Hansard Transcript 1997-Jun-17 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On behalf of students, teachers and parents, I want to congratulate the Minister of Education for backing down and providing proper funding to the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board for special needs students at the McHugh schools. After continual questioning in the Legislature culminating with yesterday's question by our party leader, Dalton McGuinty, the Minister of Education admitted the error of his ways and ended his game of political brinkmanship in which the government chose to bargain hardball-style with some of the neediest in our society.

The students at the McHugh schools comprise students throughout eastern Ontario with one or more emotional or learning disorders. The program is both highly esteemed and deemed worthy by anyone familiar with it. It seems the legacy of this government will be one that to achieve their shortsighted goals, in the words of the Conservative member for Ottawa-Rideau, they will resort to, and I quote, "extortion and blackmail."

The member for Ottawa-Rideau also stated: "I don't think there's any possibility of the government getting any of this money. I don't think they're entitled to it. This money was taken from Ottawa taxpayers for Ottawa schools." I couldn't agree more.

Now that the minister has withdrawn his threat to the McHugh students, he should go one step further and end his attempt to try to extort $31 million, which is a tax grab from Ottawa Board of Education taxpayers.

GOVERNMENT ANTI-RACISM PROGRAMS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yesterday in this House the Minister of Education and Training made a shocking and disgusting statement. He said initially, "I don't believe we'll ever be done combating discrimination, combating racism." But rather than giving hope of continuing leadership, the minister then said that it was all right to disband his ministry's anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch. Among the work produced by this branch was a guide on how to deal with hate groups to be used by principals and teachers in schools where these despicable groups are making their presence felt.

We have seen the effects most recently right here in Metro Toronto. High school students at Weston Collegiate Institute have been subjected to pamphleteering by a group called Christian Standard. Why? Because the school has allowed Muslim students to pray on Fridays in the school auditorium. Luckily the guidebook for dealing with hate groups has been made available to teachers, but not by the Minister of Education and Training. When his office refused to release this guidebook, it was produced by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The minister and this government ought to hang their heads in shame. They have consistently denied the problems of racism and discrimination and prejudice that still exist in our society. They have abdicated their responsibility as an elected government to show leadership and meet these problems head-on so that the day will come when we are in fact done with combating racism in Ontario society.

JOHN SETTERFIELD AND ALLAN HEATLEY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): June is Seniors' Month in Ontario. Last week in Brampton I had the honour of attending the annual Brampton Arts Council Person of the Year reception. This year was a little different because we had two seniors who were co-winners of this award.

I am pleased to inform the Legislature that the Brampton musicians John Setterfield and Allan Heatley accepted the honour last Wednesday, exactly 65 years to the day after the pair first joined the Brampton Citizens' Band in 1932. They have now served Brampton's oldest musical organization for 65 years, quite an accomplishment indeed.

They still sit beside each other in the band today when they play at local events. They've been great solo clarinetists and both have been members of the executive committee and on many award-winning teams that the Brampton Citizens' Band has been involved in. It's very difficult to determine the number of hours these fine gentlemen volunteer collectively to the band, but it's estimated that they've put in as many as 20,000 hours over those years.

I want to congratulate John Setterfield and Allan Heatley, two exemplary Bramptonians, each of whom is now Brampton Arts Council Person of the Year.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My constituency office continues to be inundated by requests from frustrated single parents trying to contact the Family Responsibility Office.

One mother wrote: "My children last received support in June 1996. I have been faxing, phoning and leaving messages. You'd think someone could at least contact me."

However, the government claims that 50% of the calls are being returned by the Family Responsibility Office. Bravo. Indeed, we are all very proud of that. It is a step in the right direction. But what about the other half of the children who are left suffering? When is the rubber going to meet the road?

Your government claims that the Family Responsibility Office has virtually eliminated cheque processing problems. My constituents say, "Show us the money." We receive calls from mothers who have had to sell their property, keep their children home from school, or find two jobs.

One constituent has never received support payments since her court order over a year ago. Her ex's arrears are in excess of $17,000 and he is in the US. If he skips that country, her children may never receive the support they deserve. Another mother has not received money since August 1996, while her ex's employer continues to give the Family Responsibility Office the runaround about why the money has not been sent.

The calls just keep coming. We ask the minister to just do something.

SAWMILL IN COCHRANE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is about the sawmill in my riding of Cochrane and its ability to continue full operations during the year 1997-98. It employs approximately 150 people. We know, from the discussions I've had over last two weeks with MNR and the Malette-Tembec forestry people as well as the mayor of Cochrane and other delegations from Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls, that they are trying to resolve the issue. The fact remains that the economy of Cochrane very much depends on this sawmill continuing operations on a full-time basis rather than having it shut down for three, four, six months of the year as a result of cutbacks that have happened within MNR.

We've seen close to 2,000 employees being laid off within MNR throughout northeastern and northwestern Ontario, and now we're seeing that issues that should be resolved in six months or a year are taking two or three years in order to resolve them. We don't know when the end is going to be in sight.

As a result we have a mill where the morale of the people should be good; Spruce Falls, which is owned by Tembec, is one of the top 500 profit-making companies in Canada and they own this mill as well. But without the proper wood supply and arrangements to be able to exchange wood between the mills, that mill is in jeopardy. The Minister of Natural Resources should be looking into this as quickly as possible.

1340

ARNPRIOR AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The Arnprior and District Memorial Hospital has been embracing this government's principles of integrated health services, including establishing the first hospital-owned and -operated nursing home in Ontario and operating a primary health care centre. More recently, the hospital became a founding member of the Ottawa Valley Hospital Alliance, which in two short years of cooperative effort among four hospitals has identified savings and revenue opportunities of nearly $2 million.

Arnprior is located in one of the fastest-growing population areas in Ontario and will experience a growth rate in excess of 30% over the next 10 years. The hospital has one of the busier emergency departments in eastern Ontario, being some 60 kilometres from the closest large urban centre.

It has been noted that, although Arnprior is in Renfrew county, for the purposes of regional planning it has a closer affinity with Ottawa-Carleton. Arnprior is developing a health care governance structure as part of the Ottawa-Carleton-Renfrew district.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to recognize the mayor of Arnprior, the chairman of the board and members of the board of Arnprior and Almonte present in the members' gallery.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The Harris government is at it again. With his iron fist, Mike Harris is once again attempting to sledgehammer the opposition by imposing anti-democratic rule changes that will severely restrict the ability of the opposition members to debate and make it possible for the public to understand what legislation they're about to propose.

Under the cover of the federal election, a press conference was held on Monday, June 2, at which time they snuck in this anti-democratic series of rule changes supposedly from the member for Nepean, rule changes hatched in the Office of the Premier and designed to enable the Harris government to ram through controversial and far-reaching rule changes that will gag the opposition and the people of Ontario who dare to question the revolutionary agenda.

The Harris government is once again confirming its reputation as a raging bull, impatient with any opposition and determined to run roughshod over anyone who would dare to slow down their schemes to force revolutionary change on the province. First there was Bill 26 with its extraordinary powers. Then there was the megacity bill where they refused to listen to 400,000 people who said no.

They already have a majority government. What else do they need to silence the opposition? What draconian anti-democratic legislation are they planning to introduce next? Universal fingerprinting? More tax cuts for their rich friends? It is clear that Mike Harris needs a sledgehammer to allow the plans of his whiz kids to become a law unto themselves. Stop the sledgehammer now. Wake up, Ontario.

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am delighted this afternoon to be able to bring some good news to the Legislature. This morning the Minister of Citizenship in Ottawa announced that the London Alliance has been chosen as the host for the Canada Summer Games in 2001.

The London Alliance is a very enthusiastic group of people from the city of London, the city of Woodstock, the city of St Thomas, the city of Grand Bend and the University of Western Ontario who joined together to absolutely, as we say, blow away the games selection committee. On a very rainy, very stormy day we still managed to show the enthusiasm that we have in all of those centres for hosting the games.

I am very pleased that the Minister of Citizenship and Culture today recognized the importance of provincial partnership in that alliance and has confirmed the provincial support for the games. That's an essential part.

These games are projected to generate about $61 million of business in the London, Woodstock, St Thomas and Grand Bend area and over 737 jobs during the next four years. So it is an economic as well as a recreational and community event and we should all be very proud of the alliance.

SHEILA WILLIAMS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I rise in the House today to honour a very special mother, wife, grandmother and generous contributor to her community. Sheila Williams, a community leader at Rama First Nations, died last week as a result of an unfortunate car accident.

Mrs Williams has spent her life helping others and was a positive guiding light for her 12 children. Rising each morning at 4 or 5, she and her lifelong husband would discuss the current issues of their children and community over a steaming cup of tea

For the past 20 years Mrs Williams worked in the administration building at the band office. Her husband, Leland, is a Rama First Nations councillor and elder and has sat on council since 1950.

Her community was important to Mrs Williams. She took great pride in being a native woman and loved speaking her language. In what little free time she had, she helped with the planning of the new seniors' complex at Rama.

Mrs Williams is the mother of Ted Williams, vice-president of corporate affairs for Casino Rama and past chair of the implementation team. He has served as manager of administration of Rama and was chief from 1986 to 1988, after serving four years on council.

A daughter paid Mrs Williams the highest possible tribute when she said, "All of the family has achieved a lot because of mother." She described her mother as a woman who encouraged her children and pushed them to educate and improve themselves. Mrs Williams's reward is a close-knit family helping with the growth and planning of their community while preserving their proud heritage. Mrs Williams is an honoured woman, and I offer my condolences to her family and community.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Ministry statements? Seeing none --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): "Seeing no ministers"; is that what you mean?

The Speaker: No, I don't see any ministry statements.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Clem Campbell, MLA, and Mr Lawrence Springborg, MLA, from the Queensland Parliament in Australia. Welcome. I don't think their winter is as harsh as ours, though.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. It is my understanding that he will be in attendance today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stand it down?

Mr McGuinty: I would stand it down.

The Speaker: Second question? Both of them for the Premier?

Mr McGuinty: Both to the Premier.

The Speaker: Third party?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We have questions for the Premier.

The Speaker: Stand down both of them? Third question for the Liberal Party? Who? Minister of Labour. Okay, let's go to the third --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, you're right. We can't stand down third questions; you can only stand down the leadoffs.

Apparently, just from hearing you, something's happening behind me. Leader of the official opposition.

1350

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I have a list of eight names which I'm going to read to you now: Jeff Slater, Louis Veilleux, Paul Sutherland, Lynn Beyak, Dan Callaghan, Richard Zanibbi, Blaine Tyndall and Evelyn Dodds. I was wondering if you could tell me: What two things do all of these people have in common?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know who's flipping the letters over as we play these games, but the names sound to me like very talented Ontarians, those that I recognize. They are in the very significant minority of the thousands of people we've appointed from all stripes and from all parties across the province, and I believe they were Common Sense candidates in the last election as well as the tremendous contribution they've made to their communities in a whole host of other areas. But if you have other information, I'd be happy to have it.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure if the Premier was answering the way I expected him to or not, but what these people have in common, of course, is that they all ran for the Premier in the last provincial election as members of the Conservative Party and, secondly, they were all beneficiaries of government appointments. Apparently over there, even if you lose, you still win: You get an appointment.

I was just wondering, is it purely coincidence that eight of your candidates happen to have received government appointments?

Hon Mr Harris: We've made about 3,000 appointments since we came to office. Of those, 1,250 or 41% were reappointments of people who were initially appointed by the NDP and the Liberals. I would think that, as did the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, we look for quality and we look for recommendations of particular ministries, or agencies, boards and commissions themselves. For example, in the case of university boards of governors, to date I think every single appointment has been recommended by the institutions themselves. If you have other names of people you think would be good, we welcome that input and follow that process.

Mr McGuinty: What the Premier is doing, of course, is not illegal, but it goes to values, it goes to ethics and it goes to standards. It's perfectly clear that this is how this government is doing business. I thought this was the politics of days long past. I don't believe people accept patronage any longer. I wish these names were the only ones. These, by the way, were the produce of a cursory examination of recent appointments.

We've also raised in this Legislature the issue of members of your staff leaving for lucrative government consulting contracts. We've raised with you issues connected with your privatization scheme and the fact that your employees are leaving to work for the company to which they ended up giving the contract.

Premier, tell me that all that is perfectly acceptable to you, that you see nothing whatsoever wrong with it and that as far as you're concerned, if you want to get a job in your job-creation scheme, you've got to be a Tory.

Hon Mr Harris: Of course nothing could be sillier, nor do I believe it was the case when your party was in power, nor when the New Democratic Party was in power. About 45% of Ontarians voted for our party in the last election. I am shocked you can only find eight out of 3,000 we appointed.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr McGuinty: Give us time, Premier, we'll get you some more.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I want to raise with you something I am sure you are aware of that took place in your absence. The Minister of Health, a short while ago, indicated that the death of a man who died in the Civic Hospital in Peterborough on a stretcher while unattended was the subject of some kind of grand conspiracy in which the doctors, nurses, other staff, patients and even the family of this man were somehow involved in order to discredit this government. You should know that the people of Peterborough are outraged by this and that the family and the staff are hurt. Your minister has refused to apologize for his statement. Do you support him in that matter?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am sure the Minister of Health can respond.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I say to the honourable member that I have made no comment with respect to the death of that patient. It's not my place to do so. What I did comment on was an entirely separate incident that appeared on all our media stations. I have subsequently made every attempt I can to clarify my intentions with the hospital. I have faxed a letter of apology to both hospital boards in Peterborough.

I want to make it clear that since that time -- this was back in February -- a lot has happened. There has been a change in some management. There has been an investigator who found the atmosphere at the Civic Hospital to be very cooperative with his efforts. Dr Smith, the investigator, the dean of medicine at Queen's, has made a report to this government, a report to the community and a report to the board about how services can improve. We are currently conducting an operational review and a clinical review of that hospital and it's a very cooperative atmosphere.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to raise with you another incident. This past Saturday a Sudbury man, Erkki Martikainen, 77, died while waiting for heart surgery. On Wednesday he was admitted with a heart rate down to 30 beats a minute, and he and his family were informed that he had two days to live unless he had surgery. That meant he had to have his surgery by Friday. He was twice scheduled for surgery, and twice that surgery was delayed. This gentleman died on Saturday. The family asked his doctor why it was that he couldn't have the surgery. The doctor replied to them that it was the result of cutbacks to the hospital budget.

I want you to tell me if this doctor and that family and that hospital are also part of some grand conspiracy to discredit you, or is there something else here at stake?

Hon Mr Wilson: I certainly don't appreciate, and the cardiac surgeons and nurses who have been working overtime every Saturday and Sunday for the last 14 weekends since we announced the $35 million, a record amount of money for cardiac care in this province, to get us the lowest waiting lists in the history of waiting lists in the province by this time next year, would not appreciate the implications in that question.

Second, I would say that cardiac surgeries, all cardiac programs, have been fully protected by this government. Not one penny has been cut by any hospital or any facility in this province since we've been in government. We put $8 million in last year, new dollars, a record $35 million this year. My condolences to the family, but it's exactly because of the status quo that we've been making an investment to try to get those waiting lists down, because it's immoral and unethical to have the length of waiting lists we have when we spend 20% more per patient in this province than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Instead of bringing her husband and their father home today, Mrs Martikainen and the Martikainen family buried her husband and their father. The doctor, the surgeon, said it was because there weren't enough resources. Minister, would you please commit to this House today that you will investigate the reasons for Mr Martikainen's death? And will you further commit to this House that if you find that the surgeon was correct, that there aren't enough resources for heart surgery, will you ensure that there are enough resources in Sudbury and all over Ontario so that no one in this province has to experience the pain and sorrow needlessly that the Martikainen family is experiencing today?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again my condolences, on behalf of all members, to the family. I know it's not an easy situation. But the best I can say, for what comfort it brings, is that we are investing a record amount of money, unlike any previous government, in precisely the area that would concern this family, cardiac care, and that everybody is working very hard; 80% of that $35 million goes into overtime for nurses. We are pushing the capacity of the system to its utmost human limit. In fact, we have some complaints from cardiac surgeons saying they're going to experience burnout at the rate they're working.

All of us need to understand the pressures in the system and all of us need to work together. The commitment of this government is to get those waiting lists down to an all-time low and then to keep them down so that we don't have to keep giving condolences in this House.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, I want to read you a quote from today's Toronto Star. It says, "Nobody has complained in this province that this government is going too slowly." Think about it. People see the ugly mess your government has left behind at the family support plan because you tried to ram through your cuts. People see the clumsy cuts to hospitals and health care, and as a result we see people being left behind in the health care system. People remember your hasty Bill 26 omnibus legislation, when your own parliamentary assistants couldn't answer the questions: What is this amendment about? What is this legislation about? What is it supposed to do? Then people saw you try to ram through your megacity legislation.

Premier, can you tell us who in Ontario, in your mind, is complaining that your government is moving too slowly in ramming through your controversial legislation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): There are an extraordinarily high number of people who are unemployed in this province. There are still far too many people who are dependent upon welfare in this province, able-bodied people who want to work.

