-partisan. Perhaps this isn't the place we can be non-partisan, in this House, but I guess there are times we do come together. For example, with the referendum, the majority of this House has been coming out very supportive towards the Yes. That does happen from time to time.

As a member of the New Democratic caucus, I want to congratulate the member for inviting us. As all of us came there, and I don't know whether it was a setup or not, but at least I placed in the top three so that our caucus was well supported.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to comment on the race as well. I'll try not be overly partisan, but when we got to the track it was clear it was an NDP track. The whole thing turned to the left, and it was banked to turn to the left faster.

Then we got into the pits and it reminded me a little bit of the Legislature around here, where there were parts all over the place, people working to try to get things started, a lot of stuff not rolling along too well, and even when it did get rolling there were still parts in the pit.

Then when we got to the race itself, Mr Speaker, it reminded me a little bit of question period. You will appreciate this, I think. We all got our helmets on and got in line to come out for question period and then the starter, a bit like you at question period, drops the green flag, we race around, bump into each other with a lot of noise and shouting. Finally we get to the end and, like you, Mr Speaker, the flagman drops the finish flag and we stop, and there we are back exactly where we started. That's sometimes how I feel here in question period, so it reminded me a little bit of the Legislature here.

The only disappointment to me was that Chris Stockwell and I had a little deal. He was supposed to allow me to finish first at the end, but he got a little confused and thought the checkered flag was the flag for the last lap and finished first, ahead of me. So I'll present the trophy to Chris Stockwell.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Metro's plan to base property taxation on 1988 so-called market values is the most serious threat to the existence of Toronto and North York's commercial and residential neighbourhoods since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Temporary capping is designed to lull owners and tenants into thinking they do not need to worry. In reality, it is only to postpone the full impact. The fact that the artificially high boom year of 1988 was selected should be enough to throw the whole scheme out. But those whose focus is limited to the present are fighting for the few extra dollars this plan may put in their pockets for next year.

As the effects of market value assessment are felt, as stores close, as the value of homes drops and businesses leave, the tax burden will increase on all those left. A look at the tax impact on some of the commercial properties in my riding shows why we must fight this unfair location tax.

A gas station goes from $45,000 to almost $200,000. A small store has a 120% increase; a bank, 170%. These stories are repeated endlessly throughout the central core of Metro. No business can afford these massive taxes, not now and not in the future. The NDP once believed in saving jobs and neighbourhoods. It's time for them to get back to their grass roots. I call on Premier Bob Rae to refuse enabling legislation. Defeat MVA.

1340

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I rise today to make a statement on behalf of my neighbouring MPP in Don Mills, Margery Ward. Margery asked me to read this on her behalf because of the importance of science and technology to our school system and our future development as a province.

This week is Science and Technology Week, and it is only appropriate to recognize the Ontario Science Centre, which is located in Margery's riding of Don Mills.

The Ontario Science Centre was established by this Legislature in 1965 as Ontario's project celebrating Canada's centennial. Opening in 1969, the centre has educated and entertained more than 27 million visitors of all ages with interactive exhibits and programs.

Since 1990, new exhibits have included Mindworks, Matter Energy Change, Space, and the Challenger Learning Centre, as well as the return of the popular exhibit Sport. Currently, a major new exhibit is being developed called the Living Earth.

Programs at the centre provide a human link with the visitor. Almost a quarter of a million students participate in educational programs each year. Other programs include lectures, presentations and conferences. Weekend programs and children's summer camp are designed to open minds to science and technology.

As it approaches its 25th anniversary in 1994, it's most fitting for this House to acknowledge the Ontario Science Centre's international stature as a lifelong learning centre.

NORTH YORK GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise in the House today to congratulate North York General Hospital, located in Oriole riding, as it celebrates its 25th anniversary year.

During this time of recession and severe economic constraint, North York General Hospital has been able to provide new facilities for child development and counselling services, day surgery facilities were expanded and inpatient services improved. A teen clinic was established to address the problems encountered by adolescents in the community, and a state-of-the-art electronic link now connects North York General Hospital with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This electronic link puts North York General Hospital at the leading edge of health science technology in the world.

Through continuous improvement processes in their organizational review and consultation with many groups in the community, North York General has become a leader in total quality management. Congratulations to the North York General Hospital board, its outstanding volunteer board, dedicated staff and excellent administration for their many successes, especially during these very difficult and challenging times. You should be most proud of yourselves, but the whole community is proud and thankful for your 25 years of outstanding service.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): This is Public Library Week, and I'm pleased to say that the staff at the Kingston Public Library is marking it in some very creative ways.

There is an amnesty on fines and overdue material that is returned this week. Patrons celebrating library week in this way are given the opportunity of matching the library's generosity with a donation to the Partners in Mission Food Bank.

Tonight, Audrey Thomas, a pioneer in adult literacy in Canada, will be discussing this important topic at the central branch. Thursday night will see the inaugural meeting of a Friends of the Library group in Kingston. It purpose will be to promote and enhance the services provided by the Kingston Public Library. Finally, there is a competition under way featuring submissions on how the library can save you money in hard times. There are prizes in both adult and children categories, and entries will be accepted until the end of October.

These activities show how vibrant our public libraries can be. Thus, what better place to be challenged to think about food banks than in a library whose resources can be used to look for ways to put food banks out of business. Or think of the great issue of the day, the referendum; the library can help voters make up their minds about this question by providing them with the wording of the accord as well as a great variety of commentary. The library can also provide the historical context in which we can see the difficulties overcome in building this country since 1867 and before. In this way, we gain a deeper appreciation of the constructive nature of the Charlottetown accord.

Whether you are looking up the stats of the Blue Jays or are trying to decide Canada's future, the library is the one place to look. I know my colleagues join me in commemorating this essential service in our community.

ALEXANDER RUNCIMAN

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My leader and some of my colleagues are absent from the Legislature today to attend the funeral of Alexander "Sandy" Runciman, who died Friday night at the age of 75. Sandy, as many of you may be aware, is the father of our fellow colleague Bob Runciman, the MPP for Leeds-Grensville.

Sandy was active in community life on many levels. His concerns covered a wide area, including industrial development, the health field, education, conservation, sports, politics and, very much, music. In fact, he had his own band for 20 years and played the saxophone, violin and bass viol.

Sandy played a major role in Brockville's industrial development. He was a founding member of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. He helped established St Lawrence College. He sat on the board of governors for the Brockville General Hospital for many years and was director of the children's aid society. As well, Sandy had a long and notable journalistic career with the Brockville Recorder and Times. In fact, he was the voice of the Brockville Recorder and Times for many years.

Many of my fellow members here will remember Sandy as a political adviser to some distinguished politicians: Jimmy Auld, Johnny Matheson, Tom Cossitt and, of course, his son Bob. Father and son have sat through more than one election campaign together, Sandy not only being a successful campaign manager and political adviser but a confident father and, most of all, a great friend to Bob Runciman.

Today I would like to extend my sincere condolences on behalf of all members of this Legislature to Sandy's wife, Thelma, their family and, of course, our colleague Bob Runciman.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? It is time for oral questions and the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of interest, Mr Speaker, which is always kind of hard to get by you. Is there a reason that the outdoor elements are coming into our chamber today?

The Speaker: I trust you're not referring to anything that's live. I realize that the temperature is a bit on the cool side in here. We have experienced a little heating problem. We are attending to it, and aside from the normal source of warmth in the chamber, I suspect we will soon have a chamber that is at the appropriate temperature.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Before we get to question period, Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that I would like to raise with you. It revolves around our continuing saga with Bill 40, and on a matter of interest, some of the carryings-on with respect to the way in which the amendments have been dealt with in committee.

As you know, our standing orders, starting at section 67 and going fully through section 79, lay out the procedures by which bills are to progress through this place and in fact how they are to be amended and the manner in which certain things are done in the committee.

I have in particular probably, when it's all boiled down, two particular points of interest that I would like you to look into in relation to the manner in which this bill has been dealt with. It has nothing to do with the fact that a time allocation motion was put in effect by the government party under the new rules, which really prevent us from doing much extra work in the committees or even really performing our job of analysing bit by bit all the pieces of the legislation that we would want to. But it does have to do, in an indirect way, with the manner in which the business of tabling amendments and then voting on those amendments has been carried out in this place -- in actual fact in the committees -- in this Legislative Assembly.

First point --

Interjections.

1350

Mr Elston: If some people will let us carry on this little point of interest, the first point is this: There were nearly, I understand, 200 amendments brought forward to be dealt with in the Legislative Assembly's committee dealing with Bill 40. Because of the time allocation motion, it was deemed that our last day in that place would really comprise only about half an hour's time in which to deal with the votes on all of those amendments.

The time allocation motion which was presented by the government party and passed -- over our great concern because it meant that we wouldn't be able to examine the amendments and the sections properly -- really said that all the amendments would be deemed to have been moved in committee. It seems to me that this is one element which we can take, because the will of the majority of this place, the New Democrats, has said that it doesn't really matter whether or not we actually get to read those amendments as long as they deem them all to have been read into the record.

What concerns me is this: that when the vote was to be taken, the time allocation motion was silent on whether or not we should dispense with any of the other rules of procedure around this place in regard to taking the vote, namely, that when a piece of legislation is to be amended, it is the right of each member in this place to have the amendment read to her or to him so that they know precisely what is to take place with respect to the vote. It is quite clear that none of us can do our business if we are unsure or if it is possible that something new can be put on the table to be considered and we are unaware of it.

I would like to read not all seven pages, but at least a couple of examples of how the conduct of our committee business carried on with regard to the last stages of Bill 40. Here is the dialogue -- sorry, this is the script for the Chair of the committee:

"Shall section 1 of the bill carry? Shall section 2 of the bill carry? Shall section 3...?" and so on, until they come to an amendment. It says, "Shall section 6 of the bill carry?" Then it says, "Shall the deferred PC amendment to section 7(2)(4) carry?" without having any opportunity for the people to reacquaint themselves with the text of the amendment.

I'm sure it was a sound piece of work done by my colleagues sitting to the left, but far to my right, and I have to say that it really does take away from the business of this place to prevent the reading of the amendment in the committee when the vote is to be taken.

My view is, under the current --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Elston: Some of these guys don't want to listen, but it's important business for us, Mr Speaker, so that we can do the will of the people.

Under the circumstances here, the people expect us to know exactly what we're voting on, and there is nothing, in my view, in the time allocation motion which prevents the reading of each of those amendments as they are to be voted on. Yes, they've been deemed to be moved to make sure they don't fail for being out of time -- that's fair; I have no problem with that -- but each of us has the right to have the amendments read as we vote on them, and nothing in that time allocation motion takes away that right.

It is my view, therefore, that not only is it a bad piece of procedure; it is a piece of procedure which now cannot be perfected after the fact. It is, in my view, a nullity, and we therefore must reconstitute the committee to redo the votes with respect to the amendments which were pledged to be taken up in the Legislative Assembly.

I appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I've gone on long, but these are important pieces of information.

The second point is this: In our standing orders, and contained in the sections which I have enumerated for you, is a provision which says that if there are amendments to be filed during consideration of the bill in committee, there shall be, time permitting, a filing of those amendments with the clerk of that committee some two hours before the bill is to be considered.

Last week, late in the week, in fact, some 26 new amendments were brought forward by the government party at the last moment for consideration, without any of the two-hour notice, and it seems to me it really violated our opportunity to consider those amendments in their full sense.

From my point of view, not only were they filed late, but the fact that there remained only 30 minutes yesterday to deal with the balance of the amendments really precluded, by that late filing, any discussion of the texts of those amendments whatsoever. They, like every other of the amendments, were deemed to have been read in and then not even read when they were voted upon. It seems to me that likewise is a nullity as a result of the fact that it really does violate the spirit of our ability as members to do our work by seeing, by discussing, by questioning and then reporting.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to look into those two issues: one, the late filing of those amendments, which really did preclude the opposition from doing any real work on those late amendments, and secondly, why or how it was that the committee felt it was in order to not even have read, prior to a vote being taken, any of those amendments as tabled.

Mr Speaker, I ask you to find that yesterday's work was in essence a nullity and that it should be sent back to be perfected only by actually doing the work, as required by our standing orders, and that work, in my view, has not been compromised in any sense by the stringent provisions of that time allocation motion which those majority government people foisted upon us earlier in the year.

The Speaker: To the House leader for the official opposition: I appreciate the matter which he's brought to my attention, both items, and while I am pleased to consider what he's brought to my attention, I must note that the work of the committee was by the order of the House and that the very points which he raised might best have been raised in the committee itself.

However, having said that, I am pleased to consider what he's brought to my attention. I realize it is a matter of importance to him and no doubt to other members as well.

It is time for oral questions and the member for Bruce.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On the same point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order, the member for York Mills?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, on the same point of order: I too am concerned with the way in which this was handled in the respect that the government filed many of its amendments just a few hours before the end of committee hearings, which didn't give us an opportunity to review them.

Additionally, the government committed, in a public announcement, that it was going to bring in certain amendments with respect to replacement workers. The amendments which were filed did not include that.

As a further comment I would add the following: I think, in view of the very serious situation we find ourselves in in this country today, where we have a referendum in a few days' time, it would be appropriate not only that the clause-by-clause in committee hearings be extended, but in addition to that, that the hearings in the House of this very important matter, which affects everybody in Ontario, should be deferred until after the referendum.

The Speaker: To the member for York Mills, I believe that the items he's brought to my attention are indeed what was brought to my attention by the member for Bruce. As I stated to him, I'd be pleased to consider the matters, and I note, of course, that perhaps the member for York Mills would have been better served had he raised the matters in the committee, and that the actual sitting was at direction by the House. None the less, it's an important matter and I will be pleased to take a look at it.

It's time for oral questions.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Matter of privilege?

1400

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, if you would please bear with me, I feel that my privileges as a member have been infringed -- and probably every member on this side of the House, at least, has had his or her privileges infringed -- by a recent memo.

"Memo

"To: All MPPs

"From: Sharon Murdock, chair, personnel committee

"Subject: Stress management sessions

"As a follow-up to the stress management sessions held at caucus retreat, two sets of sessions on coping with stress will be provided this fall. Descriptions of the sessions are attached. Please note that each session consists of four two-hour sessions. To benefit most, you must commit to attend all four sessions in each program."

First session: "Coping with midterm stress, Mondays 8:30-10:30 am, November 2, 16, 23 and December 7."

Second session: "Chaos management and strategic planning."

For this government, I think that goes without saying.

"Wednesdays 6:30-8:30 pm, November 4, 18, 25 and December 9.

"Sign me up for: (please circle one) Coping with midterm stress or chaos management and strategic planning

"Member name

"If you plan to take part, return this form to Leslie Kerr in caucus services by Wednesday, October 21, 1992, by FAX."

I gather this was to go to all MPPs and I'd like to know why I didn't get one, and I'm sure a lot of members over here would like to know the same thing.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure that the House leader for the third party could come, but I think he probably didn't get one because we know that therapy can't work miracles.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm sure it's not related to my stress management. Perhaps we could start question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I know we're just getting warmed up, but I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, with whom I've had some interesting dialogue from time to time.

I'd like to talk to him a little bit about the study of the Bruce A generating station and ask the minister what he meant to say with respect to the many months of work that was done already by a team of multi-sited Hydro people with respect to the study of the retubing and rehabilitation at Bruce A. Is he telling us that the studies that have been prepared by those people over several months are deficient, and in what sense are they so deficient?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member's question is an interesting one because the member makes the assumption, as he's made a number of times, that somehow because the Hydro board made a decision for further review, this minister has decided the studies were deficient or in some other way questioned.

The Hydro board made a decision that in its view the study in question did not answer all of their questions in terms of either the efficacy of proceeding at this time or the cost-effectiveness of doing so, and the Hydro board, of its own decision-making process, has decided to proceed with a further review -- a much more extensive review, I might add.

Mr Elston: Everybody in the province of Ontario knows that this government passed Bill 118 to ensure that the Premier and the Minister of Energy could have their hands fully around the throats of every board of directors member that sits on the Hydro board.

I want the member to tell me what he intends to direct the Hydro board to do. Do you intend to have the Hydro board immediately convene a panel of its members to immediately begin the review of the detailed study work that has already been done inside Bruce A plant and which has already been publicly indicated to generate a reasonable return on any invested capital with a reasonably priced product?

Hon Mr Charlton: What the minister intends to do is neither of those things that the member opposite has suggested. In fact, what the minister intends to do is have Hydro and its board of directors make their own decisions about how this review should be conducted.

In the meantime, over the course of the six months while this review is under way, the minister intends to consult with Hydro and a number of other stakeholders in this province who've been having a dispute for a decade now about what the real costs are of refurbishing nuclear plants and retubing the reactors and their cost-effectiveness and to see that there's an independent public review that occurs of this study when it's completed.

Mr Elston: I'd like to ask the minister, then, if he is going to take six months to have the study reviewed by Hydro, can he tell us how long his public review of the result of that study will take and of what composition the review panel will be of that second study of the second study?

Hon Mr Charlton: Obviously the member, because he prepares his questions in advance, doesn't listen to answers. I just got through saying that during the course of the six months, while Ontario Hydro is reviewing the matter of the cost of retubing unit 2 at Bruce A, the minister will consult with Hydro and a number of other stakeholder groups out there in the real world as to which is the most acceptable process for that review. When we've made those decisions, we'll announce them publicly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and I'm wondering if, with your indulgence, I might stand it down until the third party has put its questions.

The Speaker: The minister is here. Would the member care to place his question now?

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Minister, as you're taking your seat, I remind you, and obviously you need no reminder, that the Countdown Acid Rain program requires Hydro to make a significant cut in its sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions. In a news release yesterday, referring to the capital restructuring or review of Ontario Hydro, it was stated that Hydro would review the timing of the installation of its fossil fuel emission controls on its thermal generating stations.

Minister, can you tell us if this review will affect Ontario Hydro's ability to meet its commitments under the Countdown Acid Rain program?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm certainly aware of the coverage in the press that the member has alluded to with respect to Hydro's plans. I've not had an opportunity to look at what's being proposed in detail and I can only assure the member that whatever proposals Hydro has my ministry will very carefully evaluate.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate your commitment to evaluate it, Minister, but there's something more at stake here and it's this: The issue at hand is, should Ontario Hydro choose to cut back on its emission controls, you will effectively be seeing the environment of Ontario being put at jeopardy in terms of acid rain. We know the devastating effect that has on this province and on the environment of this province; in addition to that, the cutting back of the capital cost measures. We know that the compliance will be out of whack.

