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

July 5, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LOU PARSONS

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

CANADA DAY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

RACE RELATIONS

BUFFALO DAYS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

CANADA'S POTENTIAL

VISITORS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GAMBLING

SOCIAL CONTRACT

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

WATER SUPPLY

WAGE PROTECTION

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

CONTAMINATED SOIL

DAY CARE

DRIVERS' LICENCES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ROLE OF THE INDEPENDENT MEMBER

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

HEALTH CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GO BUS SERVICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOU PARSONS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the members of this House and the people of Ontario, to thank Lou Parsons, whose term as chairman of GO Transit has not been renewed by Bob Rae.

Mr Parsons, who is a resident of Mississauga, has served as chairman of GO Transit for the past 13 years. He's a knowledgeable and hardworking businessman who applied his business acumen to running GO Transit. The result was a well-run transit system that has served the people of the greater Toronto area well.

We all recognize that this is a political appointment. Mr Parsons was first appointed by Premier Davis in 1980, but he took his appointment very seriously. He applied his business knowledge to the smooth operation and development of a first-class transit system in Ontario, and he did so in a non-partisan way.

In 1990, Premier Peterson recognized the fine job Lou Parsons was doing. He understood that his first responsibility was to the people of Ontario and he reappointed Mr Parsons.

If I could offer some advice to Bob Rae, and the way things are going he could use advice from any quarter these days, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Lou Parsons has shown class in accepting the Premier's decision. Bob Rae has shown that he is simply running out of jobs for NDP hacks.

Lou may lose this job, but the people of Ontario are losing a loyal servant who has transcended partisan politics to do a superb job as chairman of GO Transit. Lou Parsons has served this province well and I congratulate him and extend my best wishes to him in his future endeavours.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I call on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to hold a public inquiry into the operations and mandate of the Ontario Film Review Board, for the following reasons:

First, the OFRB fails to reflect community standards when classifying adult sex videos. The chair of the board received hundreds of letters protesting the board's plans to loosen the guidelines for what is allowed in these videos.

Second, the board does not consider public input. When the board met to consider the guideline changes, only a couple of these hundreds of letters of protest were distributed. The chair of the board treats the public with contempt, calling her critics fascists.

Third, the board's first, direct service is to the distributors, while it's second, indirect service is to the public. This is an unacceptable mandate for a government agency.

Fourth, it is the board's legal opinion that the OFRB is not required to apply the criminal law test of obscenity. How ridiculous, when violent and degrading pornography has been linked to increased violence against women and children. If every citizen is expected not to commit a criminal act, then the OFRB can be expected to apply the criminal law test of obscenity.

Public hearings into the OFRB must occur before the board's planned review of its guidelines for violence in films and videos. Our society's safety and wellbeing are at stake.

CANADA DAY

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): There was warm sunshine, a party mood and smiles on thousands of faces as people jammed Optimist Recreation Park on Dorchester Road in Niagara Falls for Canada Day. Nearly every group in the city was there to provide music and many activities. To quote the Review, "More than 10,000 people shook the recession blues and turned out for a gala birthday party, many wearing patriotic red and white."

I want to thank the organizers of this event and congratulate all those receiving good citizenship awards.

The theme of the opening ceremonies honoured the 200th anniversary of the anti-slavery legislation in Upper Canada. This was enacted July 9, 1793, in nearby Niagara-on-the-Lake, then known as Newark. This was 40 years before the British Emancipation Act and 70 years before the US.

We can certainly be proud of the principles on which our country is based. We must now show that women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled are in fact equal and valuable members of the workforce as well as in our society.

In Niagara Falls, we have the unique pleasure each day of reaching out to people from around the world who visit our world-famous falls and showing our hospitality. I invite everyone listening to also enjoy the beauty of the falls this summer. Something new has been added this year, every Friday night at 11 pm, fireworks over the falls. What could be more romantic?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Today, Bill 48's debate will continue in committee of the whole, yet no one, including the Conservatives, seems to understand the Tory position on the legislation. On the television show Focus Ontario, Mike Harris said, and I quote --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: -- his caucus "very likely won't support" the social contract legislation "on third reading."

I hope this means that the Tories are starting to see the light and are listening to me. The original Conservative view was bang, bang, bang. "We'll support your legislation," Harris told Premier Rae. Then the Tory caucus said Bill 48 is bad, bad, bad legislation.

By voting in favour of Bill 48 during second reading, the Conservative caucus gave the social contract legislation credibility it simply did not deserve. I hope the Tories have finally realized that no amendments can fix this flawed legislation.

I say to the Conservative caucus, stop adding confusion to the chaos. Stop the maybes, the ifs, ands or buts, the very likelys or perhapses. Tell the people of Ontario that you will not support Bill 48, that no amendments can possibly fix this bill, and join Lyn McLeod and the Liberal caucus in defeating Bill 48 and this government. Vote with us on third reading against Bill 48.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On June 6, the Jewish National Fund of Canada, Hamilton branch, held its annual Negev dinner to honour the achievements of Gerald Swaye, an outstanding Canadian, and his deep commitment to the people of Israel and our community.

The Jewish National Federation is worthy of the strongest possible support by all Canadians. Now that the same kind of terrorism the people of Israel have had to live with is beginning to show its ugly face here on our continent, we realize that Israel's battle is ours as well and that what Israel suffers is what we must all share in.

We have been witness to an alarming rise of anti-Semitism, especially here in Ontario. Last December, it took eight days for a swastika painted on the side of the Legislature to be removed. Recently, skinheads broke into a Kitchener store and viciously attacked an elderly Jew. Ernst Zundel has already received too much notoriety in the press, while we are informed that not enough evidence exists to put a stop to it.

In times like these, we as legislators must become more vigilant against anti-Semitism. If our laws against it aren't strong enough, then we must strengthen them, along with our commitment and our resolve. To do nothing is to condone anti-Semitism by our silence and our inaction. If not us, then whom? If not now, then when? Now is the time to send a clear message that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated, not in this province, not in this country, not anywhere.

On behalf of the Ontario PC Party, I congratulate Gerald Swaye and I renew our pledge as legislators to the entire Jewish community to oppose all forms of racial and religious hatred everywhere.

New year in Jerusalem.

BUFFALO DAYS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'd like to extend an invitation to all the members of the Legislature, their families and their friends to a celebration in my riding which is called Buffalo Days. It's going to be a celebration from July 14 to 18. It is in Ridgetown, the friendliest town in Ontario.

There are a lot of activities going on, such things as a golf tournament, buffalo foods, a tour of a buffalo farm which is in my riding, and also a tennis tournament, pony rides, a blacksmith demonstration, barn-raising, street dancing and lots of music. There are many other activities.

The town of Ridgetown is situated in the agricultural heartland of southwestern Ontario and it offers visitors a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere. It's located close to Lake Erie and Rondeau Provincial Park, which provides excellent fishing, bird-watching, swimming from long stretches of sandy beach and also camping facilities. You can take a walk along our picturesque main street and experience Ridgetown's combination of rural charm and urban vitality.

I know I only have a minute and a little bit, but I'd like to certainly extend the invitation to people to come and join the celebration of Buffalo Days. If you can't make it this time, drop in any time.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): The government's social contract legislation is causing much confusion, deep concern and even hopelessness in hundreds of small and rural municipalities throughout Ontario. Elected and appointed municipal officials of many of the smaller municipalities throughout Ontario are in a quandary more serious than ever before because of the requirements of this provincial government's so-called social contract.

Several hundred Ontario municipalities have few, if any, employees earning over $30,000 per annum. If a municipality has no employee earning over $30,000, or only one, or even a few, how can it bear the government's forced reduction without reducing or indeed eliminating services?

I compliment the many, many municipalities of the province that have already, in a concerted effort to bring in budgets with zero mill rate increases, and in some cases, several years in a row, reduced services, reduced expenditures, reduced staff, held the line on staff salaries, wages and benefits, and reduced precious reserve funds.

How can these hard-pressed municipalities cope with the government's social contract requirements? This government must end the constant confusion that is created with its muddling-through approach to financial management and must open up the communication lines.

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The Simcoe County Board of Education is facing budget cuts of more than $12 million as part of the NDP government's so-called social contract. The board recognizes and accepts the need to reduce the cost to present and future taxpayers in Simcoe county, but the board is also looking for recognition of the fact that cost-cutting measures have already been undertaken by the Simcoe County Board of Education.

The board trimmed $4.9 million during the 1993 budget deliberations, and that is expected to have an impact of $9.3 million on the 1994 budget. As part of the reduction program, the board has managed to obtain a reduction in hours worked; wage packages; staff, through attrition and retirement; and the plant maintenance budget.

The board had originally budgeted for a $2.4-million restructuring grant from the province, and then the Treasurer turned around and chopped $2 million from that original $2.4 million. The Simcoe County Board of Education now faces the unpleasant possibility of slashing a further $12 million without ever getting credited for the proactive approach it has taken in its recent budgetary policies.

The Minister of Education and Training must give the board the opportunity to demonstrate how cost reductions have already been achieved and to make its case that the Simcoe county board should be recognized as meeting the requirements of the social contract. The minister has an obligation to ensure that some flexibility is built into the Social Contract Act. Be positive, not like the bang, bang, bang of the member for Oriole.