Given that our program is one to improve the climate for private sector job creation, one that already is having some initial success rate of two thirds of all the jobs across Canada being created here in Ontario, 1,000 net new jobs a day, I want to say this: As good as the results are relative to all other provinces, and in fact leading North America right now, they're not good enough. One person who wants to work out of work, one person dependent upon welfare who wants to break the cycle of dependency: That is the reason why we are moving quickly to ensure they can have the opportunities they should have in this province of Ontario.

1400

Mr Hampton: I think what I heard is the Premier wants to ram through his legislation so that he can lay off more staff at the family support plan, can lay off more than 11,000 nurses and health care workers a year, can lay off more people in the education sector, can put more people out of work in the municipal sector. I think that's what I heard the Premier say.

Premier, we've looked at your new rules and what your new rules amount to is this --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: What your new rules amount to is this: You're attempting to shut the public out of the democratic process. You want to change the rules here so that you can introduce legislation and ram it through this House before the public even knows what it's about, never mind has a chance to respond to it. Can you tell us why it's so urgent for you to shut the public out of the democratic process? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Harris: Precisely because you don't listen very well is why you are now, as a result of the 1995 election -- you didn't hear what people had to say to you then and you do not listen very well today. What you think you are hearing is not at all what we are saying or what we are doing. In fact, the changes we are making are restoring hope and opportunity and prosperity to our most vulnerable. I might add that the changes we have proposed to make to those who are currently labelled disabled and put on the welfare system have been applauded by advocates of the disabled community as something that was long overdue. These are the kinds of changes we would like to be able to proceed with.

I want to say this: There is absolutely nothing in the rule changes that says anything other than we want the broadest consultation, we want the most public hearings, we want to carry out hearing from the public, but yes, we would like to bring our rules into line with, for example --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I'm doing my best to get some order. Thank you for your assistance. Final supplementary, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Despite the Premier's rhetoric, the fact is that as the rules are proposed in the motion introduced yesterday, it would have been possible for this government under those rules to have introduced the megacity legislation on a Monday and have had it passed before the end of the week -- controversial legislation like that.

Doesn't the Premier understand that if you ram through legislation in that kind of rush there can be serious flaws in it that could have been identified if the public had a chance to examine it properly and respond? But you want to shut the public out. Why is it you're trying to shut the public out of the legislative process? Why don't you want to have real, broad consultation around controversial pieces of legislation to ensure that the legislation does exactly what even you intend it to do, rather than bring about errors that can cause real problems for our society?

Hon Mr Harris: The record of this government will show vis-à-vis any other government we've had more hearings, more consultations on legislation than did the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. I would say to you, it is our intention to try and use the very valuable time of this Legislature and its committees to hear from people, to hear concerns, as opposed to 12,500 computer-generated amendments or the Alvin Curling fiasco in this Legislature. We want real, meaningful debate and consultations.

Interjections.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): They are out of order again.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Ottawa-Rideau to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, you have to withdraw that comment, by the way.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I withdraw it.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I have a question to the Premier. I would say to the Premier, you describe democratic accountability, when you're finally held accountable in this House, as a fiasco. I think that accurately reflects your view of democracy.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Last week the Minister of Community and Social Services said that for sole-support parents who require day care assistance in order to participate in Ontario Works, assistance will indeed be there for them, as it is currently. She tried to pass that off as somehow being hopeful. The reality is that right now, for example in Metro Toronto, on the waiting list for subsidized child care there are 8,500 children whose parents receive social assistance. Many of them would be forced to participate in Ontario Works. There are no child care spaces for them as the situation is currently.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Premier, how do you expect to meet the demand for subsidized child care when Ontario Works is mandatory for single parents, considering your government hasn't created a new space --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister would be pleased to respond.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): There's no question that there are waiting lists for subsidies in certain communities across this province. That's one of the reasons we made the regulation change in how we calculate the funding. It gave Metro Toronto a $14-million windfall, which they could have chosen to use to try and bring down that subsidy list.

We also know at the end of every year -- it was a problem the NDP experienced when they were in government -- unfortunately sometimes municipalities have not been able to pick up their 20 cents when we've had 80 cents on the table to help someone who needs child care. That's why we're changing the system to work with municipalities to make it a mandatory service for them, because we recognize that child care support for parents, especially a sole-support parent, can make the difference between getting them off welfare or having them stay in a job. It's a very important support.

Mr Hampton: We were part of a government that recognized that if you want to help people get off social assistance, you have to ensure that those child care spaces are there. Listen to what this government has said it has done, but in fact what it has done. The minister said last week that the government has set aside $30 million for Ontario Works child care. That works out to $191 a year for each child who will be affected by the mandatory workfare for single parents. That's about $3 a week.

There's one of two things going on here. Either you don't believe your own press, you realize what your critics are saying is true, that you won't be able to place all the people who are going to be required to participate in Ontario Works, or you are going to force parents to send their children to unregulated, bargain-basement child care. You aren't putting forward the money to do it, so what's it going to be, Minister? Either your own press is wrong or you're going to force people into unregulated child care. Which is it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member would pay attention to what this government is saying, he would know that he is in error in what he is trying to claim. First of all, there are more licensed child care spaces today than there were in 1995. There is more spending available for child care today than there was in 1995. We spend more money on child care per capita in this province than any other province.

Finally, if the honourable member's government had been so concerned about increasing the number of child care spaces, perhaps they would not have wasted $52 million trying to convert private sector day care to non-profit day care. That was a wonderful expenditure for ideological purposes. It did not result in new spaces or new subsidies for parents that desperately need them.

1410

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, in the answer you just gave there were some things that were not factual, and I would like to explore that with you at another time. What I want to talk to you about right now are the children who are going to be affected by your decision to force parents to participate in workfare and not provide the support for child care spaces.

There are now 128,000 licensed child care spaces in Ontario. To accommodate the children affected by your workfare announcement, the number of spaces would have to double. Municipalities don't have the money to do that. You're saying it's mandatory but they don't have the money. These children are already the children most at risk, living in poverty. Municipalities at best can only give them some minor help towards unregulated basement care, that kind of babysitting where you don't have the support and wellbeing and health and safety regulations in place to ensure that kids are secure.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Lankin: Minister, what I want from you today is a guarantee that every child of every parent whom you are forcing to participate in workfare will be guaranteed a --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I think the honourable member would agree with me that most of the sole-support parents on welfare whom I've talked to don't want to be on welfare. They recognize that it is much better for themselves and their children if they're in a paid job. That's why we are putting in place the program, so those individuals will have the opportunity, as singles currently do now, to get off welfare, because they shouldn't be there; they don't want to be there; we know it's better for their families.

Second, we have been very clear that sole-support parents with school-age children will be under Ontario Works. For those with preschool children, it is not mandatory. Third, we have additional spending we are putting forward for child care support: an additional $30 million. Also, just to refresh the honourable member's memory, in 1995 there were approximately 128,000 spaces; there are now 137,000 spaces. The last time I checked, that is an increase.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday I'm sure you experienced a very uncomfortable time when hundreds of injured workers gathered outside the committee room when we started our hearings on Bill 99. We witnessed the frustration and the concerns of injured workers because of the proposals you have in your bill that affect them the most. They're angry, they're concerned because they feel this is an attack on the benefits they have at the moment.

They've asked for a meeting with you as a group. You have continually said that you would not meet with them as a group. I might remind you that you are the first Minister of Labour in over 30 years not to have met with them as a group. Would you do the right thing and meet with them?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I just remind the member that for many years injured workers, as well as employers, have been very concerned about the state of the WCB. In fact, yesterday we saw approximately 200 injured workers, and if we go back to when your government was in power, in 1989 when you introduced Bill 162, the injured workers stormed the Legislature to protest your bill.

This has been an ongoing concern. In fact, when I was in opposition I met with injured workers. I know how concerned they are. I have indicated to the injured workers that I would meet with them. I have said that at any time my door is open and I'm quite prepared to meet with those individuals.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): They have to kick in the door to open it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order. Supplementary.

Mr Patten: That's not what Mr Biggin was saying yesterday. He's the executive director of the Union of Injured Workers of Ontario, as the minister knows. He said, "Why people are so angry today is because you," referring to you, Minister, "have refused on numerous occasions -- on two different occasions in Toronto, we brought petitions to your office and requested meetings and we were told by your staff that only a majority of up to three people would be allowed to meet with you."

They're saying they don't want their representatives to meet with you, they want to meet with you themselves. These are the human beings who are most affected by this legislation. They want to tell you their stories. They want to tell you how they're doing. They want to tell you the benefits they receive and how they're trying to cope with that.

Sometimes it takes a strong character to say, "I'm going to back down on this and I'm going to meet with them." Will you do the human thing and will you meet with them? They also invited the committee to meet and I'd be very happy to join you, as I'm sure the other members would as well. They promised that they would have an orderly and disciplined meeting. Will you please meet with them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, I just would remind you one more time that for two years we have made opportunities available to injured workers. In fact, if they had met with us on a regular basis, by now we could have heard from a few hundred injured workers. On each and every instance that they were at the Ministry of Labour door we indicated we obviously couldn't meet with the entire mob gathered outside. Obviously we could only meet with three of them. We simply can't accommodate each and every individual, but we're certainly very happy to meet with them in groups of one, in groups of two, in groups of three, just as we meet with any other groups of individuals.

The Speaker: New question, third party, member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the same minister on exactly the same issue. Minister, don't you understand how insulting it is for you to refer to the injured workers who were here yesterday as a mob? They were in wheelchairs, on crutches, with neck braces. These are injured workers.

You talk about the fact there were 200 here. The fact is, we had to spread them out over three rooms because we couldn't fit them all into one small committee room. In fact, the only reason you stayed all the way through was you couldn't get out the door because there were so many injured workers.

You owe it to those injured workers to have a proper, open meeting. We just heard your Premier talk about the fact that he wants to have the public involved and he wants to let people talk to his government. If that's the case, you have an obligation today to say that you will hold a public meeting that allows all the injured workers to be there and talk to you face to face. Commit to that today, Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to remind the member that when your government was in office you had an opportunity to improve the lot of the injured workers. However, they were not happy with your reforms. I would just remind you this article says, "WCB Error Rate Under Fire; Injured Workers Protest at Office of Christopherson."

Interjections.

The Speaker: You clearly caught a lot of people by surprise on that one.

1420

Mr Christopherson: If that's your answer, my response to you is: I met with them. I met with them, and so did my Premier and my Minister of Labour and every other caucus member they wanted to talk to. In fact, we improved the lot of 45,000 injured workers by up to $200 a month. You're taking $6 billion out of their pockets and giving it to your corporate pals, and you won't meet with them. It's a disgrace that you would ram that bill through: four days in Toronto, four afternoons, six days out in the province. That's not sufficient, Minister. When we asked for unanimous consent to extend the hearings and to hold a large public meeting to allow the injured workers to be there, your backbenchers killed it. Your government backbenchers, under your direction, killed that request.

Minister, you owe it to those injured workers to meet with them. They're not asking for the world. They just want to tell you face to face what they're going through. Show us that you care. Show us that you'll listen. Commit today to meet with them.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to remind the member opposite that you had five years to correct the WCB. I also want to remind you that in 1994, injured workers in this province stormed the Legislature, reaching the doors of the chamber, to protest the NDP's Bill 165. Why didn't you get the system right?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton Centre, I appreciate it's a very emotional issue. Sudbury East, would you come to order, please.

Mr Pouliot: The paper says it's repugnant and --

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: For five years, you had the opportunity to make changes. Unfortunately, you did not give them a seat at the table of the board of directors, as they asked for five years. You took $18 billion out of the pensions of injured workers.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This is what the injured workers say: "Injured workers do not have the opportunity to negotiate. We have to take what we get, and what we get out of these amendments does not help us." Vince Bellerba.

Injured workers did not like your changes, and we're going to make the system better. We're going to focus on prevention.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Labour. Hamilton Centre, I warn you to come to order. Beaches-Woodbine as well.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Solicitor General. We currently have about 12 sites for the victim crisis assistance and referral service program in Ontario, sometimes referred to as VCARS. This program is being expanded and I am pleased to say that the district of Muskoka has been named as one of the eight new locations.

Can you comment on how this program will lead to better coordinated victims' services in the district of Muskoka?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Last June our government made a commitment to rebalance the justice system in favour of victims rather than criminals. Expanding the victim crisis assistance and referral service program from 12 sites to 20 sites, including the new site in Muskoka, reflects our commitment to enhancing the role of victims in the justice system.

This announcement will mean, for example, that victims of sexual assault, domestic assault, accidents or property crimes in Muskoka will have access to immediate, short-term crisis services and can be referred directly to other local services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Because this program uses volunteers, it will free up police officers to continue to focus on front-line policing.

Mr Grimmett: That certainly will be welcome news in the district of Muskoka. I'd like to ask you how soon a system will be up and running in the district of Muskoka and what steps will occur between now and then.

Hon Mr Runciman: We announced the funding of the eight new VCARS sites last week on June 11. I understand the Muskoka site will receive over $100,000 in annual funding from the victims' justice fund, and I want to stress that this money will be used to support immediate assistance to victims of crime in the Muskoka area. I'm informed that in the near future the local board of directors will be hiring staff, recruiting volunteers and making sure these volunteers are trained in accordance with ministry standards.

It's our hope that the Muskoka VCARS site will be open and serving victims of crime within the next six months.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the leader of the government, the Premier. At a time when even the people who agree with your policies believe you are moving too quickly and far too recklessly and not looking at the consequences of your action, when those who have been victims of the bullying and mean-spirited policies of your government believe that your radical revolution is causing irreparable damage to the social fabric of our province, you are attempting to impose drastic procedural changes that will allow you to impose your personal will and that of the backroom boys who advise you, unelected people, I might add, in your office, on this assembly.

Premier, you have an overwhelming majority in this House. You can pass any bill or any motion you wish with that overwhelming majority. Why are you trying to impose undemocratic rules that will amount to a virtual dictatorship in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the House leader can respond.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, in terms of the doom-and-gloom introduction from the House leader for the opposition, indeed the economic forecast for Ontario is excellent. There have been over 1,000 jobs a day created in Ontario over the last three months. There are many good things happening in the province, and I would encourage the opposition to share my trust in its future.

The House leader for the Liberal Party will remember in 1989 that party brought forward changes to the House procedures; in 1992 the NDP brought forward House changes. We are bringing forward House changes to assist the members of this House in being involved in this process to make the process run more effectively and efficiently and to better serve the people of Ontario.

Mr Bradley: Let me share with the Premier, the person who is really responsible for these rule changes, the person who wants to impose his will on this province and to just shove aside any opposition to him, the words of Ernie Eves in opposition. Here are his words:

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

Norm Sterling said: "Over the past six years in opposition I have been successful in forcing the government of the day to accept some amendments to their legislation. My only tool was to delay or to threaten to delay. What sense is there for me to bother to debate if I have no means to make them listen?"

Why don't you listen to Ernie Eves, why don't you listen to Norm Sterling, and why don't you abandon the draconian rule changes that are only to be imposed to crush the opposition in this House?

Hon David Johnson: I believe these changes actually accomplish what Ernie Eves has indicated. The first point I'd like to make is that I have made it clear I would like to get together with the House leaders from the other two parties and negotiate. If there are aspects --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for St Catharines, come to order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The second point I'd like to make is that many of these rules have been taken from the federal Legislature. They encourage the members --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I believe that these rules, which are negotiable, will allow more members of this House to be involved in the debate, will allow for the House to have extended hours for more debating time -- yes, in the evening.

Finally, I believe these changes will allow this House to run more effectively, in a more efficient fashion and to serve the people of Ontario better. My plea to the opposition parties, if there are some aspects they don't like --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon David Johnson: Just to wrap up, finally, let's sit down and talk about this if there are some problems you have. I'm confident all three parties can get together and resolve this and come forward with a package we would all be proud of.

1430

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the firefighting that's going on in northeastern Ontario. The firefighters are doing their best but they are actually being hindered by some of the policies of his government, and I'd like to use a specific example.

Last year you closed the Gogama fire base to save money, but basically you closed it in name only because both last year and this year, for the entire fire season, there has been a helicopter stationed in Gogama, MNR has brought back all the equipment, and there's a trailer onsite with personnel. Many times this year, the permanent Gogama firefighting crew, which is now stationed near Timmins, has driven to Timmins in the morning to pick up their MNR vehicles and equipment, driven them back to Gogama to remain on standby, and then in the evening they take the equipment back to Timmins and the whole thing is repeated the next day. This is a waste of time, resources and money.

Will you now admit that closing the Gogama fire base was a mistake and that you will reopen it?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I guess the member of the third party would recall when we announced that we were closing 17 of 45 bases it was to rationalize the fire operations so they wouldn't have to have equipment and people stationed in outposts and get food to them when there might not be a fire. At that time, I also assured the members that a lot of these bases would still be there. If we needed them, we'd use them; if there was a high risk, some of those bases would become operational. In other places we would set up initial attack bases that are close to the fire.

Today's technologies allow us to predict a lot better than we used to. In the old days that maybe the member of the third party wants to go back to, you had members of the fire team sitting in a tower all day. Those days are long gone. The efficiencies overall allow us to use those bases like Gogama. That's proof that it's working.

Mr Laughren: The people who fight fires in the Gogama area and all of northeastern Ontario know a lot more about it than you do. I can tell you that your ministry is a laughingstock in that part of the province because of the way you're dealing with it. It really has become a joke. Gogama is part of a very valuable timber base and they are very vulnerable if there's no fire base there. There's no guarantee that there will be a crew in that area if there's firefighting going on elsewhere. This really is ridiculous.

Will you at least make a commitment, since you seem so committed to what you've done, to come to Gogama, have a public meeting and explain to the people in that area exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: To answer your question, we can have someone from MNR go up and explain it to the people in Gogama, if you'd like. What the member of the third party is forgetting, and he seems to think it's not working, is that our firefighters are the best in the world. They're recognized as having the best program in the world.

The changes we've made in the last two years to restore that department to the world prominence it had before are remarkable. The conversion of our air fleet is recognized as a great achievement; the reorganization of our crews and the use of high technology to predict and fight initial attack are laudable. We've also taken advantage of private trainers to get more mop-up crews to free up initial attack crews so they can do what they're best at: initial attack and saving lives and saving property values.

Any time I go up to northern Ontario, people commend us on the valiant work the MNR is doing today, unlike the changes that took place in 1992 that just decimated the morale of the squad.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is to the Minister of Labour and it concerns Bill 99, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Many of my constituents would like to know why the government is taking action in this bill to clarify that workplace mental stress is not a compensable claim in the workers' compensation system. Could the minister explain to my constituents in Oshawa why this action is being taken?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would just like to indicate that we are not making any changes to current WCB practice or policy as far as compensation for workplace mental stress is concerned. What we are attempting to do in the legislation is to clarify exactly what stress will be compensated. There actually was a study conducted in 1992 by the NDP, but they were unable to arrive at a definition, so what we have attempted to do in our legislation is to ensure that all individuals know when they will or will not be compensated for stress in the workplace. We have clearly defined it and clarified it for each and every person.

Mr Ouellette: Given what the minister has just said, could she please outline for my constituents what type of stress claims will continue to be compensable under Ontario's workers' compensation system as a result of the changes contained in Bill 99.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just want to indicate that we are doing what has been done in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We are emphasizing that any traumatic event that occurs in the workplace will continue to be compensable.

Also, I've had several questions asked about sexual harassment. Again, there is absolutely no change in that policy. That will continue to be compensable in the future as it has been in the past.

1440

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last week during questioning on the Hydro coverup that has occurred over a number of years, you continued to hide under the Environmental Bill of Rights and state that you're following the process outlined in the Environmental Bill of Rights in regard to an investigation. Subsection 27(4) of the Environmental Bill of Rights states that the Minister of Environment "shall include a regulatory impact statement" when a new regulation is posted on the environmental registry.

Minister, can you explain to the House why on 28 occasions this has not occurred and on those 28 occasions your ministry, or you as minister, has breached the Environmental Bill of Rights?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Actually it's not a breach, it's an optional thing. The Minister of Environment has the right to include with a posting a compendium or additional information. Often with regard to the postings we include additional information which in a lot of ways takes the same function as a compendium or an additional piece of information might.

In fact, since the EBR was first instituted by the last government, there hasn't been a record of two separate documents. I'm told by my ministry officials that what has happened is that the postings include not only what is required as to the change in regulations per se, but often explanation around it, which in our view gives the same kind of credence as was required in terms of what the formal section says.

Mr Agostino: We were informed by the office of the Environmental Commissioner that as of May 28, with regulations brought in by your ministry, there was not one regulatory impact statement submitted, and we're not talking about minor changes. You have an out in this: It says "if the minister considers that it is necessary...to permit more informed public consultation on the proposal."

The proposals we're talking about were not minor: removal of the ban on municipal waste incinerators; changes to waste management planning; expansion of waste disposal sites; changes to the development of the Niagara Escarpment; changes to mining, chemical and paper effluent levels. Those are the regulations you brought in and you failed on every single occasion to follow the Environmental Bill of Rights that you are responsible for.

It's one of two things: Either you have breached the bill as minister or you do not believe there should be further public consultation and discussion. Which is it, Minister? Have you broken the bill or do you not believe the public should have input into these massive changes you're making?

Hon Mr Sterling: The truth is that we are following the law. We are filing information. We are sometimes criticized, quite frankly, for filing too much information for the public to be able to read all the information and follow it.

We are following, in effect, an impact statement within the body and the context of what we are filing. We believe we are following the laws as they are put. We have in fact been congratulated by the Environmental Commissioner for our use of the registry. If you want to read the last environmental report, she was very complimentary to my ministry in terms of the use of the registry.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development. In the last two years, your government has shut down all the fire attack bases in northern Ontario and has eliminated more than 2,000 jobs within the Ministry of Natural Resources. One of the consequences of these drastic cuts is that firefighters who used to take the mandatory pre-fit course previously offered by MNR now have to turn to the private sector to get it, which means that if the private sector provider decides it is not economically feasible to give the test, they just cancel it. This is exactly what has been happening over the last couple of months. In the last two months, the one-day pre-fit course has been cancelled three times in my particular area.

Minister, when are you going to make sure that the course is offered locally within a reasonable distance to provide local jobs, but also to protect and fight the fires in these communities?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. I just want to correct him. In his preamble he talked about attack bases. As he's fully well aware, 17 out of 45 attack bases were closed, not all the ones in northern Ontario that they like to repeat ad nauseam.

There are 166 initial attack crews in Ontario. What we've done is to allow more people, particularly in northern Ontario, the opportunity to earn employment by fighting fires. We've asked them to pay for training to be involved in sustained attack and mop-up. The initial attack crews are still 166 and they're freed up to do what they're best at doing -- initial attack.

Mr Len Wood: You're eliminating more jobs all the time within MNR. As I've said before, you've cancelled the courses three times in the last couple of months. You're asking people to travel 400 or 500 miles at their own expense to get this one-day course and the examination. As a result, during the recent forest fires that have been raging throughout Timmins and the Cochrane area, a lot of people are unemployed as you're bringing in people from British Columbia, Manitoba, all over the place, to fight the fires. Our people are unemployed, waiting for you to make that test available in the area. When are you going to do your job and make this test available in the area?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll look into the details on why the course hasn't been offered in your area. We contracted out the training to a number of private sector people who bid on it, among them first nations, local deliverers, people who were qualified to give the training. This was done in an effort to try to hire more people from Ontario. If you check your facts, you'll see that the opportunity for northern Ontario people to be involved in sustained attack and mop-up in firefighting has increased this year. That's an opportunity for employment in northern Ontario. That's an improvement over the way the MNR used to work. I would like to thank the member for the question. I'll look into the training in his area.

CLEAN AIR COMMUTE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Environment. I just received word that you were seen this morning on Yonge Street. You were riding in a rickshaw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I know we all want to hear the end of this question. I just need some order so I can hear it.

Mr Barrett: I understand this rickshaw was pedalled by a very tall blond. Could you please tell the House just what was going on this morning?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the member was referring to the fact that this morning I was involved with a celebration dealing with Clean Air Commute. It's a program put on by Pollution Probe to try to encourage people to take alternative transportation to work in order to keep our air clean.

The person driving the rickshaw was Curt Harnett, who happens to be the Canadian cycling superstar.

We were celebrating with Sunoco Inc some of the pollution prevention efforts they have undertaken in the last five years. We gave them a pollution prevention award. They were very interested in what the ministry is doing with regard to air quality control.

As you know, we are doing many things in this province, including revising our air quality standards. We are bringing forward PM10 standards. We are doing a number of things.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order in reaction to the statement made earlier in question period by the government House leader. If the government House leader is serious about wanting to have true discussions and negotiations around standing order changes, will the House agree to unanimous consent to have the motion removed from the order paper for today in advance of such discussion?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, I just need to be clear on what you're seeking unanimous consent for.

Mr Wildman: To have the motion that is on the order paper removed from the order paper for today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have the motion appearing on the order paper today --

Interjections.

The Speaker: You've got to wait, please -- to be removed until a later date? Agreed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I did hear a no.

1450

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of the people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I agree with this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by workers from various communities across the province:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

I add my name to theirs in support.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have further petitions from my riding concerning health care as well as additional signatures from Dunnville, Cayuga, Caledonia and Lowbanks. It is entitled "Stand Up for Rural Health Care."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities; and that hospital boards, district health councils, and the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I signed these petitions.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas the lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa and Kingston several times a week, even during dangerous weather driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families and friends travelling to Ottawa and Kingston several times a week during the abovenoted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of Health to follow through on their commitment made last April to set up the long-awaited and much-needed health services for Cornwall area residents."

I also signed that petition.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This petition reads:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas sexual assault is a crime and the effects of abuse last a lifetime for the survivors of these crimes;

"Whereas sexual assault crisis centres provide community-based, women-positive, cost-effective services which recognize and respond to both recent, historical and childhood sexual assaults, offering short-term crisis intervention, longer-term therapy, public education, prevention, court and police support;

"Whereas hospital-based treatment centres are mandated primarily to work with survivors of recent sexual assaults with a medical forensic approach, offering only short-term counselling and referrals, while adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse or historical assaults need longer-term services to recover from the horrendous crimes they have suffered;

"Whereas if Parliament decides to close sexual assault crisis centres and redistribute drastically reduced funds to treatment centres, most adult survivors of sexual assault will not have the services they need to heal and will be further victimized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to maintain community-based sexual assault crisis centres."

I affix my signature to this petition.

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supply in 1995;

"Whereas the Halton region water delivery system in the town of Milton has received the regular maintenance and standard upgrade requirements outlined by the province and is supported by a standby chlorination unit sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly supported the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

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

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well waters supplying Milton's water delivery system."

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS AUX HÔPITAUX

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton Est) : «À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de la restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance de toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord de l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgences pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Attendu que Montfort est le seul hôpital d'enseignement et de formation des professionnels de la santé en français en Ontario et que la fermeture du seul hôpital spécialisé offrant une gamme complète de services en français mènera à la dilution et, éventuellement, à la disparition des services de santé en français en Ontario ;

«Attendu que l'on fait disparaître l'hôpital qui a un des meilleurs rendements de la province et qui, pour fins de comparaison, constitue l'exemple de choix du ministère de la Santé ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

J'affirme avec ma signature.

1500

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition regarding the changes the government is making to workers' compensation -- the attack on workers' compensation, actually.

"To the Premier and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits; excluding claims for back injuries, carpal tunnel, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress and most occupational disease; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; eliminating worker representation; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits and union pensions dollar for dollar from WCB benefits.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand fair compensation if we are injured, a safe workplace, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, that WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition concerning physicians' services signed by a number of people in the towns of St Williams, Port Rowan, La Salette, Vanessa, Port Dover.

"We, the people, have decided it's time to help our doctors because in helping them we are helping ourselves, you and your family included. Our doctors have dedicated their lives to helping, healing and saving our lives. At this time it is critical to help them and there may be a time when they are unable to help us.

"The government dictates how many patients our doctors may see in a day. Then after the quota is fulfilled they must close their doors. What if we or someone in our precious family have an emergency -- life or death -- and are unable to see our doctor or any other doctor in this case? Are they going to suffer unnecessarily or even die? The emergency room will be so packed.

"This is the opinion of not only a select few but most of the general population. We are getting scared and desperate. We, the people, need your help. So do our doctors with their knowledge, schooling and money used to get them where they are today. In all honesty, we believe the government does not have the right to dictate to the doctors how many patients they can have and the money they can make while everyone else can make whatever they can.

"We are always so proud to be Canadians but when the government starts playing Monopoly with our health, it's time to take a stand. We are counting on you. Please help our well-educated doctors."

I sign this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My petition reads like this:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, with which I agree.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of CEP.

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced legislation to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and distributed a discussion paper about changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas the changes include erosion of the right to refuse unsafe work; workers will be forced to apply to their employer for WCB benefits; employers will decide if the claim is valid; reduction in power of the joint health and safety committees; and elimination of compensation for certain injuries and diseases; and

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Act is a vital protection for all workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act has prevented untold numbers of accidents and saved thousands from illness and diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand full public hearings throughout the province of Ontario on the Workers' Compensation Act proposed changes" -- not just the measly six days they've thrown out -- "no changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workers' right to refuse or joint health and safety committees."

I add my name to theirs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of amendments to the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I think when we left off we were with the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yesterday, as I began my remarks, I referred to some remarks made by the member for Parry Sound in the debate in June 1992. I would just like to remind the House of the sentiments expressed by the then third party House leader, now Minister of Finance in the Conservative government. At that time, Mr Eves said:

"I believe it is essential that we change the rules only by consensus of all three parties. Sure, any government, I suppose, that has a majority can change them unilaterally; none ever has in the province of Ontario and now none will up to this date."

Then he further said, "If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rules changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed."

Mr Eves further said, "If that spirit and that element of trust is not there, I don't think it matters what the rules are, quite frankly; this place is not going to operate."

Those were comments made by a very experienced member of the Conservative caucus talking about the possibility of procedural changes, changes to the standing orders and what effects they might have if a government were to move unilaterally.

Today in the question period the government House leader made an argument that, sure, he's called the motion that will change the rules of this House, change them dramatically, make it impossible for the public to be involved in controversial issues that are brought before the House if the government wishes to ram them through, but he said these were negotiable. He indicated he would like to meet this afternoon to talk about this. However, when given the opportunity to have the matter removed from the order paper, to show the sincerity of his offer, members of the government caucus said no. They said, "No, this matter should be debated this afternoon."

As I said yesterday, this government is following the policy of Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." So the minister is at one point saying, "Yes, we want to talk, we want to negotiate," but he's got the big stick of this motion hanging over the heads of the members of this Legislature. I suppose there's an attempt to ensure that members of the Legislature will be cooperative with the government's agenda and will get it through quickly for fear that the government will lower that big stick and bring in changes unilaterally to the rules of this House, which won't just affect this government, won't just affect the agenda that is before us in June 1997, but will affect the way this assembly works for the future.

As Mr Eves, the member for Parry Sound, indicated, if this were to happen unilaterally, this "would become a very acrimonious place." We saw a little of that this afternoon in question period. We saw how people react, how members of this assembly react when they are being told it will be very, very difficult, if the government gets its way, for the opposition to do its job and for the public in this democracy to be involved in changes that will affect them and their communities.

1510

The government has said that these are just changes that would bring us in line with the House of Commons rules. Yesterday I made the point that the House of Commons is a very different place from this assembly. The House of Commons, for one thing, has three times as many members as this assembly does. There is a need to ensure that members in that House have the opportunity to speak in debates. I suppose you can make the argument that there should be time allocation limitations put on to ensure that 300 members have an opportunity. But here we will only have after the next election 103 members, so we don't have the same pressures.

The other difference in Ottawa is that the House of Commons is only one of two Houses in Parliament. Here we are unicameral; we only have one House; in Parliament there are two. Every matter that is brought before the Parliament in Ottawa has to go through three readings not only in the House of Commons, but also three readings in the Senate.

I am not in favour of a bicameral system; I don't think we need a second House. But if you're going to pass rules that bring us in line with the House of Commons that make it possible for this House and this government to move legislation through as quickly as you're proposing, you're ignoring the fact that in Ottawa, after the House of Commons has passed a bill at third reading, it still has to go through the whole process again and there is indeed sober second thought. We cannot give the executive of government the kind of power that is being proposed in these procedural changes because we do not have the opportunity of sober second thought that they do in the Parliament of Canada.

The other interesting thing the government House leader and members of the government caucus refuse to acknowledge, when they say these are just rules from the House of Commons we're bringing into the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, is that they have not taken all the rules from the House of Commons. There are many rules that apply in the House of Commons that are not included in these proposed changes.

Just one, for example, is that there are 20 opposition days per session in the House of Commons. No one has suggested we should have 20 opposition days. If you're going to bring in the kind of rules that make it possible for the government to move legislation through as quickly as is being proposed in these procedural changes, why is it that the kind of procedures that enable the opposition to bring forward their views in the House of Commons are not also being proposed for this assembly? That betrays the fact very clearly that these changes are proposed, not to improve the workings of this House, not to ensure that individual members are able to participate, but simply to make it possible for the government to get its agenda through as quickly as possible, hopefully without too much notice from the public when they're dealing with controversial matters. That's what this is about.

This is not about enhancing democracy in Ontario. It is indeed about efficiency, as is said over and over by the government, but the kind of efficiency that makes it possible for the government to deal with issues quickly without proper debate. That is the kind of efficiency that only talks about time and how long it takes, and doesn't talk about whether or not we are making certain the legislation is going to work well for the people of Ontario.

In the past two weeks the government has brought in legislation which our caucus believes is quite destructive in Ontario. We've seen legislation introduced that will take away the right of workers to strike. The government says, "Well, public sector workers will only temporarily lose this right," but they are losing their rights to free collective bargaining in this province. We've seen legislation that will significantly change the rights of injured workers. We've seen the rights of tenants to protection being threatened. We've seen many changes like this, and there are more changes coming which will change the education system in this province in a way that will not benefit students and will certainly take away the rights of teachers.

All these things have been brought in by this government. The government would like the public to understand that it's having trouble getting its legislation through, yet as was quoted in the House today I have yet to find anyone in this province who thinks this government is going too slowly. I have never heard that complaint, that the government isn't getting its agenda through quickly enough. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. People are saying, "Wait." Even people who support the agenda are saying: "Wait a minute. Maybe they better slow down a bit and make sure they get it right." What is the rush?

The government even broke a 122-year tradition of not having this assembly meet on the federal election day, on June 2. For 122 years it's been understood that members of this assembly should be able to be in their own constituencies to participate in the federal election by voting for the candidate of their choice, just like the rest of the people who live in their constituencies. But this government said no. Probably because this government couldn't determine which federal party they were supporting, they decided they were going to have this assembly meet on election day so that members had to choose whether to be in their own ridings to cast their ballots or here to do the business of the province.

What did they do the day they met, June 2, on federal election day? One thing they did was the chief government whip called for a recorded vote without notice. It's interesting that the chief government whip did this, because I know if he had been in opposition, as he was for many years, he would have exploded with indignation if a government whip had pulled that on him, because you do not have a recorded vote without notice.

The way it works in this assembly is that the whips talk to one another and say: "Look, what do you want? Do you want a recorded vote? Do you want a division on this, or are we going to have just a voice vote?" The government whip didn't do that on election day. Why? He wanted to embarrass the opposition because a number of opposition members were away. They were in their constituencies to participate in the federal election.

That's the kind of cooperation this government shows members of the opposition. This is a government that complains there isn't enough cooperation in this assembly, yet it treats members of the opposition in that manner. As I said, the chief government whip just would not have stood for that when he was acting as a whip for the third party. That kind of action doesn't bode well for cooperation among the parties in this assembly.

We should also look at what has been happening over the last number of weeks in this House. In the last two weeks there have been 17 procedures in this House that have gone forward that required unanimous consent of the members. Every single member of the assembly had to agree for each of those procedures to go ahead. Also, this House has dealt with two bills in the last two weeks that were only able to be dealt with because the members gave unanimous consent.

How can the government accuse the members of the opposition of not being cooperative when 17 procedures went ahead and two bills were dealt with that required unanimous consent, in only two weeks? I know this doesn't fit with the rhetoric the government has put forward, that somehow there isn't proper cooperation in this assembly. But frankly, from my standpoint, it seems to me the lack of cooperation is mainly centred on that side of the aisle, not on this one. I can tell you now, with the introduction of this motion for procedural changes, there won't be many unanimous consents in future.

1520

The purpose of this assembly is to work for the people of Ontario, not just to let the government agenda go through but to hold the government accountable, to scrutinize what the government is doing and to criticize -- yes, criticize -- what the government is doing. That is the job of the assembly. It is the particular role of the opposition, but it isn't the role of just the opposition; it is the role of all the members of the House.

The fact is, though, as Mr Eves said in 1992, it doesn't really matter what the rules are for this assembly. It doesn't matter what kind of rule changes the government devises. The assembly only works when the members of the assembly can work together on issues. We have to, as an assembly, find civil ways in which to disagree, because we have genuine disagreements. There are issues we have diametrically opposed views about in this assembly. That's the strength of our system, that we do not prevent different views from being heard. As a matter of fact, our system encourages different views being put forward.

But we have to be able to deal with that in a civil manner. The introduction of these rule changes will have the exact opposite effect, which Mr Eves indicated in 1992 when he said, "If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rule changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed."

That statement by the member for Parry Sound was indeed prophetic. We will find this place very acrimonious if this government proceeds along the track it's headed on now.

How do we find a way to be civil about our disagreements? The only way that can happen is if all members of the House hold each other in respect, if we respect the fact that we have significant differences of opinion but that we are all here as individuals dedicated to the life of this province and to working for the people of Ontario. It doesn't really matter what rules we devise. If that respect does not exist, this place will not work.

What else happened on June 2, the day of the federal election, when this House sat instead of being recessed, as has always been the case, for 122 years? At a time when the interest of the gallery was directed elsewhere -- obviously, the press was interested in the federal election; they weren't interested in what was going on around here -- what did this government do? On that very day, this government demonstrated its profound lack of respect for the members of this assembly by announcing the very package of rule changes that we're debating right now.

The member for Nepean held a press conference in the media studio in this building, with no notice to the opposition, no notice at all, on a day when our attention and the attention of the press was directed elsewhere. The member for Nepean had the gall to put before the members of the press who did come these rule changes and to say that they were his idea, that they were his proposals and that he was putting them forward only to assist the members of the assembly to have a greater say, a greater role in this House.

When one analyses these rule changes, there are a few which will help the independent member, but the vast majority, the most significant of these rule changes, exist only to enable the government to get its agenda through more quickly, without notice to the public. No individual member, the member for Nepean or anyone else, can argue that it enhances the role of the individual members of this House, because it doesn't. What it does is make it easier for the executive, for the cabinet, to run roughshod over this place to get things through as quickly as possible with as little debate as possible. That's not what this system of government is about.

I like to read the speeches of the member for Parry Sound because he knows a lot about the procedure in this place. On June 22, 1992, he said a couple of other things. In referring to the government he said, "You can't always have everything your own way." He said to the government: "When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be too petulant about it, don't be too autocratic about it and don't be too dictatorial about it. Try to approach it with a sense and a spirit of generosity and compromise and you will find that you will get a lot more things done than you're getting done this way. Just some free advice for the government House leader."

Would that the member for Parry Sound had given this advice to his House leader over the last couple of weeks. You can't get everything your own way. When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be petulant, don't be autocratic and don't be dictatorial. Try a sense of generosity and compromise and you'll get more things done. Just some free advice for the government House leader.

Why is it that this government doesn't listen to the words of the member for Parry Sound, one of its most experienced members? He said further: "I don't know why the government thinks that every time it gets into a difficulty it has to change a rule or pass a motion or introduce closure or introduce time allocations to get the job done that it wants done. Why does the government approach the business of the House with that mentality?"

Well, exactly. I don't know why this government thinks that every time it gets itself into some difficulty, it has to change a rule or pass a motion or introduce closure or introduce time allocations. Why does the government approach the business of the House with that mentality? What is it? Has the Premier pressured the government House leader and, through him, the member for Nepean for these changes? I think that's what has happened.

We all know that the people in the Premier's office think this place is a nuisance, that it gets in the way, doesn't move things forward quickly enough. Debate is a nuisance. Democracy is a mess. Democracy isn't easy. It isn't efficient. Things don't get done as quickly as they might, because sometimes people have differences of opinion and they want to express them, they want to put them forward on behalf of the people of Ontario. It appears to me that this government is indeed acting petulantly, and of course they brought in a motion to change the rules.

The member for Parry Sound went on further. He said: "Unilateral actions by governments, which can be done if you have a majority, eventually will pass" -- that's how you've decided to proceed -- "but this will result in nothing but chaos and acrimony around here for the next two or three years. Whenever it is that the Premier decides to call the next election, we will see the results."

Again the member for Parry Sound was very prophetic. I tell you sincerely, if this government insists on proceeding with these rule changes as they are now doing, if they insist that this motion must be passed, there will indeed be chaos and acrimony around here for the next two or three years.

1530

The irony of this situation is that government apparently thinks that by doing this they can move things forward more quickly. But if we have the kind of acrimony the member for Parry Sound predicted, it's going to take longer for them to get these things through; it's going to have the opposite result of the one they desire.

What is it? Is it that the government backbenchers, the members of the Conservative Party who support the government, are angry about the way things work in this place and want to change things? Why? Do they think it's a nuisance to have debate? Do they think it's a nuisance to have to sit here and listen to members of the opposition express views with which they don't agree? Do they think it's inappropriate that the public be notified and understand what's going on and have an opportunity to organize to put forward their views?

I see a member across the way shaking his head no. If that is the case, then why did you bring in rule changes that will make it possible for this government to introduce controversial legislation on Monday and get it through by Thursday? Why? That's not appropriate, but that's what these rule changes mean. If you don't know that, you'd better read them, because that's what they mean.

If that happens, it is possible for any government, this government or any future government, to bring in the most controversial legislation and have it passed before the public even knows about it. That's not democratic. You might as well just rule by decree.

Last week the government House leader gave us the impression that he was prepared to negotiate. He repeated that again today. It didn't take the government House leader long to get away from the fiction that these were ideas of the member for Nepean. He admitted they were government proposals. He said that yes, he did consult with the Premier's office; yes, the Premier's office did have suggestions about what kinds of changes the government wanted; yes, indeed that did happen; and yes, you're going to have to deal with the government House leader, not the member for Nepean. It didn't take us long to get through that little charade.

But he gave us the impression he wanted to negotiate. The government House leader, as he repeated today, said: "Look, these are not hard and fast. I'm interested in hearing what the opposition House leaders have to say. We're interested in talking." That was Tuesday. The three House leaders had a special meeting on Tuesday.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I called you Tuesday. I called your office three times and you never returned my calls.

Mr Wildman: I'm not even going to respond to that.

If we're going to deal with changes in this House, we're going to deal with them the way they have always been dealt with: among the House leaders. That's our job. That's part of the role of House leaders.

The government House leader said, "We're prepared to negotiate and discuss." That was Tuesday in a special meeting. But what happened? We dealt with the Waterloo bill, we dealt with other pieces of legislation the government wanted through, we got them passed, and then on Thursday at five to 5 the government introduced this motion and indicated we would be debating it this week. So much for negotiation. Then the government House leader says he wants to debate it again this afternoon. When we give him the opportunity to remove it from the order paper and to sit down as House leaders and say, "Okay, how are we going to deal with this?" he said, "Oh, no, no, we have to debate it."

We know what this is about. This is about getting time in for debate so that at some future date, if the government wishes, the government can bring in time allocation on this motion and force these changes through on the assembly. The government is smart enough, intelligent enough to know that these changes are not going to go through easily.

As I indicated earlier, one of the reasons I'm opposed to this whole process and this motion is that I don't think changing the rules will work even from the government's point of view. Rule changes, and I say this from some experience, do not work.

I want to refer again to the experienced member for Parry Sound and his comments on June 22, 1992:

"The rules can say whatever you want them to say; you can try to tighten them up as much as you want. I've been here, I've seen them changed many times over the last 11-plus years I've been here and it really doesn't make any difference what they say, because there will always be a way to wiggle around one rule or another and the only way this place works is if the three parties can work in some sort of cooperation and concert.

"It means not only the opposition parties giving something up; it means sometimes the government has to compromise." It means sometimes the government has to compromise.

"The only way this place works is if the government compromises and gives, and all majority governments have to compromise or give. It seems as if this government hasn't learned that yet. It still thinks that because it has 74 or 75 members" -- in this case 82 members -- "it can pass anything it wants and should be able to pass it on the nod in a skinny minute because it has that many members."

That's a voice of experience. That's an individual who had served at that time in the House for 11 years and had seen rule changes come and go.

The member for Nepean and his colleagues across the way should think about this seriously. This is what the member for Parry Sound said: "It really doesn't make any difference what they say" -- what the rules say, in other words -- "because there will always be a way to wiggle around one rule or another and the only way this place works is if the three parties can work in some sort of cooperation and concert."

Rule changes do not force people to cooperate. Rule changes do not make people respect one another. Rule changes do not ensure that people work in a way that is cooperative. Moving unilaterally on rule changes, as I've said, has exactly the opposite effect, and it will in this case.

These rule changes are clearly designed to allow the government to implement its agenda more quickly. I think it's important to look at the effects of rule changes that have occurred in the past since I've been here, in the last 22 years or so. I think a number of the government party members believe that if we bring in rule changes, they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through.

I see the former member for Oshawa in the gallery, who is very familiar with rule changes and what effects rules can or cannot have in the assembly. He will know, as Mr Eves indicated, once you bring in a rule change, the opposition immediately starts figuring out how to get around it. That's the way it works.

Let's look at the effects. The government members think they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through if they have these rule changes. Every government that has brought in rule changes has thought they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through. In fact, if you look at the number of pieces of legislation passed per session over the last number of years, the number hasn't changed; it hasn't changed from before rule changes when rule changes have occurred.

What has changed is that controversial pieces of legislation, ones that result in a tremendous amount of opposition, can indeed be passed more quickly in the House, because the government can use the rules, they can bring in time allocation or whatever, to get those particular pieces of legislation through more quickly. But what happens is that the opposition then slows up all the non-controversial pieces of legislation, and that is indeed what has happened. We're finding ourselves in this assembly spending time debating pieces of legislation about which there isn't a great deal of controversy over a long period of time whereas in the past they might have passed more quickly.

Why? It started and was exacerbated after the rule changes by the Liberal Party in 1989, and then it went even further after our government brought in rule changes in 1992. It got to the point that while we were government, particularly the third party, the Conservative Party at that time, debated every piece of legislation as if it was the most momentous piece ever to be introduced, no matter how innocuous members of the general public would consider it, to the point where the government was tempted to bring in time allocation on almost everything. The kind of cooperation that is necessary for this place to operate well did not exist and the rules did not require or make that kind of cooperation exist. In fact, they had the exact opposite effect.

In the late 1970s, controversial pieces of government legislation were often debated for weeks and weeks. As a result of rule changes over the last number of years, the time allocation motion means that governments can, without unanimous consent, pass every controversial bill in six days. Under these rules they want to make it three days. The government House leader wants to get these bills through in three days.

We'll see what effect this has, but I suspect that if the government is determined to move forward on these kinds of changes, the government will be able to get its controversial legislation through more quickly. I don't think that will be good for Ontario, I don't think it will be good for the people in communities across this province, and ironically, I don't think it's going to be good for the government of Ontario either. They will be able to get their controversial legislation through more quickly, but overall they're going to have a harder time getting other things through.

I suppose this government feels, "That's okay because we only have controversial matters to bring forward." I don't know, that may be the case, but I don't think it's going to serve the people of the province well.

Under the last Parliament, opposition parties began to construe time limits to be time minimums. Legislation which had previously passed without extensive debate received considerable attention by the opposition parties, both Liberal and Tory. When I first came to this place, a bill that might be passed in one afternoon would go on for days, the same kind of legislation.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That was before television.

Mr Wildman: The member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville said, "That was before television." Television may have had some effect. I don't think it has a major effect. We all thought it was going to have a tremendous effect in this House. In fact, I'm not sure it did. I don't think television makes people speak for the full time they have available to them.

Mr Baird: Prove it.

Mr Wildman: No, it doesn't. What produces that is when there's controversial legislation that people want to get a number of points in about. I think that's what produces that kind of result.

What else produces it is when the government is introducing a bill that isn't controversial, when the specific legislation being debated isn't controversial but there isn't the spirit of cooperation in the House that makes it possible to get it through.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Please have that man removed.

The House recessed from 1545 to 1557.

The Acting Speaker: Would you restore the time owed to the member for Algoma, please.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your taking that action. All of us who are in this assembly understand that this is a people place. All of us are elected to represent the people and the people will be heard. If people feel that they are being shut out, if the government is bringing in rule changes that will make it possible to bring in legislation and have it passed within three days instead of the current six days, people will not be able to be heard.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that a quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker: Would you check if there is a quorum present, please.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: As I said, this is a people place and the people will be heard. If the government is determined to bring in rule changes and make it possible to pass legislation in a total of three days, when the current minimum is six, the people will be shut out. When the people are shut out of our system, then they will find extraparliamentary measures for expressing their views. That is not healthy for our system.

This is a place where views are to be expressed, sometimes vehemently, where people are able to be assured that their views will be presented on their behalf, and if that is not possible because of rule changes brought in by a government determined to force things through as quickly as possible, then they will find other ways, and that will not be good for our system.

This is not a debate about the right of members -- it is, but that's just part of it -- this is a debate about democracy. This is a debate about the rights of the citizens of this province to ensure that they can be involved, that they are informed, that they know what's going on and that they can influence what happens. Speed and expediency are not the most important elements in a democracy. What is important is to ensure that people are heard, that people's views are expressed and that they are responded to; that there is a serious scrutiny of government legislation, that where changes are needed, they are made, and that the time is available to make that possible.

I'd like to deal specifically with some of the rules in the last few minutes remaining.

The government is proposing changes to standing order 9, which regulates House sitting times. This is perhaps the most dangerous of the changes that are being proposed by this government. This change would allow the House to sit from 6:30 to 9:30 at night. A motion to extend the sitting beyond 6 o'clock could be brought forward by the government at any time without notice. But what is really significant is that under these proposed rule changes, this kind of extension would not just be an extension of the day, it would be a separate sessional day. So with one half-hour recess, we would then be into a new day for debate in the evening.

The rules would also allow the government to move, again without notice, a motion to sit beyond 9:30 in the evening. What does this mean? Some people would say: "If you have an important issue before the House, why not extend the time? What's the problem?" What it means is that by calling it a separate sessional day, it makes it possible for this government to count a few hours as a different day and justify in their own minds, if not in anyone else's, bringing in time allocation but not having to wait for the number of days actually to have passed. It means that controversial government legislation could be passed much more quickly, before there is time for the media to report on the bill, before there is time for the public to become informed about the bill and before opponents of the bill could organize any opposition.

The government argues, "Well, the MPPs would still have the same amount of time to debate." That's true, they would, but that debating time would be crammed into three days, and the public wouldn't hear about it, wouldn't know about it. That's what this is about. This is about a cloak-and-dagger approach to government. That's what this is about. This is about sneaking things through, getting things through so the public won't be able to react and respond if they're opposed.

What this means is that if this government had moved in this manner under these rules on the megacity legislation, they could have introduced it on the Monday for first reading, extended the session, had the first day of debate on second reading in the evening, come back the next afternoon and had another day of debate on second reading, extended the debate into that evening, counted it as another day -- that would be three days -- and then they could have brought in time allocation. That's what it means.

What does it mean in terms of the working around here? This is a minor matter, but it's important to making sure that this place works in a cooperative way. What it would mean is that because the government could do this without notice, the opposition wouldn't know what's coming. They wouldn't have any idea. The government members might know, if the government House leader deigned to tell them. They might know what's coming, but the members of the opposition wouldn't and certainly members of the public wouldn't know.

It shows no respect to the operation of this place as a Legislature representing the people. You can't run a Legislature the way you run a railroad. You can't say, "It's only important to have the trains get through on time."

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Who said that? Who was it?

Mr Wildman: That's what this is about. That was a phrase that was used in the 1930s in Italy, and we know who was in charge. That's what it was. Oh, the trains ran on time. Sure, there was no democracy, but the trains ran on time.

Standing order 11: When a quorum call is lost at private members' hour, only the morning sitting is lost, not the whole day. I wonder why this has been proposed. In the 22 years that I've served in this chamber, this trick, because that's what it is, has only been used once. Do you know who used it? The person who is now the chief government whip. Mr Turnbull used that when we were in government. He called a quorum during private members' hour. A quorum wasn't present, so the House was recessed for the rest of the day and in the afternoon government legislation could not be proceeded with. That is the only time it has ever been done and now this government wants to bring in a rule to prevent it. I suspect it's because they might think that somebody on this side might be tempted to a little bit of payback.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Madam Speaker --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not required to stop the clock. Can you give me your point of order, please?

Mr Baird: Yesterday the Chair, on a good number of occasions, called to order members of the opposition when they repeatedly used the words "Fascist" and "Fascism." I think it belittles the very serious atrocities committed in this --

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Go and bully the poor; bully the weak.

Mr Baird: We listened to you --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, come to order. Everybody come to order. I was not in the House yesterday when that happened. I didn't hear it today. I would ask all members to please come to order. Member for Algoma, continue.

1610

Mr Wildman: I just wish the chief government whip had been as concerned in 1992 when he pulled this trick about ensuring that government business could proceed as he apparently is now. It's only been used once, yet this government thinks we need a rule change to deal with it, perhaps because this government judges everybody by their own behaviour.

Changes to standing order 24: This restricts the leadoff speeches to 40 minutes and regular speeches to 20 minutes, and after five hours' debate, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes. This is from a member who claimed he was trying to protect the rights of individual members. To protect the rights of individual members by limiting the time they have to debate? What a farce. This is clearly an attempt by the government to limit debate.

If the government were really serious about giving their backbenchers time to speak, they wouldn't try to get bills through as quickly as they're trying to. Just give a couple more days of debate, and then any government backbencher who wants to participate in the debate would be able to. The only reason they don't have a chance to is that this government is determined to have bills passed more quickly than they should. If the government wants government backbenchers to be able to participate in debate, they should schedule time for debate that allows them to do that rather than changing the rules to limit the time that individual members can participate.

We've already talked about this argument about these rules being just a copy of the House of Commons. You don't see people reacting in the House of Commons this way, because there are a number of differences, which I've talked about. There are three times as many members trying to get on the debate. We don't have that problem. As a matter of fact, we're going to have fewer members.

Changes to standing order 28: Allowing for abstentions but not allowing them to be entered into the record of Parliament. How is it that you're going to allow for abstentions but you're not going to allow them to be recorded? If somebody wants to abstain under a rule change like this, they should at least have the opportunity to have it recorded. If somebody doesn't have the guts to stand up and vote yes or no, they should at least have it noted in the record, because they can in fact stay out if they don't want to vote. But what does this mean? This means that government backbenchers who don't want to vote for something can be here and not vote, and it's not recorded. This is ridiculous.

I remember the member for -- was it Grey-Owen Sound, Eddie Sargent, a number of years ago?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr Wildman: Grey-Bruce. He attempted to abstain at one point, as I recall, and he was called to order and was informed that he had to vote yes or no, which he did.

This is related to the so-called Alvin Curling episode. The idea is to prevent a member from refusing to vote and thus holding up the procedure. I can tell the government this: If this government is stupid enough to try to move forward with an omnibus bill again, a bill like Bill 26, it won't matter what the rule is. We'll find a way of stopping them. We'll find a way of slowing them down. We'll find a way of ensuring that there are proper public hearings. We'll find a way to ensure that this government has to give the public the opportunity to participate in the process, as they should. We will stand up for democracy no matter what your rules say.

I'd just like to know what this government is afraid of. What piece of legislation do they intend to bring forward in this House that requires this rule change?

Changes to standing order 30: This means reordering the routine proceedings so that committee reports, introduction of bills and motions will come before question period instead of after, as they do now. It also creates a new routine proceeding called "deferred votes," a mandatory commencement of orders of the day by 4 o'clock, regardless of whether question period is over. What does this mean? Of course, we know it means that you'll have all of these procedures taking place before question period can commence, and then, if question period is going beyond 4 o'clock, it's unilaterally ended at 4 o'clock. It's about truncating question period. It's about ensuring there aren't as many questions. It's about ensuring that the government isn't held accountable by the opposition, which is what this place is about.

The government House leader tried to justify this by saying that in other legislative assemblies in this country, they don't have the same length of question period, and he said that in some places there is only 15 minutes for question period. Let me tell you something: The British Columbia Legislature does indeed only have a 15-minute question period, but they don't time it the way we time it; they don't time the answers. The length of time for the answers is not included in that 15 minutes, so it works out to almost the same length of time as our question period.

But then these guys don't know this, because most of them don't have any experience. The one person who does have experience, who understands how this place works, who understands the rules, is the former House leader for that party, and he has advised against this very process that you're proceeding with.

I quoted him extensively in my discussion of this matter, and he has advised against this. He said that changing rules in this way will make this an acrimonious place. We've seen that demonstrated this afternoon. The member for Parry Sound was quite prophetic. Would that his caucus at least listen to him on this issue.

We will hold the government accountable because that's our role. I hope the government backbenchers would want to hold the government accountable, because that is their role as well. We will do it no matter what rules you try to impose on us, because Mr Eves was correct: It doesn't really matter what the rules state if there's no respect for one another in this place, if there's no cooperation. You cannot legislate respect, and if you try to legislate rule changes, you are going to eliminate what vestiges of respect still exist in this place.

Why is it that the government is creating a deferred votes routine proceeding which takes away one of the few rights the opposition now has to defer votes? Why is that a problem? Frankly, on Thursday afternoons the government whip is often asking if we'd like to defer a vote to Monday. Why is it this government is now talking about rule changes that would prevent the opposition from requesting a deferred vote? It doesn't make any sense to me except that it appears this government is bound and determined to stomp on the opposition at every chance with these rules.

There are other changes, rules that were purported to enhance the role and the rights of individual members. Changes to standing order 36(h): This would give the government 45 sessional days, rather than the current eight days, to respond to a petition. Why does the government need 45 days to respond to a petition? Give me any reason that the government needs 10 weeks to respond to a petition. All this means is it's going to make it less possible to keep the government accountable. It's going to give the public less say, because where do petitions generate from? They come from the public. The public is aggrieved about something and they have the petition to bring their grievances before the government. This is one of the oldest rights in our democracy; it goes back to the Magna Carta, to 1215, Runnymede, the right of the people to petition the government, to petition the King, the monarch, and now this government takes it upon itself to try and make it less possible for people to have some say even with petitions.

Changes to standing order 97(d): This gives the government 45 sessional days, rather than the 14 calendar days, to answer order paper questions, and no member will be able to have more than four order paper questions on at a time. What does this mean? All it means is again the government is going to be less accountable. An individual member could put four questions on the order paper. All the government has to do after 45 days is say, "We can't answer this question. We won't be able to answer it for a while," and leave it like that, and the individual member won't be able to put any more questions on the order paper because the government just refuses to answer. Again, it's to make the government less accountable to the members of this assembly, and thus to the members of the public of Ontario.

1620

Why does the government need 10 weeks? They don't, obviously. They don't need 10 weeks to respond. Why, if they are not attempting to make it less possible for the opposition to hold the government accountable, are they limiting the number of questions that a member can have put on the order paper? I think I know why. I think it's because this government is derelict in answering its order paper questions. I think it's because they don't answer petitions when they're supposed to. That then gives the opposition, under the current rules, the opportunity to get up on a point of order and hold things up by asking where the answer to the question is that was supposed to be provided within the time limit of eight calendar days. It's to make things more convenient for the government, to get away from the nuisance of having to answer questions and be held accountable. That's what this is about.

Standing order 68 will be deleted. Standing order 68 says that the government cannot introduce legislation during the last two weeks of a sessional period and have the bill receive second reading. The government can introduce a bill for first reading, but it can't proceed beyond first reading in the last two weeks. I think it's important for us to talk a little bit about the history of this rule, where it came from.

Those of us in the know who have been around here for a while refer to this as the Ernie Eves rule. That's where it came from. In 1992, when there were discussions and debate and negotiations around changes in the rules, this change was proposed, but it was proposed by the member for Parry Sound, who was then the House leader for the third party. He did this because it wasn't fair to the opposition to have new legislation introduced at the very last minute rather than having proper scrutiny over a period of time during the session.

I wonder if the government House leader, or even the member for Nepean, understood that they were trying to get rid of a rule that was proposed by the Minister of Finance, in bringing this forward.

Mr Marchese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I don't think there's a quorum in the House, and there should be.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check the quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: As you would know, Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to maintain a quorum.

I was referring to the proposed changes for standing order 68. Rules are in the standing orders for a reason. They're not put there just arbitrarily by most governments, unlike this one. This rule is to make it impossible for the government to sit on its most controversial legislation and then proceed at lightning speed at the very end of the session with very controversial pieces of legislation and force them through.

This is to prevent the government from forcing legislation through during the summer, when it would not receive the public scrutiny it deserves. This is a protection for the members of the assembly, a protection for the opposition that was proposed by the member for Parry Sound. I agree with the member for Parry Sound. It's unfortunate that his own government apparently does not. They see it now as an inconvenience.

Standing order 77: This will be amended so that bills will be referred to committee of the whole House at the request of the government and takes away the right of opposition MPPs to refer controversial bills to committee of the whole House. It has always been the right of all members, no matter what side of the House, not just the government, to have legislation referred to committee of the whole. It has always been there.

The way it has been dealt with, by convention, is that the House leaders will talk to each other in advance. The government House leader says: "We want to proceed with this particular piece of legislation. How long do you think it will take to get through?" The opposition House leaders tell them and then they get to the point: "What about committee? Do you think we'll need committee? What about committee of the whole?" Usually in advance everybody says, "Yes, we think it should go to committee of the whole," or, "No, we don't."

Remember that when the press conference, the media conference, was held on June 2, federal election day, the member for Nepean introduced these proposed rule changes and he said the reason he was producing these rule change proposals was to enhance the rights of members. This particular change in itself, along with the cut in the length of time people can debate, belies that. How can anyone pretend that this is an attempt to enhance the rights of members when it directly takes away the right of the opposition members to refer a matter to the committee of the whole, and not just the opposition MPPs but the government backbenchers too, because it only can be referred by the government to committee of the whole?

I know perhaps it's whistling in the wind, but I really do wish members opposite were listening to this debate and understood the sincerity with which I and other members have put forward our views, and would listen to the quotes that I put on the record from the member for Parry Sound. The member for Parry Sound was putting forward views that were based on his experience as a legislator who had spent a good deal of time in this House and understood the ramifications of rule changes and moving unilaterally by the government.

There are two things I want to conclude by saying. First, if the government thinks that by bringing in rule changes it's going to be able to get its agenda through more quickly, let me tell you right here it won't work, just as the member for Parry Sound in 1992 said it wouldn't work. It won't. If the government forces these changes on this assembly, this place will be, as the member for Parry Sound said, a very acrimonious place. It will not get things through more quickly. Individual bills may in fact get through without public scrutiny. If that happens, the members of this assembly will have failed in their duty to the citizens of this province. That may happen.

But overall, the government agenda will not move forward any more quickly, because it doesn't matter what the rules are. As soon as you bring in new rule changes, it is my job and the job of all members of this House to ensure that we're able to put forward the views of the people of the province, and if we have to do it by going around the rules, we will. It's not just my agenda; it has been the agenda of every opposition, whether they be New Democrat, Liberal or Tory. It was the agenda of the Conservative Party when they were the third party and we were the government, and I respect that.

Mr Pouliot: You're a bully. Je n'ai pas peur de toi ; ferme ta gueule. Okay, le fasciste.

The Acting Speaker: Come to order, please.

Mr Wildman: The government cannot bully its way through this. I guess the frivolity with which this is treated is an indication that it doesn't really matter what we say. The government is determined to do this no matter what. Democracy is getting in their way. It's a nuisance. This assembly is just a nuisance. Why not just be able to govern by decree? It would be much easier. You wouldn't have the messy experience of having to listen to the public. You wouldn't have to have committees. You wouldn't have to do any of that: Just introduce a bill on Monday and have it pass by Thursday. Just do that, get things through: "Let's move. Get those trains moving."

1630

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Sounds good.

Mr Wildman: The member says it sounds good. He obviously doesn't understand the legislative process if he says that sounds good, because sometimes even the most well-thought-out legislation includes problems that are discovered when the public has an opportunity to scrutinize that legislation and to bring forward their concerns in committee. Sometimes private members, members of the opposition, are able to identify problems in legislation. If all you're concerned about is speed, that is sacrificed. That's not good for the legislative process; it's not good for the people of Ontario.

I conclude by quoting again the member for Parry Sound, who I think was trying to help the people of Ontario when he said: "I believe it is essential that we change the rules only by consensus of all three parties. Sure, any government, I suppose, that has a majority can change them unilaterally." None ever has in this province. I hope that none ever will. I hope that just doesn't happen. "If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rule changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed." Unilateral actions by government, which can be done if you have a majority, eventually will pass, but as he said, it will result in nothing but chaos and acrimony around here.

It's not me saying that; it's the member for Parry Sound. I believe that the member for Parry Sound, who is now, in case some of you don't know, the Minister of Finance, meant what he said in 1992. I believe he was sincere. I believe that was one of the reasons there were negotiations at that point on rule changes. I believe that was one of the reasons the government of the day, our government, actually accepted a proposed rule change from the member for Parry Sound, one of the very rules this government is now trying to change.

But I've learned from experience, in 1992 and 1989 and previous years, that it doesn't matter what the rules are if there isn't proper respect and cooperation in this House. Those experienced members across the way know that's the case. It doesn't matter to me what you do: If you're determined to run roughshod over the rights of members, to change the rules to make it impossible for this assembly to properly do its job, all I can tell you is that we will set about finding how we will do our job. We will do it to ensure that, as the member for Parry Sound said, when the government needs to be delayed, they will be delayed; when the time is right for a government to be held up, they will be held up.

We will do everything possible to pass legislation such as the Waterloo bill, which is desired and proper, to expedite that passage. But when there is legislation brought through against the wishes of the people, such as the megacity bill that 76% of the people voted against, we will hold you up no matter what the rules.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate today. Today's very important debate is about the proposed changes to the standing orders. We're all familiar with Mr Johnson's resolution, which stems from the discussions that were held within our caucus looking for change. That discussion was led by the member for Nepean, who will be speaking later today.

I want to stick to a couple of central themes to this. I want to start by saying to the people watching today and the people in the House listening that I may not agree with some of the things that are said, but I will defend your right to say it. We're all familiar with that expression. That's what the parliamentary process is all about, listening and responding, but we also in debate must move forward.

For the last decade, changes to the standing orders have been made. In fact, the first attempt to change the standing orders in recent memory was by the Liberals in 1989, and more recently, in June 1992, the NDP amended the standing orders, and well they should have. With the style and method and number of and type of legislation they were bringing forward to expedite the process in a fair and reasonable way, I think it's within their mandate to make those changes.

As the member for Algoma said here today, democracy is clumsy and slow and sometimes frustrating, and I'd agree with him, but as has been said in history before, it's the best alternative we've heard of. We must each cherish it and not abuse it and not threaten to diminish its importance.

This is the standing order rule book that the members here are supposed to abide by and is enforced by the Speaker of the House and the Clerk at the Table to make sure that members conform to the rules.

As a new member, when I first arrived here, I have to admit I was quite surprised at how perhaps unproductive the process seemed to be. I questioned this within the Legislative Assembly committee, which was chaired by Ted Arnott, who had been here before, a young member. I asked him, "When did this change?" I tried to trace the problematic situation of how much theatre actually occurs here, and he said that probably about the time the television came in it became a little more theatrical. It is in that vein that I heard from my constituents that even they were embarrassed.

I'm going to read the very first letter I got from the then Speaker, Mr McLean. Speaker McLean wrote to all members on November 15, 1995. Remember, the election had just been held. He said: "The problem of order and decorum in the Legislative Assembly is being brought to my attention almost daily. I am being severely criticized by phone, mail and visiting students concerning the lack of decorum in the House. I've enclosed a couple of examples...." and he cited the standing orders.

It was at that point in time that I personally became aware that it wasn't something unique to me. Decorum and other issues in the House were discussed in our caucus; in fact they were discussed among new members as part of our orientation. I remember very clearly the naming of the first member in the House and how disappointed I was that a member was named and then in some respects refused to leave. I understand they're in the moment of the battle; they're frustrated and perhaps quite confrontational.

But it went on from there. As I said, there were other incidents that precipitated my own action. I was a member of the Legislative Assembly committee, an all-party committee which is supposed to deal with amendments or changes to the standing orders; at least that was my understanding. I spoke to the clerk of that committee at the time, Ms Freedman, and she advised me that that was the appropriate place. On my own, after what we would like to refer to as the refusal to vote incident, the Alvin Curling incident, I felt, gee, it was quite unusual. I looked into it and it turns out that in Ottawa a member can refuse to vote, abstain from voting, and remain in the House. So I composed a resolution. This dates back -- I'm just giving you the history, for the people paying attention -- to December 13, 1995, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. I will read this: "Do committee members have any other business?"

Mr Bradley: Why don't we just close the Legislature and let Harris run the province by himself?

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines, order.

1640

Mr O'Toole: At that point in the proceedings I brought up my own motion, and if I could read it into the record, I said:

"I move that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to review and report on the issue of decorum in the Legislature as well as the disciplinary powers of the Speaker. An examination of these processes both in Ontario and in other legislative precincts will be necessary.

"Furthermore, as the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is currently reviewing other security and related issues, it may be appropriate to include this concern at the same time because we'll be dealing with many of the same people," that is, the Speakers and Clerks of those legislatures; Quebec and Ottawa is where we visited.

"This review by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will be authorized to examine, among other things:

"The authority of the Speaker to name members; use of force by the Sergeant at Arms," and to examine the standing order on votes or the ability to abstain from voting and the committee to also examine other points of privilege and points of order.

Back in December 1995 -- to suggest that this government has not been frustrated with the process would in itself be rather misleading. It's not true.

As I said, as part of this ongoing discussion, the member for Nepean, from our caucus, in his current position took on an attempt to consult with members of caucus and brought to our attention a number of occurrences, both the piece of information I just read out --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for St Catharines.

Mr O'Toole: -- as well as Bill 33, which was a private member's bill moved on April 12, 1996, by Mr Flaherty from Durham Centre. It was a private member's bill dealing with amendments to the standing orders, very much on the same subject of trying to bring some respect to the rules, respect and order in this House.

To think that we can protest without respecting this place is not acceptable, in my humble opinion. I believe this place and the function of this particular room deserve the respect of all members. Just most recently I was appalled by the lack of respect by Mr Kormos from Welland-Thorold. I could quote the Hansard record right here, where he actually was swearing at one of our ministers. I think that has to be brought to task. That kind of thing is unacceptable.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Must have been a good reason.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, come to order.

Mr O'Toole: Out of respect for our constituents and out of the respect --

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: Ms Martel, out of respect for members in your riding, please show respect.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, take your seat for a moment. Order.

Mr Pouliot: Mr O'Toole, you went against native Canadians, you went against the French, you went against the immigrants.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order, please. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: The member for Sudbury East has raised a point that would suggest that perhaps we should allow disorder. I believe disorder is the very beginning of a complete breakdown of the system and that disorder was witnessed here --

Ms Martel: Call in the police then, John, that's how you guys operate.

Mr O'Toole: The member for Sudbury East, I would ask you to respect my opportunity to speak, to listen --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East, I would remind you to please direct your comments to the Chair. All members, please come to order. Thank you. Proceed.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can see the tenseness in the House today.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): And you are creating the tension.

Mr O'Toole: It's in that kind of atmosphere that we become very unproductive. The member for Kingston and The Islands is there, not sitting in his chair, commenting, absolutely slovenly, sitting around this place disrespectful of the whole system.

Ms Martel: Who are you? You're a joke. Who are you to talk about others.

Mr O'Toole: I'm actually -- the member for Sudbury East, do you want the floor?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, please address your comments to the Chair. Just one moment, take your seat. I would ask members to --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East, it would be more helpful if you not indulge in personal commentary on people in the House. I would ask all members to avoid that. This is a very difficult debate and that is not helpful.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Out of respect --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, a point of order?

Mr Gerretsen: A point of privilege, Madam Speaker: As I walked through the door and in amazement listened to this member, I believe he made some disreputable --

The Acting Speaker: I don't have order in this House when I am listening to a point of privilege. I have to hear this. I would ask the members to please come to order.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Good for you, not for me.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Perth, come to order. I'm trying to hear a point of privilege.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Kingston and The Islands, you have a point of privilege.

Mr Gerretsen: My point of privilege is simply this: I walked into the House and listened in absolute amazement to the member opposite talking about this bill, when all of a sudden he made a personal attack on my reputation in this House. I think my privileges as a member have been abused by that. As I was walking to my seat, he somehow made some sort of comment about the way I was dressed and the way I was sitting when in fact I was standing. I would like him to withdraw those remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Before the point of order was raised I actually asked the member for Durham East and all members to not begin to personally attack people. I would ask the member for Durham East to withdraw that comment and perhaps he would like to apologize.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do respect the member for Kingston and The Islands, the chief opposition whip. He above all should know the standing rules and he should know he should not be speaking from the --

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, I'll try to proceed and address my comments to you. Just today is a perfect example of why we have to bring in some rule changes to be more productive in this place on behalf of the people of Ontario who elect us and pay us. We've got to become a little bit more focused on trying to make Ontario great again. It has deteriorated in my view in the last number of years.

There would be those who say that what we're trying to do as a government -- they would disagree with us, but there are other ways to appropriately -- I fully agree, the opposition has a responsibility and many of the members on the other side do make very good arguments. In fact, if we approach any change during debate -- that's their duty. The member for St Catharines does it as well as anyone in this House. It's to oppose, to oppose, to oppose.

As I go back and I look through the history of this thing, it's very informative. I'm just going to read this. It may be a bit of a test here.

"These rule changes...are significant. They do move this Legislature forward, and they move it forward in a way that respects a lot of what is being done in other parliaments in the British Commonwealth. I believe they are changes that effect a fair and reasonable balance, giving to this government a clearer means by which to get on with its business."

This was said in the debate on the standing order changes in 1989 by a very formidable, eloquent speaker in this House, the member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, and I have no better respect for anyone. Mr Conway says that these are tough rules, and they were trying to make rule changes.

I would go on to suggest one more here. This one I would ask the members of the third party to listen to:

"I always thought the premise of the Legislature was that the government did get the opportunity to propose and the opposition got the opportunity to oppose, which is exactly what the opposition parties are doing," and doing today. It is their duty to do it. No matter what rule change package came forward with the government, it's their job to oppose it. So it wouldn't matter how fair and reasonable these rules changes were; it's their job to oppose. I don't envy your role.

1650

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: Member for Cochrane North, I don't envy your role. However difficult it is, at the end of the day many times I'm sure you'd like to agree with us, but it's your job to oppose.

Interjection: Their whip wouldn't let them.

Mr O'Toole: The whip won't let them. That's for sure.

Tax cuts: Many of the people, I know they want it.

Mr Gerretsen: We can't afford a tax cut.

Mr O'Toole: The member for Kingston and The Islands, I'm sure they want it.

Interjection: They want to pay more.

Mr O'Toole: They want to pay more.

The government should have the opportunity to vote on the business of the day. That's what it's about.

I could go on. There are a number of quotes that are worth citing in here, but suffice to say that the history of changing the standing orders is such that it is fraught with opposition, controversy and an attempt to disrupt the whole proceeding.

We saw today -- and I was appalled. I looked in here today, and we had to adjourn the House; we had to recess for a while. Why did we have to recess? It all started when one of the visitors here, a well-known -- not so well respected, but well known -- member of society, Mr Sewell, asked, "When am I going to get my chance to speak?" My response to Mr Sewell is, if you want a chance to speak, put your name on the ballot. Let the people speak through you. But no, he would use this opportunity to come into this wonderful, historic facility, this historic room, and cause a ruckus to deteriorate the conditions in this room, to insult the young students visiting this Legislature and to show them the indignity of how low the debate can really go.

Interjection: Shame.

Mr O'Toole: It's shameful.

One of the demonstrators today did something I think was deplorable.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, if I could get the third party to just listen. I've got a few minutes left. We listened to the member for Algoma.

The Acting Speaker: I ask members of the opposition to please come to order. Member for Durham East, go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: It's very difficult. I end up raising my voice, which sounds like I'm agitated and I'm really not. I think it's important. I do want to be heard.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, take your seat. I'm going to say that both sides of the House, I would remind the member speaking now, at times are heckling quite a lot here. Out of respect for the member who is speaking, I would ask all members of the House to come to order.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was done so tastefully. I wish it ran like that all the time. You did that with a nice flair.

My final comment on the demonstration today, which again really reinforced for me the importance of this change -- and I'm going to recount this as if it was a court of law -- is that one of the demonstrators unfurled a demonstration banner with the words "Adolf Harris." Where is the mode of expression in there? That's a completely unacceptable analogy. In my view, it's a very sinister kind of attitude.

There was one other thing. When the security people tried to retrieve the banner, that same demonstrator bit one of the security guards. I think we have sunk to the lowest kind of behaviour, almost animal-like, not good, although I'm looking over and there are other members here -- I don't like to make it personal, because I'm not perfect. Don't throw the first stone, so I won't.

But I would say that those who watch this channel -- I'll give you a one-word description of about four incidents: most recently, the Kormos incident of profanity in this House; prior to that, the April filibuster, where we spent almost two weeks reading the streets of the city of Toronto, a shameful waste of taxpayers' time; another incident where Mr Bradley almost had an altercation; and another incident where Mr Curling had to almost, if you will, discharge himself in the House. Those are a little litany of incidents that I think are --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the member for Scarborough North, who isn't here today: To make that kind of a comment about something about which he knows absolutely nothing is totally out of order. The privileges of the members of this House have been violated. I would ask you to withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Durham East, I would ask you once again to be careful in your personal attacks on other members of the chamber. I really would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr O'Toole: I'll withdraw the comments. I should refer to members from their riding, and then most people would know -- but I withdraw.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Pouliot: By this time, you should be housebroken.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order. Member for Durham East, you know what I was specifically referring to, what the point of privilege was on, and that is what I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

Mr Bert Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The members have taken up time with two trivial points of privilege. The time has gone off the clock for the member, nearly five minutes. I think it should be restored.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Everybody come to order. Okay, order. As we say in Newfoundland, listen, me old trouts, this is really gettin' out of hand.

Member for Perth, that is not a point of order. The members were rising on legitimate points of privilege and order. I'm listening carefully to everything that has been said here. I would ask the member for Durham East to continue. He has got about eight minutes left.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gave me a little chance to recompose and focus on the task.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I still can't hear the member for Durham East. Now come to order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Nobody wants to.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, thank you for the floor. Out of respect for the students, there are two schools at least, or a couple of classes of students, visiting the Legislature today. When I have completed speaking, I would like to go out and speak to this class and ask their opinion as visitors to this House, to their House, to their Legislature, and ask what they think of the order and respect for one another in this House.

Mr Gerretsen: They think you're disgraceful. That's what they think.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr O'Toole: I would expect also that members should know that the member for Nepean has really tried to lead a very grass-roots approach to amending the process of the standing orders to make them harmonious with the standing orders that are used in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Come on, come on, order.

Mr O'Toole: I'm going to read a piece of correspondence that the member for Nepean wrote to the member of the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Baird wrote on June 3 to the member from the opposition party, Mr Dalton McGuinty:

"I have listened with great interest to your thoughts on my proposals to amend the standing orders and want to clarify some of the misunderstandings. It was the changes imposed by the previous Liberal and NDP governments that reduced the rights of individual members to cut the amount of debate time in the Legislature. My proposals do absolutely nothing to cut back on the amount of debate time in the Legislature, it simply shares it." In fact, they do the opposite: They propose to allow more members more opportunity to speak and represent their constituents. We would be more democratic to have more voices heard.

As Leader of the Opposition, you can speak on any bill. My colleagues on the back bench cannot. Day after day my colleagues sit and listen to the same members on the front bench, both ministers and front-bench opposition members, speak for up to 90 minutes when we can't even speak for 10 minutes. It is a real privilege for me to speak on behalf of my constituents in Durham East. You will appreciate how frustrating it really is, Mr Speaker. I see the Speaker has changed.

1700

In question period, quite often the questions are asked by the critics from the opposition to the ministers. It's very seldom that backbenchers on the government side actually get the time to participate in the House on behalf of their constituents.

In the last few minutes of my time, I would have you know that the proposed changes to the standing orders, if anyone is listening or watching today, are very simply summarized as follows:

Debate and vote on the budget, something that hasn't happened in the last three of 10 years: Members have a right to debate and vote on the budget.

Have their private members' bills voted on, unlike Bill 33 which was blocked for a vote: The current undemocratic practice allows 12 members to stand and block a vote, which they did on Mr Flaherty --

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know if this is the member who said to the Port Perry Star that --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Kenora, take your seat, please. The member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: -- while the rule has been used 82 times, generally by the government, to stop an opposition bill.

Another point: Enjoy more debate by permitting the House to sit more than 4.5 hours a day. Sitting more than 20 hours a week is hardly revolutionary. We have to bring the House into the 21st century.

Enjoy more debate by allowing the House to sit for more than 25 weeks a year. Isn't it quite astounding that the standing orders today must be changed to allow us to sit more than 25 weeks? There are 52 weeks in a year.

Cutting short MPPs' breaks to deal with public business: I know here today that an extensive amount of time is spent on other business by all members, but the House is where the business should occur, and that's all we're asking.

I think Mr Baird is imploring the Liberal leader to work with his caucus to bring about change. I know Mr Baird is not alone in this. All members are here listening to this debate. I know members from all three parties are here.

The member for Algoma clearly said he would break the rules to make his point. That's clearly what he said in the debate today. I suspect the opposition has a very frustrating role, and I appreciate that, but I think we have to live within the rules of society and I expect that we should live within the rules of this House and find other ways to demonstrate.

I am expected and quite prepared to meet constituents in my office, in front of my office and on the lawn here at Queen's Park.

Mr Miclash: That is not what you said in the newspaper, John.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kenora.

Mr O'Toole: Bill 48, the social contract, was time-allocated and they used closure. That was their biggest piece of legislation.

In conclusion, every member is elected to serve all the people in their riding. That is not exclusive to just the government members, it's all members. Some members whom I have a great deal of respect for have been here for 20 years and more. They know the rules and they also have the highest respect for this place.

Mr Miclash: It's all right here. There's something about dictatorship.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kenora, I don't have to warn you again. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would never do as the member for Kenora is doing. It's one more example.

Times have changed and we must change our sitting orders. We're trying to parallel the rules with the federal Liberal government. We like to hear the words "harmonizing the standing orders." I think it makes very good sense.

Interjection: How about 20 opposition days?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The actual rules are very clear. You are not to interfere. You are not to interject.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kenora, I warn you. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate it, but the interruptions do make it difficult. I expect when the next speaker rises, we'll try to listen and respect the time they are given. I'm sure they'll have opposition points to make. After all, it is your duty to oppose us. I expect nothing positive; I expect all opposition.

I expect this government, in its wisdom, should listen and it should be fair and reasonable with the constituents we're all trying to represent. Just today our House leader, Mr Johnson, offered very clearly to the other House leaders to meet with them and to listen to them. What more could be expected?

Again, in the heat of this discussion, in conclusion, any remarks I may have made against another member, or suggested that their behaviour was unacceptable, were used only in the sincere gesture of trying to explain the need to reform the standing orders that are on the table today.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I certainly want to put something on the record. Earlier today the Premier of this province referred to the member for Scarborough North's sit-in during Bill 26 as some kind of fiasco. I know that all of my constituents, everybody I've talked to over the last two years about his role in Bill 26 and the opposition role in Bill 26, applauded it and said it was a strong and courageous stand for democracy that he took. I certainly want to put that on the record because no one agrees with the Premier or the previous speaker that it was anything but a courageous stand in defence of parliamentary privilege and in defence of the right to be heard and the right to have public meetings on that. So let's put that on the record about Bill 26.

I should also like to make it very clear that this government says, "We're going to adopt some of the federal rules."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. My role here is to listen very attentively to what is being said, and if there are too many interjections, I cannot hear. So I would ask you, member for Lake Nipigon, to please stop interfering, stop interjecting; and the member for Kingston and The Islands and the member for Scarborough North. Member for Oakwood, you have the floor.

Mr Colle: In terms of the government saying, "We're trying to adopt some of the federal rules," it's interesting: There are three times the number of members of the Legislature in Ottawa. There are over 300. There are 103 here. Does that mean they want to triple the number of representatives? Does that mean they want a bicameral House here? As the member for Algoma said, what you have in Ottawa is three readings in the lower House, in Parliament, and then you have three more readings in the Senate: twice the debate. Do you want to do that if you want to copy the Ottawa situation, the Ottawa scenario? Let's have the bicameral assembly here. Let's have the second sober thought.

Here we have a unicameral House, one House, and that is why it is so important to have checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch, because you only have one kick at the can here. There are no checks and balances. If these rules go through, in essence you're blending the executive branch and the legislative branch even more. You're creating a one-party government, a one-party Legislature. That is what these rules are designed to do.

I know members of the public might have time to go into these details, but in essence, if you look at the rules, they are all engineered out of the Premier's office to stifle debate, to basically get back at the opposition because the opposition had the audacity to question this government's steamroller. They got in the way of the steamroller Bill 26, where they made the most dramatic, draconian changes ever seen in this province's history. They tried to pass that bill through without any public hearings. That's what they tried to get away with. In fact, I was in this House when most of the members were in a lockup as a result of the budget, and when the House leader, Mr Johnson, presented it, he was about the only one here, with two or three other members, because the rest of the people were locked up. They tried to sneak the omnibus Bill 26 in while everybody was locked up. That was a real foreshadowing of what was to come.

Then with the megacity bill, again there was an anti-democratic denial of the rights of 400,000 people in the six cities of Metropolitan Toronto who said no, no, no to the taking away of their democratic rights. This government just went ahead, steamrolled it, rammed the thing through despite almost every deputant, except the Premier's chauffeur, who spoke in favour of the megacity. Despite that, they rammed the megacity down the throats of Ontarians and down the throats of people in Metropolitan Toronto.

That's what the opposition's job was. It stood in the way of the steamroller, and the opposition stands in the way of the steamroller for the public, because if you deny the opposition the right to debate, you deny the public the right to debate. If you deny the privileges and rights of the opposition, you deny the privileges and rights of the public. So I talk about this in terms of what it means to the public. It doesn't just mean something to those of us in this House. It means that our opportunity to raise questions about very complex bills is going to be diminished. They are going to be able, with these rule changes, to ram bills through in a week. How can the public ever have a chance to scrutinize, to question?

1710

Members of this Legislature for the last two years have been bludgeoned by this blitzkrieg from this government. Day after day it's new motions, new bills, new laws; it's endless. They've been going at an unprecedented, reckless rate of speed. Members of the Legislature -- I've talked to veteran members like Mr Bradley from St Catharines -- have never seen this kind of pace. If we can't keep up to all the bills and the hearings, how can the public know what's in all these bills? If you look at all these bills, bill after bill that it is our duty to scrutinize, this government wants to move even faster, and I suspect they have a hidden motive for doing this. They have more anti-democratic, draconian bills on the back burner that the whiz kids are now crafting. They have more bills that will take away local democracy. They have more bills like Bill 26. As you know, they are proposing to take away the rights of workers to strike. That's one of the reasons they want to change the rules.

Talking about changing the rules, here is a government with a massive majority, in control of all the government departments. It's got these massive advertising campaigns on television with the Premier. For three or four months all we saw was the Premier on television, pulling wires on the screen, trying to promote himself. That's all at the government's disposal, and that isn't enough for this government. They want a supermajority. They don't want any opposition. They get very upset when the opposition questions them in question period, so they now want to move question period down to the end of the day so there won't be any television coverage or media coverage of question period. They would like to cancel question period, I'm sure, if they could get away with it.

That is, why when they introduced this motion, they introduced it through another sneaky, backhanded manner. On election day, when most Canadians were out voting, this government called a press conference introducing these draconian rule changes. That's when they did it, the same day that for the first time in 122 years this House had to sit on election day. That's what this government thinks of democracy. They tried to ram and sneak this thing through when most people were out voting and not watching.

Whenever they try to do something through the back door, they're trying to hide something, and that's what this motion is all about. It's an attempt by this government to continue to hide from the public what their intentions are in their bills, because they know when they railroad these bills through in a week, the average citizen is too busy trying to make a living or trying to make ends meet and will not have time to scrutinize the government.

That is why they want these rules, so that the opposition or the public or the press won't have an opportunity to question them. They do not like being questioned, they do not like being opposed, because when they won the election, they thought they bought the business. They think the province of Ontario belongs to them, the Conservative Party or whatever it is, the Reform-a-Tory party. I'm not sure what party it is, but they think they bought the province, and that is what these rules changes are all about. It's to ensure that it is run essentially like a closed-door, corporate shareholders' meeting where nobody dares question the CEO, the board of directors. They shouldn't be questioned; they rule by decree.

As you know, their own members agree with the public and the opposition. The member for Wentworth North, Tony Skarica, said, "It's a dictatorship." That was a Conservative saying that. You had Gary Carr, another Conservative, saying, "Mike Harris has got to realize this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship." These rule changes reinforce the perception a lot of Ontarians have that this government is into total control. When the Premier muses about fingerprinting everybody in the province, you really start to wonder: What is the agenda? Why would he have to fingerprint everybody in the province?

Why would he have to always set up these unelected commissions and boards that you can't get at? For instance, they're closing down 30 hospitals in this province. It's not the Minister of Health who claims responsibility, or the Premier; they have this unelected, faceless group of mercenaries they call the Health Services Restructuring Commission that sells off our hospitals that belong to the people of Ontario. They do it behind closed doors with these unelected commissions, which further removes the public from the government.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Except for Ernie Eves.

Mr Colle: Oh, yes. Then there's Burk's Falls. There's a special situation for Burk's Falls. They get special consideration, but those of us who don't happen to be in the government don't get that special consideration.

That is what is so offensive about changing the rules to reinforce the continual power in the executive branch of this government. Even their own backbenchers, as I quoted, agree with that. There's too much power in Mike Harris's office. I think that's why they're complaining. I think the frustration of the member for Durham East was really about that, that they have nothing to do because everything is orchestrated from the back room by the whiz kids. They decide what they say, when they say it, where they go. Everything is decided by, as I said before with the commissions, unelected, appointed mercenaries that nobody sees. Who has ever seen this person Guy Giorno? Here's the guy making all the decisions around here. Who has ever seen this person? Is there such a person?

These are the power brokers. These are the people who are controlling our province, and as members of the opposition we try to do our best to raise questions. I know sometimes it's upsetting, the process is slowed down a bit, and sometimes there is a filibuster or there may be a sit-in, but this is the price of an open, democratic Legislature. If you don't have that give and take, if you don't have an opposition that is strong, the public is shut out, because the public can't hire lobbyists or lawyers to go and get meetings with Guy Giorno and all the backroom whiz kids. All the public has is essentially the opposition, and if you shut down the opposition, you close another door in the face of the public.

This government, for instance, uses closure as if it's routine. Every time there is a controversial bill, they invoke closure or, as they call it, time allocation. When closure was first introduced in 1956, with some fanfare, with the pipeline debate in Ottawa, it was almost a complete contradiction of Canadian parliamentary tradition, but now it's almost, as I said, part of everyday happenings in this Legislature. Every time there is a controversial bill or anybody raises any kind of opposition, oh, time allocation, closure. That means the public cannot find out about the bill. There's no debate, there's no time, and therefore the government steamrolls ahead.

In terms of where this government is going with these rule changes, over and over again we've been told that this government has an agenda, and that was in the Common Sense Revolution. The problem is that many of the bills they're passing were not in their political agenda in the campaign. For instance, the creation of the mega-government in Chatham-Kent, the mega-government they're trying to create in Ottawa or Hamilton, the one they are trying to create in Toronto, these were not in the Common Sense Revolution. That is why the opposition had the support of the public in opposing those mega-governments: It wasn't in their platform. On the closing of hospitals, Mike Harris in the election said it wasn't his plan to close hospitals, so if they bring forth legislation to close hospitals, it's our duty to oppose it.

1720

We're not going to sit here quietly like trained seals and acquiesce to every document that comes through here. The public never voted for closing hospitals; the public never voted for megacities; the public never voted for this new tax system or the removal of rent controls, because the Tories, certainly in Metro Toronto, went door to door and said, "We're against market value assessment." The Tories went door to door and said: "We're against removing rent controls. We're in favour of improving rent controls." Now they've done the opposite.

You wonder why the public is upset. You wonder why the opposition is upset. They're doing the exact opposite of what they promised to do in the campaign. They never promised to get rid of rent controls; they're now in the middle of getting rid of rent controls. That is why the opposition has the right to be upset. That is why it is the opposition's right to raise these questions.

For this government to try and stifle that is basically an attempt to hide what it's up to. Why would they want to do things so quickly? Why would they introduce this motion to stifle the opposition on election day in the afternoon? Why wouldn't they introduce it in the middle of the day, when the public is watching? Because they were trying to hide the fact they're trying to do through the back door what they can't do through the front door.

I assure you the public will find out about this attempt to close down the opposition and muzzle the opposition and the public will not stand for it. They didn't support this government on Bill 26 because they saw that as being anti-democratic. That's why they supported Alvin Curling and supported the opposition on Bill 26, because the government had gone too far, they said, had taken too much power on to themselves. When governments go too far, that is when opposition can play a very important role. That's what we have to do.

Mr Speaker, I know you're a long-time soccer player and an athlete. You know that in competition you do not change the rules in the middle of the game. In other words, this government now feels itself under pressure. The polls are going down; the public has caught on to their act and is questioning them. So what do they want to do? "We're going to change the rules of the Legislature because we can't win by the old rules." It's as if at half-time at a soccer game, they change the rules because they couldn't win. With their massive majority, they were getting beat up by these ragamuffin little people in the opposition. They're going to change the rules because they weren't winning.

How fair is it for one side to change the rules and decide what the rules are going to be? That's what they're doing. They're going to decide, with their majority, what the rules of the game are going to be. That is not fair, it's not right and it's not done anywhere you have true parliamentary democracy. That is what they're going to do. They are going to go to the ultimate step of ensuring that the opposition will have less time to question, less time to debate.

That is what the rule changes will do. It will reduce our ability to debate, our ability to question, our ability to raise points of privilege even -- even to limit that -- and points of order. As the experienced members of this House will tell you and as you know yourself if you've been around here, it's very worrisome when one side decides what the rules are going to be. It goes contrary to the tradition of a House that is unicameral.

There's no Senate here that checks what Mike Harris does. Mike Harris and the cabinet control this province and there are no checks and balances. Is it the corporate sector that's going to check the Premier? How can the public check him when these bills are going to be rammed through within a week? There will be no opportunity for anyone to even have the resources or the parliamentary wherewithal to have any checks and balances on this government.

What we have is a shift -- the Speaker said that in the Bill 103 hearings on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He said, "What we see happening here is a shift towards an executive form of government, where most of the power is being shifted from the Legislature to the executive branch." That is not good for the members of the opposition, nor is it good for the backbenchers on the government side, who know, in all honesty, that they're just pawns in the games being played by the backroom people in the Premier's office. That is not healthy for Ontario and it's not healthy for the political process.

There is acrimonious debate and there are delays here. It's not very productive at times; it's not very efficient. Sometimes it even gets borderline manic in here. But you cannot run the Legislature like a business. It has to have its imperfections. It has to have its give and take. It has to have open participation. As much as you may dislike what the opposition is doing or saying, the opposition plays the role of a check and balance on the power of this government, especially a government with such a massive majority, a government with such massive resources, a government that has millions of dollars in its party's political coffers.

The opposition or the general public doesn't have those resources to oppose, so if you're a tenant and you're trying to oppose this government on rent control, how does you stand up to the government? You can't; it's almost impossible. If you're someone who believes that the city of East York should remain -- you saw what happened. They voted in East York. Over 85% of the people of East York said no to eliminating their city and their borough. This government said: "We don't care what you say. We're going to do it anyway." If they've already done it before these rules are changed, why do they need even more power? Why do they need to shut down the opposition even more?

I'll read a passage from one of their own party kindred -- maybe he's not any longer; I don't think he's a member of the Reform, but he certainly is a Progressive Conservative. It's Patrick Boyer's book on political rights. He talks about the right to free speech. That's what this issue is all about. It's a right to the freedom of speech of the opposition and the public. Here's what Patrick Boyer says, referring to an Alberta case in 1938:

"The Supreme Court of Canada stated that such institutions as Parliament `derive their efficacy from the free public discussion of affairs, from criticism and answer and countercriticism, from attack upon policy and administration and defence and counterattack; from the freest and fullest analysis and examination, from every point of view, of political proposals.'"

That's what Patrick Boyer says. He goes on to say, "Even within its legal limits, it is liable to abuse, and grave abuse, and such abuse is constantly exemplified before our eyes; but it is axiomatic that the practice of this right of free public discussion of public affairs, notwithstanding its incidental mischiefs, is the breath of life for parliamentary institutions."

That's what we're talking about: the breath of life of parliamentary institutions. Sure, there's acrimony, sure, there's all kinds of mischief at times, but as Patrick Boyer says referring to these speeches from the past, you need this to have a good democracy. This is a true Progressive Conservative who has written a lot about how our institutions work and the public's right to have a say in how our institutions work.

If this government tries to control all aspects of this House to the point of depriving the opposition of points of privilege and orchestrating that, changing the whole routine of this House so there will be more ways of controlling spontaneity from the opposition, I think the public is a loser. The public is a loser if there isn't an opportunity to have an opposition that can undertake a filibuster now and then.

1730

I think filibusters are healthy. I think they're an integral part of slowing the process down so the public can stop and pay attention to what is before the Legislature. But if everything steamrolls ahead and everything is passed as if it's some production line, we're going to lose the very essence of what this Legislature is all about. This Legislature is about give and take, it's about hot debate, it's about confrontation at times, hopefully just verbal confrontation. You can't eliminate it. If you eliminate that, you in essence have a corporate type of government where people do what they're told -- the opposition does what they're told, the government side does what they're told -- and the only ones who win are the few privileged, unelected people in the back rooms and the members of the cabinet's inner circle. That is what these rule changes will do.

I know a lot of the public are saying perhaps we have to get these things in the House done in a way that is more expeditious and efficient, but I ask the public this: Maybe one of these laws doesn't affect your life. Maybe the rent control legislation doesn't affect your life or the megacity legislation doesn't affect your life or Bill 26 doesn't affect your life directly, but there will in the future be a bill that this government will try to ram through that may affect your life, and you hope and pray to God that there's someone there fighting for you. Whether it's the press or members of an interest group or members of the opposition, you hope they're there to slow the thing down and ask: "Is this bill fair? Is this legislation for the good of Ontario? Does it make sense?"

As we saw with Bill 26, the government was forced to make over 130 amendments to that bill. That is the same bill this government wanted to push through without any hearings. It was probably the most dramatic change in governments we've ever seen in this province and they wanted to do it without hearings.

So you can see how important it is for everyone to support an effort by any group that wants to be heard, whether it be in a committee room or whether it be in this Legislature through an opposition question or opposition debate. If you take this away from us, if you take our ability to speak away from us, you've essentially taken the right of the people to speak away from them, because ordinary citizens don't have the time, perhaps sometimes don't have the information to be able to defend themselves. Sure, there are the well-to-do groups and individuals who may have the ability to speak on their own behalf and to petition the government, but all ordinary people really have is their elected representative at times, the opposition, to ensure that some piece of legislation doesn't destroy their life, doesn't close their hospitals in a wrongful way.

That's a perfect example of what can happen. The hospital restructuring commission that this government set up, that unelected body that's going to close hospitals -- we asked for a hearing before that board, the members of the community who built Northwestern Hospital brick by brick, built it with their donations, with their voluntarism. This commission, appointed by Mike Harris, said: "No, we're not going to listen to you. We don't have to listen to you." Here's a hospital that is owned by the public, raised by volunteer funds. This government now has the audacity to say, "We don't even have to give you a hearing for an hour whereby you can plead for your hospital." I mean, if you get a traffic ticket, you can go before a JP and plead that traffic ticket.

This is why I fear these sledgehammer rule changes. They're anti-democratic sledgehammers which, under the guise of efficiency, are going to further dilute our ability to oppose, further dilute the public's ability to question this government. If there's a government that is afraid of questioning, it's a government that is trying to hide something. I ask the public out there to find out, why would this government want to have these extraordinary powers to shut down the opposition? With their huge majority, with all their money and the ministerial media people and their huge staffs of hundreds of people running all over the province, why would they want to have further control, a further shutdown of the opposition? Why would they want to keep this from the public? Why is the public not going to be given an opportunity to question through the opposition? What dangerous, draconian legislation are they, as I said, now planning in the back rooms?

That is why I think all of us will fight this set of rule changes right to the last minute. We're not going to give in to this.

Ms Martel: I rise today to participate in the debate which began yesterday, when the government House leader tabled the government notice of motion with respect to some very draconian rule changes that have been unilaterally presented to this House.

As I speak today, I'm going to frame my remarks in the following way: These draconian changes, which have been presented unilaterally, without notification to the other House leaders, without any discussion, without any negotiation, which just appeared on the order paper at 5 pm last Thursday night, are part and parcel of a broader government effort to do three things: first of all, to the best of its ability to ram through legislation in this House, especially controversial legislation; second, to try and shut down opposition members and any kind of opposing point of view which might be raised by people who were also duly elected to serve the Ontario public in this House; and third, as much as possible to shut out the public from the democratic process and from having any kind of influence whatsoever in the legislation or policy changes or the day-to-day workings of this government.

That's what these rule changes are all about. They reflect a much bigger government agenda to try and ram through legislation, to try and shut down opposition debate and opposing points of view at every step and to try and ensure that the public has very little, if any, kind of opportunity to have influence, to have input, to try and get the government to change its mind.

We know, having been in this House for the last two years and listening to the comments from members of the government, that the government doesn't like the democratic process, that this Legislature and the process by which we pass laws in this democratic Parliament are a nuisance to this government. Mike Harris would much rather run everything out of his office, as he has tried to do more and more in the last two years, without having any input not only from the opposition but from his own backbenchers. We know that because we have seen any number of backbenchers make very clear statements about the kind of leadership Mike Harris provides. You've got Toni Skarica, MPP, who says it's a dictatorship; Gary Carr, MPP, who says Mike Harris has got to realize this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship. Even some of the government's own backbenchers have publicly commented on the way this outfit is being run, which is directly out of Mike Harris's office.

We know that this government would prefer to have no debate on any pieces of legislation, especially the controversial ones. This government would be just as happy if we had no public input, no public hearings at any point, if the government could just come into this place every day and say, "Here's the legislation and this is the way it's going to be because we have a majority and we don't care what the rest of you have to say and we don't care that 50%-plus in this province voted against us and voted for members of two opposition parties."

It's clear by the comments that have been made in this House on occasion after occasion, by the attitude the government House leader takes in tabling the kinds of changes that have been tabled, by some of the comments we heard earlier today from members of the government who talked about the group that was here and how awful it was that they had been here and what they had been up to; when the Minister of Labour yesterday or today described in this House the group of injured workers who were here yesterday as a "mob."

That's the kind of attitude with respect to public input and public debate that this group has demonstrated from the day it arrived here. "We don't want to hear an opposing point of view. We're the government. We're going to get on with the revolution. We don't care who we hurt, we don't care who we run over in the process, and we sure don't want to hear from the opposition in this place about some of the concerns other people have about what we're doing."

1740

What the government does instead, in dealing with legislation, in dealing with change, is to as much as possible deal in secret, behind closed doors, with some of its special friends.

We saw in Bill 99 that there was no kind of consultation whatsoever with injured workers' groups or legal clinics that represent injured workers or trade unionists who represent injured workers or MPPs, for example, who represent injured workers. There was no kind of input from those folks at all.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House at present.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Ms Martel: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It's been very clear from the way the government has operated to date in this place that they would be much, much happier if there were no debate; if the government could rule by decree; if the Premier or the ministers responsible could come in and tell us what the legislative changes were going to be and they would be implemented and there would be no public consultation and no public hearings. That is what some of these rules are designed to achieve. Let there be no mistake about it.

I said earlier that the rules are part and parcel of the government trying to shut down this place and shut out public input. Let's look at some of the other things the government has done to try and limit public input, limit public access to this place and limit public influence with respect to the democratic process.

One of the first things the government did was to cancel the tie line that the public who live outside of Toronto could use to contact either MPPs or government ministries. That tie line was a local number that could be called that would then connect that constituent to Queen's Park or to any number of government ministries or agencies of the government. In that way, people who lived outside of Toronto, in the long-distance calling area, like every single one of my constituents, could still have access to government and government ministries and not have to pay for that through Bell Canada. Those charges, especially in the middle of a working day when you're trying to resolve some issue with government, can be expensive. One of the first acts of this government was to cancel that tie line, so the constituents who are trying to contact government ministries, government agencies, have to incur long-distance calling charges for that now. For a lot of people who are trying to resolve complex issues with government, which takes some time to do, that can be really expensive. They don't have that kind of money.

There was no reason to do something silly like that unless the government was not interested in allowing the public to have some access, allowing the public to try and resolve some of the issues and complaints it had against government. That's the only reason I can see for the government shutting down that service. It was to cut off public access, across a wide part of this province, to the people who work in this place and to government bureaucrats who work all through the metropolitan area.

Second, Hansard now will continue to be printed for MPPs, but will not be available for circulation by subscription to the general public. Unless members of the general public are fortunate enough to be able to afford a computer and to get into the Internet, they cannot get copies of what goes on in this place any more, either what goes on in this House or in committees of the House.

I ask the government, was it really that much of a saving that you thought you had to take away that service from members of the public who wanted to be informed about the debates happening in this place, who wanted to know what was happening in committees with respect to particular pieces of legislation? Was it that big a deal that you had to cut that particular opportunity people had? Now the only way you can access it, if you're not an MPP, is to hope you have Internet and access it that way.

Look at the centralization of government services back to Toronto and ask yourself if that isn't another concrete effort by this government to try and cut off the access to people to their government. Look at the example of the family support plan, which is the one I know best. In Sudbury there was a regional office and there were more than 60 people every day who accessed that service, from recipients who needed their payments to employers who were trying to sort out support deduction notices, to payors who were trying to make arrangements to provide cheques up front that could be delivered to their families, to any number of social service agencies that have to deal with the family support plan for seasonal orders and other things.

What did this government do last August? The government decided that to cut some costs, and frankly to cut off people's access to this plan, they were going to centralize everything back to Downsview. All the regional offices across the province, the one in my community and the 10 others, were shut down by this government. The Attorney General said at the time, "Only 60 people on average every day were using this service." I don't care because they were 60 people who used the service and got their problem resolved, and now these people can't get through on the phone line to the family support plan even to have someone talk to them about their problem, much less get it resolved.

It was another concrete example of this government trying to shut down access of the public to a government service, to government bureaucrats, for people who were trying to get help to resolve their particular concern with this government. It was a wrong thing to do, and the government did that not only with the family support plan but is doing that now with any number of other ministries, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines included.

This government has moved to use voice mail almost exclusively. I don't know how many people actually try to call government bureaucrats to deal with problems of their constituents, but two weeks ago, when I was up during constituency week and doing a lot of that, there wasn't a single ministry I could get through to to talk to a live body on the first try. Not a single one. What is that? That's only an example of this government trying to put people off, trying to make sure they don't call back: Don't return their calls and hopefully they won't try again. What kind of access is that for people in Ontario who pay for that service, who pay to ensure that services and bureaucrats are accessible. Again, this government is trying to cut off access, is trying to cut off the public's input into what's happening in this place.

Let's look at some of the time frames for consultation on government legislation and how the government does everything in its power to try and ensure that the public has no say into what it's doing. Let's look at the example from the Minister of Education and Training, who put out his document on suggested changes at the secondary school level with respect to curriculum and structure. We heard from any number of parent and school councils that the time frame that was permitted to make recommendations back to the government was so short that it was impossible for them to even bring their parent and school councils together to take a serious look at the changes and to provide concrete and good recommendations back to government. The Minister of Education and Training had no desire, no intention whatsoever, to hear from the public. It was clear, from the very short time frame that he allowed for alleged public input, that he couldn't have cared less what the public had to say, what school councils had to say, what parents and students had to say. The whole way in which the discussion was framed made it clear to the school councils in my community that the government had no interest whatsoever in hearing what they had to say.

1750

The Ministry of Natural Resources did the same thing six months ago in a piece of legislation it was developing. The groups which contacted me got a copy of the discussion paper on a Thursday and were invited to a briefing session and to make their comments and recommendations for change on it the next Tuesday here in Toronto. It was clear to those groups that the minister had no intention whatsoever of listening to what they had to say, that he couldn't have cared less what they had to say. The very way in which the discussion paper was structured, in which the request for input was structured, made it clear to them that the government didn't want to hear from them, didn't want to know, was going to proceed in exactly the way the government intended in the discussion paper it set out.

Those are more concrete examples of this government trying to do whatever it can to block public input, to block public access to government, to do whatever it can to ensure that the public has no say and the government goes on its merry way day after day doing whatever it wants.

Just take a look at some of the public hearings -- or lack of public hearings -- on some major pieces of legislation around this place and people will understand that the public is being left out with respect to very controversial changes in the way society is structured in Ontario and that MPPs are being left out, not having an opportunity to have their say.

This government made dramatic changes to labour legislation through Bill 7, took us back 50 years in terms of the rights workers had won in workplaces in this province. There wasn't a single day of public consultation on those dramatic and draconian changes that took workers back 50 years in terms of the rights they had fought for, won and enjoyed in this province -- not one single day, not an hour of public consultation on a bill that dramatically changed the balance we had achieved in the workplace, on a bill that dramatically influenced and undermined rights people had fought long and hard to achieve.

Take a look at the changes around public libraries. There was a single day, one single day of public hearings in Toronto on that piece of legislation, despite the many requests received by the committee from people who cared about their community libraries, their public libraries, who wanted to have input, who wanted to be able to talk to government directly about their experience and share that with the government.

The government agreed to one single day of public hearings. When our committee members moved a motion to extend that, the government members voted it down. The government was not interested in hearing what people had to say. The government had formed its conclusion about what it wanted to do, had its direction and couldn't care less what the public had to say and didn't want to hear any other suggestions about how changes could be made.

Look at Bill 26. This government did not want any public hearings on Bill 26. That was clearly identified by the government House leader even before the legislation was introduced in this House when the government House leader told the opposition House leaders, "I want this introduced, second reading and third reading rammed through before Christmas." Yes, the opposition did whatever it could to stop that and did what was necessary to ensure we had public hearings, because that bill provides such sweeping changes to the structure of health care, to municipal structures, to pay equity, to changes with respect to natural resources, that the public needed and had to have some kind of input. But I can tell you that this government didn't want that. The government House leader wanted that thing rammed through as fast as he could before last Christmas.

It was only because the opposition used the rules of this House, a particular rule the government is now going to change in the government motion, that we were able to get some hearings, and then the government itself had to bring in 100-plus amendments to fix the mess it had created. Were it not for those public hearings, were it not for people taking a sober second look at that bill, and by that I mean the government itself and any number of government ministers who had different pieces of legislation attached to that bill, there would not have been about 100-plus amendments and there would not have been some little bit of positive change to some of the sections of that bill.

That's why you need public input. That's why you need public hearings. That's why the government can't put forward the rule it wants to, which will then say members can't stop the House in the way they did in the face of very draconian measures this government was moving on during Bill 26.

Let me give you an example of Bill 99, the workers' compensation legislation that began yesterday down in committee. There has been a long tradition in this House that when governments make changes to workers' compensation legislation, governments put in place proper public hearings so that injured workers and their representatives can come and have their say, because when you change workers' comp you affect the lives of literally thousands and thousands of workers and their families across this province.

What does this government do? In a time allocation motion moved by the government House leader, the Conservative government decided they didn't care about that tradition, didn't care about having input from workers or hearing from their representatives. The government was going to have its way and have four half-days of hearings here in Toronto and six days on the road. That's the beginning and the end of the public hearing process on Bill 99, a bill which significantly changes workers' compensation in a way we have not seen in this Legislature since the act was first adopted in 1914.

I was in the resources committee last week trying to argue for extended hearings, trying to point out to the government members that every time we have had significant workers' compensation change in this province, we have allowed for extensive hearings and extensive travel. We have allowed injured workers to come and, for a single day, have their say, as they did at Convocation Hall when the Liberals last tried to significantly change workers' compensation. We argued before that committee that unless the government had some hearings, injured workers and their reps would see very clearly that the government bill was what it was going to be; that there were going to be no amendments, no changes, no alterations, and whatever they came to say just wouldn't matter.

By the mere fact of the government members voting down the resolution that the NDP put forward, which was to extend the hearing time to make sure that some of the 1,200 people who had already applied for standing even before the notice went out would at least have their say, under the rule that was brought down by this government and voted in favour of by the government backbenchers, perhaps 122 groups at the end of the day will have a chance to comment on this bill -- 122 out of 1,200 who applied before notice was even given.

With respect to notice, it's very clear that the government doesn't want the public to know what's going on, doesn't want to have the public have their say. On Bill 99, the government initially agreed to have notice go out only on the government networks -- didn't want to advertise in the paper, didn't want to let people know what was happening. When we argued against that, the government agreed there would be some notification in those communities outside of Toronto but no notification in the papers in Toronto, because the fact is that there wasn't enough time to notify people before the selection of the deputants even occurred because the government had to have this bill start this week. There wasn't even public notice to people in Metro about this bill and an opportunity to appear before the committee because this government, in a week's time, had to choose the deputants and had to get the bill under way. It was that rushed.

The government doesn't want to hear from people and the government wants to ram through its legislation, and nowhere is that more clear than in Bill 99 and the horrible process that's going on right now. It's no wonder that injured workers came yesterday to protest about that. I was appalled to hear the Minister of Labour of this province, in this House today, stand up and call those people a mob. I was appalled and I was disgusted that that is her reaction to people who have been hurt on the job in this province, making a positive contribution to the economy, building that society. That's what she thinks about injured workers. It's clear that in her comments she reflects the feeling of this whole government with respect to injured workers.

1800

If you look at the changes that are before us, there are a couple of things that are clear. As much as I like the member for Nepean -- he's a nice fellow -- no one on this side believes for one single second that he is the author of these changes and that this somehow was the brainchild of the member for Nepean or the brainchild of the Tory caucus.

Look, folks, this thing was orchestrated, directed, developed, put together in the Premier's office. Then someone in the Premier's office called the member for Nepean and said, "Boy, have we got a job for you." He was duped into doing this. I don't know why that happened. It makes it seem as if he is a puppet for the Premier. I'm sure the member for Nepean does not want to be known as a puppet for the Premier.

There's no other way I can describe it; there's no better way I can describe it. The fact is that no one believes that the member for Nepean, all of his own accord, at 11 o'clock on election day held a press conference and decided to put forward all the rules he and some backbenchers in his caucus decided they wanted to bring forward. I don't believe it.

I have to think that the Premier's office just wants more power and more control and wants everything to be run out of that office regardless of what the back bench is saying, frankly regardless of what cabinet is saying some days. The direction, the development, the orchestration of the whole thing came out of the Premier's office, and the member for Nepean is the front person for what is happening. I just don't buy that argument.

What I find more appalling is the way this was done. It was so different from and so contrary to the way in which rule changes have traditionally been developed in this place. For goodness' sake, at any other point in time when rule changes have been discussed there has been some discussion with the House leaders of the opposition parties. The House leaders of the opposition parties have seen the proposed changes. The House leaders for the other parties have had a chance to sit down with the government House leader and negotiate the package of changes that will occur.

What we've had happen here in this case is that the government at 5 pm last week put these changes on the order paper, we had not seen them before, we began to debate them on Monday and there has been no discussion. The government House leader has said, "There's lots of time to discuss; let's negotiate." Why doesn't he say, "Let's negotiate with a gun to your head"? That's the situation we find ourselves in. The changes are on the order paper. We're debating them. Someone has to explain to me what room there is for negotiation when that's the position we find ourselves in today at 6:05 pm.

It's interesting that the government House leader in his remarks talked about the House of Commons. He cherry-picked those rule changes from the House of Commons which limit either the participation or the debate time or the opportunity for opposition members to have a role in the House of Commons.

If you look at the debate time alone the government House leader wants to apply here in Ontario, it's very clear that we're going to go from leadoffs which are now 90 minutes down to 40, and individual members speaking from half an hour to 20 minutes. The government House leader justifies that because he says that's the rule in Ottawa. There are 300-plus MPs in Ottawa too. Maybe that's part of the reason for the difference.

What is interesting is that the government House leader didn't move, for example, a rule change around opposition days. In the House of Commons the opposition has 20 opposition days they can use in a calendar year compared to the ones we have here. But the government House leader didn't move that particular rule change in the package he brought forward. I'd argue he didn't bring forward much that was terribly positive about the rules in Ottawa. He looked at the ones which would limit debate, limit participation of opposition members, and those are the ones he wishes to apply in Ontario. He justifies that application by saying, "If it's good enough in the House of Commons, surely to goodness it must be good enough here in Ontario."

It is not. This is a different Parliament, we have a different number of members, we have substantially different issues that we deal with in this House versus the federal House, and the changes we are going to deal with are negotiated between the House leaders and don't just appear as a fait accompli, which they have in this case.

The House leader for our party talked earlier about some of the comments the former House leader for the Conservative Party made when he sat on this side of the House and talked about how changes have to be made. I won't repeat those, but I will reinforce them in the following way to the government members: You can change the rules any way you want, and you're going to, because the gun is to our heads and there's no doubt before we're finished in this session, at least to my mind, some of these, if not all of them, are going to be implemented. But the next day we will be looking at ways to circumvent them and to thwart them and to get around them and to still have a way, as opposition members, to participate fully in this place.

We have a responsibility to do that. We too were elected in a democratic process and we too have a right to represent the views of our constituents in this place without having the changes you want to bring on us so shackle us that we have no opportunity to participate any more.

If the government proceeds in the way it wants to proceed, as is clearly evident by the fact that this was tabled and that we are debating it and there has been no negotiation to date, then I can only say to the government that the prophecy of Mr Eves from Parry Sound, when he was House leader, will come true: There will be no trust among government House leaders, there will be no trust among members of the parties, and this place will fall apart completely. It will not operate, it will not function, and no one in this province will be better served if that's where we end up.

Report continues in volume B.

June 17, 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT ANTI-RACISM PROGRAMS

JOHN SETTERFIELD AND ALLAN HEATLEY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SAWMILL IN COCHRANE

ARNPRIOR AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

SHEILA WILLIAMS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CHILD CARE

INJURED WORKERS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

CLEAN AIR COMMUTE

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

WATER CHLORINATION

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS AUX HÔPITAUX

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PHYSICIANS' FEES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM