The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1991-92. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

IRVING CHAPLEY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Irving Chapley, North York's longest-serving city councillor, passed away Sunday, June 21, 1992, at the age of 68. He had suffered a heart attack last Thursday while attending a community hearing in his ward.

I knew Irving Chapley well and long before he was elected to North York council. When you consider he had served on that council for 17 years, it has been a long time indeed. Irving and I were both active in B'nai Brith before we entered the political arena. Irving's North York ward 7 overlaps my provincial Wilson Heights riding, and even though we had different political affiliations, we always cooperated during the many opportunities we had to interact over the years.

In all of the time I knew him, he impressed me with his commitment to his community. He was always available to offer his help and guidance to those who needed him. He served on or chaired many council committees and had a genuine interest in the broader community. His dedication and determination were most evident when one considers that notwithstanding a physically debilitating stroke he suffered a few years ago, he continued his duties as a councillor as well as campaigning successfully in two re-election campaigns.

He will be missed by his constituents, his colleagues, his family and his friends. I'm sure all members will join me in offering our condolences to his wife, Norma, their son, David, and daughter, Rosanne.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The letters "NDP" have taken on a new meaning for the people who live in York, Durham and Peel. The meaning they now have is No Dumps Please. Indeed, if there's anything we can do to see that this government doesn't succeed in having any of the 57 sites selected as landfill sites in York, Peel and Durham, then we will do it.

This government has selected 57 possible sites and it's wrong. They don't consider other options, such as Kirkland Lake, as viable rail-haul options. They're not considering incineration. They're not considering anything except what they have done through Bill 143.

Today I am introducing into the House a private member's bill which will revoke the powers of Bill 143 and remove them for ever and ever. If there's any chance we can get that bill to be considered by this House, then the people around the greater Toronto area will have at least some hope that justice will be done. As it stands from this government right now, there isn't any sense except betrayal. The people feel angry at what's been going on, that this government would come along and choose the most valuable property in Canada, choose land on the Rouge Valley system and the Oak Ridges moraine, choose land that's prime agricultural land and turn down an option such as Kirkland Lake, which is a viable opportunity.

We're angry and this government hasn't any sense of how angry we're going to get.

BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF CANADA

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I'd like to recognize one of the service clubs in my community, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of Canada. Two weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the 10th anniversary of the Elks in the Kitchener-Waterloo region. This group has been noted for raising the most money per capita per charity in six out of the past 10 years and is to be congratulated.

As a service club, Elkdom has made substantial contributions to many national and community welfare projects. The national welfare project of the order is the Elks purple cross fund, which provides assistance to needy children in Canada. Its community welfare activities are constant and generous in many diversified activities.

Also during the day I had the pleasure of attending the installation of officers of the Kitchener-Waterloo region Elks Lodge 578 and the Waterloo-Halton region Royal Purple Lodge 356. I would now like to recognize from the Elks the new exalted ruler, John Lockner, and the immediate past exalted ruler, Tom McMillan; from the Royal Purple the new honoured royal lady, Carol Hunter, and the immediate past honoured royal lady, Marianne McMillan.

At that time they presented me with this book, called the History of the Elks in Canada. They've asked me if I would personally donate this to the library so that all members of the Legislature can check it out and find out what good things provided by the Elks are going on in their communities.

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was pleased to see that the Minister of Natural Resources has heeded calls from groups expressing their concern and opposition to certain recommendations put forward by the Tree Bylaws Advisory Committee and has extended the public consultation period to September 30.

Announced on May 4 of this year, the ministry had hoped to close off public consultations on June 19. However, the recommendations which propose to extend to all municipalities in the province greater powers to control tree cutting on private lands within their jurisdiction have proven to be more controversial than the Ministry of Natural Resources had bargained for.

The Tree Bylaws Advisory Committee was set up under the previous government to address concerns about the destruction of private woodlands during the economic boom of the late 1980s. The recommendations have wide-ranging implications for communities in rural and northern Ontario which are dependent on the resource sector of the economy.

For example, extending the Trees Act to include the unorganized municipalities is of great concern, as it extends the control of the MNR over private lands within these municipalities. This extension of power to the ministry fundamentally changes the arrangements under which many of the resource industries currently operate. Given this, public opinion must be taken into account before such a move is implemented.

The principles which lie behind the recommendations of the committee are worthy of support. However, I would impress upon the Minister of Natural Resources that any changes to the Trees Act must be done in a fair and equitable manner, taking into account the different needs and concerns of the communities throughout the province.

1340

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am pleased to tell the House that today officials from Astra Pharma Inc, an international pharmaceutical manufacturer located in my riding of Mississauga South, joined researchers from the faculty of health sciences at McMaster University to announce a new research collaboration.

The Astra-McMaster alliance, under which Astra will invest $3 million over three years, is a pre-clinical research partnership which is expected to produce new insights into chronic inflammatory diseases such as asthma and Crohn's disease. About 1.2 million or 5% of Canadians suffer from asthma, while as many as 200,000 have inflammatory bowel diseases.

Astra's large financial commitment reflects McMaster University's international record of excellence. McMaster was recently ranked first in Canada in both clinical and immunology research by the Institute for Scientific Information. The partnership with Astra will improve McMaster's research capability in the important areas of immunology, respirology and gastroenterology.

I am happy to congratulate both Astra and McMaster on achieving a partnership which will allow them to pursue longer-term research objectives than are usually the case in contracts between universities and pharmaceutical companies. I hope their European-style research partnership will be a catalyst for similar industry-research collaborations in Ontario.

PETERBOROUGH SUMMER FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I rise today to invite all members of this House to attend the 1992 Peterborough Summer Festival of Lights, which opened Wednesday and continues through to August 15.

For the past six summers the Festival of Lights committee has worked hard to put together a series of outstanding free evening concerts and performances at Crary Park in Peterborough. This year is no exception. Local residents and visitors to Peterborough can enjoy their summer evenings while listening to the music of Ada Lee, a local big band singer, the Good Brothers, Ronnie Hawkins, the Canadian Aces, the Barra MacNeils, Bruce Cockburn and many more. There will be plays by local playwrights.

This year's lineup will also highlight music and events with a distinctive international flair: an Italian celebration day, the Dutch National Youth Fanfare Orchestra, and calypso music with Pan Man Pat. As in previous years, there is also a light show and fireworks display that follows each performance.

Festival chair Fred Anderson, his organizing committee and the many participating sponsors deserve our thanks for their hard work and community spirit.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): There is a firestorm of protest sweeping York region. Simply put, people are saying no to the megadump.

On Sunday, the Newmarket Era Banner ran a front-page editorial entitled "The Province Has Gone Too Far." This is what the editorial said:

"It's the height of government arrogance and deceit, a disturbing example of how an elected government can fail its people.

"It's the dump -- and it's likely to become a curse in the lives of York region residents.

"Residents are not going to accept IWA's (Interim Waste Authority) long list of proposed landfill sites. And they're not going to sit back and let the government play its cards.

"In fact, there's an all-out revolt about to take place -- the people against the government."

But the editorial notes clearly that people aren't taking this lying down:

"If there's a positive thread in all this, it's the fact the region is uniting. That hasn't been the case in the past, when each of the communities have often acted alone with little regard for the needs of their neighbours.

"But the dump will change all that.

"Residents and politicians from across York are presenting a consolidated front to oppose the IWA's plans."

Mr Speaker, I've never seen the anger and frustration that I have at all the meetings being held across the region. The Minister of the Environment and this government have got to put a halt to their plans to impose a megadump on York region. There are other options. As the Era Banner concluded, "Environment minister Ruth Grier, you've gone too far!"

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The Minister of Education persists in insisting that Ontario's school boards must destream grade 9 classes by September 1993. But in his haste to put an NDP stamp on our secondary school system, the minister is embarking on a path which is fraught with hazard and uncertainty.

The Wellington County Board of Education, its trustees and administration, parents, and District 39 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation have shared with me their grave concerns about the reckless manner in which the Minister of Education is attempting to enforce his unrealistic destreaming edict.

First, it remains unclear whether destreaming is or is not in the best interests of our students. Pilot projects have been undertaken and evaluations have been done, but the minister refuses to publicly disclose the findings of his evaluations.

Second, in a cruel betrayal by a party which made "consultation" a byword in an election campaign, the government has closed the door on parents, students and teachers who will be directly affected by any changes in grade 9 curriculum.

Third, there are legitimate questions about the financing of this program. In Wellington county it's been estimated that destreaming alone will cost $250,000 and no doubt the beleaguered local taxpayer will be footing the bill.

The Minister of Education should announce today that he is going to rethink his policy in order to make certain that the best interests of the students, not the best interests of the government, are going to be primary. He should immediately release the findings of the evaluations of all destreaming pilot projects to allow a basis for further discussion in the education community. He should announce that he will no longer continue the Liberal government policy of downloading expensive new programs of questionable merit on school boards. Finally, the minister must ensure that he doesn't create a common standard of mediocrity for all our grade 9 students.

JUMELAGE DE WHITBY-LONGUEUIL

M. White (Durham Centre): En 1967, plusieurs groupes religieux et communautaires de Whitby ont pagayé en canoé jusqu'à Montréal pour l'Expo 67. Ce groupe avait été accueilli par le maire de Longueuil. Selon sa suggestion, les deux municipalités ont passé des accords et sont devenues officiellement jumelées.

Dès 1969, les célébrations de ce jumelage ont eu lieu annuellement. Ces deux villes se joignent pour apprendre et partager ce qu'elles ont en commun. La ville de Whitby a beaucoup profité de cette expérience. Par exemple, le drapeau de Whitby provient de ce jumelage.

Cette fin de semaine, Longueuil recevra les représentants de Whitby pour la 24e célébration de son jumelage.

Monsieur le Président, j'espère que notre Assemblée en prendra connaissance et applaudira l'initiative que ces deux villes ont assumée. Je sais que cette rencontre recevra l'appui de toute l'Assemblée.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Strategic infrastructure investment is about anticipating the changing needs of the economy, developing new ways of doing things and opening up opportunities that never existed before.

In this year's budget we announced a new fund which will develop and broaden Ontario's strategic infrastructure while supporting jobs and long-term economic growth. Jobs Ontario Capital is a five-year, $2.3-billion infrastructure investment program which will support economic restructuring, promote community and social progress, and preserve the environment.

Today I am pleased to announce to the people of Ontario that we are now taking the first concrete steps to meet our goals for this fund.

In the coming days and weeks this government will be announcing $360 million in projects -- projects that we will put into place as quickly as possible in order to give a much-needed boost to the economy.

Together with other Jobs Ontario initiatives -- the training fund, Jobs Ontario Youth and the homes fund -- Jobs Ontario Capital will help Ontarians get back to work now, and by investing strategically in our infrastructure the projects under Jobs Ontario Capital will support Ontario's transition to a more productive, knowledge-based economy.

This fiscal year alone $500 million in funding under Jobs Ontario Capital will result in nearly 10,000 direct and indirect jobs for Ontarians.

In the 1990s, with the massive restructuring taking place in our economy, Ontario has an opportunity. We have an opportunity to lead the way by investing in infrastructure projects that will support a new economy. But it requires re-evaluating what our economy needs, taking a second look at how our physical infrastructure works for us and how it can work for us in the future. It also means ensuring there is adequate funding to support new forms of investment.

With Jobs Ontario Capital we are seizing that opportunity.

Starting today with the Minister of the Environment, and over the next few weeks, my colleagues will be announcing Jobs Ontario Capital projects that will help preserve our environment, improve energy efficiency in our public buildings and institutions, increase the number of not-for-profit child care spaces, and expand and improve facilities for science and technology and skills training.

These and other projects to be announced will provide much-needed investment and will create more jobs.

1350

An important element of our approach is achieving cooperation across levels of government. We have established partnerships with the federal government, municipal governments and community groups, and I am pleased to say they will be contributing funding on several of these projects. In addition, we will be consulting with both public and private sector partners to identify and assess opportunities that will have a major and long-term impact.

Our investment in strategic infrastructure, along with our base capital spending, means Ontario's capital investment for this fiscal year will be the highest ever in the province's history. Along with Jobs Ontario Capital, we will invest $3.4 billion this year to maintain, upgrade and expand our existing educational and medical facilities and improve our roads, highways and transit systems.

The Jobs Ontario Capital fund will help us refocus some of our public investment in infrastructure projects that are critical to an innovative economy, which in turn is critical to ensuring more and better jobs for the people of this province.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): It gives me great pleasure today to announce a significant new investment by the Ministry of the Environment in the environmental and economic wellbeing of this province.

With new resources from the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, we are providing a total of $25 million this fiscal year to more than 80 environmental projects across Ontario. This is the first instalment of a three-year, $60-million investment in our future. With additional investment expected from communities and other government agencies, the program will encourage the immediate development of environmental facilities worth more than $110 million.

These are fast-track projects which will start almost immediately in communities large and small throughout Ontario. These projects will provide direct benefits in four ways: They will create more than 1,400 person-years of direct employment over the next three years, improve environmental quality, provide services essential to public health and environmental protection, and strengthen community infrastructure and provide a better environment for economic recovery and growth.

There will be even more indirect employment generated by this new economic activity in the communities and the strengthened economic environment. Our experience has been that one new job created in direct environmental improvement can create opportunities for two more indirect jobs.

To provide an immediate increase in employment, we have specified that construction must start on all of these works by October 1992.

We are investing Jobs Ontario Capital funds in four areas:

More than $18 million this year for special municipal infrastructure projects worth $73 million: These will improve water and sewage services in more than 30 municipalities and create more than 900 person-years direct employment over three years. They range in scope from the construction of full communal water and sewage service systems to the installation of zebra mussel control facilities to protect water intakes.

Close to $3.5 million this year for Great Lakes improvement works worth $26 million: These projects will help meet our commitment to Great Lakes water quality, clean up local beach contamination and involve more than 300 direct jobs. Some of them provide an immediate start on cleanup measures recommended in a number of community-based remedial action plans addressing areas of concern identified by the International Joint Commission.

Two million dollars this year and $3.5 million in the next two years will replace contaminated drinking water supplies in two communities. This will result in construction of facilities worth $9 million that will ensure safe, clean water for the communities of Angus and Manotick where toxic chemicals have infiltrated local wells. More than 100 person-years will be created in direct employment.

Finally, $700,000 this year will start work on an $8-million beaches improvement project in Smiths Falls. This will upgrade sewage treatment, reduce toxic and bacterial discharges from the plant and open Rideau River beaches, as well as providing more than 100 person-years in jobs.

In all of these projects, the Ministry of the Environment is investing Jobs Ontario Capital funds in Ontario communities to provide immediate employment as well as long-term environmental and economic benefits. We are helping these communities create new jobs in a better and healthier environment, an environment that will sustain a stronger, healthier economy.

SKILLS TRAINING FUNDING / FINANCEMENT DE LA FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): Last year I signed the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement. The agreement clarifies the roles and responsibilities of Ontario and Canada across a broad range of training, retraining and adjustment issues. It is an important step for economic renewal.

It commits the federal government to recognize our province's share of the national labour force. It also commits Ottawa to recognize the number of Ontario's employed and unemployed workers in determining the level of labour force funding to the province from the federal government.

The federal government is not living up to these commitments. The federal government's actual spending on training in Ontario in 1991-92 fell short by almost $100 million of the commitment in the agreement. As a result, more than 16,000 Ontarians lost the opportunity to benefit from federally sponsored training in the last fiscal year.

Les dépenses réelles du gouvernement fédéral dans le domaine de la formation en Ontario en 1991-92 ont manqué dans l'ordre de 100 millions de dollars par rapport à l'engagement décrit dans l'entente. Par conséquent, plus de 16 000 personnes en Ontario on perdu la possibilité de tirer parti des programmes de formation financés par le gouvernement fédéral au cours de l'exercice qui vient de prendre fin.

In 1992-93, that is, the current year, the federal allocation is $115 million short and this will rob another 18,000 people of the opportunity to train.

The potential of the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement must not be sacrificed by shortsighted funding decisions by the federal government.