We also know that there's a very real possibility and probability, in fact, that Ontario Hydro is going to have to purchase its power elsewhere, including sources such as coal-fired generation plants in the United States. The result of that is that the net effect on the environment in Ontario is compromised. So whether it happens by way of allowing Ontario Hydro to cut its capital costs in terms of emission controls or the result of deferment of capital expenditures that will provide adequate power resulting in the purchase of coal-generated energy Stateside, the result is increased acid emissions affecting the province of Ontario.

Minister, the question that I want to put to you in your capacity as Minister of the Environment is: What are you doing to ensure, number one, compliance of Hydro and, secondly, the net effect of purchasing in the States is not visited upon the people in Ontario by way of acid emissions?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member well knows the support for me in my capacity as opposition critic and from this party for the Countdown Acid Rain program, and certainly our commitment and our satisfaction that the levels that were imposed by your government have been lived up to by the Big Four emitters.

I think the member in the preamble to his question is making a whole lot of suppositions about things that may or may not occur with which there is absolutely no actual facts or any realistic possibility of that happening. I can assure him that my commitment to the protection of the environment of this province is as it has always been: unwavering and unyielding.

1410

Mr McClelland: In response to my question, you say that there is very little possibility that will occur. I want you to review carefully your answer. The minister says that I'm speculating about what may happen. I'm not speculating about what may happen in terms of the question, Minister. The possibility exists. In fact, acid precipitation may increase as a result of a plan being contemplated by Hydro. That possibility exists. What are you going to do to ensure that does not happen?

Secondly, what are you going to do to ensure that Hydro, when the requirements down the road are such that Hydro has to go elsewhere to acquire the necessary energy for this province, doesn't, as a result of its cutting back now, do so in a manner that hurts the environment of Ontario? You're talking about that being speculative. If there's a possibility that exists -- you just said in your answer that the possibility doesn't exist, so I'm asking you again to unequivocally say that possibility doesn't exist while you're on watch at the Ministry of the Environment. Because if that's what you're saying, the people of Ontario will want to know, then: What are you going to do, together with --

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

Mr McClelland: -- your colleague the Minister of Energy, to ensure that possibility doesn't come to pass?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member sets up a hypothetical possibility which he acknowledges we won't know for sure is going to happen but might happen, and then asks me to respond as to about what I'm going to do in the event that that happens. Let me repeat to the member: Our commitment to the Countdown Acid Rain program was one that we made in opposition and one that we have fully complied with, supported and encouraged in government. I see nothing in the information I have with respect to Hydro that would indicate any change in that position.

BUDGET

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Treasurer. The Treasurer is no doubt aware that there have only been two previous claims over the past 30 years for the federal stabilization program and that when those claims were made it took from three to four years of negotiation between federal and provincial officials to establish if the provinces qualified and what amounts would be paid. In one case they were refused and in the other case they were given 75% of what they had asked for.

Mr Treasurer, why do you continue to insist that a $l.2-billion cheque is in the mail with regard to your claim on this fund?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member opposite is correct that the previous two claims that were paid out to British Columbia and Alberta did take a longer length of time than the time allowed for in our fiscal plan. I would remind the member, however, that while those claims were both legitimate and deemed to be legitimate, they were much more complicated than is our claim. They dealt totally with resource revenues. Ours has to do with the entire purpose of the stabilization fund, which is that when there's a decline in economic activity and revenues fall as a result, the stabilization arrangements kick into place. Since the previous claims were honoured, the whole issue has been simplified, and I saw no reason, and continue to see no reason, why that claim could not be paid in this fiscal year.

Mr Sterling: In talking to several officials at the federal level with regard to this application, the Treasurer was described as being ambitious and naïve in his expectations. Mr Treasurer, are you really being naïve? Do you really believe that you're going to receive this money in this fiscal year?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, it is money to which we are fully entitled. Let's get that straight. We're entitled to that money in the province of Ontario.

Second, if there were not a per capita ceiling on the fiscalization arrangements, the claim would be much higher than it is. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government not to be able to make that payment this year.

If I could add as well, I was most unhappy with the leader of the third party, the boss of the member who just asked me that question, when he implied that we were going to Ottawa with our hand out and asking for a bailout. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. This is money to which we are fully entitled. The sooner the third party gets on side and supports us in our claim to that money, the better off we'll all be.

Mr Sterling: Talk about being naïve in terms of what his expectations are. I'd like to talk about being naïve in his revenue projections with regard to another item on page 81 of his budget for this year: the $1.2 billion he is forecasting for the sale of assets.

We were told this morning by his officials that they have not made one sale yet. There are only five and a half months left out of 12. Mr Treasurer, when are you going to hold the fire sale? When are you going to have the sale? What items are being sold? Are there any deals that are going to be consummated before March 31 of this year? What are you offering for sale? Mr Treasurer, does anybody out there believe you are in fact going to hit the $1.2 billion in sales, when you haven't sold one asset in six and a half months and you've only got five and a half months left to do it?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite makes a good point about a fire sale. If we had said, the minute we brought down the budget on April 30, "Now we've got to sell these assets in the next couple of months," it would in fact have been a fire sale. We are doing it methodically. We are searching the market assiduously and making sure we get a full return for any assets we sell.

Just because we haven't sold them in the first half of the year doesn't mean we won't sell them in the second half of the year, and I have every intention of achieving the targets in the budget. There would be nothing to gain for any government to lay out numbers --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You did it last year. You did exactly the same thing.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, we did not do it last year. There would be nothing to gain by putting out phoney numbers in terms of our revenues. We'd have to end up living with them at a later date. That would make no sense whatsoever. The member who asked the question should put out of his mind any conspiracy theory. There is none.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Treasurer as well. My question regards a meeting of the district health councils that took place in Hamilton this weekend. I see I got the Solicitor General to wake up.

The question I have is that some 400 district health council officials gathered in Hamilton on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week. Some thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money were spent on this particular meeting of 400 people, including, I assume, air flight for some, mileage for others, hotel rooms for two nights, food, drink -- whatever. We know it's going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Considering these economic times, Mr Treasurer, couldn't some other process have been put in place that would have informed these people of the upcoming social changes in the Health department that wouldn't have cost the taxpayers so much money?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): How much?

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Housing would like to know how much. As far as we can see, it's at least $100,000 of taxpayers' money. It would seem there's got to be some other method by which we could have asked these people to be informed about the upcoming year and what was on the plate for the Health ministry without spending potentially hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question, but I really would want more information about the conference. Without knowing all the details, I'd be foolish to speculate on whether or not the money was well spent.

However, it does seem to me that when we are making a very serious attempt, for the first time in many, many years, to control health care spending in this province, we do need to get together with the people who deliver the health care system out there in the province and who have responsibility at the local level. I don't think that simply imposing decrees from on high is the answer; we want to involve our partners out there in the health care system so they are a part of our efforts to restructure and make the health care system more efficient and better.

1420

Mr Stockwell: It seems rather counterproductive, if that is your goal, to go about assembling these people in Hamilton at a huge cost to the taxpayers. The Minister of Housing doesn't seem to think hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money is a huge amount of money. I think it is, considering that the member for Wellington stood up yesterday and spoke to you very sincerely, Mr Treasurer, about the developmental disability children in his riding who are being rolled back, who can't get government services because there's not enough money.

Yet there seems to be enough money to transport 400 people to Hamilton, put them up in a hotel, feed them, do all it takes for the weekend of meetings, to talk about the conference agenda: "conflict of interest issues," "media workshop," "models of health councils," "volunteer burnout" and so on and so on.

You've got food banks opening up around this province like never before, more people out of work, unemployment people moving on to the welfare rolls; we need job creation; taxes have never been higher. And you seem to say that this kind of meeting in Hamilton of 400 people couldn't somehow have been circumvented by simply sending a troop around the province to meet with these on an individual basis. It would have cost considerably less than what it cost in Hamilton.

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

Mr Stockwell: Maybe your priorities need to be reviewed. Maybe you could look at it under that notion.

Hon Mr Laughren: We've said for some time now that we welcome all suggestions for containing expenditures in the province. We've said that to our employees and we've said it to the public at large, and I appreciate the suggestion from the member for Etobicoke West.

But I would remind him that we have in this province an approximately $17-billion health care budget. We have made serious efforts; the Minister of Health has worked extremely hard to contain the growth in the health care system. You don't achieve the enormous savings she's already put in place in the health care system by simply going around and meeting with 400 people individually. There has to be an agreement among the people who are involved out there at the local level, the people who know, quite frankly, exactly what the priorities should be, community by community.

I will look into the matter further and talk to the Minister of Health, but I think it's not fair for the member for Etobicoke West to simply write off the beneficial aspects of such a conference.

Mr Stockwell: No one is disagreeing about setting the priorities of the government. No one is suggesting that you can't set the priorities and outline those priorities to the people who are going to deliver them. Let's be clear to the Treasurer. No one is arguing that you have that right as a government. The question I have is how you choose to implement it.

You told us about the Comsoc-SkyDome fiasco some year or so ago, that these kinds of episodes wouldn't happen again. Mr Treasurer, it's hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars, when we have food banks, when we've got financial constraints all round. Surely to goodness a comprehensive package, mailed out to these people, with someone who could travel and explain it, is a far more advantageous decision-making process than bringing 400 people to Hamilton.

Do you consider this kind of expenditure more important than feeding those people lining up at food banks?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West is putting the question in a most unfair way. One way we're going to be able to free up dollars to implement programs to which the member refers is by savings in the major programs such as health care. There's nothing magic about that. If the member opposite thinks that if we don't work very hard, well -- a couple of members opposite are snorting.

Health care costs in this province were increasing at double-digit rates until this government came to office. This is the first government that has made any serious effort to control health care costs in this province while maintaining essential services at the same time, and we'll continue to do that.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Labour, I would like to pose my question to the Deputy Premier.

Deputy Premier, you will know that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency is the agency created to set standards for certification under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. You will also be aware that it is made up of eight labour representatives and eight management representatives, each group having a vice-chair. You will also be aware that the agency has always operated on a consensual approach.

I have been informed that last week, on Thursday, a vote was forced upon the members in the area of certification standards. I understand that as a result of this forced vote, a number of resignations from the management component have either been submitted or are pending. My question to the Deputy Premier is this: Will you confirm today whether that has taken place, and will you undertake to look into this serious matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I am aware of the issue to which the member refers. It had to do with the legislation concerning the Occupational Health and Safety Act and an attempt by the agency to put in place training of joint health and safety workers, I believe.

I also believe that an agreement was reached at the board; that not everyone agreed with the decision that was made, but that indeed a majority agreement was reached by the agency and that there were some people who sit on the board who were dissatisfied with the results of that agreement. As you know, it's a joint board, and there were some people unhappy with it. But I think that the process was honoured.

Mr Offer: In response, the Deputy Premier should know that it is felt by the many members of that agency that this was a forced vote. Mr Deputy Premier, you will also know that that was the very first vote in the history of that agency ever to have taken place and be forced upon the agency, which, I would remind the Deputy Premier, is a schedule 3 or non-arm's-length agency.

It was supposed to be a bipartite group based on consensus. There are serious concerns, Deputy Premier, that this agency is in fact exploding.

As you review this matter, I would ask you to look into whether there has been any Ministry of Labour interference in bringing about a forced vote on this issue, which is resulting and will result in resignations from the management component of the agency.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the member opposite should understand that the agency had an obligation to come up with a solution for the certification of -- for training. They were assigned that job, and I commend them for reaching the milestone where they achieved that.

While there may be some who will claim that the process was rushed, they've been working on it now for, I believe, two years, and that is a long time to achieve this when they were assigned this responsibility. I'm not aware of any interference by anyone in their activities, but I'll take the suggestion by the member opposite as notice.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In the absence of the Minister of Health, my question is directed to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer.

Treasurer, you should be aware that $38 million has been spent on the OHIP health card system. That's these little red cards that Ontarians need to access health services in this province. The system was introduced by the Liberals in March 1990 and it was intended to limit abuse and prevent fraudulent OHIP claims.

Since the new cards were introduced, over 11 million cards have been issued by the Ministry of Health. Deputy Premier, with so many cards currently in the system, could you tell this House what your government has done to ensure that fraud is not occurring and that Ontario taxpayers are not being ripped off?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I think I would be well advised to take that as notice and talk to the Minister of Health about that and ask her to respond to the member directly.

1430

Mr Jim Wilson: Deputy Premier, that simply isn't acceptable. You're the second-highest official in your cabinet. The Health minister's not here to answer questions. In fact, we're told she's pondering over some reports in her office across the street today and that she is not going to appear in question period and be accountable to the people, so I have no choice but to once again ask you the question.

On July 8 of last year the Minister of Health issued a press release that said "more than 98% or 9.7 million of eligible Ontarians now have their cards." So at the most we have an eligible population of 10 million people. With more than 11 million health cards issued, it's clear that more than just eligible Ontarians have Ontario health cards. Based on the number of health cards issued, there's a great potential for our health care system to be hijacked by fraudulent claims.

You're the Treasurer, and I'll repeat my question. What measures have you or your government taken or are there in place today to ensure that fraud is not occurring in our Ontario health card system?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not at all offended by the member asking me the question and I am concerned about any potential fraud in the system, but I think the member would appreciate the fact that I don't believe in attempting to answer any question unless I'm absolutely sure of the answer.

JOBS ONTARIO HOMES FUND

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question's for the Minister of Housing. Minister, you'll recall that in the budget of May our Treasurer and this government made a number of initiative announcements. One I can recall is the Jobs Ontario Training fund, a $1.1-billion training fund over the next three years to put up to 100,000 workers who are currently on social welfare back to work. Minister, over 800 people in my riding of Brantford will benefit from this program.

You will recall another initiative, Jobs Ontario Capital, which is used to strategically rebuild our infrastructure. Minister, some schools in my riding, some roads in my riding, have benefited from this initiative.

One very important initiative announced by the Treasurer was the Jobs Ontario Homes project. Minister, I think this is a third key component to our initiatives in battling the recession. The other two initiatives have been implemented, but I don't recall hearing any news from your ministry about this very important initiative. Could you give us a status report for the people of Ontario?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to do that. Earlier this year I was able to announce the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Earlier this year I was able to announce the allocation of 6,500 units in the remaining part of the P-10,000 program which came out of last year's budget, and we'll be moving ahead with allocations under the new commitment made in this year's budget. A proposal call will be going out in November and we hope to have those allocations in place by the end of the year. Getting just into the new year, we expect that groups will be able to start proceeding with allocations.

I should point out that as of August 31 in Ontario, we were building on an average about 24,000 units a month. People were working on 24,000 units a month. That includes all the programs we have been allocating over the last several months -- a very high level of activity.

Mr Ward: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Judging by the response of some members of the opposition, maybe they don't feel non-profit housing is an important component to implement. Let me tell you, Madam Minister, that last week I was at the opening of a non-profit housing project in my riding of Brantford conducted by the YM-YWCA which provided 60 units for geared-to-income and market income people, families, in my riding.

I think if they would look at that particular project it would be an asset, not only because it meets a social need in my community of Brantford but it also would be an asset to any neighbourhood. Anyone would welcome a project like that, not only because it has a social need, but because it created short-term work in the construction sector. We all know it's been decimated by the recession.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ward: Minister, for the benefit of the opposition, can you tell us what short-term benefits non-profit housing has?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the member for the work that is going on in Ontario in non-profit housing.

We know in fact from CMHC statistics that the work we're doing in non-profit housing really has kept the construction industry at work this year and without it the one-third unemployment level we've seen in the construction industry would be even higher.

We also know that this is a period of time when land prices are at a low, when construction costs are at a low and when people most desperately need affordable housing. It's a good time to be doing this work and that's why we're very pleased to be able to continue with our non-profit housing program.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it again concerns the issue of destreaming. Minister, yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague the member for London North, you attempted to answer a question about destreaming. Frankly, I think that if anything this issue is even more confused today than it was at the end of last week.

Through discussions with teachers and with school boards, I am aware of a tremendous amount of confusion. The member for London North referred to it as chaos and I think it is bordering on that around exactly what is happening with respect to destreaming and what the government's policy is.

Minister, I want to go back to the specific question asked of you yesterday from my first question. Are you now saying September 1996 is the beginning of the total destreaming program of your government, or are you saying it's September 1993? Out there people don't know and they don't understand what it is they're being asked to do. Have you changed your mind and is it now September 1996? Is that the government's policy?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): No, there has been no change of mind. I think I've been trying to say, as I said from the very beginning on this, that we have put in place a three-year implementation period which begins in September 1993 and goes to 1996.

What we have also said very clearly is that -- if people are interested in the answer, I'm trying to give it -- what we have said in the memorandum we sent out was that starting in September 1993 the formal destreaming would end; that is, the labelling of courses into basic, general and advanced would no longer apply. As well, as a consequence of that, the formal credit system would not apply, starting in September 1993.

But we recognized from the very beginning that in terms of the full implementation -- and by full implementation I mean the change in the teaching methodology that needs to happen for a full destreaming to occur, for a move to a more common curriculum to occur -- it's not a question of simply saying, "That will happen as of September 1993." It takes a period of time for that change in teaching methodology to occur and that's why we've allowed the three-year period --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Silipo: -- to allow school boards and schools to go at some reasonable pace based upon the particular experiences they've had.

Mr Beer: That again is a very curious answer, because the minister's saying, "We're going to stop doing things even though we don't know what we're going to put in its place," and that is precisely what teachers, trustees and parents have been asking and saying, "We need a clearer explanation."

I have here a letter from the head of the history department at Agincourt Collegiate, Mr Ken Smith. I talked with him today and I'm using this letter because here is an individual who received this year the highest award of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Hillroy Fellowship Award. I had written to congratulate him on being the recipient of that award. He wrote back to say, "Look, one of the biggest concerns we have as teachers right now is, we don't understand what the government is doing with destreaming," and in particular, that it has not evaluated the pilot projects and has not brought in the kind of in-service programs that are needed to really give teachers the resources and support they need.

1440

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Beer: My question is, will you not recognize that there is this confusion out there, that there is this chaos and that people want to see an evaluation of the pilot projects and they want to see the in-service programs before we change what we've got? You've got to get your direction in order.

Hon Mr Silipo: Quite frankly, I find the request a little strange, given that what I've done with the September 1993 deadline is push from September 1992 a deadline that had been imposed by the previous government. Let's put that on the record first of all. Second, let me also say very clearly that we have lots of information from the pilot projects that is being shared with school boards and with teachers.

But having said that, I also have recognized and acknowledged here in this House and elsewhere that there is some confusion out there. I've also undertaken as a result of that to put out to schools some very clear information, very detailed information that will tell them exactly what we mean. We'll spell it out to the umpteenth detail we need to so that there is no confusion.

I also want to emphasize again that we have understood the need for in-service training. Right from the beginning, I've said that's a significant area we need to do. We've embarked upon two initiatives particularly: one in which we are providing funds in the amount of about $3 million to school boards for in-service programs; the other is a project with the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which it has developed at our request, that provides for the sharing of information among teachers throughout the province. We think that through those kinds of initiatives we'll also be able to put the best teaching practices at use throughout the province.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Last week, Minister, I questioned you about possible further cuts in budgets to agriculture or increased levies to the agricultural community. You admitted that further restraint measures might be necessary, but you didn't really tell us what they were. Maybe the minister can tell us today if his ministry is looking at new fees to levy against farmers, such as licensing motorized equipment or possibly removing the farm fuel tax exemption that farmers have benefited from. Explain that to us, Mr Minister.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am not the Minister of Revenue and don't collect taxes or fees. The member should know that.

I mentioned in the member's last question -- I believe it was last week when he asked the same or a similar question -- that we are looking at ways to save money, to restrict spending as much as possible and still to provide the best service. But I want to assure the member that no decisions have been made. We are looking at a number of things, but no decisions have been made in terms of fees or in terms of cutting programs. We will have consultation with farmers and the food industry before any decisions are made.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister knows that agriculture has not been treated very well by this government. Farm leaders have openly stated that farming and agriculture are clearly not a priority of your government. As a matter of fact, you spend more money on jails than on agriculture in this province right now. Minister, can you explain to us why the Ministry of Labour got a 16% increase and your ministry got a 10% reduction in the last budget?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am not here to explain what happens in other ministries. I do want the member, though, to be reminded of the fact that Agriculture and Food did get money for new initiatives last year. It's one of the few ministries across the government that got money for new initiatives.

As we look at investment strategy, putting money into agriculture in terms of providing the necessary support for loans, the commodity loan program that we have put in place has become very popular. It's managed to leverage dollars from lending institutions to actually put money back into the pockets of farmers. Better still, we don't take that money out of their pockets and give it to lending institutions.

We have put money into agriculture. We've tried to take the money we have and spend it wisely. The measure here of success is not necessarily quantity but the quality of the programs we've put in place, and I think the member should take a look at that.

HYDRO PROJECTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Abrasive Industries in Niagara Falls is extremely concerned about industrial power rates. I have been meeting with Norton Advanced Ceramics, Washington Mills and General Abrasive on an ongoing basis for some time, and they have also been working, in the last few months, with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, Hydro, the Ministry of Energy and AMPCO.

You may remember that General Abrasive was one company that, in the press last month, threatened to "move across the river." When I met with this company three weeks ago, I went there to see its manager, Mr Chris Ciccarelli. We discussed all the options that were available. One was what he called "real-time pricing." What he told me was that over the next three months, this program alone would save him $300,000 and would make the difference. He told me that 24 companies across Ontario had applied for this program, and only 20 spaces were available. What I need to know is if this program will help my company in Niagara Falls.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for the question. I'm pleased to tell her that Ontario Hydro has decided to set up a new experimental program. The time-of-use rates program, which was created several years ago, will be incorporated into a new real-time pricing program that will start in January 1993.

Specifically relating to the company in question, my understanding is that all of the companies that have applied for this experimental program have been accepted into the program.

Ms Harrington: Yesterday, Hydro announced some major cutbacks in capital projects. The people of Niagara Falls, I'm sure, do want to know the status of the Sir Adam Beck 3 project, which is a project to twin the huge tunnels under the city of Niagara Falls and build another generating station at Queenston. Could you please let us know what's happening?

Hon Mr Charlton: With respect to the Beck 3 project, first of all, it was not one of the projects that was deferred by Ontario Hydro as part of the announced deferrals of the other day. My understanding is that Hydro intends to proceed to seek the appropriate approvals, including environmental approvals, to proceed with the project. As far as I understand it, those actions will continue to be pursued by Hydro.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I also have a question for the current Minister of Energy. The question concerns Elliot Lake and region. I ask this question mostly to get your views, as you are the third minister in about two years. You fired the president of Hydro. The chairman and CEO of Hydro will abandon ship shortly.

As you know, your government instructed Hydro to lay off 1,100 men and women at Denison Mines. Your government instructed Hydro to give notice to another 600 workers at Stanleigh mine that their employment would end in 1995 or perhaps 1996. This betrayed a specific campaign promise that you've made, but you would know all about that kind of thing.

Given your track record on keeping promises, given the total disarray at Ontario Hydro, given the parade of ministers in your portfolio, the people of my riding, my constituents, ask that you reaffirm the Energy-Hydro package to the people of Elliot Lake. Can you do that for us, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question relates to a multifaceted package that was agreed to in terms of Elliot Lake. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of one item which has been deferred -- not cancelled, but deferred -- that package remains intact.

1450

Mr Brown: Mr Minister, almost two years ago, Mr Eliesen, Mr Wildman and Ms Martel, in a lot of hoopla, promised Elliot Lake at a news conference that two very important hydro projects would go forward in that area. They would be fast-tracked.

One was the hydroelectric project at Patten Post. It was to be expedited. It was a project that made sense, according to your government, from both Hydro and the area's point of view. It was a project that included at least $300 million of capital spending. It would employ hundreds, if not thousands, Mr Minister. It was to be going by 1994.

The second was a commitment to a cogeneration station, which appears to be rapidly evaporating.

Minister, you've deferred these projects too long. Your government promised to make them happen. The people I represent and the people Mr Wildman in Algoma represents want these things to happen. I don't want you to tell me anything but that, yes, within the next year, there'll be people working on the north shore of Lake Huron in these two projects. Can you do that, Mr Minister?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Another broken promise. Just Martelling again.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Elinor, put a sock in it, okay?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Cochrane South, it's not helpful. I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw the comment, Mr Speaker, but ask not to be badgered.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): He doesn't have to withdraw it. What's unparliamentary about a sock?

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if we could just calm a bit and allow the minister to respond to the question in an orderly way.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question is a very important one. I think it deserves a response and I'm happy to make that response. As I said in response to his first question, my understanding is that the package that was designed for assistance in Elliot Lake as a result of the decision around the uranium contracts remains intact.

There has been a deferral and the deferral has to be understood in the context of the whole province and of Elliot Lake itself. Projects are being deferred because Hydro does not need the power. Any corporation that was out soliciting and buying power that it didn't need would be criticized by all the members across the way in terms of its inappropriate business decisions. To purchase power that's not required would have an impact on rates in this province in excess of the high rates that we've been attempting to deal with.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said, the package will remain intact. Hydro has just deferred $7 billion in capital projects because it does not need the power. Hydro's responsibility is to operate in the best interests of the whole province, the ratepayers and the industries right across this province. The government has to weigh the balance between proceeding and pushing rates up, and dealing with the very difficult economic circumstances and high rates that we have at the present time. Both the projects the member has raised will proceed at the appropriate time.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, in May of this year you appointed Graeme Kirby to study structural reform in the Ottawa-Carleton area. This is the fourth study by government in Ottawa-Carleton over the last 12 or 13 years.

In the initial document, Mr Minister, it was pointed out by your officials that there was a problem in perception that there was too much government, not a real problem. In your document, it pointed out that it would be unlikely that there would be any financial savings or economies with regard to going to one-tier government.

The 11 municipal governments in the area commissioned Price Waterhouse to study the financial impact of what was going to happen. Price Waterhouse said it was going to cost $77 million more to have one-tier government, and in addition it was going to cost $30 million to set it up. Mr Minister, why are we doing this?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think there is a general understanding in the Ottawa-Carleton area that that area of the province is overgoverned, that there are many elected politicians, that we could have smaller councils and we could perhaps have fewer councils. But I think it's also important to understand that in the Price Waterhouse study there were certain assumptions made that led to the $77-million assumption. If you change those assumptions, if you don't level off and have the same service provided in every one of the municipalities from one end of Ottawa-Carleton to the other, then it wouldn't result in that kind of increased cost.

No one on this side is advocating that we move towards one-tier government. What we are advocating is that we have to move towards developing an accountable, rational system of local government in Ottawa-Carleton that doesn't exist now. Most everyone agrees that there has to be reform. Maybe you don't, but most of your constituents do.

Mr Sterling: I don't think most of my constituents do, Mr Minister. In fact, at every meeting held that I have read about, the overwhelming response to Graeme Kirby is, "Why don't you wrap up your study and go home? Municipal government is not our major problem here." When he came to see me, Mr Minister, I told him that out of priorities of 1 to 100, this was either 99th or 100th on the scale of concerns to my area. It's no secret, Mr Minister, that the city of Ottawa is experiencing severe financial problems. That comes from the free-wheeling government of New Democrat Marion Dewar and the Liberal spender of Jimmy Durrell.

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: Well, you look at their books; you look at their deficit. What my people want, Mr Minister, is an assurance from you. If you buy the one-tier government option, will you assure my people that they will not end up paying for the mismanagement of the city of Ottawa over the last decade?

Hon Mr Cooke: There's no assumption that there's going to be one-tier government. There will be reform of local government in Ottawa-Carleton. We'll wait for the Kirby report and we'll go from there.

I don't know why the member always has to attack his own local governments. I know he pointed the finger at Durrell today, he pointed the finger at Marion Dewar from the past and he's having a fight with the Tory regional chair. Who do you get along with in Ottawa-Carleton?

1500

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I only have one question now, because I appreciate the clarification he's given with respect to the implementation of the core curriculum for grade 9. I know my constituents will be relieved to hear that it will not be mandatory until September 1996.

However, I do have another concern about the introduction of the core curriculum which has been expressed to me by many of my constituents; that is, I wonder what the minister could advise my constituents with respect to their concerns about the maintaining of educational standards with the introduction of the core curriculum.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): That again is a concern we certainly heard about and keep discussing with people. I must say I appreciate the interest that is being expressed on both sides of the House around some of these issues in education. I think it bodes well for the interest there is in this whole issue.

Let me just say that I don't find there is any inconsistency at all between moving towards a common core curriculum and heightening within that a greater sense of excellence within our system and a greater sense of heightening the quality of what we deliver.

We've talked and know quite clearly about the needs that exist out there, to have a system in which we clarify and say very clearly what we expect for our students in the system and to be able to then have some clear ways of measuring that progress. In the work we'll be doing over the next little while, some of those issues will I hope become clearer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wessenger: As part of ensuring this quality in education, will the Benchmarks be part of that process of ensuring we have excellence?

Hon Mr Silipo: The Benchmarks process, as I've indicated on other occasions, is indeed one of the key ways in which we hope to be able to set, first of all, the standards our schools should be achieving at various points in a child's education and, secondly, to provide a clear way for us to be able to tell our system and our parents and the general public how well our students and our schools are doing.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Carleton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning Bill 154. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I've got a petition here from the Greek Orthodox community of Mississauga and district, called Prophet Elias. The petition is to members of provincial Parliament:

"Re: The amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It's signed by appropriately 120 constituents, and I will sign it myself.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented;

"Now therefore the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

That's signed by 486 people -- I have thousands more, Mr Speaker -- and I've added my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 34 constituents of the county of Middlesex, and they petition the Legislative Assembly as follows.

They would like the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the report of Mr John Brant, the arbitrator for the greater London area, because it does not reflect the express wishes of the majority in the county of Middlesex. It awards far too extensive a land area to the city of London and it will jeopardize the viability of Middlesex county and the way of life that we cherish in Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from the Knox Presbyterian Church that says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

Signed by about 60 members of the church.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a second one I would like to put in place from St Bartholomew Catholic School, 51 Heather Road, Agincourt, and it states:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterparts;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

It is signed by about 30 members of that area.

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by 19 citizens of the province, including some constituents from Mr Speaker's riding. The petition says:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend less than $1,678 on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two provincial education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature of support.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that has been signed by a number of residents in my riding:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the rights of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterparts;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I submit this to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

1510

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition for the Legislative Assembly. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, adamantly oppose the current NDP government's proposed labour legislation changes, Bill 40. We feel that if the government follows through with these changes, Ontario will be much poorer off in terms of international competitiveness, investment opportunities, business flexibility and creativity, personal freedom and privacy."

It is signed by 53 of my constituents and I too attach my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament that is signed by about 70 people in my riding and the vicinity. This petition reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my name to it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from Grace Anglican Church and Fairview Mennonite Church in the city of St Catharines that reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to this, as I agree with the petition.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society's influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view.

"These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks approved in circular 14 dealing with the question of origins."

This has been signed by numerous constituents of mine in the city of North York.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition before me signed by a number of farmers from Listowel, Durham, Goderich, Bruce and Renfrew. The context of the petition is around the stable funding issue that's being proposed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and it states that the farm organizations do not represent two thirds of the farmers and they are concerned and have strong objections to the proposed legislation that hopefully may be coming before us, and I affix my signature to it.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition which, by the day, becomes more important, I think, to the proceedings here. It says, "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario," and I'll cut some of it out.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

Mr Speaker, I will attach my signature to that.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding from Orangeville, Shelburne, Caledon and Grand Valley. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, members of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, do not want our pension funds invested in the Ontario investment fund; and

"Whereas we cannot jeopardize our retirement income by allowing the government to decide where our hard-earned capital should be invested; and

"Whereas it is very tempting to dip into our piggy bank without using the democratic process; and

"Whereas this is not how you protect the welfare of the workers,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen to our concerns and 'hands off' our pension funds."

Mr Speaker, I've affixed my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament re the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have signed it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allocated for the presentation of petitions has expired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, in relation to this report, I have both a point of order and a point of privilege.

The first matter coming to bear, I suspect, ought to be the point of privilege since as a matter of fact I raised the issue about whether that particular legislation could be reported to this House with amendments or not at all, as a result of the terrible travesty and violation of the standing orders carried in the committee, which renders, in effect, in my view, all those amendments as passed in the committee or determined to be passed by the current chairman a nullity.

Mr Speaker, my point of privilege is this: You have undertaken to make a decision with respect to my point of privilege about the members being unable to carry out their duties and obligations to their constituents as a result of being prevented from knowing, or even having read, each of the questions to be placed as a voted item. It seems to me that under standing order 21, that report now, today, is a violation of the privileges that I have as a member to understand and have determined for me the relevancy of the application of the standing orders to the work carried out not only in this House but in the committee.

1520

Mr Speaker, from time to time you have indicated, and you did today, that some questions ought to have been better raised in the committee itself. The committees exist not separately from this House but as an extension of this House. The work they do is done at the behest of the people here. We have no other way of getting business done. As you know, we just cannot do it all in this chamber. We have standing orders which set up standing committees that allow us to refer matters out for clause-by-clause and amendments from time to time. In fact, it happens a lot.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that under all circumstances in which business of this place is to be done, it is to be done in compliance with the rules as are established from time to time by this House and as are carried out under your particular guidance. It seems to me that in this circumstance, you, as the presiding officer over this House and over the members and over the work of these members, are required to intervene when there has been a decision which, in my view, violates the privileges of the members collectively in this place.

It seems, Mr Speaker, because this matter has come now, that I must repeat for you now, again, the arguments I made earlier, not to use up time but because if I fail to raise them, they will not and should not be considered as part of the point of privilege about which I speak now. To be perfectly -- to be perfected, I guess I should say -- when I stand on this point, I cannot ask you to refer, in my view, to previously related information, when it is about that request made further to my earlier comments that you were going to make some decisions.

Mr Speaker, therefore, I wish to raise --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Now, if it's of assistance to the member for Bruce, it perhaps isn't necessary to reiterate the original points that he made earlier and brought to my attention. If, however, he has some further detail that would be of assistance, then naturally I'd be quite pleased to hear from him.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, you misunderstand me. I raised the point of privilege earlier about the manner in which it was carried on. You said that you would take those into consideration. I think, under that question, you have enough information at least to make a determination.

My point of privilege herein relates to something similar, and to complete my point of privilege in relation to this report coming on anyway, it seems to me that I must go back and repeat all of those other points so that I can make the case that my privileges have been violated. It is for no other reason, Mr Speaker, unless you're going to tell me that you will take into account all of the earlier detail when you determine the second point of privilege. This is a point of privilege separate from but related to the first, because it seems to me that as soon as the member for Welland-Thorold rose to make a report on a bill with amendments as he has just done, he has violated my right, my privilege, to have you determine whether or not the standing orders were violated.

The question in each respect really revolves around the one point; that is, can a report from a committee include a bill with amendments when the contention of this member and members of my caucus is that the amendments themselves fail for a violation of the standing orders?

The standing orders, just to repeat for you, Mr Speaker, require that when we do business, we not only require notice of the particular amendments but we are allowed to debate sections of the bill to which they apply. We are in fact entitled to receive explanation with respect to each of those amendments and each of the sections.

Under the time allocation motion about which I read a petition not that long ago, it was easily seen that we were precluded by the motion from requiring each of the amendments to be read into the record and discussed. Mr Speaker, just for your edification, I will read this particular resolution which was passed under the name of the government House leader, Mr Cooke. It is Mr Cooke's resolution:

"That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collecting Bargaining and Employment. At 5:45 pm on this day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put the question without debate."

In that regard, it is quite clear that the rules were all neatly wrapped up and that you had no option to put this matter further in the committee. But let me talk about the referral to the committee, which I say has been deficient in the way it has dealt with the amendments to be passed and to be then reported today in front of the House:

"That the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider the bill as follows: five weeks, including up to three evening meetings per week, to receive public submissions, commencing Tuesday 4 August 1992. Further, that the committee be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following routine proceedings on the first eight sessional days of the fall meeting period of the House. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm on the day prior to the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause. At 4 pm on the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date provided, that bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House."

That capsulizes the manner in which this bill is to proceed through the standing committee on resources development. It has come to this stage, where we agree that the document here, this time allocation, really rams this stuff down our throats without our being able to make the arguments necessary, we think, to properly consider its merit. We understand what is contained here: We're forced to have the amendments deemed to have been read.

But it is a requirement of this Legislative Assembly that when the question has been put, each member can have that question read to him or her so that he or she knows precisely what is required to be done. In this place, people yell out saying, "Don't read it again, don't read it again." "Dispense," in fact, is the short form. It is the requirement for every member to know what he or she is voting on before the vote is called.

I read to you earlier, and I will just go back to it again if I can find it here, the script which was provided to the committee Chair, which sums up the manner in which the standing committee on resources development really worked through the votes that were required with respect to this bill in the last half-hour. I could read all seven pages, but I'll just read a few excerpts so that you know just how tightly this thing was scripted and just how much the privileges of the members to hear each question as it was put -- what was really done to them. I'll read the first series of questions that were on this first page.

"Shall section 1 of the bill carry?" Not an unusual question; it's done quite regularly where there is not an amendment. "Shall section 2 of the bill carry?" Again, the same thing transpires. "Shall section 3 and 4, and shall section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry?" And so on. Those are not unusual.

But when we come to, "Shall the deferred PC amendment to section 7(2)(4) carry?" it seems to me that under any form of etiquette, let alone standing orders, the deferred PC amendment ought to have been read out to make it clear exactly what each of the members was being asked to vote on.

The point comes out that this was scripted, that there was no way we could have had those matters read out for our consideration. That, in my view, is a violation of the privileges of the House. It is, therefore, a defective vote. Even though I understand that the PC motion on its own failed in this case, there are several government amendments which were deemed to have been read which were put in the same nature. I won't bother finding them, but they will eventually show up in the Hansard of the resources development committee, I understand, later today because that Hansard is not available as the official record for me to refer to.

1530

Mr Speaker, my view is that if the proper procedure were followed, there would be no dispute, but in this case the members' privileges under section 21 have been violated severally and collectively when each of the questions was not read out. There is nothing, when I read through this particular time allocation motion, that takes that right away from the members. The script took that right away from the members. In fact, all we heard was "vote on amendment under 7(2)(4)" or "vote on amendment under section" whatever, whatever. That is not proper.

That, in my view, makes the voting on the amendments a nullity and, as a result, we cannot accept the report of the committee until we determine whether or not the bill is actually reported with or without the amendments now contemplated by the government.

One point with respect to the time allocation motion itself: While the time allocation motion specifically speaks to a deviation from what is usually the case provided under the standing orders of this place, it is silent with respect to the manner in which votes are to be put in front of the members. My view, Mr Speaker, if you interpret it in accordance with the way that normally is done, is that the specific nature of the standing orders with respect to both members' privileges and the manner in which votes are to be put and the custom under which votes are put to the members -- that is, giving them the question to be voted upon -- is to be complied with unless specifically violated by this time allocation motion.

There is nothing, Mr Speaker, in the reading I have just provided for you -- or even further, if I were to complete the full reading; I won't -- that says the principle of having the question read independently of its number or of its location on some script provided to the committee Chairman will preclude the usual custom and habit of our place coming forward.

Mr Speaker, that's my point of privilege: that if you do not comply with the standing orders in all respects, the amendments must fail because they have not been passed properly. I urge you, Mr Speaker, therefore to make a ruling on that first point of privilege but that you uphold my privilege now to receive that ruling before this committee report is brought forward to you, and in fact that you do not allow my privileges to be violated by having that motion tabled now for the adoption of that report prior to you making a determination of my privileges. That in itself would be a violation of my privilege on the second part of my point.

There are a couple of other things I think I could speak about in relation to the manner in which this material was dumped on our table. I raised earlier in my point of privilege the fact that some 26 amendments were dumped late in last week's session on the table of the committee. Although I know it complies with the words which are in this time allocation, namely that by 4 o'clock on the last day the amendments be tabled, when you understand, Mr Speaker, that we fully anticipate that when 4 o'clock is the deadline we will have some time to debate those amendments, I would ask you to consider just what the violation of my privileges might be when the Minister of Labour knew what his amendments were going to be -- and in fact the press release is about those amendments coming -- and when he knows there's only going to be half an hour for us really to consider the nature of those amendments.

That, in my humble submission to you, means that the privileges of the members of the Liberal caucus and the Progressive Conservative caucus have again been violated by the concept that they have been provided with a giant surprise and in fact are precluded from preparing amply for the defence of the public interest when it comes to dealing with those particular amendments.

I think I have raised some serious concerns. I refer you, obviously again, to the same sections that I did earlier, but I want to say it is a separate point. Sections 67 through to 79, I think, of the standing orders are the areas in which we deal with the process of public bills. I ask you particularly to pay attention to the custom of the members here generally, once they know what the amendments are, yelling at you or anybody else who may be in charge of the meeting and saying "Dispense," when the question is to be read, before the question is put.

This is a serious piece of business. We have been compromised by the change to the rules. We feel extremely strongly about that. We have been compromised to the extent that the time allocation motion, which you have heard me read part of here, really takes away a great deal of our flexibility.

My contention is that it fails to take into account all the standing orders. Those orders must survive. The question must be read, and our privileges are otherwise really defeated if you don't preclude the rushed, jamming activity that has gone on in that committee. You must sustain us, or we cannot ever expect to do our business. I'd ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule now that the report of the member for Welland-Thorold to this House is out of order.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on the same point --

The Speaker: No. To the member for Bruce and the House leader of the official opposition: First, may I say to him that I fully appreciate and understand the point which he raises, which I take in summary as the timely and orderly consideration of public business, whether that occurs in the House or in committee. It is a principle which I think guides all parliaments: to provide an orderly and timely way in which to do public business. So I understand the concerns which he raises.

I have had an opportunity during the afternoon to consult the table, and if I could -- if the member for Bruce would --

Mr Elston: Now, just a minute. When? You've been in the chair the whole afternoon.

The Speaker: I draw to the member's attention --

Mr Turnbull: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: No, I have the floor right now, and I would ask the member --

Mr Turnbull: I had it before you started speaking.

The Speaker: If the member for York Mills raised earlier a point, if it is a different topic I'd be more than pleased to listen to him after I've dealt with the point of order which is brought to my attention --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, it's the same point of order.

The Speaker: Well, that's terrific, then -- same point of order, and I'm about to rule on it.

I draw to the member's attention, starting with the principle found on page 232 of Beauchesne, section 822, that "procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House."

I also draw to the House's attention our standing order 118, part (a), which reads that: "The Chair of a standing or select committee shall maintain order in the committee and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal by the majority of members of the committee to the Speaker. No debate shall be permitted on any decision of the Chair.

"(b) If the majority of the members of a standing or select committee appeal the decision of the Chair of the committee to the Speaker, the Chair shall at the next meeting of the House present a report which accurately states the matter on which the Chair decided, the arguments raised by members of the committee and the decision made by the Chair and the Speaker shall confirm or vary any decision of the Chair."

Lastly, I draw the member's attention to a ruling made on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, by Speaker Edighoffer, and I won't read the entire ruling. It's found on page 7 of that day's Hansard, but the essence of it which applies in this case is:

"This, in my opinion, has to be the correct interpretation put upon standing order 98, in that it is extremely important to preserve the principle that what happens in a committee must be decided by the committee, and only through the Chair of the committee is the House to be apprised of the committee's proceedings and decisions. It is not therefore permissible for a member to appeal a Chair's decision directly to the Speaker. A member wishing to appeal must do it by way of the Chair reporting the matter to the Speaker immediately."

1540

So in summation, as Speaker Edighoffer has found and indeed which is in keeping with the general tenor of what's been raised, matters which are of importance within a committee, matters of order, must be raised in the committee --

Mr Elston: It's a matter of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce, no, this is not a subject for debate.

Mr Elston: It's a set response, but you didn't hear what my privilege was.

The Speaker: I understand fully the matter which the member has brought to my attention, and what I'm saying is that the matter with respect to whether or not the procedure followed within the committee was a proper procedure is a matter which should have been brought to the attention of the Chair of the committee and, indeed, if the committee so chose, would then do a report, bring that report immediately -- ie the next sitting day -- to the House and report to the Speaker that an improper procedure had been followed. That's not what has occurred, and therefore, as much as I understand the concern by the honourable member, there is not anything out of order.

I would in conclusion indicate, as I believe I have done on other occasions, that whether it is within this chamber or in a committee of the House, I think it serves all of us well when we allow ample time for discussion and ensure that every person who should have the opportunity to speak is given that opportunity. When that doesn't occur, then there are difficulties; I understand that, but I cannot find anything out of order, and indeed, in keeping with the rulings made by previous Speakers, it is well in order. But I appreciate the concerns raised.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, on a different but related point: Just let me --

Interjection: No.

Mr Conway: No, but just bear with me. Thank heavens, I wasn't anywhere near the resources committee, though I'm a member of it.

Listen. I've been around here long enough and I know a charade when I see one, but I accept your ruling, as obviously I'm bound to.

My point is simply this: I was listening to a number of people who were there talk about the experience yesterday, and what I would request that you and the Clerk do is advise ways and means that we might consider to change the mechanisms. What we really need now in these situations is a good accountant from someplace like Peat Marwick, where we can save ourselves all the trouble of even going, because I'll tell you, it is perfectly ridiculous to submit any thinking human being to the kind -- and, I might add, any member of the public -- who was there to witness the spectacle. For a long period of time one simply reads off numbers that absolutely mean nothing at all to most members of the committee and certainly members of the public.

I accept the ruling. We have got a situation that is both in order and absurd, and what I would look for, since I have no intention of participating in some majoritarian absurdity, is some kind of mechanism where we could have a duly constituted committee, where from our offices we can simply transmit a non-verbal communication that indicates where the various caucuses are on the issues.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, it is an affront to thinking human beings that they should be asked to go and participate in some kind of a process such as we've now got. It may very well be in order, but I submit it is absurd and I'm asking for some help on the administrative side from you and the Clerk as to how we can relieve members from these kinds of perfectly absurd situations.

The Speaker: I understand the member for Renfrew North's concern.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to please take his seat. What I can --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

If various members of the assembly, including the member for Renfrew North, have an interest in trying to effect a better system, I know that in previous parliaments, on occasion, meetings of the chairs of committees have been convened to try to find a system that is appealing to all the members. If the procedures that were adopted in a particular committee are not working very well, by the committee chairs meeting, as they once did on a somewhat regular basis, I believe on those occasions they were able to find a little better system so that members were satisfied that proper procedures had been followed and that the committee was functioning efficiently and effectively. That may be something that committee chairs would wish to do, and if in any way I can be of assistance in that process, along with the Clerk, I would be more than pleased to do so.

Mr Conway: My point, if I might just add one final observation, Mr Speaker, is that the --

The Speaker: I ask the member to be brief, please.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, you have a new point of order, I trust.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, my point of personal privilege is that the standing orders require you to recognize me when I have a point of order. I had a point of order which was in connection with Mr Elston's point of order and point of privilege and you did not recognize me. You then went on to recognize the member for Renfrew --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Turnbull: You recognized the member for Renfrew --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. I have just recognized the member for York Mills, and perhaps he would kindly place whatever point of order he believes he has.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, you made the ruling before you recognized me. Since I am the only member of the Legislature on the opposition side who was in the committee yesterday, I thought my comments might be relevant.

You have in your decision noted that we should have made our concerns known to the Chair and that in fact the concerns should be brought back to the House by the Chair. In point of fact, we did make our concerns known to the Chair about the inequity and the inadequacy of the arrangement that allowed the government to drop approximately 40 amendments on the table late in the day, in the day prior to the last day of hearings for clause-by-clause. The last day commenced at 20 to 4 in the afternoon and, by the rules that had been pushed through by the government, ended at 4 o'clock. So in 20 minutes we weren't able to have any discussion about these approximately 40 amendments that had been dropped late in the previous sitting day.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Not only is it unacceptable, it violates the spirit of the rules that the government had in fact imposed on this process. How can the opposition parties be expected to do their job, which is clearly to review government business and to comment on it and to discuss it?

I suggest that my privileges have been violated. Not only that, I wanted to mention this prior to you making the ruling. It isn't acceptable, quite frankly, to the third party that you should ignore our wishes. Further, when I asked to be recognized on a point of order, you ignored me. You said, "Sit down," and then you went on to recognize the member for Renfrew North prior to recognizing me. Mr Speaker, that is not the acceptable method of this Parliament.

1550

The Speaker: To the member for York Mills, if indeed I have inadvertently offended him by the practice in the chamber, I of course apologize. I had seen the member for Renfrew North and thus I recognized him and allowed him to speak.

I do appreciate the concerns you've brought to my attention. I must reiterate to the member that, under our standing rules, what would have been necessary was for a report to have been passed by your committee and then that report brought to this chamber. I gather that no such report was created.

I take the larger issue, however, which both the member for Bruce and the member for York Mills have raised, and that is the orderly conduct of business. It's something which is always of concern to me. I've felt, and I suppose as a private member as well, that we in a Parliament deserve to have sufficient time in order to deal with public business appropriately. I understand his concerns full well. The standing orders are just as I have read them and indeed as other Speakers have ruled on similar matters, so I find that I have no other recourse.

I offer again, if it's of any assistance, that I'd be more than pleased to meet with committee chairs to see if in future we can find a way that is more agreeable to all concerned so that the opposition, the minority parties have the sufficient protection they're entitled to with respect to the debating of legislation.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: The reason that a Speaker is elected -- at least now elected; the person was appointed, but I think the duties of the Speaker have not changed that much over the years, whether elected or appointed. Mr Stokes, Mr Turner, all of them knew, as you do, that one of your primary roles in here is to make sure that the protection of a minority in this Parliament is processed to the fullest.

Mr Speaker, while I commend you for having been able to do your research while still sitting in the chair, I find it very difficult, when the question is of this serious nature, that it could have been done with full consultation and consideration.

That apart, I won't raise more, but I will say this: Because the Speaker has the obligation to protect the minority and the way in which the rules are applied to the minority, your reading of your ruling now really means that as long as the government members hold a majority and wish to put their business through the committee, nobody who is oppressed as a minor member of a committee will ever get to complain to you, to have you intercede on her or his behalf.

Mr Speaker, that cannot be the result of the office of Speaker, who is sworn to uphold the rights of the minority to have the rules, the standing orders, applied fully and fairly right across the line.

Mr Speaker, for you to request that a majority of the members of the resources committee come to you to say, "Fix this for us," would never possibly be able to occur. It cannot happen, because there are six members of the government there and, alas, there are only five members of the opposition who are entitled to be there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: There are only five opposition members who are entitled to be there. When there is a script provided that says, "Please just read out the origin of the amendment," ie, either PC, Liberal or government, "and the section, without reading more," it cannot ever come to you as a complaint of a majority number on the committee, because the majority members of that committee are doing this.

It seems, therefore, that what you have just said to me, that your role is not to be applied in the committee sittings when there is a violation of the standing orders, cannot follow if you are doing your job of protecting the minority.

My point of privilege is for you to take with you now, out of this place, for consideration, the full ramifications of my point of privilege, not to have you review what you just decided, because that is obviously against the standing orders; in fact, it is written down that it really violates the standing orders.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege, who will protect me as a minority in this Parliament when the rules are violated, as they have been violated, in my view, in that committee? Further, I ask as a point of privilege now for you to provide a ruling to us with respect to when we can anticipate the question to be read out fully for consideration prior to voting. It seems to me that you are required now, having made the determination that nothing is out of order, to tell us when we can ask that questions be read for consideration before we're asked to vote and when they can be dispensed with by the majority of this Parliament.

Those two questions now are important, and if you answer and provide me with an interesting reply with respect to your duties and obligations to protect the minority from the wishes and whims of the majority, then perhaps we will have to revisit your determination of how much in order the manner in which this bill was carried with its amendments in committee has really been.

I humbly put this to you, but it is humbly put with a sense of urgency about the condition of this House and the carrying on of business in this place. If we cannot expect to know the questions about which we vote, then we cannot expect to rule with any sense of decorum in this place, because, quite frankly, there is no use in being here as long as all of those people are there.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: On the same point? Before --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Whoa. I'm quite happy to listen to something which is new. I remind members that it would not be appropriate to be challenging the ruling.

Mr Elston: I am not challenging.

The Speaker: I'm not referring to the member for Bruce. But if the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party, has either a new point or some additional information that hasn't been mentioned, then of course I would be most pleased to hear from him.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I would like to be and I will be very brief: Not only does standing order 21 require you to take into account matters of personal privilege, but I think parliamentary tradition and Beauchesne indeed indicate that the Speaker is there to protect the rights of the minority.

I understand about the time allocation that was passed. I think you also have to take into account the fact that this is probably the most significant piece of legislation that this government is going to introduce and pass during its tenure here. Having said that, I think it would behoove everyone, especially the Speaker, to take into account that if these amendments -- the government has been looking at this legislation for several months now, as it is wont to tell us, before the end of the last session here. Surely they have done their homework and had any amendments they wanted well prepared before 4 pm of two days ago and didn't have to spring them on the opposition members at the last possible moment.

That in fact is what happened. I don't know if the government just didn't have its act together; I don't know if it just did this maliciously on purpose so the opposition members of the committee and the opposition wouldn't have any time to look at it, but one or the other has happened. Either they are severely incompetent and they've had this legislation under their hats for almost two years now and they just got their act together last Wednesday at 4 o'clock, or they knew exactly what they were going to do and said: "We're not going to allow the opposition members to look at these 40-plus amendments. We're going to give them all of one night to look at them and then we'll just deal with them, dispense with them all."

I find it rather ironic that the person who chairs that committee is the person who spoke in this chamber in a filibuster for 17-plus hours, talking about auto insurance and talking about an individual member's right to be democratically heard in this Legislature. This is the same person who, as Chair, won't even allow the amendments to be read and just reads off a little typed summary and: "Oh, they're all deemed to be done. That's good enough for me." That's democracy Welland-Thorold style, I guess, now.

1600

This really is a problem. The government can write whatever rules it wants to write in this place, but this place is not going to work unless there is some mutual trust going both ways -- it's a two-way street -- between opposition members and government members.

In our caucus -- speaking for our caucus only now -- we had numerous amendments that were not even allowed to be debated in the committee because previous government amendments and speakers from other parties prevented our critic from even addressing her amendments. There has to be something seriously wrong with the process when this can happen, when a member like our Labour critic, who has spent months and months and months on this legislation, does not even get an opportunity to speak to her own amendments in committee because other people have usurped that purpose.

I think that is an affront to that member's, the member for Waterloo North's, parliamentary privileges, quite frankly, and I think that the tack taken by the government with respect to the government members is an affront to all opposition members and minority members in this place. This place is only going to work if everybody wants to make it work. If the government is going to spring 40 amendments, for whatever reason, either because it's incompetent or malicious, on opposition members at the last moment, then the place is going to grind to a halt.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): There are always three options.

Mr Eves: I say to the government House leader -- he says there are always three options. Well, the option for you, that you're going to be left with, I can tell you, is that if you want to introduce a simple bill like the parking offences bill, you're going to have to introduce time allocation on every single bill you ever introduce in this place from here on after, and you're going to have more problems than you can handle. You'll get five pieces passed, max, every sitting.

I've said it all, Mr Speaker: Either you can do something about it or not do something about it and we'll grind this place to a halt, and we will do it.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I have new information to add to this debate. It revolves around a procedure that occurred in the general government committee that impinges directly on the member for Bruce's point of privilege.

In January 1992, we were in debate on the rent control bill. At that stage I had a four-page amendment -- one amendment that was four pages -- and I was quite sick and losing my voice due to laryngitis. I asked for unanimous consent to deem it to be read into the record, since it had been distributed to all members.

The clerk, who was a very experienced clerk and very knowledgeable, conferred with the Chair and the instructions were that it was impossible, even with unanimous consent, to deem it to be read, that it would have to be directly read into the record. The reason for this was protection both for committee members, so that the actual words would be recorded, and secondly, for protection of the public.

I am now in a quandary. On one side I've been given directions saying one thing, that they must be read into the record for protection of the public and of members, and in another instance I am told it is acceptable to be voting on numbers without anything, at any stage, having been read into the record. So I would like you to consider that when you are making your determination.

The Speaker: The member for Eglinton raises, again, an interesting point.

I would like to direct members of the House to a couple of principles:

One, it is very clear, both in Beauchesne and in other resources, that procedural difficulties within a committee should be dealt with in the committee.

Second, our standing orders prescribe that. It is very clearly set out in our standing orders.

Thirdly, rulings by at least one other Speaker -- and, I suspect, others -- have sustained exactly what I have set out today.

Fourthly, and if I may say so, in a larger context of greater importance to me as your Speaker, I believe it serves all our interests, and indeed the interests of the public, if we find procedures and processes in this chamber and within committees that are orderly, timely, and where there is a minimum of animosity, where we can in a very orderly way deal with public business. If I can be of any assistance in that regard, I'm more than pleased to do so.

If convening a meeting of committee chairs would help to set out a better procedure -- obviously, regardless of what occurred, members, at least on the opposition side, are unhappy with the procedure which was followed in that particular committee dealing with Bill 40. If there is some better way to establish procedures, I would certainly be very pleased so that unhappiness doesn't spill into the House, and indeed affect all of the work which is done by the members.

I understand the concerns that have been raised by many members, including the member for Bruce, and I must say to him that it is my responsibility to uphold the rules. I do not have the luxury, nor would I want it, of interfering with the work of committees. That is not the responsibility of the Speaker, to interfere in the work of committees.

The report which was submitted by the member for Welland-Thorold is the question which is now before the House, and the question for the House is: Shall this report be received and adopted?

All those in favour of receiving the report will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members, and a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1606 to 1621.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

All those in favour of the report submitted by Mr Kormos, please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Farnan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury);

O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to the report will please rise one by one.

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I ask that the question be read so that I know what I am voting on, sir.

The Speaker: That the report now be received and adopted.

Mr Elston: What report, sir?

The Speaker: The report from the standing committee on resources development. The content of that was read at the table.

Mr Elston: Is that it?

The Speaker: We're in the midst of a vote. I've made it clear as to what it is.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays 34.

The Speaker: The ayes being 57 and the nays 34, I declare the motion carried. Bill 40 is referred to the committee of the whole House, pursuant to the order of the House dated July 14, 1992.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I might remind members that by earlier agreement of the House, the member for Grey is entitled at this point, for his party's leadoff, to opening comments, and is entitled to 90 minutes, should he wish to use that amount of time. I recognize the member for Grey.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Mr Speaker -- you want me to do that now?

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: It's okay; I have the floor. Don't worry. I'll wait until somebody gets in the chair and wait till some people move out so they can listen to me. Isn't that a good thing? We don't have a Speaker right now.

We want a whole hour and a half.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please take your seats for a moment. We'll just wait until the House clears.

The member for Grey.

Mr Murdoch: Could we reset the clock, please, for the time I lost making that speech? Is that permissible? We lost about five minutes there when people were leaving the House, and I wondered if we could have the clock reset.

The Deputy Speaker: It's your time, if you people want to make noise. I won't give you more time. If people respect the rules of the House, then they will listen to what you have to say. So the member for Grey, please.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Say something. Just say something.

Mr Murdoch: "Say something." Okay, I will say something. I'll say I'm very pleased to speak today. I'm also pleased that you gave me unanimous support yesterday when I wasn't feeling so well. I have a cold, you know, and it's sort of like the NDP government: something you don't really want, but it's there and you have to put up with it, and it gives you a headache.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

1630

Mr Murdoch: I thought that might be a problem. As members will know, I feel strongly that local issues should be decided by local people and not by a bloated bureaucracy at Queen's Park who rarely know what's going on and who rarely leave Queen's Park unless it's for a holiday into the country.

Before summer recess, I presented petitions to this House from countless people who will be affected by this legislation. They are deeply concerned and united in their opposition to this bill. They dislike not only the legislation but also the process which brought this bill to the House.

The minister says that this is a unique situation and it will never happen again in the province. This is very interesting, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will excuse me if I'm a little doubtful. I remember the heavy-handed behaviour of this minister towards the county of Grey when this minister and the Minister of the Environment flew into Grey county and went right to the county council, which had an act, the Planning Act, which outlined certain procedures to set up a planning approval committee.

This very minister went to the county council, along with the Minister of the Environment, and told it that it could no longer create severances in Grey, that he was the boss and they had better listen to him. Now he comes along with the procedure here and talks to the city of London and the county of Middlesex and tells them, "You're going to do it my way," and expects us to believe that this won't happen again in this province.

As I said before, I do not like the process which produced this legislation. The minister says there was a wide consultation, but the letters I've been receiving say there was limited public input. I'm also led to believe that although the province appointed a negotiator for the people of Middlesex, they think he did very little negotiation but a great deal of capitulation.

The minister decided he couldn't get his way, so he sets up an arbitrator, gives him his walking papers and tells him, "This is the way I want to see it done," and the arbitrator goes in. He lets on that he listens to a few people, but the whole process was flawed. I believe he was told what to say right from the beginning. The minister could have had his staff make up the papers and tell him what to do.

As an example of those who feel left out of the process and who are directly affected, I would like to read a letter I received from Philip and Rose Rubinoff of Westminster, who wrote to each of us outlining their views in this matter. This is a letter without prejudice and sent to me by Mr and Mrs Philip Rubinoff. This is what they tell me:

"(1) That a democratic society is government by the people through their elected representatives favouring popular rights.

"(2) That during the past 11 years the majority of negotiations of the above agenda were held behind closed doors; thus not allowing the people concerned access to correct and proper information, therefore allowing very limited public input during these negotiations. Thus the people of London and Westminster were not given true and complete awareness in order to form proper opinion, which would effect good decision and, if necessary, proper presentation, should arbitration be required. London council would not allow public access during this time.

"(3) As arbitration was deemed necessary by the Ontario provincial government Minister of Municipal Affairs, any appointed arbitrator should be appointed by the majority rule; agreed upon by both bodies of elected council representatives. The arbitrator should also be experienced in the process and with private residence in an outside locality, so as to be impartial and holding no personal interest in the area of concern. Therefore, each side of the argument could be presented fairly. In the case of London versus Westminster, the selected arbitrator resides in London and was hired by the government of Ontario to act on London's behalf, asking Westminster to prove itself. This does not show equality and appears biased.

"(4) The elected member of provincial Parliament, Irene Mathyssen, never once publicly addressed this issue to her constituents during the process.

"(5) The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke, did readily accept the Brant report recommendations and was quoted as stating to the people that this process was a 'done deal.' Further to this, this statement was given and printed prior to any legislation and implicated that the voice of the people now be silenced, without any right to recourse. As the voice of the people wish to seek recourse, due to the above points 2 and 3, Mr Cooke has changed this proposed legislation from the Queen's Park fall agenda to immediate time, in order to push this decision through legislation. This action raises questions as to the democratic nature of the entire process in which Mr Cooke was involved regarding the annexation of London versus Westminster.

"(6) Mr John Brant, the appointed arbitrator, stated that all of the people of Westminster were unclear, other than Ben Veel. During the Westminster council meeting of April 13, 1992, Mayor Ben Veel stated to the people that Dave Cooke was his boss." Can you believe that? "He was immediately informed that we, the residents of Westminster, are his boss. Therefore, where is the democracy? It is clear to us that Mr Veel does not represent the people of Westminster. Mr Veel's statement implies that during the closed-door sessions held in London, the people of Westminster were not represented.

"(7) It is our opinion that this entire process appears to be a too-well-orchestrated program by the city of London and Queen's Park.

"(8) It is our opinion that the city of London cannot financially support the new areas given to it by the Brant report. Since this report has been published, London city council has announced many budget cutbacks within its existing boundaries.

"(9) It is our opinion that the arbitrator's recommendations allow the newly annexed areas to become open game to unwanted pollution and speculative, environmentally unsafe conditions (ie, seepage into well water from an expanded landfill site).

"(10) The New Democratic Party's long-standing platform has always been against ever doing this kind of thing (land grabbing and urbanization) to the agricultural and rural areas. Is this just one more reneging we are going to have to live with? Is this the hypocrisy we should come to expect from the governing party? Is this annexation deal going to set a precedent needed to move against other areas in Ontario? (NB: Winnipeg just returned their annexation area to the municipalities.)

"(11) It is our opinion that any elected NDP member of the provincial Parliament who truly believes in a democratic system should cross the floor."

Well, I don't know whether we want that to happen or not, but this is from someone else.

"(12) It is our opinion that small and local municipal government, accessible to the voice of the people, is needed to fairly represent the areas in which the elected representatives act upon their area's behalf. To eliminate this method would be to eliminate favouring rights of the people of Ontario."

They have both signed this letter. Now there's one of the people affected by this who has very deep concerns.

I also would like to read a letter from a group called Citizens Against Annexation, who disagree with the process which was used.

"We, the Citizens Against Annexation in Middlesex county, are writing to express our outrage and disappointment with the Brant report on the greater London area. The Brant report is the result of an arbitration process imposed on the London-Middlesex area by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and its conclusions will form the basis of legislation on this annexation.

"This arbitration process was an elaborate sham for two major reasons:

"(1) The provincial terms of reference were restrictive and precluded the exploration of reasonable alternatives; they were predisposed to a city of London solution.

"(2) The choice of an arbitrator, one person, who was a London resident and businessman with no prior municipal experience, without the knowledge or consent of the parties involved, to make decisions affecting the lives of nearly 400,000 people, is plainly undemocratic and not in keeping with 'traditional' arbitration processes."

1640

This is the whole problem. We already had an act we could deal with, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in many ways, chooses to ignore the act and then decides to go on his own and make a new act whenever he feels like it. Then he tells us: "It doesn't matter. I won't do this again." Well, I'm sorry; the Minister of Municipal Affairs is doing this all over the province, wherever he likes. If it doesn't suit his ideas, then he imposes them. He brings a bill in here. He has the majority of the people, the majority of the voters in this assembly. He can push these rules through and this is what he's doing.

It doesn't matter what the governments in the past have done. This socialist government decides that it is going to change the face of Ontario whether it's good or not. In the municipal field there are a lot of people upset, and this is just one of the cases that has been brought forward.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): No consultation.

Mr Murdoch: They let on they consult with the people, but if you ever go to any of the hearings, most of them just sit there with their ears closed.

Anyway, to go on with this letter that I received from the Citizens Against Annexation:

"The 12 public hearings were meant to be consultative and the overwhelming majority spoke against any large-scale annexation. Yet the Brant report came out totally in favour of the developer-driven city of London position that only large urban centres have the capability and resources to manage growth."

The Brant report gave London more land than it ever even asked for, and it just pretty well depletes the county of Middlesex of its land.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Pretty hard to believe, eh, Bill?

Mr Murdoch: Especially when they didn't want this land, it's hard to believe, but it isn't, I think, if you look at it that we're dealing with a socialist government. Their decision is: "It's our way or no way. So we'll pick the arbitrator and just push it on through."

Mr Conway: What about Irene Mathyssen? Surely she was there.

Mr Murdoch: Someone mentions, "Where was the member?" The letter before this said that she never spoke up. They don't know where she went -- maybe holidays; we'll never know. I'm sure we'll hear from the member before we're done.

"The Brant report does not address the Middlesex 'region' in a farsighted, in-depth way. It pays lipservice only to vital issues such as protection of agricultural land, and the environment and provision of services. Compensation to Middlesex county is a pittance...and an insult."

This is a from a group that is totally against this and would have liked to have sat down and looked at the issue. They urge all members in here as responsible thinking individuals "to vote against the implementation of the Brant report for the following reasons." This would be for the Liberals, Conservatives and the socialists, that they could listen to this and maybe they could make some decisions on their own.

"(1) The process was flawed. It was undemocratic and predisposed to an urban solution."

They call themselves -- what is it? -- New Democrats. Maybe that word should be taken away from their name. I think the word "socialist" fits very well.

"(2) The annexation 'solution' lacks vision and does not address long-term need for the provision of services for the whole region of Middlesex.

"(3) The Brant report is premature. No decision on this dispute should be made until the 'Sewell commission on development and land reform' has tabled its final report and some meaningful legislation has been introduced."

I sort of have to disagree with them on that, because I think whenever we see the Sewell commission's report, there won't be anything in there that will be much to deal with either. I feel it's been a flawed report right from the start, sending somebody like Sewell out into the country to decide how we're going to plan our areas, someone who probably didn't even know how to get out of Toronto until somebody gave him a car and drove him out of Toronto. He came up with the idea that there wouldn't be any more septic tanks in the rural areas. I guess he's going to have London put sewers all through this new annexed area. It's going to be fun how Sewell can figure that one out, but I'm sure he's working on that solution right now.

"(4) Acceptance of this report contradicts NDP policy on the protection of the environment and agricultural land. Despite what Mr Cooke says, historically an urban municipality will not protect agricultural land from development and will sacrifice the environmental integrity of industrial and residential development."

That's why London wanted some land. I'm sure London's council does not want to get into farming. Are they going to have London farmers now coming and looking for solutions to help them out? I mean, why does a city normally annex land? Normally, they annex land so that they can build factories or build homes, and here we are, giving them all some of the best farm land in Ontario to do this, and they didn't even ask for it. The only thing the minister can do is withdraw this bill and maybe try again. We'll go on now and talk a little more about this.

Mr Rubinoff touches on the matter of agricultural land in his letter. Apart from the process, which seemed very flawed to me, the farm land also is one of my greatest concerns. The minister says he will guarantee the preservation of a huge package of farm land, which now becomes part of the city of London, by helping the city to draw up its official plan. Is that going to protect the farm land? But I do not understand why he is going to all this trouble.

I agree that prime farm land should be preserved for agricultural use, but if the minister is so keen on doing this, why is he putting all this land into the town of London? He's only going to preserve it for 10 years. What happens then? Maybe the minister knows something we don't know. But after 10 years, are we not going to need food to live on? Is it okay to save the farm land around Toronto for just 10 more years and then just gobble it up and put on more houses?

Does the minister know this? Has he got something up his sleeve that we don't know about? I'd like him to answer that. Ten years; that's really great. For 10 years, we're going to save some good farm land, but after 10 years I guess we're not going to eat. It leaves a lot of questions to be answered.

Also, farmers don't want to live in the city. Farmers want to live in a rural setting. As you know, we've had many debates in here, and we've seen in the papers that there are always problems if your farm is too close to urban dwellings. Now we're going to have a city and the farms altogether. Again, maybe the minister knows something. Maybe he knows how to get rid of waste so that we can spread this waste on the land. It's not going to smell, so the town of London will enjoy it.

There are, as I say, a lot of questions that are left to be answered. Are we now going to have the London Federation of Agriculture? We have the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture now. I presume the minister will be presiding over the foundation of the new federation of labour -- of agriculture. I know he'd love to call it the federation of labour, but the London Federation of Agriculture.

Mr McLean: Are you going to use all the time? Are you going to 6 o'clock?

Mr Murdoch: I don't have to. I'm just talking here to my learned friend the member for Simcoe East. Through you, Mr Speaker, I know that he would like to speak on this also. If I make some of my further comments shorter, I will speak maybe up to 5 o'clock, and then I will let somebody else speak, because I know other people --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Oh, keep going. We're enjoying this, Bill.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, I know you are. I don't want all the members to go to sleep, either. I also would like to read a letter from the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture. Let's see what they have to say about this whole thing. It's addressed to me.

"In the last two weeks of June, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr David Cooke, repeatedly said that the agricultural land in the new city of London would be the best protected in the province. The draft legislation -- presented for first reading on June 23 -- makes no reference to agriculture, let alone the protection of agriculture.

"The agricultural land surrounding London is the best land of that surrounding any city in Ontario. As rated by the Canada Land Inventory system, 100% of land surrounding London is class 1 to 3. This is the most productive agricultural land. Chatham is the only other urban centre in the province which has 100% class 1 to class 3 land. Kitchener is only 65%; Kingston is 54%."

Just to stop there for a minute, that's some of the best land we're talking about, and they're going to put it in the city. Mr Cooke and Mrs Grier may come up to Grey county and tell us we've got to protect all this farm land. We're lucky to have very little class 1 land up there in Grey county. It may be a little better in Bruce. Yet, "Don't build anything on this rough, stony land," up in our area. "Let's build it all in London, on the good land." Again, he must know something: We're not going to have to eat in a few years. I wish he would bring that to the House.

1650

I'll go on to tell you what the federation of Middlesex has to say:

"Prior to the last major annexation in 1960, London had a density of 32.01 people per hectare. By 1988, when London initiated the annexation process, the density had fallen to 16.89 people per hectare. In the same year the average density of southern Ontario cities was 27.7 people per hectare. Obviously, London city council has not acted as a responsible steward of the best agricultural land in the province -- a non-renewable resource of very finite supply.

"The new buzz phrase in Ottawa, as a federal election looms nearer and nearer, is that 'Canada must have a national food security policy.' The province of Ontario is placing some of the best agricultural land in Ontario into the hands of a large urban centre with a questionable record regarding land use. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has worked endlessly and continues to work towards long-term sustainable agriculture. The London-Middlesex Act of 1992 must ensure proper handling of this large mass of the best agricultural land. Without proper handling, there may not be farmers in Ontario -- then where would Ontario's food security come from?"

That's what we're trying to ask the minister.

"Two things are needed to protect agricultural land. One is the actual preservation of farm land. The only method of successfully accomplishing this is to establish density requirements that urban municipalities have to achieve. A city such as London, on the best agricultural land, should have to maintain a density higher than the provincial average. Obviously, with the record London has, provincial regulations are required. With no provincial regulation, the core area of London will continue to decay as all development occurs on the urban fringe.

"The second thing that is needed is the legislated right to farm." I know we've been looking for that for some years. "The protection available to farmers is currently accomplished by the agricultural code of practice" -- which is highly out of date -- "but it is only a code and, as such, it does not have to be followed -- if it is adopted by the city. As well, the separation by municipalities of agricultural land and urban setting minimized the rural-urban conflict. Without right-to-farm legislation, agriculture won't survive in the new city. Nuisance complaints by city dwellers, as well as petty crimes such as trespassing and dumping, would hamper farmers and possibly legally force the farmers to stop their normally accepted practices."

That is what we're trying to tell the minister: that his whole process is flawed.

"Part of the arbitrator's report, which was the basis of the provincial draft legislation, was that the city was to direct planning and growth. This is not in the draft legislation. With an undeveloped land base of this size the city has to take charge to prevent an even worse urban sprawl than exists now. The city of London, as publicly stated by Deputy Mayor Burghart and Controller Hopcroft, the mayor's designate on the transition team and head of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, still plans on being developer-driven.

"Agriculture is a long-term business. As such, better decisions could be made with a long-term zoning designation. With the size of this annexation, lands further from the present urban area could be designated as agricultural for longer periods of time -- up to 50 years for annexed lands further from the core.

"The only way that agricultural land can be effectively administered is to have its own municipal government, not to be administered by an urban council with minimal rural representation. Government by peers is a basic Canadian principle and this is not possible under the current system of municipal government in London. The closest that the rural community can hope to come to this is to get a subcommittee of appointed persons who would report to city council. This committee would have no legal power and would continue to be frustrated, running from committee to committee, trying to exert some influence. City council itself will always be in conflict as what makes a successful urban area is the opposite of what is needed in an agricultural area. While a severance would make better use of existing services in an urban municipality, it could lead to potential conflicts in rural, agricultural areas.

"Bylaws are simply that -- rules made by a municipal council, and as such can be replaced by city council. Agriculture needs its concerns addressed in the provincial legislation to ensure that these concerns are adequately handled."

That's from Doug Duffin, annexation committee, Middlesex Federation of Agriculture.

This shows the concern we have on this side of the House about what will happen in London if they get all this land they've asked for. The minister once again is clearly not listening to the people. As you can see from the letters we got from all sorts of different walks of life, they're concerned that this whole process is flawed. The big thing about it is that we did have an act to go by, but this minister did not want to use that act. We have a boundaries negotiation act, and that would have worked in this case. But, as we say, the minister wants to go off on his own, show that he's the boss and show that he can do things his way. It doesn't matter who gets in his road; he's going to railroad over them.

This has also been noted across the province. County council in Grey has provided me with copies of a resolution it passed in support of Frank Gare, warden of the county of Middlesex. I would like to share Mr Gare's letter with the House. Mr Gare's letter went to the warden of Grey county, Mr Weppler:

"As you may be aware, on March 30, 1992, the Minister of Municipal Affairs presented the city of London, the county of Middlesex and adjacent municipalities with the report of the greater London area arbitrator, which would allow the city of London to triple its area.

"The process was supposed to be an open public process, with 'town hall' style meetings to hear the views of the public. Hundreds of individuals and organizations prepared and presented submissions to the arbitrator. Their arguments for limited annexation of land to the city, requests for protection of agricultural land and the environment and the preservation of the rural way of life went unheeded.

"The result tripled the size of a city which already has one of the lowest population densities in the province. Among other things, the report is recommending the discontinuance of the city's financial support to suburban roads after 10 years, compensation is insufficient, and time lines for the compensation of an official plan and restructuring study are unrealistic.

"Middlesex county and its local municipalities have recorded their opposition to the report.

"The method in which the minister has made his decision may result in future decisions affecting many areas of the province. If your council supports this county's opposition, please advise the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and your local members of Parliament." It's signed by Frank Gare, the warden of Middlesex county.

You see, they have many problems with this whole thing.

Again, to go back to it, London didn't want all this land. This is one of the big problems where we have a minister who has an ego bigger than anyone's here and decided that he would just blow it up even bigger.

I'd like to read you the resolution by the county of Grey, and it's sent to the Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"Honourable sir:

"At the May 22, 1992, session of Grey county council, the following resolution was adopted:

"'That the agriculture, planning, tourism and economic development committee recommend that county council support the county of Middlesex in their arguments for limited annexation of land to the city of London, and that the motion be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and local members of Parliament.'"

A copy of this letter was sent to Middlesex and was carried.

So you see, I know there are many other counties in Ontario that are concerned about what is happening here in London, that it won't happen all over. What it'll do is cause problems with the counties and the cities in the other areas. We have Peterborough and Peterborough county, in my area we have Owen Sound and the county of Grey, and I'm sure with Guelph and the county of Wellington and the areas around that. We have Orangeville, and Dufferin could run into problems. If they're given time they can work out their own problems, but with this kind of heavy-handedness it won't ever work and people won't be happy.

Also, the government's action has been noted in Huron. I have a letter from Huron which was also sent to the Premier. This one was addressed to myself, and it says:

"Dear Mr Murdoch:

"Huron county council, like other councils, was asked by the county of Middlesex to support Middlesex county's opposition to the report of the greater London area arbitrator.

"Huron county council has commented to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that it had reservations about the arbitration process for boundary-related matters when the arbitrator was originally appointed.

"Rather than make a blanket statement of opposition, county council deferred comment until the actual legislation was introduced in the Legislature.

"Your assistance has been requested by county council to make sure that the legislation is referred to the appropriate committee for review, and possibly for public hearings, given the wide-ranging impacts of the process."

1700

After the discussion has taken place, I hope we do get it sent out for some more discussion and that the minister does listen. This is the problem we have. We go to these committee meetings and we find that the ministers of the day do not listen to what the people actually have to say. It makes a farce of the committee meetings, like we've gone through on Bill 40, before we had a chance to speak on this, and all the problems we've had there with the government introducing new legislation and not allowing anybody to have any chance to speak to it.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The registry office closures a year ago, the same thing.

Mr Murdoch: My friend from Wellington talks about the registry offices that have closed. There was no consultation, just heavy-handedness: "We're the government. We're socialists and we can do what we want." That's the kind of government we're going to get for another two years, unfortunately, a socialist government that doesn't listen to the people. They only listen to themselves and just ignore what the people in the country want, and have been doing it for two years. Unfortunately, they have two more years. It's like my cold. I hope it doesn't last for two years like they're going to last.

I would also like to tell the minister that annexations can be done in a better way, that he doesn't have to create bitterness between the people on the two sides. I could talk a bit about my own process with the city of Owen Sound. We do have the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, and the minister, if he wanted to, could have gone that way.

He rambles on sometimes and tells us that it took 11 years. In all those 11 years, there wasn't any negotiating going on. When he took over as Minister of Municipal Affairs, which he has been for the past two years, if he had wanted to solve the problem, he could have gone in on his own and done that.

As I said, I was going to talk a bit about the experience I had when I was reeve of Sydenham township. I have to give credit to the Liberals of the time. It's a hard thing to do, but I will have to give them some credit on this. They were in power when this happened and they went by the act. Their minister appointed an arbitrator, but not to come and tell us what we were going to have to do. He came in and sat down the two parties, Sydenham township and the city of Owen Sound, and he explained it to us. They also sent out a fact-finder first. They may have done this in London, but I doubt it; if you count the Brant report as a fact-finder, that isn't what's done.

They sent out a fact-finder first to figure out whether the city needed annexation in the first place. The fact-finder said: "Yes, they do. They want to grow, and the only way they can grow is to annex some of the land." That's what came out first in the report.

What the government of the day did was to send in a person to negotiate -- maybe a negotiator would be better than an arbitrator, but it was a negotiator -- and he sat down and brought in the Sydenham council, of which I was reeve, and the city of Owen Sound council. Ovid Jackson was the mayor at the time. Now, the whole council from the city didn't come, but our council was made up of five members and it brought five members in.

At that time, the township of Sydenham had no reason to allow any annexation to happen. We were quite happy with what we had, but we understood that the city had to grow. With the negotiator's help, we sat down and started negotiating the different parts of the land they wanted to take.

Some years before that, in the 1960s, they didn't do that until the bill was changed. What happened then was that a city would say it wanted so much land, and it normally got it from the poor rural people who didn't have a chance to fight it. That happened in Sydenham, and the people in that area have never forgiven the city. There's always some bitterness if you go into the original annexation area back in the 1960s. There's always bitterness that the township wasn't compensated for what they got.

When we had the annexation between Sydenham and Owen Sound, the government of the day realized that it couldn't have the bitterness like we're going to have in London, with the letters we've got from people who are upset. Even if London is able to take that land, even if the act is passed here and it becomes law, those people in Middlesex county who do not want to become part of London are never going to become Londonites. They never will. They will never accept that, and there's going to be bitterness. You can't have good municipal government when you've got bitterness with the people. You need them to want to get along. That's the only way London's going to be able to get along. If they're going to have to fight with these people in this annexed area, they're always going to have problems, when they could have been spending their time solving problems that arise not from this.

That's what happened originally in the annexation we had up in our area, but when this annexation happened with the city of Owen Sound and the township of Sydenham, as I said, we sat down with the good negotiator the province sent, who I know still works for the province and could easily have been sent to this one. I don't know what they have him doing now, but it's unfortunate that he isn't out solving a few of these problems we have. He made us sit down and work on the problems, and he took the small things first so we could solve the small things that needed to be annexed, and some about roads.

I want to tell you, for part of the area they were taking from Sydenham, we collected the taxes but there were county or highway roads. So in our minds, why would we let them be annexed, because we were losing money we had in the township of Sydenham. But on the other hand, the city of Owen Sound was busting and needed areas to expand. So with the guidance of the negotiator, we worked out some of these problems.

There was a new hospital being built for the region. At the time it was being built in the township of Sydenham, but now it had to go into the city of Owen Sound because it had to service it. So we had to work out those problems.

But the process was democratic. That's what we need, democracy, in Ontario, and we're losing it with a socialist government. Every time we turn around it's something new, and they're taking the rights of the people away to give a vote. Here we are again. We're just going in and saying, "This is what you'll do whether you like it or not." People will not be happy about that and you people will pay for it in two years. You're going to pay for it in two years from now: You're going to be gone because of these things you're doing to the people of Ontario, and here's another one.

I feel sorry for your member down in Middlesex. You've left her out to dry. You haven't helped her one bit on this. You're leaving her hung out to dry, and I feel sorry for her. She'll do the best thing she can to try to work out of this problem, but you're not helping her by coming in and saying, "This is what we're going to do and you're going to live with it whether you like it or not."

In ours, as I said, we had negotiators, and those negotiators worked hard. When we weren't having the meetings, they would go to the mayor of Owen Sound and talk to the mayor and to the council and say: "Can we do some of these things? Can you give in on some of these things with Sydenham?"

They also came out to my place, right out to where I live, to my farm, and talked to me and said, "Can you work with your council to give Owen Sound" -- you see, they worked on a process, but it was democratic. We're used to that in Ontario, but in the past two years we're getting unused to it because of what's happening over on the other side of the floor.

I can remember the two negotiators came up from Toronto one day, out to my place on a hot afternoon; it was probably about 80 or 90 degrees. I was fixing the fence in front of my house, and I saw them drive in and park. I had a big Great Dane dog. I thought these guys would try to come heavy on us, that they'd try every trick they could as bureaucrats to say that we were wrong and the other guys were right and would come pretty heavy. So I let my Great Dane look in at them for an hour, as they sat in the hot sun in their car with their windows rolled up.

Now, Brutus is the name of my dog. He wouldn't hurt anyone.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Brutus?

Mr Murdoch: When I got him his name was Brutus, so I had no choice. I couldn't change Brutus's name. He was a big dog, a big Great Dane dog.

He sat for an hour and watched these two bureaucrats roast in their car with the windows rolled up. So by the time I came up to talk to them they weren't quite as tough as they thought they would be --

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Softened them up a bit.

Mr Murdoch: Softened them up a bit, and I had mentioned how Brutus hadn't had his dinner that day, so they were quite concerned. But they talked about things. They came into my house and we negotiated democratically; even though my dog sat there, it was democratically.

I wonder, though, if Mr Cooke has a few dogs that he carries around now. When he goes out, he probably lets them loose on the people, because here we are again. There's no reasoning. He just says: "This is the way you're going to do it, folks. I'm the boss. I can goose-step higher than anyone. I can walk in here and you're going to do it." The way he came into Grey county, he said: "You're a land division committee. You've been appointed legally by the act, but I don't care. I'm the minister and you'll create no more severances." He just came in there. This is a democrat; this is socialism. "I'm a socialist, I'm the boss and this is the way you're going to do it in Grey county."

1710

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I was much better than that, eh, Bill?

Mr Murdoch: Yes.

Mr Conway: Did you ever know Darcy McKeough, Bill?

Mr Murdoch: No, I never met the man. It doesn't matter about Darcy McKeough. Some of the members mentioned about Mr McKeough, Mr Speaker. I don't need to know him. I'm here today and I'm dealing with the socialist government, as well as the other opposition party is, and unfortunately we have two years of this undemocratic process to go on with.

Who's it going to be next? Look around. It could be your town, whatever -- no negotiation. They're going to come in, somebody's going to say, "I want some land," whoever Cooke feels he'll get the response from, and he'll say: "This is the way it's going to be. I'm sorry, people."

To go back to the London one, we'll talk a bit about the PUC. Maybe sometimes in the PUC we don't need all that government. But will he decide next that back home your municipal government's not needed and just wipe it out, even though it gets elected? They have two more years to run in their mandate. This January they're gone. They're just gone. They got elected, they thought, for three years. Now the minister says: "I'm the boss. I can do what I want. You're gone. It doesn't matter about the acts. It doesn't matter what kind of acts we have here at Queen's Park. I've got the majority, so I'll change them."

That's what they're doing, in every little thing, not only in this but in every facet of life in Ontario. It doesn't matter what it is. Bill 40's another one. Look at that. Whatever act you want to say: "We're going to change it. We're going to change Ontario. There's not going to be anything left by the time we get done."

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Let's look at Bill 75.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Come on, Bill. We've heard it all. Please sit down.

Mr Murdoch: Good. I think I only have another hour to go; I'm sorry.

I must talk about our process and what happened in Owen Sound, because it worked, believe it or not, guys. As I said, the Liberals were in power and it worked. I know you fellows over there would have a hard time thinking anything would work coming out of our office or out of the other office, but it did work and the people are happy up there. There's nobody complaining.

Do you think this is going to work in London? Do you think London council's going to get an easy go of it? Then they didn't want all this. In this case, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to lose out both ways. He's upset London and he's upset Middlesex.

But that seems to be the way this government likes to operate. "Upset everybody and maybe they'll be so upset next time they vote they'll make a mistake again and vote for us." I don't know whether that's your philosophy or not, but I don't see it any other way. I don't know what other way I could think about it. I mean, you are upsetting every facet of life out there. The only ones you've probably got happy are the union bosses and there are not that many of them. I'm telling you, the people who are in the unions aren't happy with you. There's nobody protecting them now. It's left up to the opposition to protect them.

It all deals with this bill. It's just another one of the socialist moves to upset Ontario, be it whether it's in the rural area or not.

As the minister knows, on this side of the House we were in favour of public hearings; no problem. But we should have some more on this matter and I'm hoping that after today we do go out to hearings. Indeed, the minister had his own in London a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, he forgot to invite the opposition. I guess he didn't want us there. He invited the people who live there --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Dianne Cunningham was there.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: That's fine. She lives in the London area. The member from London says he was there. But you forgot to invite the critics. But of course this government on this side doesn't like criticism, though. This government gets all excited.

Ms Murdock: Dianne Cunningham was. Put that on the record.

Mr Murdoch: Now they start to heckle because they're getting a little bit of criticism coming their way. My good friend the member for Sudbury who has a K on the end of her name is getting all excited. I can't help it if your name isn't spelled right. That's not my fault, so don't get upset with me. I'm just telling you. You never invited the critics. Is it that you don't want any criticism? It's supposed to be open, a public process.

Ms Murdock: Dianne Cunningham was there.

Interjection: Dianne Cunningham was there.

Mr Murdoch: We all know Dianne was there. Dianne lives in London. Fine. The critics on this side don't happen to live in London and it happens to involve all of us. So I'm sorry over there. If you don't like a little bit of criticism, that's tough, guys. You're getting it anyway.

Mr Huget: You were on your way to play bingo. Don't give me that.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, okay --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Please ignore the interjections. They're out of order, and please address your comments to the Chair.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but sometimes it's nice to hear them, because the backbenchers rarely get any chance to say anything and now they're getting a chance and it's nice to hear some of their quips. Not much of it makes sense but the odd time they might.

Mr David Winninger (London South): You said you were going till 5.

Mr Murdoch: The member wants to hear more about Owen Sound. I thought maybe he was getting tired of that, but we can talk about the Owen Sound annexation more if he wants to. There's lots of time yet, so if we want to talk about that, we can talk about that.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that we're on Bill 75, which deals with London and Middlesex.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, I know that. It's about annexation, I believe. There was an annexation process in the city of Owen Sound and Sydenham that could have been used to save this process. It's an act. It's already in place. It could have been used, but no, the minister wouldn't use that act. What I was trying to show is that it does work. Even though maybe this ministry couldn't handle it, it does work.

I have one more letter, though, that I'd like to read, from the PUC. Because here we are, we've wiped out the PUC, just wiped it out.

"Dear Bill:

"I am writing on behalf of the Meaford Public Utilities Commission to express our objection to Minister of Municipal Affairs David Cooke's recent announcement to abolish the London PUC as a result of proposed annexation in the greater London area. We're asking that you join with us to oppose the proposal in the draft legislation to abolish the London PUC and to return the issue to the local level for resolution."

There you are: Let the local people decide. But no, you've got to get high and mighty when you get down here at Queen's Park and get all the power. The minister says, "I could just get rid of a PUC, just wipe it out," even though it got elected. What may happen to the municipalities next? If he has this sort of power, then what's going to happen to some municipalities that may object to something he does? Next he may come up and wipe out the whole of the rest of Middlesex.

I'm glad to see the minister's here to listen to this now. I'm sure he's been listening in the back room. Now that the minister's here, I just want to tell him that this whole process is flawed. There is a bill to do this. You could have done it. It's been done before.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I've been listening to you.

Mr Murdoch: That's good. He's been listening. I was going to go all over the whole thing again and tell you.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's what I was afraid of.

Mr Murdoch: I get different notes that sometimes some other people want to speak. I don't want to hog the whole floor, but there are a couple of other issues, such as the suburban roads. This wipes that out.

Now, with the minister here, I want him to realize what he's done to upset people. People were what this party said they were for, but they lost all that as soon as they got in power. As many a time as we've looked at the Agenda for People, it's wiped right out. The agenda disappeared. They were going to be social democrats and they turned out as the worst thing -- socialist, period -- and they could go on. They have power and now they want to use it. "We're going to show people what to do." This is only the start.

What happens to the municipalities? That's what I'm concerned with now. We've got to try to fix this up in Middlesex. Hopefully, when we have hearings after today, the minister will listen to some of these people and will make some changes. London, in the first place, didn't want all this land, Mr Minister. Now you're forcing them on. You took one guy's report, and we don't even know whether you wrote the report before you sent him out there.

I think, to be fair -- and I said I feel sorry for her being set in this position -- I will sit down and give the member for Middlesex some time to speak on this because I'm sure she would want to. I think I will do that and allow her to have some time to speak on this issue because I understand this is the last day we have to debate on it.

I appreciate the time and I appreciate the party on the other side listening. Hopefully, you took some of it to heart. Hopefully, you'll look at this issue. Hopefully, the minister will throw out this flawed process he's come up with, go back to the table and allow Middlesex and London to sort out their problems, so that we can come up with that everyone's happy in this issue -- not everybody totally, but that there will be some consensus that we won't have any problems.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Conway: I want to just very quickly comment on a couple of the points the member made. I think he's right to draw our attention to the unusual nature of this particular resolution to the London-Middlesex situation. As he points out, there have been a number of other border disputes across the municipal landscape that have been dealt with otherwise. I think he's right to point out the particular and rather different nature of the London-Middlesex situation.

I think he's wrong to leave the impression that time was perhaps short in this respect. Over the summer I met with some of the people from Middlesex county, and I'm very sympathetic to the situation in which Middlesex finds itself, but I say to both London and Middlesex that this matter has gone on for a considerable period of time. I think it is important that all parties, not just the provincial government but particularly local parties like the municipal parties of London and Middlesex and elsewhere, understand that it is important to be able to move these matters along, and one should not imagine that we have an infinity in which to bring about some kind of resolution. I simply make that comment.

The final observation I make is that as I look at Bill 75, I am struck by the kind of precedent it will set. There a number of these other border disputes that you, Mr Speaker, will know only too well. I think we've got a real problem now, because people will look to the London-Middlesex solution, Bill 75, and say: "Well, why should I engage in the normal process? Maybe if I'm in, say, London's position, I will simply try to wait out the business and hope that I get my John Brant, too." I think that's going to be a precedent that is going to perhaps come back to haunt, if not this government, certainly a successor government.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: I want to comment on the comments made by the member for Grey and elaborate on just one point that he was making an observation on, and that was county planning. The county of Simcoe restructuring act is in place, and there has been no planning to put that in place; it's there now. It's interesting that on May 29 a letter was received by the county from the minister, which indicated that there's enough land in the city of Barrie, around the city of Barrie and around the city of Orillia for 20 years. It's very much the same issue which the member has raised with regard to Middlesex; annexation is the very subject that he spoke on. Section 33 says that, prior to 2001, they may proceed with boundary negotiations with the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia.

The very point that he was trying to make is that this administration is not coming clean with the people. They're not consulting with the people. They're saying one thing in a May 29 letter and they're saying another thing in the bill for county restructuring: two totally different things. That is the confusion that has gone on in the London-Middlesex annexation, it has gone on with regard to the PUC in that administration and I can see it happening in the other restructuring that's going to take place across this province.

The point that I wanted to make to the minister, who's here today and should be listening to this very point, is that section 33 in the County of Simcoe Act indicates that the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia can proceed with boundary negotiations before the year 2001. As a matter of fact, they could proceed a week after the bill is passed. This is the type of thing that this administration is doing in the very same bill that we're debating here today. They're not coming clean with the people who are being represented and are asking for the very input that we're looking for. So I'm here to say today, in the minister's ear, if he was interested, he would have been listening.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Grey has two minutes in response.

Mr Murdoch: I would like to thank both members who spoke for their responses and would just reiterate that what this whole thing is about is the heavy-handed way that the ministry's handling this. It's not only in London but in Grey and other places. The minister has also gone to Bruce county, which decided what it was going to do with restructuring, and came back and said, "You'd better take another look." He then goes and does something like this in London-Middlesex. How do you think they feel? "Jeez, if we don't look at this, he'll come up and just order it." It's the same thing in Grey county. He comes in there and says, "You've already got an appointed body, but I'm the boss, and I don't want any more of this." So it's this whole process of the socialists feeling they have the power that they can run everything out in the country.

The other thing is, is the next issue going to be to get rid of municipal governments if they don't happen to agree with Municipal Affairs and don't do it its way? We've all these new policies. The wetlands policy was introduced in the House. They don't even know what a wetland is down here in the city, let alone what they really are. They'll go up there and they'll tell you, "There's a wet field and the beavers have it dammed up." Let the dam out and the water's gone, but you can't tell the ministry this. They know. They know everything.

This is the biggest problem we have with this whole thing. All of a sudden, Middlesex and London, in the ministry's eyes, can't get along, so, "I as minister know better, and I will pick out somebody to look after the whole thing." One person from the city of London -- Middlesex had no representation on this at all -- takes that report and says, "This is what you'll do, whether you like it or not."

It's called "dictatorship" in other places. Hopefully, we're not getting to that. As I said when I first started, they're a lot like a cold: something you don't want to have around, but it just doesn't go right away. If they would, we'd all appreciate it better in Ontario, if they'd just sort of fade away into the sunset and get rid of this social menace that we've got in Ontario right now.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I thank the member opposite for making sure I have the time. I may also have to borrow his dog, Brutus.

At any rate, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to members of this House and directly to my constituents about the London-Middlesex Act. I think it goes without saying that this piece of legislation is of profound significance to the riding of Middlesex. It will impact on the lives of each of my constituents. By virtue of that impact, it is essential to look carefully at the legislation and demand the best possible solution to the London-Middlesex boundary dispute.

I would like to be very clear that I still prefer a much smaller annexation of land by London. My staff and I have worked very hard, since the release of the Brant report, to show the Minister of Municipal Affairs that while Mr Brant has provided one solution to address London's needs and the environmental problems along the fringe of the city, there are other solutions. I know that a workable, alternative boundary solution that manages to meet London's needs, preserve a strong, viable county, respect the expressed wishes of the London-Middlesex majority and fulfil the provincial interests is still possible. I'd like to provide you with some necessary background to the London-Middlesex dispute, my concerns with the bill that's before us and an alternative solution.

Annexation of land from adjacent townships in the county of Middlesex by the city of London is nothing new. Since 1826 the city of London has annexed territory from its neighbour some 15 times. The most significant annexation was in 1961, and I must say there are some in London-Middlesex who are still mad about that one.

Some of that land taken more than 30 years ago was among the best agricultural land in the country. The reason I mention this 1961 annexation is because it took the farm where my family lived and placed that farm inside the city. I remember that annexation decision as profoundly upsetting. For me it disrupted my schooling and it represented the loss of a unique and important way of life. The farming community was destroyed.

I'd like to tell you a bit about that farm. It was small by today's standards, but it had extensive orchards, pasture land, a woodlot and excellent soil. It was A-1 land, with black loam topsoil about 12 inches deep.

That farm is essentially lost now. The city encroached on all sides. There are salvage yards, retail enterprises, a large subdivision and light and medium industry all around where farms used to be. As a result, the farm I grew up on has slowly been choked, the black loam eroded and the orchards gone to seed. That loss is still a very real loss to me. It's a loss I relived vividly over the last 24 months. It's a loss I feel very keenly today.

Bill 75 has given London extensive land areas, including working farms, some 64,000 acres, including most of the town of Westminster. Despite the stated intention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the land will be protected by regulation and remain largely undeveloped, the fact is that once a city gains control over land, the land use slowly but surely changes to that of an urban centre. The pressures for development will be enormous.

1730

Now, I know London is compelled to create a new official plan by 1995, one that will reflect a new planning direction. But I am convinced by the actions and attitudes I've seen that the city of London -- the same city that has permitted monster homes, development in sensitive areas like the Thames River valley, has allowed the destruction of important Carolinian woods, allowed its downtown core to die, allowed developers to bring down the historic Talbot block and the first London town hall, despite the efforts of the member for London South, so that London could have yet another parking lot -- will not suddenly and permanently be converted.

By their own statements, members of city council have declared that responsible land use and efficient use of services are not part of the agenda. Recently, in response to a provincial proposal to allow apartments in single-family homes, to increase the land use densities, provide affordable housing and maximize the use of expensive services, the city of London's response on August 31 in the London Free Press was -- and I would like to read that:

"London is fighting a proposal by the Ontario government to allow apartments in every single-family home in Ontario and also allow the similarly widespread installation of granny flats in residential backyards. With unusually strong language, council unanimously approved an official response earlier this month which denounced the draft legislation.

"'It is absolutely terrible for the future of Ontario. Cities across the province are raising the public consciousness over this issue because of the negative ramifications for the way we live,' said London Mayor Tom Gosnell. Gosnell said, 'The public meeting is just part of the strategy to build a solid wall of opposition to the legislation.'"

The city of London is supposed to receive and protect thousands of acres of A-1 and A-2 agricultural land and the farmers who steward and produce the food from that land. As recently as last Friday I chaired a meeting of a group that is supposed to determine a way to ensure that rural Londoners' concerns are met by the city council. It became very clear that the city's restructuring committee was not prepared to take direction from a committee that had been struck at the request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

My worst fears have been confirmed. The city of London cannot and will not protect this agricultural land and the farm community in the future. It must not be allowed to annex such an extensive area. There must not be a repetition of 1961 and the legacy of an annexation that saw London increase its land base fivefold, double its population and despoil the farms that became part of the urban centre.

After 1961's annexation, it took the county of Middlesex nearly 20 years to recover from the loss of assessment. That's why, when in 1981 the council of the city of London adopted a strategy for growth for future annexation of lands from the townships of Westminster, London, North Dorchester and West Nissouri, there was strong and very vocal opposition. The 1961 annexation was supposed to have provided for London's growth well into the next century and accommodated a city population of 500,000, and yet only 20 years after that massive 1961 annexation the city was once again asking for more: asking for a 15,000-acre annexation from neighbouring townships.

The city's announcement prompted an organized anti-annexation campaign from the county. The county's argument: that annexation of county land to the city would reduce the county tax base and force up property taxes. There was also considerable debate about the city's right or need to govern the developing urban fringe adjacent to its boundary.

Over the next few years, there were a few small annexations, however. But by 1988, London made it very clear that it was looking for more land than these smaller annexations had afforded, so in January 1988 city council passed bylaws to start the boundary negotiations process with West Nissouri, North Dorchester, London and Westminster townships. By June 1988 the city had abandoned plans to annex parts of North Dorchester and West Nissouri and decided instead to proceed with plans to seek lands from Westminster and London townships. Some 23,000 acres were requested and a joint servicing approach proposed.

I'd like to read from that 1988 city submission:

"In Westminster, concern exists over the possibility of the city annexing Lambeth and the town's industrial-commercial area along Highway 135 and White Oaks Sideroad. This topic was the subject of review during the boundary adjustment study, and the conclusion was reached that in order for Westminster to remain a viable municipality, these areas should not be annexed. Despite this position, there remains a concern over the servicing of the industrial-commercial area.

"The boundary study has concluded that a cooperative approach to the servicing of this area would be the best solution for all parties. By taking this approach, the town would retain much of its major industrial-commercial base and would appear to be able to undertake the necessary servicing schemes. The city, on the other hand, would acquire land for future industrial development in an area where it would be marketable and would benefit the entire region."

That is the key to the solution. The boundary dispute must be settled to benefit the entire region, for in disadvantaging one of the partners in the future planning and governance of London and Middlesex, you are undermining the future. It is not possible for a healthy London and Middlesex community to evolve unless both partners have the economic resources, effective planning and restructured governing bodies that are necessary to that healthy community.

The 1988 London proposal recognized that Westminster could not survive without its industrial-commercial development, and interestingly enough, so did Mr Brant. That's why, when he awarded that area along Highway 135 and White Oaks Sideroad to the city, he required the city to take all the town of Westminster.

Mr Brant's proposal for a huge annexation is not new. In the spring of 1990, the Liberal Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Sweeney, rejected the 1988 London proposal as not comprehensive enough and told the city and county annexation negotiating team to go back to the bargaining table and find a solution that consisted of a larger annexation so that joint servicing of the Westminster industrial-commercial areas would not be necessary. Mr Sweeney believed that joint servicing agreements do not work. The present minister has also stated that joint servicing agreements do not work. That is the basis for this massive annexation.

Both ministers are wrong. Ironically, that is clearly evidenced by both experience and, of all things, the Brant report. The city of London and the county of Middlesex have traditionally worked together through city-county committees. They have jointly run suburban roads, library services, disaster relief plans and the health unit. Coservicing agreements exist that provide services to the London airport and provide water to Delaware, Ballymote, parts of Westminster and Arva. In fact, the Lake Huron water pipeline runs through the county of Middlesex. That pipeline was possible because of city-county cooperation and has proved beneficial to the entire area.

The Brant report recommends that a city-county liaison committee be established "to consider and manage those issues of common concern to both municipalities," to make both county and city stronger through a cooperative action. Mr Brant goes on to say:

"This committee must aggressively look for opportunities of mutual support such as industrial development, parkland and environmental programs, and seek to prevent planning conflicts that could interfere with future development."

Of shared services, Mr Brant says: "There are some circumstances where I believe that intermunicipal agreements are in the best interest of the area. These would include the purchase of water from the city by neighbouring areas such as Delaware, Arva and Ballymote, or the purchase of sewage handling by areas such as Arva and Ballymote."

If such agreements are possible, then why annexation? If such agreements are possible now and were possible in 1988, why on earth such an extensive annexation? If such agreements are possible, why not extend the sewage trunk line in London West to South Winds Village in Westminster while it's part of the county of Middlesex? Because that is what London will do once it's part of an expanded city. After all, this government is the government of partnership, and partnerships that will strengthen the community are important.

1740

One of the arguments against the coservicing proposal is the mistaken belief that --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Middlesex has the floor and the Speaker has a great deal of difficulty hearing her. The member for Middlesex.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would appreciate genuine help, rather than this interruption.

One of the arguments against the coservicing proposal is the mistaken belief that Westminster and Middlesex cannot afford services. The truth is that the town of Westminster has a debt capacity of $6.5 million and less than $250,000 of debt. This lack of debt is the direct result of a user-pay approach. The reserve debt is enough to expand service areas as needed and expand the two sewage treatment plants owned by the town of Westminster to meet its servicing needs.

A second argument against coservicing emanates from the dispute that is centred on the Dingman Road sewage treatment plant, one of the two owned by the town of Westminster. In 1959, the city of London and Westminster agreed that London could utilize the excess capacity of this treatment plant to ensure its operational efficiency. For a number of years, this joint-servicing agreement proved mutually beneficial. The city was able to divert 250,000 gallons of sewage from its Greenway plant, thereby reducing the number of days per year when there would be bypassing to the river from Greenway from 28 to 23, and Westminster was able to collect capital charges from the city.

By 1985, it was clear that Westminster needed the excess capacity of the Dingman plant to service its industrial-commercial development on Highway 135 and White Oak Road. Unfortunately, the 1959 agreement did not include provisions for Westminster's future needs. Clearly, successful coservicing is dependent on enforceable and well-thought-out, mutually beneficial coservicing agreements. This can and must be the basis of the resolution to the London-Middlesex boundary dispute. It is possible and it would prevent the mistake of allowing London such extensive areas that Westminster will cease to exist and Middlesex county will lose 35% of its tax base.

This loss of tax base will seriously impede the county's ability to finance the services, roads, libraries and homes for the aged for which it's responsible. This loss of tax base will also seriously impair the Middlesex County Board of Education to provide educational services to our children. Despite recent proposals to increase the compensation package to the county, no compensation could effectively remedy a financial loss of 35% of the tax base.

My fear is that over time Middlesex county will begin to disintegrate. There have already been tentative overtures by some Middlesex townships to align themselves with other counties and I regard the possible breakup of Middlesex county as a tragedy and a terrible loss for all of us.

I've mentioned the compensation that London is required to pay as inadequate for a sustained county. I would also like to discuss the costs that Bill 75 will require the city of London to incur. Under the London-Middlesex Act, the city of London is compelled to remediate the environmental problems of South Winds, Canterbury Estates, the Highway 135-White Oak sideroad commercial-industrial area; harmonize wages and benefits between PUC and city employees; employ displaced Middlesex staff; pay in excess of $20 million in compensation; pay a proposed perpetual contribution to suburban roads, at least $1 million per year; eventually provide police, fire and library services in the annexed area; take over provision of hydro services and a greatly expanded road system.

In addition to this lengthy list of costly obligations are considerable expenses connected to expanded services. As many as 24 more staff members will be required by the city police force to serve Westminster and expensive new communications equipment will be needed. Tests have shown that existing radio equipment will not reach to the southerly areas of the new city. The city will also be required to provide garbage collection and snowplowing to an extensive service area.

When added to the plans for the city to participate in the construction of a Lake Erie pipeline, the costs are very significant. Despite the directive from the province that this annexation be at little cost to the province, I have heard the mayor of London say that traditionally the province does provide financial assistance for annexations and I believe the province will indeed be facing significant costs.

The Middlesex county library system requires a $100,000 adjustment to compensate for the loss of tax assessment and the Lambeth library, the Middlesex board of education will experience serious monetary shortfalls because of the loss of assessment, and the city may very well join in the lineup for provincial funds. In the next few years, perhaps as soon as 1994, I see a city of London less and less able to meet the expectations of the people of London, plagued by financial problems that will come of its obligations to compensation, hard services, soft services, collective agreements and new employees.

At that time, the city may well petition the province to return significant parcels of land to the county. Unfortunately, by that time county structures would have been so disrupted that they could never be revived. The damage will have been done. The real solution is a limited annexation with joint servicing, one very much like the 1988 London proposal.

It is for these reasons that I am voting against Bill 75 in its present form. It is essential that Bill 75 be amended to compel both the city of London and the county of Middlesex to develop official plans for their respective municipalities. This planning must involve the participation of the community and must embrace the economic, physical, environmental, heritage protection and social needs of London and Middlesex.

For London, the planning must ensure managed urban growth that maximizes land use, incorporates a transportation strategy that promotes public transit opportunities, implements the components of human needs like hospitals, child care, crisis centres, group homes, homes for the aged, social services, environmental protection, and protects the fragile natural areas and limited agricultural land that will be in the new city.

One primary concern with the London-Middlesex Act is in regard to protections that will allow farmers to continue to farm without fear of nuisance complaints stemming from the smells, noise and dust that are part of farm practice. The legislation must include the right to farm and the Agricultural Code of Practice. This will provide some safeguards for the working farms that will be removed from the protections of a rural municipality.

The county plan must follow similar guidelines, with the additional requirement that development be directed to existing villages and towns and be on urban services. The Sewell commission has in its draft reports provided some guidance. No doubt, once Sewell reports in the spring, there will be other recommendations that the county could adopt for planning. But as the September draft report of Sewell suggests, the county should be responsible for defining development boundaries and it should be responsible for water and sewer infrastructures. It must provide the strong leadership to manage change, maintain and enhance the environment, protect natural areas and resources and protect agricultural land, and it must provide a stable structure so its constituent townships and town and village municipalities can provide localized needs in a strong county.

This of course leads to the rather delicate question of county restructuring. For a number of years the county has been aware that it must restructure to successfully meet ever-increasing demands for services and the need for a more sophisticated style of government.

In fact, Mr Charles MacNaughton, who was the warden of Middlesex in 1940, divided Middlesex into five communities of interest. These form the basis of the current committee structure of Middlesex county. That was over 50 years ago, and since that time there have been numerous discussions about restructuring and the need for county-wide planning. There have been proposals that investigated the combining of London and West Nissouri township or the combining of part of Westminster and Delaware, part of Westminster and North Dorchester, and the suggestions of the Tatham report that smaller municipalities combine to form units of not less than 5,000.

Last January, the county of Middlesex struck a restructuring committee. It is essential that this committee move ahead with its work if Middlesex is to survive. It's time to set aside the differences that prevented the restructuring proposal of the past from succeeding. It can be done with sensitivity and in a way that protects the heritage of the past. New areas of jurisdiction could have combined names, as federal and provincial ridings do. Nothing important need be lost in this imperative renewal that would save Middlesex county.

1750

I would now also like to discuss the as-yet-unmentioned issue of the W12A landfill site owned by the city of London and located in the town of Westminster. Under the current arrangement between the city of London and the town of Westminster, this agreement terminates in 2006. The city is determined that a large enough area of land be annexed to bring the landfill completely under the control of the city of London.

While this is problematic, it is not impossible to resolve. The landfill is an important resource for the London and Middlesex area. All parties have agreed that the site should be available for the use of London and Middlesex residents. In order to ensure the availability and proper use of this resource, a new agreement between London and Westminster could be negotiated before new boundaries are finalized. The city could be sure that it would have access to W12A, and tipping fees could and should be increased to provide an incentive to waste reduction and to provide a capital fund for future waste management master planning. This is yet another component of the kind of mutually beneficial joint servicing that has already been addressed.

The situation that we face in London-Middlesex today is the result of a series of failures to come to terms with the need for good planning and effective governing structures. Bill 75 in its current form has not resolved the problems. It will only add to the list of failures. The legacy of the London-Middlesex Act in its current form will be a city bloated beyond its capacity to manage services, human and environmental needs. The legacy will be a dysfunctional county unable to be the strong, effective body we need it to be. We have an obligation to help provide the possibility of a better solution.

I would like to conclude with a request that this Legislature give careful consideration to the amendments and proposals that I have put forward, because there is so much at stake. Thousands of acres of farm land are at risk, and I must say that my preoccupation with the protection of farm land does not spring from an unnatural hatred of concrete or paving stones, but it does come from the very real fear that the food land that sustains us is rapidly disappearing.

A recent study from the University of Guelph warned that we may not have enough farm land to provide for our ever-increasing needs by the year 2000. That is a mere eight years away. It makes what we do here and now critical to our future. A society that cannot feed itself is vulnerable indeed.

The people of London, the people of Middlesex, are depending on good and right decisions from this Legislature. During the arbitration meetings and during the September London hearings, London and Middlesex residents came by the hundreds to plead for the right decision. They must be heard, for they have spoken of the need to safeguard the land, the communities and the way of life that has taken lifetimes to build.

Members of this House, we are obliged to hear, obliged to act and obliged to protect those communities that we in London and Middlesex cherish and that we wish to preserve, because all of here, all of us in London and all of us in Middlesex know that they are irreplaceable.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Middlesex for her participation. Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Ottawa East.

Mr Grandmaître: I am somewhat disappointed because I thought I was going to have half an hour, but I'm going to take the last two minutes on the clock to congratulate the member for Middlesex. I think she has shown a lot of courage today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): She lost to Marion Boyd.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes, she lost to Marion Boyd, but who hasn't lost on that side to Marion Boyd?

Having said this, I think the member has offered the minister an option and it was turned down by the minister because the minister was determined to put aside the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act. "Put it aside, I'm the boss, I'm the dictator, and now you will do what I will tell you to do."

What this minister is doing today is the start of the destruction of our communities, of our municipalities in the province of Ontario. That's the kind of precedent that he's creating today. This is the government that says it will consult and build partnership. What this minister is doing today with Bill 75 is destroying partnership and he's putting aside municipalities in this province of Ontario.

When a minister has to write a letter of apology to 834 mayors in this province and say this is a unique annexation, this is not annexation; this is expropriation. This is what it is. It's expropriation.

It should not be repeated in this House: This minister is supposed to provide leadership to our 849 municipalities. He's destroying local autonomy, he's destroying local government. This is what this minister is doing and I'm ashamed to be his critic.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr McLean: The member for Middlesex brought out some very good points in the remarks that she made. It's interesting to note -- we've watched this in this Legislature on many different occasions -- we have other members who have stood up and said to the government: "You're not doing it right. We want some different consultation process here." I commend the member for standing up and doing that.

She talked a lot about agricultural land, she talked about saving the agricultural land, but this government and this minister will not listen to that. This minister will not listen to the people in Tiny township who have a problem with the town of Midland with regard to the county restructuring taking place there. I spoke earlier on today; the minister talked to the Minister of Housing and didn't even lend an ear to what I had to say. I hope Mr Mills is listening as the parliamentary assistant to take in what we're saying here.

In the county of Simcoe restructuring they said the city of Barrie and the city of Orillia have enough land for 20 years. You bring in your bill and section 33 indicates that a week after this legislation is in place those two cities can proceed with any kind of restructuring they want to proceed with. Mr Minister, that is not right and that is not proper. If they have enough land for 20 years there should be a stipulation in that bill that protects those municipalities around those two cities so that they can carry on with their business.

Why the land grab? Why do people need so much land around the cities? You know something? The rural municipalities don't mind giving them land providing they're going to supply services, and if you can't service it from the city, then what's the point of it being in the city?

When you look at all the aspects of the restructuring that's taking place in this province, this minister is totally not listening to one iota of what people are telling him. It has been driven by the staff for the government to proceed, and the Tatham report was the start of it all.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): To the member for Middlesex, who made a very informative speech on what happened in the past to her area, what happened to her farm, I think one of the important values that she has expressed to us today and one of the values that we've seen is about the protection of agricultural land. As a member who represents the agricultural community also, I must commend the member for Middlesex. The presentation has been put forward and hopefully the minister will listen to some of the concerns, because I think she has very positive ideas and I think she meant it on the part of a sincerity of ways of resolving the long turmoil that has been there. I congratulate the member for an excellent presentation, it was very informative to me. Hopefully, if the other members would have listened, they would have understood what was going on.

1800

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: We've seen an interesting display this afternoon, because we have a member who has clearly outlined the mistakes the government has made in this particular issue. We're having Middlesex county completely carved up, the member making the case before the Legislature, as she must to protect herself politically, and a minister who is not going to pay any attention to it.

It's very clear what has happened in this particular case. The member for London Centre and the member for London South, who obviously have much more power within the ranks of the New Democratic Party, have won in this particular case and have allowed Middlesex county to be carved up at a time when one would expect that wouldn't be the case. It clearly shows how out of touch this government is with the people in the rural parts of Ontario.

The urban people have won in this particular case. London has an appetite for more land. We know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food wants to save agricultural land. If there's one thing I would have thought the New Democratic Party stood for -- and I admired them in their past stances on this, particularly Stephen Lewis, when he used to talk about all the agricultural land that would be falling into urban use across Ontario; he used to say how many acres per hour. I admired Stephen Lewis. He was on the CBC every day: Radio Noon, Metro Morning -- 4 to 6, you name the program and Stephen Lewis was on it. He was on the front pages of the Globe and Mail and in the columns of the Globe and Mail, saving agricultural land.

What does this government do when it's in power? It doesn't save the agricultural land; it feeds the appetite of the city of London, represented very strongly in cabinet by the member for London Centre and the member for London South. The loser in this is Middlesex county and the member from Middlesex county, who I think has made an extremely compelling case, which unfortunately is a case which is not going to be accepted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the most power on this issue within this government. It's unfortunate for Middlesex county and unfortunate for its representative.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Middlesex has two minutes in response.

Mrs Mathyssen: I appreciate this opportunity, but I would like to be very clear about a number of things that have been said opposite.

Firstly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs did accept a compromise I proposed last June. It was a compromise that was my second choice, and the county of Middlesex rejected that. So I don't think it's at all fair to paint him as the bad person in all this.

Secondly, my colleagues from London have shown determination, integrity and dedication to moving ahead a very important social agenda. My colleagues David Winninger and Marion Boyd are members with whom I am proud to work.

Thirdly, as to a matter of courage, for me it's a matter of doing what is the right thing no matter what. My feeling is that political careers come and go, members come and go, but this must be the right solution. This must be a solution that will last for lifetimes and will benefit everyone. No matter which individual member is involved, it simply has to be the right and good and moral decision. That is what I'm asking for.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Is there likely to be further debate on Bill 75?

Mr Grandmaître: As I pointed out previously, Mr Speaker, I was supposed to be given 30 minutes to speak on Bill 75, and I was given two minutes this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Is your intent then to participate in the debate?

Mr Grandmaître: Absolutely.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Sudbury East on a point of order.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It was my understanding, as the acting House leader, that an agreement had been reached among the three parties to conclude the debate today and defer a vote until tomorrow after question period. That's what I was given to understand as the agreement that had been reached.

The Acting Speaker: Well, that's a point of information. It's not a point of order.

The honourable member for Ottawa West on a --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Perhaps the House can give unanimous consent to at least 15 minutes for the member, who is a critic in this area.

The Acting Speaker: A point of order, the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, although the critic for our party is not being allowed the 30 minutes we all would have liked to hear him speak, there has been an agreement; the member from Sudbury has mentioned it. I would ask for unanimous consent that we concur with that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West is asking for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: My original question was, are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps I can help clarify matters. There were two members who were yet to speak, one from the Liberal Party and one from our party. It's my understanding that a discussion has taken place this afternoon between the Liberal House leader and the government House leader, and that when this is referred to committee there will be an opportunity for both of those members to speak during that committee referral because they were not given an opportunity to speak during second reading debate. If that's the understanding, then I am quite comfortable with that.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Parry Sound has provided some additional information.

I go back to my original question. The original question from yours truly was, are there any other members wishing to participate in this debate in this Legislature at this time? I heard no negative to my last question. If not, are we ready for the question?

Mr Cooke has moved second reading of Bill 75. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Mr Cooke's motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Cooke's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed to Mr Cooke's motion please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

"Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable David Cooke for second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Wednesday, October 21."

It is signed by the chief government whip, and so this will occur.

Pursuant to standing order 33, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Carleton East has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services. The member for Carleton East has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister will have up to five minutes in reply.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The Minister of Community and Social Services said yesterday that I seem to have no other topic on my mind than the cheque cashing issue. It's true. I have only one idea on my mind, and that is to serve the citizens of Ontario. That is what I was elected to do and I will continue to fight for a resolution to the cheque cashing problem because I believe it must end.

It seems that no arguments are good enough to convince the Minister of Community and Social Services that Bill 154 should be implemented. The Canadian Bankers Association has expressed its readiness to cooperate with the government and to negotiate an agreement that would facilitate cheque cashing for low-income Ontarians.

1810

Anti-poverty organizations have met many times with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They know what they're talking about. They have cold, hard facts to support their views. Many members of this House have voiced strong concern over the cheque cashing issue, but this concern is brushed aside by a minister convinced that she knows best. Our views are apparently meaningless. After all, what do we know? We are just backbenchers. What does the approval of the House mean when one person, the minister, decides otherwise? The minister hears the facts but doesn't listen. She prefers to wait. The word "urgency" clearly has no meaning, since she is quite prepared to take her time.

I agree that great care must be taken to ensure the proper delivery of services to recipients of social assistance. I have never advocated that we rush any kind of policy initiative. However, in this particular case, time is quite literally of the essence. How much longer can this province and low-income Ontarians afford to wait? Procrastination will not resolve the issue. It is not an effective approach, and the problem will not simply disappear.

What I find really sad is that the minister is not listening to those who are hurting. Whatever happened to the promise of eradicating food banks? What about being responsive to the problems of low-income Ontarians? What must the poor do to be heard by the minister, when we elected members are unable to help?

The minister keeps invoking fears that this or that will happen if Bill 154 becomes law. Now she's saying that cheque cashing will go underground if the official charging of fees stops. There already exists underground cheque cashing. Who knows what kind of fees are being charged in these circumstances? But this, apparently, is of little concern to the minister. Protection of low-income consumers is clearly not a priority for some members of this government. Bill 154 offers protection to low-income persons who are taken advantage of. If underground cheque cashing is of such concern to the minister, then why does she not act now, as quickly as possible, to deal with this problem?

The minister keeps acting as though the situation was out of her control, yet she has the mandate, the staff, the legislative prerogative to deal with the issue, to circumvent to the best of her abilities any difficulties that could arise. The minister has every tool at her disposal and yet she does not have the will to use them. Instead, she repeats what I have said all along. I have said that we must set up a responsive system of social assistance and that this system must be in place before Bill 154 is implemented so that no one is left out in the cold.

I don't expect this issue to be resolved overnight. What has power done to you, Minister? Why this sudden change in behaviour? Your party has supported all along the ideas that I brought forward. Are you rejecting Bill 154 because it comes from a backbencher who happens to be on this side of the House? If this is the case, I say to you, "Don't play politics with the needy."

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has five minutes in response.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I have said time and time again in answer to the member, the members on this side of the House supported him in his bill. We agree with the principle of what he is trying to accomplish with the bill and we have made that very clear. We also do not believe that private businesses should be able to charge for the cashing of government cheques.

What we don't agree with is that the member's solution to this problem is too simplistic to cover the whole problem. If we look at the situation he has talked about -- his bill remains on the order paper; we have supported it. What we are saying is that there are a number of things we want to have in place so that we do not throw social assistance recipients in the province of Ontario into the same position they were in when the bill came into effect in January of this year, although it was a 1980 bill. It was challenged through the courts for over 10 years in Quebec.

What it did was that it came into effect, the cheque-cashing institutions immediately stopped cashing all government cheques, and there were no alternatives in place for people who needed to cash those cheques. What happened as a result, social agencies have documented very well. People had a piece of paper. They were eligible for benefits. They had no way of cashing those cheques.

What we are saying is that before we completely wipe out this kind of process which does offer an alternative, we need to, first of all, be looking at the direct-deposit option. We now have about 35% of our FBA clients on that. We put out another flyer in the August cheques, which is getting a good response. We have four projects currently in place with GWA with municipalities and are getting a very good response to that. Direct deposit means that clients have the cheques deposited automatically to their accounts, and there is no problem about cashing them. It also helps with some money management, and that has been a very good fallout in terms of our interaction.

Cheque dating is another problem. The member is quite right that the pre-postdating of cheques has encouraged people to go to these outfits to cash their cheques early, because there's a fee that they can pay in order to get their cheques cashed early. What we are doing is working with the municipalities and ourselves to ensure that a specific postal walk and dating of those cheques coincide, so that people receive their cheque on the date that it's due and that temptation is not there.

We are working with the Canadian Bankers Association on what is appropriate, non-stigmatizing identification, so that social assistance recipients have identification that is going to be acceptable to banks and yet are not being identified, as we are not allowed to do under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that they are necessarily recipients.

We are working with the Canadian Bankers Association around their request for indemnification if they cash cheques for people who do not have accounts. We are looking at the possibility of withdrawal cards, and that is a very important aspect of the kinds of work that we're doing. We are making the changes. They are happening very, very quickly, some put into effect over the summer, some this very month.

As soon as we have an assurance that we will not simply throw our recipients into the same kind of situation they were put in in Quebec, then the possibility of legislating an end to fees altogether is much more there. But if we do it before we have these things in place, we will in fact disadvantage people who are the most disadvantaged in our society, as the member pointed out.

I ask the member, please, to stop pressing on this. I have answered and answered that this is the route we're going. We do not need to pass a bill at this particular time until we are sure that we have these things in place. I have assured the member that this is our concern, our only concern, in not moving forward with the bill at this point in time. It is absolutely unfair of him to characterize anything else in my responses to him, because I have said this to him privately and publicly on a number of occasions.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further business to debate, the original motion to adjourn is deemed to be carried. This House therefore stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 21, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1818.