Hansard Transcript 1993-Apr-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Le Centre d'excellence artistique de La Salle est la seule institution du genre qui a pour mandat de favoriser l'épanouissement de la jeunesse francophone de tout l'Ontario. Le gouvernement sait que ce centre est crucial pour la survie et l'épanouissement de la culture francophone en Ontario.

Le Centre d'excellence artistique de La Salle est menacé de fermeture dès septembre 1993 s'il n'obtient pas l'appui financier des gouvernements fédéral et provincial. Sommes-nous prêts à voir disparaître une institution si importante pour la communauté francophone ?

Je comprends que les temps sont difficiles et qu'à l'heure des compressions budgétaires, les fonds se font de plus en plus rares. Le gouvernement doit tenir compte du fait que ce centre est le seul et unique centre d'excellence artistique qui existe en Ontario pour la jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario. Il se doit de lui accorder une priorité.

Lors de la dernière campagne électorale, le gouvernement néo-démocrate s'est engagé à assurer le plein épanouissement de la culture francophone. Va-t-il encore une fois manquer à ses promesses ? Si jamais le gouvernement cherchait des moyens d'aider les francophones de l'Ontario, voilà une autre occasion en or que le gouvernement ne devrait pas laisser tomber. J'implore le ministre des Affaires municipales de s'impliquer dans la cause de La Salle.

CLOSURE OF STOCKYARDS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week, the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, and I met with a group of Ontario sheep farmers who are very concerned that the stockyards in Toronto could be closed down. As the Minister of Agriculture and other members know, this could prove to be a fatal blow for sheep producers in our area of the province.

If this were to happen, sales would have to be carried out in yards in Kitchener and Brussels, but 80% to 90% of the lambs sold in Toronto are sold to local people, many of the city's ethnic community. These buyers represent restaurants, small butcher shops and stores located in Toronto. As well, they bring the tradition from their homelands of seeing the animal before buying it, something they will no longer be able to do. Now, they will be forced to travel long distances to get the produce, and many of them will not be able to afford to go. Instead, they will hire someone to bid in a block for them. That practice will result in less competitive prices.

Sheep producers know that the growing market is based in Toronto. If the stockyards are closed down, they will lose this market. They have written to the minister, but they don't feel they are being heard. They are very upset with the present uncertainty, and ask what the minister is prepared to do to assist them in their cause.

PICTON UNITED CHURCH

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today to tell you about the Picton United Church. The actual building of the Picton United Church is this year 100 years old, not unlike our most august establishment of the Legislative Building.

I want to tell you that Picton United Church has been a very important building for many reasons in Prince Edward county. It has been the place where the Prince Edward food bank has been established for a number of years under the very good leadership of Marilyn Bradley and her very hardworking volunteers. Little Learners are located at the Picton United Church, a place where my children indeed went for some of their very early learning and social interactions with other children. The graduation exercises of the students of Prince Edward Collegiate Institute take place at the Picton United Church and Quinte Summer Music also holds many of its extravaganzas there.

So Picton United Church has been a venue for many important events in Picton and the Prince Edward community. It gives me pleasure to congratulate Reverend Lloyd Paul and the congregation of Picton United Church. I offer them congratulations on their considerable contribution to Picton and Prince Edward county.

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise to bring to the attention of the members a very difficult situation of over 200 former employees of Cortaulds Films in Cornwall.

When the cellophane plant production shut down operations in October 1989, many thought that their termination and severance money would follow shortly. We are now in our fourth year, and the former employees are still waiting for their severance packages. As the plant was on strike, the company argued that it did not have to pay the workers their termination and severance.

The Ministry of Labour has assured former employees that adequate funds are being held in trust with the employment practices branch, but due to a great deal of legal wrangling, the money has not been released to the workers. In September of last year, the Ministry of Labour told me that the termination and severance package was in judicial review.

What is so disturbing is that two previous decisions have been made but have not been binding. I have also learned that once a judicial review takes place in June, there may be appeals to a higher court. While the legal arguing drags on, the former employees are becoming increasingly anxious to know when they may expect their due compensation. I call on the Minister of Labour to respond to my most recent letter asking for details on the appeal process and when the workers might expect to end this unfortunate delay.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Simcoe county council this morning voted 43 to 27 to proceed with the restructuring of county government. Simcoe county's elected officials have indicated their continued support for restructuring. They want you to immediately bring forward restructuring legislation for us to consider and provide an appropriate amount of time for public hearings, where individuals and elected municipal officials can freely express their views and concerns about this controversial issue.

I've had reservations about the process involved in the issue of restructuring since it was first proposed by the former Liberal government in 1988. I want to make it quite clear that I have never opposed the need for some restructuring. It is and always has been the process that is flawed.

Minister, you have continued to monkey around with the process by trying to get everyone to approve restructuring legislation that you have not even introduced here in the Legislature, and you're trying to do the same thing with Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. Your government wants us to give consideration to Bill 7 this Thursday, only two days after we received printed copies of this legislation at our offices.

Minister, introduce a County of Simcoe Act now and delay second reading of Bill 7 until all members can give it the appropriate consideration it deserves.

1340

SERVICES IN MIDDLESEX

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I owe a great debt of thanks to the people and service providers of Strathroy in the riding of Middlesex. On Monday, April 5, and again on Friday, April 16, I had the privilege to visit three facilities in Strathroy and area that serve members of our community.

On April 5 I visited MerCare, a residential facility for former psychiatric patients, and MerCare Industries. I would like to thank Robert Barkman, the staff, residents and workers of MerCare for their time and gracious tour of the facility.

On April 16 I met with Pat Walker and the board of Strathroy and Area Association for Community Living and toured ACCESS, a training centre for developmentally challenged adults. In addition to learning and living skills and work training, ACCESS offers clients fitness and social interaction. Thanks to Myrtle, Cathy, Matthew and all the staff and clients who were so kind to receive me.

Last year the Ministry of Housing provided money to Strathroy Community Living so that those of their clients ready for independent living could have homes of their own. I'd like to thank Scottie Fletcher for welcoming me to his Strathroy residence.

The people of Strathroy know of the wonderful contribution to the community made by the independent residents of MerCare and Community Living, and in turn the people of Strathroy have been wonderful neighbours. We owe a great deal to those people, the care providers and the clients of MerCare and Community Living, for what they bring to the people of Ontario.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to address a very serious problem created by the NDP government.

On December 8, 1992, the Minister of Municipal Affairs reversed the NDP government's policy on Bill 94, sending the issue of Metropolitan Toronto market value reassessment back to Metro council to be reworked. The result is that a vicious tax war is raging between the city of Toronto and the city of Scarborough.

The city of Toronto is appealing the property assessments of many properties in Scarborough, including Mr Enzo DiMauro's. He owns a house in Scarborough, and when he received his notice that his property was being appealed by the city of Toronto because the assessment was too low, Mr DiMauro couldn't believe his eyes. He was furious, because he knows and believes that his property tax, if anything, is too high, not too low.

Mr DiMauro is not the only person facing this problem. The city of Toronto has filed 5,600 assessment appeals, and the city of Scarborough has appealed 1,000 assessments. Each appeal must go before an Assessment Review Board and is costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to intervene, to call a truce. Hundreds of honest, law-abiding taxpayers like Enzo DiMauro are suffering because of NDP incompetence.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This morning representatives from four groups representing about 10,000 concerned parents held a news conference to critique this government's common curriculum. Unfortunately, these parents were forced to use this medium to communicate their views because the Minister of Education and Training had refused to meet with them to discuss their concerns.

I applaud these parents for their active involvement in their children's education and their desire to work in partnership not only with the government but also with their communities, labour and business to meet the educational challenges facing us in this province.

The primary concern of these parents is the welfare of their children and the quality of the education which they receive. They want their children to receive a balanced education in which the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills are the cornerstones. They want a system with clear goals and measurable results. They also recognize the need for the teaching of social responsibility and good citizenship.

I would urge the Minister of Education and Training and the members of this government, who pretend to be consultative, to listen to these parents as well as the others throughout this province who have views that they wish to share with you concerning education.

I strongly urge the minister, who unfortunately is not here, to be much more responsive than he has been in the past and to take the time to listen, to consult and to meet with the parents of the children that his ministry is responsible for educating. It is important that he recognize --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mrs Witmer: -- that parents and children have the greatest stake in the education system and they deserve --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As most of you know, the more remote areas of northern Ontario, composed of single-industry towns, have more difficulty surviving through the harsh realities of economic decline. To help combat community devastation, our government has made a commitment to invest in people through Jobs Ontario initiatives. Because of this, in Cochrane North a significant number of laid-off workers and people collecting social assistance have the opportunity to upgrade their skills and find new jobs.

In Cochrane North, many jobs have been created through Jobs Ontario Capital projects such as the Sno-Trac snowmobile trails project and the construction of water and sewer projects on the Highway 11 corridor.

Through Jobs Ontario Training, in Cochrane North alone there have been 39 jobs filled since the program started in October 1992; 46 more positions are yet to be filled. Presently, there are 186 participants and 45 employers now registered with the Jobs Ontario Training program. I am particularly pleased that a new Jobs Ontario Training broker is being designated to focus directly on training aboriginal people. This will help them acquire the skills needed to build their own economies.

The local people themselves have also made a notable contribution to the economic growth of Ontario. For example, the town of Hearst suffered enormously when Levesque Lumber closed its doors in December 1991. Since then, former employees and local people have devised a strategic employee ownership plan to open a new planing mill. This will bring approximately 15 more jobs to Cochrane North. The recent opening of a Canadian Tire store in Hearst will bring 20 more.

I am proud that Jobs Ontario, with the participation of both the public and private sectors, has helped considerably in sustaining Ontario's communities. This important program has carried us through the deepest part of the recession and into the recovery period which we are now in.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order and to beg your indulgence and that of the House. I'll try not to be too long. I do think this is a serious matter and I understand that we will be dealing with part of this a little later this afternoon. But I just simply want to put the issue before the House because I think we do have an issue here that we are going to have to turn our minds to.

That concerns the activities yesterday in the resources committee. My point of order concerns standing orders 110 and 126, and it primarily concerns the role of members appointed by an order of the House to various of the standing committees.

I'd like to just paraphrase the two standing orders, 110 and 126, because I think it is clear what is intended. Standing order 110 has three parts.

"No standing or select committee shall consist of more than 11 members and the membership" of the committees shall reflect the membership of the House. I think that's well known to honourable members.

Standing order 110(b) states, "Any member appointed to a standing or a select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed." I think that's very clear. I want to repeat that: 110(b) says that any member who had been appointed to a standing or a select committee by an order of the House may subsequently be discharged by another order of the House.

Standing order 110(c) states, "A temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the clerk of the committee either before or within 30 minutes of the committee meeting being called to order."

Essentially, what 110(c) provides, something I think known to all of us, is that someone properly appointed to a standing committee may be substituted for on that committee if a representative of the party submits a substitution slip, and that's a practice that I think has worked rather well here in the last number of years and I don't believe was in effect when I was first elected. I don't believe there was the same provision for substitution. It's been, I think, a very useful one in recent years.

Standing order 126 then reads, "Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing or select committee may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum."

1350

I think it is clear what the intentions of the orders are, and I want to then, simply against that backdrop, indicate what happened in the standing committee yesterday.

I should say before I do that that last Tuesday, April 20, as is quite proper, the government House leader stood in his place after question period and read a motion, a lengthy motion, which ordered the membership of all of the standing committees. Reading from page 128 of the Hansard of the Ontario Legislature dated April 20, 1993, the membership of the standing committee on resources development ordered and agreed to by the House on that date was as follows, "Mr Conway, Mr Cooper, Mrs Fawcett, Mr Huget, Mr Jordan, Mr Klopp, Mr Kormos, Ms Murdock (Sudbury), Mr Offer, Mr Turnbull, Mr Waters and Mr Wood." That was the membership advanced by government motion and concurred in by the House.

Yesterday, the standing committee on resources development met for its organizational meeting, and as the custom of this assembly provides, the clerk of the committee, in this case Ms Tannis Manikel, who I thought did a very good job in difficult circumstances, I want to say to the chief Clerk, called the meeting, the organizational meeting, to order at about 3:30 yesterday, and the first order of business of course is to elect a Chair of the committee.

As we began that task, my colleague the member for York Mills nominated Mr Kormos, the New Democratic member for Welland-Thorold, to that position, and Mr Kormos of course is a member of that committee. Very, very shortly thereafter, a member of the New Democratic Party, and I can't recall which member, put forward the name of Mr Huget, the member for Sarnia and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, as a second nominee for the position as Chair.

Then it became clear that Mr Kormos, who was at the committee, was being substituted for on that occasion yesterday, because the clerk of the committee indicated, I believe, that Mr Wilson of Kingston and The Islands was being substituted for Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos then told the committee that he was prepared to accept the nomination and that he was prepared, of course, to be there and to discharge the duties imposed on him as a member of the Legislature ordered a week earlier by the government House leader to be a member of that committee.

The first part of my question, sir, is this: It concerns the situation, which I can't remember occurring before, but that is the rights of an honourable member, any honourable member, ordered by the House to be a member of the standing committee, an honourable member so ordered going to work consistent with that order, showing up to the committee, agreeing to participate in the work of the committee and, quite unusually, I would say, and I would say furthermore quite inappropriately, being there and being substituted for in a way that is clearly not intended in standing order 110(c).

I would submit, Mr Speaker, that the intention of the standing order is that any honourable member who is appointed to the committee who shows up to the committee to do his or her duty is entitled to be seated at that committee, consistent with the order. The standing order is written in a way that I would submit assumes good faith. It assumes that substitution is only going to occur when the honourable member so ordered by the House to be a member of the committee, for a variety of reasons that we can all imagine and that most of us have experienced, can't be there, and with the whip of the party agrees to a substitution.

I would say to my friends in the House that if I were a committee Chair and two honourable members showed up, one of whom was properly a member of the committee and another one who bore a substitution slip, there would be no doubt in my mind what I would do as a Chair. I would recognize the person who was there by order of the House and I would assume that there had been some confusion. I might even assume that there had been some disagreement in the particular caucus or between the two members, but I would submit that the clear intent of standing order 110 is that the committee must recognize members of the committee who are ordered to be members of that committee by the House. As 110(b) clearly indicates, only an order of the House can remove a member of the committee for whatever reasons the House or the government might have.

Yesterday, and I want to be clear, we had a situation where an honourable member so ordered to a committee by the House on April 20, a member who, quite frankly, had been a member of that committee and who had in the previous session of this Parliament served as Chair of the committee, Mr Kormos, went to the committee, stated clearly his willingness to participate in the proceedings of the committee and stated on the record his willingness to accept the nomination of Mr Turnbull to his old job as Chair of the committee. The committee, as you know, was dispersed because there was no consensus and I think that many in the committee did not want to put Ms Manikel in the very difficult position in which she found herself.

I want to say again that my point of order is, firstly, the first-order right of honourable members who are designated by an order of the House to freely take their place in the committee to which they were assigned. I would submit, furthermore, that the only way we can remove someone from that membership, assuming it is not voluntary -- because standing order 110(b) makes it plain that there is a provision for substitution, but the assumption and the traditions there are clearly that it is a voluntary withdrawal for a variety of reasons and a substitution is allowed for consistent with 110(b).

There is, in my view, no precedent, and there's probably nothing in our rules, to specifically contemplate the situation where an honourable member voluntarily goes to do his or her duty and then finds out that there is an effort, of which he or she is not a part, to remove that person from an assignment that the House has ordered. That is my first point of order and I do think we are going to have to give some thought to that.

I have had the opportunity to speak to the chief Clerk about these matters and he has been very helpful in providing me with some advice. I look at the standing orders. It is very clear what the intention is. It is also very clear what the spirit is. It's also very clear what the reasonable person would assume. It's also clear to me what the past practices in this place have been.

Secondly, this point, in my view, Mr Speaker, touches on a central question, and that is the role of honourable members elected to this assembly and, furthermore, the role of the legislative committees and their independence. You and your predecessors have rightly observed over the years that committees will order their own business, but they must order their own business within the framework of the House order that establishes them or gives them a special reference.

I would submit to you, sir, that yesterday the committee was trying to do its business and the operative House order was the government House leader's motion, concurred in unanimously on April 20, 1993, which order clearly indicated that Mr Kormos would be a member of the standing committee on resources development.

1400

A second question touches on the issue of the chairmanship. I want to just deal quickly with this. Let me say parenthetically I can understand how in a government caucus or how in another caucus there might be a difference of opinion, there might be some personal or there might be some political tension as between a committee member and the caucus. So I can imagine circumstances where a caucus may feel that certain action might be taken with respect to an honourable member. Our standing orders provide for that, and they provide for a motion to be put to the House to establish and to alter the committee membership.

Now, on the second issue, we had yesterday a nomination from the government, which is entirely its right, for a person to sit as the Chair of the standing committee on resources development. But the government chose to nominate a very fine fellow, and I think a very good member of this assembly, the member for Sarnia, with whom I've worked on a number of projects and for whom I hold the highest regard.

My difficulty with that particular nomination, and this is a second point in terms of yesterday's proceedings, is simply that Mr Huget, good and estimable fellow that he is, happens to be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, two departmental mandates which are clearly going to come before the standing committee on resources development. I would submit to you and to the House that we have here, perhaps unintended, a clear conflict of interest.

I want to make the point that Mr Huget, as I say, is a very fine fellow and does good work, but he happens to represent the Minister of Environment and Energy, both of which departmental issues are going to occupy a considerable amount of time before that committee. There's no question in my mind that it is inappropriate for a member representing the executive council, particularly in areas of policy that are going to come before a standing committee dealing with those issues, to serve at one and the same time as Chair of the standing committee and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

I believe it is inappropriate because it is a conflict of interest and I think it violates the tradition and the spirit of the independence of committees. Those are my concerns. I submit them to you and to the House for some consideration and adjudication.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West on the same point.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What I'd like to point out to you, Mr Speaker, is that the crucial issue, I think, that needs to be discussed here or at least discussed by yourself on this point of order is whether or not, when this Legislature appoints people to committees, which just took place a few days ago, and it appointed the member for Welland-Thorold to the resources committee, whether or not that decision is in fact final, supreme, cannot be changed without the consent of the member who has been appointed.