Le potentiel de l'entente Canada-Ontario sur la mise en valeur de la main-d'oeuvre ne doit pas subir le contrecoup des décisions financières irréfléchies de la part du gouvernement fédéral.

These funding cuts are not directed at the Ontario government. They are directed at people: single mothers, older workers, young people, high school dropouts, native people, racial minorities, new Canadians and people with disabilities who should be getting training. They are directed at organizations that work hard to create training programs to match specific local skills needs. They are directed at Ontario's workers: blue-collar and white-collar, skilled and unskilled, self-employed and unionized, professionals and tradespeople. These people have carried the burden of seven out of every 10 jobs lost in Canada since 1990.

In May there were 581,000 unemployed Ontarians, and many could have benefited from training and would be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits while taking approved training courses. In many instances, these courses are funded by the province or paid for by the individual. However, because of the lack of adequate funding for income support by the federal government, thousands of Ontarians lost these training opportunities.

The federal government has also failed to live up to other provisions of this agreement. This will limit training opportunities for people who are not eligible for UI benefits. Full details are contained in a news release issued by my ministry today.

My ministry has been trying very hard to resolve this issue since April. It was raised last month at a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers with responsibilities for labour market matters which our province hosted. Recently I wrote Mr Valcourt to register my concerns in the strongest terms personally. There can be no misunderstanding by the federal government of Ontario's position.

Earlier this month Mr Valcourt admitted publicly that people are being turned away from training opportunities funded through the unemployment insurance program because federal money has run out. Since then the national allocation for training has been increased upward, but unfortunately Ontario's share will still not meet the critical needs of thousands of Ontarians, as calculated by our share of the labour market.

1400

The effectiveness of this agreement, like any other, depends upon the commitment of both parties to work together to achieve shared objectives. The Ontario government met its financial commitment under the agreement last year. This year we've allocated $930 million to training, a 24% increase over last year's funding level.

I am urging the government of Canada in the strongest of terms to restore funding for training programs in Ontario to the levels promised. The federal government's failure to do so will not only stall recovery and weaken Canada's competitiveness but also bring hardship to the lives of thousands of Ontario workers.

Monsieur le Président, j'encourage le gouvernement du Canada le plus vivement possible à rétablir aux programmes fédéraux de formation en Ontario les niveaux de financement promis.

Un refus fédéral à cet égard, aura pour effet non seulement de ralentir la reprise économique en Ontario et d'affaiblir la compétitivité du Canada, mais aussi de soumettre des milliers de travailleurs et travailleuses ontariens à de dures épreuves.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the Treasurer's comment, although I would add parenthetically, because of the last statement, that it's odd that you would be so mad at the federal government yet I think in one week provincial personal income tax will be going up at a rate three times the rate that the federal government cut on the working poor. I would say to you that I would be somewhat embarrassed about that, Premier.

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On the jobs announcement by the Treasurer, I would say, Treasurer, that I would hope that you would explain to the people of the province several things in this announcement.

One is that you say this is the highest level of spending in the history of the province. That is only the case because you cut $400 million out of last year's capital budget to get down below this year's budget. The Premier shakes his head no, but that is a fact. That is a fact, and I'm just saying that you must come clean with the people of Ontario.

The second thing, Treasurer, is that in the budget, as I've said many times, there are fewer jobs in this budget than last year's budget. There are three job programs in here and there is less money spent this year than last year in those three job creation programs. I'm not saying, "Spend, spend, spend"; I'm saying, "Be straight with the people of the province." If you're spending less money this year than last year, tell them that.

I would say, Treasurer, that right now I think the construction people in this province had looked to the anti-recession program to help them. You cut $400 million out of it. There are 33,000 fewer people working in construction in May of this year than there were in May of last year.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You blame us for that?

Mr Phillips: I'm saying to you, Treasurer, that you took $400 million out of the capital program. All I'm saying is, tell the people of the province what is actually happening in this budget.

We see, Mr Treasurer, the unemployment rate running at, as you know, 10.9%. I will say to you, Treasurer, that the thing that will create jobs is a partnership among the players: government, labour and the management and the businesses of this province. There's no question of a doubt that over the next few months, instead of those partners working together we are going to have a battle. There's no question of that, and we're not going to see the job creation that all of us want to see.

I would say to you, Treasurer, that if you look at this announcement, the reason there's more money this year than last year is because you cut $400 million out. There is less money being spent on those three programs in this year's budget than there was last year. I am not saying, "Spend more"; I'm just saying, "Come clean with the people of Ontario so they know what is going to happen in terms of job creation."

SKILLS TRAINING FUNDING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'll respond to the statement by the Minister of Skills Development, a statement of finger pointing. The minister has stood in his place and has said what a rotten job the federal Tories are doing, but it is clear that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. All of the training initiatives by that government are focused on people on social assistance when clearly people should be able to access training before going on welfare to qualify.

I've received a letter of help from people who are without a job, and they are asking why the Transitions retraining program currently takes 12 to 16 weeks for a simple two-page application before the unemployed can begin a retraining program. They're asking why on one hand that government preaches the benefits of worker retraining but in reality it has created a situation where people lose homes and face financial ruin.

We know that your much-ballyhooed wage protection plan is now mired in backlog and indecision. You and your colleague the Minister of Labour have known for months about these programs and yet you have chosen to do nothing. You stand here today and you wave and finger-point at the federal Tories, but let me tell you that the stone you have thrown has ricocheted and has fallen squarely back on your glass house of indecision and mismanagement.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to respond, in the few seconds that are left, to the statement made by the Minister of the Environment. She says in her opening line that it gives her great pleasure to announce a significant new investment. The only thing that's new in the announcement is probably the level of cynicism the minister raises by calling it "new investment." Quite frankly, it borders on the fraudulent for her to stand here and say that this is new investment.

There's not one new nickel in terms of environmental capital projects in this announcement today. In fact, there's less money being spent this year on the types of projects she has announced than has ever been spent before. Former governments have done this as a matter of course and as a matter of routine; they have not tried to dress it up in some fashion as she has done here. Projects such as the replacement of drinking water facilities have often been done through the environmental securities fund and through other capital projects.

The fact of the matter is that this minister has seen her budget reduced in terms of capital projects. No matter how she packages it, this is not new money, and to call it that is the height of error.

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm going to be very brief in my remarks to the Treasurer's announcement because that's all it deserves. We had hoped that the Treasurer would come back from his overseas jaunt to announce to the Legislature that he was attracting new investment to Ontario. We are very disappointed that he has no announcement of new investment for Ontario in spite of his efforts.

We seem to be treated to two kinds of statements by this government: those that don't mean anything and are made in this Legislature, and those that do mean something and are made either outside this Legislature or in fact are never made. Unfortunately the Treasurer's comments today, in regurgitating some of the remarks he has already made, fit into the former and not the latter.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The Minister of the Environment has not announced anything new. What we're seeing today is the old water and sewer grants packaged in an attractive way to make us think that the Minister of the Environment is doing something special.

There are three major failures this minister has not yet addressed since she has been minister.

We have the Ontario water secretariat. There's a corporation still on hold that's going to do something about the water in this province. Nothing has happened on that yet. We keep waiting. I look for an announcement on that one.

This government has no position on the International Joint Commission regarding the Great Lakes. We keep on doing something for it, but I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, that all we need is a big storm and the people in Toronto won't be able to go swimming again. The International Joint Commission needs this government to make a commitment and it has not done it.

Before this government was elected it was going to do something with the safe drinking water act, and much to the regret of all of us, its Agenda for People has not been fulfilled on that one.

Though they touch on each of these elements with this announcement, they have not yet grasped the whole picture and begun to do something with it. So for the Honourable Ruth Grier to stand with great pride in this House as if she's doing something wonderful -- she hasn't begun to spend the money from the tire tax. There is well over $150 million in there, if my numbers are correct -- they're probably not; it's probably more than that -- and you're only spending about $25 million here and making an awful lot of noise about it.

There is much for this government to do. You've taken money away from us. You've taken it out of our taxes, you've taken it out with the tire tax and now you're doling it out a penny at a time. You're not beginning to touch on the needs of this province when it comes to the environment. So Madam Grier, Mr Rae and your government, please take seriously the environment and the promises you made before you were elected, because as it stands now, what we have here is nothing that is really worth making a big announcement about.

1410

SKILLS TRAINING FUNDING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have to say I'm totally bewildered by the announcement by the minister in the House today. When we were together some eight months ago we were told that the federal government would set aside some $846 million for training. We were thrilled about that. Last year there were some $463 million put forth, which showed an increase of some $383.1 million. This year, given the minister's numbers today, we're told that last year they had spent $748.3 million, and over the year before that's an increase of $285 million. And we're complaining? That's a tremendous commitment to training in this province: $285 million in new money. Yes, it is a shortfall of $100 million, but it's almost $300 million more than the year before.

What I think we need in this House is a lot of fairness, and I'm embarrassed by this statement today. What we should be talking about is the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, how well we're doing in setting up a training system for the province of Ontario, how well we ought to be working to get our business, education and labour partners working together, and the positive things we can do in Ontario for our young people.

We're talking today about not working for single mothers. The single mothers are out of jobs. They won't even be allowed to cross picket lines to go to work with the new legislation that's coming down. They won't be allowed to go to work.

The Ontario government has said, the Premier said -- Mr Premier, I hope you're listening -- that training should be the responsibility of the provinces. We're going to need a lot of help in Ontario because the only program we have right now that we're totally responsible for is Transitions. Does anybody here know about Transitions? Forty-five years of age and over. I'm embarrassed to stand here, Mr Speaker, but I've been involved in that program for four years and I have to tell you, the waiting list is so long we're not beginning to meet the needs of Ontario workers with the only Ontario program. Good luck to Ontarians. They have to do it by themselves.

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just note, for the benefit of other members in the House, that I've provided you with a copy of the submissions I intend to make and I have here copies of the submissions for the Clerk, the government House leader and the government chief whip. If I could just get a page to deliver these, then I'll proceed with my submission.

Mr Speaker, the gist of this submission is that, pursuant to standing order 27(g), you as Speaker are required to defer the taking of the vote to -- and I'm quoting now from the standing orders -- "not later than 6 pm on the next sessional day," where the House is considering, as it is right now, a government motion to extend the hours of meeting of the House during the last eight sessional days in June or December.

First of all, I want to point out that standing order 6(b)(i) permits a minister of the crown, with notice, to propose that the hours of the meeting of the House be extended during any or all of the last eight sessional days in June or December or both. Standing order 6(b)(i) reads as follows: "During the last eight sessional days in June and December, a motion to extend the hours of meeting during the remaining days in each period provided for in clause (a) may be proposed, with notice, by a minister of the crown." I simply point out that that notice has been given. The motion is on the order paper and indeed it has been debated for almost two hours in this House.

Second, the standing orders point out that no such motion can require the House to meet beyond 12 midnight on any particular sessional day.

Third, the debate on a motion to extend the hours of meeting is limited to two hours under standing order 6(b)(iii), which reads as follows: "Not more than two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on such a motion, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to 15 minutes." I underscore the call there for division bells of 15 minutes.

Fourth, standing order 27(g) requires the Speaker to defer the taking of a vote when requested to do so by any chief whip during the ringing of divisional bells, except where a deferred vote is prohibited under standing order 27(h).

Standing order 27(g) reads as follows: "During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (f), the vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House. The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to a specified time, but not later than 6 pm on the next sessional day, at which time the bells shall be rung for not more than five minutes." In the copy I've provided you with, sir, I have emphasized the opening phrase, which is, "During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (f)."

I submit to you, sir, that the reference to clause (f), which simply provides for 30-minute bells unless the standing orders provide for some other length of time, does not restrict or qualify the right to defer a vote under section 27(g). I'll quote standing order 27(f), which reads as follows: "Except as otherwise provided in the standing orders the division bells shall be limited to 30 minutes." In other words, 27(f) simply says that the bells, on any division, shall ring for 30 minutes unless somewhere else in the standing orders there is another time specified, but it does not qualify or in any way restrict the question of deferral.

Sixth, I would submit to you, sir, that the only restriction on the right to defer a vote -- again, the issue here for your decision is the right to defer a vote -- is set out in standing order 27(h), and that reads as follows: "Divisions requested on motions to adjourn the House or the debate, that the Chair of a committee of the whole House report progress and ask leave to meet again or leave the chair, and for closure shall not be deferred." In other words, there are specific instances where, even if a chief whip asks that the vote be deferred to the next sessional day, you as Speaker are required to refuse that request.

It's my submission to you that this section of the standing orders is comprehensive, that is, that it lists all of those situations where deferrals are not permitted, and that by implication every other case where a deferral is requested must be acceded to by you, sir.

Seventh, I submit to you, sir, that while the primary purpose of the right to defer a vote under standing order 27(g) may have been to assist the government in avoiding the loss of a vote on a substantive motion or bill for want of enough members present to carry the government motion or bill, the standing orders permit any chief whip to require that a vote be deferred except where prohibited under standing order 27(h). I reiterate that when these standing orders were written, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the purpose of the order, the intention, was to ensure that the government members could get enough members in the House by way of deferral to a next day to ensure that the government's position on the bill or motion be carried.

Eighth, the standing orders, I suggest to you, are clear as to which votes may be deferred. In other words, the standing orders set out comprehensively whether or not a vote can be deferred. Standing order 1(a) requires that you as Speaker conduct the proceedings of this assembly in accordance with the standing orders. That standing order says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders," including of course those standing orders under section 27 which deal with deferral.

Now, the category of votes which may not be deferred, as itemized in standing order 27(h), are exclusively dilatory motions. For the benefit of those who might not understand that phrase, a dilatory motion is one that simply deals with things like the adjournment of the House or the adjournment of the debate. In contrast, sir, I would submit to you that a motion to extend the hours of the House is not a dilatory motion but a substantive one dealt with specifically and comprehensively in the standing orders.

I would submit to you in conclusion, sir, that a request to defer a vote to extend the hours of the House under standing order 6(b)(i) ought not to be included, by inference or by implication or by reference to historically what has been done, in the categories of vote that may not be deferred. I think the standing orders are clear on that matter.

1420

Finally, I submit to you that you are now required to accede to a request by a chief whip to defer a motion under standing order 6(b)(i). This is obviously relevant because the motion to extend the hours is now before us, and in fact there are only but a few seconds left on that debate. I would submit to you that this is not a question of potential, it is not a hypothetical situation. The matter is on the order paper today. We presume it's going to be called and there would be no opportunity to raise this point of order with you after you have called for the vote because, as the standing orders say, it is not permitted to enter into the debate after the bells have rung, nor before the taking of the vote once the members have gathered in the chamber.

The other thing I want to point out to you, sir, is that I think it's important that you reflect on this matter. I know you've had an opportunity to consult with the Clerk since I gave you my submissions earlier on in the day during members' statements. Nevertheless, I think this is an extremely important point. The debate on this issue and on the question of extension of hours has been fractious at times. This issue is central to what is going to be happening this afternoon.

So rather than simply rule on this matter, I think it would be appropriate, first of all, to hear from the other House leaders, should they care to comment on it, or our own House leader, should he care to comment on it, and then reflect on the submissions that have been made, perhaps look at some of the precedents in our parliamentary tradition. I believe strongly, sir, that having done that, you will find that the only alternative you have in the face of a request to defer the vote until tomorrow will be to accede to that request.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Thank you to the member for York Centre. Are there any other contributions to this point of order?

I must first commend the member for York Centre for, first of all, notifying the Speaker in advance and providing his documentation in writing. Indeed, he has an interesting argument with respect to a deferred vote.

I must tell him, however, that it is very awkward for a Speaker to deal with hypothetical situations. If, as the proceedings unfold this afternoon, we do in fact reach a point where there will be a call for a vote, then of course at that moment it would be appropriate for the Speaker to indicate what the ruling should be with respect to the matter the member has raised.

But I reiterate that I appreciate the approach the member has taken. It's entirely consistent with the appropriate approach to be taken with serious matters like these.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On this point of order, Mr Speaker: While I appreciate your comments in terms of talking about hypotheticals, as you know, I have the floor for a short time for the remaining part of this debate. I would assume that if no objection is made, at that point the question will be put to the House. The bells will start to ring, an approach will be made perhaps by one of the whips of one of the parties asking for a deferred vote. While the bells are ringing, it's going to be impossible for a member to raise a point of order. Could you clarify when the point of order could be put again?

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, indeed I appreciate the concern he raises. I can assure him that prior to there being a call for a vote, the House will be informed as to whether or not the member for York Centre's request for a deferment will be in order. I know, however, that while the scenario outlined by the member for Carleton may in fact take place, that same scenario has been put to this House on a number of other occasions, and it has not happened.

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

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, just before we get there, technically what you're asking us to do, therefore, is file our request for a deferral during the ringing of the bells this afternoon. At that point, are you also asking that we be allowed, prior to the vote being put, to actually make our case to you? We have to understand that.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Bruce misunderstood what I was saying. Prior to any bell-ringing, there will be a ruling from the Chair. You will know in advance before the bells ring.

Mr Elston: But, Mr Speaker, on that point, we should be able to put the case. You basically said that the point of order is not yet in order because it is hypothetical. I only wish you to advise that we have an opportunity, once the point of order is in order, for each of the parties to speak to it. At that time, it seems to me, you must hear us in helping you come to a conclusion, bearing in mind that you have already ruled that the member from my party has not got a point of order at this point.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: The member for York Centre has brought a proposal before me. He is asking for a ruling. I have not given him a ruling. I have indicated to the House that I will deliver a ruling prior to the vote being called so that the House is entirely clear as to whether or not the member's request is in order.

Mr Elston: But only if there is a filing.

The Speaker: I'm not sure how else I can explain this, except to say that the member has presented an argument, and I will consider the argument and the House will be informed prior to the possibility of the debate being terminated, when the member for Carleton has the floor, and a bell being rung. There is sufficient time to make that happen between now and the end of routine proceedings.

It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

SPEAKER'S STAFF

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On Thursday after the House was adjourned I informed my constituency office of what had happened in the House in case some constituents had been calling me. I informed my constituency office that the New Democratic Party was unable to have 20 of its 74 members here in order to maintain a quorum, which I have always viewed as the government's responsibility. My constituency office passed that information along to various callers.

In the afternoon I got a call from one Paul Dewar, the constituency assistant for the member for Ottawa Centre, the Minister of Housing. Mr Dewar asked my staff why they were lying to the public about what had happened in the Legislature that morning. He also conveyed to my staff that he had spoken to your office, Mr Speaker, and was told that I and my staff were lying to the public.

I do not believe that this is the purpose of the constituency office or the budget we are given as members to help our constituents with problems and with dealing with the government of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly. I do believe that other members' privileges are being abrogated or injured by the fact that this one constituency office assistant believes that his job is that of a politician and the interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. I do not believe that any constituency office assistant should tell another member's staff that they are lying or they are not lying --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Carleton: I appreciate his concern. Unfortunately, it is something which occurred outside of the chamber, outside of the Speaker's jurisdiction. Certainly it is a matter which is of concern to him. He may wish to raise it with the individual involved or that particular person's office, the member with whom that person's employed. But it is not something in which the Speaker can be of any assistance to you, and that I regret.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Sterling: But, Mr Speaker, on this same point of privilege, this constituency office assistant indicated that your staff was telling him that I was lying. That's what your staff is alleged to have done.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the member for Ottawa Centre. If indeed it's an allegation against the Speaker's staff, of course I take that very seriously. I'm more than pleased to investigate. I would appreciate it if the member for Carleton would forward to me all of the details which he has in his possession. I can assure you that of course at no time would I be sending a message to anyone's constituency office with respect to the routines of the House, unless of course it was a request by a particular member for information.

The Leader of the Opposition with her first question.

1430

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a very brief point of order, Mr Speaker, before proceeding to my question: Recognizing that the Speaker has just offered important clarifications on a point of order and a point of privilege just after calling for question period to begin, the clock has been running. Would it be in order to ask that the clock be reset?

The Speaker: We had started into oral questions. I had recognized the leader in fact more than once. I realize we've used a bit of time. Perhaps by restricting interjections we will more than make up for the lost time. I invite the member to place her first question.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I once again refer to the government throne speech which pronounced that a strong economy depends on a flourishing business sector.

Just recently, in an effort to indicate its interest in business views, the government set up a labour-management advisory committee to encourage government, business and labour to work more closely together. But the New Democratic Party has now sent out yet another anti-business fund-raising letter slamming business concerns and telling business to back off any criticisms of the government; and over the weekend the Premier attacked the business community in his speech at the NDP convention with the supposedly terrible accusation that in corporate boardrooms, many of them in law firms, bizarre faxes are being exchanged back and forth and money is being spent like never before.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us how these attacks on the business community help to encourage business and investment confidence in the province. How will they help to foster the new partnership between business and government that was promised in the throne speech and the budget?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate a great deal the leader's reference to our very successful convention over the weekend.

What I said at the convention is what I would say anywhere, that is, that we are engaged now as a government in the environmental field, in a number of fields, in some very successful, positive and constructive consultations with the business community. We look forward to a similarly successful consultation with respect to labour relations reform. I have asked a number of people to join with me in a constructive dialogue on improving labour-management relations. I talked about that in my speech on Saturday.

I also made reference on a number of occasions and I would make reference again -- and the leader of the Liberal Party would be certainly aware -- to the fact that at the same time there is a very substantial lobby going on with respect to the activities of this government. It would be rather unusual for the Premier of the province not to be aware of it, not to be aware of the amount of money being spent in that lobby and in that campaign, from billboards to all kinds of other things.

I simply point out that the government is determined to listen to constructive and positive comments and determined to work with the business community in that light, but we will not be deterred from the essence of our agenda by whatever lobby, however powerful. That's a comment I would make in this Legislature as well as anywhere else in the province.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier, in all honesty, will acknowledge that his tone in the House today is somewhat different from the tone he used at the NDP convention on the weekend. Perhaps the Premier, who made some reference during the course of the convention to getting away from rhetoric-bashing rhetoric, would address the specifics of the question I am raising today, that is, the anti-business fund-raising letter sent out by his party. He will be well aware that this is not the first time the NDP has directly attacked the business community in this kind of mailing.

Last fall, when the party put out a business-bashing fund-raising letter, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said -- and I believe it was similar to what the Premier said at the time -- "Rhetoric of any kind isn't helpful at this time. Any message that suggests that this government is anti-business is not very constructive and I certainly would not be very happy with that." At that time the minister promised that he would talk to his party about stopping its anti-business rhetoric.

I would ask the Premier whether he would indicate whether he or any member of his cabinet has in fact discussed this issue with party officials. Has he tried to stop this kind of rhetoric, and what action will he now take to repair the damage created by his recent remarks and this newsletter?

Hon Mr Rae: There will be all kinds of different views expressed from time to time on a number of issues, but I think the leadership of the business community and the members of the business community know full well that the Treasurer presented a budget which was constructive, which was positive and which was well received.

The Leader of the Opposition will also be aware of a number of other measures we've taken to encourage investment. IBM, for example: The Minister of Skills Development attended an opening at IBM just a few days ago where they announced a $240-million investment in Ontario, the largest private sector training institute anywhere in the country. That speaks loudly of this government's relationship with and its positive attitude towards the business community, at the same time as the political reality that we know full well that the billboards are going up.

Obviously we are going to try to mobilize opinion, generally speaking, as a political party, in defence of the efforts of this government on behalf of all the people in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: We are most certainly aware that the government is sending out different messages at different times in different places; there is no question about that. It's quite clear that the Premier is sending out different messages about business in Ontario, depending on whether he is promoting the Ontario business climate to the investment community in New York or whether he's bashing business in front of his NDP delegates.

Either this government wants to be supportive of business in this province, in which case the Premier's convention remarks and the recent Marzetti fund-raising letter are shameful and damaging rhetoric which demand a full public apology, or else this government's pro-business messages are simply a sham and this government has indeed declared war with the business community. I wonder if the Premier could explain which is true and how he can possibly talk about partnerships when his government and his party continue to attack one of the partners.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not the one who's putting up the billboards indicating the positions of this government or making those kinds of statements about the NDP or about the direction of government policy. That's not what we're doing. We're working in a constructive way and, yes, in a tough-minded way.

While the Leader of the Opposition is on her feet talking about consistency, I am reminded of a statement she made in the London Free Press on March 12, 1992. She was asked a question about adversarial politics and about consensus, and she said:

"You know, I tend not to talk about consensus, because I don't think that's very often achievable in public policy. I talk about a different kind of consultation. If you're able to achieve consensus by bringing people together to solve problems, so much the better, but the reality is" -- and this is what the Leader of the Opposition was stating in March -- "in public policy you rarely get consensus. At the end of the day, you probably have to make a decision that isn't going to please everybody."

Those are wise words and I would say to the honourable member that perhaps she should reflect on those in terms of her own approach in criticizing this government for the decisions that it's making.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if I were to raise a point of order, if we were to actually expect relevant responses to questions asked in this House, it would be a very valid point of order. On any occasion when the Premier asks me to defend my particular statements or the policies of my caucus or my party, I am more than happy to defend them. Question period does not usually give me an opportunity to do that, but if the rules of the House could be suspended to allow me to speak to it, I would be delighted to have that opportunity.

USE OF CREDIT CARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the meantime, Mr Speaker, unless the government House leader is prepared to move the suspension of rules to give me that opportunity, I'll direct my second question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would simply like to ask the minister what she thinks about letting people use credit cards to buy their groceries in supermarkets.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I believe that in the province of Ontario there have been some supermarkets for some time that have been using credit cards. At this point there is more consultation and more interest in grocery stores using credit cards. I don't think a decision has been made on that, but I would like to point out that in Ontario there has been credit card use for some time now.

Mrs McLeod: I note that the minister refers to consultation, but I do have a page from a confidential cabinet document which was recently shared with us. The document shows that the ministry has already recommended to cabinet that consumers be allowed to use credit cards to pay for their groceries and to buy alcohol at the LCBO stores and has also recommended that the Attorney General consider allowing credit cards to be used for the payments of fines and penalties.

I would ask the minister whether this is really a priority for a government that should be dealing with the serious issues caused by the most serious recession in 60 years. Is letting unemployed people use credit cards to buy their groceries part of the government's comprehensive plan to address economic renewal in its vision of Ontario?

1440

Hon Ms Churley: As I've said already, there are a number of grocery stores in the province of Ontario which have been using credit cards for some time. Certainly this government has a lot on its agenda. One of the things that we do do is respond to requests from the public and from business, and this is a question that has been put before us.

It is something that we have been looking at, and in view of the fact that there already is in existence credit cards being used, and in view of the changes in consumers' buying patterns over the years, yes, it is certainly something in terms of consumer requests and business requests that of course we are taking a look at.

Mrs McLeod: We raise the question because we have some reason to be concerned about sudden changes in policy and direction without consultation, based on the record of this government. But we also want to use this question as an opportunity to raise some inconsistencies we see in this government's approach.

I would suggest, for example, that the NDP government, when it announced its plans to bring casino gambling to Ontario, at the same time cut off its funding to the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling. Now we see that the government that is promoting the increased use of credit cards is exactly the same government that has refused to fund credit counselling agencies in the province of Ontario.

I would just ask why this government is making it easier for people to get into debt in these difficult times, while at the same time it's cutting off the only source of counselling for people who get caught in the system. As the minister makes it easier for people to get credit, will she also renew the funding for credit counselling agencies?

Hon Ms Churley: The reality is that the marketplace has changed over the last several years, and I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

More and more people today are using credit cards and are requesting the ability to use them for convenience. I don't think it's in the interests of the Leader of the Opposition to be patronizing or paternalistic towards people's choices as to how they shop and how they use their money.

These days the reality is that more and more people have credit cards, fewer and fewer people want to carry money -- and that's particularly true in larger urban centres -- and prefer to carry credit cards. These are things that we as a government have the responsibility to look at when we are getting requests from consumers to do so.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier following up on the question from the leader of the Liberal Party. Premier, you presented this past weekend a dramatic conspiracy theory to the party faithful, in that you suggested that an assassination plot, if you like, is brewing in the backrooms and boardrooms of Ontario, a plot to assassinate the NDP government.

Premier, given that this kind of rhetoric is very divisive, given that this kind of rhetoric is most unproductive, given that this kind of rhetoric not only makes it much more difficult to bring government and business and labour together in this province but is divisive as well to our image across Canada and to other jurisdictions, given all of that, I would like to give you an opportunity here today in the Legislature to explain to us if this was simply rhetoric for the party faithful, from whom you were under attack, or if you really believe there is a backroom conspiracy being hatched against you and your government.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the leader of the third party that his use of the words "assassinate" and "assassination", I find personally deplorable on his part. I really do. If he wants to stand in his place and talk about the use of rhetoric, I hope he will reflect on the fact that those are the kinds of words that really don't help anybody in terms of things. That's what I'm saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I'll let you make the choice; that's right. Let me turn to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier? Supplementary?

Mr Harris: Premier, that is exactly the question and that is exactly the problem. if the kind of language you used on the weekend had come from the street corner, if that kind of language had come in the back barroom, it might have gone unnoticed, but it came from the Premier of the province of Ontario. That's why it was so embarrassing: language like accusing the business community of "hijacking democracy," to the job creators of this province, "We do know that in the corporate boardrooms there are these bizarre faxes being exchanged back and forth, money being spent in ways that has never been spent before."

I would ask you this, Premier: Realizing, as you obviously forget from time to time, that you are the final arbitrator, that you are the Premier of the province of Ontario, not the head of some outlandish opposition party trying to make a point -- you're the Premier of the province of Ontario -- would you not agree with me that the kind of rhetoric you are using is most divisive and does nothing to bring the government and the business community and labour closer together in this province, as we all agree needs to be done?

Hon Mr Rae: I would return the compliment and say to the honourable member that the rhetoric he has used today and the language he has used today have been divisive and I would say very unhelpful in terms of trying to create a civilized debate in the province, and I would say that to him directly.

Mr Harris: The party hacks and the "Back off, eh" letters and the rhetoric there -- we've raised these issues. We assumed that perhaps some people in the party had run amok. But now when we hear the words right from the Premier's lips and find out that you condone this kind of rhetoric, it is very, very worrisome to all of us in this province.

Mr Premier, I would ask you this: When your House leader has a modest disagreement with other House leaders, you proceed, for the first time in the history of this Legislature, with debate unilaterally on rule changes. Mr Premier, when you had a disagreement in your government with doctors in northern Ontario, it was okay to take them apart, lie and slander to quell that opposition. Now, Premier, when you, as Premier --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party I'm sure would not want to be directly accusing anyone in the House of lying. It's one thing to repeat what has been said outside the House, but that's not what I heard.

Mr Harris: Let me clarify. Have you not learned, Premier, that slandering those who disagree with your public policy is not a good way to bring people together in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: My sense of what is happening in the province is that despite the claims that are being made by people like the leader of the third party with respect to our relationship with the business community, when you look practically at what's happening day after day in terms of the daily relations, when you look at the improvements that are taking place with respect to the investment activity in the province, when you look at major decisions that are being taken by corporations like Ford and IBM, and other decisions which we hope very much are coming, when you look at the Chrysler announcements which have been made with respect to Brampton and so on, we see some very positive signs.

At the same time, I would say to the leader of the third party, we also intend to defend as vigorously as we can the activities and agenda of this government and to point out as clearly as we can that an awful lot of money is being raised and spent in terms of the campaigns against this government. It would be a rather naïve Premier who didn't take note of that fact and didn't simply want to state that we know that's going on and we don't intend to be deterred from our agenda, which is exactly the case.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: So you quell free speech in here and slander the opposition, anybody who is opposed to your agenda.

1450

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Energy. I have obtained documents showing that Ontario Hydro, I think as we speak, is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Bell Canada and Northern Telecom. This agreement, reportedly worth as much as $10 million, is to buy an administrative telecommunications system for head office. In other words, lots and lots of telephones. Minister, this contract was not tendered. Why are you negotiating exclusively with Bell for $10-million worth of phones?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (acting Minister of Energy): The leader of the third party raises a question about a particular contract which, he's right, hasn't been tendered. It also hasn't been let. When he's got something to raise here about procedures Hydro pursues that are inappropriate, perhaps he can stand in the House and raise them.