CANADA'S POTENTIAL

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to share part of an editorial that appeared in the Canadian Statesman, a well-known and respected newspaper in my riding. This is what they said:

"Canada has made yet another birthday. But is there anything left to celebrate? It depends, we suppose, on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. Factories continue to close, farmers can't get a decent price for their crops, and droves of middle managers are finding their jobs on the chopping block."

If you are pessimistic, like my friends across the way, you will see little to cheer about. But if you're an optimist like I am, you will see that this country, despite recent setbacks, remains full of potential.

We are a nation of greatness. We have first-class health care, excellent educational opportunities and talent abounding in sports and the arts. We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Everything we need for success --

Interjections.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, they're hounding me unmercifully. Everything we need for success is right before our eyes. We seem to spend more time listening to self-appointed proclaimers of doom. It's time to pick up the pieces and get back to work building this country up rather than tearing it down. Above all, I appeal to everyone in here: Let's all be optimists.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Ernest Smith, MLA, Legislative Assembly, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Mr Jean-Robert Gauthier, Member of Parliament, Mr Eugène Bellemare, Member of Parliament, and Mr Richard Dominique, all from the House of Commons, Ottawa. We are joined as well by M. Jean-François Gautrin, MNA, Mme Louise Harel, MNA, and Ms Line Béland from the National Assembly, Quebec.

In addition, Mr Fred Gingell, MLA, British Columbia; Mr Len Evans, MLA, Manitoba; Mr Neil Windsor, MHA, Newfoundland; Mr Danny Dumaresque, MHA, Newfoundland; Mr Brent Taylor, MLA, New Brunswick; Loredana Catalli Sonier, Newfoundland; Mr Henry Zoe, MLA, Northwest Territories, and Mr Alan Downe, Northwest Territories.

Please join me in welcoming all of our guests to our assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My questions will be for the Premier.

Day after day, we have raised our concerns about Bill 48, the government's social contract legislation. Our concerns are real, they continue to be real, even though we receive no answers, and every day brings us new questions about this legislation.

We have consistently raised our concerns that this bill does not achieve restraint in the short term, and we are deeply concerned that in fact this bill simply defers significant costs to some government in a future day. The legislation has created an unprecedented atmosphere of confusion and confrontation and even has led to divisions within the Premier's own caucus and cabinet. We have continuously suggested alternatives because we believe there is a better way to meet the goals of restraint, and this Premier has refused to listen.

I say to the Premier, surely you understand that you have gone to the wall for flawed legislation that will not achieve any of your own goals. Do you not care that you have set up a ticking time bomb that is going to lead to billions of costs for future governments? Do you not care that three weeks after your legislation was introduced, there are still no meaningful negotiations to achieve your financial targets for this year? Why do you refuse to look honestly at the implications of this disastrous legislation that you've brought forward?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I particularly appreciated the Leader of the Opposition's concern about the state of health of my caucus and party. These are the kinds of well wishes that even Job could have wished for.

I would say to the honourable member very directly that, first of all, there are a number of negotiations that are under way, I will have the member know. Those negotiations are proving to be very productive and they are going to prove to be ultimately successful in a great many sectors. That's a fact.

Secondly, I would say to the honourable member that her view that this bill is one that simply defers costs is not our view. That's not the purpose of what we're doing. It's not the purpose of the legislation. It's not the purpose of what's in place. We are going through a period of adjustment in the province in which the size of the public sector and the size of public sector compensation is going to have to come down.

The honourable members says she's made a number of useful suggestions with respect to how one could produce restraint. I haven't heard one suggestion from the leader of the Liberal Party with respect to the issue of public sector compensation. I haven't heard her say a peep about the compensation of doctors. I haven't heard her say a peep about the compensation of anyone else working in the public sector. I haven't heard her say a word. I haven't her say boo on the subject of how you would arrive at this. All she does is go around to the municipalities and everyone else and say: "Oh, don't touch me.

Don't touch him. Don't touch me. Don't touch the person behind the tree." That's the position of the Liberal Party of Ontario.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It's a classic of the oldest of old politics, and it won't work in the new Ontario. It won't work.

Mrs McLeod: Still no answers to questions which are clearly unanswerable. At the very least, the Premier should have checked Hansard from last week, when his own Finance minister at least acknowledged that the issue of deferred cost was indeed an issue, although he personally didn't think it was a problem because he thought our calculations of the cost were somewhat excessive. I say to the Premier that even with the amendments that were brought forward last week, there are more questions that are being raised.

And when you say, Premier, that we have not given any alternatives, I take you back to the end of March, when we said: "Bring in your financial targets. Negotiate with your own employees to achieve those targets. Let other public sector employers and employees do the same thing." That would have worked, Premier, and it would still work.

But instead of that, we find that last week, in an attempt to somehow appease or amend this flawed legislation, you introduced an amendment to

section 33 of the bill. This amendment seems to provide for the unilateral extension of existing collective agreements until 1996, although apparently only for those groups that have the right to strike.

I realize that this may seem like a somewhat technical question, but it has very great significance. It would seem to us that while employers are still hoping to work out local solutions, those local solutions that we believe could be found to achieve restraint through the negotiating process, your amendment is going to tie their hands.

Premier, I ask you to help us understand this amendment to

section 33. Why is it there? Who does it apply to? What is it meant to do? How do you expect people at the local level to be able to work out long-term solutions to restraint while you stifle the collective bargaining process?

Hon Mr Rae: We're not stifling the collective bargaining process. You asked me, what's the purpose of the amendment? The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the very real concern that exists that because of the application of the law and because of the climate of restraint in which we're working, where there will not be, by definition, bargaining over wages for a period of time -- the concern has been expressed that this will therefore allow employers in some instances, in some cases, where there's great inequality of bargaining power, to effectively go in and totally gut the collective agreement, which is what we don't want to have happen.

So we're putting forward that proposal as a way of ensuring that important contract language, that important issues that have been there for some time cannot simply be taken away unilaterally by the employer.

Mrs McLeod: The nightmare of this legislation just keeps getting more and more bizarre. Under Bill 48, this government is clearly prepared to override every single collective agreement in the public sector in this province, and now the Premier says they have brought in an amendment in the name of somehow protecting collective agreements. But those are the same collective agreements they have already unilaterally interfered with by the fail-safe, broad-brush provisions which build in their own inequities, and the amendment itself actually suspends the collective bargaining process unilaterally.

It seems that out of the total confusion this creates, I can find only one clear question. Why is it that unilateral changes that you propose as government to collective agreements are somehow okay, but you want to stop people at the local level from trying to negotiate restraint measures that work through their own collective bargaining processes?

Hon Mr Rae: Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want to do is to allow bargaining to take place in which both sides are working from a basis of mutual respect and in which there can be successful bargaining at the local level, and what we're looking for is successful bargaining at the local level.

The whole premise of our approach has been to ensure that people, within a framework that ensures a certain protection, are able to bargain successfully locally. That's the whole premise of the approach.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With a certain amount of reluctance, I turn in my second question to another disastrous piece of legislation. In this case, it was a piece of legislation which ironically we had hoped to be able to support, because I think the Premier is well aware that we were prepared to support the removal of the commercial concentration tax. In fact, we wanted to see that measure instituted as soon as possible, and we wanted to support a bill which contained this measure specifically.

The Premier will also know that Bill 29, which stands in the name of the commercial concentration tax, also contains amendments to 12 other acts, many of which are totally unrelated in any way to the commercial concentration tax and which are extremely significant in their own right and which require debate and examination.

We will ensure our support for the swift passage of the repeal of the commercial concentration tax if you will allow us to deal with other parts of Bill 29 in a fair and democratic manner. I ask, will you support the commercial concentration tax sections of this bill so that this House can pass the repeal of that tax measure without delay?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm sorry to have made the life of the official opposition so very difficult. Having brought in the commercial concentration tax, having argued in favour of it, having brought it in, having imposed it on the greater Toronto area, they now want to have the opportunity to do their mea culpa, and somehow, for some reason, they feel we've taken it away from them. I'm very sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. Sometimes life is a little bit hard.

Mrs McLeod: I think it's unfortunate that the Premier has chosen this particular issue on which to provide a purely flippant response, because I can assure the Premier that in raising this question, we are raising an issue which we believe is fundamental to the integrity of the democratic process as well as to the openness of this government.

I draw the Premier's attention to just one of the sections of Bill 29 which happens to be of particular concern to us,

section 12, and

section 12 gives this government tremendous power to make decisions about the Ontario drug benefit plan. It gives the government the power to decide on everything from what drugs will be on the plan to whether there will be user fees for seniors.

The Premier will surely be aware that for the past three years his government has actually been working with pharmacists towards a joint consultative committee so that jointly, with professional and objective advice, there can be a determination of the most cost-efficient way of providing pharmaceutical care to the people of this province. Now, just as you did with Bill 50, you have thrown the process out and all of the work that had been done. You have done it with no consultation and in fact you have done it without notice.

I ask the Premier, can you tell me, firstly, why have you done this and, secondly, why have you done it in this way? Why have you tried to sneak in major changes to our health care system through the back door?

Hon Mr Rae: The idea that something has been snuck in, the idea first of all that this government could successfully sneak in anything, given the current climate and reality -- talk about trying to sneak something in -- I spoke about the subject of drug reform and debated it in an open forum at Toronto city hall last week, so this isn't exactly something we're trying to keep under the carpet.