The only way I think that you could go about removing someone from a committee, as stated very clearly in 110, "Any member appointed to a standing or select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed." So clearly it's very clear, in 110 section (b), that if Mr Kormos were to be removed from this committee, it would have to be done in this House.

Having said that, the member was in fact at the committee meeting at the time that the committee meeting took place. But the crucial question and the point that's put to you as Speaker on a ruling for this is whether or not a member can be subbed out on a committee he has been properly appointed to without his agreement. Clearly, there wasn't any agreement to being subbed out upon.

So I think what it turns on is whether or not, when this Legislature makes a decision about who shall sit on what committees, a subcommittee or a whip or a party can arbitrarily decide whether or not that person can then sit on the committee, because clearly the question is not today whether Mr Kormos is on the committee -- we know he's on the committee. He should not have been subbed in for, according to Mr Kormos.

The question we then put to you is, if this government did not want this member to sit on this committee, why did it appoint him? That's the question they must ask themselves. The question that is put to you is, this Legislature, being supreme, has made a decision that Mr Kormos is in fact on this committee. If he is, is it the right of the government to then sub out any member, whether or he not agrees, against that member's personal opinion, personal agreement, and whether or not that member in fact wants to be subbed out?

Mr Kormos did not want to be subbed out. The question then is totally up to you as to whether or not this whip of this government can arbitrarily change decisions made by this Legislature against the will of that member who is appointed to that committee.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I'll deal with the first issue that has been raised last by the member for Etobicoke West and was one of the issues raised by the member for Renfrew North first. If in fact, as the two members have alleged and as I think they have been led to believe, the circumstances had been as they've suggested, the government would be as upset as they are. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the substitution don't happen to be as they have been described.

On Tuesday afternoon of last week the government whip, along with the House leader, met with the member for Welland-Thorold. Again on Thursday afternoon the whip met with the member for Welland-Thorold. As a consequence of that meeting, this letter was sent to the member for Welland-Thorold, because in both of those sessions the member for Welland-Thorold indicated, and indicated clearly, that if he were not going to be the Chair of that committee, he did not want to participate in that committee or in any other committee.

As is the case with every whip, whether it's a government whip or an opposition whip, his obligation is to man the committees, to have members in those committees so the committees can proceed to do their business. As a result, the government whip sent a letter to Mr Kormos, said it in writing, to confirm the discussion they had had about substituting for him on that committee because he wanted to ensure that there would be government members available in that committee.

The member for Renfrew North has suggested that when somebody arrives with a substitution and eventually the real member also arrives, the real member, the member assigned to the committee, takes precedence. It is also very clear in the procedures and practices of this House that when a member has been substituted, even if the member assigned to that committee should arrive, the substitution is the only thing that stands at that point. That's been the practice in this House ever since I arrived here or at least ever since we started substitutions.

Lastly, the member for Renfrew North also mentioned the issue of parliamentary assistants being the Chairs of committee. That precedent has already been set in this House as well, in the last session and again yesterday afternoon, with the support of members of both of the opposition caucuses, in the Chair of, I believe, the standing committee on social development. In any event, there have been parliamentary assistants as Chairs of committees. There is nothing in our standing orders that precludes that.

Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you that in fact the substitution that happened yesterday at the resources development committee happened in the normal fashion, that any whip would proceed with any substitution based on the fact that the member in question had clearly indicated that he did not intend to participate in that committee.

1410

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, I'm afraid we've transcended the puffery that people often expect from politicians, transcended that and descended into a level of debate that unfortunately has to be addressed in the most subtle terms because of the rules of the House.

Let me tell you this, Speaker -- and, firstly, I join with the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North, raised in the most precise and clearest terms, identifying standing orders and requesting an interpretation of those orders. I would have restricted my comments to the member for Renfrew North's standing order and to the very precise way in which he addressed the standing orders, but I go now to a point where I have to address some of the allegations made.

Yes, I received a letter from the government whip on Thursday. That letter flowed as a result of the government whip sitting himself beside me and attempting to speak with me, wherein he told me that I was going to be substituted. I then replied to the whip that I didn't want to speak with them, that anything he was to address to me should be in writing, because my trust level had diminished where I would prefer that it be in writing. He then sent a letter to me, advising me that I would be substituted on the resources development committee.

Tuesday of that same week, last week, the same day this House passed the government motion which placed me on the resources development committee -- and I was here in the Legislature when that motion was agreed to -- subsequent to that motion, I met with the whip, the chair of caucus and, for a brief period of time, because he didn't attend the whole meeting, the government House leader. It was after the government House leader left the meeting that the government whip told me I would not be Chair of the resources development committee.

Now I found that a particularly troubling thing for the government whip to say because I know as well as anybody that Chairs, as is the Speaker, are elected. It struck me as peculiar that I would be in the government motion of the day, passed but an hour before this discussion, and then be told by the whip, as if somehow he had control over this, that I wouldn't be the Chair of the committee.

I recall, of course, back in October 1990, when the Premier apologized for having created the appearance of endorsing a candidate for the position of Speaker. The Premier made it quite clear that these sorts of things were free votes, that there wouldn't be on his part an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. I accepted the Premier's explanation then and he indeed made it clear that if he appeared to have endorsed anybody, that was not his intention, because he believed that these were free votes and it was up to the persons who were eligible to participate in that vote to elect the Speaker.

My understanding of the standing order which permits the election of Chairs in committee -- and I understand that there are certain committees which are designated for opposition Chairs; there are certain committees which are described as being capable only of having government Chairs. That, of course, restricts who can be nominated, but surely it can't restrict who can be elected once that nomination is made.

So I tell you, sir -- and I appreciate that this isn't particularly germane to the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew North, but it having been raised as the only defence to the point of order by the member for Renfrew North, the only defence by the government House leader, I believe it has to be explained -- that of course I never acquiesced to any suggestion that I be removed from the resources development committee. I was told that I would not be Chair. I, in more generous moments, understood that to be a mere error on the part of the government whip and, in less generous moments of course, saw that as a somewhat more malicious sort of comment.

The bottom line is, sir, that I attended the -- and the fact remains that subsequent to Tuesday, there was Wednesday, Thursday and indeed available to the government yesterday opportunities for the government to bring a motion in this House to remove me from the committee.

Now, I want to speak to standing order 110, subsection or paragraph (b), because that's the provision which provides for discharge from the committee. That seems to me to be the balance, the counterpart, of the motion which permits the creation of the committee. We're talking about an order of the House here. We're not talking about something that occurs by fiat. We're talking about an order of the House. We're talking about a motion that is debatable, appreciating that they're not usually debated, but that doesn't change the fact that they are very debatable.

Going to subsection (c) and talking about the temporary substitute, there's no question, I'm sure, in anybody's mind here about the intent or the purpose of that subsection, of paragraph (c) of standing order 110. Clearly there has to be provision, and you well know, sir, that there probably are far too many substitutions taking place, which certainly impacts and in some respects even discredits the committee process.

But we're talking here about a temporary substitute, and we're talking about a temporary substitute at the most crucial time in the life of a committee. If a committee is to be independent, if a committee is to have an independent Chair and if the purpose of permitting elected Chairs is to have any significance, any validity, then surely the people who are members of that committee have to be the people entitled to elect that Chair. It's a special circumstance when we have a so-called temporary substitution wherein the sole purpose is to basically stack the deck or rig the jury. I tell you, that's gerrymandering, again at its most generous, and I tell you, Speaker, that the point of order raised by the member for Renfrew is one which could have significant impact on the independence and the legitimacy of committees not just now but down the road.

The Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Renfrew North, for Etobicoke West, the government House leader and the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. You have indeed brought a serious matter to my attention. I believe the memory of the member for Renfrew North is accurate. I certainly don't recall a similar situation having been brought to the attention of the House, and I trust that the members will appreciate that this is a complex item. I wish to reserve on it. I do not wish to unduly restrict the activities of the committees because the committees are extremely important to the work of the Parliament, so I will endeavour to come back to the House as quickly as possible. I cannot give a guarantee for tomorrow, but I will certainly work on it as quickly as possible and try to resolve this so that the committee can get on with its work. Again, I appreciate the fact that the members have brought this to my attention and done so in such a good way. I appreciate it.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before oral questions, I would like to invite all members of the House to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mrs Rabi Audu, who is a principal legislative officer from the National Assembly of Nigeria. Please welcome her to our country.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, after refusing to answer our questions in the House, it seems that you were much more forthcoming with the media outside the House about your backup plan if the social contract talks should fail. You said, apparently, "This train is leaving the station." We assume that this means that the process is already under way whether the participants like it or not. So, Premier, again I ask you, what is it that you intend to do if your social contract train leaves the station and you are the only one on board?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I just would say to the honourable member, in terms of the preface to her question, that I always make a point of trying to answer questions in scrums as well as questions in the House, and I would say to her very directly that she would know full well that in answering the question I was referring --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Wait till Robin Sears comes back. He'll be in trouble then.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that's a thought -- to the overall train, the big train, the big picture, the expenditure control reductions, which has already left the station. I was referring to the social contract discussions and to the preparation for the budget.

But I can assure the honourable member that when we look at the need for us, having made one round of expenditure reductions which had been very substantial, I think, in discussing this matter with observers and with deputies and others, no one can recall an experience in which governmental budgets have been put through such a process of scrutiny. We still find that that's not enough. We need to take more out and we've indicated that very clearly to our partners in the public sector, that the $2.5 billion which is contained in the expenditure reduction targets set out by the Minister of Finance on Friday is not enough, that there's another $2 billion yet to go for this year, annualizing out on an even higher rate.

That, we feel, we can only take out --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- in full discussion with our social contract partners. We intend to continue to discuss that matter with them but, as I've said before, there should be no mistaking the government's determination to meet the targets which we feel are reasonable and fair and just in the circumstances, and to carry on a serious set of discussions with our social contract partners about how we can effect the kinds of changes which we've set about.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, we know well what you are saying you want to do and need to do. Our questions are about how you plan to do it. Premier, what we're trying to do is figure out exactly what you plan to do if the participants in your social contract talks decide they're not going to take part in your talks or if in fact they say they are unable to take part in your talks.

You will know, I'm sure, that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has already said that it has no authority to negotiate a social contract on behalf of 831 municipal governments. That is not the mandate of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which you've asked to participate in the social contract talks.

So, Premier, again we're simply trying to find out how you plan to have this process work. So I ask, what is your reply to groups, such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that say to you that they have no authority to represent their members at your bargaining table?

Hon Mr Rae: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario had no difficulty sitting down and discussing disentanglement with us, and that's involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of transfers going one way and the other. I think the people in the province who understand that there is too much duplication, who understand that there's a need for governments working together, will find it a little difficult to understand that there would be some governments that would not be interested or not be prepared to come forward, and I suspect that people will come forward.

I would say to the honourable member, with respect to all the other hypotheticals that she's raising, what I've said to people in the scrums, and that simply is that I much prefer to look on life in a positive way, that we are always approaching these negotiations in a positive spirit, and I'm not going to get into all kinds of hypothetical "what ifs." We think what we're proposing is sensible, we think it's sound and we think it's in the best interests of all the people in the province, including the membership of the social partners, who we think will benefit directly by participating in these kinds of discussions.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, if you really believe that there is a direct relationship between the provincial government sitting down with municipal government representatives to talk about issues of cost sharing and disentanglement, that there is any relationship between that very legitimate and very necessary process and this government calling in people like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to talk about renegotiating collective bargaining agreements, then you really are dealing in a hypothetical world and you clearly have no understanding of how this whole social contract process is supposed to take place.

Premier, let me draw your attention to the documents that you released last Friday, because those documents show that there are no less than 9,000 collective agreements that are going to be affected by your social contract talks. Premier, quite frankly, none of us can yet understand how you are planning to deal with 9,000 separate agreements even if you can get everyone to participate in the discussions.

What happens if you do get a deal and any one of those 9,000 independent bargaining units decides not to go along with it? You have less than a month to go before the budget, Premier. Time is running out. This is not rhetorical talk. We are asking you to put real, solid plans on the table, and I ask you again, how can a social contract deal be imposed on 9,000 separate collective agreements across this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that she may not like what's taking place. I haven't heard one sensible suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition indicating how she would deal with a very significant public policy problem. I think that the people who work in the public sector and the people who work in the broader public sector are entitled to be able to sit down with the government of the day and discuss what is clearly a major challenge for all of us.

Maybe she would simply wave a wand and say, "Poof, you're $2.5 billion or $2 billion poorer, and that's the way it's going to be." That's not the way this government is going to proceed. We are going to sit down seriously with our social contract partners and address what is a major challenge for the people of the province. That's the step that we're talking. We think it's a responsible step. I haven't heard a peep from the Liberal opposition indicating one constructive alternative to the very difficult challenge that we face; not one.

Mrs McLeod: I assure the Premier that we are not trying to undermine his social contract talks. He's doing a fine job of doing that all by himself.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will ask a second question of the Premier and I will, having totally failed to get a response on that issue, turn to another issue.

Premier, during the month of March, Ontarians found these very large advertisements in their newspapers. They may be familiar to you. They are ads that publicize your failing job training scheme. The ads that are used most often show a picture of an individual in a mechanical job or in a drafting job. I wonder, Premier, if you might be able to explain to us why these occupations were chosen to illustrate your failing job training scheme.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll refer that question to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I can certainly indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the whole intention of the advertising campaign was to let more companies, more businesses and more individuals know about the Jobs Ontario Training program, a program that is creating about 1,000 jobs a week now for the people of this province, a program that is placing between 600 and 1,000 welfare recipients in the workplace per week now, and if she wants to continue to stand up in this House and downgrade this program and criticize this program when it's getting people on welfare back to work, then I don't know where she's coming from.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell the minister where we're coming from. We want to get the facts out about what this program is doing and is not doing, because we would like to have a real job training program. We would like to see people get back to work into jobs that they can be trained for.

Minister, I would like to take a minute and share with you some information that you may or may not have, information that we've collected about the potential jobs your training program has identified through this presumably $1.5-million advertising program.

Our research shows that two thirds, no less than 62%, of the jobs that are available in this job training program are in the lowest-skilled job categories. The fact is that only a very few of the potential jobs that you have listed are in the categories that are used to illustrate the program. I would suggest that your advertisements are misleading people by suggesting that these are the kinds of jobs they will be training for.

So, Minister, I would ask if you would not admit that your scheme gives employers up to $10,000 to train people for jobs that require very little training at all.

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact of the matter is, very seldom when the Leader of the Opposition asks questions about this program does she have the facts right at all. In fact, when she asked a question a couple of weeks ago, she referred to a particular person who had 49 sheets of paper with regard to the Jobs Ontario Training program. When we checked, she wasn't even referring to the Jobs Ontario Training program; it was a completely different program.

1430

What I would suggest is that the member might want to come over to the ministry and get a briefing so that she understands the program, the benefits of this program, which is producing work for -- the last time you asked the question, there were 19,000 jobs that had been created; since the last question you asked, there are now 21,112 jobs created. If that's not a successful program, then I want to know what it is. The average wage for the person who is going into this is $22,000 a year. People who are on welfare get training, get to work for $22,000-a-year jobs, and an additional $5,000 is available to the companies to provide training for their existing workforce. That will make Ontario more competitive and create more work for people in this province.

Mrs McLeod: The information we are using in our questions has come very directly from your ministry in written form. You are surely not suggesting that they are giving us different information than they are providing to you in your briefing notes.

Let me try and take it out of the statistical world for a moment and tell you about something which I acknowledge is pure anecdote; not based on numbers, not based on statistics, but just happened to happen. It was a student who approached me, a sociology graduate from McMaster University, out of work since last spring, very much involved in writing, on a volunteer basis, a literacy program for a charitable organization. She had been approached by Jobs Ontario Training and asked if she would take a position as a bartender because she'd had bartending experience when she was in university.

I'm not going to claim that this is statistical evidence, but it's that kind of anecdote we hear that gives us real concerns about whether or not you are just filling this program out with numbers to try and defend what we see as being a program that has an 87% failure rate. We keep trying to give you examples, Minister, of the ways in which your program is not working for people, and we question spending $1.5 million on advertising a program that isn't working, we question you misleading people into believing that they are going to be trained for highly skilled jobs, because the highly skilled jobs just aren't there.

Again I would ask, as I will keep asking this government, when are you going to come back with a real plan that will attract business, that will create the jobs people need so they can get back to work?

Hon Mr Cooke: No one has suggested that this is the beginning and the end and the only program to create jobs in this province, but I'd ask the member that maybe she should go out to some of the places where people are getting training and have got jobs. I've met with some of these folks, people who have been unemployed for a long period of time in this province and who this government is trying to help: get them off welfare, get them into the workforce and make them feel good about themselves again. If you want to run down that program, then you go right ahead, but this is one of the most successful programs for welfare recipients in the history of this province. Welfare recipients who are recipients of this program will tell you, what you're telling us today is that you'd rather have people on welfare than at work, and we don't agree with that.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. For the last few weeks, in fact the last month or so, you will know that I have applauded and supported the direction of cutting government spending that you have talked about being in and what I believe to have been cost-cutting efforts on your part. The Liberals, you will know, complained about cutting spending, but you will agree, Premier, I did not.

Now, as we analyse Friday's mini-budget, many questions have come forward, and we discovered that a significant portion of the $2.4 billion that your Treasurer on Friday touted as program cuts are not really cuts at all, but are in fact bogus savings.

For example, rescheduling of school payments to the next fiscal year: Under questioning on Friday, the Treasurer said it won't save a cent; the Treasury officials said it simply will be deferred for another budget year. Can you explain to me, Premier, how deferring $130 million in payments to the school boards out of one budget year into the next, in essence saying that the next Treasurer can deal with it or, ultimately, the next government -- would you not agree with me that this is not a saving at all, but simply a deferral of $130 million of payments?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will endeavour to answer it, except to say to the honourable member that when I look at the number of things we're doing, the offices that are being closed, the closure, for example, of all of Ontario's international offices, the decision to cut back in a number of areas, including direct decisions to deal with our transfer partners, I think he will find that when you look at the package overall, there is a very, very substantial reduction in actual expenditures, in operating expenditures, in offices, colleges are being closed, and it's issues which are being dealt with in that way.

Obviously, I'll look into the particular issue he raises, but I can assure him that when we sit down with our social contract partners, for example the boards of education and others, I would say to him very directly that we obviously recognize the need for some of these things to be dealt with in a very direct fashion.

Mr Harris: Premier, you're throwing around this $2.4-billion figure and you're touting them as cuts. You know that we've said: "Hey, cuts have to be made. We understand that." Some may argue about your priority setting, and I think that's fair game, but not the direction that you're going in. But the $130 million that you've counted in the $2.4 billion is simply a deferral to the next tax year.

At the same time, in the announcement on Friday, when we get into the detail, deferment of planned expenditures to universities and colleges was $30 million. The shift of the delivery timetable for non-profit housing units was $12.5 million. The extension of the sector partnership fund from three years to five years is simply a deferral of $25 million.

Obviously, we applaud the direction, but now as we look at the detail, Premier, would you not agree with me that we have identified in a short period of time over half a billion dollars that are simply deferrals designed to help you meet the deficit du jour, that in fact they are not cuts at all? The spending is going ahead, the programs are going ahead. You simply are deferring the cost of those into the next year, as is the case with the $130 million through the school boards.

Hon Mr Rae: There are some cash-flow savings, there's no question about that, with respect to school boards and with respect to others. But I think it would be a mistake for the honourable member to say that these are not going to become real in-year expenditure reductions in 1994-95. They are expected to be. That message is very clearly being delivered by the Ministry of Education and Training in that instance, as in others.

I can assure the honourable member, if he's questioning whether or not there are going to be real reductions in cash flows this year and in transfers generally to boards of education, to hospitals, to municipalities and to others, they know full well that the message from this government is that they will in fact be receiving less. That's why we're having the social contract discussions, so that we can work through with them to maintain and guarantee as many jobs as possible as we look at a world in which there is less money to go around and in which there will be less money for transfers.

I don't want there to be any illusions about what we are doing. We are actually reducing the amount of money that is going to boards, to hospitals, to our major transfer partners, and in order to cope with that impact, we are of course extending that into the second year. The savings will have to be found in the second year, and I can tell him that's exactly why we're having the social contract discussions, in order to deal with the full impact of that.

Mr Harris: Premier, we know there are some real cuts and there are some meaningful cuts, and we understand that. But also rolled into that were deferrals. When the Treasury officials were asked, they said: "Yes, it is simply a deferral into the next year." So next January, February, March, we're not going to pay that extra $130 million. We will have to pick it up and pay it in the next year, with assurance to the school boards that, "You're still going to get the same amount of money" --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No.

Mr Harris: Well, I'm sorry, but that is not what your officials told us, that is not what school boards understand, and that is not their understanding of a lot of the deferrals.

Premier, let me as well bring to your attention one that we brought up last year, and this was the deferral of over half a billion dollars in payments to the teachers' pension plan, because we now understand that the Treasurer -- last year it was 11% interest, and it allowed the Treasurer to, so-called, diddle the books for one year and put off that payment. This is now planning to be a rolling deferral for a whole bunch of years. The only thing to be decided now is the interest rate.

That, coupled with these deferrals we've identified, is now over $1 billion, Premier, that you plan to call cuts that really are not cuts; they're deferrals. So I am concerned that a significant portion of the announcement was not penny-pinching at all; it was simply penny-procrastinating.

I say to you, Premier, can you respond? Is it the Treasurer's and your intention to defer again the payments into the teachers' pension plan for another "fix the books," the $500 million, $600 million? Can you respond to that? I say to you in general, why, when you had a climate to cut significantly, when the public was ready, when the union members were ready -- even though their leaders don't think they are yet, you and I know the members are -- why didn't you provide us with real, meaningful cutbacks instead of a whole bunch of these bogus deferrals?

Hon Mr Rae: Since the honourable member wasn't there on Friday, I'm sure our people in the Ministry of Education and Training and people will be prepared to sit down and discuss with him, as will the officials -- I can tell the honourable member, we were locked with the officials for days in preparations of this announcement. If he wants to get the same briefing as I have had, I'd be willing to give it to him; as well as with the minister.

I'm just telling him that the impression he's leaving with people is wrong when he says that they are not real cuts, when he talks about --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What about the teachers' pension?

Hon Mr Rae: No, in all the verbiage that surrounded the question -- Mr Speaker, I have to be able to deal with the verbiage as well as the question -- he said that, and I want to say to him he's wrong: These cuts are real, these cuts are there, there is less, and these cuts are in place.

With respect to the pension plan, I would say to the honourable member that obviously the actuarial assessments that are involved are part of overall discussions ongoing with the teachers, as they are part of the social contract discussions.

Mr Harris: "Actuarial assessments, revenue enhancers." You've got all these words. All we're asking for is, be straight with us on whether you're cutting or whether you're deferring.

ARBITRATION AWARDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. We have just established that some of the program cuts the Premier says he's making are not; they are deferrals. They are about as permanent as quicksand, which leads me to question how serious you are about making the tough decisions on the wage side of the restraint measures.

Premier, you've given direction to your transfer partners, to your social contract partners, both employers and employees. But there are, even as we are here speaking and even as these negotiations are going on, many arbitration decisions across the province which may impact significantly on costs for municipalities, for school boards, for hospitals, for all of these social partners.

Premier, in light of your negotiations with the transfer agencies and the directions you have given to both employers and employees that you want to have these all-encompassing talks, can you tell me what directions you have given to arbitrators, so that our hospitals, our municipalities, our education system and our social partners are not saddled with wage commitments that they simply cannot meet?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): We're not in the business of giving instructions to arbitrators.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Premier. Sudbury General Hospital, as of a recent decision, since you announced suspension of negotiations and social contract talks to replace them, are now saying they must cut jobs as a result of an arbitration award of 17.4% over two years for lab workers. That's 17.4% in wage hikes at a time when hospitals are being asked to cut $600 million, at a time when they in good faith have said: "Hey, we'll sit down with you. We'll try and do this. You talk with the employees and us at the same time." But these arbitration awards are out of their control -- physiotherapists, hospital technicians, dietitians in 52 hospitals, since you announced suspension of negotiations, awarded 10% over two years.

Premier, if you are truly serious about wage restraints in the broader public sector, then arbitrators have to be in the loop, because most of these employees know that if they just don't go to the table or if they sit back or they don't settle, ultimately it will end up in arbitration. So if you don't give direction to arbitrators, would you agree with me that your social contract talks mean nothing to the transfer partners?

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I can shorten the discussion by just saying absolutely not.

Mr Harris: Listen, the last time when transfer and wage restraint was brought into the province, inflation was out of control. You will recall the six-and-five program. At that time, it could only have been made effective -- inflation was running -- what? -- 15%, 16%; interest rates, 20% -- it was only effective because direction was also given, by way of a bill, to arbitrators that they must respect the six and five as well. At that time, in 1983, Premier, the actual bill wording was this: "Arbitrators, in making their decisions, must consider the employer's ability to pay in light of existing provincial fiscal policy"; ie, the policy was six and five, and arbitrators had to respect that.

I would ask you this, Premier: So far it has been verbal direction to the employers, and the employees of all your transfer partners, but you have left out of the loop arbitrators. Are you prepared to give the same, at this point, verbal direction to arbitrators, and if you come to an assessment or agreement -- it's zero, it's 2%, it's 1% -- arbitrators must be part of the loop? If you're going to legislate, which we all know you may have to do, are you prepared too to bring arbitrators in by way of legislation? Otherwise, Premier, these discussions are meaningless for school boards, for municipalities, for hospitals, as long as arbitrators can go on their merry way without paying attention to the guidelines.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't share that perspective at all. I think that certainly as we envision the social contract discussions, obviously they will touch on all the relationships between the partners and their employees. Obviously, that's the case. It will obviously also deal with the question of the impact and the potential impact of arbitration decisions. Obviously, that's true.

But when he's saying now, "Have we made any verbal statements or made any speeches about what arbitrators should or should not do?" obviously not to the point of saying -- we expect arbitrators to wake up and smell the coffee like everybody else, but above and beyond that, we want to wait for the outcome of the social contract negotiations before making any other general comments to the arbitration.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. In October 1991, the Premier arranged for Mr Hansen, the member for Lincoln, to be turfed from the finance and economic affairs committee because he dared to vote against a tax the government proposed that would be detrimental to his riding. In the same year, the Premier arranged to have Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, deposed from the justice committee because he happened to espouse the viewpoint that the NDP had espoused on the Sunday shopping issue during the 1990 campaign. The member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Drainville, was mugged by the former government House leader simply because he rendered a decision in the House which was fairminded to the opposition.

In light of this, I ask the Premier, is it your intention to continue to persecute all members of your own caucus whose only sin is to either defend traditional NDP policies or to defend those promises which were made during the last election campaign?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would just say, obviously, no, not, to the honourable member. I intend, and the whip does and the House leader does, to be certainly as fair in the administration of our caucus as I'm sure the person who's in charge of official opposition questions is to the various members of his caucus with respect to who gets on the question period list. Certainly, that fairness will be exercised on our side just as keenly as it's exercised by him. I note with interest that he has the first question after the question being posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

1450

Mr Bradley: I know that my own members consider me to be fairminded with them at all times.

To the Premier: In view of your past views when you were leader of the official opposition and when you were a member of the federal House of Commons, your views that the individual members of Parliament should be able to express their own views without penalty, such as the almost $10,000 penalty you're imposing on the member for Welland-Thorold by deposing him from the committee, and in view of your many speeches about parliamentary reform and enhancing the position of individual members of this House, will you today undertake to inform the House that you are prepared to have the member for Welland-Thorold restored to his former position as Chair of the resources development committee, a position which has the support of both opposition parties with his fairminded handling of those affairs, or are you going to simply turf him out of this position and demonstrate clearly to the people of Ontario, and certainly to members of this House, that you will brook no dissent and that you will be satisfied only with compliant members?

Hon Mr Rae: There's a real contradiction in the question, which I'm delighted is being put to me. I just would say to him that he's asking the first minister to go out and select each one of the names of the people who are going to serve as Chairs of committees. What a ludicrous proposition. These are decisions which the Premier does not make; these are not decisions that the Premier makes; these are decisions that are made as part of a process within our caucus just as you make them within your caucus.

I would expect more commitment from the Liberal Party to democracy than to ask the first minister of the crown to select every single person who's the chairman of a committee. I would have expected you to show more respect for the independence of committees than you're showing in your very question.

Interjections.

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

ACCESS TO POLICE REPORT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Premier as well and it's related to the Piper-Ferguson scandal. I have today sent an open letter to Commissioner Thomas O'Grady of the Ontario Provincial Police, asking the commissioner for access to a précis of the police report related to the Piper-Ferguson matter and that opposition members not only have access to some sort of a précis but also have the opportunity to meet investigating officers.

The Premier will recall that there is a precedent, in 1989, when one of his own members, Mr Kormos, met with an OPP officer related to the matter of Joan Smith, the then Liberal Solicitor General. At that time also, the Premier called upon then-Premier Peterson for a release of the police report related to Ms Smith.

I have prepared a letter for the Premier, which I will send over to him, that is addressed to Mr Tom Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, worded:

"In the interests of public accountability and the need for credibility in the Premier's office, I consent for the Ontario Provincial Police to release my name and any references to me in the 'John Piper report' that was released by the OPP in March.

"Sincerely, Premier Bob Rae, Mr Mike Mendelson, Ms Melody Morrison, Mr Ross McClellan, Mr David Agnew."

These are FOI waivers, which I'm going to send over to the Premier and ask him, will you sign these today and put all the facts on the table?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll obviously take a look at what the member is suggesting and have a look at the precedents as they've been put forward and will take his question as notice.

Mr Runciman: There's certainly a feeling on this side of the House that the Premier, at best, has engaged in something of a passive coverup -- and I'm being polite in that respect, I believe -- since day one in this matter. We know that the Premier met with Mr Murray Segal, the director of the crown law office, criminal division, of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and he's admitted publicly that this particular report was discussed and reviewed with the Premier -- there are certainly reports in the media to that effect -- discussed the report, which may in fact name the Premier, may name senior members of his staff; a clear conflict.

Now I think the Premier should be prepared today to stand up, indicate that he's going to sign a waiver, and instruct his staff and others impacted upon by this under his control to sign these similar waivers to put all of this on the table. If there's nothing to hide, sign it right now; if not, explain why not.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that there is an innuendo contained in his question which I don't think could be substantiated by any fact that I am aware of in any way, shape or form, but I will not dignify it further by making any other further comment except to say, as I said, that I take his question as notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A new question, the member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Attorney General.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): He's not here.

Mr Wessenger: If I might stand my question down.

JOBS ONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, it has become increasingly clear that while you were doing your budget cuts last week, you neglected to make one important cut to your government's senseless spending. You should have cut your giant public relations scam, Jobs Ontario.

Now, you're aware, Mr Premier, that although 55,000 people signed up for the Jobs Ontario Training, in the past year your government only produced 7,600 short-term jobs. Not only that, they were low-skill jobs and well below the target you promised for this past year.

But Mr Premier, at the same time as you have been claiming a new-found sense of fiscal responsibility, let me tell you where your government has been spending its money on Jobs Ontario Training. Mr Premier, if you take a look at this little button, this little button cost the taxpayers of Ontario $21,000.

Interjection: One button?

Ms Poole: No, actually for many buttons. Bumper stickers, thousands more on bumper stickers; $65,000 on designing graphics for all these neat little buttons and these pretty bumper stickers; $33,000 for display easels, and a further $10,000 for folders. The list goes on and on. Mr Premier, I have page after page, 45 categories of wasteful promotion. Rather than spending the money on jobs, $700,000 was spent on promoting your own government. And you know what the kicker is, Mr Premier? These neat little buttons which your government needed to promote itself have succeeded in creating more jobs than we had previously suspected, jobs in Taiwan -- in Taiwan, Mr Premier. Ontario taxpayers may find this hard to believe --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Ms Poole: -- but the Jobs Ontario buttons were made in Taiwan. Will the Premier tell us how he can justify his Jobs Taiwan program?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that to the minister.

1500

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I will certainly find out for the member where the buttons were made, why they were made in Taiwan and find out whether the facts she's presenting are accurate at all. But what I can tell the member --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thousands of dollars of waste.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- if the member for Oriole would just cool it for a second -- is that every time we spend $5,000 in training funds to get somebody off welfare in this province, we save thousands of dollars in welfare costs and we get people back to work feeling good about themselves and contributing to the province of Ontario. So while she may have a complaint about where the buttons were produced, her other criticisms about the program and the Jobs Ontario program are completely out to lunch.

Ms Poole: We not only have a problem about where these buttons were produced, we have a problem with spending $700,000 on promotion. We have a problem with you cutting training programs and training literacy programs in this province, programs that are working, while at the same time you waste taxpayers' money on this garbage.

Let me ask the minister about a program, a very viable and successful program, that just last week his government axed. This is the Metro Toronto literacy program, which last year trained 400 laid-off workers. This program had been successful in helping 80% of its graduates move on to jobs or further skills training. But what this government has done is axe programs like this all across the province; instead they're pouring their money into Jobs Ontario Training, which isn't working.

When the minister says 21,000 jobs created, he doesn't even understand how his own program is working, because those are just the jobs registered. The latest statistics we have received from your ministry, Minister, show 7,600 jobs created, and many of those are in low-skill categories.

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

Ms Poole: Why don't you just admit that your program's a failure and you're wasting hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on garbage like this?

Hon Mr Cooke: I say this in all seriousness. I would offer the member a briefing at the ministry on some of the programs that we're involved in. The program that she refers to, the Metro literacy program, the funding of that program was extended by my ministry. The program has not been cut off the funding, and in fact, in the ministries and through treasury board, we're looking at how that program can be perpetuated for a longer period of time. The program is funded till the end of August, so your figures on that are wrong.

The figures in terms of people placed into jobs are wrong. It's not 7,600. There are 8,348, and it's growing by 800 or 900 a week. I can understand how difficult it is for the Liberals to keep up on these figures, because they're going up by 800, 900 placements per week, people off welfare and into jobs, and if that's what the member calls a failure, she's just as wrong as her leader is.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm compelled to comment that if they didn't close sheltered workshops --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Turnbull: -- they wouldn't have to send jobs to Taiwan.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Could the member identify to whom he wishes to address a question?

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Transportation, Mr Speaker. Will the minister introduce legislation allowing longer truck lengths and, if so, when?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member is right in expressing anxiety, concern, about what he terms the need for urgent passage of legislation vis-à-vis longer vehicle configuration. The member will be aware that the item that he's referring to is approximately $100 million a year. The member will be cognizant that people in the industry are not buying trucks by virtue of waiting whether we will or will not, by virtue of waiting for a decision regarding longer trucks.

The member has mentioned to me on previous occasions that only four states in the United States of America do not allow longer trucks. The member has also mentioned in the same vein that axle weight, that overall capacity payload, will not be impacted. Because of all those mentions by the member, we have taken a very close look. We're cognizant of the responsibility of time, whether we will or will not deliver, but we're also cognizant of the safety factor, being fully aware that the environment has to benefit and, of course, first and foremost, the economic condition.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: We will make a decision and the member will be the first one to know.

Mr Turnbull: It is a shame that the Minister of Transportation is so eloquent and yet does not seem to understand what the question is. I asked you, when will you introduce legislation?

We are an island in Ontario. Quebec and all of the western provinces and all of the US interstate allow this. We are at a competitive disadvantage. Eighty per cent of all of the imports into Ontario come by truck. Seventy-five per cent of all of the exports go by truck.

As you did correctly point out, the truckers are holding off buying equipment. We could stimulate the economy without any cost of taxpayers' dollars if you would get off your duff and get on and do what you should be doing, instead of spouting.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Always with the highest of respect, I always consider the source, so I will not get involved in an exchange of compliments, for it is very, very difficult obviously for the member to pay a compliment to others, least of all to --

Mr Turnbull: Will you introduce legislation?

Hon Mr Pouliot: He's interrupting. Would you please cap the bottle, Mr Speaker?

The member is right. We have no intention of not respecting uniformity. We know, because of deregulation, that when you transport commodities from point A to point B, on the backhaul when you come back, if the contract is given to a competitor that has the most modern of equipment, with 10% less capacity, it places you at a disadvantage.

We're cognizant of all those facts, but we will not make a hasty decision, for that person there, with the highest of respect, would be back on his feet yet one more time, disagreeing with the progressive legislation that the government is contemplating. I wish to thank you, Mr Speaker.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, recently I met with farmers in my riding of Oxford at an agricultural day sponsored by the Oxford Federation of Agriculture.

Some producers I spoke with are concerned about the existing supply management system in place for some farm commodities such as poultry and dairy. They feel the current national quota system is not flexible enough. They suggest a quota be based on more current data about consumption in each province, which would allow producers to respond more quickly to demand in their marketplace. Would you support these changes, Minister?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): First of all, let me say that the Ontario government strongly supports the concept of national supply management systems that are currently in place. We've done so consistently at the GATT negotiation. We maintain we need a balanced position which will reduce export subsidies and also support supply management.

The second thing I would say is that the quotas that were allocated to different provinces were set on a historic basis a number of years ago when the systems were set up. We've now come to realize that there's not much flexibility in the exchange of quota between provinces. There have been some discussions at the dairy industry. They recognize in the dairy industry and, a year ago, in the poultry industry, there are some problems, because there's more demand for poultry products, for example, in Ontario than we have quota.

The people who administer the quota system are indeed looking at the problem and trying to address it and put a little more flexibility into the system.

Mr Sutherland: Minister, given that you support these changes, what action are you taking to encourage these changes so that the farmers of Ontario can get their fair share of the national quota?

Hon Mr Buchanan: One of the things we've been doing is the deputies of the different provinces have a committee that's looking into how we can address this. At the last ministers' meeting, there was agreement that we would proceed in looking at quota exchanges, looking at allocation of new quota, not necessarily on the old system but on a new system.

We have been consulting with farmers to see if we can't put in place a system that reflects the needs and where the consumption is as opposed to just simply going on a historic share. The producers, especially the dairy producers, have moved on this issue and we expect to be able to address the concerns of the producers, probably at the next ministers' meeting this summer.

1510

CLOSURE OF TRADE OFFICES

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. During the current recession, which we are told is technically over, the really bright spot in our economy has been our foreign trade. Without that trade the recession would have been even more severe. I'm sure the minister will know that for every dollar that an Ontarian has in his pocket, one third is there because of trade. When you compare that to our American neighbours, only 10% of their gross domestic product is a result of trade.

With trade making up 30% of our economy, everyone agrees that Ontario's fragile recovery is predicated upon how much the province can sell and how much investment it can attract from abroad. Yet you have chosen to close all the trade offices and plan to run our external operations from Toronto.

I'm sure the minister will know that there are offices in Boston; New York; Chicago; Atlanta; Dallas; Los Angeles; London, England; Paris, France; Frankfurt, Germany; Milan, Italy; New Delhi, India; Hong Kong; Seoul, Korea; Singapore; Nanjing, China; Taipei, Taiwan; Tokyo. All of this is being closed.

Madam Minister, I have no problem with eliminating duplication of effort and rationalization of services and the use of Canadian embassies to promote Ontario's trade in foreign lands, but there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive foreign trade and investment strategy. These office closings appear to have nothing to do with effective trade and investment goals and everything to do with how much money can be cut from the government's bottom line, a case of penny wise and pound foolish.

Minister, do you really believe Ontario's trade effort will be as strong using the Toronto office and Canadian embassy staff as it would have been using Ontario's own representatives in our major foreign markets?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the member's concern with this issue and obviously his direct knowledge of the operation of the international offices from the time in which he was minister responsible for these operations.

I can also understand the nature of the concern. Ontario is an exporting province. Our economy is based on trade and it is a very important part of our economy. I assure the member that our review of this kept that foremost in our minds, and our commitment to try to both maintain and improve our efforts with respect to international trade will be at the centre of the reorganization of our offices and of our way of doing business.

I think it's important to inform the member that we were undertaking a review of the role and the effectiveness of the international offices before we began to take a second look at budgetary considerations. At that point in time we were looking at a major revamping of how we do business.

I will say to him that he is very, very correct that in a review of bottom-line budgetary considerations and fiscal considerations we came at it again and in fact in a way that forced us to look at how could we completely reorganize how we do business and take away from the money we're spending on the brick and mortar in terms of the offices and the investment there.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I'll try to do it briefly.

May I say to the member that, in consultation with many people in international communities, international networks of consultants and bankers and industry and exporters, we believe we can reorganize services. In using their assistance, we can be as effective as we were through an actual physical network of offices.

I understand that the concern he raises is an important one and would be willing to work with him, with his ideas, to maximize our efforts in terms of the international trade and our initiatives there. I can assure him that we're not just looking at walking away from that responsibility.

Mr Kwinter: I thank the minister for her remarks, but I just want to emphasize that I think it's important, and there's a great deal of value in having Ontario's own representatives in major markets promoting and attracting Ontario's trade and investment interest on a full-time basis. Let me make a suggestion. I know the Premier is always saying, "All you do is criticize, but you don't make any kind of suggestions." Let me make one to you: I think there's a way to reduce costs and promote Ontario's interests. I'm sure that we can negotiate to put a provincial trade and investment representative in the key Canadian embassies with a mandate to promote Ontario's trade relations. This would be cost-effective, you could send a provincial trade person from Toronto to these posts at very little cost, and Ontario would get a maximum bang for its trade promotion dollars.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Kwinter: Madam Minister, instead of just closing Ontario's foreign offices and leaving us without an effective trade and investment presence, would you consider the alternative, or are you ready to sacrifice Ontario's trade benefits in order to reduce the deficit?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I assure the member we don't see that we are sacrificing our trade benefits. In fact, we think we can organize services to maximize our exposure in the international market and to be more effective.

The alternative he suggests is one that in fact we have reviewed. In fact, as I was indicating to him, we'd undertaken quite a major review. We were involved in discussions with the federal government about co-location with other provinces as well, and it remains an option for us to pursue with respect to some key posts. For example, we have yet to work through with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food about some of its international representatives who are actually involved in selling directly on-market, and we're looking at co-location to try and take care of some of their location needs.

So the alternative he suggested is one that we have looked at. It is also one that potentially, with the remaining budget we have, we may pursue in some very select areas. But I can tell him that we believe we can use the international networks of consultants and banks and others to very effectively represent us and to work with us in terms of contacts, to send in expert teams in terms of areas where we identify markets and to be much more strategic.

Could I also, hopefully, reassure him and let him know that in our discussions with the Canadian Exporters' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- the Toronto board of trade, for example, all of them support 100% the initiatives we have taken with respect to closing the network of international offices.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, these slasher films were the subject of an all-party agreement last Thursday, as I know you are aware. Since the previous questioner has used up all my time, I'm going to combine my first and second question for you.

You are aware of the fact that everybody in this House thinks the Ontario Film Review Board is doing its job reviewing this kind of material. You may also be aware of the fact that the newly appointed chair of the Ontario Film Review Board, Dorothy Christian, said at a public meeting in Mississauga that the Ontario Film Review Board fast-forwards this material and all of the material as it's reviewing it, and that it uses a search-and-scan method, which in fact, from her description, was double the speed, with the sound turned off.

I read to you very briefly, Madam Minister, a memo that was sent to the members of the Ontario film board from the chair, Dorothy Christian, in which she says: "I am officially on public record stating the board's use of the search-and-scan feature for the viewing of adult sex product. In my public statement" -- and this is what is so important for you, Minister -- "I stated that this feature enabled the board to view at double speed versus seven or eight times the speed of home VCRs, but we all know the reality is that panels do use a much faster speed than double speed when viewing, a seemingly acceptable practice which operated satisfactorily because an unstated honour system was in force. However, it appears there is a breakdown in the process of this honour system."

Madam Minister, do you feel that for the chair of the Ontario Film Review Board to say publicly in a public meeting that they review this kind of material at double speed when in fact she admits that what they do at the board is in reality, in her own words, "a much faster speed than double speed" -- Madam Minister, I ask you whether you accept a chair of the Ontario Film Review Board who says one thing in a public meeting and another thing is actually going on under her chairmanship at that film review board.

1520

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'll attempt to answer. There were two questions given to me here. First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Mississauga South and the member for Eglinton for bringing up this issue and bringing it before the House, because I think it's quite important that everybody be aware of the issue of violence against women, and I think everybody here knows that I have spoken out on this issue and very much share your concern.

The member for Mississauga South is well aware that many of the videos and I think that the videos that she pointed out to me today and the slasher films that she's talking about predate the provincial government authority over the video releases, and that has been clarified. It's unfortunate but it is a fact that the slasher films that she is talking about predate the film review board, and the videos which are --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That is not the question.

Mrs Marland: That is not the question. Why don't you answer the question?

Mrs Caplan: You can't get away with it.

Hon Ms Churley: If the member would like to hear the answer, I will continue.

Videos which were in distribution prior to 1988 are not subject to review by the OFRB. The fact is that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Centre, come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: -- the new board is very sensitive to the issue of violence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat, please.

Mrs Marland: I cannot believe you are reading your answer. You are an insult to the women in this province, Madam Minister.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please come to order.

Mrs Marland: You're reading your answer. My goodness, it's a very --

The Speaker: Would the member for Mississauga South please come to order.

Had the minister completed her response? If not, could she do so quickly.

Hon Ms Churley: I wanted to say that this is a complex issue and she's asked a couple of questions and I was attempting to speak to both of them. I want to say, in closing, that we are also talking to some of her colleagues in Ottawa about this very issue. We operate under the Theatres Act, and in fact --

Mrs Marland: Ottawa has nothing to do with Dorothy Christian.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: -- the Criminal Code at this point needs to be amended to include violence as one of the issues that need to be dealt with. Right now the Criminal Code does not include violence, and it is a real problem for the film review board, and it is in fact classifying, with the new members that I have appointed, to the best of their ability under the Theatres Act, but we need some help from the federal government, and need to open up the Criminal Code and make our job a little easier here, and she might be able to in fact --

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

Hon Ms Churley: -- help us in that endeavour.

The Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees:

On the standing committee on estimates, Mr Wiseman for Mr Rizzo; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands) for Mr Kormos; on the standing committee on social development, Mr Rizzo for Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Speaking to the motion, which as everyone knows is a debatable motion, and I promise I will not go on unduly, but this is a --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Oh, come on, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, it is an important motion, and let me just indicate that I know honourable members, particularly relatively new members, find certain of these parliamentary issues troubling. I even heard one of the honourable members opposite yesterday say it was "so much dicking around about nothing." That's not my view, though I can understand the frustration.

I want to at a certain level say to the government House leader, I understand what he's doing and he's now doing what he ought to have done a couple of days ago. I may --

Hon Mr Charlton: That was Sunday.

Mr Conway: I just simply want to make this point: My concern earlier in this day when I raised the point of order had to do with the role of members who were ordered by the House to sit on standing committees. I felt then -- I feel equally so now -- that it is a clear infringement on the rights of all members when they are ordered by the House to attend a committee, when they follow that order, they show up and voluntarily agree to do their duty and without their agreement they are superseded by a substitution order that does not come from the House.

We have a mechanism in our standing orders that the government House leader has quite properly invoked this afternoon, and I have no quarrel on a technical level with what he has done today. The Minister of Labour, in flushed tones, shrugs in disagreement. He may wish to engage the debate. I want to make this point again: The rules of this House are designed over time to protect the interests of government, to protect the interests of the opposition as corporate entities and also to address the concerns of all of us as members. It is absolutely obnoxious to me that we would have a situation on the part of any government -- I'm not just saying it of this government; I would say it of any Liberal government or of any Tory government -- that we would seek to infringe upon the rights of members by ordering, through the whip, a substitution that was not agreed to by the member being substituted for and that had not been ordered by the House itself.

So let me say simply this: The government House leader has acted quite within the rules today and I have no quarrel on a technical ground with what he's done. I would submit that if the government wished Mr Kormos removed from the resources committee, that is entirely its right to wish and it has an instrument by means of which it can properly achieve that objective. Today the government House leader has invoked the proper instrument. What was attempted yesterday in the resources committee in my view is wholly inappropriate, and I don't make that as a partisan observation, because it would be equally inappropriate for a Liberal government and equally inappropriate for a Tory government.

I ask honourable members, each and every one, to think about this, yes, at one level which is political, and I will deal with that momentarily, but at another level which is parliamentary. We have traditions and we have rules which speak to the integrity and the importance of members as elected members, who have a right to take their seat in this Legislature and to take their seat in standing committees.

What was attempted yesterday was, in my view, a clear infringement on the rights of members to be seated in standing or select committees. There is no doubt that what happened yesterday contravenes the spirit and, I believe, the intention and the letter of our standing orders.

1530

The government House leader will shake his head and he will say, "Point to the specific language," and he has a point. I can't do that, because nowhere is it written, simply because it would be unthinkable. You wouldn't write a rule, because you would not have previously imagined the need for a rule to contemplate what happened yesterday, because what happened yesterday was a breach of good faith. What the government House leader has done today is back, in my view, within the rules.

So much of my concern around the future deliberations of the resources committee I think has been alleviated. Now the honourable member has been withdrawn from the committee and the government will presumably have seven members in the committee to do its bidding. When the nominations are put and the votes are taken, we will see what we will see.

But we will not have what we had yesterday, which is a member of the committee there properly -- and I want to take issue with something the government House leader said earlier today. The government House leader, who was not at the proceedings yesterday -- I understand why he wasn't there, but I happen to have been there from the beginning, and I will say this. Mr Kormos was there from the beginning. Mr Wilson arrived with colleagues well after 3:30, and after one of the government representatives quite properly -- well, I shouldn't say "quite properly"; let me withdraw that -- when a motion to recess for 20 minutes had been offered and accepted.

But I was a little struck by what the government House leader said earlier this afternoon. He left the impression -- I'll have to check Hansard, but he certainly gave the impression that Mr Wilson was there, properly substituted for, and Mr Kormos wasn't there or arrived later. I was there at 3:30, and I can tell you, Mr Kormos was there at the beginning of the proceedings. Mr Turnbull, the Conservative member for York Mills, put his name in nomination as a candidate for the Chair. Mr Kormos indicated shortly thereafter that he was willing to accept that nomination, and it was some time later that we heard that -- Mr Wilson, Kingston and The Islands, arrived, and it was some time after that that we found out that Mr Wilson was in fact being substituted for Mr Kormos, who was there, who was properly there, and who had already indicated at that point that he was willing to accept the direction of the House to do his duty, including standing for the chairmanship of the committee.

That's the point I ask members to think about. My point of order has to do with the rights of members to be seated in standing or select committees where they have been dispatched by order of the House. That's the issue I want people to think about.

For members who are so ordered, it's quite clear to me what the rules and the traditions of this place intend: If you're so ordered, you go to the committee, you accept your responsibility, and if you can't be there, standing order 110(b) or (c) -- I haven't got it right in front of me -- allows for substitution. But the substitution assumes good faith and it assumes that you can't be there, and together with your colleagues and your whip, you will arrange an appropriate substitution.

The rules and the traditions of this place have not had to and have not dealt with a situation where the member, so ordered by the House to be a member of the committee, arrives at the committee, indicates a willingness to do his or her duty and then is told, "You're being substituted for," apparently against your will, wish or judgement.

I said earlier and I will repeat that I have, I think, been involved in a situation. We've all had committees where people are busy. Often, members will be working perhaps two committees during the same week and they have to move back and forth. I would say as a -- dare I say it? -- now relatively senior member of this House, that if I were a Chair and my colleagues Caplan and Offer came to a committee where I was the Chair, Mrs Caplan was ordinarily a member of the committee and Mr Offer showed up with a substitution slip, as Chair, there would be no question in my mind of what I would do.

I would accept Mrs Caplan as the member of the committee because she is the member ordered by the House and I would assume that she and Offer or the Liberals just had a busy day, they had had a fight, they were not getting along. All I can ultimately go by is the order of the House, and the order under those conditions is that Mrs Caplan was ordered to be the member and yes, Mr Offer has come as a substitute on other occasions, but I'm only allowed to make a judgement consistent with the rules, and the rules say the House order is transcendant.

I just want to make it clear to my friends opposite and to my friends over here what my concern is. It is a parliamentary point that I speak to, and it has to do with the importance, the independence and the integrity of members. I would be furious if I thought I was there as a member and my leader or my whip tried to undermine me in a way that was discourteous at one level and unparliamentary at the other, because the people of Renfrew have sent me here and they have sent me with a mandate, and I come to a place that protects my electors in their right to have their views, through their member, heard.