Mr Harris: There are no tenders, as the minister has just confirmed. What we are dealing with here is an exclusive negotiation.

I also received information that this is part of a larger package called a "strategic procurement agreement." This larger agreement gives Bell Canada the exclusive right to fulfil all telecommunications products and services without ever having to go to tender. Minister, why is Hydro, one monopoly, in the middle of negotiating this kind of agreement with Bell, another monopoly, to shut everybody else out of any tendering, any future access to this market? Do you, Mr Minister, agree with the tendering process as the means to go to the marketplace and get the best price or are you in favour of the two monopolies negotiating mutually exclusively with each other?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again the leader of the third party stands in his place in this House and makes accusations, as he has on a number of occasions before, occasions when he was not correct.

I will look into the matter the leader of the third party has raised, but there has been no contract let in the case he raises. I'll look into the specifics of the process to date and report back to the House.

It should be pointed out -- and I'll repeat, because he wasn't here to respond to the answers that were given to the last questions he raised on this very same issue -- that Ontario Hydro tenders in the normal way in far more than 75% of the thousands and thousands of contracts it lets every year. It has a set procedure, which it has had for many decades now, for dealing with those other matters that have to be dealt with outside the normal tendering process.

Mr Harris: First of all the minister says I'm wrong, then he says, "I'll look into it." I thought you brought in Marc Eliesen, your hack, to let you know what was going on over there. I've raised these issues before with Hydro. This is $10 million that didn't go to tender, that is being negotiated right now without tenders. It's part of a much larger agreement, and there are others where the monopoly is trying to negotiate exclusive agreements so that it never has to go to tender. Will you finally investigate what's going on over at Ontario Hydro, take the concerns that are coming forward from all around the province a little more seriously, take your job as minister responsible for this utility a little more seriously and have an open investigation into how Hydro is awarding contracts?

Hon Mr Charlton: I find it really unfortunate the way the leader of the third party behaves here in the House on these kinds of matters. The member has raised these kinds of questions before. I've investigated the matters. He's been shown to be absolutely wrong in the accusations he's made here in the House. I'll look into this matter and report back to the member.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the government House leader. The government House leader may have some difficulty in granting me the sincerity of the question I want to ask, but I want to preface my question by saying in all sincerity that none of us relish this war over rules and the procedural wrangling that's been going on in this place over recent days and weeks.

My caucus colleagues and I are willing and in fact we are waiting to get on with a thorough and substantive debate on the legislation that is before this House. As the opposition, we want our opportunity to be able to fulfil our obligation to review the government's plans, propose amendments and represent the views of Ontarians as we have heard and understood them.

I would ask the House leader to explain, as calmly and rationally as possible, why he will not send his government's proposed rule changes to a legislative committee, following tradition and practice in this House, so that we can all turn to the real business of this House and debate the government's legislation and the matters of real public concern.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Just as late as this morning the House leaders for the official opposition and the third party and myself got together and talked about part of the rules package.

I can indicate to the leader of the official opposition that I'm prepared, and have been, to negotiate the rules with the opposition House leaders, but I and the government also insist that there be some changes to the rules that will allow this place to function as other legislatures do right across the country. That means that things like time allocation, so that the government can get its agenda through the House, are fair and reasonable requests.

We wouldn't have to do this if it weren't for what has happened in this place over the last 21 months, much of it led by the Liberal Party, which wouldn't even allow us to get tax bills through for last year's budget until it was well after one year since they'd been introduced.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not going to use this question in order to go back over the record of what in fact this government has presented to the House and the debate that has occurred on it, but I do want to recognize that we do not believe it was simply a coincidence that rule changes were unilaterally introduced by this government, in a way never before precedented in this House, the very same day that the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were introduced.

Clearly there is a need for full and fair and open debate on this very important piece of legislation. It's equally clear that there is a need for full and extensive public consultation on this piece of legislation. One of the issues the government House leader has absolutely refused to discuss with our House leader, over the weeks of discussion about rule changes, is how many weeks of public consultation the government is willing to schedule for the Labour Relations Act.

I would like to ask the government House leader how many weeks of public hearings he feels would allow for a fair, open, thorough discussion of this particular piece of legislation. How much time is he prepared to commit to those public hearings? Or is he telling us all that there is no need for public hearings, since this legislation has already been determined by the government to proceed through without any changes?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's entirely the government's expectation that there will be extensive discussion on second reading, that there will be extensive public hearings, that there will be clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee as well, that we'll be back in committee of the whole and have clause-by-clause during the fall and that we'll have a debate on third reading.

In terms of the request the House leader for the official opposition made to me last week that there be unlimited public hearings, that everybody and anybody in the entire province who makes a request for public hearings will be heard, I told him this was an unrealistic request, that it could not be fulfilled, because he knows the circumstances surrounding this bill, that the bill would never be dealt with. That's exactly what the intention of some people with respect to the OLRA is all about.

Fairness? There will be fairness at second reading and public hearings, clause-by-clause, committee of the whole and third reading. I'm prepared to sit down and talk with the House leader for the official opposition and the House leader for the third party to decide how that package will be dealt with.

1500

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, given the answer that has just been given by your House leader concerning the rule changes, given that never in the history of this Legislature until last week has rule changes debate been on them unilaterally without agreement of the other parties, and given that negotiations are under way now with the House leaders on a package that will be considerably different, as your House leader has said, from the package you're asking us to debate today, why are you asking for your government and your cabinet and you, as Premier, to have the power to deal with any legislation in three days, taking away the 30 minutes that's in there to speak, taking away any limits on the speeches; and given that your House leader is saying he plans to have hearings, why is it that in this package you're asking to deal with any bill in three legislative days? Why do you need that power?

I would ask you finally this, Premier: Don't you think it would make more sense to allow the House leaders to carry on with their negotiations so that we see the final package, which we know is going to be different, and call regular government business today instead of wasting another day of the Legislature?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that question to the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would agree with the leader of the third party that the sooner we can deal with the rules package and come to a conclusion on the negotiations on the rules package, the better. But if anybody around this place is concerned with making more productive use of the Legislature, I would really ask that it not just be the government that takes a look at that, but that the third party and the official opposition might want to take a look at how this place has operated not just in the last couple of weeks but in the last several months. Last Thursday is a perfect example: $290,000 out the window because of a game played by the third party.

Mr Harris: I understand why the Premier passed the question off. I'd be as embarrassed as he is, if he realized what was going on.

By way of supplementary to the House leader for the government: Given that you and your negotiations have acknowledged that the final rule changes will not be what you asked us to debate last Monday, last Tuesday, last Wednesday, last Thursday, or what you are going to ask us to debate today, and given that we will discuss these till midnight because we don't even know what the final package is, and you know we're not going to agree to give you the power to pass any bill you want any time in the future in three days; given all that, would you not agree it makes more sense to negotiate with House leaders a final conclusion before we recess, that can be debated before we recess, and to call government business today instead of wasting another day in the Legislature, as you are planning to do today?

Hon Mr Cooke: I want the leader of the third party to understand that it was never our intention -- and I see nothing in even the current rules package that's before the House for debate -- to have a piece of controversial legislation go through the House in three days. That was never the intention.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: We know that, and we know you've agreed to change it. Why are we debating that stupid power when you know it isn't what you want or need?

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: The leader of the third party is correct. There are some discussions that have gone on, and I think we're all going to take those discussions back to our caucuses tomorrow. I hope the three of us will be able to get together tomorrow and come up with an agreement that will result in the rules being amended in a way all three political parties can agree with.

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. A number of land owners have approached me, as I am sure they have other members, and expressed their concerns about the proposed amendments to the Trees Act. I would like the minister to tell us today, if he could, what his intentions are and why he is proposing amendments at this particular time.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I know that many members, particularly rural members on all sides in the House, have received questions about this, and I appreciate the member raising it.

As members will know, the previous government, at the request of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, set up an advisory committee that included a number of representatives of municipalities across the province, including one from a northern rural municipality, to look at the Trees Act and review it.

The Trees Act has been in existence in this province since 1946. Under that legislation, only county governments have the right to pass bylaws related to the control of the cutting of trees on private woodlots. The suggestion was made by the municipalities of Ontario that they would like to have this permissive power extended to other types of municipalities, such as regional municipalities like the Metropolitan government of Toronto, and to smaller municipalities in northern Ontario.

That committee came forward with a report, and we put its recommendations out for consultation. I have extended that consultation period from June of this year until the end of September so that we can get the views of all the interested parties.

Mr Hayes: There is another concern I'd like the minister to be aware of. There are individual land owners who are concerned about their property rights maybe being infringed. I'd like the minister to address that issue, because they are concerned about being able to have control on their own property.

Hon Mr Wildman: That of course is the central interest in it. I want to emphasize that what is proposed is permissive legislation; it is not required. Municipalities would not have to pass bylaws if they did not desire to. Of course, it would be the responsibility of ratepayers and of the land owners involved to ensure that their municipal councils, if the changes are implemented after the consultation period, respond to the concerns of the ratepayers in their own municipalities.

I should also add that whatever happens with regard to this legislation and the municipalities of Ontario, this legislation would not apply on private lands in unorganized townships in northern Ontario.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question to the Premier. I hope today he will answer the question and not refer it, because Premier, I put the question to you in this form, as directly and as clearly as I can. In 1990, you had no trouble standing in this place or elsewhere and calling the former Premier a liar. It is now evident to many people across this province that the promises you, the Minister of the Environment and the party you lead made during the last election to the people of this province aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I wonder how you now categorize yourself, Premier, given the promises you made with respect to the people in Whitevale, the Rouge Valley; the embarrassment you must have in your failure to live up to those promises; the embarrassment you must have as your minister sitting to your left pawns it off to Interim Waste Authority. You've clearly retreated from your previously piously stated position with respect to the Rouge Valley. How do you justify saying one thing in opposition and doing a completely different thing now that you sit in the Premier's office?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will refer that question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): And I will say quite categorically that the Premier has not retreated one step from the position he took in opposition with respect to the Rouge Valley.

1510

Mr McClelland: The fact of the matter, Minister -- through you, Mr Speaker -- is that you, your Premier and your party raised expectations in the communities of Whitevale, you raised expectations for people who are concerned with the Rouge. You know very well that even today the planning group working in terms of proposing the park have recommended boundaries that place one of your sites directly in the park. Your site in Stouffville affects the headwaters. It sits on the Oak Ridges moraine.

Those communities, those people and those interest groups trusted you and they elected one of your members, in large measure on the strength of the promises and commitment you made. Obviously he had the wool pulled over his eyes, as well as the people of the province. It's no wonder that he's twisting around like a sheet in the wind at the present time.

The fact remains, Minister, that you and your party promised to protect farm land in this province. You promised the people of the village of Whitevale that their land was prime food land, and you said those exact words to them. You and your Premier promised "no dump in the Rouge." Those are your words and those are his words, yet you stand on the first question and say there's no contradiction. I don't know how you can possibly, with even a minimal degree of integrity, stand in your place and say that, after all your sanctimonious statements and a throne speech about integrity in government.

What are these communities to believe now, Minister? What do you say to the people who are concerned about the Rouge, some of whom were meeting here today, and people in Whitevale, in light of your broken promises to them?

Hon Mrs Grier: I say to them with no fear of contradiction that the site for waste within the greater Toronto area will be selected on environmental criteria and will go through an environmental assessment process. That was not the situation the people of Whitevale faced under the previous government.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'd like to ask the Premier for his permission to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant, Zanana Akande, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You can't do that. It's against the rules.

Mr Cousens: I can get permission. I've checked with the table.

In May the member for St Andrew-St Patrick was appointed to find a solution to youth unemployment in Ontario and in particular in Toronto. Part of her task was to concentrate on finding jobs for black youth. The report is now complete, and ironically the government has been able to find $20 million to create 8,500 jobs. Now employers want to know how they can implement this report, how they can have access to the labour pool and how they can comply with the government's mandate to hire black youth.

It's a good question, it's a series of questions that have been asked, yet Mrs Akande, instead of responding in a manner suitable for someone in her important and sensitive position, answers, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us when they want to shoot us." Instead of inflammatory language, why couldn't Ms Akande have given a reasonable response to a reasonable question?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will be glad to answer that question or refer it to the member. But in reply to the honourable member's question -- and I will answer it as directly as I can -- the funding increases that were announced on Friday, June 5, I think the date was, the $20 million for Jobs Ontario Youth, which would bring it up to $45.7 million, included not only the $13.7 million that will go towards the creation of 5,000 new jobs in Toronto, but also $6.3 million, which the member didn't refer to, with respect to existing programs.

We have increased funding not only for Nortop, but we have increased funding for training opportunities, we've increased funding for the Environmental Youth Corps and we've increased funding for the summer Experience. When you put all those together, you see a substantial increase across the board, as well as the $13.7 million program which focuses on the 5,000 jobs in southern Ontario.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the Premier authorize the parliamentary assistant to answer the question, as he's empowered so to do under standing order 32(a)?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yes, the member for Parry Sound is right. The Premier has the opportunity to refer. He, as I took it, chose instead to answer the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. He chose instead to reply to the question. It still would be in order if, on the supplementary, he chose to refer the supplementary; that would be allowable.

Mr Cousens: There's probably no issue more sensitive to more people in our province than the goodwill we can create among all races and all peoples. I know it's a question I wanted to have an answer to. I believe the very statement that was made by the parliamentary assistant to the Premier when she said, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us when they want to shoot us," was not in fact the answer to the question that was being asked by business people who would like to be able to subscribe to some of this funding that's available. They want to know how they can implement the report. They want to know how they can access this labour pool. They want to know how they can comply with the government's mandate. It's a very serious question, and just to have the answer that the Premier's giving doesn't begin to respond to it.

So I ask the question again -- oh, you're keen to answer. I hope I get a good answer.

Hon Mr Rae: I will answer, Mr Speaker. The member can't have it both ways. He sent me over a note saying, "Premier, I have a question for you," which is why I stayed to answer his question. He can hardly take offence when I try to answer the question to the best of my ability.

Let me answer the question as directly as I can to the member and say that our determination has been to have the program accessed clearly through the existing programs which are replaced.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: That is the way in which the program will be accessed and that is the direction the program will take.

Mr Cousens: I was very deliberate in sending a note to the Premier in case he were to leave, because only he, as the Premier, could refer such a question to his parliamentary assistant. That's the etiquette I followed.

1520

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation which is essential to my riding and, in fact, to the riding of Durham West. My question is with regard to the technically preferred route for the Highway 401-Highway 407 interlink between Ajax and Whitby. Your ministry commissioned a full study of potential routes, and in January of this year a decision was made for a technically preferred route.

That route was perfect from an engineering standpoint -- absolutely marvellous. You can stand at the north end of the proposed route and envision the asphalt and concrete rolling right up over you. In fact, Mr Minister, if you were in Whitby it would be rolling right over you. I'm sure it would be much less expensive than the other routes that were suggested but also socially and environmentally disastrous. On the other hand, the chosen route would slice off Almond village, a significant part of the town of Whitby, from the rest of the town. It would run right by 10,000 people in west Whitby.

Mr Minister, are you satisfied with the report at this point and will you not consider the community's natural habitats that will be destroyed by that route?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate what is perhaps the most issue-related question of the day. I know of the concern of the member, his sincere interest and his ability to follow this dossier, because we're talking about not only an important but a massive project: the 401 and 400 series coupled at the junction with the 407.

The final decision with reference to the technically preferred route hasn't been made yet. The engineering studies are a most important component of the technically preferred route, but we have to look at the impact on the environment and the human dimension. Social, economic and agricultural components form a natural part.

I appreciate the member's anxiety, but he knows that the human dimension in this instance is at least as important as -- in fact more so than -- an engineering study, which is valuable indeed but not the sole source in terms of determination.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Minister. I appreciate that this issue has not been resolved and that it is still subject to your careful scrutiny. Mr Minister, the town of Ajax has stated that it wishes the route located in a rural portion of the east end of that town. They clearly stated that last spring, Mr Minister.

The town of Whitby most clearly does not want that route slicing through the midst of that town. The region of Durham is in concurrence. Will you not consider the wishes of the locally elected officials and indeed the members for those areas in regard to what will be the best for their communities?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Indeed, Mr Speaker. "Careful scrutiny," no, Mr Speaker; meticulous scrutiny, yes. The offices of MTO are coordinating efforts to have representatives -- members of the executive, elected people -- brought forth under our auspices, under our umbrella. We are a facilitator in this instance, but we want to make sure that the people whom they represent at every level of government will be given every opportunity to express their concerns. We're doing that as we speak. I wish to thank the member with all the sincerity at my command not only for his question but for his ongoing participation. He is very much part of this project.

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Ma question, Monsieur le Président, s'adresse au ministre de l'Éducation. Monsieur le Ministre, vous êtes sans doute au courant de la déception et même de la frustration de la section publique du Conseil de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton depuis que vous avez mis celui-ci en tutelle.

Monsieur le Ministre, on n'apprécie pas le comportement du superviseur nommé par vous, qui est en train de sabrer les programmes de façon unilatérale et même dictatoriale, et certains de ces programmes qui rendront la section publique inférieure aux autres. Les élèves et les parents veulent participer au redressement du bon fonctionnement de leur conseil, mais par contre, le mandat du superviseur les empêche de participer à cette consultation. Monsieur le Ministre, êtes-vous entièrement d'accord avec et au courant de l'approche qu'emploie votre superviseur à Ottawa-Carleton ?

J'ai une deuxième question. Quel espoir ont les élèves et les parents de participer à une telle consultation ?

L'hon Tony Silipo (ministre de l'Éducation) : Je suis content de répondre à cette question et de dire que je suis, évidemment, au courant, d'une certaine manière, en général, de ce que le superviseur est en train de faire. Il a, comme le député le sait, la responsabilité d'agir ; en effet, il a les pouvoirs du conseil scolaire. Donc, même si je suis au courant de ses actions, je dois aussi respecter les actions qu'il prend parce qu'il a le pouvoir du conseil scolaire en ce domaine.

Je suis certainement conscient du fait qu'il y a là des répercussions de la part des étudiants et aussi de la part des parents. J'ai déjà eu des discussions avec les membres du conseil scolaire sur cette question. Je suis sûr qu'il y aura encore des consultations pour arriver à la manière la plus juste d'élargir une nouvelle structure pour le conseil scolaire.

Je sais qu'il y a des préoccupations qui restent, Monsieur le Président. Je peux assurer le député que je continuerai à me renseigner directement sur la situation pour voir s'il y a d'autres choses au-délà de ce qu'on a déjà fait afin d'assurer les parents qu'on veut continuer d'avoir, dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, un niveau d'éducation en langue française qui est juste, qui est propre, et qui est équivalent à ce qu'on a dans le système anglais.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that the House do now move to orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

1555

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 65; nays 37.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion number 8 extending the hours of meeting in the House during the weeks of June 15 and June 22, 1992.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I believe the member for Carleton has the floor.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As I was so succinctly putting my case, the reason we needed extended hours at this time, the need for changed rules, lies at the foot of the government of the day. They are inefficient, inaccurate and unfocused in what they are doing, and the cause of delay in this Legislature is not the opposition's making, it is the government's making.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd just like to very quickly and succinctly put that it's necessary that we get the 12-hour debate in regard to going to 12 midnight in order to deal with the business of this House for the people of this province. There are many pieces of legislation we need to get to and we're looking forward to getting to that particular business.

The Speaker: The two hours allotted for the debate on this motion have expired. Before putting the question, I would wish to respond with a ruling to the request placed by the member for York Centre. Again I commend him for the style he used, his approach, and a very interesting point of order on a technical matter.

As interesting as the argument is which the member presented, and in very logical fashion, I must rule that our practice in accordance with standing order 27(f), (g) and (h) is extremely clear. Only those votes where a 30-minute bell has been provided can be deferred. An exception to this is provided in section 27(h), dealing with dilatory motions.

If the honourable member's argumentation were accepted, it would provide for deferral of votes in all cases. For example, the five-minute bells could be deferred. You could have a deferral on first readings and on non-confidence motions, which I don't believe the House would find acceptable, nor perhaps indeed the member. It's not in accordance with the practice we have enjoyed since the rule was introduced, I believe, in 1989. Therefore, I cannot find that the member has a case for deferring the vote.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate what you've said in your ruling and I know you have consulted on this matter. I agree with you that under our standing orders as they read now, indeed a chief whip can ask for a deferral of a five-minute bell or a 10-minute bell or a 15-minute bell. My argument was not to the effect that the standing orders are what we would want them to be, and, yes, we have not had a request for a deferral of a five-minute bell or a 15-minute bell, but the standing orders as they stand now allow for a deferral.

For you to simply say that you can only defer where there is a 30-minute bell is an interesting proposition, but it's not found in the standing orders. That's not what the standing order says. The standing order says that any vote can be deferred as long as it's a vote referred to in section 27(f). That's what the rules say.

The exceptions to that rule are clearly and specifically set out in section 27(h). I appreciate that the standing orders ought to be changed in that regard, and some day in this House we will have a standing order that only allows for the deferral of certain votes and certain bells, but I reiterate that the standing orders on their face are clear and unequivocal and allow that the vote we are about to have be deferred.

I once again appeal to you not simply to refer to past practice, because past practice is not relevant to this instance. The clear, statutory words of the standing orders must direct your decision. I once again plead with you not to take counsel where counsel does not exist. The rules are clear. It says clearly that this vote we are about to have can be deferred. Our chief whip is going to present a request for a deferral. I implore you to simply rule in this House according to the standing orders.

The Speaker: Just very quickly, because I realize the member wouldn't want to have this construed as the debate of the ruling, I understand full well the point he's making with respect to the potential for making the rules more clear on each and every type of vote and having that in our standing orders. Your Speaker would be absolutely delighted to have the rules so clear-cut that there wasn't any ambiguity. But I must reiterate that in the circumstance he has described, I do not believe it would be proper for the Speaker to exercise the type of latitude the member wishes.

It is time for a vote on government motion number 8. Government motion number 8 was moved in Mr Cooke's name.

1619

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 82

Abel, Akande, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey), Murdock (Sudbury);

O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Runciman, Silipo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Villeneuve, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 19

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Mahoney, McClelland, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Scott, Sorbara, Sullivan.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM / RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion number 7 on amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parry Sound, you have the floor.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, it's been about a week and a half since I adjourned this debate.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It was a very fine speech.

Mr Eves: Well, thank you. The member for Renfrew North says it was a fine speech. Well, it was a preamble to a fine speech.

Mr Conway: And my mother liked it a great deal.

Mr Eves: Your mother liked it as well? I'm very pleased that your mother liked it.

Actually, I have point of personal privilege I'd like to get on the record to start, Mr Speaker: It was last Wednesday afternoon, right about 6 o'clock I believe, when feelings were running a little high around this place, that I referred to the Minister of Labour and others in the government and I talked about their Gestapo tactics. I would like to withdraw those remarks here this afternoon before I commence my debate because I don't think it's a parliamentary term.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Why?

Mr Eves: The member for St George-St David says, "Why?" I think I probably could have chosen my words better than "Gestapo" tactics. I think "totalitarian" tactics or "dictatorial" tactics or even "despotic" tactics might have been far more accurate -- and parliamentary, I might add -- than the term --

Mr Scott: How about "fascist"?

Mr Eves: Don't try to get me to get in any further than I already am, I say to the member for St George-St David. Thank you very much for your advice, though.

I would like to carry on with my remarks and I would like to carry on with the rationale that the government puts forward for wanting to unilaterally change the rules of this place. Today during question period, my leader put forward a question to the Premier which was directed to the government House leader.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm finding it very difficult to hear the speaker. I understand that there's some movement, but I don't think there needs to be quite as much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order, please. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has quite rightly pointed out that there is a great deal of talk going on in the House right now. The honourable member for Parry Sound has the floor. If the members could either leave the chamber or sit in their seats, it would be helpful.

Mr Eves: As I was saying, during question period today, my leader was asking a question of the Premier, who referred it to the government House leader. He asked why we can't deal with legislation on the order paper. This is the sixth day in a row, I believe, that the order paper has called for two government motions. One was to extend the sitting hours of the House, which we just voted upon, and the other is the government's notice of motion to unilaterally change the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature.

I thought the question my leader asked was a very appropriate and very valid question indeed. The place for dealing with changing the standing orders, the rules of the Legislature, is in House leaders' meetings and in committee: the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, to be more accurate. That's where these rules or these procedures that we follow in this place have been dealt with on previous occasions for the last 125 years. Never before this time have we been debating what we are debating now, and that is unilateral rule changes by the government of the day, whoever that government happened to be.

I think this is a very significant digression from what has gone on in this place and from parliamentary and democratic tradition in this place for the last 125 years. There's a very good reason for that. If we do not work together, three House leaders and three parties, and arrive at some of these decisions by consensus and mutual agreement, then regardless of what has passed -- because there have been many majority governments prior to this one in this Legislative Assembly, but it's noteworthy that not one of them has ever felt so hard-pressed that it had to unilaterally propose to change the standing orders, which is what this government notice of motion before us today is all about.

Not only are we supposed to deal with that as opposed to legislation today, but if you believe the government House leader -- and I do -- we'll be dealing with it until they change the rules of this place. That means we're going to be sitting till midnight tonight debating this notice of motion instead of doing labour legislation, instead of doing Sunday shopping legislation that the Premier has said he's willing to have a free vote on and instead of dealing with auto insurance, which is a very controversial item.

I note that over the weekend at the NDP convention, there was a lot of flak. The Premier and some of his colleagues had to pay for backing up and not delivering on the commitment they made during the election campaign with respect to restoring the public's right to sue.

Mr Conway: I think it was just simulated protest.

Mr Eves: Oh, you thought it was simulated protest, did you, the member for Renfrew North?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Didn't look that simulated to me.

1630

Mr Eves: Well, I don't think the former member for Welland-Thorold was orchestrated in any way, shape or form. I have a great deal of respect for his integrity and I believe him to be genuinely concerned that the governing party, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, has indeed diverged and transgressed quite a bit from its principles enunciated in the election campaign of 1990.

We have all these other pieces of legislation that the government scurried around and put through, as I pointed out over a week ago, during the last week in May and the first week in June. Yet none of them appear on the order paper, nor have they for the last six days. The only two items that have appeared on the Orders and Notices paper in this place for the last six days are: a notice of motion extending the sitting hours of the House during the last eight sessional days of June till midnight, and following that, the government notice of motion to unilaterally change the standing orders of the Legislature of Ontario.

Those obviously were the government's only two priorities in the last six days. They had every opportunity to put anything else they wanted on there. They could've debated the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act, Bill 1. That is an act that both the opposition House leader and myself have indicated to the government House leader that we're willing to deal with in a fairly expeditious manner; we realize it's a piece of legislation that has to be dealt with before the House rises. But apparently the government has not got that message. They have one theme and one theme only, and that is to unilaterally change the rules before they deal with any piece of legislation.

We even have relatively simply taxation bills arising out of the budget which actually confer benefits, for a change, unto certain taxpayers in society -- I am thinking of the Mining Tax Amendment Act and the Corporations Tax Amendment Act -- yet the government won't even call those two very simple bills, Bills 11 and 12, which again we've indicated to the government House leader can be dealt with very expeditiously in this House, but they're not being called. The government intends to debate unilaterally changing the rules of the Legislature for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario.

We have the Ontario Loan Act, which has to be passed in accordance with the budget, Bill 16. We have various education acts, most of which arose out of former Bill 125 -- the government has broken down that legislation into three or four other pieces of legislation -- but none of them are called either; they haven't appeared on the order paper.

We have the Gaming Services Act, which this government seems to be intent upon proceeding with -- we know it's indicated it's in favour of casino gambling in the province of Ontario -- but they don't think it's important enough to proceed with it other than changing the rules of this place unilaterally before they proceed with any other business in this place.

Mr Conway: You didn't hear the Minister of Natural Resources on that subject this morning, about Parry Sound and certain gaming activities.

Mr Eves: No, I didn't. I understand, Mr Speaker, from the interjection of the member for Renfrew North, that the Minister of Natural Resources indeed was talking or communicating about the problem that we might have with the gaming services bill on native reservations and whether in fact the province would have any jurisdiction over such activity.

Mr Conway: I didn't think Mackenzie King had children.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Well, I just observed that I didn't think, until I heard Bud Wildman, that Mackenzie King had children. What an interview this morning -- I mean, to have heard that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: It does get kind of frustrating over here, when we could be talking about the rule changes in House leaders' meetings where they're supposed to be dealt with; and we could be talking about rule changes in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly where they're supposed to be dealt with; and we could have been, for the last six days in this place and all last week until midnight, actually discussing legislation such as the labour bill, which the government says, and rightly so, is a very important item on its agenda.

Whether or not you agree with the philosophy and the principle behind the labour legislation, you do have to respect the government's right to introduce such legislation, and it has to respect the opposition's right and the public's right to question the principle and the underlying philosophy behind the bill; and, hopefully, see the bill go out to committee for extensive public hearings during the break and, hopefully, extensive clause-by-clause discussion of the bill; and, hopefully, during those public hearings there will be many suggestions brought forward to the government that it will be willing to listen to and amend its legislation to make it a better piece of legislation for everybody in the province.

Those are the types of important issues we should be talking about the last six days in this Legislature, but instead we are presented every day for the last six days with unilateral rule changes. That is what the government determines its first priority to be.

The government House leader and others over there get very sensitive when you start suggesting to them that there must be a motive or a reason behind their thinking as to why they would want to proceed with rule changes before they proceed with any piece of legislation at all -- not one single piece of legislation. I ask you, Mr Speaker, what else is one to think when the government makes this its first and only priority and absolutely refuses every invitation by the other two House leaders to talk about any other piece of legislation they may put on the order paper and debate?

They don't want to talk about Sunday shopping, all of a sudden. They don't want to talk about their labour legislation. They don't want to talk about auto insurance. They don't want to talk about these education bills. They don't want to talk about the Toronto Islands bill. They don't want to talk about the building code amendment bill. They don't want to talk about the waterfront regeneration trust bill. All they want to talk about is their rule changes, and then they will ram through any piece of legislation they want. Once they have what they want in their unilateral rule changes, they'll then have the power, in a very dictatorial fashion, I might add, to attribute certain time limits to certain stages of a bill and it will be passed without any further debate or, they hope, any further opposition or public awareness of the issue.

I think one has to understand that the only way opposition -- not just opposition members but any public opposition to any proposed piece of legislation -- can be effectively dealt with or talked about under our system of government, under the parliamentary system of government, is through the opposition parties' ability to debate, and yes, on occasion even stall or slow down progress of a particular bill, and that has worked very effectively over the years against governments of all political stripes.

This government surely is no different from any other government before it. Be we Conservative governments, Liberal governments or now New Democratic governments, we have all had difficulties with very controversial pieces of legislation. But it is kind of ironic that the party that has always stood for the underdog -- or so it says -- always stood for minority groups and minority interests, was always willing to go to bat for an individual's freedom of speech and right to differ, now wants to introduce a set of totalitarian rules or dictatorial rules -- despotic rules, actually -- so it can cut off debate and have any piece of legislation it wants in a certain given amount of time.

Boy, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, when I first got elected here, if Elie Martel would have heard of such a dictatorial scheme, you'd have had to get him off one of these chandeliers in this place. He would have gone absolutely nuts. You'd still hear him screaming and yelling. I mean, he would have gone absolutely crazy. He would have been in here calling you everything and anything in the book, screaming and yelling about the government majority trying to have its way, trying to cut off debate. I heard all those great speeches Elie gave.

Now his party, which stood for all these principles all these years supporting the minority right to speak, says: "We have a majority. We have 74 seats. We can do whatever we want. We don't have to listen to anybody. We got 36.9% of the vote, 1% less than Frank Miller got. Boy, are we smart guys and girls. Are we ever great. We got 1% less of the popular vote than Frank Miller got. That gives us the authority to ram anything through any time we want without debate. How good are we?"

That's exactly what they're saying, but they seem to forget that some 63% of the people of Ontario voted against them; 63% of the people of Ontario did not want them in government. We represent those 63% over here on this side of the House. It is our job to represent the interests of those 63.1% of the people. They are representing 36.9% of the popular vote; that's the number they represent over there. We represent 63.1% over here, and we'd like to be heard, if you don't mind. Unless there is some kind of new math over there, the total percentage is still 100%.

1640

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): We're still the green party.

Mr Eves: I'm glad the honourable member mentions the Green Party, because the Green Party got about three times the vote that his party got in my riding in the last provincial election.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That's why you got returned.

Mr Eves: No, that's why your candidate lost his deposit.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: Because your message got through so well to the people in my constituency.

Mr Fletcher: Obviously.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Guelph will come to order.

Mr Eves: I would also like to point out today that I thought things really got pretty bad last Thursday in this place. Last Thursday morning, I'm sure many members of the public are aware, the House adjourned, actually, at about five or 10 after 10 for lack of a quorum. It's a seldom-used rule.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Neat little trick.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Trick.

Mr Eves: I hear some government members saying, "Trick." The only trick to this was that apparently the government House leader can't count to 20 and can't get 20 out of 74 members into the chamber within five minutes of the bells starting to ring. There is no trick. Everybody who has ever been here for a day knows that you have to have 20 members in the House to keep a quorum. Everybody knows that.

Not only that, they had five minutes to get their 20 members here and they still couldn't do it. That has happened only once before in the history of the province. The last time, I understand, it happened -- I stand to be corrected -- was 1936, when the House was adjourned for lack of a quorum. So that is the epitaph, as it may be, for the government over there. Not since 1936 has there been such a lack of interest in the governing party of this place that it can't get a quorum together in five minutes of bell ringing.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're not fooling anybody.

Mr Eves: It's not a question of fooling anybody; it's a question of being able to count to 20 and getting your 20 members.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Parry Sound has the floor at this point and I don't think the interruptions by certain members in the House are helpful. If we could contain ourselves and allow the member to speak, I think that would be advised. The honourable member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: I just want to point out, in that vein, that that's what quorum calls are all about. When I was in government and I was in cabinet -- and I know that my colleagues to the right know the same thing -- it's always left to the government party to supply the quorum. I can remember many times when the Elie Martels of the world said, "We don't have to worry about getting a quorum." The only reason that opposition parties most often ask for a quorum is to embarrass the government members to see if they're on their toes, to see if they actually have 20 members within five minutes of this chamber, and the answer last Thursday morning was, no, they didn't. They did not have 20 members within five minutes of the chamber, and then they want to turn around and blame everybody else in the world because 20 out of 74 can't show up. Whose fault is that? You people think you represent everybody.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): You represent 63% and you didn't have anybody here.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You've destroyed the impartiality of private members' hour.

Mr Eves: They still haven't got this straight, Mr Speaker. I wonder, if there was a quorum call right now, if they'd be able to get 20 members here. I suspect that they would be able to get 20 members here, and I suspect that certain people over there have had their knuckles severely rapped over last Thursday morning's lack of a quorum. I'm sure that will not happen again in the near future.

I think there is a great lack of understanding by a lot of people out there as to what this debate is all about.

Over the weekend my colleague the member for Carleton wrote an open letter to the editor of the Ottawa Sun. I would like to read that letter because I think it summarizes very succinctly in a page and a half what this debate is all about. I think a lot of people on the outside think we are here just playing little games with the rules when there's important business. Well, I couldn't agree more. Why for the last six days has the government put this on Orders and Notices? Why didn't they call legislation? We could've dealt with it then as well as today.

This letter is dated June 19:

"Dear Editor:

"The people of Ontario must understand that the present fight over changes to the rules governing the Legislature is essential in order to prevent Bob Rae from becoming a virtual dictator.

"In our 125-year history the rules (our constitution) have never been changed without negotiation with the other political parties. Parliament is intended to be a balance between the right of government to govern and the opposition to oppose. In a majority Parliament, the only tool for the opposition to seek compromise is to delay.

"Mr Rae has decided that he should be able to unilaterally dictate how long a debate will take place on any future legislation. For instance, he can decide on the controversial labour law changes that he will only tolerate an hour of debate on second reading, one day of public hearings and one hour of debate on third and final readings. He will probably choose to be more generous than that, but that is the power he is seeking."

That is exactly right. That is the power he is seeking under this government notice of motion, under these proposed rule changes.

The letter goes on:

"If Mr Rae gets his way (and he eventually can), he will virtually eliminate the usefulness of opposition members in the Legislature and in committees, save for question period. Over the past six years in opposition I have been successful in forcing the government of the day to accept some amendments to their legislation. My only tool was to delay or threaten delay. What sense is there for me to bother to debate if I have no means to make them listen?

"Mr Rae says that he is following Mr Mulroney's lead in bringing in time allocation motions now used in the House of Commons, but conveniently, he forgets about other balancing factors such as the ability of the Senate to stall.

"Rules governing our Legislature are boring stuff for the public. I understand why the public believe that we are being childish in using every stalling technique available to us. However, we are fighting for the life of our democratic institution and must continue to do so until the government agrees to sit down and find a reasonable compromise. We will continue to be ready to negotiate new rules which will make Parliament more efficient.

"However, if the public are concerned about arrogant governments that don't listen, just wait till they see the end result of this huge power grab by Bob Rae. Those same people who are today saying opposition parties are not acting responsible will probably be asking at a later date why the opposition or why the public were not given the right to be heard.

"The government's agenda has been poorly thought out and full of inaccuracies, causing long delays. A failure by Bob Rae to tolerate those who disagree with him or want to correct his errors and mismanagement should not result in an attack by him which will destroy the delicate balance of power required in our provincial Parliament.

"Yours truly,

"Norm Sterling, MPP Carleton, PC caucus chairman."

I think that letter is a fairly accurate assessment of what is going on here today. We have seen just in the last several months many bills which, had they not been delayed either in second reading or in committee, would not have led to the substantive changes they've led to.

There are over 190 amendments to the housing bill, Bill 121, and they only came about because opposition spokespeople over here, be they from the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, asked questions. During public hearings, members of the public came out and asked questions for weeks on end about particular aspects of the bill, only to have the minister rethink some of the sections of the bill, as she was right to do, and come up with some 190 proposed amendments to that legislation.

Exactly the same thing happened with the advocacy bills which are now back in committee. That is a very non-political, non-partisan set of bills. If those bills had passed in a matter of one or two days' debate in this Legislature on second reading and had not gone out for public hearings and been examined closely in public hearings and clause by clause, we would have had some very unworkable pieces of legislation indeed.

Because of the fact that opposition parties exercised their right to delay and express opposition to certain aspects of that legislation and because members of the public had an opportunity for weeks on end to come and express their concerns -- and very sincere concerns at that -- to many different aspects of those pieces of legislation, the end result was that we ended up with better legislation.

1650

That is exactly how this place is supposed to work and that is why it works so well. That is why, in my opinion, our system of government is far superior to a republican or presidential system of government. For example, cabinet ministers in the United States are not even elected people; they're appointed people. They don't have to run for office. They're not responsible to the people. They're not responsible to their constituents. That's what separates our system of government from theirs. In their system, cabinet ministers or even the President do not have to appear every day, as does the Premier and his cabinet, to answer to the people of Ontario for decisions that are made by them day after day in their portfolios.

That is what we're talking about. That is why we get concerned on this side of the House when we hear about unilateral rule changes which in effect would permit the government to invoke closure any time it wants at any stage of a bill. You can call it time allocation if you want, but the net result is that we're going to set out certain specified periods of time, and at the end of that time the bill will be passed. That is what we're debating here.

We recognize there is need for some changes to the standing orders. Some of them have become unworkable and can be improved and modernized. Nobody's disputing that. From time to time -- the last time was 1989 -- we've done that in this place when we've had to. It usually arises as a result of an impasse around a particular piece of legislation, as it did in this case. There's nothing wrong with that, but it should be a negotiated settlement. It can't be done by holding a gun to somebody's head, so to speak, and it can't be done by forcing unilateral rule changes on members of the other two parties.

If it is done that way for the first time in the history of the province, the result will be acrimony in this place for the balance of the history of this Parliament. The government House leader knows that full well. How does his government expect the opposition and the public to treat his government with any respect if it does not treat the system we're operating in with any respect? That basically is the underlying theme behind this whole debate.

Another thing that concerns me in this whole debate is the fact that the government House leader has been talking to my colleague the member for Bruce and myself in House leaders' meetings about how we could better deal with a lot of this rule change debate that is going on in the chamber. From time to time he has felt it necessary to negotiate through the media or issue press releases.

I find that a little bit distasteful. Perhaps I come from another era, but when I first got elected here there was no way that Tom Wells, Elie Martel and Bob Nixon would have repeated one single word of what went on in a House leaders' meeting. Their word was their bond. They stood by it. They may not agree philosophically and they wouldn't agree on many pieces of legislation, but what was said in that meeting stayed in that meeting and it wasn't used against the other two or one by way of a --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to call the member for Willowdale to order. Order. I realize there's a lot of discussion going on across the floor. The member for Parry Sound has the floor, and if he could please address his remarks to the Chair, that would be helpful as well.

Mr Eves: I would like to indicate some of my frustration to you, Mr Speaker. For example, on June 8 we have here a press release of some three pages in length --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: I have here a press release from the government House leader dated June 8, 1992, and it talks about why Mr Cooke, the government House leader, was introducing his motion in the Legislature to change the rules of the House.

He goes on in here to talk about how the opposition members have slowed the passage of legislation to a trickle and that's why he needs his new standing orders. He goes on to talk about the 121 pieces of legislation his party wants to introduce. He goes on to talk about the fact there are 25 bills awaiting second reading. He says that all-party committees would merely sit idle all summer if the Legislature did not refer any legislation to them.

A week ago Thursday I indicated all the legislation that the government's introduced, and there are nowhere near 121 pieces; there are 17. They didn't even get serious about introducing any until May 26 despite the fact that they came back a month late, despite the fact that during the first month the House sat they introduced three, despite the fact that the second month the House sat they introduced about six, three of which came from a previous education bill.

How can you say on the one hand that you've got 121 pieces of legislation you want to introduce when you introduce four in six weeks? Who's telling whom what, and who's telling it the way it is? Why weren't the 121 pieces tabled before the last two weeks in the session, which according to the standing orders they're supposed to do? Where are the 121? How come we only have 17?

I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that they don't have 121 pieces of legislation at all; they have 17. They only had four done the first six weeks the House came back, and they called it back a month late. That is a façade; it is not factual. The facts speak for themselves. We all know what pieces of legislation are on their order paper, what have been introduced and what have not, and we don't have 121 to deal with; we have more like 17. We know that most of those arise out of legislation left over from the previous session, not from this session at all.

Then last Wednesday the government House leader again felt it necessary to issue a press release:

"Liberal and Conservative opposition parties are making a mockery of the Legislative Assembly with their senseless delay tactics, government House leader Dave Cooke said Wednesday.

"'Instead of attending to the important issues facing this province, the opposition have opted for childlike tactics such as clapping their hands, making frivolous points of order and taking two hours of valuable House time reading the title of a single bill,' Mr Cooke said. 'It's difficult to see how this behaviour serves the public interest.'"

How does the behaviour of putting out a press release about nine days before that saying, "I've 121 bills to introduce" and only introducing 17 affect the public order and what the public can and can't believe? How does the fact that for six days in a row I've had nothing on the order paper but the government's unilateral rule changes, not all the 121 pieces of legislation, of which 104 must have got lost in his desk or in his briefcase somewhere, because he didn't bother to introduce them -- how does calling for unilateral rule changes for the first time in the history of the province six days in a row help him deal with the important issues of the day in the province? How does that help him or his government face the labour legislation debate? How does that help him or his government deal with Sunday shopping and the free vote that his Premier promised? How does that help innocent accident victims get their right to sue restored under the auto insurance legislation, Bill 164, which has been sitting on the order paper for months but he won't call it?

1700

Even the fact that we are here today carrying on with this debate about proposed unilateral rule changes is ludicrous, and we'll be doing it till midnight tonight, because that is the government's choice. That is the government House leader's choice. He doesn't want to talk about labour legislation today or for the last week and a half or tonight. He wants to talk about unilateral rule changes. He can call any order he wants, any one of those pieces of legislation that he says are very important and that he has to get on with, but they're so important he's not going to call them. That's how important they are. Rule changes come first; labour legislation or heaven knows what else comes second, third, fourth, all the way down to number 17. He's ranked them, and this is his number one priority. He can call anything he wants, and for six days in a row he's chosen to call unilateral rule changes.

What I would like to begin to do now, getting into my remarks about the proposed rule changes themselves, is go over the position that the government House leader and his leader and other prominent members of his caucus and previous caucus colleagues have had about such rules as the ones he wants to introduce as the government of the day. My, my, how times change one's opinion about the standing orders.

I want to go back not too far in time, to debate on the then auto insurance bill, Bill 68, a creation of the previous government, which of course we all know Mr Rae and his colleagues ran against during the last provincial election, only, lo and behold, to introduce Bill 164, which is almost identical to Bill 68, dealing with the same problem.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): By God, it's worse than Bill 68.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's similar; it's not the same.

Mr Eves: Similar, similar; sorry. I will take "almost identical" back. As a matter of fact, the government member for Welland-Thorold points out that his government's Bill 164 is actually worse than the previous government's Bill 68, and I think we'd probably have to concur.

During that debate the now government House leader, then the opposition House leader, stood in this place on April 3, 1990, and here's what he said about time allocation and standing orders on that day:

"This government, the majority party in here, is prepared to do anything to the standing orders in order to get its legislation through, even if it means changing the routine proceedings that we normally go through." Exactly what he did today.

He was talking about the government of the day moving a motion to go directly to orders of the day and to jump over introduction of bills, petitions, committee reports etc, so that opposition members couldn't introduce petitions, couldn't introduce delaying tactics or points of order and couldn't introduce bills. He was complaining about it on April 3, 1990, and now today he's doing it. He's doing exactly the same thing he found despicable on April 3, 1990.

Mr Harnick: Can you repeat who that was again?

Mr Eves: That was the Honourable David Cooke.

Mr Harnick: The same guy?

Mr Eves: The same guy.

He goes on to say, "I would suggest that" time allocation "is incredibly unfair." The same guy who now wants to have automatic time allocation said: "I would suggest that" time allocation "is incredibly unfair. It will result in the process not holding the government accountable...."

Is the government House leader now telling us that he wants to introduce incredibly unfair standing orders and time allocation motions and his government doesn't have to or doesn't want to be accountable? This is the same guy who is introducing this stuff today. I find this hard to believe.

He goes on to say in the same debate: "The rules in this place are here to protect the integrity of this institution, the rules are written and changed by consensus and the rules are here to protect debate and free debate from all members of the Legislature. The government is rewriting the rules and imposing them by motion and by the use of its majority. It is clear that the government will go to whatever extent is necessary to impose its will."

That is what David Cooke said on April 3, 1990, about the type of rules he now wants to introduce unilaterally. He said that time allocation was incredibly unfair, that all that results in is the process not holding the government of the day accountable. So I presume his government doesn't want to be accountable and it wants to be incredibly unfair.

He went on to say that the whole reason why we have rules in this place is to protect the integrity of the institution, by our system, and that the rules are to be changed and written by consensus only. So why are we debating his unilateral motion to change the rules if he believes the only way you ever do this is by consensus? I have it right here. These are his own words.

Then on July 13, 1989, going back a little bit before that, this was a debate on Bills 113 and 114 of the day. The now government House leader, then the House leader of the official opposition, said: "Again, the government House leader makes the point very well that the Legislative Assembly should not be passing time allocation without proper adjustments to the rules of the Legislative Assembly. That has not been done. I think it would be appropriate for the government to do that. If it wants to negotiate that as a package, then we are certainly prepared to talk about it. We will want other things in return."

Hello, is Mr Cooke home? Now that we are saying we want other things in return, he says: "Oh, no, no. You don't get anything. This isn't a democracy here. We want our own rules. We don't want any debate. We want to be able to shove it down your throat. We don't want to listen to any opposition. We don't want to listen to the people of Ontario. We want the whole ball of wax." This is the same David Cooke who criticized other governments for introducing time allocation motions.

"We will want other things in return. We will want all sorts of protections for opposition parties. Time allocation, I think, is a sad commentary on this government," Mr Cooke said. "It is a sad commentary on a majority that has become more and more removed from the people of this province."

Mel Swart couldn't have said it better. This government has become very, very arrogant in a very, very short period of time. Now, because their legislation isn't going through quickly enough, they want to change the rules. They want to eliminate democratic debate so they can ram their legislation through with their 36.9% of the popular vote.

1710

It's almost unbelievable that the same Mr Cooke could now be standing in this place introducing motions to go past other business and directly to orders of the day that he criticized the then government House leader for doing. It's almost unbelievable that he could criticize time allocation motions. It's unbelievable that he could suggest that the only way the rules of this place should ever be changed is by consensus and by negotiation of all three parties and now he's doing exactly the opposite. He's doing exactly what he criticized the government of the day in 1989 and 1990 for doing.

I think it's kind of interesting also, Mr Speaker, to find out where the Premier of the province is coming from on these rule changes because we have some quotes here from the Premier of the province when he was the Leader of the Opposition and what he thought about the government of the day dealing with time allocation motions, changing the standing orders etc. This is in a debate on July 18, 1989.

"Mr Rae: I can tell the members that when I was in another democratic forum, we had experiences there with various forms of time allocation and of closure. I will not take this opportunity to go through back to the great debates of 1911 and 1912 and the history of closure which was presented to this House so brilliantly by the late Jim Renwick when he discussed the origins of closure in the British Parliament and the debates over the Irish question in the 1880s. I could not hope to match Mr Renwick's historical and narrative skill in going over that ground. It was a great speech for those of us who were here and for those of us who were involved in that debate.

"But I would like to say more than a few words about what has happened to this House and what has happened to the way in which governments have responded to particularly difficult debates. We are still in the position where we can count, if not on one hand, at least on two, the times when governments have felt it necessary to invoke closure or time allocation. I say without apology to the government House leader, who no doubt will say this is not closure and will say that I use the word 'closure' as a generic term to cover any effort by a government to limit or restrict debate and to set certain times as to when debates will be over, and that I regard this as a closure motion. I think if you talked to most people walking down the street about what happens when a government moves closure, if they knew what you were talking about at all, they would understand that setting limits to time is exactly what is involved....

"I think it is important for everyone to understand why opposition parties decide to oppose certain kinds of legislation and why and how they decide that certain kinds of legislation or certain bills are going to be opposed in a particularly strong and vehement fashion.

"There will no doubt be some who look at opposition parties and say that simply obstructing or opposing, throwing up roadblocks, is the only thing our opposition parties are good for or know how to do, in addition to posing embarrassing or difficult or effective questions in question period. But I would say that in fact opposition parties have to choose very carefully -- and from my experience, do choose very carefully -- those bills and pieces of legislation which they single out as bills which they will do everything in their power to stop or to slow down....

"Most of us know that in the case of minority parliaments there's far more give and take, which is why I personally like minority parliaments." This is the Premier talking. I'm sure the people will give him at least that wish in the next provincial election, Mr Speaker. "I certainly enjoyed the last one," he said, "I only wish it had lasted a bit longer. We like the give and take that is there. We like the opportunity for individual members to express some influence and to have an ability to affect things. Majority parliaments produce legislation which is very difficult for us to amend...."

"But when we are faced with legislation that to us is completely unacceptable, as an opposition what we have to do is then say that we are going to use the only weapon we have, which is time.

"In a minority Parliament, you have a lot of weapons you can use.... In a majority Parliament, compromise is not the way of the system. Compromise is unheard of. Governments with a majority do not compromise unless they are forced by public opinion and time to do so. What majority governments say when they are determined to proceed with a certain path is to go ahead."

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice there is a party on the government side of the premises. If we could listen to the member for Parry Sound speak, it would be helpful.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce has raised, I think, a very important issue. There is a great deal of discussion and talk on all sides of the House today; in fact, one might even say at times a Greek chorus responding to various things the honourable member for Parry Sound has said. I ask the members to please maintain order. I'm speaking specifically right now to the member for Etobicoke West to stop the interjections and allow the member for Parry Sound, a member of his own party, to continue with his discussions.

Mr Eves: These are remarks by the Premier of the province when he was the Leader of the Opposition about majority governments. He didn't like majority governments, he thought they were terrible. Minority governments always work far better than majority government, according to the Premier of the province. He was totally against any form of time allocation or closure, which he said was unparliamentary, undemocratic and something you should never do. It was just a case of a majority government abusing its privileges as a government.

Now we have his government not only doing what he criticized others for doing, but he wants to do it unilaterally for the first time in the history of the province without consensus with the other two parties. It's almost unbelievable that these words came out of the current Premier's mouth and now he's turning around and doing exactly -- and worse -- what he accused other governments of doing.

"In my experience in the House of Commons or my experience here," Mr Rae went on, "I cannot remember a time during a majority Parliament when a significant amendment proposed by an opposition member to a bill has been accepted by a government. I cannot recall such a time, and if someone can point to such an occasion, I would say that is the exception that proves the rule, because once the power is there, once that executive capacity is there, it is used simply to preserve the power of the majority and to proceed on the basis of what the majority wants.

"There have been many comments on bell-ringing and many comments on other kinds of tactics we use. I can tell the member that whether we use bell-ringing in the future will of course depend on the negotiations that are ongoing with respect to the rules" -- negotiations ongoing with respect to the rules -- "which we are all aware of, but I can say to the member that we are determined to maintain our capacity as an opposition to use our control over time, because if we are not able to in effect -- I should not use the word 'control' but 'influence' -- if we cannot use our influence over time, we are then in a position where it is impossible for us to allow public opinion to get a government to change its mind."

1720

That is exactly the point. That's exactly what we have been saying to the Premier and to his colleague the government House leader for many, many days now, if not a couple of weeks, since this June 8 introduction of these unilateral rule changes. It's exactly the point, and the government House leader himself and the Premier himself, when they were in opposition, made exactly the points we're making now, but they don't want to listen now. They're in the majority. They want to use their executive powers, as the Premier refers to it. They don't want to listen to anybody. They want to do what they want to do.

He goes on and on and talks about the various things opposition parties can do to slow down the work of the Legislature and that this is really the only effective way an opposition party of any political stripe can get its point across, to ask for time, to allow for the public to have input, to make the public aware of certain proposed pieces of legislation so hopefully they can be amended and improved upon and the public can have some input into the process.

That's all we're asking for here. All the opposition parties are asking for over here is an opportunity to be heard and not unilaterally cut off and shut out of debate so the public has a right, on controversial pieces of legislation, to come and make its point or points known so the legislation can be approved and we can all do our jobs as legislators here, whether we're on the government's side of the House or the opposition side of the House.

I have a comment here from the current Minister of Labour when he was in opposition, speaking in the same debate on the same day as the Premier of the province.

"Mr Mackenzie: I would wish the Liberal government members would take the trouble to read an excellent speech by a former colleague of mine, the previous member for Riverdale, Jim Renwick, and his comments of 9 December 1982 on a previous closure motion in this House. Jim warned the government that it gets easier every time you take another slice out of the democratic process, and he quoted Santayana, the philosopher, that those who do not understand or remember history are doomed to repeat it. I think those words are accurate ones....

"Why does a government with 94 members in this House as against a combined opposition of 36 opposition members for both parties, two and a half to one, have to resort to bully-boy tactics? Why the iron fist approach? I think it is important to understand why this dictatorial approach and not to be conned by it, and that the people of Ontario not be conned by what is happening here."

I say to the Minister of Labour: Exactly. That is exactly the point, and why is he partaking of a government that is doing the same and worse than the government of July 18, 1989, was doing? All they wanted to do then was introduce one simple closure motion. What the government wants to do is make closure and time allocation an everyday fact of life by unilateral changes to the rules, and he's going to stand up and vote for that, the same Mr Mackenzie?

Where have his principles gone? Where have Mr Mackenzie's principles gone? Where have Mr Rae's principles gone? Where have Mr Cooke's principles gone? Have they washed them out? Did they chuck them out the door on September 10, 1990? What happened to their principles? What happened to the principles their party fought for for years? Do they not have any any more? Do they not remember what democracy is all about, fighting for people's right to speak, fighting for minority rights? What's happened to them?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Give us the answer, Ernie.

Mr Eves: I think Mel Swart told us the answer.

Mr Elston: I agree. What was that answer that Mel gave us?

Mr Eves: What was that answer over the weekend?

Mr Elston: Yes.

Mr Eves: Oh, Mel's very upset indeed. He's upset. He's upset with the fact that he thinks that his party has caved in, that they've yielded to pressure from various interest groups, that they no longer are prepared to stand up and be counted on the principles that they fought for so hard during the 1990 election campaign. The same principles that got them elected they've now thrown out the window. They've thrown out their principles on Sunday shopping; they've thrown out their principles on the public's right to sue on auto insurance; they've chucked them out.

And this government was going to be different. This government was going to be different, Mr Rae said.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Corporate donations now.

Mr Eves: As my friend the member for St Catharines says, now they're even going to accept donations from corporations. What next? Is there no limit to this? Do these people have no shame, or what?

Mr Elston: No, they have no money. There's a difference.

Mr Eves: Oh, they have no money. That could be part of the problem.

Anyway, going on with Mr Mackenzie's speech of July 18, "The next argument from the government House leader is that the New Democratic Party is simply stalling the business of the House; this from a government House leader whose tactic from day one has been 'My way or no way.'"

Does that sound familiar? The government House leader of the day has said to us, for six days in a row, "My way or no way."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Parry Sound has the floor right now. There's a great deal of interchange between the two sides of the House.

Mr Stockwell: It is my fault; sorry.

The Acting Speaker: Not this time, to the honourable member, just so he knows. I'd ask the honourable member for Parry Sound to please continue.

Mr Eves: Mr Mackenzie went on to say in that debate: "He is certainly the most incompetent House leader, in terms of ordering the business of this House, that I have seen in my years in this House. The House leaders' meetings are confrontational. House business in this House has been a disaster, and for a small opposition, the only way we have been able to make our points, the only tools at our use, have been the use of the rules or the use of the bells.

"No other House leader would have been as lacking in the skills needed to order the efficient business of the House," Mr Mackenzie said. "One would think that a rural boy would have learned that you catch more with a little honey than you do with vinegar.

"The government House leader seems to be personally insulted when his big majority does not give him the licence to do exactly as he pleases. His main claim to fame in this House is to have brought about the most unhealthy, nasty, personal and divisive House that is literally operating on invective and personal animosity. It is not a very proud or positive accomplishment. I think the government House leader should be replaced as a first step to restoring any civility in this House."

That was Mr Mackenzie's advice when we had a real problem about a small closure motion -- one closure motion, not rules saying, "We can invoke closure every day of the week if we want." One simple closure motion. Mr Mackenzie's solution was to turf the government House leader as the first step, because "He's obviously the worst House leader we've ever seen in any government party anywhere because he can't even get this one little motion through."

Then he goes on to say, "Let's cut a deal." How many times have we said, "Let's cut a deal on this"? How many times have we said to the current House leader, "Can't we sit down and talk about changing the rules and get on with the business of the House while we go to House leaders' meetings and talk about the rules or send it out to the Legislative Assembly committee?"

Exactly the same points, but they won't listen. They're big shots now. They're in government. They're arrogant; they can do whatever they want. They can change the rules unilaterally. They can invoke closure day after day if they want. They went nuts about one closure motion, and now they want to do it as a matter of business.

Interjection: Hear, hear.

Mr Eves: One of their members says, "Hear, hear." I guess that's what they want.

"Every time a government moves closure it gets a little easier, and democracy is just a little frailer as a result. This is a sad day for justice in Ontario, and...another sick day for this particular government." -- That's Mr Mackenzie; I couldn't agree with him more. -- "The members of this government, argue as they might, know very well that there is no real justification for this closure motion at this time. I think fairminded people across Ontario will agree that there is no justification for this motion to stifle debate on something as important as this bill is to so many constituents of Ontario.

"I think they will live to regret it. I think it is another case of history that they are going to suffer for, because they have not learned from history in the past. I hope the members of this House, although I do not expect it, will decide that they are simply not going to proceed with such a sick and undemocratic approach as this closure motion."

1730

This is Mr Mackenzie, as he was very apt to do in 1989, going completely offside, as he often did. If some of the members over there who were newly elected in 1990 think some of us go nuts in here from time to time, you should have seen Bob Mackenzie in 1987, 1988 and 1989. I'll tell you that he makes me look like I'm on Valium 24 hours a day. This guy went bananas in here every day, screaming and yelling, getting thrown out, going on tirades talking about democratic rights about one simple closure motion.

Now he's part of a cabinet that wants to pass rules that say, "I can invoke closure every day of the week on every bill if I want and you don't have the right to debate it." Bob Mackenzie would have ripped out microphones. He'd have gone completely nuts. You people sit over here and think we're crazy. I wish we had videotapes of some great speeches that Elie Martel gave in this place, that Morty Shulman gave in this place, that Bob Mackenzie gave in this place, that Bob Rae gave when he was the opposition leader, that David Cooke gave when he was the opposition House leader, and Ross McClellan and David Reville. We must have those on videotape someplace, I hope.

I want to talk for a moment about another quote of Mr Rae's on January 30, 1989, because it was, lo and behold, on Bills 113 and 114, which were the Sunday shopping bills of the government of the day. I want to tell you what Mr Rae had to say about Sunday shopping on January 30, 1989, which is not all that long ago. I don't think one's principles usually change too much in the course of two or three years.

"I also want to signal to you, sir, that we have fought this battle now for many, many months, indeed many years, and it has become perfectly clear to us that the government is bound and determined to have its way. To put it bluntly, we can add that we know the government, if this is what it is determined to do, can in fact force the House to vote and can, according to you and your ruling, sir, close off debate....

"I think the best labour legislation we could have would be Sunday closing legislation. Anything else is very inadequate and does not really meet the situation, the requirements or our needs.

"Mr Speaker, in closing, I want to say that in your ruling, sir, I think you have established a very dangerous precedent. I think it is a terrible precedent to say that the majority can in effect, without so much as a by-your-leave, amend the standing orders and simply force through legislation as it wishes. With great respect to you and your office, I think it is lamentable that we did not convince you that minorities need more protection in this House, and that is particularly true when you have a government the size of this one.

"I think we are now living with rules and with precedents in this House which will not stand democracy well at the end of the day. It would be far better to have real consensus among all the parties as to how the business of the House should be ordered and some greater willingness on the part of the government to at least listen to those of us who are in opposition to what it is trying to do."

Those were the words of Bob Rae on January 30, 1989. He obviously doesn't think much about consensus of all the parties, as he put it, any more. He was going crazy there; he was going a little offside -- perhaps "crazy" isn't the right word -- about one simple closure motion. Now he wants to change the rules so he can pass it every day of the week if it so behooves him.

I'm reading some more comments here now of the government House leader on Sunday shopping. On January 23, 1989, Mr Cooke himself said:

"I am not going to say that I'm happy to join in this debate, but obviously the government House leader knew it was coming.

"Mr Speaker, I do not know if you had the opportunity to watch Provincial Affairs this past Saturday night, but I did. The government House leader spent a good deal of the time attacking my party. I took that as a compliment, because I think we have demonstrated over the last number of months our vigorous, real and very strongly held views on the government's plan to expand Sunday shopping."

If rumour is correct, the very same government House leader, the very same David Cooke, is one of the biggest proponents of Sunday shopping in the NDP caucus and in the hierarchy of cabinet and his party, and he talks about his principles and how he has vigorously, very strongly held views against the expansion of Sunday shopping. Those are his principles as of 1989, but I guess he checks them at the cabinet door in 1992 when he goes to cabinet meetings.

Time allocation seems to be the pet project of the current government House leader. That is the most important thing in this entire rules package as far as he is concerned. He wants some sort of time allocation motion.

Mr Mahoney: What does that mean?

Mr Eves: The honourable member says, "What does that mean?" I'm glad he asked me that question, because basically and very simply to the people out there, what time allocation means is that if the government of the day decides it wants a particular piece of legislation passed, such as the labour bill which is now before the House but which the government House leader refuses to call, he can simply introduce a motion, or the minister introducing that legislation can simply introduce a motion, which would say, for example -- he wants a very bald time allocation motion. He doesn't want it to be able to be debated for more than an hour, I think was his proposal, one hour's debate.

Then when it's passed, the motion can say, for example: "There will be one day of second reading debate. There will be no public hearings" -- he could do this. "There will be no clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee. There will be a day of committee of the whole, there will be an hour of third reading debate and, lo and behold, it will become law because we said so and we're the government and the rest of you don't have any rights."

He could do that in accordance with the rule changes and time allocation motion changes that he is proposing. Now if that isn't what he wants, then why doesn't he propose what he wants? But that's what he has asked for. He's asked for taking away the Speaker's discretion in cases of closure. Right now in this place, the Speaker is an independent person and he or she rules whether there has been the appropriate amount of debate on invoking closure, cutting off debate, having the question put now or having an immediate vote without further debate.

Right now it's at the Speaker's discretion, if the appropriate number of hours or rotations have taken place, before closure can be invoked. That's set by parliamentary tradition and precedents. Right now it's at the Speaker's discretion as to whether the rights of the minority members in the Legislature are being oppressed or whether the minority have been able to have their say.

Why does Mr Cooke want to take that away? Why does he want it to become automatic? The same Mr Cooke made all these great quotes about how you have to protect the rights of the minority and how closure and time allocation are terrible things. The same Mr Rae who spoke so eloquently from the heart about it now says: "The heck with them. I want time allocation and closure that I can shove down their yaps. It's not debatable. You can talk about it for an hour and that's it." I don't understand how people can change so much in a couple of short years.

1740

Here's Mr Cooke on auto insurance, a favourite subject; Bill 68, April 3, 1990, on time allocation:

"First of all, perhaps I might look at some of the background of time allocation or closure motions in this Legislature. Mr Speaker, I think you as a long-standing member of the Legislature will recognize that time allocation or closure motions in the past have been very rare, rarely used by the government of the day. However, since 1987 this procedure has become almost routine for this government.

"The government now treats time allocation motions, even though they are not provided for in the standing orders, as routine. Its position can be interpreted by us, and is interpreted by us, as a government that wants to use its 93 members to get whatever it, as the majority, wants through, and if it has to use time allocation or closure, it will use it as often as it feels like using it."

Mr Bradley: Who said that?

Mr Eves: David Cooke said that. "I think that each and every time the time allocation and closure motions are brought in they need to be examined by the Speaker" -- he was in favour of the Speaker's discretion for time allocation and closure motions in 1990, two years ago -- "need to be considered by the Speaker as they relate to our rules and precedents that have been set."

On April 3, 1990, the same Mr Cooke spoke very eloquently in favour of honouring parliamentary tradition, precedent and having the Speaker's discretion with respect to time allocation and closure motions.

The same Mr Cooke is now saying: "No, the Speaker shouldn't have any discretion at all. Closure should be automatic; time allocation should be automatic. You have one hour to debate it, that's it, and we can set any parameters and limit your rights to debate any time we want." That was Mr Cooke's opinion then; this is Mr Cooke's opinion now.

Mr Cooke went on to say in the same speech on the same day -- the few little snippets of quotes by the now government House leader Mr Cooke, then House leader for the opposition, that just don't jibe with what he's telling us today; this can't be the same person; it must be somebody that's taken over his body -- "The rules in this place are here to protect the integrity of the institution, the rules are written and changed by consensus and the rules are here to protect debate and free debate from all members of the Legislature. The government is rewriting the rules and imposing them by motion and by the use of its majority. It is clear that the government will go to whatever extent is necessary to impose its will."

That was Mr Cook on April 3, 1990; this is Mr Cooke today. He wants to do exactly what he criticized the government of the day for doing on April 3, 1990, but he wants to legitimize it by changing the standing orders to let him do it any time he wants.

Mr Cooke on the subject of filibusters and what appropriate debate is: "If the member thinks five days is a filibuster, then he has got something to learn about the proper procedures and the role of the opposition parties in dealing with controversial items like this."

Interjection: Repeat that.

Mr Eves: Mr Cooke said, "If the member thinks five days is a filibuster, then he has got something to learn about the proper procedures and the role of the opposition parties in dealing with controversial items like this."

Well, I guess we have the parameters for the minimum requirements for any time allocation motion. Five days per member is not enough. According to Mr Cooke, that's not a filibuster. That's what he said on April 3, 1990. I guess his new rules will be that every one of us, 130 of us, will have at least six days to speak on every single bill that's introduced, because he doesn't think five days' debate is enough for one member of the Legislature on a controversial bill. How can the same person now want to stand here and make time allocation and closure a matter of routine? How can that possibly happen?

Then we had the same Mr Cooke go on to quote very eloquently from Erskine May on parliamentary tradition. He said:

"I would like to refer very briefly to Erskine May and quote from page 408:

"'In many sessions in order to secure the passage of particularly important and controversial legislation, governments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority. In such circumstances, resort is had...to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the setting of a date by which a committee must report, or the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill and of limited amounts of time to particular portions of a bill. Orders made under this procedure are known as 'allocation of time' orders, and colloquially as 'guillotine' motions. They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate. But the harshness of this procedure is to some extent mitigated either by consultations between the party leaders or in the business committee' -- which in our case is the House leaders' panel -- 'in order to establish the greatest possible measure of agreement as to the most satisfactory disposal of the time available.'"

That was Mr Cooke's thought on April 3, 1990, about protecting the rights of the minority and not letting the majority introduce time allocation motions or closure motions in debate. They should be done, in Mr Cooke's own words, by the House leaders' panel, not by changing the rules, not by introducing time allocation or closure motions but by negotiation, consensus and discussion at the House leaders' panel.

That's exactly what we've been telling the same Mr Cooke in his own words for the last two or three weeks in this place, yet he insists on calling for nothing more every day for the last six days than unilateral rule changes. I don't know if Mr Cooke really believes this -- I suspect not -- or if he's being ordered to by somebody above him in his own government, and I don't think there are too many people who fall into that category.

He goes on to say:

"In this particular circumstance, this argument in Erskine May is very relevant in that all the sections of this bill on the second reading debate, the public hearings and the debate of the report coming from the standing committee on general government were all dealt with by consensus and by discussion in the House leaders' panel. Two days after we get into committee of the whole House, the government says, 'Well, we have dealt with this by consensus in the past.'"

This is Mr Cooke complaining about lack of advance notice: "At 6 o'clock -- they do not even give us advance notice; no discussion at all in the House leaders' panel -- they bring in this closure motion," he says. That's what they do. "This bill had been dealt with by consensus for the first two stages, but the government did not even attempt to use the process; had it attempted the process, it may have worked. For that reason, in addition to the others, I think the motion is out of order."

1750

This is Mr Cooke speaking against a time allocation and closure motion on April 3, 1990, on the then auto insurance bill, Bill 68, which his government fought vehemently against during the 1990 election campaign. This is the same Mr Cooke and he's telling us how we should do things at the House leaders' panel, how we should do it by consensus, how this should never happen, how we should never have a time allocation motion in here and we should never have a closure motion.

Now he's got an order standing in his name saying that we rewrite all the rules of this place to unilaterally change the rules so his government can introduce time allocation or closure -- the very things he criticizes -- any time it wants, and he complains about lack of notice -- the same Mr Cooke who slipped a motion to the Clerk at 5 pm on a Thursday, who didn't abide by the standing orders and tell us what his business for the following week was two or three Thursdays ago, and lo and behold -- surprise -- on Monday decides that he's going to debate nothing but changes to the standing orders.

He didn't give anybody any notice, Mr Speaker; he knew at 5 o'clock, when it had to be tabled with the Clerk, what he was going to do on Monday. He had Thursday evening, when the House sat until 12, Friday, Saturday and Sunday to tell somebody else what he wanted to do, and he complains about lack of notice.

Mr Mammoliti: He doesn't work Sundays.

Mr Eves: He worked yesterday, because I talked to him yesterday.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That was a pleasure call.

Mr Eves: That was a pleasure call all right.

Mr Speaker, it's really difficult for us who have been here for a few years to comprehend where the New Democratic Party is coming from on this issue. What they propose in the new rule changes is totally against every principle and everything they have ever stood for in this place.

Unilateral actions by governments -- which can be done if you have a majority; eventually it will pass, if that's how you decide to proceed -- will result in nothing but chaos and acrimony around here for the next two to three years, whenever it is the Premier decides to call the next election.

I have a little snippet by Mr Rae saying he doesn't condone or approve of the use of closure by government to get legislation through. He just wanted us to know that.

Now we have some quotes by the current Minister of Financial Institutions, Mr Charlton, on January 30, 1989. This again, I think, was on the debate of Bills 113 and 114: "I find myself getting angry when I hear the government House leader saying that they have to move time allocation so we can get on with other important business."

Does that sound familiar? It should, because that's what Mr Cooke has been telling us: "He is trying to sell a crock to the people of Ontario. It is the government party, the majority party in this House, which orders the business of this House, not the opposition parties."

I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr Charlton. It is exactly what's going on. I'm quoting Mr Charlton word for word in exactly similar circumstances:

"The government party orders the business of this House, and the government of this province is at liberty to deal with any business it so wishes. The government party in this House is not obliged to bring forward the two pieces of legislation which it knows the opposition is going to oppose in every way it can until the other business it wishes to deal with has been completed."

Here Mr Charlton complained that the government called two bills, the Sunday shopping bills that it knew would be controversial, and said, "You shouldn't be doing that." Your government won't even do that. It won't even call bills. They want to call unilateral rule changes, that notice of motion on Orders and Notices. They don't even want to talk about labour legislation or Sunday shopping or auto insurance or other controversial bills. You won't even do what Mr Charlton criticized the government of the day for doing: calling controversial bills.

"So let us not hear from the government any more about how the opposition to Bills 113 and 114 is holding up other important business. That is the choice of the government, not of the opposition benches, and it is part of the procedural scam which we have been going through before and which we are going through again now.

"I think back to the debates in 1982 and 1983, and I am not going to do as my colleagues have done, start reading all kinds of quotes from those debates into Hansard here today, but what I would like to do is discuss the difference between those allocation debates then and the one we are having here today."

Here Mr Charlton is going to pay my party a backhanded compliment.

"My party and the Liberal party, at the time the official opposition, opposed those time allocation motions. Having said that, I have to give credit to the former government, now the third party, for having at least seriously considered the importance of the measures around which it felt it necessary to bring in time allocation....

"I remember the trepidation with which the government of the day moved into that particular phase of debate around, I guess it was Bill 179 or 187, whatever it was.

"At any rate, the debate was a debate of significant importance, and time allocation was only brought in on a very important matter after very considerable effort on the part of the opposition parties to stall the legislation....

"As one of the other speakers earlier this afternoon said, there is no pressure anywhere in the province to see this legislation pass by closure. It is more the other way. In fact, there is serious sentiment right across this province that the Legislature is wasting its time considering these bills at all."

That was again Mr Charlton, who now of course is the Minister of Financial Institutions in this government, and what he thought about time allocation motions and what he thought about closure motions. That's what he thought in 1989.

He went on near the end of his speech on January 30 to say, "Time allocation motions, which amount in the words of the government House leader to closure, are motions that should never be brought without very serious reserve on the part of the government that brings them."

Now we're going to legitimize them every day here if Mr Cooke gets his way.

"I am going to have to suggest that not only has this government not seriously considered the ramifications of using time allocation in a trivial situation like this one to force through bad legislation, legislation which ultimately is going to come back to haunt it, but that it certainly has not considered it as carefully as I give credit to its predecessor for doing in 1982 and 1983.

"Even though I opposed the time allocation legislation back then, I at least concede that the government of the day more seriously considered its application than this government and this government House leader have considered it here today."

Mr Charlton was quite a busy little bee indeed when it came to time allocation motions.

Mr Beer: A busy little what?

Mr Eves: A busy little bee. He spoke on several different time allocation and closure motions in this place, such as on July 18, 1989.

"Very importantly in this debate this afternoon, we've centred around closure and the whole proposition on the part of the government that somehow 13 months in the legislative process makes for a good piece of legislation."

Here is Mr Charlton complaining because the government of the day in 1989 is introducing time allocation and closure after 13 months of consideration of a bill, and his government here today wants us to legitimize time allocation and closure as a matter of course, as a matter of business, with one hour's debate.

I don't understand. David Cooke didn't think five days of debate per member was nearly enough, and he doesn't consider that to be a filibuster. Mr Charlton didn't think 13 months of consideration of a bill, over a year, was long enough to legitimize the use of closure, and now this government wants it to be part of the standing orders with an hour's debate. I mean, give me a break. Those of us who have been over here and heard the Mr Charltons and the Mr Cookes and the Mr Raes and the Mr Martels over the years find this very difficult to take indeed.

1800

Mr Bradley: I can just hear Elie with this motion.

Mr Eves: Elie is going to be tearing up his membership card and burning it.

Then he goes on to talk about and compliment one of my former colleagues, Dr Bette Stephenson, when she was the Minister of Labour and was going through a process to substantially amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70 of the day. He thought that Bette Stephenson set a very good precedent as to how governments should deal with very controversial pieces of legislation. You might want to listen to this because the Minister of Labour has one before the House right now.

He talked about two and a half years we spent on this process, on the Family Law Reform Act. He talked about four and a half years that were spent on the Occupational Health and Safety Act process. Four and a half years: He thought that was done properly, that we should have four and a half years of consultation. I am sure the current Minister of Labour will be happy to know that he hasn't even come close to the four and a half years Mr Charlton says you should spend on a controversial piece of legislation, and the two and a half years around the Family Law Reform Act legislation.

I remind you, Mr Speaker, that the two and a half years we spent on the legislative process on that bill in 1977 and 1978 followed probably 10 or 15 years of dialogue, consultation, complaint and controversy in Ontario society that led up to the government finally introducing the legislation that went through considerable debate and amendment for two and a half years before its passage.

"Both of those legislative processes I have described here today are primary examples of why 13 months do not mean anything and certainly do not reflect a piece of legislation that is necessarily...ready for passage." That was on Bill 162.

Here we have Mr Charlton saying two and a half years, that's all right, on consultation. Even after two and a half years -- 13 months considering the bill, after two and a half years of consultation, is not nearly enough. No government in its right mind would want to invoke closure after a two-and-a-half-year consultation process and after 13 months of considering legislation. It just is too early to introduce time allocation or closure.

Now we have the government of the day, the same people, the same Mr Charlton, the same Mr Rae, the same Mr Cooke, standing up and saying: "We need unilateral rule changes that will allow us to invoke closure on the spot -- no discretion to the Speaker -- that will allow us to invoke time allocation on one hour's debate, and that's it, it's a done deal, it's over, because we're the government. We have the majority and we can do whatever we want."

I can't believe it's the same David Cooke, I can't believe it's the same Bob Rae and I can't believe it's the same Brian Charlton. I know it's not the same NDP. I know that for a fact, and so does Mel Swart, and so does the current member for Welland-Thorold. Somewhere along the line, they've lost their principles and they've lost their reason for existing and they've lost their championing of minority rights, of right of free speech, of democracy. They've checked them all at the door on their way into cabinet meetings, on their way into power. They are hidden in the trunk of their limousines, I guess. I don't know where their principles went, but they've lost them all.

I want to give the newer members of the New Democratic Party who haven't had -- I don't know whether I'd call it the privilege -- the opportunity to sit here and listen to some of those speeches -- I'd like them to reflect on where those people were coming from then and where the same people are coming from now.

It's after 6 of the clock. I think this is an appropriate occasion on which to move adjournment of this debate.

[Report continues in volume B]