Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, on July 16, 1992, the New Democratic Party government again demonstrated that the NDP's definition of consultation is to hear only that which it wishes to hear, rather than solicit opinion or actually listen. They prefer to inform those affected after a decision has already been made.

I am referring to the government's proposed changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. It was last year, June 1991, that the government began its so-called consultation process that was supposed to obtain opinions and comments from those who are affected by the proposed NDP legislation. It was not until July 16 of this year that public servants who will be affected by this new act were brought together to hear the government's plans with respect to their new status within Ontario's public service. Needless to say, these civil servants are angry at the way they have been treated. They don't want to be shoved into OPSEU; they want to be consulted.

It's clear that the NDP government is there not to inform, not to consult, but to tell them what's going to happen. The proposed changes to the legislation are just a sellout of the excluded employees to OPSEU in exchange for a 1% wage settlement last year. The government is selling out these excluded workers to OPSEU for political gain, not to improve things for the 25% not covered by the present act.

These proposed changes show that the government is not interested in consultation, and the minister, the Chairman of Management Board, is acting like a tinpot dictator.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by the owner of a restaurant in my riding who was very upset with what he considered government waste. He received in the mail a large, expensive folder from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with information from Foodland Ontario about Ontario fruits and vegetables. He explained that this information was of no use to him as, quite simply, he buys Ontario produce only when it is better priced and of a better quality.

He does not need Foodland Ontario to tell him, for instance, that Ontario apples are available every month except July and that Ontario asparagus is available in April, May and June. He buys what's fresh and what's good and, wonder of wonders, in April, May and June, he indeed buys Ontario asparagus. That's the best and that's why he buys it. He was angry that his hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on sending this unsolicited information to all restaurants in Ontario.

He was even angrier two weeks later when he received a card telling him there was a package at the post office. He took time from his busy day and picked up what was the second of the ministry's mailings. The elaborate book was equally useless to him. He was annoyed he had to go out of his way to pick it up.

I'm sure the ministry feels every restaurateur couldn't possibly run his business without information, but I would suggest that a much better method would be to produce a list of publications available and allow people to request only what they find useful.

Along with my restaurateur friend, I believe this program is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. As you can see, it must take a few bucks for every restaurant; a colossal waste.

APPRECIATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): It is with a heart full of feeling that I rise today to thank you, Mr Speaker, and my colleagues of the government side of this House, and to extend my gratitude to members of the parties opposite, my constituents of Lambton county and others from across the province for the expressions of sympathy, support and contributions shown and given to me and my family during our recent bereavement.

It has been said there is nothing worse than the death of one's child. I have to believe it is true. The kindness, love and understanding so freely given will assist us immensely to begin the healing process.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to say a very special thanks to my staff, Mrs Fran Portis and Mr Wayne Beaton, for their service above and beyond the call of duty. All members know how hard it can be to acquire good staff. I'm so fortunate because I have found the best.

Again, thank you to all for the assistance. I wish to assure the residents of Lambton county I am back, willing to take up the challenges that lie ahead. Thank you all very much from the bottom of my heart.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon to express my concern about this government and specifically the Minister of Correctional Services' unfair and ineffective actions on behalf of the women of this province. On at least two occasions this minister and this government have made it difficult for women to have their rights recognized.

First, this government has repeatedly denied the requests for access to personal files containing medical history and other information by the survivors of the Grandview Training School for Girls, even though very similar information has been released to male victims in previous Ontario and Canadian cases.

Then, in the latest controversy surrounding the Minister of Correctional Services, the female staff of his ministry have not felt they have the necessary support and security to bring serious complaints of sexual harassment and/or assault to the attention of this minister or those in authority within the Ministry of Correctional Services.

This developing pattern of ignoring the rights of women is seriously disturbing. NDP media events on sexual harassment and campaigns without implementation are not good enough for the women of Ontario.

1340

MPP CHALLENGE RACE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to remind all members of this House of the Bill Murdoch MPP Challenge Race this Friday evening at the Varney Speedway near Durham.

Spectators can expect to be awed and impressed with the inspired driving of such well-known speedsters as the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Government Services. They will witness, and quite possibly be frightened by, the fearless driving of the members from Etobicoke West, Kitchener-Wilmot, Scarborough-Agincourt, Halton Centre and Durham-York. They will thrill to the antics of the members from Downsview, Yorkview, Kitchener, Huron, Brampton North and Brant-Haldimand. They will hide their eyes after they see the members for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Northumberland, Scarborough North, Cambridge, Guelph and Norfolk perilously edging each other out of the way.

I am sure that those watching will enjoy seeing all participants driving six-cylinder WOW -- women on wheels -- class vehicles, which have been donated by the track's registered female members. They will also appreciate the efforts of Doreen Watson of the Varney Speedway, who organizes events and who has kindly agreed to let members showcase their talents.

I would personally like to thank all members for their interest and enthusiasm in what promises to be a very exciting evening. I wish them all success and I trust they will enjoy their time at the track as well as a visit to the scenic, friendly hospitality of the county of Grey.

ST PATRICK SCHOOL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It gives me great pleasure today to acknowledge a precedent-setting achievement by a dedicated group of parents in my riding, a group of parents who banded together and fought against the closing of their children's school, this being St Patrick's on Totten Street in Windsor.

For well over one year, the parents of St Patrick's students tried in vain to get their school board to recognize it had made a mistake and that St Patrick's was a poor choice to close. The parents also felt the area was growing and enrolment would climb in the coming years, that this school should remain open and the decision to close St Patrick's without notification of the parents went against its own policy guidelines as well as the Education Act.

The court decision which was made in favour of the parents of St Patrick's pupils last Monday will be a landmark ruling for other communities to follow throughout the province of Ontario. Further, I would be remiss if I didn't point out some of the key players during the tiring years of meetings in kitchens and in church basements. I admire much the indefatigable work of Ermanna Felice, Paul Bezaire, Paul Maini and also Vito Campanaro.

But I must also congratulate the hard efforts of all the families in this neighbourhood for endless hours and dedication. Their energy and direction were the major reasons for the success of this court battle. I'm sure their example will encourage others who feel strongly about community issues to stand firmly for their rights.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As Liberal critic for women's issues I am disappointed and deeply dismayed by the way this NDP government has responded to the sexual assaults and harassment of women.

First we have the serious incidents at Bell Cairn. Marion Boyd, the minister responsible for women's issues, suggested that the victims of sexual assault had to come forward before these unsubstantiated rumours could be investigated. What a reaction: The minister responsible for women's issues blaming the victims. Strike one.

This was compounded when the Minister for Correctional Services stated he could understand why no one reported the allegations to him since the women were unwilling to come forward. Another NDP minister blaming the victims. Strike two.

This reaction is such an irony coming from the same NDP government which in its campaign against sexual assault constantly stressed that society has to stop blaming the victims. Then we have the case of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North, who when asked about sexual assaults at Ontario Place and Old Fort William, swore: "I wasn't aware. I am now. I hadn't heard of this, honest to God." You won't believe this, but this very morning I received a press release where the minister admits he was notified of the Old Fort William assault on May 11 and of the Ontario Place assault on July 15.

How can women trust this NDP minister who considers sexual assault to be so unimportant that he forgot he'd been told of these serious charges? Strike three, you're out.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Ontario citizens are alarmed at the ideological agenda underlying the June 9 Stephen Lewis race relations report, which they fear will create even more racial problems and could add significantly to existing community tensions.

Many have contacted me, partly in response to an article by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun on July 14, to state their disgust with the Lewis report's implication that they are racist while the NDP seeks an exemption under the Ontario Human Rights Code for its Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

One person from Guelph wrote to me to say, "A piece of legislation that purports to grant legal sanction to government-mandated discrimination on the basis of race is outrageous and does not deserve to see the light of day."

A University of Toronto professor wrote, "Books could be written on why this de facto quota bill should not go forward."

My colleagues and I in the Ontario PC caucus oppose this socially divisive NDP scheme. As the party that brought in one of the most progressive human rights codes in North America, we cannot support any legislation that would selectively remove the protection under our Human Rights Code for any group of Ontarians.

The public would like politicians to stop being intimidated into politically correct positioning but rather to seek the courage to find answers to this problem that can lead to the path of societal healing that the people of Ontario have been capable of historically and are able to achieve today.

BILL POWELL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Hamiltonian and community leader. As members will know, former Hamilton mayor Bill Powell suffered a heart attack and passed away yesterday.

Bill Powell has been a leading political fixture on the Hamilton scene. Mr Powell served as an alderman from 1960 to 1970 and served as our mayor from 1980 to 1982. But his contributions to Hamilton didn't stop with politics. Mr Powell was cofounder of the Steelworkers union at Stelco and a strong environmentalist. He was chairman of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority in 1970, fighting for the environment long before it was fashionable.

To say that Mr Powell was an active member in our community is an understatement. I am sure there isn't a single Hamiltonian who has not been touched by the service and life of Bill Powell.

On behalf of my Hamilton colleagues and all members of the Legislature, I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Rose, and deepest sympathy to the entire Powell family. We share in their sadness today at the loss of Bill Powell but rejoice at the great contribution his remarkable life has made to our city.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, raised a point of order concerning government notice of motion 13, which seeks to invoke standing order 44a in order to allocate no time to third reading of Bill 150. The member for Parry Sound, Mr Eves, the member for Bruce, Mr Elston, the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, and the government House leader, Mr Cooke, also made submissions to the point of order.

When a point of order is raised in this chamber, the Chair is entitled to rule on it at that time or to reserve a ruling. In yesterday's case, the Chair reserved a ruling, and this has afforded me an opportunity to reflect on the submissions that were made. Having reviewed yesterday's Hansard together with House precedents and various parliamentary authorities, I'm now ready to make a ruling.

The member for York Centre referred to the practice in the House of Commons at Ottawa where standing order 78(3) states that a time allocation motion cannot specify less than one day's debate for the consideration of any one stage of a bill. The member also quoted citation 533 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne to the effect that "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion."

However, it is important for all members to know that Ottawa has had many years' experience with time allocation motions. In fact, such motions have been a part of Ottawa's standing orders in one form or another since 1965. By contrast, time allocation motions were first recognized in our chamber in 1982, and have been a part of our standing orders for less than three weeks. Moreover, the notice of motion that is the subject of this ruling is only the second one to have appeared on our Orders and Notices paper since standing order 44a came into force on July 3 of this year.

1350

There are other distinctions between the practice in Ottawa and our own. Ottawa's standing order 78(3) does not require written notice; it does not require debate on the motion; it specifies that the question is put immediately after the motion is put, and it requires at least one day's debate on the stage of the bill that is under consideration. By contrast, our standing order requires written notice and a full day's debate on the motion, and it makes no mention of a minimum time requirement for third reading debate on a bill.

There was some mention yesterday about whether previous time allocation motions in this House have ever provided that the question on a certain stage of the legislative process be put forthwith without debate or amendment. I have reviewed the time allocation motions that have been moved in this chamber since 1982, and I have found that eight of them contained just such a provision with respect to the adoption of a report of a standing committee, the adoption of a report of the committee of the whole House, or both.

With respect to the comparisons that were made yesterday between standing order 44a and standing order 45, I must say that they are two very different standing orders and that they have different applications. A closure motion under standing order 45 can be moved without notice, it can be moved by any member of the House and it is non-debatable. By contrast, a time allocation motion under standing order 44a can be moved only by a government minister and upon written notice, and it is debated for one day.

I want to make some additional remarks about closure motions under standing order 45. Such motions are generally known as the "previous question" in many other parliamentary jurisdictions. Indeed, they used to be known by that name in this chamber until the 1986 standing orders changed the name to "closure" because members commonly referred to it by that name. But the change should not obscure the fact that if a motion under standing order 45 were successfully moved while an amendment was on the floor of the House, the result would be that the amendment would be lost and the question would be immediately put on the main question. That's the full nature of standing order 45.

Moreover, standing order 44a does provide a certain measure of balance when a time allocation motion is moved. For example, the standing order does not require that the motion provide for a minimum period of debate at third reading of a bill, but it does require that the motion cannot be moved at second reading until there's been at least three days' debate at that stage.

I can appreciate that yesterday's notice of motion may have surprised some members by virtue of the fact that it calls for no time to debate third reading of Bill 150. In this regard, I want to quote from the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which states the following at page 409:

Time allocation motions "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."

In closing, then, government notice of motion 13, while it may appear drastic, does comply with standing order 44a as it presently stands and is therefore in order.

I thank all members for their submissions, and in particular the member for York Centre for his written submission.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the reasons you've given for your determination in this matter. I simply want to remind you that the effect of your decision on new standing order 44a is that after three days of debate on second reading of a bill or any other substantive matter in this House, the government now has vested within itself the power to take that substantive matter, whether a bill or a motion, through every other stage of consideration without any debate whatsoever.

I sincerely regret that in your view the standing order and the government notice of motion yesterday are valid. We will continue to fight this. We will consider motions of censure or whatever else we need to do in order to return to the opposition the right and the ability to substantively debate motions and bills in this House.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I realize I cannot challenge the Speaker's ruling, but I do want to get on the record that I think this is a sad day indeed for democracy in the province of Ontario. I can tell you that when a government House leader can now cut off debate in the middle of one member's speech and have a vote -- I don't care what you want to call it; I call it closure or guillotine -- it's a sad day indeed.

The Speaker: To both the member for York Centre and the member for Parry Sound, I indeed fully understand the concerns they've raised. As the members may have noticed, in succinct terms, it is a drastic measure but it is in order. There is nothing out of order.

Statements by ministers? It is time for oral questions.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have just said something which is very telling with respect to the manner in which you have just ruled. You said it's a very drastic measure. It indicates to me quite clearly that you don't fully believe there has been ample time in this chamber to do anything about the debate on this bill.

Mr Speaker, there is one overriding consideration that you always have, and as a result of your having been the first elected Speaker in this Parliament ever, it seems to me you have a duty to carry out your responsibility to all members to ensure that at each stage of debate there is ample time for them to put their information on the record. It seems to me that no matter what the standing orders say, you cannot be taken out of your chair, you cannot lose your discretion to safeguard the right of freedom of speech in this democracy.

I ask you again to look at what you have just brought into this House as a result of a literal reading of new standing order 44a and ask yourself and report to this House whether you now have been removed from your chair with respect to the discretion to protect the minority here in this Parliament.

The Speaker: Briefly, to the member for Bruce, the Speaker does not have the latitude to circumvent the standing orders. The standing orders were changed. This matter was thoroughly researched and indeed, as unhappy as some members may be, the motion put was entirely in order.

It is time for oral questions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last Thursday I had the opportunity to speak on Bill 150 for approximately 15 minutes. No other member of my party had an opportunity to speak on Bill 150. I believe my privileges as a member of this Legislature to speak on legislation have been abused by your ruling. Will I be able to complete my remarks on Bill 150?

The Speaker: We are not currently debating Bill 150. I can only tell the member that, whatever happened yesterday, there was a motion put and a ruling reserved. The matter has been thoroughly researched and I have delivered my ruling.

It is time to move on with oral questions. The official opposition, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Sterling: On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I asked you whether or not my privileges are being abridged by the fact that I am unable to speak in this Legislature on a piece of legislation for which I am the critic of this party.

The Speaker: No, the member does not have a point of privilege, not as a result of a ruling.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The Premier yesterday said that the government will be judged on the basis of the action it took once it found out about the problem. I would say that you'll also be judged, Premier, on the competence of the ministers you've appointed and their ability, in our judgement, to have anticipated this problem and to have headed it off. The question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It's your competence, Minister, that's at stake here.

Yesterday you said in the Legislature, "My policy assistant attends management meetings and was not advised of the particular circumstances regarding Bell Cairn."

My question is a very clear one to you. Your policy assistant attends those management meetings. Those management meetings take place on a weekly basis involving the senior management at Bell Cairn. Can you tell the House, was your policy assistant present when the issue of Bell Cairn was raised at any time from September until July at those management meetings?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): My answer has been very clear with respect to the notification of myself or my staff, in that we were not informed.

Mr Phillips: Your policy assistant was at those management meetings, and I assume the minister said that the senior management -- the deputy, the assistant deputy ministers and the other staff at those meetings -- during the course of nine months never, ever discussed at their weekly management meetings the Bell Cairn incident. It was never, ever raised at the weekly management meetings.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'm indicating that neither I nor my staff were ever made aware of this particular problem, nor were we in the more recent senior management gathering held by the deputy with respect to this matter. At no time were we advised or seized with that information. The opposition knows what I have done since being made aware of the information, which I think is a very responsible action.

Mr Phillips: We're all aware of the action that's taken place since the incident. That's not the issue. The issue is your competence and why in the world you could possibly, when it's happening right under your nose for 10 months, a series of incidents involving your entire ministry -- you are telling us, and the work of the judge will indicate this, that the management committee never once during those nine months ever discussed the problem at Bell Cairn. At your weekly management meeting, involving all of your senior staff, the record will show that they never, ever once during those nine months discussed the most significant, serious problem within their ministry. You're assuring the House today that that never took place at the weekly management meetings for nine months.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have indicated, I think very clearly, that this item was not discussed with my staff or in the presence of my staff at those meetings. I simply want to add that there were memos between staff, and I have released those today and I've released other covering letters. The members and those who care to review them will understand that the information I have been telling them now since last week is accurate. They were not funnelled up through the channels to the minister in this particular case.

I want to tell you that the matter is a very serious one. It is one I have acted on with great diligence. I have taken three particular actions, as the members know: first, to commence a police investigation into the matter so perpetrators of any alleged crimes can be dealt with; second, the closing of the centre; and third, the appointment of Judge Hansen. I believe, with the release of the documents today, it will now be up to Judge Hansen to shed additional light on this matter, which I think will be very clear and descriptive.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Premier that arises out of the same incident. I want to make clear the position of the opposition. We are not concerned with or objecting to the steps your minister has taken since this matter was brought to his attention, apparently, and the attention of the House by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville last week. We're not complaining about those steps. What we're concerned about is that this facility opened in August of last year, and it is apparent from the material released today that within a month, and consistently for the succeeding 10 months, there was a pattern of harassment and sexual harassment that the Premier yesterday conceded raised concerns about systemic harassment in the correctional service.

Not only was this going on for virtually 10 months but there was a flood of memos, up to the deputy minister's level at least, from all kinds of supervisors and managers who were aware of it and who were discussing it. When it was brought to the attention of the House, with respect particularly to the culminating incident on June 15, the minister said neither he nor, he believed, his staff had any knowledge of it.

The question that is now presented arises out of the deputy minister's letter in which she says she had not yet advised the minister or his staff about the events of June 15. The Premier has conducted an investigation through Mr Barnes. Will he let us know what the deputy minister's position is on this question? Did she alert any of the political staff of the minister or the minister himself about the events that arose over the preceding 10 months at any time before July 1, or did she keep everything that happened for a year secret from the minister, the political staff and the Premier's office?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister's answers make that clear. The documents which have been released and the deputy minister's statements make things clear in that regard. Judge Hansen has now been appointed to do a job. There's a police investigation going on. All the documents have been released. We've released every piece of information we can with respect to the freedom of information and privacy matters.

With respect to the honourable member's comments, he knows as well as I do that if there is a systemic problem in corrections or in any part of the government or in any part of our society, it's hardly realistic to think it started on September 7, 1990. Let's get real here about what we're talking about. The information has been shared fully with the House. Every statement the minister has made has been entirely upfront. With respect to particular problems at Bell Cairn and the particular incidents in question, he was not advised and not informed, and that information has been confirmed by the deputy minister.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response to this problem, which we all agree is a serious one not only in terms of sexual harassment but in terms of the administration of the ministry, exhibits a real sensitivity about his minister and what's been going on here. It isn't often Bob Rae turns into an attack dog, but when he does you know he's worried about something, and so are we.

The reality here is we have had 10 months of problems which have now come to the surface. In his own defence the minister has said: "For that whole 10-month period I never heard about anything. I went to the opening at Bell Cairn and never heard it mentioned again." The deputy has said, "It is true I didn't tell him about June 15." The Premier has now directed an investigation conducted by Mr Barnes. He has told the press that the report is on his desk.

What we want to know is, first, can we see Mr Barnes's report? I know we won't see it because it would be incriminating. If not, why not? Second, will he tell the deputy's side of the story? Did she discuss with the minister or his staff, before the events of June 15, what had been happening at Bell Cairn for 10 months?

Hon Mr Rae: The answer to the second part of the question is, certainly not as far as I've been made aware by any document or any discussion that I've had.

The report that you have before you is the report that Mr Barnes presented to me. There is no written report by Mr Barnes. There is this report, which essentially is a compilation of documents which I asked him to provide. There is no written document from Mr Barnes in this regard.

1410

As soon as I have these documents and as soon as they have been cleared through freedom of information and other areas, what we also have done is ask Judge Hansen to give us an independent review of what has taken place.

Those are the steps we've taken. They're very clear. The minister was not advised. Information was not provided to the minister that in my view should have been provided to him and that in my view should have been provided to others as well. That's the position of this government, that's the position of this minister, and that's where we are today.

Mr Scott: The Premier is dissembling, with the greatest respect. If that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

The deputy minister, an experienced bureaucrat of 20 years, has given a report to the principal secretary that answers one narrow question: "I did not tell the minister about the events of June 15 because I hadn't prepared the full dossier." She does not respond to the general question, which is, did she discuss with him or his staff any of the events of the intervening 10 months for which this was the culminating incident? It is critical that she has not fortified the minister's response on that question. When are you going to let her answer the question that this House and the public want to know?

I ask the question not merely out of curiosity. Yesterday, in answering a question of mine, the Premier was very clear and anxious to leave open this proposition: that politics may have played a part. He says this in answering my question: "I am not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware." Leaving the double negative aside for the moment, that suggests that the Premier is leaving open the prospect that there was political awareness of these issues over the previous 10 months.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's in Hansard.

Mr Scott: It's in Hansard. Mr Barnes not having made a written report, the only way this question can be resolved is if the Premier will ask the deputy minister whether she discussed with the minister or his aides the Bell Cairn problems over the previous 10 months, yes or no.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the member is, not for the first time, quite wrong. When I said that at the political level, what I meant was -- and everybody understands what I mean -- the members of this government, the members of this cabinet, were not informed either about the previous incidents at Bell Cairn or about the particular incidents which are now the subject of the police investigation. Those are the facts. They've been clear. No one has challenged those facts. Those facts are confirmed by the deputy minister.

With respect to the question of how we get to the bottom of this, we get to the bottom of this by appointing a judge, asking a judge who is independent of this government, independent of the opposition, independent of everyone, to get to the bottom of it. That's exactly what we're doing. I can't imagine a fairer or better way to treat this issue. We've released all the information. I think we've done everything that we possibly could to make sure all the facts will come out. That's exactly what will happen.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing -- and I have stopped the clock -- I invite all members to welcome to the gallery a former member of this assembly, the former member for London South, Mrs Joan Smith, seated in the members' gallery west.

The leader of the third party with his first question.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, you have a Minister of Correctional Services, who is also the chief law enforcement officer in this province, who has closed his eyes and ears to what is going on in his ministry. That in and of itself I believe is shameful, I believe is unacceptable, I believe transcends the standards you as Premier would want. It puts the safety and security of Ontarians at risk, and I don't believe it can be ignored by you.

By allowing this minister's laissez-faire attitude, you are sending out a very clear signal. You are saying: "What we don't know won't hurt us, so go ahead and do whatever you like. Just don't tell us about it." Premier, that is what you are condoning. I ask you to reflect on that. I ask you to reflect on the signal you are sending out to all your cabinet ministers, existing and former and future, to the Legislature, to the public and to women of this province.

If, as you have said in response to questions from the Liberal Party, you are hiding nothing, I ask you then to suggest that the Solicitor General must step down while we have a legislative committee investigate and ask the questions that need to be asked about who knew what, and when, and why this matter was covered up from the beginning.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think Judge Hansen is going to do a job in terms of -- this issue should be kept free of any kind of partisanship, any kind of accusations of political partisanship. This is a very difficult and sensitive issue which we have to look at in terms of the problem of sexual harassment in any ministry or in any service the government provides. I think it's important that it be done on an independent basis by Judge Hansen.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite says in his question that somehow what we don't know won't hurt us. I think the indications are very clear --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that this government is doing everything possible to get at the facts. When information is not shared with cabinet members, when it's not made available to cabinet members, that is a serious problem we as a government will not accept. We want that information, we need that information, we want to share that information. When we have had that information, we have taken action. We will continue to take action. That's why we want all the information to come out. That's precisely why.

Mr Harris: Premier, you are sending out a signal that, "You can investigate everything except my cabinet ministers." He's not your cabinet minister. It's not your cabinet. It's not your government. This government belongs to the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario have a right to know as well.

What took place at Bell Cairn is something that no one should turn his back on. The minister failed in his responsibilities by doing just that, and you have given a silent acceptance or tacit approval of what went on by not asking for his resignation. You and your minister have told women of this province that the old boys' code of silence is still in place. You are sending out the signal that when women of this province face injustice, your government, either wilfully or through incompetence, will not be there to listen. That's the signal you are sending out. Either wilfully or by incompetence, they will not be there to listen.

Premier, I suggest to you that you of all people ought to know that is unacceptable. Will you ask your minister to step down now and allow a legislative committee of this Legislature to find out who knew what, when, and who's covering it up?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is saying that he doesn't have any confidence in Judge Hansen, then he should stand up and say so.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's not what he said.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the clear implication of what he's saying.

The second issue is the investigation that's ongoing by the OPP with respect to the particular allegations involving sexual assault.

With respect to the third point he's making in his rhetoric, to state and to ask that it be taken seriously that somehow the actions taken by this government and the steps we've taken systematically as we've learned of whatever information we've learned of, in terms of what we've done that there's any kind of tacit approval, there's no member, there's no person in this Legislature who would ever give tacit approval to that kind of thing. The member knows it. To make that kind of partisan, cheap political comment with regard to a serious problem like this is unworthy of the honourable member.

1420

Mr Harris: What you will not allow us to do, Mr Premier, is find out why the minister didn't know, whether it was pure incompetence or he didn't want to know or he wouldn't have anything to do with that ministry.

We have no idea now what the standards are for your cabinet. You kept a liar in cabinet, but you turfed the Sunshine Boy. You defended a Solicitor General whose office interfered in the judiciary, but you tossed out a minister who made an honest mistake when she breached confidentiality. You promoted the member for Victoria-Haliburton when he broke the law in Temagami for a cause you agreed with, but you expelled the member for Oakwood for violating labour laws.

Premier, you yourself, with your inconsistencies, are sending out a signal where even your own ministers don't know what is acceptable, what level of competence is acceptable, and you are now becoming a big part of the problem. I tell you, the public is already cynical enough about politicians, about the whole lot of us --

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Harris: -- you know that, and when any one of us is involved in a scandal it affects us all. The electorate put its trust in you. It put its trust in all of us. In return it expects a higher degree of responsibility than it does from most other people.

Premier, by virtue of his ignorance, by virtue of his incompetence, this minister has not lived up to his ministerial responsibilities and therefore must resign. Since he will not do that, since he will not do the honourable thing, even while an investigation is under way by a judge or by a legislative committee, will you help restore the public's trust by asking for his resignation before the investigation proceeds further?

Hon Mr Rae: If ever there was an example of rhetoric that might give rise to political cynicism, it's the kind of rhetoric which precedes the question offered by the leader of the third party.

The steps that this government has taken have been taken in good faith. I want to suggest to the honourable member that if he was the Premier and he was faced with the situation he would be doing the same thing, asking a judge, not a legislative committee, to deal with an issue of this kind, but a judge who is quite independent of the political process. No, I think if you want to look at --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: -- dealing with this question fairly, that's the way it would proceed and this is the way we're going to proceed.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): At the outset I want to send over a copy of a page of Hansard which confirms what the member for St George-St David said: "I am not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware." I'll send that over to the Premier. I want to talk about this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I want to talk to the Premier and ask him some questions related to the plight of Dina Palozzi. The Premier, by the documents he's tabled with the public today, or his minister has, and by his actions in respect to pulling her out of her responsibilities as deputy minister, has, as I said the other day, left her professional reputation in tatters. He's put her in the cabinet secretary's office where she cannot be accessed by members of the opposition, the public or the media. He's issued a gag order. We called today. We called 28 people who were listed on the memos circulated in the last number of months. We got the same response from every one of those people, Mr Premier: "Call Cim Nunn in the minister's office" A very effective gag order.

I want to once again ask you what is going on. Why will you not let the deputy minister give us her side of the story, meet with the media, meet with the opposition, tell her side of the story to the public, other officials within the ministry? What are you hiding?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that if the government was hiding anything, surely it wouldn't be asking a judge to look into something.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): Or the OPP.

Hon Mr Rae: There is an OPP investigation going on. So all these things are under way, all this information will come out. The memos have been released, the information is being shared. These are clear steps that are being taken by this government. I think they're a very clear signal to the public and to everyone that when this government has the information that was shared with us last week, we take action. That's what we've done. You may not approve of all the action we've taken, but you can't say that we have not taken the action and that there's every determination on our part to let all the facts come out.

Mr Runciman: I think there's no question they've taken action but it's late in the day, there's no question about that, and it's inadequate. This government and the Premier have hung this around Ms Palozzi's neck completely. You haven't given any explanation as to the move. Every indication is that she was totally, completely responsible for this whole matter, for sweeping a gang rape under the rug, a gang rape on the grounds of a provincial institution by provincial employees who were then allowed to continue to serve as peace offices with vulnerable people. She's completely responsible for that, that's what you're saying, to all of us, to the public at large. Yet at the same time, yesterday you say she's going to stay on, presumably at her $100,000-plus salary.

You accused my leader just a few moments ago of engaging in cheap political comment because he suggested that was what you're doing and your lack of action was tacit approval. Premier, I'm asking you today, how do you justify what's happening with respect to this deputy minister, your commitment to keeping her on, with your commitment to fight against violence against women, to sexual harassment in the workplace? How do those two things jibe? You can't have it both ways.

Hon Mr Rae: The steps I've taken have been taken based on the information that I had. There was no question that the information had not been shared with the minister or with his staff, and my view is that required some action to be taken by me. That's what I've done.

I also think it's important for us to look at Judge Hansen's work and to give her a clear opportunity to do her work and for us to make it clear that we don't regard this, no matter what the opposition may try to say, as anything other than a human tragedy which has to be dealt with by a government on the basis of clear action and signals being taken. We expect --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): You're the world's biggest wimp.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David obviously doesn't want me to continue. He'd rather engage in personal insults and I don't intend to --

Mr Scott: I'd like you to leave office for incompetency.

The Speaker: I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the member for St George-St David can come to order, then we can continue. Had the Premier completed his response? Final supplementary.

Mr Runciman: We know that this Premier has over many years expressed eloquent concern about violence against women. We've seen this government announce with great fanfare a new policy with respect to sexual harassment in the workplace and getting tough in respect to sexual harassment in the workplace in the private sector.

Yet now we have Ms Palozzi whom you have hung out to dry. You've laid all of the responsibility on her doorstep -- don't shake your head, you have -- but you won't fire her. On one side you're saying, "We care about these kinds of issues," and here's a woman who apparently, according to you and your government, allowed a gang rape to go unreported, no police investigation, sweep it under the rug and perhaps even most important, allow these people to continue in the system who allegedly conducted this assault. They're still out there, Premier. You're saying that this person allowed that, yet on the other hand you have great concern about these issues.

From our side of the House, this looks like a payoff. You've paid for her silence. Regardless of what she's done, she's going to continue in her $100,000-plus job.

Well, that's the message that's being sent out. We can hear moans and groans.

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

1430

Mr Runciman: I want to ask the Premier, in terms of the Barnes report, which he has on his desk, will he release that? I'm prepared to accept it if he deletes the names, if that's his concern, or if he will let one member of each opposition party sit down in the privacy of the Cabinet Office to review this report to see if we concur with his conclusions.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that the preface to his question and all the harangue that was contained therein, the assumptions behind it and the statements it contains I think are first of all totally self-contradictory and are without any foundation at all.

Mr Runciman: You're self-contradictory.

Hon Mr Rae: If he will now just allow me to answer his question --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Hon Mr Rae: I already indicated, but perhaps he wasn't listening to my answer to the question from the member for St George-St David, when I asked Mr Barnes for a report, what he presented me with was the documents that have now been released today, that is to say, a summary of memoranda and other documents. There is no written document from Mr Barnes.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I would like to return to the Minister of Correctional Services, because it seems to me that for the House and for the public beyond, the fundamental question we must concern ourselves with is the administration of that department from September 1991 through to the statements and questions put to the House a week ago today by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville. It is that nine-month period I am most concerned about.

I have listened today to Anthony Eden, the leader of this government, give a fantastic explanation and give a perfectly twisted notion of ministerial responsibility, so I want to go to the captain of the HMS Pinafore. I want to ask Mr Pilkey some questions about the way in which he led the Ministry of Correctional Services from September 1991 through to July 1992, that is, July 14, 1992.

Specifically, can you tell this House how many times a week in that period of nine months you would have had or taken briefings from senior officials in the department of correctional services, and how many times a week during that nine-month period, September 1991 through to July 14, 1992, your senior political staff would have taken briefings from senior officials or others within the Ministry of Correctional Services?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and I want to tell this House that these ministries have been administered, they have been dealt with legislatively, they have been dealt with in terms of special events, awards presentations, the whole gamut of ministerial responsibility.

That includes my political staff being present on the site daily, that includes briefings, that includes daily contentious issues, that includes the adoption and the starting of new consultative committees with respect to our ministry from a wide variety of groups and organizations, spreading all the way from the native community to the Elizabeth Fry Society to the John Howard Society to the Ontario Association of Community Correctional Residences, the Ontario public service -- I know you want to cut me off because the list is too long.

I'm getting rather incensed. I've tried to remain controlled with respect to this matter, but this continual kind of political wrangling in the face of the facts which I advised this House of all along, which have now been proven by the facts in writing, and the continual denial by these people in the face of the facts, I find totally objectionable. The appropriate steps have been taken --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The absolutely responsible actions have been taken. They will come out as a result of the police and the investigation by the judge. You'll have to pardon me for getting incensed at this kind of political partisanship that this has now devolved into.

Mr Conway: That answer tells a great deal, and it tells fundamentally this: that the honourable member from Oshawa does not understand what being a minister of the crown is. He doesn't understand what being the boss entails. He truly gives effect to the story that he polished the handles so very carefully that "now he is ruler of the Queen's navy," that his only claim to fame is that in fact he is Cliff Pilkey's son.

The word we have heard, and what we're not going to get from Judge Hansen, is that the minister, however nice he may be, rarely went to the department. He went for months without taking briefings. He was surrounded by junior, neophyte staff who didn't know what was going on. I say again rhetorically --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Conway: -- by any standard, the minister clearly does not understand the difference between cutting a ribbon in Timmins and being back at the departmental headquarters doing something about a crisis that was developing over eight or nine months.

The Speaker: Could the member place his question.

Mr Conway: Does he not understand that there is a difference, and that by any standard, his only excuse being he didn't know, he didn't care, he didn't go to the department, he wouldn't talk to the deputy, he wouldn't talk to the directors, that is the greatest sin of omission and by the basic conventions of British cabinet government he is duty-bound to offer his resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe my earlier response fits that dissertation perfectly.

Mr Runciman: I want to go back to the Premier on this matter and I want to talk about his whole idea of who should be in cabinet and who should not be in cabinet, specifically related to the memos that were tabled with the public and the opposition parties today, what I would call a litany of shame and injustice if we take a look at all this going on over a significant period of time while this minister was responsible for this facility, with virtually nothing happening to respond in a positive way to all the concerns, especially the concerns of women who felt extremely vulnerable in this environment.

I said that earlier today we tried to contact 28 people within the ministry who are part of the circulation of the memo. We've indicated clearly that at least 28 people, many of them at senior management levels, were very much aware of the concerns related to Bell Cairn and to the assault that took place. How can the Premier justify continuing to support in this House on a daily basis a minister who apparently was totally unaware of the circumstances when at least 28 people within his ministry were aware? How can he continue to justify continuing to support that minister?

Hon Mr Rae: If the minister wasn't informed, if the minister wasn't given information, if he wasn't told of an issue, if he wasn't provided with that information, if that information was not shared with him -- and as soon as that information was provided this government has taken action.

I think the evidence is very clear; what is there is very clear. We are determined to take action as soon as we are made aware of a problem. I can assure you the message is very clear. We want to get to the bottom of this. We want to deal with other issues. We want to do the very best job we can. That's what every member of this cabinet is trying to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: We want to get as much information shared with us and the public as is humanly possible in the circumstances.

1440

Mr Runciman: That's a response that just won't wash. What's happened here is that the minister has effectively pulled out the phone and now he's complaining that he never received any calls. This is the same government that wants to bring in legislation to charge, in the criminal justice system, chief executive officers for responsibility for spills in respect of pollution. This is the same government, but this Premier stands in the House and says, "The minister has no responsibility," even though who knows how many people in his ministry were aware of this and he cut off a committee that was supposed to inform him of ministry complaints, yet he has no responsibility, no accountability.

You owe the people of this province a much more lucid explanation and a higher standard in respect to the people who are serving in your cabinet. Let's have it right now, today.

Hon Mr Rae: The steps this government has taken send, I think, the clearest possible message that we want all the facts to come out. We clearly want it to be understood that we expect and want information to be shared with members of cabinet. We want information to be shared so that steps can be taken and decisions can be taken. That's exactly what we want to do, that's exactly what we've done, and that's exactly the message that we're sending to this House and to the public of Ontario.

TOURISM

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As you know, tourism hasn't been doing the best this year. It's partly because of the weather, but, as a couple of taxi drivers I've surveyed on this issue suggest, I think it's also the GST. That was the first thing they commented on as far as what tourists are telling them this year. Though you have no control over either the weather or things like the GST, I would like to know what your ministry is doing to promote tourism in my riding and across the province.

One thing that has come to my attention through a couple of constituents is a concept called ecotourism, which is something that gives tourists a firsthand experience of the culture and the environment of an area in a very rewarding way for both the tourists and the guides. This is a concept that has been promoted in both Costa Rica and the Brazilian rain forest, for instance. I was wondering whether your ministry has done any work on this concept or others.

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has recognized, first of all, that ecotourism is a growing and important part of tourism in general. We've had an opportunity to be involved with a number of different groups, and presently we're in sort of a coordinated study on this particular subject. We should be able to have more information on the value of it, certainly the interest in it and the opportunities for the product in the province, in the coming year.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm just wondering what comparative studies you might be doing in this area to see that the value of something like ecotourism, which in our area, for instance, offers not only aspects of historical value but the whole environment of the area, is there to be enjoyed by tourists in this very rewarding way for both the tourists and the operators. I was thinking that if there were programs to train people with this aspect in mind, that would be a very rewarding part of your ministry's activities.

Hon Mr North: Presently there are opportunities that we have in working with native tourism that involve what we would call ecotourism. As I said earlier, we are also working on the study that we're putting together so that we can better understand what the product is and what the opportunities are.

There's a strong interest in the European Community involving ecotourism, and the European Community is also very interested in the native tourism opportunities that exist. So we're working with groups ourselves and in Tourism Canada, Resorts Ontario and a number of other groups to try to put together a good outline of ecotourism and what opportunities there will be in that particular segment of the tourism industry.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It is the common practice in departments of the Ontario government that at least once a week the minister meets with senior departmental staff to review issues of interest and concern within the department. My question to the Minister of Correctional Services is, will he tell me and the House that between September 1991 and July 14, 1992, he had, and could show a log to confirm this, the regular practice of meeting at least once a week with the senior departmental staff at the Ministry of Correctional Services? Can he indicate to this House that this in fact was his practice in the period from whenever he became minister in 1991 through July 14, 1992?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have had formal meetings, informal meetings and private meetings, with the deputy and senior members of staff on a wide variety of topics, with a wide variety of people in and around the corrections ministry, those associated with and agencies surrounding the ministry and a wide variety of other tasks.

I am available to that ministry any day of the week. My staff who are on site are available to the ministry any day of the week. We have a very clear understanding with the deputy that I am to be advised on contentious issues. Those are well above and over the regular type of meetings we have on any issues surrounding the ministry, either administratively or legislatively.

Mr Conway: Those of us who have served in government know well the practices of the Ontario government.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Anthony Eden? The leading bumbler, Mr Rae, is prepared to tolerate this.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Speaking of which, Sean, we remember your record as a minister.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): How often did you speak to your senior staff?

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I will say this to my friends opposite, if anything of this kind happened in my term as a minister, I would feel honour-bound to my Premier and the people of Ontario to resign forthwith.

Hon Mr Laughren: Why didn't you then?

Mr Conway: Lord Carrington did so in 1982 in the Thatcher government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I ask the members to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order. I ask the cooperation of members on both sides of the House to allow the member for Renfrew North to complete his supplementary. The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order. The member for Renfrew North, please place your supplementary.

Mr Conway: We have today the letter of Ms Palozzi to the secretary of cabinet dated July 15, 1992, outlining, in part, her story. In order to believe this, we then have to ask the question, what kind of relationship must have existed between this minister and that department, a small department within the Ontario government? There is around Queen's Park a story that runs like this: Allan Pilkey is a nice fellow but he's not very industrious and he never goes to his department.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary please.

1450

Interjections.

Mr Conway: My question, to the howling mob opposite, is this: Will the Minister of Correctional Services table in this Legislature a log of his activities as Minister of Correctional Services from September 1, 1991, through to July 14, 1992, so we can see just how many times he made himself available to senior officials who are now taking the fall --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Conway: -- for what in fact may be a case of gross incompetence and maladministration on the minister's part?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe I have responded very adequately to that question. I also believe the member for Renfrew North now strays a long way indeed from the issue and the concerns at hand and the very responsible and immediate actions that I, as the minister of corrections, took in commencing a police investigation, closing the Bell Cairn centre and appointing a judge with respect to investigation of this particular matter. Those are the issues. Those are the major concerns. Those are the matters I am dealing with. I have dealt with them as soon as I was made aware of the information.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question had been for the Premier, because he's placed such great faith in what this judge is going to be doing, but the Premier isn't available any more. He had to leave, with 11 minutes to go. I have no choice but to ask the embattled Minister of Correctional Services this question.

Yesterday you made a statement in this Legislature appointing Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct an independent review. You've never told us what that review will entail. Can you please stand and tell us exactly what Madam Justice Hansen will be investigating and how she will be performing the investigation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Her Honour has been obtained to review and examine the operations of the Bell Cairn staff training centre in Hamilton. We have concerns about ongoing sexual harassment and assault that may have occurred at the centre. We want to have that done, however, without interfering in any way with the police investigation.

We want to have her review the ministry responses with respect to those allegations. We want to have her provide for us certain conclusions with respect to the way the matter was handled in respect to the ministry. We are going to ask her to do a document review with respect to policies, memoranda etc.

We are also going to have her interview staff: Bell Cairn staff, course participants, external trainers and ministry employees. We are also going to have her develop a collection of information with respect to the operation of other training facilities in our purview. All of these people are going to be involved and I believe will be involved and brought to a successful conclusion.

Mr Harnick: I find that answer to be totally unacceptable. I would like to know if this investigation is going to take place in public. Is the public going to get to hear these mystery witnesses? Will there be transcripts of the examinations of these witnesses? Why can't the minister, if the minister really has nothing to hide, hold this inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act where everyone would be able to see?

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Housing keeps yapping away at me. If you have nothing to hide, why don't you have a real investigation where the public can see what's going on and we don't have to listen to you yapping and hiding what the real truth is.

We could accomplish a whole lot here and probably put this issue behind us. Now, I'm asking the minister: Will you allow this judge to perform an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act with proper terms of reference that will be made public and will you allow the public to see the investigation before their very eyes? Will you further indicate specifically in the terms of reference that this judge will have the opportunity to examine your ministry, your office and your political staff?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It has been responded to earlier. There is a police investigation under way. I have initiated as well --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- an investigation by Her Honour with respect to this matter.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pilkey: There was an inference there that somehow there's a questioning of Her Honour with respect to this particular matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have every confidence and belief, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded his response?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure there are any answers, including factual ones, that are acceptable to some members opposite. I think as to the background of Her Honour, Judge Inger Hansen, I would love to share it with you. She's a former information commissioner of Canada, Canada's first correctional investigator for Correctional Service Canada and the first privacy commissioner of federal legislation. She is a former penitentiary ombudsman and legal counsel for the federal Department of Justice. If that isn't an exemplary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the member for Willowdale was putting his question, and the Solicitor General was responding, it seems to me that the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Lake Nipigon continued to respond to the question. Is that in order? The point is that they could not hear the question being responded to, and I just wondered why they weren't called upon.

The Speaker: The only thing that should ever be in order is to hear one voice at a time. Unhappily, we have heard a multitude of voices.

1500

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last year, as one component of this government's long-term care system reform, you and the Minister of Community and Social Services announced that you would honour the previous government's commitment to introducing a new "needs-based funding formula for nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged by early 1993." In the meantime, however, you made a further commitment to attempt to address the incredible financial pressures faced by many nursing homes by providing interim bridge funding.

With current levels of government funding the Caressant Care Woodstock Nursing Home and Woodingford Lodge in my riding find it difficult to continue to provide the same service to their residents they have always provided. It's been over six months since you announced the interim bridge funding. When can the nursing homes and homes for the aged in my riding and other nursing home facilities in the province expect to see this funding?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm not quite sure, in the last part of the question, if the member was referring to when the nursing homes would receive the previously announced interim funding. They have in fact received that. If I can point out to the member, in the last fiscal year there was a 6% global increase, plus we were able to make two adjustments of interim financing to try to close the gap, which is a real discrepancy in funding, between nursing homes and municipal homes for the aged.

The member speaks about long-term care reform and the move to levels-of-care-requirement funding. We've indicated that we intend to move towards that for January 1993, but he's quite right that I have continued to acknowledge that there has been a long-standing historical problem with respect to the inadequacy of the funding of nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged in comparison to the municipal homes for the aged when many of the clients that they are serving require similar kinds of care and similar levels of funding.

I'm pleased to let the member know that we have in fact made the announcement with respect to the global increase for this year. In addition to that, we've provided an additional $8.1 million of interim funding to nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged that will cover the period of July through to December of this year, at which time we hope to be able to move to levels-of-care funding.

Again, this doesn't completely close the gap, but it is a continued expression of our commitment to try to close the gap between the levels of funding in those two areas.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Bruce has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning the Bell Cairn matter. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Motions?

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 150

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On July 16, last Thursday, at about five to 6, the acting Speaker at that time, Mr Drainville, said, referring to me:

"My apologies to the honourable member. The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton."

I would like to know when I'm going to get the floor on Bill 150. Am I to believe the Chair?

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton: He may recall the unusual circumstance of that particular time of the afternoon. There was a power failure and the House had determined that the appropriate thing to do under the circumstance was rise. It was approximately five minutes to 6, if I recall correctly.

The time allocation motion has not yet been moved. Therefore, it's very difficult to anticipate what might or what might not happen when Bill 150 should be called forward, if indeed it is called forward. I suppose it's only at that point in time that the Chair has any opportunity to try to fulfil the obligation that was made by the acting Speaker.

I must say to the member that all chair occupants try very diligently to ensure there's a continuum of decision-making. The undertaking that was given to the member, the Chair will do his utmost to try to comply with that opportunity. I must say to the member that at this point it is a hypothetical matter he raises.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Hypothetical? It's a real matter. He's been cut off. He was promised the floor and you've taken it away from him. What's hypothetical about that?

The Speaker: A time allocation motion has not been moved and Bill 150 has not been called forward, and at this point in our proceedings we are at motions. Are there motions?

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, on the same point of privilege: I can only say that during the 15 minutes I was given so graciously by the government to speak on third reading as the only member of my party, I mentioned that the motion to cut us off had already been tabled by the Chair. So the acting Speaker at that time was aware of the government motion to cut me off, yet he still maintained in his statement to me that I would have another opportunity to speak. What am I to believe from the Chair? If I yielded the floor before 6 o'clock I would have had at least 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes to speak on this very important bill.

The Speaker: I fully understand the member's predicament. What I would tell the member is that we have some routine business to conduct, and that should allow the Chair the opportunity to try to be of assistance to the member. I can assure the member that if there's anything at all which can be done to fulfil the promise that was made to him, it will be done. Obviously I need a bit of time to try to figure out how to accommodate the member within the rules. There should be some time to do that while we go through the routine proceedings -- petitions and so on.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On the matter that was raised by the honourable member, I was in the House at that time sitting in my place, and as I recall it, the comment made by the Speaker was in reference to the fact that the member was seeking, I believe, whether or not there needed to be a motion to adjourn the debate and whether or not that would have led to the member losing his place.

The Speaker at that time, in my opinion, was answering and making those comments to the request as to whether or not the lack of a motion to adjourn the debate would lose the honourable member's place in the position for debate. The motion that's being placed by the government House leader would have been applicable regardless of that statement and regardless of whether the motion to adjourn the debate had actually taken place, which was being delayed as a result of questions over whether Hansard was actually on because of the power failure.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: To the matter which is under discussion -- I'm trying to be helpful for you, Mr Speaker -- I was in the House at the time the member for Carleton asked the question of you, Mr Speaker. He was concerned that at the time of the adjournment he would be assured that he would have an opportunity to have the floor and continue his debate at the next opportunity when this piece of legislation was called.

I was pleased when I heard you, Mr Speaker, tell the member that he would indeed have the floor. I hope you will, in your capacity as the person who guards the rights of members of this Legislature in this precinct and who has it in your power to ensure that particularly the rights of the members of the official opposition are not tampered with in any way so that members of the opposition can fully represent their individuals -- and the request of the member for Carleton was reasonable at the time. You gave him your word, and we are looking to you to ensure that --

The Speaker: If the member for Oriole was here, indeed she will know that I wasn't. What I did ask of the House is that, with some patience and a bit of time, I can do my best to try and assist the member for Carleton.

Petitions?

1510

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to speak very briefly to the point made by the member for Hamilton Centre. I was in the chamber as well at the time. I want to point out that the member for Carleton was, first, objecting to being cut off, period. There was some discussion about a motion for adjournment; I will grant the member for Hamilton Centre that. I want to say that the Speaker of the day said, "My apologies to the honourable member."

This is a direct quote from Hansard:

"The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton."

That is pretty clear. If I'm going to come into this House on one day when there's a different person in the chair and the next day the person who happens to occupy the chair says, "I don't care what the person said the last day you were here; I'm going to make my own rules today," what are we to believe?

The member for Carleton either has the floor or he doesn't have the floor. Are you going to stand up for the Speaker on July 16 and live up to his commitment or not? Yes or no?

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound, there is very little that I can add to what I've already said. I understand the member for Carleton's concern. I have told you that I will do my utmost to find a way to fulfil the promise that was made by the Chair. At this point in our proceedings we are dealing with petitions; we are not dealing with the debate on Bill 150. With a bit of time and the members' patience, I will have an opportunity to review this as quickly as possible and will try my best to accommodate a very reasonable request and the statement which was made by the acting Speaker at the time.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to make no comment on the ruling, but I'm going to ask, is it in order to ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the honourable member for Carleton to finish his important remarks?

The Speaker: To the member for Victoria-Haliburton, to his point of order: Indeed, that is perfectly in order when Bill 150 is called. At this point I have called petitions, and the patient member for Brampton South has a petition.

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 37 residents of Ontario, many of them from my riding. It's addressed "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Callahan: There seems to be some disruption in the House. May I continue?

The Speaker: Would the member read his petition. Other members, allow him to do so.

Mr Callahan: The House leader looks a bit irate. I don't know why.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this for-profit clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers, at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities;

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

It's signed by myself pursuant to the rules, and I'd like to file that.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 12 members from the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada:

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are in financial crisis,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to the economic viability of tender-fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are in financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of the United Church of Canada, strongly oppose restrictions on tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have two petitions numbering over 5,000 signatures. The first reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that 'the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York,' and that 'the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture,' and

"Whereas this document also states that 'agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township,'

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

The second petition, which is signed by over 3,000 people, reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agriculture and residential land. Both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and

"Whereas the historical significance of our area is typified by Sharon Temple, its many patrons and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply of this area would be catastrophic. The township of East Gwillimbury supplies water to the Newmarket and Aurora area,

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."

I have signed both petitions in support.

EDUCATION FINANCING

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 47 residents of the county of Middlesex, specifically people from Ilderton, Denfield, Lambeth and Lobo township. They request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report, because they believe it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings, it awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and will ultimately jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

1520

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

GAMBLING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition regarding increased legalized gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas increased legalized gambling threatens to harm individuals and families and might well expand the presence of organized crime in our province;

"And whereas the eventual costs to taxpayers to counter the resulting crime and social problems for individuals and families may well be higher than the anticipated revenue,

"We, the undersigned members and friends of DaySpring Presbyterian Church, London, Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to increase legalized gambling in our province, whether through casinos, electronic video machines or by any other means."

I've signed my name to this petition and enter it therefore to the Clerk and to yourself, Mr Speaker.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Enclosed herein is a petition with 45 signatures requesting the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass legislation giving to the people of Ontario a referendum on all constitutional changes.

The signers of this petition request you to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the prescribed rules of the Ontario Legislature.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the Constitution belongs to the people, not to governments. A referendum is the only means whereby the will of the people of Ontario can be determined, and is thanking me for my cooperation in presenting this petition, one signed by 45 people, another signed by 14 people. I'll enter that for your perusal.

Mr Speaker, I didn't read that correctly, if you don't mind.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final say by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

I've signed my name to both of these petitions.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition here from the pupils of Whitchurch Highlands public school in the region of York and in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. It reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"We're against plowing down houses and replacing them with garbage dumps, and so are all of these people."

Mr Speaker, it is signed by some 50 to 60 students and attached to the petition are a number of notes for the minister. I have signed that in support.

I have, as well, another petition signed by over 2,000 people, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land. Both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture,

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."

I have signed that in support.

I have a final petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by some 400 persons, which states,

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety, and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a 'willing host' community exists that is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have signed that in support as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by some 683 citizens of the province of Ontario from Timmins, La Salle, Burlington, St Catharines, Willowdale, North York, North Bay, Prescott, Chatham, Dresden, Shakespeare and Sturgeon Falls. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have signed my name to these petitions and will put them in your hands for your perusal.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by a number of interested citizens and includes my own signature.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am not sure exactly how to state this, but I believe that my privileges as a member, and indeed the privileges of all members, have been affected by what took place in this House just a few minutes ago. What I'm referring to is that, following the very generous offer by the member for Victoria-Haliburton in full view of all members who are in this House, both the government House leader and the Minister of Energy, who is not here right now, chastised and upbraided the member for Victoria-Haliburton for making the suggestion that upon unanimous consent of the House the member for Carleton would be able to speak.

The reason I raise that on a point of privilege is it seems to me that the government House leader has thoroughly abused his power, has demonstrated in front of the members of the House who were here that he believes he controls the Speaker, whoever may be in that chair, and that he may do that in public and show to everyone here that he was upset with what happened.

I recognize that this is a difficult point of privilege because there is nothing in Hansard, but it was witnessed, I say to the government House leader, by everyone here. For those of us who are feeling terribly concerned at the abuse of power this government House leader has tried to decree by his new rules and by his actions in this House, I would ask, Mr Speaker, that you consider that and see whether my privileges and those of other members of this House have not in fact been abused by the open and public condemnation the government House leader showed to the Deputy Speaker.

1530

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for York North, I certainly appreciate his concern. I will say that the member for Victoria-Haliburton raised what he believed to be a point of order; indeed, I told him he was correct that at the time when -- whenever, if ever -- Bill 150 is called, it would be in order for any member of the House to ask for unanimous consent for a particular member to be heard; it's not an unusual practice, and I simply responded to him.

Those are the events as they unfolded. While I understand the concern which he raises, it is not a point of privilege, but I appreciate what the member has raised.

Reports by committees?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order with respect to the Minister of Health's response to proceedings in the standing committee on estimates.

The estimates committee met to review the estimates of the Ministry of Health and to hear the Minister of Health defend those estimates close to a month ago. It was difficult for members of the committee because the Minister of Health was herself absent a substantial portion of the time and the parliamentary assistant was unable to respond for her. In that instance, both the opposition parties stood down their questions so they could speak directly to the Minister of Health and place their questions directly to her.

As a consequence of that, however, the agreed-upon time for Health estimates was substantially decreased. As a consequence of that, written questions were prepared and the minister indicated that the responses to those questions would be available to members of the opposition and to the critics within an immediate period of time.

As I've indicated, those Health estimates concluded close to a month ago. We have not received one response to one of those written questions. The questions themselves were relatively simple and it should have been a fairly straightforward matter for ministry officials to have gathered the information that would be useful to members of the opposition as they proceeded with work in the House.

I am asking you to investigate that entire question. It's a matter of some importance to members of the opposition and to the public.

The Speaker: First of all, I know by the member's experience and activity in this chamber how interested she is in pursuing matters that pertain to the assembly, so I understand the frustration which she explains. She should know that whatever happens in a committee, it is up to the committee to deal with the problem or problems which are brought to the attention of the Chair of the committee. I would imagine that by having raised it here in the House, she has of course also managed to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Health, and presumably by that vehicle will get the kind of response she's looking for. But I appreciate the fact that she raised it here in the chamber.

Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? Orders of the day, the government House leader.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Just before we in the chamber get to orders of the day, I rise because I suspect that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is also the government House leader, anticipates calling government notice of motion 13. That presents you, sir, and this House with a very difficult proposition. You just undertook to resolve the problem of the member for Carleton, who had the undertaking of the Speaker when last he spoke on Bill 50, to ensure somehow or other, or attempt to ensure somehow or other, that he would have an opportunity to complete his remarks in accordance with the undertaking of the Speaker at that time. However -- and this is the crux of the matter -- if the government House leader now stands in his place and calls government notice of motion 13, that will set in motion a process which will prohibit you from resolving the dilemma of the member for Carleton.

Let me just explain. You know the terms of government notice of motion 13. It provides that there be no further debate on Bill 150. It provides for one day of debate on the time allocation motion. If we enter into that debate and you allow the government House leader to call government notice of motion 13, that requires us, for the balance of this afternoon, to debate exclusively government notice of motion 13 and to vote on it at 5:45.

The results of that vote are obvious. The government has a majority, and that vote will carry. Then, under our standing orders, the next time the government calls Bill 150, rather than give the member for Carleton an opportunity to complete his remarks, the debate in this Legislature and the carrying of that motion will ensure that the member for Carleton does not have an opportunity to speak.

There are a number of other weaknesses that relate to government notice of motion 13, and those could be debated. I'm asking you now to consider the opinion of certain members of this House and not now, before you've heard the implications of what you do from a variety of members, to allow that motion to be called.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre has quite clearly identified the conundrum. The member raised a question, and I'm pleased to respond.

It is not possible to comply with the request of the member for Carleton to a matter which is not on the floor of the House. Once the matter to which he was speaking is called, the member for York Centre is correct, with the exception that with unanimous consent of the House any member could be allowed to continue.

It is, I guess, in the vernacular, a catch-22. But there is no way to deal with the request from the member for Carleton until the bill is called forward, and at this point the bill has not been called forward. The member is correct that if indeed -- I don't know what the government House leader is going to call, but if he calls the order you referred to, there may be a debate and of course a vote. We will find out.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion number 13:

That in accordance with new standing order 44a, when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate. If a recorded vote is requested on the motion for third reading, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Cooke calls government notice of motion 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No? Does the government House leader have any opening remarks?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: At this moment, with the calling of this motion which deals with Bill 150, which is the matter on which I was speaking last week, it leaves me in the unenviable position of not knowing what my rights are with regard to this particular matter.

As I indicated, when I not voluntarily yielded the floor but was cut off by the Speaker before 6 of the clock, I was promised another opportunity to speak on this matter.

With this motion being called at this time, what I'm being told effectively now is that Bill 150 will never be called again for third reading debate. Therefore, I would ask you to deal with my problem at this juncture.

1540

The Speaker: I understand the difficulty, and I trust the member for Carleton will also realize that what has been called is government notice of motion 13 and not Bill 150. I fully understand the implications, but there is no way in which I could entertain a debate on something which is not on the floor of the House, as much as I may wish to be able to accommodate the member for Carleton's very legitimate request.

At this point, what's been called is notice of motion 13. I suspect there will be a debate for the balance of the afternoon on this particular motion. Following that, if the government calls forward Bill 150, then I understand the implications.

However, at this moment all I can determine to be of help to the member is the practice of unanimous consent. The member will know there is some time between now and tomorrow for me to attempt to explore other options, and all I can do is assure the member that if there is anything at all which I can do to fulfil the promise that was made by the chair occupant of the time, I will do it.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Government notice of motion 13 reads as follows: "That in accordance with new standing order 44a" -- for the people who are watching on television, those are the new rules that Bob Rae and David Cooke have brought to us -- "when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150," several things shall occur.

Can you tell me and advise me whether or not this motion is speaking in relation to Bill 150, the same bill on which the member just rose on a point of privilege, and can you tell me whether or not the subject matter of this government notice of motion is Bill 150? If in fact that is the case, is it then not clear that the topic for discussion today is really Bill 150 and, as a result, we know that if you allow this debate to go on you will be precluded from living up to your undertaking to the member for Carleton?

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: The strict interpretation --

Mr Elston: It's 150, right?

The Speaker: The strict interpretation is that by the orders of the House we are debating the government notice of motion --

Mr Elston: About 150.

The Speaker: Which relates to Bill 150, but it is a motion to deal with time allocation and it is not, by the strictest sense of the words, dealing with third reading of Bill 150. The undertaking I have given the member for Carleton is that within the rules I will do my best to accommodate the member. I understand there was a commitment. I may or may not be able to assist the member, but I will make every effort to do so.

Debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is quite simply based upon the remarks of Acting Speaker Drainville, where he said: "There's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton." He says he will have the opportunity to speak; he says there's no question about that.

By carrying on with this motion, what is being called into question is a challenge to a ruling the Speaker made. The Speaker made a ruling, and the effect of this motion proceeding before debate is complete is that the government House leader is challenging an order that the Speaker made. I appreciate, sir, that you were not in the chair, but Mr Drainville, in effect, was your alter-ego; he was, in effect, the person who had control of the chair at that time. For you to turn around and not respect the order that the Speaker made and to permit the government House leader to challenge the order of the Speaker made on July 16 is totally and completely improper. With respect --

The Speaker: Would the member for Willowdale take his seat.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, I'm not finished. I think it's incumbent on you to hear the rest of it.

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Willowdale take his seat. I've tried to explain. Let me approach it from a different angle. The only time you can have debate on Bill 150 is when Bill 150 is called. I have said several times that I --

Mr Elston: Whatever the exigency of the circumstance is.

Mr Harnick: You don't understand what I'm saying.

Mr Elston: Some of the standing orders are to be interpreted literally and some are not, depending on what the situation warrants.

The Speaker: I have said very clearly to the member for Carleton that I will be pleased to take a look to see if there is some way in which we can fulfil the promise that was made. It would be totally improper to entertain debate on any bill which had not been called before the House, and that's where we're at at this stage. Bill 150 has not been called. What has been called is a time allocation or closure motion and the debate is on closure.

Mr Elston: On Bill 150.

The Speaker: The closure applies to Bill 150 but I do not have the latitude to allow the member to be engaged in a debate on Bill 150. Should the member for Carleton wish to participate in the debate on closure, perhaps his skilled ways as an orator will allow him the opportunity to make the points he wished to make earlier. There is nothing out of order --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I may be able to provide you with a solution to the dilemma and the conundrum that you find yourself in. Let's just review the circumstances of the problem that we're all confronting under this matter.

On the last day on which Bill 150 was being debated, the member for Carleton had the floor. Just before 6 of the clock there was a power interruption and we brought the House to an early conclusion and at that time the Speaker gave an undertaking from the chair that when Bill 150 was next called the member would have the floor in order to complete his remarks.

What intervened was a time allocation motion, the order that is about to be debated in this House, if you allow it to be debated, a time allocation motion that said in substance that when Bill 150 is next called there shall be no more debate and the matter shall be immediately put to a vote.

That time allocation motion was raised by me and a number of other people in the House yesterday and the Speaker reserved his ruling on whether or not the time allocation motion would be in order. I recall, sir, just parenthetically, that in the arguments I made I presented eight questions to you and two of them related to whether or not a time allocation motion could have the effect of interrupting a member in the middle of his speech.

I listened very carefully to the reasons you gave today in your response but you did not, with the greatest deal of respect, answer that question, whether or not a time allocation motion could have the effect of cutting a member off. Obviously, if someone were engaged in a speech outside on the lawn at Queen's Park and someone else came and arrested that person and said, "You'll have to stop speaking right now," the question of freedom of speech would be at issue. Apparently that's not the case here.

I think probably, sir, in considering your judgement and reviewing the matter you were not aware of the undertaking given from the Chair to the member for Carleton that he would have the floor. That's a ruling of the Chair and the ruling of the Chair has to be abided by and you would have constructive notice of the fact that ruling was already made.

I think perhaps the way in which we could get out of this terrible dilemma, where the ruling that the time allocation motion, government notice of motion 13, is valid is in direct conflict with the ruling made last Thursday, could be resolved in the following way: You could, sir, do one of two things.

You could ask for a 10-minute adjournment of the House in order to try to seek unanimous consent that government notice of motion 13 be amended so that it is deemed to read that when Bill 150 is called once again the member for Carleton is allowed to complete his remarks and thereafter the matter shall be put to a vote. If we could reach that agreement, then we could solve the problem of two conflicting rulings. I'm just trying to be helpful and provide possible solutions. As one member of this House, I would be agreeable both to that adjournment and to unanimous consent to amend the motion to read like that, so that the motion would always have read like that and we would forgo notice.

1550

The second possibility is that you could, given the conflicting rulings, that is, the one to the member for Carleton and the other that this time allocation motion is valid, simply rule now to suspend consideration of this motion until you have had time to reflect on the implications of the conflict between the Speaker ruling one thing and then ruling another.

I prefer the first solution because I think a time allocation motion that at least allows a speaker who has the floor to complete his or her remarks technically comes within these draconian new standing orders the government House leader has imposed upon this House. I ask you to simply go beyond the normal course of business here and look for an immediate solution, including an amendment to the --

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, first, I very much appreciate his quite helpful and useful suggestion. The member will know that the Speaker does not have the opportunity to amend motions. However, the normal way in which this place functions in a successful manner is when the House leaders are able to reach agreement on matters, and this suggestion that the member for York Centre has indeed strikes me as being a very useful and helpful way for us to proceed.

Perhaps the three House leaders could reach an agreement to accommodate the very thing that the member for York Centre has raised, so that indeed if and when Bill 150 is called forward, the promise of the Chair can be fulfilled and the member for Carleton would have an opportunity to complete his remarks. To me that seems to be a useful suggestion, but it's out of my hands.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I stood a few moments ago on a point of order and unfortunately, for whatever reason, you didn't want to let me finish nor did you want to rule on my point of order. With respect, I didn't think that was quite proper and it affected my rights as a member. I wonder if I might complete the point of order I was making before you consider the suggestion made by the member for York Centre.

What I was saying, and I don't know if you understood the point that I was trying to make, was that if the Speaker on July 16 made an order and this particular motion that is now before the Legislature challenges the order that Speaker made, it would be improper to proceed with that motion at this time.

That is in effect what this motion does. Government motion number 13 challenges the order that Acting Speaker Drainville made on July 16. Because of that, if you proceed with the motion at this time, and the government House leader has called that motion, you are challenging the order of the Speaker. Therefore, I put it to you, Speaker, with the greatest respect, that this motion is out of order until the member for Carleton has the opportunity to complete his 90-minute speech.

Interjection.

Mr Harnick: May I finish?

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, is there something new to add? If the member has something new to add, please go ahead.

Mr Harnick: I really would like the opportunity to finish. I appreciate that you may not like what I'm saying or that what I'm saying may be difficult, and I say that with the greatest respect, but I do think that I am afforded the opportunity to complete my remarks before you twitch to the front of your chair.

The Speaker: I will offer the member for Willowdale an opportunity to succinctly place his comments now.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that you don't like that, but the fact is that the net effect of this motion is that it challenges the order of the Speaker, and you are the Speaker. If you are prepared to let the government House leader indirectly challenge an order that you in effect have made, then you have lost control of this chamber; you are not able to keep control of this chamber and permit government business to proceed according to the rules. I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent if you proceed and allow this motion that is clearly out of order, because it challenges your order. You're creating a very dangerous precedent.

Before you agree to perhaps adjourn this place for 10 minutes to see if the member for York Centre's suggestion could bear fruit, I think it is incumbent upon you to rule on whether this government motion 13 is in order. If you rule it is in order, I remind you that what you are in effect doing is belittling your own office as the elected Speaker of this House.

The Speaker: It's an interesting point that the member for Willowdale raises with respect to an undertaking by the Chair in a previous sitting. I must tell the member that the ruling made earlier today said that the closure motion was in order. Indeed, that's the point of the program that we're at, having recognized the government House leader.

I omitted to tell the member for York Centre that because it's a motion on the floor, it is amendable. The member for York Centre, or indeed his House leader or any other member of the assembly, may wish to propose the very motion which he has brought to my attention and which may indeed allow this House to steer a clear path through the waters.

Government House leader, continue.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The motion has already been called, so I'm being asked to speak on it. I'll be very brief, because I have to attend a meeting with representatives from --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I recall about 30 seconds ago standing and putting something to you, asking a question very distinctly, a very different question than what was raised yesterday, and I don't recall having an answer with any reasons provided, as I think I'm entitled to as a member of this House.

I would request from the Speaker an answer to my question as to how this government motion is not challenging the order that Acting Speaker Drainville made. It's not a question that was put before you yesterday. I think it's a question that at least deserves an answer. You may not like the question, you may not want to rule in favour of it, but for the purposes of parliamentary precedent I think I deserve at least a somewhat reasoned response.

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, I regret he somehow missed my ruling. I indicated earlier that the government notice of motion 13 was in order. I recognized the difficulty the member for Carleton was placed in and the undertaking by the acting Chair of the time. I further indicated that the only way in which that particular point could be addressed was when Bill 150 was called. That, of course, presents a conundrum with respect to the essence of notice of motion 13; hence the very useful suggestion by the member for York Centre. As the debate proceeds, that member, or indeed yourself or any other member, may wish to propose such a motion as a way to resolve some of the difficulties we now find ourselves in. But I had addressed your point and hopefully with the further explanation the understanding is now there.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr Harnick: Yes. Pursuant to your instructions, I move that we amend Mr Cooke's resolution to allow for --

The Speaker: Would the member for Willowdale take his seat. You do not yet have the floor. When you are recognized, indeed you may wish to propose such an amendment.

Hon Mr Cooke: Before I get started, I believe there's an agreement between the three parties that the remaining time be divided three ways and that questions and comments be suspended for the balance of the afternoon.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1600

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, on this motion, people have to be reminded that we're talking about a piece of legislation that is before the Legislature for third reading. Third reading in this place has traditionally --

Mr Elston: No, the Speaker said that is not what we are talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: We're talking about a time allocation motion dealing with a piece of legislation for third reading.

Traditionally in this place, third reading of legislation has been very brief indeed. The only time that third reading of a piece of legislation takes a long period of time is under two circumstances.

One circumstance is that it's a very contentious piece of legislation and very difficult, and therefore there is some time that is spent during third reading of the legislation. The other time that legislation is debated at length for third reading is when opposition parties want to hold up the business of the House on every item that comes before the House, and that's the circumstance that we're in now. Everything this government wants to do, the opposition parties are filibustering on, slowing down and preventing the government from proceeding with the business of the people of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's a fact, and if the opposition parties do not like the use of time allocation, then I'd suggest they deal properly at the table and negotiate a schedule for the House. That has been impossible to do, especially with the official opposition. We don't have to use time allocation on every piece of legislation, but we're going to have to use it on every piece of legislation if we continue to be treated the way we have been, especially by the official opposition.

There's one other point that I'd like to make; that is, the point that has been made here this afternoon in terms of the member who had the floor the other night on third reading.

Mr Sorbara: You are so full of it, David, you could fill the whole chamber.

Hon Mr Cooke: You are so full yourself.

Mr Sorbara: The opposition isn't behaving. They are not doing what you want to do. Don't you understand? You have to get through this legislative agenda.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the member of the official opposition makes the point better than I possibly could. Every time we try to do something in this place, if it's not the way the member for York North wants it, then he threatens the government. That's what happens all the time.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm sorry -- York Centre.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What I would say to the honourable member is that he seems to find democracy to be inconvenient, which is, I think, just about as bad as what he's been demonstrating throughout this week.

Hon Mr Cooke: The one other item I'd like to address is that Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, was speaking the other night, and when he had the floor and he was speaking on this particular bill --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to please help the Chair. I cannot hear a single word, so I would ask you please to refrain from heckling.

Hon Mr Cooke: If we were to follow the advice that has been made by a number of members here this afternoon, that the only time time allocation motions would be called -- if they were tabled on time -- would be after a speech has been completed, in the time, whether it be the 30 minutes or the 90 minutes, then, Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do that you would never be able to move time allocation, because speeches never finish right at 6 o'clock. The fact of the matter is that when we negotiated this rules package, both opposition parties demanded that a time allocation motion must be debated for a full sessional day, so that if today the member for Carleton was allowed --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I will not accept any more heckling, please.

Mr Sorbara: A point of order, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. You have the floor.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, because the orders --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I regret to raise this point of order, but my friend the government House leader has clearly misrepresented the effect of a time allocation motion. He knows perfectly well that a time allocation motion could read that the time shall provide for the completion of a speech and three more speeches or two more speeches or one more hour or two more days or anything else in between.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not accept that word. You have crossed the limit of the type of language that is acceptable. I will ask you to withdraw.

Mr Sorbara: I will withdraw that and say that he has gone well beyond the truth.

Hon Mr Cooke: These are the types of members who are protecting the democratic process. Give me a break.

There is one other point I was trying to make. The member for Carleton had the floor the other night. If I were to allow him to finish his speech today, which had another 80 minutes or thereabouts --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, order.

Hon Mr Cooke: If the time allocation motion were to allow the member for Carleton to speak or if we had unanimous consent to allow the member for Carleton to speak, under the new rules of the Legislature, the time allocation motion itself must be debated for a full sessional day. That would mean the time allocation motion would not be dealt with today. The opposition parties understand that and that's exactly what this entire game is about this afternoon.

I understand the difficulty. I understand that the opposition parties will never support any time allocation we put forward. The best way to deal with all these matters is at the negotiating table and it takes three political parties to negotiate. I believe we've tried, and I believe if it's to work, it's going to take all three House leaders. When that starts to happen, then we won't have to bring time allocation motions into the House. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to govern. We intend to exercise that responsibility and this motion is part of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret that I have to participate in dealing with government motion 13, which in effect is closure on the very important debate on Bill 150 in the midst of the beginning of the speech by the member for Carleton, the Progressive Conservative lead representative in this particular debate, who had, I found, in his initial remarks, some rather interesting and compelling arguments to advance dealing with this bill.

The motion of course is a draconian motion and one to which Bob Rae, when he wasn't the Premier of Ontario, would not have wished to submit. We all remember the lectures, both on the campaign trail and in this very House, and indeed in the federal House, from the member for York South, who is now the Premier of this province, Bob Rae, on the responsibilities of the opposition, the rights of the opposition and democracy. It is ironic that this very Premier, who is noted in his political career for defending the rights of the minority, for defending the rights of the downtrodden, for emphasizing the importance of active, aggressive and vigilant opposition, is the Premier who has brought in this resolution through the government House leader, Mr Cooke.

The implications of the motion, as has been pointed out on many occasions through points of order, this afternoon and perhaps previous to this, are rather drastic. One would have anticipated that when there was a government motion for time allocation, the government House leader would have set out how much time there would be for further debate. Unfortunately, he has chosen not to do so but rather to indicate there shall be no further debate.

1610

What is particularly of concern to me is the fact that this is part of a grand plan. Anybody who can't spot that this is part of the grand plan on the part of the Premier to wrest control from this House and place it in the corner office -- that is, the Premier's office -- so that more matters can be dealt with by order in council, so that more matters can be dealt with by regulation, so that more matters can be dealt with simply by dictation from the Premier's office and so that the members of this House become less significant -- I point out that members are the only elected people in this building and that those who advise the Premier on an ongoing basis in his office are unelected people, so-called experts, so-called spin doctors who advise the Premier on the policies of the province.

There is that determination which I think should concern all members of the House. I don't expect to see a large number of the government members or in fact any member of the government get up to denounce the rules or to denounce what this House leader is doing. I suspect that quietly many of them are thinking: "We call ourselves the New Democratic Party. The member for St Catharines seems to be saying from time to time that we are neither new nor democratic, and perhaps there's some truth to that particular contention."

I wish it were not so. When I sat on the other side of the House, and indeed when I sat here previously and the member for York South, the Premier, was sitting as the third opposition party, I used to admire some of the stances he took on those occasions in favour of the opposition, in favour of thorough and comprehensive debate on all legislation and public policy issues. Indeed, there are some comments in here -- were I to have some time to read them into the record, and I perhaps will leave others to do so -- which are rather interesting, from Bob Rae, particularly when it talks about questions to Mr Peterson and others on the issue of House rules.

One of the concerns I have, which I emphasized previously, is that virtually nobody cares about this. I believe you make a judgement on a government and an individual based on what that government or that individual does when no one is looking, when no one is scrutinizing the government. Clearly, this is not an issue which is going to capture a lot of public attention. Some who have a particular interest in politics will come up to us in the street and indicate their concern about how the government is proceeding. But by and large those who report the news of the day will have more important issues for the public to understand. Editors are not going to be interested in columns or in stories about House procedures unless there's what we call a dust-up in the House, some kind of conflict, some kind of unusual manoeuvre by the opposition or the government.

I thought that Carol Goar, who writes the national affairs column for the Toronto Star, made some salient points about what is happening to our democratic institutions. She was talking about the House of Commons, but it could have easily applied to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. She said the following:

"Anyone who looks closely at the House of Commons will see that it is no model for a great democratic institution.

"Vigorous debate is rare.

"Whenever the government encounters heavy resistance from the opposition, it brings in 'time allocation' (a parliamentary procedure which allows the government to cut off debate). Until a decade ago, this device was used sparingly to break protracted parliamentary deadlocks. Now it is part of the regular routine.

"Intelligent discussion of government policy is rare."

Does that sound familiar to members of this House? It should, because that's what's happening to this House under the new rules that Bob Rae has insisted upon having pushed through. She goes on to say:

"Effective committees are rare.

"In theory, committees are the place where MPs can examine legislation intensively, raise issues that matter to them and set aside partisan point scoring. In fact, this only happens in a handful of the existing 43 committees and subcommittees (the consumer and corporate affairs committee, the justice committee and the committee for the disabled). The rest either don't meet, spend their time squabbling, or do little more than rubber-stamp government bills.

"And there are other, less visible, symptoms of decline:

"The government is implementing more and more of its policy decisions through cabinet orders, which do not have to go through the House of Commons, rather than legislation which can be scrutinized, debated and changed. It keeps changing the rules of the Commons, shortening the time allowed for speeches, cutting back the number of days the House sits and eliminating opportunities for the opposition parties to hold up debate.... And it is turning increasingly to private sector task forces and business-labour boards to address policy issues which were once the responsibility of the country's elected representatives.

"'The public has to be made aware of what's happening in Parliament.'" She's quoting in this case Senator Joan Neiman, who is talking about the House of Commons. Mrs Neiman says: "'The public has to be made aware of what's happening in Parliament....The executive (the Prime Minister and his cabinet) has been taking more and more power.

"'Opposition has become a meaningless exercise. There is no safeguard against badly flawed legislation. And the greatest tragedy, I think, is that a lot of the backbenchers have lost interest.'

"She does not think the trend is irreversible. All it would take to turn things around, Neiman says, is a commitment from the government to allow open debate and a resolve on the part of MPs to put the good of the country before their own electoral prospects."

A rather interesting column. It's the only one I've seen of its kind in a national newspaper. There may be others that I've missed in the clippings services, but it's because it's not a topic that's interesting to those who are in the general public. It is considered by members of the news media to be something in-house or internal and something that is obviously not going to interest their editors.

That's why it concerns me because, as I emphasize again, what a government does when nobody is looking is the measure of that government. When there's close scrutiny, it's easy to be good. When there's close scrutiny, it's easy to do the right thing. But when no one is watching and the scrutiny is lessened, that's when you can make a judgement as to whether a government is being politically ethical or not.

In this situation with Bill 150 we've had one speaker from the Liberal Party who spoke about many of the important issues concerning this bill, about the concerns of the United Steelworkers about certain aspects of the bill and about others who had made representations to committee. Yet we see the government wanting to rush the bill through. The purpose of debating this at some length now is to encourage backbench members of the government to go to caucus and to ask questions of the ministers and perhaps suggest some modifications to this legislation or to allow the public on a more ongoing basis, over a couple of days or three days, to see the important ramifications of this legislation. That is the purpose of debating this kind of legislation.

We're not going to engage in an exercise in the official opposition, because we happen to be in July, to simply rush everything through the way things used to be done. Everybody wants to get out for the summer. Everybody wants to go on holidays. Everybody wants to do this and do that. They don't want to sit in the Legislature. Well, that's not our responsibility. We're paid to do this job.

If we are simply to be glorified social workers, that is, if we're simply there to do our constituency work, to get the birth certificates for people, to help cut down a bit on the red tape that people encounter, then surely we're not carrying out our full role as legislators. That's an equally significant role. It may not get us re-elected. It may not be the thing that appeals to people when you can do something for them on a personal basis, but it's an important part of our responsibility as members of this Legislature. That's why I think this is an important debate. That is why I'm so incensed by the fact that the government House leader, at the behest obviously of the Premier, would bring this motion forward.

We had the spectacle this afternoon that was of concern to me. We had Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, up for about 10 or 15 minutes. He was guaranteed by the last Speaker, by the Acting Speaker on July 16, with the following words, a guarantee that he would be able to continue, because he got up to ask about that and he was concerned.

Mr Drainville, the Acting Speaker, said, "My apologies to the honourable member. The honourable member will still have the floor. There's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that first of all to the member for Carleton." He gives an undertaking to Norm Sterling, the member for Carleton, that he will be able to continue, but that undertaking is removed by the government House leader with this particular motion.

1620

This afternoon we had quite a spectacle in this House, something that members of the general public, who didn't get the wide shot, wouldn't see. Everybody was out interviewing the Premier because he leaves early from the question period and takes three quarters of the press gallery with him. He's the most important man and everybody's going to go interview him. I understand that, and I'm not critical of that, but it's a fact of life.

We had Mr Drainville, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, the Acting Speaker on that occasion, an individual who, I might say, I've grown to believe has a very great concern about the way this House operates and who, through his new responsibility as one of the people who sits in the chair, I think has carried out that responsibility, as all of you who sit in the chair have, in a very good fashion.

Recognizing that he had given his word, he rose in the House and suggested that unanimous consent be given for Mr Sterling to be able to speak. He was ambushed by the government House leader with a scowl on his face, obviously telling him, how dare he make this particular suggestion that there be a democratic debate, that Mr Sterling be allowed to at least complete his remarks. I'm sure he would not have extended those remarks for any long period of time under the circumstances.

He was also attacked by the Minister of Energy, who used to be concerned about the democratic rights of the opposition. It was a tag-team match. It reminded me of the World Wrestling Federation, of the Nasty Boys. The Nasty Boys went down to Mr Drainville, who was the innocent person, the good guy in this particular case. His manager, the Premier, had them go down to chastise this individual, who was simply trying to accommodate a member of the opposition and, even more important than that, was simply trying to be fair.

That's, I think, what those of you who sit in the chair -- I know it's a difficult job -- try to be: You try to be fair. And what happens? He's ambushed by his own members and he's chased down the hallway now in some disgrace, in some ways -- some embarrassment, at least. But I, for one, will stand up for the member for Victoria-Haliburton in this particular case.

I see I'm down to two minutes. I've been told I have only two minutes left, because we spent a lot of time this afternoon dealing of course with other matters of importance to the Speaker and others in this House. I will simply wrap up by saying that it's clear to me that sufficient debate has not taken place on this bill. You know, there wasn't very extensive debate on second reading of Bill 150. Check the record; there wasn't extensive debate on second reading.

There are some important implications. Actually, a lot of this bill, as Mr Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, has said, is very supportable. He has said that at least for our party; the Conservative Party may have another view. But there are some points in this bill that are quite good and that we're supportive of. There are some we have concerns about and we hoped the government would be persuaded that those concerns should be addressed. That's why we wanted to make sure the government backbenchers particularly heard the opposition view on this and could go back to caucus and question the minister and say, "Perhaps we should make some of these changes." They might be rejected but, on the other hand, they should be given that particular opportunity.

I recognize that the government wants out; that's the key now. I know, when I sat on the government side, that the day every minister loved was the day of the last question period. I recognize that. They want out desperately on the other side. Certainly today, as we see the Pilkey affair, as it is known now, we know the government is reeling. The government is on the ropes and the government wants out, so we're going to see motions of this kind emanating from the government House leader. But make no mistake about it. The chief architect of this particular motion, the chief architect of the rules changes and the chief architect of the way this government is being run from the corner office is none other than that former new and democrat, the Premier himself.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to participate briefly in this debate on this motion this afternoon. First of all, I would like to start out by reiterating the comments I made under a point of order yesterday because I firmly believe this is not a time allocation motion at all, but rather a closure motion which immediately cuts off debate.

I think this is indeed a sad day for parliamentary democracy in Ontario, and I mean that very sincerely, because when we were negotiating and discussing with the government House leader about how time allocation motions would be used and when they might be used, he indicated to us that he would never introduce a time allocation motion that did not provide for further allocation of time and further debate on a particular piece of legislation. Now we see that the second time he has used this device within a week he has in fact done exactly what he told us he would never do.

Mr Bradley: Does that surprise you?

Mr Eves: Yes, it does surprise me, I say to the member for St Catharines. It really indicates to me that we have sunk to a new low in Ontario. What we've done by an indirect method, by calling a closure motion a different name -- and I'm very disappointed that the Speaker has decided to adopt the same line of thinking as the government House leader, because in effect I think the privileges of the opposition parties, particularly in majority governments, have been severely infringed upon. If you carry this ruling through to its logical extension, then the government at any time in the future can introduce what is in effect a closure motion and cut off all debate, any debate whatsoever, on any particular piece of legislation, save and except the second reading debate, and that was not the intent at all.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): You've finally figured it out, Ernie?

Mr Eves: The Attorney General says to me, "You finally figured it out, huh, Ernie?" If what the Attorney General means by that remark is that the government House leader negotiated in bad faith all through these negotiations and really intended to stick it to the opposition parties and really intended to bring forward rules that say there doesn't have to be any debate or any public discussion on any stage of a bill, then that says something about the government itself. I feel very strongly that was never the intent of the discussions and negotiations which went on among the three House leaders, that was never the intent as to when a time allocation would be used, and in effect this is not a time allocation motion, with all due respect, I say to the Chair. This is a motion of closure. It cuts off debate immediately.

In fact, in this instance it has cut off debate when a member had the floor speaking on this particular piece of legislation. That member was assured by the Speaker in the chair on that day, which was last Thursday, that he would be given an opportunity to conclude his remarks at a later date. We now have a new person in the chair today -- not you, Mr Speaker, but the individual who occupied the chair earlier in the afternoon -- saying: "I don't care what my colleague who was occupying the chair last Thursday said. I'm not going to let you do that. I'm going to uphold government notice of motion 13 as a time allocation motion and I'm going to let it proceed, and I don't care if the member for Carleton was given a commitment that he could finish his remarks or not and I don't care if he was cut off as he first started to speak." He has 90 minutes to speak and it's my understanding that he only used about 15 of those 90 minutes.

I think this place has sunk to a new all-time low, and I am very concerned about the potential effect of this ruling here this afternoon. I can tell you that my leader was upset this afternoon, because he approached the Clerk's table and talked to the Clerk of the House about the intent and the good faith of new standing order 44a, which was that time allocation would never be introduced, never, on any stage of a bill, unless that bill was significant enough to have received at least three days' debate on second reading.

That was always the intent of the negotiations. At no point in time did somebody say, "Ha ha, when we get this through, we'll be extremely technical, and if we can twist the arm of the Speaker in the chair at the time, then we're going to stick it to you on a technicality and come in through the back door with closure motions any time we want because we have some political heat every day in question period and we'd like to get out of here."

That's exactly what this is all about. Let there be no mistake that if this were not July 21 and if Mr Pilkey were not in difficulty day after day in question period, there would never have been a motion like government notice of motion 13.

1630

This is politics, pure and simple: "We are trying to cover one of our ministers' behinds and get him out of here as quickly as we can so he doesn't have to be subjected to this stuff every day in question period, and we'll use every trick in the book and there's no depth to which we won't stoop to get out of here." That's really what is being said and I find it very regrettable indeed, and I find it very regrettable that the Speaker who occupied the chair earlier did not take into account the discussions that went on and the negotiations and the good faith and the intent of standing order 44a.

The Clerk was present for part of those discussions near the end of the drafting of the rule, and at no point in those discussions did the government House leader indicate that it was in anybody's wildest dreams that he would walk in and say, after one speaker, "I'll introduce a time allocation motion that cuts somebody off in midsentence and says there's no further debate and we're going to vote on this and we're going to vote on it now." There's a word for that: It's called closure; it's not called time allocation.

Common sense would tell anybody that a time allocation motion has to provide for an allocation of time. That's just common sense. Unfortunately the Speaker who occupied the chair earlier doesn't seem to have any. He is here to respect the rights of the minority and to protect those rights, and in my humble opinion, today he has failed to do so miserably. I don't choose these words without a great deal of thought and remorse, Mr Speaker, I say to you. This is a sad day for parliamentary democracy in Ontario, and it's even a sadder day for the members of this government because they have stooped to an all-time new low to get one of their political colleagues out of the frying pan. That's what this is about and I am very sorry the Speaker has assisted them in this endeavour.

What happened here earlier this afternoon, when I saw the government House leader berate in public, in full view in this chamber, the individual who occupied the chair last Thursday and promised the member for Carleton that he'd be able to conclude his remarks, is totally unacceptable. That is absolutely despicable conduct by a government House leader in any democratic society anywhere at any time. That is ridiculous. What we saw here today is that the government House leader controls the Chair and he will dictate to the Chair what the Chair will do. That is a very serious matter and I am very upset about it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): So we can hear.

Mr Eves: Maybe you should hear, because some day, sooner than you think, mister, if you're lucky, you're going to be over here; if you're not, you're going to be out there.

Mr Speaker, I say this is indeed a very serious matter. This is not a time allocation motion. This is a closure motion, pure and simple.

I say to the government House leader, you got yourself and your government into this mess; if you have any class at all, you will get yourself out of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussion this afternoon. Once again, similar to the speeches we heard last week, the opposition members are doing the best they can to make out that it's a black day for Ontario, that an awful lot of terrible things are happening, and painting the worst possible picture they can. Of course, that's their role. But the reality is that if you take a look at the record of Bill 150, you will find that on second reading we had three hours and 24 minutes of debate in this House. Three hours of debate is not insignificant at all.

In addition to that, at the committee level we have already had over three hours of ministry witnesses, we had five hours of private witnesses and three hours of clause-by-clause, for a total of over 12 hours spent on this issue in committee.

As our House leader mentioned earlier, it is the tradition of this House, as I understand it, that third reading is usually a formality or, on a very contentious issue, there will be brief, concise, focused comments by the opposition because they wish to ensure that their opposition to a particular bill is very clear and is there on the record. What we've seen time after time is that there are prolonged debates and on this particular third reading we've already had over two hours' debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I don't want any exchange between the members, and if you want to make any remarks, make sure you do so from your seat.

Mr Christopherson: I would submit that everything we are seeing now is a continuation by the opposition of a denial of what happened on September 6, 1990. They have refused to accept the fact that there is an NDP majority government. There are so many folks in the opposition who are so bitter that they are prepared to do anything and everything they can to restrict and inhibit our ability to govern.

By way of evidence, I would point to a comment made by the member for York Centre earlier today even, just today, made in this debate. I'm reading it as I wrote it down; I stand to be corrected by the formal Hansard, but I wrote down that the member for York Centre said, and I believe he was talking to the government House leader, "Boy, oh boy, my friend, you are going to have a very difficult time getting anything through this House." That sums up the attitude and the actions of the opposition.

I understand that the opposition will claim that that's not the case and that they're in specific opposition to particular bills and actions. I personally do not buy that. My experience to date, sitting here in this House and experiencing and watching the opposition, is that there is every evidence to conclude that the opposition refuses to accept that there's a New Democratic government in Ontario and that we have that right to govern. If you look at the record, you'll see these prolonged debates on third reading, the bills that have been read in the House where they mention every river and every lake in the province, when we have business being delayed time after time, points of order -- it's all there in the Hansard. I as one member am convinced that that's why we're here today.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole, the member for Willowdale, please.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I'm obviously touching a few nerves. The opposition, I suggest to you, would have you believe that the reason we are here on July 21 is because they want to continue working, that they think the business of the province is so important that they just don't want to adjourn this House; they want to stay here and continue to work.

[Applause]

Mr Christopherson: The member for Oriole applauds those comments. I don't think for a minute the public, nor the media people, nor the pundits who watch what happens here believe for one minute that that's why we're here. I submit that we are here because part of the agenda in delay, in blocking and preventing this government, is to push the Legislature to the limit, beyond what is necessary on the specifics, because they are attempting to prevent this government from governing.

I said this last time I spoke on this type of issue, that if were we not taking the kinds of action that we are today and that we've had to take earlier and, if it continues, that we might have to take in the future, the public would be watching and would be seeing a government that refuses to use the majority it was democratically given, and the first people and the loudest people saying that this is exactly the case would be the opposition members.

1640

I've heard certain members over there -- and I said this the last time I was on my feet on this issue early in this term -- saying: "You're the government. Grab the reins of power. You've got the majority. Use the levers of power." I think we have found the appropriate balance between the rights of the opposition, the minority parties, and the rights of individual members to speak. I point to the evidence of the amount of time that's already been spent on this issue and on others where time allocation has been used to say that we have found the appropriate kind of balance.

But we also have that obligation to lead, and I think we are doing exactly the appropriate thing that needs to be done. I do not buy for one moment that we're here because one side wants to work and the other doesn't. I think we're here because the opposition is trying to prevent this government from governing. That's what I think today is all about and that's what I think leading up to today has been all about.

I'd also like to spend just a moment before I take my place to talk a little on what earlier speakers have said regarding the words of Acting Speaker Drainville. It's interesting that so far I haven't heard any of the opposition members just flip the page back one, where we start to look at exactly what happened on July 16. I would suggest that if you look at page 2186, what one sees is the member for Carleton on his feet giving his comments --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Oration.

Mr Christopherson: Oration, I'm advised by my friend from Algoma, on Bill 150. Then all of a sudden, members will recall, there was a power failure. The lights went out until the emergency lights went on. Hansard, we believed, was out. The rest of the lights in the entire building were out. There was a little bit of confusion and the acting Speaker, Mr Drainville, then says:

"Order, please. I'd ask the House to hold on.

"I'd like to say to the honourable members that at this point we've got emergency power here in the chamber. There's no power in a lot of the building at this point in time. We are going to continue with the sitting. We'll have to see if Hansard is still recording. We are going to continue this session until 6 o'clock. If we are not recording, we'll have to adjourn the House."

There are some interjections, and then the Speaker says:

"Order, please. Hansard does not seem to be recording, so I'm going to recognize the honourable member for Niagara South," our government whip and deputy House leader, "who will give a business report for next week."

Then the Honourable Shirley Coppen stood up and read out what the business would be. At the point where she reached government notice of motion 13 on time allocation, the member for Carleton was back on his feet. The member said:

"On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize that Hansard is not there, but I don't believe that it's proper you take the floor from me, and I would comply with your wishes and adjourn the debate."

I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that at that point the member for Carleton was on a point of order concerned with what would happen, on motion 13, to the rest of his speech, which is a proper point of order to the extent that he feels the rules are hurting his rights. He was expressing his opinion, as he has done today and as I suspect he may continue to do for some time.

The Acting Speaker then said -- and let's remember, motion 13 had been tabled but not called. It had not been called. The Acting Speaker then said:

"My apologies to the honourable member. The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton."

Those are the memorable quotes that are being used over and over by the opposition, I suggest very selectively and out of context, because if you continue, the acting Speaker, in the next paragraph in Hansard, says:

"We have just received different news that apparently Hansard is recording at this point in time. We did not have that news a moment ago. I would say, with the members' agreement, that if we could go on with the business statement, it being nearly 6 of the clock, we'll adjourn the debate for the day."

Let's understand, Mr Speaker. In my opinion, had there not been the power failure, the motion to adjourn the debate would have been properly in order at 6 o'clock and the member for Carleton would have risen in his place and put the motion of adjourning the debate, we would have carried it, the Speaker would have adjourned the House for the day, and then the next time Bill 150 came back properly on the floor, the member for Carleton would have taken his place. However --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will choose my words very carefully, but unless the member who is now speaking is prepared to read the column on the right-hand side of page 2187, where the acting Speaker puts some other comments on the record, where he says, "Apparently it's not necessary. You will still have the floor when we begin this debate again," then says, "The honourable member for Niagara South" -- I will choose my words very carefully, but unless the member reads those words, he is attempting to mislead this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. First of all, this is not a point of order. Second, I would ask you to withdraw unequivocally your remarks.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, I attempted very carefully --

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw your remarks unequivocally.

Mr Harnick: I withdraw the remark that he was misleading, but I do believe that if he is going to be candid with the people watching --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. Please take your seat.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I suggest to you in all sincerity that had I been given a chance to complete without being interrupted, the member for Willowdale may not have found the need to stand up and throw the insult across the floor, which, by the way, surprises me. I've spent a great deal of time with the member on committee, and I'm surprised that he would conduct himself in that way.

To wrap up my point on this, I believe I left off making the point that had the power not failed, things would have gone through as usual. The government House leader would have put his motion today and there would've been this debate and that would be it. There would be no reference to anybody having the floor.

If you then continue to read what the Speaker said and what Mr Sterling said, I believe it supports what I said earlier today on a point of privilege. It says, in the right-hand column of page 2187:

"The Acting Speaker: It's not necessary," referring to Mr Sterling's moving of adjournment of the debate.

"Mr Sterling: It's not 6 of the clock.

"The Acting Speaker: Apparently it's not necessary. You will still have the floor when we begin this debate again." And then the Speaker said, "The honourable member for Niagara South."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Christopherson: The point in that paragraph is, "You will still have the floor when we begin this debate again." Therefore, had the motion today -- which the opposition is opposing, and that is its right -- not been placed by the government House leader, then there was an assurance from the Chair that the disruptions with the power failure and the question of whether or not there was a formal motion to adjourn the debate would not impede his right to have the floor.

However, in light of the motion that was placed today, Speaker Warner has ruled or will rule correctly when he analyses this and says that Acting Speaker Drainville did not give a superseding right to the member from Carleton over and above the motion that was placed today. That was not what was intended by Acting Speaker Drainville, and I believe, Mr Speaker, that you and Speaker Warner are acting appropriately in this case.

It's just further evidence of the opposition's intent. It's their right to set a game plan and carry it out, but I submit to you that it is their game plan to do whatever they can to delay the government and to block the government. Playing with the words of Acting Speaker Drainville is consistent with and part of that strategy, and I'm glad to see that the Speaker is not going to succumb to that kind of trickery.

1650

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise to participate in the debate today with a real sense of sadness. I've been a member of this Legislature since 1985, and I've had the honour and the privilege of representing the riding of Oriole, which is in the populous heart of Metropolitan Toronto. I represent some 70,000 people from all walks of life, all socioeconomic levels and just about every multicultural community. I've often described Oriole as a microcosm of Ontario.

I come here on their behalf today to express my dismay that the Bob Rae NDP government would resort to these kinds of tactics to limit the rights of debate, to limit democratic due process. It's a very difficult message for me to take back to my constituency because, while I had the honour and the privilege of being re-elected in 1990, many of the constituents in my riding either voted for the NDP candidate or wished Bob Rae well during these challenging times of governing. I wished him well because I believed, when the government was formed in the fall of 1990, that we would see the same champion of democratic rights as Premier of this province that we saw in opposition.

In the very first throne speech from this government, we heard proud words about lowering the cynicism of the people of this province. We heard proud words and proud commitments to maintain standards of government that not only all members of this Legislature would respect but that would earn the respect of the people of this province.

What have we seen? We've seen that Premier Bob Rae says one thing and does another. What has been the effect on my constituents in the riding of Oriole? Over and over again I hear the same thing from my constituents. They say: "We can't believe that Bob Rae is doing that. We can't believe that the NDP changed the rules of the Legislature to stifle democratic debate. We can't believe that Bob Rae, the former champion of democracy and individual rights, is reducing the ability of members of the Legislature to participate actively in the debates on important issues of the day." They say to me, "We don't believe that this is really happening." They say, "We are even more cynical today than we have ever been before."

I've said before in this House that my constituents frequently say to me: "We like you, Elinor. We think you're different." I tell them that every member of this Legislature who stands for election does so with the best of motivation. I honestly believe that. When they see actions and behaviours from a government which removes individual rights, when they see actions from a government which imposes closure and imposes time allocation and arbitrarily changes the rules to ram legislation through this House, they are disappointed in all of us.

I say to you on the government benches that the reason I'm sad today is that those lofty words in your first throne speech, those lofty words that we heard read in this important legislative chamber, were empty words, were rhetoric, and my constituents have lost faith. They have lost faith in Bob Rae and the NDP, they have lost faith in the New Democratic Party, and they tell me that they are very distressed by the antics of this Legislature.

They know of the behaviour of the NDP when they were in opposition. They know that they were obstreperous, noisy, obstructionist. I was telling them a story. I was speaking to a few constituents the other day and I said, "You know, I rather enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, and I'm enjoying having the opportunity to heckle." It's something I never experienced when I was in government. I sat quietly on the government benches and was the recipient of those same kinds of heckles.

I said to them that this is a new experience for me, having been the receiver of the heckles, and I said: "You know, there are members on the government benches who really believe that now that they are in government, there should be no more heckling, there should be no more criticism. There should be" -- and we heard it from the Speaker's chair -- "a kinder and gentler Legislature."

My constituents understand parliamentary democracy, and one of them said to me: "We knew that when the NDP were in opposition, they were pretty good pitchers. We can't believe they can't catch." He said, "Not only can they not catch when it comes to the cut and thrust in the theatre of question period, but they are also taking the kinds of actions which are destructive in this society." They are destructive because the fundamentals of our democracy require that we have the opportunity to thoughtfully debate public policy issues.

There are 130 members of this Legislature. Not every person wants to speak on every issue, but for the government House leader to bring in a closure motion after one member has spoken and another member has just begun his remarks is a signal to the people of this province and to my constituents in the riding of Oriole that democracy is in jeopardy. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that's why we believe this is a sad day. The people in the riding of Oriole often do not understand complex pieces of legislation, and I had hoped to have an opportunity to use the debate on third reading to explain Bill 150, because it is a complicated, complex piece of legislation.

Hon Mr Wildman: You should have done that on second reading.

Mrs Caplan: My colleague opposite, the Minister of Natural Resources, says, "Well, why didn't you do that on second reading?" I'll tell him why. There was an agreement to allow the bill to go out to committee rapidly. There was an agreement that there would be limited second reading debate. That often happens here. Frequently in this Legislature there are agreements that will allow certain parts of the legislative process to be expedited, and the reason that happens is because there is usually good faith, knowing that there will be other opportunities for members to speak.

Let's just for a minute review the process. We had first reading, which is pro forma debate. Second reading is debate in principle. It can be protracted, but it can be shortened, as this one was: less than two full days of debate, as we heard, three hours only for second reading of this very important and complex piece of legislation.

1700

Out to committee for five days of hearings: There's no debate at committee. At committee we listened and we heard from many deputants. Amendments were placed during clause-by-clause. I sat on that committee. A lot of important work was done, but many questions were unanswered. We all knew we would have an opportunity here in this Legislature, during committee of the whole debate or during third reading debate, to make those points and also to use the time that was not available during second reading to explain in this House in front of the television cameras -- and that's important, Mr Speaker. Why in front of the television cameras? Because people watch the proceedings of this House. They listen to the debates. They learn about the items we are discussing and they understand it better because they have participated in that way.

We have virtually no third reading debate. Many good points have been made by my colleagues. There is much sadness in this House today. I believe, as I've said before, that every member of this Legislature can make an important contribution to public policy in the democratic process, whether he sits on the opposition benches or on the government benches. Every member of the Legislature can make that contribution, unless the government of the day takes away those rights.

What we see today with this time allocation and closure motion is a sad day for democracy. Our rights to represent our constituents have been taken away and the people of Ontario have not been well served by the champion of civil rights, the champion of democratic rights, Bob Rae of old; Bob Rae, Leader of the Opposition. Now Premier Bob Rae has betrayed the trust of the people of Oriole and I say to him and to his government, shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Harnick: This is indeed an afternoon of true destruction in the Ontario Legislature. In one afternoon, the government has effectively eviscerated the office of the Speaker, made a mockery of the standing orders by which this place is governed and proved that the standing orders -- the new standing orders the government amended -- were amended without the use of good faith on behalf of the government side of this House. All that has been accomplished in one afternoon. They haven't done so much in this Legislature since I've been here for the past two years. This is the most work this government has done. This is the most they've accomplished in the whole time I have been here.

I think there's a misconception in terms of what the public is seeing and what the government is trying to tell them. We were supposed to come back to this House, I believe, on March 23. We ended up coming back on April 6 and the reason was the government just couldn't get ready in time, for whatever reason, to begin to govern in this Legislature and to begin to present and pass its legislation. We came back two weeks later than we were supposed to return. We then came back and sat here for the month of April, the month of May and half the month of June without any legislation being presented.

Today we're standing here and we were all expecting that we would be continuing the debate on Bill 150. This bill was first brought forward in this House on November 6, 1991. It received second reading on December 18, 1991.

Hon Mr Wildman: It then went out for consultation.

Mr Harnick: It then went out for consultation and was ready to come back to this chamber in April 1991. Well, this bill didn't show up in this place until July. What was happening in the interim? I keep hearing about this magical, third reading concept that we really don't debate on third reading, that third reading's just a formality, that we kind of take the bill and just push it through and stamp it.

But this bill is interesting bill. It's a pretty thick bill; it's 54 pages; it's 51 sections altogether. I tell you, Mr Speaker, that 42 of those sections were amended. There were 42 amendments as a result of the committee procedures and that was a committee consisting of 12 people of this Legislature.

It is now back before the Legislature in a very different form than what was here when we last had the opportunity to debate this piece of legislation, and the members of this place now have the opportunity to debate the balance of this bill. We've never had that opportunity before in the form the bill now has. We heard one speech by the Liberals and we've now moved over to the second speech. All this is being done pursuant to these new standing orders, these newly amended rules of the way this place works.

Just to tell the people who are watching what this is really about, we have a bill that's about to be debated and it's now going to be debated based on the government's new rules. The government's new rules were passed in this place at the end of June, about three weeks ago. This is the second bill that has proceeded under the government's new rules.

Rule 23a(b) states, "Notwithstanding clause (a), the first speaker for any recognized party in the House may speak for not more than 90 minutes" in third reading. Well, third reading gets here and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt took 90 minutes. He presented the position of his party in an excellent way and put it on the record so that the people of Ontario could see what some of the deficiencies in the bill were.

The next thing that would happen is that my party would then have the opportunity to do what the Liberal Party had the opportunity to do, and the member for Carleton stood here with the expectation that he would get the same 90 minutes to speak about these 42 new amendments. He stood for 15 minutes and the day ended. In the interim, what did the government do? Well, they brought a closure motion. But it wasn't the usual closure motion; it was really a wolf disguised in sheep's clothing. What it was, was a motion pursuant to rule 44, one of the government's brand new rules --

Mr Elston: It is 44a.

Mr Harnick: It is 44a.

What this section says is: "The government House leader or any minister of the crown may move a motion with notice providing for the allocation of time to any proceeding on a government bill or substantive government motion."

Now, the interesting thing was that the motion didn't allocate any time. What it said was: "We're not going to allocate any time like the rule said. We're going to go ahead and we're going to pass this motion, and the motion is going to call for the question to be asked right away. In other words, we're going to vote on the bill right away and we're not going to allow any more debate, even though only one person has spoken on the 42 new amendments." And the next party, my party, only had 15 minutes to speak. So what did they do? They took this section that they newly created and put into the rules, and this section, Mr Speaker, as you well know, does not give you as Speaker any discretion.

The real rule that deals with this is rule 45, which gives you discretion, and your discretion would be exercised to stop debate if there has been real and meaningful debate. The government House leader, well, he knew that he could never succeed on that rule so he decided to move on the rule that doesn't allow the Speaker discretion and, lo and behold, what happened today? What happened today was that we found out that motion was in order, that motion was accepted by the Speaker, and effectively the debate on this very important bill has now been completed.

It's been completed without the opportunity for my party, save and except for 15 minutes, to put on the record the deficiencies that we see in the bill and even some of the good aspects of the bill that we were prepared to discuss before this chamber. The fact is that what this government has done flies directly in the face of its orders, which say we are supposed to have at least 90 minutes to speak on a given bill. They have cut the legs right out from under the speaker from Carleton and what they have done has been totally in disregard of the rules.

1710

There's a reason they've proceeded this way. The reason, I believe, is that they have negotiated these rules not in a manner of good faith. They have negotiated these rules because this government has created a pattern of riding roughshod over the opposition in this province. This government blames the opposition for the difficulty in getting legislation through. I'll tell you why they can't get legislation through. They can't get legislation through this place because basically they're incompetent, they are totally and completely incompetent. They have a House leader who instills so little trust that when he sits down with the other House leaders they can't come to any agreement to do anything the easy way. The way these rules were negotiated and the way these rules are now being implemented is proof of that very fact.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: As the member for Hamilton Centre said, it seems I've touched a nerve. There is not anyone in this House, and I suspect even the government backbenchers would agree with me, who has any faith in the government House leader, none whatsoever.

Let's look at the record of this government in terms of dealing with certain issues. We've had the Martel affair, and I don't need to remind everyone that that was the affair where the minister admitted lying and took a lie detector test to prove that she was correct, that she did admit lying. The people of the province all remember that aspect about this government.

Before that we had the Farnan matter. This is the matter where the former Solicitor General's staff was writing letters to try to fix traffic tickets on behalf of constituents. He denied it and denied it and denied it, but he's no longer the Solicitor General.

We now have the matter of Mr Pilkey. Mr Pilkey claims he doesn't know anything about or knew nothing about what had happened at the correctional institute in Hamilton. He may not have known anything about the Bell Cairn institute or what happened there, but everything this government has done has gone to convince the people in this province that there is something being covered up. They won't answer questions, they won't have a public inquiry, they won't let anyone speak with the deputy minister, who is now the fall person. It can only lead to the conclusion that this government has something to hide.

I've been here for almost two years now, and each sitting I have had the opportunity to participate in has ended with the government in some kind of scandal. What's the government's reaction to that? The reaction is closure. The reaction is new rules. The reaction is to send out the OPP to investigate members of the opposition in their offices. The reaction is time allocation. Then there's the reaction of the government House leader today, who says, as if he were the Speaker of this place: "If I'd allowed the member for Carleton to speak, well, how could I do that? We've got very important business to push through here."

The reason this government cannot get the business of its agenda done -- and when I think of agenda I can't help but think of the Agenda for People; that's really its agenda, the disastrous agenda, that seems to have fallen off the table. But the reason they can't get the Agenda for People through this Legislature is because they're incompetent. They're incompetent every single day of the week. Every single day of the week they come here with legislation and they can't get it through. They can't get it through because they don't know how, they don't have the trust of anyone in this province. They were elected by 38% -- I'm sorry, I'm exaggerating; I think it was 37.5% of the electorate. They're now down to 25% and they want so desperately to get out of here and get this stuff rammed through that they don't want to allow any more debate.

They're at 25%. One of the reasons they've slipped to 25% in the polls is because everybody remembers the Martel matter. Everybody remembers that it was Shelley Martel who admitted lying, and they say: "What kind of standards does this government have? What kind of standards does this Premier enforce?" That's what they remember.

Now that they're at 25% we see those standards of the Premier popping up to the fore again, because every day in question period we get to hear from Mr Pilkey: Mr Pilkey who knew nothing about what was going on in his ministry, Mr Pilkey who never went to the meetings within his ministry.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the honourable member knows that when referring to another honourable member you would use either his title as a minister or the name of his riding. I just want to remind you that that is customary, and I would appreciate you following that custom.

Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Speaker. I believe he's the member for Oshawa and he's the minister of corrections.

This particular minister never goes to work. He never goes to the meetings. He knew nothing about what was going on in his ministry. He's muzzled his deputy minister, who, I might add, has been very unceremoniously removed from her position after a distinguished 20-year career. That's the person they're going to lay this all on.

All this government wants to do is get out of here, because it's at 25% in the polls and the public is now watching yet another government scandal, they're watching yet another government indication of incompetence.

Hon Mr Hampton: Come on, Charles. Give it a rest.

Mr Harnick: The Attorney General says to me, "Give it a rest." That is the attitude of this government. They want to give it a rest. They want to get out of here. They want to go to picnics and barbecues. They want to give out grants. They don't want to have to refer to the record they have. They don't want to refer to the Agenda for People. They don't want to talk about auto insurance. They don't want to talk about that flip-flop. They don't want to talk about the betrayal to innocent accident victims. They don't want to talk about their terrific budget.

This Agenda for People was really interesting. I look at the 1990 budget plan they sold to the people in the province. They said they were going to have a $36-million surplus at the end of the day. Well, they were only $9 billion out. You know what? I'm really sorry they didn't tell us about 1991-92 or 1992-93, where the surplus is now climbing to $15 billion.

They just can't wait to get out of here. Because of that, they want to be arrogant, they want to change the rules and they want to manipulate the rules in a way they promised they never would. They want to get out of here and they want to blame all of their ills on the opposition.

I can tell you that the opposition didn't cause the Martel matter; we didn't lie for Martel. The opposition didn't cause the problem Mr Pilkey is in. The opposition didn't cause the former Minister of Health to blurt out the name of a patient who was receiving services from OHIP. We didn't do all those things. That's why we're here now. We're here now because of the government's incompetence. That's why they can't get their legislation through.

As I started out to say, in one afternoon this government has accomplished more than it's ever accomplished before. They've eviscerated the office of the Speaker. They've made a mockery of the standing orders. They've proved that the standing orders are not being used, and have not been amended, in good faith.

Whatever trust was left on this side of the floor and, I submit, within the general populace of this province, whatever trust there was in this government, whose rating is now down to 25%, I suspect has totally evaporated. Quite the contrary to the Premier winning the trust of the people because he was going to run an honest and decent government, the opposite has happened. Their actions in this House are absolutely what the people in Ontario can see and what they will not believe in. It speaks volumes and volumes.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

1720

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to get up and join in the debate today. I'm particularly pleased because I sat on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which Bill 150 went to. We've heard some comments that we haven't had adequate time to debate this legislation. We've also had concerns that members haven't had an opportunity to speak, to explain it to their constituents.

I think it's important that we remind everyone in this debate of some of the comments my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre mentioned: We had a second reading debate and, sure enough, probably not as much time as all of us would have liked to have, but decisions have to be made on how much time we can spend on all types of legislation.

It then went to committee and was going to be brought forward for some discussion at that time. The opposition --

Mr Harnick: There are 42 amendments that have never been debated. Answer that.

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

Mr Sutherland: Maybe if the member for Willowdale was willing to go and check the Hansard from the committee he would find that the comments he just made may not be appropriate in the sense that what occurred at the committee was the following: First of all, the opposition, when the legislation was introduced, had raised some concerns. The ministry went back, responded and brought forward amendments to try to address some of those concerns as well.

The member for Willowdale has mentioned in his debate that there are 42 amendments. If he'd go back he would see that the majority of them were what you call substantive amendments. As a result of certain changes, wording changes had to be made in other sections. The vast majority of his so-called 42 amendments are a result of that. We know when you change legislation that does occur.

To say there wasn't proper debate -- there was. We had 12 hours; we had hearings, we had groups come in. Yes, some groups were in favour, other groups weren't. Then we had clause-by-clause. There was an opportunity for both opposition parties to bring forward amendments. I believe the official opposition brought through three or four amendments. One or two of them were adopted in there. I don't remember whether the third party brought forward any amendments at that time.

We had a good, substantial debate. The member for Oriole indicated earlier it's a very technical bill and she wanted an opportunity to explain it to her constituents. Of course we went through all the technical aspects at the committee stage and she could send out committee Hansard to her constituents if she wanted to explain the technical aspects.

We've also heard comment here today that there are 130 members and we all should have the right to speak. I'd like that too. I'd like to speak on every bill. There have been many pieces of legislation that I haven't been able to speak on. I want to tell you a few reasons why.

I want to cite one example specifically. I remember when we were dealing with third reading of the gas tax bill from last year's budget -- not 1992; the 1991 budget. We were into third reading on that and I believe it was the member for Ottawa West -- it was about gas taxes -- the member for Ottawa West took an hour and a half at least on third reading to talk about it. Fair enough. He has concerns, as the opposition has been saying, about tax increases to gas prices. But under the guise of the rules and using a very liberal interpretation, the member for Ottawa West probably spent about five to 10 minutes actually talking about the gas tax increase.

What he spent most of the time talking about was the fluctuation in gas prices in the Ottawa region. That might be a very valid concern. It might be a very important issue in the area. In terms, though, of supporting the opposition argument that they haven't had enough time to debate legislation, when someone is spending over an hour talking about stuff which I would say is not directly related to the legislation but has some relevance to it, for them to come back and say they don't have enough time to debate legislation really makes me wonder.

That's only one example that comes to mind. There have been other examples.

If the members of the opposition had wanted to debate the actual legislation rather than making political speeches -- and sure enough it is a political place and we all like to do that, but there have been ample opportunities to do it. I would suggest that all of us -- and I won't say they are the only ones who are guilty of it -- have to learn to keep our points succinct and relevant to the specific issue at hand. If we all did that we'd have far more time to debate the issues and the actual legislation.

I don't think anyone here or on the government side is jumping up and down with glee about the fact that time allocation has to be introduced. We all would like to have adequate time, but it is very difficult.

Finally, the comment I want to end with is on this whole question about time allocations and talking about democratic rights and how this opposition says, "We won't be able to get an opportunity to get our message out to the people unless we have two, three hours each to talk about an issue in this House." While what goes on in this House is extremely relevant in terms of passing legislation and we should all hold this place in high esteem, ultimately we all know in our heart of hearts that the actual debate and whether a piece of legislation is accepted or not is not won or lost here in this House. It is won out there in the public with the people, the people who voted all of us here and the people who make the decision once every four years.

So I think all of us need to keep that in mind when we get on our somewhat righteous horses, saying how much time we must have to be able to debate this issue, and "My democratic rights have been limited." Democratic rights aren't infinite, that you can have as much time as you want. There are limits on that. We live and we have to interact in a society. There are limits on my democratic rights all the time. I have to accept that as an individual in a society.

What I'm saying is that in here, given time constraints, the number of members and the number of pieces of legislation, we have to accept that. But in the long run, no member's democratic rights are limited. They can still go outside. Heck, they can go directly to the people in their own communities and talk about a piece of legislation for as long as they want, for that matter. Ultimately the decision about whether a piece of legislation is valid or whether it has the support of the people will be decided out there with the people directly, not here in the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I'd like to spend a few minutes speaking to Bill 150.

Mr Elston: We're going to compare this to one of your first speeches.

Mr Mills: Good.

I'm waiting for the Speaker to get in his place. He's not paying attention.

Mr Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to be here this evening to debate this Bill 150.

Interjections: Motion.

Mr Mills: Motion, okay. I'm sorry.

I used to watch the proceedings in this chamber before I was elected here. I was one of the most avid watchers of this Legislature, and when I came here to watch the proceedings I must say that I wasn't surprised. I have watched members in this Legislature debate an issue round and around and around. I've switched off my television, I've gone out to cut my grass, which is a considerable amount, picked off the dead flowers and came back in with the hope that we got someone new up with some constructive ideas, but lo and behold, the person would still be talking and I'd cut the grass and done many things.

1730

This is what this is all about. We can talk succinctly to a matter and we can get our message across. If I had gone on like this in my last job, I'd have been fired for wasting so much time. I couldn't last. I'd have been fired because I'd lost so much time.

I won't name the members, because they're not here. Out of respect, I won't give their names, but there's a certain person who sits over there who spoke at length one day -- I believe for four hours -- and went round and round the mulberry bush till I was sick to death of everything that person said. Is that constructive, Mr Speaker? Of course it isn't constructive, and the people whom I represent also know it isn't constructive. They know it's a waste of time and they tell me so.

The member for Oriole said she loves it. She likes speaking so that the people understand. I've got news, Mr Speaker. The people I represent don't need me to speak for four hours to understand something. They can understand what I've got to say in about 30 minutes at the most, and if it's not worth saying in 30 minutes, it's not worth saying at all. This stuff is absolutely ridiculous. Let's face it, they don't like us, and this is part of it.

Mr Speaker, I must share with you what was in my local newspaper. When the figures came in on what we spent down here, I said to the people I represent, "I spent $20,000 less in my first year than the member over there spent in his last year." Do you know what the newspaper said? It said, "Well, money wasn't short then, Gord." Can you believe it? I can't win and our government can't win, because they just don't like what we're doing. I'm glad about what we're doing here.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, Gord, I like you. Gord, we got three more minutes. Tell us everything you know.

Mr Mills: I've got two minutes and 30 seconds.

The member for Oriole was here and spoke about the people she represents. I must say that, generally, intelligent and reasonable people in Ontario are very aware of the need for what we're doing here. They, like me when I was an ordinary citizen, are sick to death of this nonsense.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that my people were sick to death when that party over there stood and read for hours and hours all the rivers, lakes and streams in Ontario. That was a disgusting waste of time and taxpayers' money at $250,000 a day, absolutely disgusting. Then they had the grand audacity to read out in slow motion the names of all the failed companies in Ontario that went under due to free trade. My friends, if you think that was smart, if you think the people loved you for that, they didn't love you at all. It was a stupid waste of time, government money and taxpayers' money.

Mr Speaker, I could go on but I'm a man of short words. They've got the message. I don't need 30 minutes to tell them what I think about it.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): In the short time left, I would like to make a short distinction between debate, discussion and investigation, which we've had, and a waste of time. We have had this afternoon what I would call, paraphrasing Macbeth, a tale told by an idiot full of Scotch and fury, signifying nothing.

Mr Elston: You stop talking about Gordy Mills that way. What are you doing to Gord Mills? Why don't you like Gord Mills?

Mr White: My friend Mr Mills put it right. We weren't elected to waste time; we were elected to represent all our constituents and to put in place legislation that meets the needs of our province.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member should withdraw his allegation that the member for Durham East was consuming a Scotch. That was implicit in his statement. I should ask him to withdraw that comment.

Mr Harnick: He said he was an idiot.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): And that he was an idiot as well. Both were unparliamentary. I have known the member for Durham East and I don't think he deserves that treatment by his own --

The Speaker: The member for Durham Centre.

Mr White: I would like to clarify that it was not in any way a reference to my good friend Gord Mills, with whom I spent the better part of the day and whom I know to be sound and sensible.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to speak in the debate today, but it gives me no pleasure to speak on a closure motion. However, I feel I owe it to the constituents of Eglinton to tell them why I will not be speaking on Bill 150.

We have had two closure motions within the past week, and ironically -- or maybe not so ironically, maybe very astutely -- the government had brought in rule changes to make these closures possible. What the press covered was the fact that the rule changes limited speeches to 30 minutes, but it missed the major part of the issue, the major part of the problem, and that was the time allocation, which most people call closure.

These new rules now provide that on second reading debate there can only be three days of debate and then the government has the right to bring in closure. On third reading the government can bring in closure after one day of debate, and debate ends. What does this mean? This means that now with these rule changes all debate from first to third reading in this Legislature can now be terminated in six days total, no matter how controversial the legislation is, no matter how unsupportable the legislation is, no matter whether we have amendments that we wish to pursue or a message to give to the people of this province, or whether we would like to bring the views of this province forward in the Legislature. Now that is not possible.

Also, Mr Speaker, there is no longer an opportunity for you, as an impartial and independent Speaker, to determine whether there has been sufficient debate.

I think several of my colleagues have mentioned on Bill 150 that there are actually a number of provisions in the bill that we support; however, there are other areas where we have concern. Now, on third reading, after having only one speaker for the Liberal Party and one speaker for the Conservative Party -- and the Conservatives have been limited to 15 minutes of debate on third reading, which I think in anybody's measure is most unfair -- the government again, for the second time in the past week, brings in closure to cut off debate, to cut off the voice of the opposition, to cut off the voice of people in this province who want legislation thoroughly debated.

I had the same concern about Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments, when they were closed off last week. I can tell you that two weeks ago, when the government introduced closure on Bill 40, I was never so furious in the five years I've been elected as on that night when they brought in closure, because I had prepared a speech, a speech which included the views of the people of Eglinton, very thoughtful letters about this legislation and concerns that were to be brought forward. I was denied the right to speak for my constituents, the constituents of Eglinton. My constituents expected me to echo their views, to bring forward their views to this place, yet I was denied that right.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that a number of months ago I brought forward a point of privilege in this Legislature about actions of the Office of the Ombudsman which I felt denied my right as a member. My point of privilege was that the Ombudsman's office was trying to usurp the role of MPPs with its advertising campaign urging people to phone the Ombudsman's office if they have a problem at Queen's Park. That, as you know, Mr Speaker, is our job as elected members, to represent our constituents in order to help solve their problems.

1740

To compound that particular situation where I felt the Ombudsman's office was trying to take over the job of the MPP, then with these new rule changes, and particularly with Bill 40 and now with Bill 150, I am told I cannot speak on behalf of my constituents. I have to ask the question, why am I here? If the Ombudsman is going to do my constituency role and if there's no place for me to speak in this Legislature, then why am I here? Why are any of us here?

The member for Hamilton Centre in his remarks said that the opposition was just complaining and trying to restrict the government's ability to govern. I can tell you, it is not the opposition that is restricting their ability to govern. There are a number of factors that restrict this ability.

The first is their lack of ability in their caucus and their cabinet. The second is that they have been unable to provide a direction for the people of this province. They have plunged our province into massive deficit. They have introduced flawed legislation, such as the Advocacy Act, which is now going back to committee for the second time, it was so badly drafted. They have reversed themselves on policies such as auto insurance, Sunday shopping and rent control. They have been riddled with incompetence and scandal.

If there is a reason this government does not have an ability to govern, it does not lie at the feet of the opposition. It lies on their own side of the House and their lack of ability. That is what has restricted their ability to govern.

The second point made by the member for Hamilton Centre was that there's a great difficulty in getting anything through this House. Maybe I should point out to him that the calendar for this Legislature provides that we were to go back on March 9. When did the government call the Legislature back into session? They called it back on April 6, four weeks later. Lo and behold, we have now been sitting three extra weeks in this Legislature, and they claim they can't get anything through the House.

Well, the first reason was that they didn't call the House back into session. They didn't have their act together. They didn't have their marbles and they probably still don't have their marbles, with the exception of you, Mr Speaker, for whom I have the greatest of respect. They can't get their act together, so they say, "We'll delay the House until we can get our ducks in a row." They still haven't done that either.

The second reason that there is difficulty in getting things through the House is a lack of cooperation among the three parties. That is very true. But I would ask NDP members in particular to take a look at why there is a lack of cooperation. There is a lack of cooperation in this House, greater than I have ever seen it and greater than many members in this House who have been here far longer than I have ever seen. That is because of the government House leader. There is no trust on this side, and there is no trust for very good reason. The government House leader has played fast and loose with the opposition party. We cannot trust his word, we cannot trust his actions.

The latest example of this just occurred in an interview which appeared today in the London Free Press. The story was about London annexation. Yesterday, for the first time, the government brought forward Bill 75, the very controversial London annexation bill. They brought it forward for second reading -- the first time. In fact, it was only with the goodwill of the two opposition parties that the government was allowed to do this. The Liberals and the Conservatives allowed the NDP government to bring forward this legislation, even though, because they had delayed introduction till the end of June, they were not allowed under the rules of this House to bring it forward. Our party cooperated because this is very controversial legislation, very important legislation, and it is important for the people of London to have opportunity this summer to speak their piece, to give the government a message about this legislation and the process that they feel was missing in formulating this legislation.

What the government House leader then did was to go to the London Free Press and give an interview where he said the people of London will not have an opportunity to speak to public hearings this summer because the Liberals are blocking the legislation. Can you imagine that, when it was their ineptitude that resulted in the legislation being introduced late, when they did not even attempt to bring it forward till yesterday at the earliest, and when we have had only two hours of debate on this extremely controversial bill? The government House leader has the gall to try to blame it on the opposition. This is just one example of this government House leader and how he has sabotaged the way this Legislature has worked for years.

There is no doubt that many times we as legislators have wished this House operated more efficiently. We would have been willing -- we were willing -- to look at rule changes to make that happen. But what this government has said is that it cannot govern, and therefore it will shut off the opposition. Six days total to get a bill now from first reading through passage on third reading. I ask the members of the New Democratic Party, which I believe is now the non-democratic party, to look in their hearts and tell us that this is democracy. This is not democracy; this is tyranny of the worst order. I believe that what they will have done is sabotage this House from working at all effectively, because we aren't going to give you legislation until we have debated to the fullest extent possible. So I warn this government: Mend your actions or you're not going to get that cooperation you seek.

Mr Stockwell: It's rather difficult to begin debate on a venture capital item that this government speaks about when you're dealing with a motion of closure, and in all of 15 minutes -- I'm sorry, some 11 or 12 minutes -- you have to deal with both aspects. That's even less than before. I got 14 minutes on labour legislation, and now I'm left with 11 minutes on something that is I think very important to the pension holders who are involved in this type of legislation.

First, with respect to the rule changes, anyone who wants to suggest that the rule changes were fair and equitable is not really dealing with it in a very uphanded manner. The fact is that you can't negotiate with a gun to your head, and that's exactly what took place. The government put a gun to the head of the House leaders and the opposition parties and then said, "Negotiate." Now they stand back and say, "The Conservatives agreed and the Liberals were petulant." That's not the way to negotiate. I'm really surprised this government would negotiate in that fashion, considering its labour background.

Having said that, we move to this closure motion. I want to read into the record from April 17, 1990. The then Leader of the Opposition, our Premier, Mr Bob Rae, while questioning in this House, asked a question of the Honourable Mr Ward about the closure motion.

Mr Bradley: Is this Bob Rae?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Bob Rae, the Premier of the province, with respect to a closure motion. It's very important that this government listen, because this is what your party used to stand for. Bob Rae said in the House on April 17, 1990:

"I want to say to the government House leader that in my experience a governing party which thinks it can suspend the rules of this place with a majority, against the will of the two opposition parties, is a government that is so enmeshed in its own arrogance that it knows nothing of the basic rules of democracy. That is the kind of government we have today."

Mr Bradley: Who said that?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Bob Rae. That is a very well-taken, well-documented bit of history, history you could probably shove down the yaps of the government members today and something that probably should be shoved down the yaps of the government members today. They sit here today and tell us about closure motions and tell us about opposition parties taking time to speak, taking time to represent their constituents, as if Peter Kormos doesn't exist, as if the 17 hours never happened, as if the Treasurer didn't spend two and three hours standing in this place giving his position on a number of important bills. These people make the Clampetts look like academics, with the kind of action we see today.

1750

It's not very surprising to me to hear the member for Durham East tell us that he can tell us all he knows about any issue in 15 minutes. That doesn't shock me. In fact, I'm surprised it would take that long. But sometimes, once in a while in this House, we are dealing with issues that are a little more important, that hold a little bit more sway, than 10 or 15 minutes. That doesn't mean the government can decide that what we have to say over here is no longer important, that what our constituents feel is academic, that what we think needs to be said doesn't interest them.

You forgot the basic principle of democracy. You're a governing party; we know that. You can do as you wish and you've proven it on a day-to-day basis, but you can't stop opposition from opposing. They say, "The opposition parties are not deferential to our position in power." Hold the presses, Mr Speaker; stop the presses; hold page 1. They're accusing the opposition parties of opposing the government. Oh, my goodness, now there's news. We in opposition are opposing the government and not allowing it to get its legislation through. What the heck did you think was going to happen? Did you think we were going to sit here for three months, six months, a year and simply hold our hands up and say: "Go ahead. Do whatever you want, even though we are diametrically opposed to whatever you're doing"? Of course not. Get it through your heads. We are not cooperating because we don't agree with what you're doing.

I don't agree, no, and I hope my constituents who elected me don't agree either. I don't think a lot of people in this province agree. If you don't like that, that's the power of government, but you can't tell everyone in the world to be quiet, shut up and go away.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent. Perhaps the member for Etobicoke West would address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: The other point I want to address with this government -- and it's another shocking revelation, I think -- is that this government has so often aligned itself in the past with advocacy groups, labour unions and so on that it doesn't understand the word "responsibility." They don't understand the term "the boss." Whether they like it or whether they don't like it, they are the bosses. They are in charge and everything that happens in this government is ultimately the responsibility of this government.

When you can't get legislation through, don't blame the opposition; blame your House leader. When you have problems in certain jurisdictions with respect to the Minister of Correctional Services, don't blame other people. You're the boss. You're ultimately responsible.

The point I would like to make is that when it comes to the operation of the private sector this government is prepared, under the Minister of the Environment, to throw CEOs in jail because one of their employees happens to throw a pail of sludge in Lake Ontario. But -- and it's a big but -- they're not prepared to accept responsibility when these actions occur at Bell Cairn. There's no responsibility level, but CEOs go to jail if an employee dumps some sludge in Lake Ontario. Why? Because ultimately the CEO is responsible.

You are the bosses. You must be responsible. When you can't get legislation through, when you put legislation on the books with l42 amendments, when there are long debates on legislation, ultimately you are responsible because you drafted the original legislation poorly and it's going to go for long debate. Mr Kormos would agree, Mr Laughren would agree and those people who sat here in opposition would agree. They went to great lengths to explain the democratic process to previous governments and how closure basically usurped the rights of opposition members.

One more Mr Rae quote. This was April 17, 1990, again before this Premier crossed the floor and changed his spots. He said to this House, "I want to ask the Premier why he would think his party, as a majority party, has the right to suspend the standing orders of this House and to simply do his will." Listen up. Here you go; this is important: "Does he not appreciate the terrible precedent this kind of motion sets for this House when it comes to governing the relationship between a majority and a minority? Does he not understand how dangerous that kind of precedent is?"

Mr Bradley: Who said that?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Some would say he's talking so much so that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, that he's sucking and blowing -- all the extras -- but the bottom line is this: This government relishes the role of opposition, stands for the role of opposition, supports those in minorities when it's in opposition. When they're in government they don't give a tinker's dam what opposition says, what opposition elected officials have to say and what opposition in the general public has to say.

We have now spent some 15 minutes in third reading debating this bill. I challenge a single member, including the member for Durham East, to go out in a public hearing on third reading and take 15 minutes and explain this bill in its in-depth form to any group at all. You can't do it. It's impossible in 15 minutes. That's what you've allocated for the Conservative Party in this province to deal with this particular bill.

Obviously, we're going to get a closure motion. I will say, Mr Speaker, I'm very disappointed in the ruling of the Speaker's chair. I think this government's run roughshod over your esteemed office. They've run roughshod over a ruling that was made. They've covered this in some clandestine operation to bring forward a closure motion when my member from Ottawa was in mid sentence of speaking. I suppose in the end, when it comes to the public, probably not a whole bunch of people are going to have too much to say about this closure motion because it's just another in a succession.

Mr Speaker, you know something? We on this side of the House are going to remember. All the people who sit in this House today are going to remember and when, if that day comes, you get shunted back to this side, those lucky enough to be over here will be eunuchs. You will not have an opportunity to debate, you will not have an opportunity to oppose, you will not have an opportunity to speak what you have on your mind in two or three minutes, or whatever you choose to do, because this party, this government, has stepped over the line on a number of occasions. But I don't think in living a memory a government has introduced two closure motions in succession after holding a gun against the head of opposition parties to agree to rule changes that nobody likes.

1815

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

Ayes -- 59

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 33

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the motion that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce filed dissatisfaction yesterday with the response to a question given by the Minister of Correctional Services. The member for Bruce has up to five minutes to debate the matter. The minister will have up to five minutes for a response.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This is a difficult day for us to try to examine what is happening with the so-called Pilkey scandal. So far we have been prevented from moving forward to get any real penetration into the exact details of the issues.

Mr Speaker, might I ask for order since everybody's leaving?

The Speaker: Five minutes isn't a great deal of time, I realize, and perhaps members who are leaving the chamber could do so quietly and allow the member for Bruce to continue.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know there's not a great deal of interest in this in a lot of quarters, but there is a lot of interest when a question is posed, bearing in mind that the standing orders of this House provide us with very few opportunities to examine the government record.

One of the times for us to examine that record is during question period. We can put the questions, Mr Speaker, but as you have rightly said time and time again, there is no way you can force a minister to answer. The only thing we have left to do as members of this House is to force a so-called late show under the standing order which you have identified. I find totally unsatisfactory to us on this side not only that we're being dealt with in such a manner as to prevent us from debating legislation, but also that the answers are concocted now in question period by this minister in the Pilkey scandal affair in such a way as to avoid the point of the question to begin with. Since we can neither now debate legislation nor get answers to our questions, we are left with very little opportunity to provide the people in the television viewing areas with any real information about what's happening here.

The minister has sidestepped the whole issue, which was, when I asked the question yesterday, "What do you usually do in your ministry to keep track of the events of that ministry?" "What is happening in your ministry?" basically was the question. He went on to say, "Well, there are a whole lot of things happening now to deal with the issue of sexual assault." And well there should be, because this minister, after the terrible events of June 1, has now, all of a sudden, come into action. He has become aware of a problem that has stretched over several months of his administration to the particular problems associated with Bell Cairn.

He was just asked by me to identify what it was he did to keep track of his ministry and the Bell Cairn establishment, as is his responsibility, and he refused to answer the question. He said he didn't understand it. I think probably it's quite clear he doesn't understand what a minister does to assist in administering the activities of his department.

I then went on to identify in a supplementary question whether or not the judge he appointed -- and in my view, unfortunately he should not have appointed a judge to investigate his own ministry. It seems to me that is a travesty on its own, but we will leave that for another question, perhaps another day. I asked him whether the judge would have the opportunity of calling witnesses, whether they would be sworn and whether there would be a public viewing of the inquiry that was going on. Of course he sidestepped that issue as well.

Clearly both answers to my questions were not only not satisfactory but in fact were an evasive action taken by this minister. I think that, more than anything else, speaks volumes about his inability to carry out his responsibilities as a minister. We are asked here in this House to believe that a person who is appointed to his post as Minister of Correctional Services should be allowed to stand in the House and deny that he has anything to do with the administration of his department.

We have asked him if he goes to management meetings; he won't answer that question. We have asked if his political staff go to management meetings; he won't answer that question. I asked him if he received briefings on the issue of sexual assault in the ministry, because we have been informed by the Minister of Health -- herself a former corrections officer -- that it has been ongoing for years, in her view. If she knew, and if everybody who is associated with the ministry knew, and if everybody knew about the Bell Cairn problems, what in the world was the minister of corrections doing with his time? He was asked today for a log of the meetings he has held with his ministry officials, and he has refused to provide any of that information.

While there is only five minutes for us to go through all the inadequacies, I think there are volumes spoken about this minister's inability to serve in his portfolio.

The Speaker: The Minister of Correctional Services has up to five minutes to respond.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The member opposite raises in his questions that it is only now that the minister has come into action. Well, I think common sense and logic would support at least that one small modicum, that one small element the member opposite raises, because it has only been now that I have been made aware of the allegation and of the circumstance.

We need to ask the question, "Once seized with that information and once given that knowledge, were you in fact responsible and direct in the actions that you took as a result?" Of course the answer to that question, as admitted by both opposition parties in this House, is a resounding yes. It has been taken in a variety of circumstances and a variety of ways, including at least an instigation of a police investigation. It's been taken in the sense of closing the offensive centre and the actions that have gone on there, and it will not be allowed to be reopened, and of course in the appointment of a member of the judiciary to do an independent investigation and review.

Without interfering with the criminal investigation, those allegations of sexual harassment and assault occurring at the centre will all be reviewed. People will be talked to, people will be interviewed. I have every confidence that people who will be asked to give comment, information and so on to Her Honour will in fact come forward and do so.

If we look at the members opposite, we've had 42 years of Tories' rule and the Liberals' completely unproductive five years in government. Not one of their ministries ever acted in this open, responsive and responsible fashion, regardless of what they knew or what they didn't know. I want to tell you that it is our view that an identifiable, specific, systemic situation has been brought to my attention and I have acted very responsibly in the decisions to ensure that the alleged victims are protected and their privacy is protected --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- that all other allegations are being looked into in an appropriate way, that everyone in the ministry, and in fact the province, is forcefully reminded that sexual harassment, abuse and assault will not be tolerated by this government and that all allegations will be vigorously pursued, both criminally and administratively. That is what I have done and that is what I will continue to do to solve this situation.

The Speaker: There being no further matter to debate, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1827.