It is one of the learned British parliamentary authorities who talks about what has happened in Westminster, how through what I think he called the tyranny of the House leaders and whips' panel we've now got to the politics of the foregone conclusion. We often think -- and I did as well; I sometimes do still, as a former government House leader -- that as long as the House leaders or the whips make a deal, that's all that is required. Well, we do make deals, and it helps expedite the business of this place, but our deals, such as they are, must accord with the standing orders and the traditions of Parliament.

I want to come back again to this motion. What we now have today, one week after the motion put by my friend the government House leader a week ago, which motion said and was concurred in unanimously, is that for purposes of this session, on the standing committee of resources development, one of the 11 members so nominated, so designated, was Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold. It appears that the government did not really wish to have Mr Kormos on that committee. Quite frankly, that is the government's business. I have a view, but that is just my view. The government has a right to nominate seven of its own to these committees, and we can all comment, but that's their view. But they put a motion and sought the support of the House, which they got unanimously, that for purposes of this committee, in this session of the 35th Parliament, Mr Kormos would be one of the members of that committee.

It is, as I say, clear that the government didn't really want Mr Kormos on that committee. That is their right, and I would simply submit to the House that any party or any group that so feels that it does not want a person who has been nominated to and has been a member of a standing committee -- any of us has the right to change his or her mind, and the standing orders anticipate that.

My point to the government House leader is, he ought to have done what he did today before he tried to do what he tried to do yesterday. Now, I know the government, and I have a lot of sympathy for government House leaders. They are busy, sometimes frazzled people, trying to run the House and trying to run important departments like treasury board and Education and Financial Institutions. But there is a right way and a wrong way, and what was attempted yesterday was the wrong way.

I still take the view -- and this is another issue, and I know the government House leader doesn't agree with me. I want to be clear about my friend the member for Sarnia. I think he's a very capable fellow. I can't believe I am the only person here who honestly thinks -- because I would like to think, if I were the parliamentary assistant for justice or the parliamentary assistant for Natural Resources or the parliamentary assistant for Comsoc, by accepting that additional responsibility, I am part of the outer circle of the executive council. I am, by any political science standard. You don't have to agree with me, but I think independent advice will clearly indicate that.

It just seems to me inconceivable that people don't see the conflict. I don't mean to question the motives of my friend from Sarnia, because I think his motives are very good, but it is clear to me, if you accept the notion of independent committees --

Mr White: We are saving the government $10,000.

Mr Conway: That's another one of my questions. The member for Durham Centre has helpfully relieved me of a concern I might have had, which is, is it possible for a parliamentary assistant and the Chairman of the committee to accept the two emoluments? I just assume the answer is no, and my friends opposite tell me so, and I am relieved, because that's what I would have expected.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): We're not the Liberal government; we're the NDP government.

Mr Conway: You are not the Liberal government. That is manifestly the case, I say to the member for Huron.

But my point on the second issue -- I speak only for myself, but I think many people would agree with me. There is a conflict of interest between a parliamentary assistant for government ministries in the resource field being Chairman of the standing committee on resources development. That is a point, I submit, and I've got to -- because I know what will happen. My friend is a good parliamentary assistant, and the day that his departmental estimates come before that committee, he's going to have to choose. I suspect that he will leave the chair. He can't be in both.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): He can't be impartial.

Mr Conway: Well, I don't think he can be impartial, but he can't be in both places. I guess it just troubles me a bit that some people don't see the conflict between those.

You know, there was a time in this place when honourable members, when they were elected to the Legislature -- there was a long time in this place and in the British system generally -- when an honourable member like my friend from Beaches, having won a good election from the electoral district of Beaches-Woodbine, came to Parliament as the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and if the first minister then asked Ms Lankin to join the executive council, the first thing she had to do was resign her seat and go back to the electors of Beaches-Woodbine to get a second sanction. There was clearly a recognition, and there is today, that there is a conflict between serving the King and serving the King's subjects in Parliament. That's what that whole ministerial by-election process was all about.

That's why today, for example, members of the cabinet are held to a higher standard of accountability and conduct than are honourable members. Your conflict-of-interest sanctions are tougher in cabinet and at the parliamentary assistant level than mine are as a private member, for a variety of reasons. Most people find this just to be ethereal, irrelevant political science, but I don't happen to believe it's entirely that.

We've got ourselves, on all sides in this place in recent years, into some real difficulty around conflict of interest. Some of them have been some of my best friends. Let me use a good friend of mine, Ms Joan Smith from London. When she went to that police station, she felt she was going as a private member in support of a constituent.

Interjection: What does that have to do with it?

Mr Conway: Well, I'm talking about conflict of interest. I was struck this afternoon by the number of people who just thought there was no possibility of a conflict between a parliamentary assistant for one of the resource area ministries being, at one and the same time as parliamentary assistant there, Chair of the standing committee on resources development. To me it is just so transparent that if I were government House leader I would certainly try to eliminate those possibilities. There's less of a concern, quite frankly, if the parliamentary assistant for justice is the Chair of the resources committee, for obvious reasons.

But back to my point. The government House leader this afternoon did what he ought to have done before yesterday, and what was attempted yesterday was inappropriate and wrong, and I just think we should observe that. I hope we don't see, any one of us -- I don't expect that after this case -- I was interested in what the Speaker had to say. I didn't have a chance to check the precedents, but I can't remember a situation quite like this before.

It is true, to be ecumenical in this, that governments of all kinds have moved to deal with difficult colleagues. The Tories did it, the Liberals did it and the New Democrats have done it. We used to say in the bad old days of endless Tory government around here that if you really wanted to shut up an obstreperous and recalcitrant Tory backbencher, you put them in the cabinet. That's the way it used to be done.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): That didn't always work.

Mr Conway: My friend for Leeds points out it didn't always work, but I make this point seriously because I think what was attempted yesterday was a serious breach.

I'll make one final comment about the politics, having regard to the fact that the political woodshed has been used by all political parties since this place started to do business over 100-and-some years ago.

The thing that struck me is that I actually came here a week ago fully expecting -- I was here when the government House leader read the list -- Mr Kormos not to be a member of the committee, because I was hearing through the place that the Ron Hansen woodshed was going to be warmed up by a couple of government members and that Mr Kormos, having had the effrontery of going down to that Queen's Landing with the brown paper bag lunch, had pushed the power in the New Democratic government over the line, beyond the brink.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Graceland.

Hon Mr Charlton: And that's the natural story.

Mr Conway: And my friend the government House leader, says, "And that's the story." I will say to my friends opposite, I heard the Premier's response to the member for St Catharines today and it was laughable. I say to my friend Ross McClellan, who is not here but I am sure marionetteer extraordinaire in these matters, "By your deeds ye shall be judged." I don't care what Bob Rae says, I am interested primarily in what Bob Rae does, and I see today the deed: Peter Kormos is being dumped from the resources development committee.

I simply say this in conclusion: The New Democrats under Bob Rae are incompetent in all things, including their vindictiveness.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Further debate on the government House leader's motion. The honourable member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'll be extremely brief, but I would just like to put a few points forward.

I was, in fact, as most members know, the person who suggested that Mr Kormos would be appropriate as the Chair of this committee, and for the sake of anybody who is following this debate who does not know the rules, each party is given a certain number of committees that they chair. We freely accept that. That is the way this House works and it is not unreasonable.

Mr Kormos was the Chair of this committee, the resources committee, during the last year or so. He has been a very able Chair of that committee. I have not always agreed with his rulings, but on balance I would say that he has been as fair as any committee Chair any of the parties have had. I have got no affection for his brand of politics and I make no apology for that. However, he has been fair and he has been a capable member.

The government started out by making the fatal mistake by putting him back on to this committee. It was their own choice that they made the motion last week to put him on this committee. The concept is that there is supposed to be a free election of the Chair of these committees by the members of the committees, albeit that it is understood that certain committees will be chaired by various parties. I have no problem with that. The fact is that yesterday made a myth out of that.

1550

I would suggest that if we are going to have these practices, let's be up front, because the electorate are fed up with all of this trickery that is vested on us, where we tell people that people will be freely elected and they are not, they are not, and yesterday made that very clear. We also saw that with Mr Hansen when he was bumped as an NDP committee Chair because he got a little bit out of line because he happened to want to do the right things for his constituents and disagree with the government. Well, I've got news for this government: A lot of people disagree with a lot of things that you're doing.

What happened yesterday was that we had a duly nominated person to sit on this committee, Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who arrived at that committee meeting, which was an organizational committee meeting, and the job was to elect a Chair. I nominated him in full knowledge that there would be an NDP Chair of that committee, and he had demonstrated that he was capable. He acknowledged that he was there and that he was prepared to serve, if elected, as Chair of that committee.

Another name was put forward, and that name was of somebody, Mr Huget, the member for Sarnia, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I would put it to you, that very clearly there is a clear conflict of interest in having a parliamentary assistant for a ministry that in fact will be coming before that committee for review.

Having done that, we went to a vote, but the government asked for a recess because it didn't have enough people there. In fact, even if they had all of their people there, if Mr Kormos voted for himself, as we had every indication he would, we would have had a split decision which would have been referred back to this assembly for a decision.

During the recess, which the government asked for and eventually received, another member arrived with a sub slip to sub Mr Kormos out of his position. This goes to the whole heart of this question. If a party has appointed somebody to a committee, he is a legitimate member of that committee. The whole concept of the House rules, as evidenced in standing order 110(c), the intent, is to be able to substitute people where the properly constituted member is not available to sit on that committee, not to pull the rug out from under his feet. In fact, the substitute arrived some 20 minutes later, Mr Speaker.

So what you have to consider in this decision is, is it fair that properly elected people who have been properly put on a committee should be told that they should shut up and that they are not allowed to speak on the committee which they have been appointed to? I would suggest that the answer clearly is no.

What is happening now is that the government is taking its lumps and is removing Mr Kormos, and it will indeed be able to do that. This is the proper procedure. Had they not put him on that committee in the first place, they would not have had these problems, but they failed to even think through their machiavellian schemes sufficiently to be able to do it properly, and once again the government has fallen on its own spears.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. Many conversations and interjections are happening. Order.

Mr Turnbull: There's no doubt about it, there is great agitation among the government because it realizes how foolish it looks.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: We have many conversations and we have interjections, all of which are out of order. The member for York Mills does have the floor. Please allow him to continue.

Interjection: Let's create some jobs in this province.

Mr Turnbull: I hear one of the NDP shouting across the floor, "Let's create some jobs in this province.'' I could not think of a better thing to say. Let's create some jobs in this province instead of wasting your time tying up the Legislature with this stupidity that you brought forward, where a very able committee Chair is not able to take the seat. Instead, you want to have one of your other people in, who will do the bidding of the government.

It seems that we have hit a few notes here. I will just mention that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is not finished in this committee, and it would seem reasonable that the person who was chairing that committee, for the continuity, should continue. However, that is not to be, because we know that once the government moves this motion, it will succeed. However, we are still left with the rather troubling proposition that a member who is put on to a committee is removed unceremoniously by somebody else, even though that member wishes to vote, and this is called the New Democratic Party. That is a laugh, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. I want to remind all members who want to participate that they will have the opportunity. Further debate.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I rise to speak on this, knowing that there are any number of other people who may well address it. There are any number of people here today and perhaps watching or listening who are going to disagree with me. There are any number of people who aren't going to like a bit what I've got to say, anything more than they've liked a bit what I've had to say over the last couple of years about what's been happening here in the province of Ontario, what's been happening in my government.

I come today saddened, not looking forward to the type of conflict this will inevitably generate, recognizing that I know full well that the Premier could put people in or out of cabinet. That's the Premier's prerogative. I know that as well as anybody in this Legislature ever has and ever will.

I know full well that being appointed a parliamentary assistant -- and I don't envy parliamentary assistants; I don't aspire to that -- again is at the pleasure of the Premier, and know full well that by virtue of how committees are formed under the standing orders, in effect there's control thereby as to whether or not one can be Chair of a committee. For instance, if a government member is appointed by government motion to a committee that has, by the rules, an opposition Chair, it's inevitable that this person won't become a Chair of that committee, notwithstanding that she or he might have support from any number of members in the committee.

Although I'm in or out of cabinet at the pleasure of the Premier, although I'm in or out of a parliamentary assistantship or a committee position by virtue of the Premier, the Premier's office or the people who work under his direction, I'll tell you this: I'm here in this Parliament by virtue of the people who voted for me in Welland-Thorold.

I tell you I'm as partisan as anybody could be here, and I haven't been here a whole long time. This is my second term, and I was proud to have served in the opposition. Reflecting upon some of the things that have transpired over the last couple of years, I've similarly reflected on some of the things that I've done in opposition. So be it.

There have been times when I have sat here during question period and expressed, sometimes amazement, other times mere pleasure at some of the questions that have been asked, and my amazement and my pleasure have been misinterpreted as some sort of gesture of treason on my part by my seatmates, many of whom did not have the pleasure of sitting with me in opposition.

I come here as a person who's been a New Democrat for almost a quarter of a century now and a person who continues to be one and a person who continues very much to believe in what New Democrats have always believed in, and I hope continue to believe in, not just in terms of substance and in terms of policies and particular issues but in terms of how things are supposed to happen and how things work.

1600

I'm pleased to announce that I come here as a representative of a riding that has the largest New Democratic Party membership of any riding in the province of Ontario as of April 1, 1993. I come here as a proud successor to Mel Swart, who sat in this Legislative Assembly for 13 years. Unlike some of the other people in this assembly who have at times purported to speak for Mel, I wouldn't purport to speak for Mel. He's quite capable of doing that himself. But I can tell you this: The concern that I have about what's been happening in the last couple of years is reinforced by the fact that Mel expresses the very same sorts of concerns.

But of course Mel's an old man. He's a retired MPP. As recently as this morning, on a radio interview show here in Toronto, Mel was castigated by a prominent New Democrat for basically not knowing what he was talking about, you see, because it was pointed out that Mel had never sat with government. He doesn't know what it's really like.

Hogwash. In his 30-some years of political life, Mel was the leader of his community, the leader of the township of Thorold for over a decade. He knows full well what it means to be in government. Mel Swart was a member of regional council for a number of years -- in government. He knows full well what it means to lead government and to be in power and have to make decisions and to have to stand by your convictions and to have to be as inclusive as possible.

Were it not for the principle involved here, and knowing full well that this motion is going to pass because the government has sufficient members to make it happen, I might, under other circumstances, be inclined to vote for this motion. That's the will of the Premier's office. One way or another they're going to remove me from the standing committee on resources development, and that's fine. But let's talk for a minute about what's really at stake here and let's talk about what some of the problems may be.

I've been under a whole lot of fire from a whole lot of caucus colleagues, and indeed some people in the New Democratic Party, who don't like what I say. Please, don't shoot the messenger. I'm not making these things up. I'm just telling you what people are telling me when I go back to Welland-Thorold or when I go to other communities in Ontario. People are concerned. People like Howard Pawley are concerned, because in an April 3, 1993, Windsor Star article he expresses real concern about what this government is doing and the role of the New Democratic Party. I share Howard Pawley's concern.

But then again he's an old man too and he's retired, and there are people around who would prefer not to listen to the old men, or women, the ones who built the New Democratic Party, the ones who built the base in this province, like Mel Swart, for this government to ever be elected as it was in September 1990. Like the people, the members of my riding association, the largest number of members in a New Democratic Party riding association in any riding in all of Ontario, I'm horribly proud of those people.

Now I've got to acknowledge that I haven't been a very good caucus member. I haven't been. I don't know how to bowl. I'm not going to join the five-pin bowling league that the memo from Fred Wilson tried to promote last week. I'm not going to bowl in the five-pin bowling league. I'm not going to don pom-poms and go into a cheerleading routine. But I tell you, I'm going to do what I can to make sure that the integrity of this House, this Legislature, is (1) restored and (2) maintained.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): How about debate the hard issues at caucus?

Mr Kormos: Don't talk to me about caucus. A sham. Consultation? Give me a break. As often as not -- more often than not -- it's a matter of cabinet reporting to the caucus what's going to happen.

Mr Sutherland: How would you know? You're not there.

Mr Kormos: Indeed, when I show up at a caucus retreat, after having boycotted one, I generate more ire than I did by being absent.

I tell you, there's clearly an effort now, after yesterday's scenario, a fracas some might call it, in the resources development committee -- there are going to be people who are going to stand, as was said earlier in the House, they're going to suggest that somehow I had acquiesced to that.

Let me tell you, there was a meeting. Yes, there was a meeting last Tuesday, the day the House passed the motion creating the standing committees and appointing the membership to them. There was a meeting with the caucus chair, the House leader, the government whip and myself. I was invited to attend this meeting. Indeed, there were a series of meetings. If I remember correctly, they didn't exceed three.

Of course, the meeting was very cordial and it took place with people, some of whom I had worked with while in opposition and admired. The meeting opened on a cordial tone and one that was frank and candid. Then the House leader had to leave and indeed the whip after, as I indicated earlier today when the point of order of the member for Renfrew North was being spoken to -- the whip indicated that he wasn't going to have me as Chair of his resources development committee any more, a most interesting proposition in view of the fact that only moments earlier the government House leader had moved a motion appointing me to the standing committee on resources development. And I got to tell you, I've enjoyed being a Chair of that committee.

Mr Bradley: And you've done a good job.

Mr Kormos: Well, whether I've done a good job or not is at this point in time not particularly relevant. I would like to think I've done a good job. I'd like to think I've defended the objectivity and the role of a Chair as a detached, impartial person overseeing the conduct of meetings. And, you see, I was assured by the whip that this wasn't punishment, this wasn't discipline. I was assured by the whip. Now you wonder where cynicism about politicians comes from? I was assured by the whip that this wasn't discipline or punishment.

See, the problem with that whole concept -- and this government didn't create that attitude. It's an attitude that's been inherited through a succession of governments and, I tell you, that's unfortunate. People expect this government to change some of the traditional attitudes around here. People have a high expectation of us to do things differently than they were done before.

What concerns me is that in so many respects we're more alike previous governments than we are different from them. That bothers me a great deal because I think that in September 1990 people made choices about a whole lot of things, but also about what they expected of their government in terms of style and attitude.

What was twice as remarkable was when I telephoned the House leader after that meeting to tell him of this remarkable information which was only revealed to me at the close of the meeting by the whip -- assured by the whip that it wasn't punishment or discipline -- the House leader explained to me that of course it was punishment or discipline; it couldn't be seen as anything otherwise.

Well, punishment or discipline to what end? If push came to shove -- well, long before push came to shove -- I got to tell you, I do what I do because I enjoy doing it and, if it's a matter of earning a living, just like most of the other people here in this legislative chamber, there are a lot of other ways to earn a living and some of us will be obliged to investigate those before others.

But I tell you, I very much like being a member of this Legislative Assembly. I very much like speaking on behalf of the people of Welland-Thorold and, because parochialism isn't the sole function of a member of the Legislature, one also has to address issues. I think one of the issues that has to be addressed and should be being addressed by members of this Legislative Assembly -- because you can talk about, well, let's deal with the jobs and the economy, but if Parliament doesn't work and if its committees don't work, you're not going to start to address the problems like jobs and the economy. You're not going to start to utilize the talent that sits not only here in the government caucus but in the opposition caucuses as well.

If we don't overcome some of the partisanship, we're not going to start addressing jobs and the economy meaningfully. If we don't start being more candid about how we conduct business, jobs and the economy are going to continue to suffer. The economy will continue to burn while we proverbially fiddle. I'll tell you, if people aren't concerned about what happens in the Legislature and what happens in committees, they'd better start getting concerned.

1610

Pierre Trudeau some time ago said that a backbencher, once she or he was 15 minutes away from Parliament Hill, was a nobody. But I'll tell you, what's happened is that a backbencher here at Queen's Park, as time has passed and increasingly so, is a nobody even when sitting in her or his seat here in the Legislative Assembly, because debates become and continue to become meaningless.

Debates are not a matter of persuasiveness, they're not a matter of presenting facts, they're not a matter of exchanging views, but they're a matter of reading scripted, spin-doctored, $1,000-a-day consultanted speeches. As often as not, they're not very good, and sadly they tend to be -- I suppose there's one place where the 3Rs or 4Rs are being utilized, and as often as not they tend to be recycled. That's the magic of PCs and word processors. Just change the dates and change some of the names.

Am I happy about the committee process? Not at all. Am I sad for the people and organizations that invest a whole lot of energy, oftentimes money, into preparing to make presentations to these committees? You bet your boots I am. Am I concerned about it? All the more so. Do I see it as something significant? Yes. Because if only we'd get out of our limousines -- well, I don't have one -- and talk to the people who put us here, we'd be a heck of a lot closer to solving the problems that we face as a province and as a country.

If we'd listen to the people who came to committees and respond to them, we'd be a lot closer to developing legislation that addresses in a far more accurate way than it has and that it does presently, because the bottom line is that committee votes are whipped. Committee votes are whipped ferociously and sometimes embarrassingly.

Why, when Mel Swart, the former member for Welland-Thorold and, I tell you, one of the people who constitute the foundation of the New Democratic Party and the social democratic movement in this province and in this country and a person who has more experience in this Legislature than almost anybody here now and certainly more than the vast majority of people here now, appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs -- and again we're not talking about somebody who had ever appeared before the committee before. We're talking about somebody who developed a very thoughtful and provocative brief and somebody who was more experienced with the issue than any member in this Legislature or any member who has ever been in this Legislature, and it took an opposition member to seek consent from the committee for Mel to answer but one more round of questions; just one more round of questions.

It was an opposition member who proposed that -- the Chair, and the Chair was the member for Lincoln. It was an opposition member who proposed that, and when it was put to a recorded vote -- I'm not sure that was entirely appropriate, but far be it from me to criticize another Chair -- as it was, there were four opposition members present, all of whom voted in support of Mel continuing, and Mel was talking about things like public auto insurance, anathema to most of the opposition members, and making a very effective argument for public auto and prepared to take on any one of you on the issue of public versus private.

Now that betting is okay in Ontario, I'd have put my money on Mel. But it was the six government members in unison who said nay but who then purported, when the TV cameras were outside filming Mel leaving the committee room, to be oh such intimates with him, not literally but quite figuratively grabbing him by the ankles, looking up, making sure that the camera captured them in the presence of Mel Swart.

What does the public see when they see that type of committee process? What do the people see and understand when they go to a committee and make intelligent and constructive and meaningful contributions and when they find the door shut in their faces? And what do they say when they see votes whipped in committee?

Look, I understand why votes have to be whipped here in the assembly. Governments stand or fall and there are times when there's legislation that's part of a legislative initiative that's so publicized that the government is compelled to whip its members to support it. But surely if committees are going to be meaningful and surely if there's so little freedom -- because there is so little freedom because of time allocation and its increasingly frequent use in the Legislature, because of the restriction on speeches to 30 minutes, something that I personally decry. The process in the Legislature is not particularly effective. There's simply no dispute about that. There can be no real debate about that. It's not particularly effective.

These are show hearings that would make Pravda proud, and we know it. We know what goes on in the Legislative Assembly. There are whipped votes and there are scripted speeches. People show up when they're told to show up, and if they don't show up, there are going to be sanctions, and once again that gets back to the issue of discipline.

I can think of some things that would be discipline. I'm thinking of horrible consequences, most of which I've never had to face in my lifetime, the way I read about in some of the John Grisham novels that I'm inclined to read. But what's the message here? The message is, "Okay, I won't earn the extra stipend of a Chair." Once again, I understand that. If that was the issue, I tell you now, I'd prepare to chair and waive the stipend. I tell you that, and perhaps there should be some consideration to eliminating the stipends for Chairs. But I tell you now, I'd be prepared to chair and waive the stipend. But can I be a member of a committee and can I be expected to vote in accordance with the instructions of a committee whip? No.

You see, I did tell the party whip, in my conversation with him, that if I wasn't Chair of resources development, don't bother putting me on any other committee, because you can't trust me to vote in accordance with what I'm told to vote. I'm going to vote in accordance with what I hear and with what my judgement tells me to do in response to submissions that are being made, which means that a whole lot of times I'll vote with the government, but more than the occasional time I'll be voting with the opposition, because the opposition are as capable of presenting meaningful amendments to a bill as anybody else is. The opposition are capable of representing the interests of any number of constituencies as well as anybody else is.

To suggest, as the House was told earlier, that I had somehow manoeuvred myself into a position where I had acquiesced, is, I tell you once again -- and I use this word cautiously -- nothing than mere pettifoggery.

I received a letter April 22 from the whip that said -- thank goodness it didn't say "Dear Pete"; I would have gotten nervous. It said, "Dear Peter." I would have been even less nervous if it had said "Dear Mr Kormos," but:

"Dear Peter:

"As per our conversations Tuesday and today, for at least the next two weeks I will be substituting another member in your place on the standing committee on resources development."

Hon Mr Charlton: It says "few weeks."

Mr Kormos: I've been corrected.

Interjection: You need glasses, Peter.

Mr Kormos: I do need my glasses.

"For at least the next few weeks, I will be substituting another member...and invite you to meet with me again in a few weeks to discuss committee work for the remainder of the session."

I was given that because I told the whip, when he tried to talk to me, that my trust level had really declined, that if people were going to communicate with me, do it in writing. Maybe relationships would be a lot more amicable over here if that had been done more often in the past.

1620

But, I tell you, at no point did I ever suggest -- indeed, to the contrary -- that I did not want to be the Chair of that committee. I made it quite clear that I very much wanted to be the Chair of the committee and that the Chair was unwise to put me on a committee as a non-Chair because I would only embarrass him and the government because I could not be counted upon to vote consistently with the government just because it was the government being whipped to vote that particular way, because I think that's -- Look, I appreciate there's a sense of betrayal among my colleagues. They somehow think that makes me a bad New Democrat, and they're entitled to their opinion. But you know, the bottom line is, once again, I'm here not because of my colleagues. I'm not here because of any one of the 74 people, 73 other than myself, who ran as New Democrats successfully back in 1990. I'm here because the people of Welland-Thorold, and again, for as many reasons as one could imagine, elected me to represent them at Queen's Park.

Oh, and I intend to run in the next election, when there is one, and I hope I get re-elected. I hope I do, and I hope I get re-elected on the basis of my performance in the Legislature and in the community, and I can only say I've done my best.

Have I been less than co-operative with some of my colleagues? Yes. Of course I have. That's my job and I'm paid reasonably well for it and I intend to keep on doing it. That's my job.

Do I have concern about the quality of what takes place around here? You bet your boots. Once again, you bet your boots I do. And will I do what I can to change it? Of course I will. Will I be successful? Maybe not. Probably not. Until there are some real changes in attitude, this place is going to become less and less capable of responding to the problems we face as a community, as a province and indeed as a country.

You know, I'm bothered by the fact that committees become less and less effective. I mean, they're not designed to elicit information. The fact that we've fallen into the trap of creating 30-minute time slots -- 15 minutes for your presentation, a mere 15 minutes for questioning, perhaps once, perhaps twice around the table -- illustrates that. They're not designed to elicit commentary. They're designed once again to constitute show trials, performances for the public, and I tell you, the public don't buy it. They don't buy it.

I tell you, the public is even less enthusiastic about the fact that most of those committees don't start until 1:30 in the afternoon on Monday and then end on Thursday, and people wonder: What happened to Monday morning? What happened to Friday? What happened to the evenings?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Maybe seven days a week we should sit.

Mr Kormos: What happened to those things, because we're not talking about anybody here who is particularly ill-paid.

Interjection: What about Friday?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Twenty-four hours a day.

Mr Lessard: You've got to meet with those people who voted for you.

Mr Kormos: I accept the fact that that's an uncomfortable proposition to a whole lot of people. But I tell you, I am adamant -- adamant -- that people in the community aren't pleased about how Parliament works, about how the committee works.

I'm not going to be a member of the resources development committee. I'm not going to be the Chair of the resources development committee. And again, I serve notice now, as I did personally to the whip, don't put me on any other committee, for risk of having a member, as I will, who will vote according to what I believe is right and who will vote according to what the people present to that committee and will try to give effect to the committee process.

Discipline? You know, there was an appreciative no end to the press who highlighted the effort on the part of caucus, and again the rumours were rampant, to either throw me and some of my colleagues out of caucus or at the very least to muzzle us, and, as I say, the press scrutiny of that had no small part in ensuring that I remained in caucus. I've been able to joke since then that there were unsuccessful efforts to muzzle me but I have had to show up for my distemper shots.

One of the problems is that maybe the pomposity that permeates the Legislative Assembly and the people who purport to serve here is our most dangerous enemy. I'm lucky because I get to go home every weekend to Welland-Thorold and I get to talk to the people in Welland-Thorold who stop me in the supermarket or stop me at the farmers' market or come up to my front porch or in the back yard, what have you, and who don't hesitate to tell me what they think, and who know that they can be critical of what had happened here the last week without me becoming overly defensive and engaging in argument with them and spouting pre-scripted lines with a view only to try to impress them.

There is very much the attitude that "everybody's wrong but us." Mel Swart, Howard Pawley: wrong because they don't understand, they don't get it. Well, I tell you, the Mel Swarts of Ontario and the Howard Pawleys of Canada have a far better handle than probably any of us on either side of this Legislature ever will have.

I know there's going to be an attempt to discredit me as a result of the fracas yesterday. I understand that. You don't take shots without getting shots back and I've taken a few body blows in my lifetime and proverbially here, but I haven't been knocked out yet. I look forward to the next two and a half years because, as a New Democrat who was very proud to get elected in 1990 -- I was a New Democrat who worked in a few other ridings during the course of that election to help others get elected -- I was enthusiastic about the prospects for this government, and I'm as enthusiastic now knowing the quality and the potential that exists in this Legislature, not only in this caucus but in the two opposition caucuses, and I look forward to a day when they can work together meaningfully and cooperatively.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Unfortunately, the Lieutenant Governor is coming to my riding and I have to go and meet him. Otherwise I would stay here and vote against the government motion, but I just want to make that indication.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on the government House leader's motion: the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this extremely important debate this afternoon on the structure of committees and I appreciate that the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has shown a degree of independence in this House which is quite to be noted and certainly to be envied by many and to be applauded by many, has indicated clearly that he would have been voting in opposition to this particular motion were he able to be present. One understands, when the Lieutenant Governor is in one's constituency, that it is appropriate to welcome the Lieutenant Governor. But I certainly appreciate his letting us know how he intended to vote on this particular motion.

It is interesting that this could have been avoided from a strictly government point of view, managerial point of view, had the government in the first place not made what it would consider to be a mistake by making this change last week when the committees were originally struck. As a result they have had to try to manoeuvre in a way which has been duly noted by members of the opposition as being less than desirable in trying to manoeuvre the member for Welland-Thorold out of his position as a member of the resources development committee and specifically as the Chair of that committee.

One might wonder why members of the opposition would be prepared to move that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, be in fact a member of that committee and the Chair of that committee. The reason is the record of the member as the Chair of the committee. While one may disagree from time to time with the pronouncements and policies of the member for Welland-Thorold, as members of the committee did, he was nevertheless well respected as a person who is prepared to be fair and impartial to all members of the opposition and the government and, at the same time, to bring that sense of fairness to the committee deliberations as they relate to people making presentations who are not members of that committee. For that reason, the member for York Mills was prepared to nominate him and the member for Mississauga North was prepared to second that nomination. Certainly the opposition members were prepared to see Mr Kormos retained as the Chair of that committee.

1630

Now, it's quite obvious that the Premier -- and I indicated this, I think, in my question to the Premier this afternoon -- is prepared to brook no dissent within his own caucus over any item. The Premier got up in the supplementary question with his bravado and his shouting because he was following the old dictum, "When in doubt, shout," and tried to indicate that somehow I was instructing him to put Mr Kormos back in the committee.

You have been here long enough, Mr Speaker, to know that virtually all of the decisions that come from this government emanate from the corner office -- that is, the Office of the Premier -- and you can be certain that the orders to dismiss Mr Kormos from the committee, to deduct $10,000 off his pay as a result of dismissing him as Chair of the committee, in fact came from the Office of the Premier and his chief advisers and that the chief government whip and the House leader are simply doing the bidding of the Premier of this province.

That's most unfortunate, because what it does is it follows a pattern. My friend and colleague the member for Lincoln, Mr Hansen, dared to vote in 1991 against a tax which he felt would be detrimental to the people he represented. In other words, he was going to represent in the Legislature, through his vote, the people who had put him there instead of simply following the instructions of the chief government whip of the day. His punishment was similar to the punishment that is being meted out to the member for Welland-Thorold by the Premier. That punishment was to have him removed from the committee, to lose close to $10,000 in pay and to lose the kind of influence that a committee Chair has. That was most unfortunate on that occasion.

I note that the member for Welland-Thorold previously was removed from the justice committee, I think in 1991. What was the reason? What did he do wrong? He espoused the point of view that the New Democratic Party has espoused over the years and that he promised his constituents, and that was that he would be opposed to Sunday shopping. Then, when the Premier completely abandoned that position and left everything wide open, the member for Welland-Thorold was prepared to indicate to the public his disappointment with the decision of the government to do that. For this, he was turfed from that committee and someone who was more compliant was placed on the committee to vote as the Premier wished to see the vote.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton, who I believe is an independent-minded individual who isn't simply prepared to accept the dictates of the chief government whip, those dictates coming from the Office of the Premier, on issues such as casino gambling, which he feels very strong about, in this particular situation was sitting in the Chair, and made a decision to allow Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, to continue on speaking the next day just a little while longer to be fair to the opposition, and was subsequently mugged by the then House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, Mr Cooke, who decided that this was not to be. He was forced to go back on his word as a result; that is, Mr Drainville was forced to go back on his word at the dictate of the House leader. Again, the House leader gets his orders from the Premier's office.

We see a pattern being established in this government, a pattern which suggests that there shall be no dissent among members of the government caucus. If they are compliant, they will be suitably rewarded with parliamentary secretaryships and with the special positions in the cabinet -- "You're not a cabinet minister; you are a cabinet minister"; I haven't figured out what those positions are -- and you are also allowed to go on certain trips. I remember that being stated. So I express concern, when I see a motion of this kind coming forward, that a member who has bucked the trend has been the person who has been turfed from a committee.

I know his predecessor. I know him well. I respected him. I attended his retirement dinner and spoke well of him on that evening. He is also concerned, and he had to say on the weekend -- it was in yesterday's St Catharines Standard -- "Those of us who have been in the NDP for many, many years thought our party would do things differently." He was referring to rank-and-file New Democrats "who are disillusioned with Premier Rae's decision to axe $4 billion in government spending to fight the deficit."

Now this is what Mel Swart has to say, and Mel Swart is a very independent-minded individual as well, but one who has fought for the NDP causes over the years. That's why he is so respected.

Another person had something to say about this, and this was Rob Martin. He's a law professor at the University of Western Ontario and was a candidate for the federal NDP in 1979-80. I don't want to read the whole article -- no need to read the whole article, because I'm trying to be brief this afternoon -- but I'll read certain excerpts that I think are relevant to this debate. He said the following:

"The Rae government has betrayed its party and its party principles and the people who have supported that party. He and his government have abandoned all pretence of acting on behalf of ordinary men and women."

He goes on to say, and this is a New Democrat saying this: "No government has so rigorously and so effectively politicized the province's public service. Ontario once had a public service we could be proud of, but today loyalty to Rae and his party and its ideology is more important than competence. People of questionable ability have been recruited and promoted. Morale is said to be low."