We are dealing directly with the commercial concentration tax, we're dealing directly with the problem of drug expenditure, we're dealing directly with the problem of public sector compensation, we're dealing directly with the question of expenditure reduction. You want to play political games saying, "Premier, you've taken away my chance to cherry-pick your legislation." You can't cherry-pick; you have to make up your mind. Are you in favour of taking these measures or aren't you? If you're opposed, fine, stand opposed, because that's what the Liberal Party's been standing for for the last two years. "No, no, no, no, no." That's been your position.

Mrs McLeod: Obviously, it's "My terms or no terms; our health system or no health care system. Do it our way, people of Ontario, or you won't get the service at all."

I simply cannot believe that the Premier doesn't understand how betrayed the professional pharmacists of this province feel at the total abandonment, without notice, of the consultation process that they were genuinely working towards.

I say to the Premier that there are two issues here. The first is that once again this government is taking unto itself unilateral powers to decide what is medically necessary for the people of this province, and that is intolerable.

The second issue is that this time you have indeed tried to do it through the back door under a piece of legislation that is called the commercial concentration tax, and that is indefensible.

This bill gives this government unprecedented powers and I say to the Premier that you cannot take these kind of draconian measures without full public debate, without full committee hearings so that the people of this province can understand the full implications of what this government is doing.

I ask you once again, will you separate the commercial concentration tax from the rest of the bill so that we can act on that measure quickly, and will you then allow us to have full and open airing of this government's continued attempts to unilaterally and arbitrarily direct our health care system?

Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is no. A slightly expanded answer has to do with the fact that it is not at all unusual for a government, as a result of a budget, to bring forth a measure that contains a number of the proposals that are contained in the budget. For her to suggest, and if she wants me to go back and look at the budgets of her predecessor which she was ready to stand up and support, "Ready, aye, ready," she now wants a chance --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: She was there standing in her place in favour of the commercial concentration tax. Now she wants a chance to do her flip. Let her do her flip. And if she's not prepared to do her flip because she can't deal with the pressure from the pharmacists or anyone else, well, I'm sorry; I can't help her.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Throughout the social contract process we have offered encouragement and support for your efforts to cut the size and cost of government. Premier, you would know that we have concerns that it be permanent cuts in the size and cost of government.

We have offered advice. We have, as you are aware, offered alternatives, and last week tabled amendments that would make the restraint legislation itself fairer and which would not leave any financial onus, if you like, on successive governments after the control period ends.

But, Premier, we were a little shocked on Wednesday when we found out that you intend to arbitrarily bring an end to debate on the social contract legislation without allowing us to debate all our amendments. So, Premier, for everyone in Ontario who is counting on our amendments, could you tell us if you have any intention of giving serious consideration to those amendments?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I refer it to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I did appreciate the serious attempt by the Conservative caucus to make some amendments to the legislation, as opposed to the official opposition, who decided to bail out of the process entirely.

I've looked at each one of the amendments which the Conservative caucus has brought forward and it was my hope that we would have been able to get to the various sections that included the Conservative caucus's amendments. We have some government amendments as well, and there are one or two that are of particular interest to me.

That is why I was somewhat dismayed on Wednesday that we didn't get anywhere last Wednesday afternoon, didn't get anywhere on the debate, that the opposition simply debated sections 1 through 4 and didn't get to any conclusion whatsoever. It's very difficult to get to deal with your amendments if we're not making progress on the bill. I certainly don't feel any responsibility for not getting to the amendments that you've brought forward.

Mr Harris: Treasurer, the social contract legislation needs work; we all know that. Less than an hour into committee of the whole discussion, you tabled the closure motion. Less than an hour was spent on a very substantial bill, a bill that you and your officials acknowledge was hastily drafted and has flaws.

Treasurer, we've received countless phone calls, just for one example, and letters from small municipalities and school boards which say they cannot meet their reduction targets without layoffs because so few on their payroll make over $30,000. The Ministry of Finance officials acknowledge that this is a flaw in the legislation. But they have told transfer partners, such as Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education, that even though they admit it's flawed, it's too late to make any adjustments.

I say to you, Treasurer, you and I know it's not true. It is not too late. We have tabled an amendment that specifically will deal with that, and I would ask you directly, will you support that amendment?

Hon Mr Laughren: Just to put things in perspective, given the

preamble of the leader of the third party, the government House leader did offer an extra day of hearings in committee of the whole, and no agreement could be arrived at with the two opposition parties. Secondly, you're quite right that the time allocation motion was tabled on Wednesday afternoon, and despite the tabling of that motion, it didn't seem to bring any particular discipline to the debate, because the opposition continued to ramble on in a very general way between sections 1 and 4 and all aspects of the bill. So I think it's unfair to say that we unduly or prematurely served notice of time allocation.

There was an opportunity on the part of the opposition to have a more fulsome debate in committee, and no agreement could be arrived at between the opposition parties and the government.

Mr Harris: Once again, that's not correct at all. What we were offered was this: We were offered two days in committee of the whole and not one word on third reading, or one day in committee of the whole and one day on third reading. That's what we were offered, and quite frankly, that's not acceptable to us. That is not acceptable to us.

We've heard the rhetoric. Less than an hour into amendments on a flawed bill, that you admit is flawed, that your officials admit is flawed, that we all know is flawed, is not providing a proper opportunity for the amendments. You've done nothing to send any kind of signal that you intend to support, or support even parts of, any of our very substantive amendments, and I tell you this: Your move to close off debate so quickly, quite frankly, is a slap in the face to all the other groups out there that have proposed amendments, that have talked about flaws in the legislation.

We want to ensure that the legislation is able to pass. We want to ensure, though, that the legislation that passes will not hamstring successive governments. We want to ensure that it will be fair, and we want to ensure that it will be fair to all groups as to the size and scope of reductions. So I ask you this: Will you talk to the House leader about giving ample time or enough time or reasonable time to make sure we get debate on all of the substantive amendments?

Hon Mr Laughren: I find it amazing, passing strange even, that the leader of the third party, who only about three weeks ago was saying, "Bring in the bill; bang, bang, bang, and we'll get this legislation through" -- that's what he was saying -- now suddenly wants a more fulsome debate.

I believe as well that the official opposition at one point said, "Bring in the bill; we'll deal with it today." That's what they said. I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, we are truly getting some wonky messages from across the floor.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, when I asked you several weeks ago about the possible increased criminal activity as a result of locating a casino in Windsor, Ontario, and relayed to you the statistics with respect to increase in crime in Atlantic City, you said, "It is probably not reasonable to compare Atlantic City with Windsor." Minister, have you ever been to Atlantic City?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, I have not been to Atlantic City. I am aware of the 12 casinos that exist in Atlantic City in a very small population of, I think, 35,000.

Mr Eves: That answer explains a lot of things to me about the proposed casino project in Windsor, because I can assure you, Minister, if you had ever been to Atlantic City, nobody would wish that on the citizens of Windsor.

I would like to quote you from the president of the Atlantic City Merchants Association: "The right way to do it is to revitalize the downtown first, that way you already have something that can induce people to come out of the casinos."

Could you tell me what steps your government has taken to totally revitalize downtown Windsor before the casino goes into operation?

Hon Ms Churley: I think the member is missing the point here. Let me explain again to him that in fact the casino that will be built in Windsor is exactly the opposite concept from the 12 casinos that were built in Atlantic City, without any consultation with the downtown. Those casinos are designed to bring people in and keep them in there. The Windsor casino is designed in such a way, with a small complement of stores and restaurants, so that visitors to Windsor will be able, and will in fact be encouraged, to go out into the downtown of Windsor and enjoy the stores and the restaurants and the entertainment centres in the downtown.

Mr Eves: Again, in the minister's answer, I think she has unwittingly put her thumb right on the problem. The problem is exactly what you just said. People are going to come by bus from Detroit to Windsor, go into the casino, gamble and leave again. That is going to do absolutely nothing for the downtown core in the city of Windsor.

Thomas Carver, president of the Casino Association of New Jersey, is quoted as saying that "the huge expectations for downtown growth have often failed in cities ambitious for casino-initiated change.

"It's human greed and public greed basically. The real problem is that the government gets so greedy and wants so much. I see this repeated over and over again."

Can you not see that's exactly what your government is doing with the Windsor casino project? You haven't taken any steps to revitalize downtown. You're not doing anything to keep the public in Windsor. You're going to transport them by bus over the bridge or under the tunnel. They're going to get back on their bus and go home a lot poorer, and you have accomplished nothing except bringing all the bad points that casinos bring to the city of Windsor. Can you not see that?

Hon Ms Churley: I believe the member is not hearing what I'm saying. I said exactly the opposite of what he said. When we decided to build a pilot project in Windsor, we consulted very closely with the city council and with the downtown business people of Windsor, and studied how casinos were built in other locations and the kinds of planning processes that took place. Let me repeat again that the problem with the casinos in places like Atlantic City is that they built up to 12 casinos, huge casinos, in a very, very small town. The object in mind is to bring those people into those casinos and keep them in there. What we're doing in Windsor is the exact opposite of that.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, but he appears to be AWOL. He was on the list here to be here today, so I guess I'll have to ask the question to the Premier.

I was reading the weekend paper and I was surprised to hear this, but I just want to get the Premier's comment on this. It says: "An NDP cabinet minister said Friday he's not sure whether he or the Ontario government caucus will support Premier Bob Rae's controversial wage freeze legislation. Natural Resources minister Howard Hampton admitted his discomfort with the bill, which would chop $2 billion from the government's $43-billion public sector payroll for each of three years." His quote that really has me interested is: "I've always been a team player, but nobody is comfortable with this bill. Many of us won't know what we'll do until the deadline arrives."

I presume the Premier talked to Mr Hampton on the weekend. Could the Premier tell us whether Mr Hampton will be joining the member for Perth and the member for Peterborough in opposing this bill?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I haven't had a chance to speak to the Minister of Natural Resources, but I'd be very surprised if he wasn't supporting the legislation.

Mr Bradley: In light of the fact that he has been publicly quoted and one would anticipate that he is not --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Read the rest of the story.

Mr Bradley: If the Speaker would let me, I would do as Mr Wildman has asked me and read the rest of the story, but you won't let me do that. When he says, "Many of us won't know what we'll do until the deadline arrives," now that the Premier is apparently losing the support of the Conservative Party, which is going to change its mind and vote against this bill on third reading, is the Premier contemplating withdrawing the bill rather than losing it on a vote in this House?

Hon Mr Rae: Actually not.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): My question is to the Premier. The Premier may be aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that Canada could move quickly to remove sanctions against South Africa. It has been the policy of Ontario to support this federal position. I was wondering, Mr Premier, could you tell us today what Ontario's current position on sanctions against South Africa is?

Mr Carr: I understand from that answer that the position is the same. I will say that a cabinet submission in 1992 states, "Ontario endorses a ban on the purchase of supplies, equipment and services originating in South Africa." That's why we find it curious, Mr Premier, that officials in your government, officials from the Ontario casino project, would meet with the Sun Corp of South Africa, operators of the notorious Sun City entertainment complex, regarding the casino project in Windsor.

My question to the Premier is this: Can you tell me if the government endorses this ban on South African services, and if not, why did officials from the Ontario casino project meet with the people from the Sun Corp of South Africa? Can you explain that, please?

Hon Mr Rae: I wasn't aware of any commercial dealings with any particular corporation. I'm not aware whether there were conversations or there weren't. All I can tell the honourable member is that the government's position with respect to commercial contracts and with respect to commercial dealings very much remains in place.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The village of Bloomfield has been trying for many years to improve both the quantity and quality of its water supply. The village has secured all the necessary agreements. However, Bloomfield was passed over for funding under the Jobs Ontario Capital program earlier this spring. They have the engineering design done for their project, which will bring Bay of Quinte water from Picton, and they are ready to begin construction as soon as funding approval is received from the ministry.

Can the minister give me some idea of when this funding will be available to the village so they can begin construction? The residents of Bloomfield too want to know when they will have a reliable source of good, clean drinking water.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member will know, as all members of the House are aware, that there is legislation before the House on the formation of a number of crown agencies, one of which is the Ontario Clean Water Agency, which will have responsibility for these matters once legislation is passed.

The current schedule, as I understand it, is that the Ontario Clean Water Agency will be mailing out application forms this month. We expect the municipalities to return them by early fall, in September, and then beginning in October, the clean water agency will be evaluating and making decisions with regard to its capital plans for the next year, and new projects will be announced in January 1994. So Bloomfield, I hope, will be able to participate and perhaps will be one of the new projects in the fiscal year 1994.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. You will recall that on June 23 I asked you a question about your decision to abolish the employment standards program committee, a committee that was working to collect money for workers who were paid under minimum wage, or for companies that had gone out of business and neglected to pay their holiday pay, and was a very worthwhile, successful collection committee on behalf of the people of Ontario. In fact, you'll recall that in the three months leading up to March 31, the committee had collected some $901,000 on behalf of those disadvantaged workers.

You said at the time that the collections function will be turned over to the field officers, and that the field officers will do a much better job. That was your answer.

I have here a memo from one of your staff, Minister.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A secret memo?

Mr Mahoney: Well, it sort of came under my door in a brown envelope. The gentleman who sent the memo is an employment standards officer and a steward of OPSEU Local 585. He states in this memo:

"It is unfortunate that the minister was seemingly misinformed and led to make statements and decisions which are embarrassing to us all. The committee has been discussing the future of the collections function with no clear terms of reference nor idea of its mandate," and he goes on with a number of other rather startling statements that they have not made a decision, and you have just unilaterally come out and told them that they're out of business.

Minister, what kind of labour relations is this for a Minister of Labour of this government to be shoving down the throat of their own employees?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think first I should add a point that I failed to mention when we had this question before us a week ago, and that's that at least seven of the eight people who have been laid off from the agency to collect the money that's there are now working with the Finance ministry. So they have had other jobs; they haven't lost their jobs.

I can also tell him that the intent is very, very clear; very, very clear that the employment standards officers are in the field, that part of their responsibility was to take a look at this, and they will be doing the collecting. As I mentioned before, we have some 50 or 60 additional employment standards officers in the field.

The three people who lay out the cases where we may have to go to court are still with the ministry and are still responsible for making sure that we've made the arguments necessary to collect the money, and we think it will be a more efficient operation.

Mr Mahoney: Just very briefly, let me read you a quote from Hansard, and then we'll play a little game and you can say, "Who said that?" It says here: "What you've done here is you've eliminated an agency that actually makes money. On top of that, out of the seven full-time permanent positions, you've moved six of them into the Ministry of Finance."

Mr Bradley: Who said that?

Mr Mahoney: Well, I think it was me, actually. You may have neglected to inform the House, sir, because I had to tell you that that's in fact what you had done. You missed the point of my question. You have a steward of OPSEU, Local 585, saying here that the ESPC, the committee, is having discussions on the future of this function, and that they are still pending; that's one scenario. The other one: He says, "Or someone forget to tell the ESPC that it is simply spinning its wheels in the mud."

Minister, you've made a decision unilaterally. Either you forgot to tell the members of this committee, this very successful collection agency, or your staff forgot to tell you. I don't know what's going on. I didn't make this up. This is a memo from your own people saying they're embarrassed at your answer.

My question, very simply: As the Minister of Labour, what kind of message does this send to your employees doing a good job successfully collecting funds on behalf of workers who have been shafted, one way or another, by the people they work for? You just shut the whole program down, even though it makes money, and then in a stroke of labour-management, said simply --

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

Mr Mahoney: We're all unable to understand. You don't even communicate with your employees. How can you truly represent yourself as the Minister of Labour with that kind of behaviour?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We never said that they weren't doing a good job or hadn't improved the collections. What we did say very, very clearly was that we think we have a better and a more efficient way of doing it, with fewer people involved in the Ministry of Labour. That's part of our responsibility, to see that we get the most efficient operation in the ministry, and that's what we intend to do.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Ontario drug benefit program announcement of last week confirmed that when it comes to health care and user fees, seniors should know that the NDP will say one thing in public and end up doing just the opposite behind closed cabinet doors.

During the last election, the NDP was critical of those of us who were honest in discussing the need to reform Ontario's health care system. When the Liberals brought in user fees in long-term care, and I checked Hansard, Bob Rae pounded his sanctimonious fist in this House. In fact, I say to you, Minister, you are in power today because your party ran around the province in 1990 telling people that David Peterson was a liar, and you falsely labelled the leader of the Ontario PC Party with respect to the issue of health care reform.

Minister, explain to this House why you decided to level user fees on to the backs of seniors when your party has repeatedly argued, both in opposition and in government, that user fees are ineffective and serve as a deterrent to accessible health care.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would say to the member that there are a number of services related to the health care field which are not free and universal: For assistive devices, for example, the people who benefit pay some portion of the cost, as, as he has said, in long-term care and in nursing homes.

The Ontario drug benefit plan has been a plan that has been universal only to those over the age of 65 or to those on social assistance. The result has been that there have been two million people in this province who have no coverage for drug benefits because they're not employed by somebody who provides it.

What we have done is to release a consultation paper in order to have a public debate about how we can in fact make the program fairer, and we believe making it fairer means extending the eligibility to everybody who needs drugs. In order to contain the cost, which I would say to the member has been rising at more than 16% per annum over the last several years, we believe it is appropriate to discuss sharing in that cost by everybody who benefits, and by that we mean the manufacturers and the pharmacists as well as those who benefit from the program.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): When we say it, it's user fees. When you say it, it's sharing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Jim Wilson: That's a very interesting response, because in the last election, I recall the NDP going around saying that it would expand drug coverage to the working poor. What they didn't tell the seniors of this province is that they were going to take away their drug coverage. The minister and her colleagues from the New Democratic Party went around the province fearmongering and saying that Progressive Conservatives were solely interested in dismantling the health care system, yet it is your government that continues to apply user fees in a clandestine and systematic fashion.

In August 1992, the former NDP Health minister, Frances Lankin, was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, "We will not be introducing user fees to help pay for the drug plan." Well, after last week's announcement, we know that this simply is not true.

It's all very well that you've recently released a discussion paper concerning the Ontario drug benefit plan, but the fact is, you've already made the key decisions. You've already decided that user fees will be introduced into that system, and many seniors simply won't be able to afford it. I ask you with respect to your discussion paper, what do you expect seniors to discuss when you've already made the essential decisions behind cabinet doors?

Hon Mrs Grier: I take it from the member's question that his party opposes any kind of user fees and would in fact expand the Ontario drug benefit plan at no cost to any of the participants. I find that interesting in view of some of the comments that certainly the Prime Minister and others, who also belong to his party, have made.

I would point out to him that Ontario is the only province in the country that doesn't have some kind of cost-sharing mechanism for its drug benefit plan. We certainly wish that the finances of the province were such that we could expand the program to cover the working poor without at the same time looking at how we can contain the costs at the $1.1 billion they now are.

What we have done in our consultation paper is talk about much more than merely the cost of the program, but how we can reform the program to make sure there is appropriate prescribing, not overprescribing, and appropriate use of other professionals in the system, namely the pharmacists, so that their counsel and information can be available to people. What is the objective is to make sure that everybody gets the appropriate medication and that nobody is denied it because of the cost, and we have heard in this House much discussion about people who are unable to get any drug coverage because of the nature of their disease.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I've got five municipalities in my riding -- it's rather a large riding for one being so close to Toronto -- and I like to represent all the municipalities within my riding.

A proposal has come to one of the townships in my riding, Uxbridge, that they would put in a processing plant for petroleum-contaminated soils in a depleted gravel pit. On June 14, the town passed a resolution asking for an environmental assessment, and on June 15, a letter went to one of your offices at the central region on Overlea Boulevard asking for that environmental assessment. The people of my community want to know -- as you can see, it's front-page news -- whether you're going to have that environmental hearing that's necessary for the protection of the environment.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I hope my response will also be front-page news. The fact is that we've received a large number of concerns and complaints from interested groups and individuals and property owners regarding things like truck traffic, the proximity of a school, and the possibility of contamination of groundwater. We've also received the resolution from the township of Uxbridge requesting an environmental assessment hearing. Because of these concerns and the resolution passed by the township council, I agree that we should have an environmental assessment hearing and one will be held.

Mr O'Connor: I'm glad to hear that the minister has confirmed that, because not only is it front page news, but people like Steve Nuris are writing to newspapers, letters to the editor, saying that we have to make sure that spillage of contaminated soil that could occur as it's being transported through the town needs to be taken into consideration, increased volume of traffic, the safety of the Goodwood public school will be jeopardized, the groundwater could be affected. There are some questions they have, like, "Who's going to buy my property in the future if the water is contaminated?" and "How can we live where the water is contaminated?"

What I need to know, Minister, is will this provide the opportunity for my constituents to come forward with all their concerns? I only raised a few of the concerns, but as you can see by the length of this letter, which I'm not going to take up the time of the House with, they've got a lot of serious concerns they want to have raised because of the threat to the water quality. Will they have that opportunity to do that?

Hon Mr Wildman: I really appreciate the interest of the member and his concern for his area and for his constituents. I want to assure him that all of the concerns that have been raised, both by him and by others in the area, can be brought forward before the environmental assessment board for its hearing.

The evidence will be evaluated and decisions will be made on the basis of that, particularly the concerns with regard to truck traffic, noise, the possibility of contamination of groundwater, particularly as it relates to the protection of the Oak Ridges moraine, which I'm sure all members of the House are determined must be protected. The environmental assessment hearing will make it possible for all of those concerns to be dealt with in a fulsome and proper manner.

DAY CARE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you will be aware that your social contract legislation, Bill 48, has had a devastating impact on the 932 family day care spaces in the region of Peel. As a result of Bill 48, the family day care program will be eliminated this September 3. This action affects not only the providers of family day care spaces but also those who require the services, primarily the single moms who have made a go of it and have found jobs.

The dilemma they face is that there are not sufficient day care spaces available in Peel to meet the 932 space needs. In September, they're going to have to leave their jobs.

I'm receiving a number of calls and letters. A constituent writes:

"I am a divorced mother with two small children. I am currently involved in the family home day care program. I've been involved in the program since October 1991 and it has enabled me to get off the mother's allowance program and be in the workforce to support myself and my children. The day care program allows us to go to work and to keep our skills up to date to stay in the current workforce. I myself will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to continue my job."

Minister, what do you say to this person and the many others who depend on that very important service?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to correct something in the member's question. I think at the outset he said that the social contract legislation had brought this event about. I want to be very clear that it is my understanding that in fact this decision has nothing to do with the social contract legislation; it has everything to do with the regional municipality of Peel's decision in this case, as part of its way of having to deal with the cost reduction, the cost constrainment, to shut down this program. That's a decision they are making as a way of controlling their costs. It is not related to the legislation in any way whatsoever.

They have made a proposal to us which we are looking at, but I have to say that my inclination would be to indicate to the municipality that this is a program we would want it to continue and that we hope it can find ways it can indeed continue this program. We certainly intend to continue providing our support in terms of the 80% of the funding that we provide to the municipality for it to maintain this program.

Mr Offer: Minister, when you say that this is not a result of your social contract legislation, with respect, I think you're absolutely wrong. This is what has been put on the region of Peel as a result of Bill 48, your social contract legislation.

You shake your head, but I would like you to respond to this. The region of Peel has provided an option as to how it can continue this particular program. They requested a meeting with you and your staff last week, which was cancelled. They requested a meeting with you and your staff today, which was not forthcoming. They are requesting a meeting with you and your staff to decide and determine how this very essential program can be continued. To date, you have not met with them and you have cancelled appointments. I think it's somewhat irresponsible for you to stand up today and to say how much you care.

If you really care, commit today to meet with the officials of the region of Peel with a view to saving this essential service so that people who have found jobs can in fact maintain those jobs this September 3.

Hon Mr Silipo: I certainly expect to be meeting with representatives of the municipality or at least to be speaking with the regional chair by telephone, because I know we've had some problems in trying to

schedule a meeting.

But let me be equally clear that as to the proposal they are putting before us, I would have great difficulty recommending to my cabinet colleagues that we accept it, because the proposal that is being recommended is for us in effect to credit back to the municipality a portion of the dollars it believes we are going to be saving if it cuts this program.

Well, the bottom line is, we don't want them to cut this program. We're not interested in not spending the 80% of the dollars that we spend in providing this program. We want to continue providing the program, and we want the municipality to continue providing it. The answer is not in us looking at a roundabout way to cut their target of the expenditure reductions. The issue is for them to look at other ways in which to make those savings.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question? The member for Etobicoke -- the member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Almost got you that time, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. If you can cast your mind back two months ago, Minister, before you went off on your expensive junket to Spain, you announced with much fanfare the introduction of graduated licences. At the time you introduced it, I asked you why you didn't come forward with legislation for at least first and second reading before we rose for the summer. Are you going to come forward with that legislation?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): First, on the comment which is only too facile, vis-à-vis what the member of the opposition said, and I'm trying to quote verbatim, about a "junket to Madrid, Spain," it wasn't. Let me set the record straight.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, will be hosting the next Olympiad of Transportation, the International Road Federation. It's held every four years. It will bring 3,500 full-fledged delegates to the city of Toronto, and they will spend more than $7 million. So $7 million vis-à-vis $2,000 to go and get the flame, go and get the torch and bring it to Toronto, is good value for money.

The question itself: A graduated driver's licence was introduced by this administration with the help of all three parties concerned. What it says is that you have an obligation, an increased obligation, not a reverse onus, with due respect; the component of mobility, the thin line between a right and a privilege to access the roads of Ontario. We're not going to make it tougher, but we're going to make it more onerous in terms of its obligation.

If you wouldn't stall the legislation at every opportunity, the graduated driver's licence would be the order of the day today, not in the fall session like we intend to introduce it.

Mr Turnbull: In his inimitable way, the minister has once again failed to answer the very simple question.

The fact is that when the minister came forward announcing this, concurrent with a lot of very unpopular announcements they were making, we recognized that this was a smokescreen. This is what in the navy in the Second World War they used to call "making smoke"; in other words, you blow a lot of smoke to put people off the other issues of the day.

Minister, you have just admitted in your answer that there is broad acceptance and support from both the Liberals and the Conservatives for this legislation. The Insurance Bureau of Canada, at the time of your announcement, said it was supportive of this legislation, but what they are saying to us specifically is that they are not supportive of you going out to committee without seeing the draft legislation so that people are speaking to the specifics, not some smoke that you're blowing out at us.

My question is, why don't you bring forward the legislation now? In October 1992, your ministry said that they had almost finished drafting the legislation --

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

Mr Turnbull: You have support; why don't you bring forward the legislation today?

Hon Mr Pouliot: As a normal course of events, we readily acquiesce that before we go to committee, and it's only commonsensical, that all parties that have requested that the draft be put forth -- so not only in intent and spirit, not only in terms of the compendium, but that the very words that are in the draft be examined, be scrutinized meticulously, so that people afford themselves a better opportunity to come up with amendments that will make the legislation better.

Simply put and by way of conclusion, the draft will appear in short order; then we will go to committee for consultation; amendments will no doubt be introduced; then we will table legislation; then finally all Ontarians will benefit from that legislation.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to address this question to the Minister of Finance.

OPSEU has identified several billions in cost savings which could do away with the need for payroll reductions and still allow budget targets to be met. In return for cooperating in achieving these reductions, they're asking for collective agreements to be respected until their expiry. After these agreements expire, they're prepared to cooperate in cost reductions in return for a no-layoff clause and protection of the level of public services. Yet government negotiators are saying they aren't prepared to listen to OPSEU unless they throw existing collective agreements into the open.

Why is it that this government is unwilling to respond directly to these positive cost-cutting proposals, and why is it that the New Democratic government refuses to listen to the positive solutions brought forward in good faith by the leadership of OPSEU on this critical issue?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This government, for a couple of months now, has been doing a great deal of listening to OPSEU and to other people in the public sector about how to effect savings, and we take those suggestions seriously. There are, however, some projections of cost-savings that simply don't add up. Also, there are some projected cost savings that would take a long time to be realized and we simply have to achieve the savings that we've targeted for the social contract for this fiscal year and the two subsequent fiscal years.

While I don't for a minute dismiss the positive suggestions being brought forth by OPSEU -- as a matter of fact, I appreciate very much their suggestions -- at the same time, we've got to get on with the task of achieving $2 billion in savings in public sector compensation. That doesn't mean that we rule out those other savings in efficiency and costs by any stretch of the imagination. We take them very, very seriously.

Mr Drainville: Does not the Minister of Finance understand that there is a contradictory message being sent out here, and that is, on one hand, the Premier has tried to have us believe that he's encouraging the public sector unions to work together with the government in a spirit of cooperation and, on the other, when they find solutions, those solutions aren't being taken seriously.

In good faith, the leadership of OPSEU has indicated a willingness to pursue more open discussions with you because it has been increasingly concerned about the variance between what you seem to be saying and what the Premier seems to be saying and what is communicated to the negotiators. Quite frankly, there are many who are wondering whether you're truly bargaining in good faith.

Why is it that there is a variation between what the Premier says in meetings with Mr Upshaw and what your negotiators say once the Premier has left the room?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is simply nonsense. This government has taken them very seriously. But I'll tell you, when someone comes forward with a suggestion that there is $700 million in savings in OHIP card fraud, then you can't take that particular suggestion seriously because it is totally out of line, and anybody who thinks that there's that level of savings simply isn't dealing with reality. We know that there is an element of fraud, but it's not a fraction of $700 million.

We have worked extremely hard with OPSEU to achieve savings, and I would remind not just the member who asked the question but everyone else as well that when we went through the expenditure reduction exercise this spring, the largest single reduction was in the government's own operations, to the tune of over $700 million in savings in this fiscal year alone. So anyone who says that we're not achieving savings within our own ministry simply hasn't been following the efforts that we've been making. I think most fairminded people understand that.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Smoke and mirrors, like your $17 billion estimates. It was all smoke and mirrors, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Unlike the Liberals when they were in office, we have finally got a hold on our expenditures; and for the former Minister of Health to be complaining, who ran up health care expenditures at an average increase of 11% a year and drug benefit increases of 18% a year, is to laugh at how serious she really is.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Motions?

ROLE OF THE INDEPENDENT MEMBER

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The normal rotation in this place during question period is to allow each party to ask questions in order. The member who just asked the question sits --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Eighteen per cent a year, Elinor. You call that responsible management?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Never enough for you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the members for Oriole and Nickel Belt please come to order so that I can hear the point of order.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Victoria-Haliburton has asked a question and jumped into the rotation, which then took a great deal of time of course for the Treasurer to give a non-answer to. But my point of order is that the rotation, without any agreement on non-aligned members having been arrived at in this place -- and you know yourself, sir, those discussions are currently going on as to what role a non-aligned member might play in this place and on committees. None of that has been resolved, and in my view we've been shortchanged an opportunity to ask another question by the official opposition because this member was recognized in his non-aligned format, out of the proper rotation.

The Speaker: First of all, the member for Mississauga West is absolutely correct: He has a point of order. Indeed, I recognized the independent member for Victoria-Haliburton. If at that point, some member had risen on a point of order, of course the member would not have been allowed to ask the question unless by unanimous consent. I recognize the difficulty both in the strictness of the rotation, as spelled out in the orders, but also we have three independent members, none of whom under the current rules has an opportunity to ask a question in the House.

On the last point, the member will know that, had the member for Victoria-Haliburton not been recognized, a member from the government side would've been recognized, thus utilizing the last amount of time, not penalizing this side at all.

The House, obviously through the committee, will have to come to terms with the responsibilities and opportunities for independent members, and this House will at some point have to decide whether or not those who are independent will indeed have an opportunity to ask questions in the House.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, on the same point: If I understand you correctly, you unilaterally made the decision to recognize the non-aligned member to ask a question and you're suggesting that I or someone else should have risen at that time to raise a point of order and you would've then bypassed that member and gone back into the normal rotation. Is that, sir, what I understand you to have just said? I need to understand it.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I think I was quite clear in my explanation. What I am saying to the House is that at some point the House needs to come to terms with the roles, responsibilities and opportunities for independent members. Indeed, at any time any member may be recognized -- perhaps the member would take his seat -- by way of unanimous consent, as members on occasion have asked and in fact granted opportunities for members outside of question period to ask a question by unanimous consent in the House.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there is a certain sense of unfairness to you in this capacity as Speaker, because I think perhaps the House needs to know that the three House leaders have met in a meeting and discussed this issue and there was some agreement between the House leaders -- I'm sure those House leaders who are here will jump up and correct me if I'm wrong -- that there will be times when, according to the discretion of the Speaker, like in the House of Commons in Ottawa, an independent member can be allowed to ask a question.

That was agreed upon by the three House leaders. This is the first question, in all these many weeks, that has been attempted by an independent member, the first question to be recognized in this particular way.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Your first day.

Mr Drainville: I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, sir.

I'd like to say that the point at issue here is a very serious one because what is happening here, and what this House has to consider, is the reality that there are independent members in this House and that those independent members have said very straightly that they deserve to have the same rights as other members in this House. The government House leader and the other House leaders have met to discuss this. It has been put in front of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

I might add that the reality is that we as independent members, and certainly I as an independent member, have not been pushing this House. I have not been getting up and refusing unanimous consent to the honourable House leader, which I have every right to do and which I will do unless these changes are made, Mr Speaker. I would ask at least that there be some reasonable consideration of the rights of members in this House.

The Speaker: The member has made his point.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: The member made a comment that causes me some concern. Although I don't want to speak specifically to the incident in question, there is a basic question that I would like to ask. Mr Speaker, without trying to speak exactly what you said but to paraphrase, you stated that had someone arisen when the member stood up you would have ruled the member out of order and would have continued in a rotation.

The concern that I have is that it is my understanding that the role of the Speaker is to maintain order in the House. It causes me some concern to say that that order could only have been maintained if a member brings it to the attention of the Speaker. It would seem to me to be the Speaker's role to make that decision, without another member standing up and bringing it to your attention, that the speaker in question was not following the rules of the House and was in fact out of order. That was a decision for the Speaker to make and was not dependent on a member's standing and bringing it to the Speaker's attention.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I hadn't intended to rise on this point, but I find myself compelled to rise, to pick up on the point that the member for Victoria-Haliburton has raised around this point of order.

The three House leaders, as you are aware, sir, did meet with you and discussed this matter at some length about, I believe, six weeks ago. It was agreed that the Legislative Assembly committee should deal with the matter of non-aligned or, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton refers to them, independent members, in all respects, in terms of the House and in terms of committees and so on and so forth. The committee, as I understand it, is now doing that.

You, sir, put to us that if we had no objection, you would, in your discretion, consider both questions and statements, private members' statements, from the three non-aligned members. We responded, sir, that we had no objection to that so long as you ensured that no non-aligned member at any point got greater service through that process than the average member in this House.

Members, before they go dealing with points of order and questions to the Chair, should understand that and understand that fully, that the three House leaders in fact agreed, on an informal basis, to allow that to happen while the matter was being discussed in committee.

The Speaker: I trust that in part that may answer the question posed by the honourable member for Wilson Heights. I may say to him that in a sense he is absolutely right. The House has a very difficult task of coming to terms with a set of rules designed on the basis of parties. The rules do not recognize independent members. At the same time, members are here to represent their constituents.

I was attempting to test the House in a sense and I know that the committee is seized with this matter and will work on it diligently and, hopefully, an agreeable answer will be found. I appreciate the matter raised by the member for Wilson Heights.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a point of order under

section 98 of the standing orders. On June 16, I had placed before the House an order paper question of the Minister of Health. I received response number 223 on June 30. The order paper question which I placed was with respect to physician resources, planning, cost benefit analyses and other materials. What I received, however, in the response package was a package of the minister's itinerary and briefing notes for a trip to northern Ontario, to Timmins, Cochrane and other northern areas.

While there may not have been an intentional breach of the standing orders here and that material will certainly be useful to me, I am asking that the Minister of Health provide me with the appropriate response which was indicated in the index to the answer which I received.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It sounds like there was a mistake. I don't know if the member for Halton Centre was looking forward to joining the minister on the trip north or not, but perhaps that matter now has been addressed in the House and the Minister of Health will be able to respond.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in the Niagara Peninsula who are concerned about the Retail Business Holidays Act. It reads as follows:

"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 from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to this petition and have voted in the House against Sunday shopping.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition re the amendment to 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 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, 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."

There are 160 signatures from Orillia, Severn Bridge, Barrie, Midland, Hawkestone, Warminster, Waubashene, Oro township and Orillia township, and I have signed my name to it.

SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition signed by about 180 constituents who put in a lot of hard work over this nice weekend.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is in the interest of all people of Ontario and all of our future generations to preserve the beauty of the Scarborough Bluffs; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority commenced the construction of breakwall and roadway to stabilize the bluffs and create a waterfront trail; and

"Whereas erosion continues at an alarming rate in areas where the breakwall is incomplete thus threatening the safety of homes near the bluff edge; and

"Whereas some homes have already been expropriated due to erosion at great public cost;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Natural Resources to make the securing of the bluffs an immediate priority and to enable the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority to proceed with the necessary construction to complete the lakefront breakwall and roadway between Rogate Place and the Bellamy ravine."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"As patients, we are concerned about the proposed NDP government decrease in radiology technical fees for general radiology, ultrasound and nuclear medicine examinations. These cuts will have a severe impact on health care services. It will result in waiting lists, layoff of staff and limiting access to newer and continually improving diagnostic technologies. These services are necessary to ensure that Ontarians receive high-quality health care that is delivered effectively and efficiently."

The petition is signed by people from Bramalea, Toronto, Oshawa and Burlington. I have affixed my signature to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that's addressed to the 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 from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That's signed by a number of good people from the Collingwood area and throughout my riding of Simcoe West. I too have affixed my name to it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): On behalf of the member for Brantford, I have a petition to present.

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

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

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48 and in place of this bill the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services."

I affix my name to this.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across this province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

It's signed by 183 constituents of my riding, and I add my signature in support of the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the large-scale gambling activities invariably attract criminal activity; and

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

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

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

This is signed by 84 members of my constituency, to which I, too, affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On behalf of the member for Frontenac-Addington, I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday. It reads as follows:

"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 142 constituents, and in keeping with procedures of presenting petitions in this House, I affix my signature.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We oppose the provincial government's cancellation of GO bus route number 6565 (Newmarket, King, Maple, Yorkdale). To many of us, this is the only means of transportation. To the elderly, possibly the only means."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 109 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's with respect to an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and family time. 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."

I have signed this petition.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition on behalf of over 1,000 constituents from the riding of Scarborough Centre, as well as constituents from the riding of Downsview:

"We, the undersigned, support the Student Centre Child Care in their attempts to be exempted from the payment of property tax. The government's attempts to extract excessive taxes from non-profit child care centres is yet another example of the lack of governmental support of education in our province and we protest this most strongly.

"Should a child care centre face annual payments of property taxes, the continued success of the centre will be severely in jeopardy and the university students, staff and faculty who use the centre will face higher fees and possible closure of the centre."

I affix my signature in support.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition here from many people from Cobourg, Port Hope, Campbellford, Hastings and Warkworth. It's a petition to the members of the 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."

I have signed the petition.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): A great number of constituents from my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas psychiatric hospitals' expertise should be utilized as the nucleus to coordinate mental health services delivery; and

"Whereas it is unconscionable that the largest cuts in the mental health budget be extracted from the psychiatric hospitals; and

"Whereas 11,000 people in psychiatric facilities and in the community will suffer without adequate care,

"We, the undersigned, demand that the government not reduce the funding to provincial psychiatric hospitals."

HEALTH CARE

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

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and the social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

This is signed by about 121 residents of the Peterborough area.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have signed this petition, and it contains several thousand signatures.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

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

"Whereas currently in Ontario the maximum length of a tractor pulling two trailers," that being a double trailer combination or truck train, "is 23 metres, and the four western provinces, Quebec and the entire US interstate system have adopted a 25-metre overall length standard, posing a trade barrier to Ontarians; and

"Whereas adoption of a 25-metre overall tractor-trailer combination length would enhance highway safety by encouraging the increased utilization of the safest and most stable double trailer combinations; and

"Whereas the extension will also accommodate the use of 9.1- to 9.8-metre trailers and lead to a 10% increase in cubic capacity, with a resulting saving in transportation costs and a reduction in congestion as fewer power units would be required to remove the same amount of freight; and

"Whereas longer trucks consume less fuel on a tonne/mile basis than conventional units and also produce fewer pollutants; and

"Whereas an increase in the maximum semitrailer length from 14.68 metres," 48-foot trailers, "to 16.2 metres," 53-foot trailers, "would play a significant role in enhancing the competitiveness and the revitalization of the Ontario economy without compromising highway safety because the productivity gains that the 400 cubic feet of additional cargo space available through the use of these trailers will offer will contribute to significant transportation cost savings; and

"Whereas these more productive trailers, by requiring fewer trucks to haul the same amount of freight, will also contribute to reduced congestion and lower fuel emissions, and evidence from the jurisdiction where these 53-foot trailers are used suggests that they have an impeccable safety record; and

"Whereas longer truck lengths will stimulate productivity in the transportation sector, reduce transportation costs to Ontario manufacturers, retailers and shippers and enhance the overall competitiveness of the Ontario economy with estimated annual transportation cost savings to Ontario businesses being $100 million, which will help keep jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas an inefficient gap in the Canadian transportation system exists because Ontario has just joined the western provinces and Quebec in adopting longer equipment standards, and this significant interprovincial trade barrier should be dismantled;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass a bill to increase the overall tractor-trailer combination length from the current maximum of 23 metres to 25 metres, and to increase the maximum semitrailer length from 14.68 metres," 48-foot trailers, "to 16.2 metres," 53-foot trailers, "as recommended by the RTAC, Road and Transportation Association of Canada, study on uniform truck configuration."

This is signed by 38 people from the trucking industry, and I too attach my signature to it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

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

Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la

Loi sur les allocations de retraite des députés à l'Assemblée législative.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): This bill would amend the Legislative Assembly Act by eliminating severance allowances for members who resign unless there's a serious medical reason for the resignation. It would also amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act by providing that members who retire on or after the day on which the bill becomes law would not be entitled to be paid their pensions until the earlier of the day on which they reach the age of 55 or the day on which their age and years of service total 70.

If a member dies before attaining the age of 55 or before becoming eligible under the 70-year rule and leaves a surviving spouse, the spouse would not be entitled to be paid the retirement allowance until the day on which the member would have attained the age of 55 had he or she lived. However, if such a member leaves a surviving child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

The bill also suspends pensions while a person is receiving compensation for acting as a member or officer of any government agency, commission, board, committee, office or organization.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Orders of the day, Government House Leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Government notice of motion number 8.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that under standing order 46, 46(

c) in fact, this motion can be moved. But it seems to me that under the auspices of your chair, you should have the prerogative of undertaking an examination of whether or not this particular legislation has had any ample time whatsoever for debate.

I understand you are not in a position to anticipate whether this motion will pass, although, if we cast our eyes around the room and see how many government members there are and how many opposition members there are, it would seem to me that probably this motion will succeed late in the day, as is required.

However, Mr Speaker, that will mean we have had nowhere near the three days of second reading debate usually required as a minimum before a time allocation motion has been passed. We had but one day in committee of the whole and we had, as you understand very well, no time whatsoever in a standing committee to discuss this or to take public deputations.

I raise this because this seems to be, in my opinion anyway, an indication of an exceptional circumstance in which the role of the Speaker as the arbiter of matters which come to offend the rights of the minority -- must sit and make a decision in favour of that minority's right to carry on the debate on bills like Bill 48.

This really, as a result of all the time that has elapsed -- which is very little -- on Bill 48, means that there has been an exceptional move here to bring closure at a time when we have had far less than three full days of debate on this particular matter. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, just to turn your mind to the question of whether in fairness you can allow this particular motion to be moved.

Even though it stands within the ambit of all the words we find under 46(c), I do believe that the riders that talk about a minimum of three days' debate on second reading and the need for fairness for discussion of what is a very major public issue ought to be brought to your attention and you ought to intervene at this time to protect the rights of the minority.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I understand full well his point and understand the importance of the legislation. The member will know that under the standing rules, time allocation has been moved following second reading debate, and there is no provision in the orders that will assist the member for Bruce in accomplishing what he wishes to accomplish. I understand his concerns, but there isn't anything in the orders which would assist me in assisting the member for Bruce. The time allocation motion is in order and we should proceed.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On that point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the member for Bruce does have a valid point. If we would go back to when we negotiated these rule changes, I think you will find ample examples in Hansard. If there is a minimum of three days of debate on second reading, that was discussed. We also discussed putting time limits on how long a significant bill would be sent to committee, and I believe the time lines thrown around at that time were something like no less than two or three weeks of committee time on a bill of significance.

The then government House leader said no government in its right mind would dream of proceeding with a significant piece of legislation unless a bill went to committee during the break for at least two or three weeks. I guess we either have a retraction, a total reverse of position by the governing party, or we have a government that's out of its mind, in the words of the former NDP House leader of the day.

I would have thought the government at the very least would have sent Bill 48 out to committee for public hearings and input from the public. Seeing as how they're going to affect the wages of some almost one million public sector employees in the province of Ontario, I'd have thought they would have wanted to hear from those people at the very least, even if they didn't decide to change their legislation. I would have thought the bill would have been in committee where it could have received very proper clause-by-clause deliberation for a number of weeks when the House was not in session.

That not being the case, the bill now being in committee of the whole without ever having gone to committee to start with, I'd have thought the very least the government would have wanted to do was to let the time be spent on at least the 10 significant amendments it has itself and 10 our party has. Even at an hour an amendment, which I'm sure everybody would agree is not a great deal of time if you split it among three political parties in the chamber, that would be a minimum of 20 hours of debate, and I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Seeing how they've totally bypassed the three weeks the previous government House leader thought would be appropriate, seeing how they've totally bypassed public hearings, seeing how they've totally bypassed the committee stage, I'd have thought they might want to spend more than two or three days, in an afternoon of two and a half hours of length apiece, in committee of the whole if they were serious about entertaining any constructive amendments or suggestions to the legislation at all.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's interesting to listen to the comments from the two House leaders opposite this afternoon on Bill 48, and the tack they take in this debate. In a technical sense, the House leader of the official opposition is correct in terms of three sessional days. I remind you, though, that a normal sessional day amounts to two and a half hours of debating time, not eight and a half hours, and that Bill 48 on second reading was debated for the equivalent of about three weeks of House time on a normal basis.

I think we need to take that into account when we understand the comments that are coming from the other side, I think in terms of trying to leave the public with the impression that the debate on this piece of legislation has been very contracted. Three full weeks of debate on second reading under normal circumstances is what we went through on this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, I can recall being in this House, as you will, when we, from both of the parties opposite, had to return to this House on an emergency basis to legislate workers back to work, emergency legislation which was passed at first, second and third reading within a week without any public hearings, without any deputations, without any extensive time spent on clause-by-clause. Well, here under this circumstance we didn't even try to sell this legislation as an emergency of that nature, and we have spent now several weeks on this legislation.

But when it went past the right of members opposite to refer it out to committee, the members opposite declined to do so, not that this government forced it past that stage, as would be implied by the House leader for the third party. Our standing orders, as you well know, clearly set out a right on the part of either of the opposition parties to refer this legislation out to a standing committee for hearings for clause-by-clause and the rest of the appropriate processes.

The opposition parties declined to use those orders to accomplish that purpose because they understood the important nature of this legislation and because they understood the importance of getting legislation, which will impose certain penalties on people come August 1 without a negotiated settlement in some cases, passed and in place.

I just have to say to you, Mr Speaker, that this motion is in order. It's a motion that's been carefully considered, based on what happened both in my discussions last week with the opposition House leaders and in terms of what happened here in the House last Wednesday afternoon, the first afternoon of clause-by-clause, when we spent the entire afternoon on four sections of the bill around which nobody has proposed any amendments and we wasted that entire time when we could have been dealing with either amendments from the official opposition, if it had moved them, or the amendments which the third party has brought forward, or perhaps even our own amendments to the bill.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to make a couple of comments before you make your ruling.

Firstly, we in the opposition parties did not send this out to committee. It's the ultimate irony, I would say to you, when we assisted the government in some fashion by not sending this specific bill out for committee, that we would have this thrown back in our faces as some reason why we should not be debating this or asking questions to a greater degree at committee of the whole and in fact see a time allocation of third reading. That argument I think is unreasonable and unfair to us in the opposition, considering we were trying to assist the government in putting this bill through as quickly as possible.

Secondly, we can talk about single pieces of legislation being brought through this House on an emergency basis, and that argument is very fair, except those pieces of legislation order people back to work. We're dealing with very specific groups, very specific unions, with very specific job responsibilities. May I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, this Bill 48 deals with nearly a million people. It's not ordering anyone back to work; it's taking money out of their pockets and in fact not paying them the wages they have collectively agreed to.

To make the argument that this is similar to ordering people back to work in special emergency legislation again is a ridiculous argument, considering the scope and span of Bill 48, comparatively speaking, to ordering people back to work.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, I want to note this. I've read the standing orders, and your comments to the member for Bruce, the House leader for the Liberals, are in fact correct. You can't point to any specific standing order that could assist the member for Bruce's arguments. But contrarily, you can't point to a standing order that says, "No, you can't in good conscience, hearing from opposition members and their concerns surrounding a bill and the very limited amount of time this bill has had for open, public discussions, not rule in their favour."

May I say, Mr Speaker, if your argument is simply, "I can't find a standing order to assist you, nor can I find a standing order that says you're wrong," I think you're abrogating your responsibility as Speaker in assisting the minority people in this place to have proper airing of maybe one of the most important pieces of legislation this chamber has seen in this session and may well see over the five-year period.

Mr Speaker, I say this: Anyone who would suggest to you, and I speak directly about the government House leader, that Bill 48 is only worthy of three weeks of debate is, I think, not giving you fair information. Furthermore, the government House leader has the audacity in this place to suggest that there was a filibuster of some sort in committee of the whole and that nothing was being accomplished, when we all know full well, before an hour of committee of the whole, he had filed his motion for time allocation.

Again, the three arguments he makes to you to defend his position are the most ridiculous, inane arguments, considering the fact the motion's been filed not 50 minutes into the debate in committee of the whole.

Mr Speaker, it is not only incumbent, it is also important on your basis to rule in favour of the member for Bruce's position, simply because it is the most important piece of legislation we have dealt with and probably will deal with. If you, in good conscience, think three weeks, through the distorted time measurements of the House leader, are enough, then I think our privileges as members of the opposition parties have been seriously usurped, not only by the House leader but by the Chair too.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Parry Sound: Indeed, I understand his argument about putting in specific amounts of time with respect to when a time allocation motion can be moved, and that does take effect with respect to second reading, but the orders are silent on any other stage. That's not to say that the House shouldn't consider such limitations, but they are not in our standing orders.

To the government House leader: Indeed I recall not one but two instances to which he replies -- unhappy instances they were for all members, I'm quite sure.

Finally, to the member for Etobicoke West: I trust that he would not want the Speaker to rule something out of order which was in fact in order, and this motion is in order.

The government House leader moves time allocation. Does he have any opening comments?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think I should move the motion.

I move that notwithstanding any standing order or any special order of the House, in relation to Bill 48,

An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program, one further sessional day shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion.

Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on that sessional day. At 5:45 pm on such sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House 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 and report the bill to the House.

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.

That, upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker: Does the government House leader have any opening remarks?

Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, Mr Speaker, thank you, and just very briefly; I don't want to take a lot of the House's time this afternoon.

As I suggested a few moments ago to a point of order that was raised, we spent in debate on second reading on this bill the equivalent of some three weeks of normal House sitting time, and in the last week and a half the three House leaders have been through a number of discussions about how to proceed in committee of the whole with this bill and its amendments. The leader of the third party, for example, this afternoon in one of his questions to the Premier suggested that in fact we had tabled the time allocation motion before we had seen the whole of last Wednesday afternoon, and that is in fact correct.

What isn't correct in what was implied, though, is that there had been no discussion about how committee of the whole would be handled with the opposition House leaders prior to the tabling of that motion.

It was clear that the House leaders were and would be unable to reach an agreement, although as late as Wednesday evening of last week, when we had a special House leaders' meeting because we weren't going to be here on Thursday because of the Canada Day holiday, I put it again to both of the opposition House leaders that although the motion had been tabled, if we could reach an agreement -- an agreement that would have had two additional days for clause-by-clause and a day for third reading instead of one additional day for clause-byclause, one day to deal with this time allocation motion and a day for third reading, which is what we're going to end up with -- I said we could have two days on clause-by-clause in committee of the whole House if the opposition House leaders were prepared to reach an agreement to that effect.

The offers that I got from the other side were offers to debate each amendment for two hours or an hour and a half or an hour, which would have taken somewhere between 20 and 30 hours of House time, or the next month.

We all know, and what the member opposite from Scarborough West doesn't seem to understand, when I compare this legislation to other emergency legislation which has been imposed in the past, I compare it not in the sense of its specifics or necessarily its magnitude but of its urgency.

We have unions out there, some of which are negotiating, some of which are still reluctant to negotiate and some of which are informally having discussions with government negotiators privately, all of which, though, at the end of the day, because we have an August 1 deadline, have a right to know at the end of the day what the final rules are for this set of negotiations, or lack of negotiations but imposed fail-safe.

I think it's the responsibility of this government to ensure that this legislation is amended and passed as quickly as is possible, so that those parties to this legislation, those parties that will be impacted by this legislation, whether the employers or employees, will fully understand the context in which either a negotiation and a settlement will be reached or an imposition will be imposed. It's important that it happen fairly quickly, to leave the greatest amount of time possible for those negotiations to occur.

The House leader for the third party suggested we should have had public hearings on the legislation. The input we want to see and hear is at the bargaining table, not in an all-out effort to defeat this legislation in a legislative committee, but in an all-out effort to negotiate a package that's most appropriate in the sector and the set of circumstances that confront that sector, to deal with the reduction in costs, the expenditure pressures that the government is forced to seek here.

Mr Stockwell: Why don't you just extend the sitting hours? Could have it done in three days.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Have you got a point of order, the member for Etobicoke West? No.

Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? Are there none from the official opposition, none from the third party? Therefore, I will recognize the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to lead off this debate on this side of the House about the motion that has been put forward by the honourable government House leader.

I think it is important and it is certainly interesting to note that again the government is introducing time allocation. Last Wednesday, when we were debating in committee of the whole and dealing with the issue of Bill 48, what we saw was that within a very few minutes of beginning that process, the government again initiated time allocation.

People have a very important role here to ask some questions of the government, and I would say to all those who are listening to this debate and to those who are watching what the government is doing on this issue that they need to ask one very important question. That questions is: What is the government trying to do by introducing time allocation at this point?

It's very interesting that when I sat with the government not long ago, in fact a year ago, I remember all the discussions we had around the rules that were going to be brought in, and I remember asking a lot of questions because I was concerned about some of those rules that were brought in by the former House leader.

At that time I asked questions, and the questions that I asked were: How often is this time allocation going to be used by the government? If we're going to be curtailing the amount of time that members have in this House to make their points in debate