He goes on to say one more thing, this member of the New Democratic Party, this former candidate for the New Democratic Party: "The real culprit has been arrogance. Rae and his government simply do not believe the rules or traditions of our political system apply to them, and in manifesting this arrogance, Rae and his ministers have done enormous damage to the legitimacy of our institutions.

"The survival of democratic institutions is not automatic. We have no special historical guarantee as Canadians that we will always enjoy democratic government. Democratic government demands politicians who respect the institutions temporarily placed in their care. It demands politicians who realize that these institutions are more important than they and their egos, but Robert K. Rae, throughout his political career, has been guided solely by his ego."

Now, I didn't say this; I'm not the person saying this. This is Rob Martin, University of Western Ontario professor and NDP candidate in 1979 and 1980, who has become disillusioned.

I mentioned I did not want to take a great deal of the House's time on this particular debate. I simply want to say that I think it's ill-advised that simply because Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, is so independent-minded, is prepared to espouse NDP traditional policies and is prepared to stand up for those things that he thought for during the election campaign, that the price he should pay is the $10,000 in pay and being turfed from the position of Chair of the resources development committee. I would hope that fairminded and independent-minded members of the government caucus would in fact vote against this motion and would stand up for the traditions of this Parliament and for the independence of individual members who have been elected by their constituents to respond to the viewpoints and the desires of their constituents and not to the mandarins who occupy the Premier's office.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, this particular debate centres around membership on committee. Obviously, the debate itself has taken on greater proportions. The proportions were enunciated, I think rather clearly, by the member for Welland-Thorold.

It's not just a question of who can sit on which committee any more. It becomes a question of government and how governments work. Not having been in government, I can't offer any insight as to how the specific workings of the government would be different than in opposition, but I know full well they are.

The workings of a government are not much different from an opposition, I would think, because governments are controlled by a group of people who are at the top, and those people at the top keep people in line by parcelling off money in short terms, money being chairmanships and Deputy Chairs and so on and so forth.

1640

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It's amazing your soul can be bought for that.

Mr Stockwell: The suggestion across the floor is, "It's amazing your soul can be bought for that." Well, I'll tell you frankly right now that I've never had a Chairman's job, a Vice-Chairman's job. In fact, other than my base salary, I've never taken a nickel out of this place more than a base salary as an MPP, so I can honestly say that I haven't been bought.

That is how the process works, and then that control comes from the top, and if you toe the party line and you vote the way you're supposed to vote and there's discipline, you're rewarded. But that's how it works everywhere, I guess. That's how it works in business, that's how it works in the union shops around this province and that's how it works in the Legislature.

The difficulty you have here is that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, is a symptom. He's a symptom of not just this Legislature; he's a symptom of the people today. On Peter Kormos's speech that he made today, there would be a majority of people out there who would support that sentiment, a majority of people in all our ridings who would support that sentiment. Why? Because that's what the people think. The people think that we're ineffective, that this is a charade, that committees are stacked, that votes are whipped and that what they say doesn't matter.

I'm not going to suggest that any government --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: -- and I look to the member for Oxford and say very clearly that I'm not saying it's just your government or it was just the previous government; it was governments before that and before that and before that. The only difficulty is that what this symptom, Mr Kormos, is saying that the people of this province have changed in the last number of decades. They've changed the way they think, they've changed the way they believe in their elected officials and they've changed the way they like to see the process work. The only difficulty is that this place hasn't changed, this process hasn't changed and the doling out of the perks of this job hasn't changed.

Today, it reaches a pinnacle for this government. Why it reaches a pinnacle for this government is that this was the government of change. This was the government that was going to make a difference. This was the government that had the ideas in opposition that could be implemented in power that would change the process and put faith back in the people about the democracy they live in. The sad commentary is that they're no worse than previous governments when it comes to doling these things out. I say to you, you're no worse.

Mrs Caplan: They're worse.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Oriole says you're worse. I don't believe you are. I don't believe you're any worse. The difference is that you were supposed to be better.

Mr Kormos, standing here today, proves that you've got a family fight that's now public, a family fight that's public for everyone to view. What's clear is that it's not just Mr Kormos.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton took great lengths now to say: "I'm a problem child as well. I've got problems with my family.'' I'm certain the member from Hamilton, Mr Morrow, would obviously stand up too and say: "I also have problems with my family. I don't agree with what you're doing.''

What happens today with this problem child they have in this family is, "We're going to whip you into line, and if you don't get into line, you're out.'' What do you take from these people? You're no different as socialists than Liberals or Conservatives. What do they take from people to get them back into line? Money. That's what they take. Money, because that's the motivation. So they pull back in the $9,800 you get as a Chair. The only way you can't control people is when you find out that somebody can't be controlled by money. That story that was read by the member from St Catharines was a story that I read and I thought exactly the same. That's exactly what this government has become.

Mr Sutherland: Which one was that?

Mr Stockwell: I don't a copy of it, but I'm certain it will be forwarded over to you.

But the question's still asked, how do they control the members who aren't going to toe the party line? That's by controlling their remuneration. I see the story is up here right now. I just will quote it, "Robert K. Rae, QC, should resign," by Rob Martin, who ran for the federal NDP in the 1979-80 election.

What the problem is here -- and I want to get back to the first point -- and what I want to get to here is that this whole province has changed; the people have changed; their attitudes have changed; the debates that are out there have changed. We haven't changed. If anyone can stand here and honestly argue with the member for Welland-Thorold that the committees are legitimate, working parts of this government, you should have a brain scan, because it is nothing more than partisan, parochial points scored by each party that sits at these committees.

The joke of it all is that we sit there as opposition members, we know what the vote is before the vote is taken, and we sit there through this charade. If I had my way, we would boycott them all, for heaven's sake, because nothing is gained in these committee hearings, nothing at all.

I sat through a committee meeting when I first got here. I first got here, I sat on a committee, government agencies, and the job of this committee was to vet and interview government appointments to certain boards and commissions.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I remember your question. It was the same one over and over again.

Mr Stockwell: Well, at least I'll be remembered for something here. I remember that committee, and that committee was supposed to vet government appointments. The newness was incredible, the newness from the members from the government party. They were oozing purity and oozing the sense of fairness and, "We're going to vet these appointments," and everybody said at the time, "It's a charade."

Mr Sutherland: But it isn't.

Mr Stockwell: "It isn't." See, there are still some who are so new who are still saying it's not a charade. Not a single appointment has ever been turned down. But again, I don't want to blame this government. It's not just your fault. It's our fault collectively, and governments before us. It's all our faults for letting this get to such a state of disrepair that committees meet, deputations are made by citizens and not one government member is willing to vote in favour of the most sensible and reasonable request from the general public.

Well, why the hell wouldn't they be cynical if they can't even get heard at a committee hearing? Why wouldn't they be cynical? Of course they're cynical when governments come forward and put forward recommendations and bills that have a multiplicity of changes to them, that have amendments upon amendments numbering in the hundreds -- hundreds -- but they won't hear what is being asked of them at committee.

The sad commentary is that this government then goes in and whips a vote at committee. Well, if you can't have a free vote at committee, if you can't let the people who are sitting there hearing the concerns make up their own minds, why did you strike the committee? What's the point?

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): At least it's better than 42 years of Tories.

Mr Stockwell: The comment comes from the member for Cochrane North, "At least it's better than 42 years of Tories." I guess this argument is obviously a little deep for this member. I'm not trying to point out that any government did it any differently. I'm saying we all did it the same way. We are all guilty of this system.

Mr Sutherland: I don't think it's as bad.

Mr Stockwell: Well, the member from Oxford says they don't think it's --

Interjection: It's worse.

Mr Stockwell: Look, there are obviously some who I won't convince. There may not be one soul on the opposite benches that I can convince, not one. Maybe this is a waste of time as well, but if the members opposite truly want me to believe that they think for themselves, that they honestly believe what they're doing is reasoned and logical, you'd have to think that at some point in two and a half years, for 73 members, somebody, somewhere, would have said, "I don't think that's a good idea," and somebody, somewhere, in two and a half years, out of 74 people, would have stood up and said: "That's not a good idea. I'm voting against this government."

1650

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Ron Hansen did it and look what happened to him.

Mr Stockwell: Ron Hansen did it and he was whipsawed. Somebody, some time, must have had that thought.

It reminds me of the discussion. They said, "There's 74 of us or there's two, and the two of us always agree on everything." If you show me two people who absolutely agree on everything, I'll show you one person doing all the thinking and that's what we have over here. We've got one person doing all the thinking.

Today we had the member for Welland-Thorold. Let's be frank about this. Let's be frank and upfront about this. Why was this motion brought forward today?

Mr Wood: I don't know why.

Mr Stockwell: I might explain it to you. Ask the whip, ask the House leader. Why was this brought forward today? Because you couldn't get Mr Kormos off the committee. You couldn't get him not to stand for Chair. You can give me all this pap. Everybody could see through that; it's plate glass. You want him off the committee because he's causing you problems.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Sometimes I think -- no, I won't say it. The obvious reason is to get Mr Kormos off the committee -- that's the simple fact -- because he's embarrassing the government. He's embarrassing the government because he doesn't believe in auto insurance, the program that you've brought in; he believes in government-run auto insurance. He also believes there shouldn't be Sunday shopping. He also believes there shouldn't be casino gambling. He also believes in a whole bunch of things that I thought you people believed in.

The difficulty this government is faced with is the person who stood up and made that speech is your conscience; it's your conscience. It's standing before you, making a speech that you could have made 150 times on this side of the House. That's the problem you have. The problem is your conscience won't go away. The problem is you can't buy your conscience off with a $10,000 committee chairmanship. The other problem is that you said you were different. Those are the problems that you face and those are the problems that confront you today.

So if all these members across the floor vote with the government, just remember: there but for the grace of God -- because one of these days, maybe in two years, when this whole government may be going down the drain, one of you members may decide: "Maybe Ron Hansen was right; maybe he should have voted that way. Maybe Mr Wiseman was right; maybe he shouldn't have had a garbage dump put in his backyard. Maybe some of these members were correct; maybe I should have voted against the government when I had an opportunity." And then it's gone. The opportunity has left you. You have no opportunity to change it.

The Environment minister's here. It's a lovely coat. It's very nice. What did you do with the rest of the curtains?

When that time comes, it's going to be too late, because you're bought in. You're bought into the process, you're bought into your chairmanships, you're bought into your deputy chairmanships, you're bought into your parliamentary assistants. You're bought in. You're part of the problem. You're all part of the problem.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Part of the process.

Mr Stockwell: No, no. Now they say they're part of the process. You never liked the process. You didn't like the process. You were going to be different. You were going to change the process. You haven't changed the process at all. Your party discipline is maybe even more extreme than previous governments'. Your party discipline is more public, that's for sure.

You haven't changed the process at all. We still go to committee, you guys get the party line, they whip the vote, they count the heads and the opposition loses. You haven't changed the process at all; you've institutionalized the process. You've taken the process to an art form when it comes to publicly humiliating members of your caucus who dare step out of line. You've taken this process --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: And don't tell me if I want to be the government I've got to do the same thing. Wrong. That's wrong. You don't have to do the same thing. Maybe the next election the people will finally get the message through that the way this thing works today doesn't work; the way they see it going forward today means changes should be made and the changes are that when a local member wants to stand up and say, "I don't agree with government policy," he won't be punished. They won't be jettisoned out of this inner circle. They won't go from cabinet minister to Chairman of a committee to backbencher in the corner, because nobody is served. The people aren't served.

Lastly, the one point I'd like to reiterate that Mr Kormos made: No matter what happens in this place, no matter what changes are made, you were elected by the people in your riding. You were elected by the people in all your ridings. You answer to nobody but the people who elected you and when it comes to the end of the day, if a decision is going to be made and you've got to make a decision, you must remember the people who put you here are the people who can take you out and they'll take you out if you don't listen to the people. I believe this member for Welland-Thorold listens to the New Democratic Party and the people who elected him. I don't know if I can say the same for the rest of them.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I begin by saying to you, sir, that I think this debate, which has almost accidentally arisen today in Parliament in a funny, crazy, unexpected way, is in some respects one of the most important debates that we have had in this Legislature for quite some time because, as the member for Welland-Thorold suggested during his remarks and as the member for Etobicoke West suggested during his remarks, for once at least we are talking about something that goes beyond the various scripts and the various words that are placed in the mouths particularly of the government members.

But, Mr Speaker, as well, I want to say to you that I do not believe that this debate is really about whether or not the member for Welland-Thorold, Peter Kormos, should or should not be the member of the resources development committee of this Parliament. I want to say to you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's none of your business.

Mr Sorbara: The member for Guelph says that it's none of my business. I say to him that it is the business of every member of this Legislature what has been happening not over the past week, not over the past month, but over the past two and a half years in respect of the member for Welland-Thorold. I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that this debate is really about turning the screws on Peter Kormos.

This debate is really about the intolerance of power on behalf of or on the part of Bob Rae, the members of his cabinet and the compliant members of his caucus. This debate is really about the incredible arrogance of power that this government has been seized of over its very short term in office.

I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that this debate is really about another major step on the part of this government, another major step in getting rid of this irritant, of getting rid of this menace, of getting rid of this parliamentarian, of getting rid of this democrat whose only sin is to stand up in this Legislature and to stand up in his caucus and to stand up in a whole variety of settings around the province and speak to the people about what he believes in.

It's surprising that a government caucus of some 73 members finds this intolerable. One voice of dissent cannot be tolerated by Bob Rae. I admit that it is, on occasion, a rather loud and often a rather eloquent voice of dissent and often an effective voice of dissent. But this debate, I say to you, is a public demonstration about what the New Democratic Party and the New Democratic government and the New Democratic caucus think of dissent.

I ask you, what sins has Peter Kormos committed to be treated like this? What wrongs has he done?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You've got it all wrong.

Mr Sorbara: I don't agree.

1700

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Centre, I would ask you to address the Chair.

Mr Sorbara: I am addressing the Chair, Mr Speaker. I am doing precisely that, sir.

I want to say to my friends in this Legislature, through you, that the only sin Peter Kormos has committed is to live by the principles he believes in. That's it in a nutshell.

I've sat in this House with Peter Kormos for almost four years and I've seen him eloquently challenge my own government's views on automobile insurance. I disagreed with him and I thought he was wrong in principle, but I respected his right to stand in his place and debate for as long as the rules of this Legislature would allow him to do that.

I disagreed with Peter Kormos on his and his government and his leader's view on Sunday shopping, of all things, but I respected his right to stand in Parliament and participate in committees and express those views, even though they were somewhat different from those expressed now by the dictator of this province, the Premier of this province, Bob Rae.

If you look at the history of government in this province over the past two and a half years, you have seen one thing and one theme only, and that is a retreat from what Bob Rae promised to do for the people of Ontario during the last election campaign. And only one New Democratic Party member has stuck to the principles which were supported and proposed by New Democratic Party members in August and September of 1990, and that member happens to be Peter Kormos. Because he has done that, he has suffered every indignity short of being thrown out of his caucus, and I expect pretty soon that the people who make up that caucus are going to do the ultimate deed and expel him for his political views and his ability to stand up and speak on those views.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the fact that this is now happening and being proposed by the government House leader and really by the Premier through the government House leader, really is one of the great indignities that this Parliament, in its two and a half years, has suffered.

We saw what the government did when it was faced with significant opposition from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party during the debate on Bill 40. What did they do? Pretty simple: They changed the rules. They turned their backs on every principle of parliamentary freedom to speak and changed the rules and violated every principle they had espoused during the many years that they had representatives in this Parliament, so as to effect the will of the leader and his cabinet. And now one member, one member in that caucus decides that he is going to take a slightly different view, one of your members, one of their members, I say to you, Mr Speaker, decides that his mission in life as an elected representative of the people is to disagree with the view being published daily by the cabinet and supported daily by the caucus of New Democratic sheep. I'm sorry to pay disrespect to one of the great agricultural species of the province.

Everyone else follows. Everyone else in that caucus says, "If Bob Rae thinks that a social contract is a great idea, then we like a social contract."

Well, I've got news for you. The latest news is that the trade union movement has said, "Screw it, we're not coming on Thursday." But every member of the New Democratic caucus, those members who for years lived hand in hand with the trade union movement, say: "Oh, no, a social contract is a great idea. These are tough times."

Bob Rae yesterday stood in his place, and it looked like Bob Rae and it had the voice inflections of Bob Rae, but for all the world, my God, I swear it was Don Mazankowski. It doesn't matter whom the people vote for in Ontario any more; we always get a Conservative government.

But the trade unions are saying: "Well, we're not coming. We won't be there. If Bob Rae wants to take our pay and take our jobs, he's going to have to bring a bill in this Legislature," and I suspect that Peter Kormos is going to say, "More power to them."

One member objects and the New Democratic Party caucus says: "Well, we'll just take away his role in this Parliament. We'll just keep him off committees. We cannot tolerate the fact that he might express a different view in a committee."

That's what this debate is about: the disempowerment, the cleansing, the castration of a member who wants to say his piece.

Mr Sutherland: Oh, please.

Mr Sorbara: My language is strong because I am appalled --

Mr Wiseman: You're shocked.

Mr Sorbara: I am appalled by the fact that New Democratic Party members who in opposition used to champion the cause of the minority, champion the little guy or the little person whose voice couldn't get heard because of the powerful interests -- he doesn't filibuster any more. The rules have been changed, and so he says, "Okay, the rules have changed. I will play by the rules. I will speak for 30 minutes," says Peter Kormos, and yet that one voice that pleads to present a different view from within the government caucus, that one voice is now being silenced.

Why are they doing this? What is it about power and the desire to govern and the desire to be the ruler of all Ontario? What is it that happened to you when you got in power that you can now not tolerate one dissenting voice, that you need to throw him off committees, that you need to ridicule him when he stands up and tries to present a different viewpoint? What is it?

Is it so important that every week the Premier takes you and pats you on the back and says, "You're doing a great job; some day you'll be in cabinet"? Pay no attention to that. It's all lies. You'll never be in cabinet. You're not doing a good job. You were elected to express a view, and your commitment to your party and your Premier and your caucus is secondary to your moral commitment to do what is right and represent the people who elected you to this place.

Interjection: Well, we are.

Mr Sorbara: One member interjects over there, "Well, we are." That couldn't possibly be. On every single occasion you rise in unison to support what Bob Rae says shall be done and you rise in unison to reject what Bob Rae tells you shall not be done, and even your colleagues in the trade union movement now feel a sense of betrayal that has never taken place before in the history of Ontario.

1710

I don't agree with you on Bill 40, I don't agree with you on the social contract, I don't agree with you on automobile insurance, but I understand and I plead with you to go beyond the Gestetnered papers that are placed on your desks as parliamentary assistants and caucus members and all the others that tell you what to say. You look for all the world like parrots, and in these times, when such serious problems are facing the province of Ontario, I think the people of Ontario are asking for more.

I want to tell you that what they understand from this debate, and what they understand from this exercise of the silencing of the member for Welland-Thorold, is one thing and one thing only, and that is that in Bob Rae's Ontario there is no more room for dissent, there is no more room for a minority opinion, there is no more room for free expression. There is only room for lockstep compliance with the orders that come down from on high.

I think the passage of this motion, which surely will be supported by government members, represents a sad day in the province of Ontario.

Mr Harnick: I've listened intently to the remarks made by my colleagues, and it's interesting to note that, other than Mr Kormos, none of the leaders of this government who are present and sitting here today stand up to discuss the way their government operates.

Mr Bradley: Mark Morrow wanted to.

Mr Harnick: Mark Morrow, the member from Hamilton, came over to me and asked me how long I was going to be speaking because he wished to speak next. I noticed that after a few words with the government House leader, Mark Morrow is no longer in the chamber. Mark Morrow, the member from Hamilton, wishes to voice dissent. In this government, there is no room for any dissent. There is no room for any dissent, and if dissent goes too far on the side of the opposition, what do we get? We get the police. That's the kind of attitude this government has towards dissent. Investigating leaks: This government leaks like a sieve, but that's the attitude this government has towards dissent.

It's very interesting when we're talking about Mr Kormos, who in many respects is the subject of this debate. I remember well when the Minister of Northern Development told some lies and took a lie detector test to prove that she had told the lies. I remember going to the committee that was struck to examine into the source of those lies and the admission of those lies. I remember the government members of that committee who sat there like bumps on a log because they didn't know what to say. And whom did the government send in to protect the Minister of Northern Development? The government sent in Peter Kormos to protect their minister.

I remember the hotly contested debate surrounding Bill 40. I remember Bill 40 as being probably the most controversial piece of legislation we've seen in this Legislature, and one of the most difficult aspects of that legislation for the government was getting it through the committee. To whom did they give that bill to shepherd it through the committee? It seems to me that the Chairman of that committee was Peter Kormos.

It's funny. When the government's in trouble and needs someone to help bail it out, Peter Kormos is the person it calls on, but when Peter Kormos stands up and tries to defend the positions he took in front of the people he represents, when Peter Kormos stands and defends his position on auto insurance and says, "My constituents voted for me to come here to support innocent accident victims," what does the government do? They pretend they don't know Peter Kormos any more. They pretend that's a part of their history that doesn't exist: "We're going to forget our past. We don't need to worry about that. We're elected now. Those promises that we made, those promises that wouldn't cost the government money, such as auto insurance, we can now abandon."

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): He hugged him.

Mr Harnick: My friend from Mississauga reminds me of that long debate in which Peter Kormos spoke for many hours, and as soon as that debate was over -- I remember seeing it on television, on all the newscasts, in all of the newspapers -- who was standing there hugging Peter Kormos for the stand he took on behalf of innocent accident victims? Bob Rae. Bob Rae was front and centre in the pictures. I don't know now if it's because he was worried that Mr Kormos was getting more of the media attention or if it was because he really believed in the issue, because he sure has abandoned it. He's abandoned that issue, as he's abandoned so many other issues.

It's interesting as well that from the time this government was elected in September 1990, all we heard from this government were speeches about integrity in government. We don't hear those speeches about integrity in government any more. We had a throne speech recently, about three weeks ago, where integrity in government wasn't even mentioned, not a single mention about the highest standards that this government was going to have, because this government has hit rock bottom when it comes to standards. They are worse than their predecessors ever were. They are worse than they ever accused their predecessors of being. They have hit rock bottom.

Yesterday was just another in a litany of bungles and procedures that showed a complete lack of integrity. Yesterday the government attempted to do something by sneaking around the rules that operate this place. They decided to hold a lynch mob in a committee meeting. They decided that after the Legislature duly nominated someone to be on a committee -- and I remember it was the government House leader who stood up and read that nomination less than a week ago -- they then decided to appoint a temporary substitute to a committee that Mr Kormos had already been elected for. They sent in a temporary substitute to try and eliminate Mr Kormos from the committee.

Nowhere in the rules is there a procedure for that. When the committee member arrived -- and he was duly nominated to that committee by the government. He arrived, and a temporary substitute came in his place. I can't believe that anything as inappropriate as that could happen.

I'll tell you why it's inappropriate, because what this government did was try to make the clerk of that committee be responsible for doing its dirty work. No servant of this Legislature should ever be put in the position of doing the dirty work of the government House leader. If the government House leader didn't have the guts to bring it before the Legislature -- as he's done today because he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar yesterday -- they should never have expected a servant of this Legislature to do their dirty work.

We have had more difficulty in this Legislature, we have spent more time on procedural matters in this Legislature, because of the abuse that this government has perpetrated on the standing orders of this place. I thought that was all behind us, when the government, which couldn't operate this place under the rules that existed for years and years and years, went ahead and changed all those rules to facilitate the kind of government they wanted. I thought all these procedural wrangles were finished with, but we went ahead and we continue, even after the rules were changed, even after a gun was put to the heads of the opposition that said, "Accept these rules or we'll make them even worse." Even now, with the new rules, the government still can't get it right. They are a model of incompetence in everything that they do, the simple procedures.

1720

They would do a lot better if they were honest with themselves in terms of the things they wish to do and they wish to accomplish. They would be better off coming here with clean hands and trying to do their dirty work in public than they would trying to do their dirty work in committee rooms, using the servants of this place who are here to serve us all and serve us all very well, rather than having those people try and do the dirty work for them.

You know, it's interesting. My friend the member for St Catharines provided me with an article from a newspaper. The article is written by Rob Martin, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario. I tell you that he wasn't a Tory and he wasn't a Liberal, but he was an NDP candidate in the federal elections in 1979 and 1980, so he's not politically biased against this government. But let me tell you a few of the things that he says.

He says: "The Rae government has betrayed its party and its party's principles and the people who have supported that party. He and his government have abandoned all pretence of acting on behalf of ordinary men and women."

Mr Kormos and other members of this government caucus attempt to continue to espouse those principles, the principles that they used to get themselves elected. I don't think there's anything heinous about a government changing its mind about certain programs, maybe even certain philosophies, as a government progresses through its term. I don't think that's so totally outrageous. What is outrageous is that when people within that caucus continue to espouse the beliefs that got them elected, look where it gets them. Look where it's got Mr Kormos. Look where it's got Mr Drainville. Look where it's got Mr Morrow, who couldn't even come here to speak today because he dissents from the party line. One would have a hard time believing that we're talking about the province of Ontario in this great country of Canada when we use expressions like "the party line."

This article by Professor Martin goes on to state:

"No government has so rigorously and so effectively politicized the province's public service. Ontario once had a public service we could be proud of. But today loyalty to Rae and his party and its ideology is more important than competence. People of questionable ability have been recruited and promoted. Morale is said to be low."

Well, the reason morale is low is because people no longer know what to believe in. People no longer can believe in what they told their constituents when they got elected, and for that, people like Mr Kormos are no longer people who have a voice and a role to play in this government.

As my colleague the member for Etobicoke West stated earlier, it's very hard for this government to live with a living and breathing conscience sitting in its own caucus. He reminds them daily of what they used to say about Sunday shopping. He reminds them daily of what they used to say about auto insurance. He reminds them daily about what they used to say about casino gambling. The members of this caucus and this government cabinet can't stand having their conscience sitting among them and reminding them of the way they've betrayed the people of the province of Ontario.

That doesn't even deal with the incompetence of how they've handled the fiscal situation, of how they've jacked up the deficit, of how they're now chasing their tail to lower the deficit that they jacked up, of how today we learned in question period that many of the cuts in spending are deferrals to next year and the year after, that there's padding there to make the budget that's coming down, probably in the next month, look more palatable.

People say, "How did this happen?" Well, it happened because the government set out on a course that it's now admitting was the wrong course. It was the wrong course, and all those people who they profess to be protecting by taking the wrong course are now being hurt again because of the change that the government has taken.

I applaud the government for trying to cut expenses, but its incompetence got us to where we are right now. A year ago the Minister of Finance in Ottawa --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Who has a bigger deficit? Who pays more on the debt?

Mr Harnick: We'll talk about that. The member across the way says, "Who paid more on the debt?"

Let me tell you, a year ago when Mr Mazankowski, the Finance minister, told the Treasurer of Ontario, "Don't jack up the deficit, that's the wrong way to go," and every other province in this country tried to get the deficit down, what did the Treasurer and the Premier say to the Minister of Finance? They said: "You're wrong. We're going to jack up our deficit, we have to protect the people of this province." So they went ahead and they jacked up the deficit and now they forget what they said a year ago. They forget what they told the Minister of Finance in Ottawa. They told him he was wrong. Now they're doing exactly what he says.

I tell the member across the way that the federal government has at least, over the term of office, eliminated $12 billion from the federal debt; $12 billion when they inherited a $45-billion deficit. What you have done is raised our deficit almost to the levels of the deficit that they've been fighting. You've done exactly what they've been fighting against.

You know what, Mr Speaker? It's this incompetence, it's this level of incompetence that the people of Ontario see every day. They see it in terms of integrity of government. They see it in terms of the way the debt is handled. They see it in terms of the way this Legislature operates. They see it in the deceitful way the rules of this building operate. They see it in the way the government fights the people in its own party, members of its own caucus, who continue to stand for the things they believe in.

Mr Bradley: Mel Swart.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting, Mel Swart -- my friend from St Catharines reminds me -- came here to talk about auto insurance and it was just amazing. He came here and he reminded the government of what it had stood for for all those years. You've never seen a corridor clear of New Democrat members so quickly as the corridor Mr Swart was standing in. They could not look him in the eye. They couldn't look him in the eye for the flip-flop on auto insurance, the same way they can't look Mr Kormos in the eye on because Mr Kormos has committed himself to a fight on behalf of innocent accident victims. He's committed himself to that fight and he's committed himself to making sure innocent accident victims are protected. I don't even know where that auto insurance bill is any more.

Mr Bradley: It disappeared.

Mr Harnick: I think that bill may have disappeared from the face of the earth, that bill that the government was so proud of, that bill that probably won't see the light of day. I hope, on behalf of Mr Kormos, that the bill does see the light of day and that the government reconsiders the very, very hard positions it has taken in terms of how that bill will affect innocent accident victims. I hope that government could look Mr Kormos in the eye and make the right amendments, but right now I don't know if that bill is ever going to see the light of day. I don't know if it will.

1730

This article by Professor Martin goes on to say -- and I think this is a very pointed part and I hope the government members and cabinet ministers who are here are listening to this. Professor Martin is one of their own party members, a well-respected professor of law at the University of Western Ontario, who is a former NDP candidate. So he's not partisan against you. You don't have to be paranoid about what Mr Martin says; he's one of you. What he says is:

"The real culprit has been arrogance. Rae and his government simply do not believe the rules or traditions of our political system apply to them.

"And in maintaining this arrogance, Rae and his ministers have done enormous damage to the legitimacy of our institutions. The survival of democratic institutions is not automatic. We have no special historical guarantee as Canadians that we will always enjoy democratic government.

"Democratic government demands politicians respect the institutions temporarily placed in their care. It demands politicians who realize these institutions are more important than they and their egos. But Robert K. Rae through his political career has been guided solely by his ego.''

One of the very, very disturbing aspects of this whole debate is the fact that Mr Kormos came in yesterday and recited a series of facts as to whether he would or wouldn't be on that committee. He recited facts and it became perfectly clear that the facts of this scenario were very much manipulated by the government whip. The government whip decided that what we are doing here is going ahead and manipulating the committee process. So we really don't have real elections for the chairmen of committees and we really don't have real elections, I suppose, for the election of the Speaker of this place, because he has indicated that all of this is a foregone conclusion.

That leads me to what I want to conclude with, and that's very simply that the committee process in this place is not legitimate, the committee process does not work. The committee process means that people come and make deputations but nobody listens, because the whip, the House leader, the Premier all give the marching orders to the government members of the committee and whatever the public says doesn't really matter. It's a foregone conclusion.

I regret very much that the public comes to this place and places faith in the politicians to listen to them. We invite them to come to this place, but we don't heed what they tell us. That's because the system has become manipulative, the system has become dishonest and the government is not prepared to listen to those in its benches who have become the conscience of that government.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Interjections: No.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): It's nice to see that the other side asked for me to get up.

I think this has probably been one of the best debates this House has had since I've been here. I want to tell you I agree 100% with what Peter Kormos was saying over there and also with what Chris, in front of me, mentioned; a lot of the things. I think where, today, the governing party is missing this whole point is that not everyone's blaming it for all the problems. It's the whole House; it's all three parties. At least I can speak for this party and what's happening over there. I don't know about the Liberals, but I'm sure they have the same problems.

The committee structure is made up so it doesn't work. It only works for the governing party, there's no doubt about that, and unless we change something, as far as I'm concerned, the democracy is taken out of this place.

I got elected to represent the people from Grey and Owen Sound. When you come here, what happens is that it's taken away from you. You've got to follow party discipline. You don't get a chance, a lot of times, to bring up your own problems.

What happens in committee? Let's look at the committee. It was brought up about the standing committee on government agencies. I sat on one of those committees and I left the committee in disgust. What happens is that one day we'll interview somebody for a job, and won't vote on that person till the next day. The next day it could be different people from all three parties, yet they will vote on that person and give him the job. There's never been one turned down yet. It's not just their fault over on that side. They're whipped into this, as somebody has said. They've been forced into this vote.

There is no one else on that side to speak on this right now, and we talked about it. Where's Mark Morrow? Mark was in here, came over here, wanted to know how much time we were going to take. What happened to Mark? Is he going to come back? I don't know. I saw the whip smile; it's one of the few times he's smiled in the House. But I don't know what he did with Mark. You just threw Mark out. You said: "No way. We're not going to let him speak out against this." That's what's wrong with this place. You don't get a chance.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: Obviously somebody got excited over there. I hope you're speaking the way you want to and nobody told you to say that.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: It's nice to see that they are alive over there, and well. Yes, I know, Mr Speaker: I'll speak through you. I just thought we should listen to some of these wise words that are coming from over there. Maybe they're opening up. Maybe we're going to see them all vote against this motion. I certainly hope some of you people over there will have the guts to stand up and speak against this motion and vote against this motion.

I will remember how the member from Kitchener will vote on this and see if he has the guts to stand up and say: "This is not a proper motion. Mr Kormos has every right to be Chairman there."

There comes Mark Morrow. I'm glad to see you're back, Mark. I hope they will give you a chance to speak.

This is what happens in all three parties, and until this corrected in this House, I don't think democracy is going to last. That's why I mentioned at the start that I think this is one of the best debates we've had in this House. It's just unfortunate that the government of the day will not listen. We're trying to tell you that it's not all your fault. It's been here for a long time, and it's still that. We've got to look.

I think Mr Kormos tried to change that, tried to say: "Maybe I should be Chairman. I was there." Now, what you do to Mr Kormos is that you bring a motion in to kick him off the committee. If you don't do what you're told, you're kicked off. We've seen that happen with other things, and I'm sure it happened in our government and I'm sure it happened with the Liberals, and it's not right.

Mr Bradley: Maybe it didn't happen.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe, Mr Bradley says, it didn't happen.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: It certainly is nice. Maybe the government members get a chance to say what they want to say when they heckle all the time. It's too bad, when they stand up and vote, that they wouldn't turn around and vote the way their people want them to vote, not the way they've been told to vote by two or three people who run the party. That's really unfortunate. Again, I'm not blaming it all on the them. The rest of the parties are just as bad.

I just wanted to bring up, in the short time we have -- and I see it's getting close to 6 o'clock and we will want to vote on this. I just want to say that I agree 100% with what Mr Kormos said and what Mr Stockwell said, and the rest of the people who spoke were pretty well right on. Until we get some democracy in this place, I don't think it means a damn.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I just basically wanted to stand up and say --

[Applause]

Mr Morrow: -- thank you for the applause -- that I will be voting against the government motion. I very strongly agree with what Mr Kormos has done as Chair. I see the actions that have happened as possibly being maybe a little bit unruly, and I'm going to close my comments there, and let's move on to the vote.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the following standing committees: on the standing committee on estimates, Mr Wiseman for Mr Rizzo; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands) for Mr Kormos; on the standing committee on social development, Mr Rizzo for Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1742 to 1813.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

AYES

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Tilson, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

NAYS

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Grandmaître, Kormos, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays 29.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Being past six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1818.

April 27, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CENTRE D'EXCELLENCE ARTISTIQUE DE LA SALLE

CLOSURE OF STOCKYARDS

PICTON UNITED CHURCH

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

SERVICES IN MIDDLESEX

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

EDUCATION REFORM

JOBS ONTARIO

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

ARBITRATION AWARDS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

ACCESS TO POLICE REPORT

JOBS ONTARIO

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

CLOSURE OF TRADE OFFICES

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS