Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Beer: One of Canada's most successful waste management programs is returning to York region and it promises to be bigger and better.

Building on the success of household hazardous waste days last October, York region will host similar events this May. Last year more than 3,500 vehicles came through the two depots. Thousands of gallons of hazardous waste, more than 1,200 car batteries and more than 500 propane cylinders were dropped off.

The first collection day took place this past Saturday at the Newmarket recreation complex and it was very successful.

On Saturday 25 May, collection depots will operate in both Richmond Hill and Georgina. These depots will be open from 9 am to 4 pm. In Richmond Hill, residents may drop off household hazardous waste at last year's collection site, the Richmond Green Sports Centre. In Georgina, materials will be accepted at the Sutton Arena on Cedar Street. Residents of York region may bring hazardous waste to any of the three sites at no charge.

Household hazardous wastes include cleaning agents, automotive fluids, pesticides, paints, medicines, solvents, batteries and a variety of other toxic, corrosive, flammable or irritating chemicals. Because of their impact on the environment, none of these materials should be disposed of in the garbage, poured down a drain or buried in the yard.

Details about the household hazardous waste program are being advertised throughout York region. Co-operating in these household hazardous waste days are the nine area municipalities in York region, as well as the Ministry of the Environment. Everyone involved is to be congratulated.

JURY DUTY

Mr Cousens: Nothing has changed with the new government's plans to choose juries a little bit better. A friend of mine whose mother was summoned for jury duty sent back a letter from the doctor, he sent the medications, and then they came back and said, "No, we want your mother for jury duty." His letter that went back to the Attorney General said:

"She is a very senior citizen, 85 years old. She is almost totally blind in both eyes, vision limited to fuzzy shapes. She has been on constant medication for depression and other problems for at least the past 20 years. She is in a delicate psychological condition and can't be subjected to stress. She requires my assistance for physical support when travelling outside her normal immediate surroundings. Her physical mobility is further limited by her age and infirmity. She neither speaks nor understands the English language."

She is another person who was almost being coerced into coming out to have attendance taken for jury duty. When you listen to that whole litany of problems that she has, it is no wonder that her son was concerned for her welfare and for the system's welfare that anyone should be asking her to sit on jury duty.

We have ended up seeing other situations arise where jurors are even questioning the Attorney General. He should do something about it. If we are going to have a selection of people from society, then let's think about who it is we are going to have. In the first summons for jury duty, a list is laid out. This woman did not pass that test and then has had to send this letter. Let's make sure that the Attorney General takes his job seriously.

ST CATHARINES FOLK ARTS FESTIVAL

Ms Haeck: I rise today to tell the people of the province about the two-week-long St Catharines Folk Arts Festival to begin this coming weekend.

The festival will include 45 different ethnic events spread over a 16-day period from 17 May through 2 June. Those events will be sponsored by more than 20 of the St Catharines ethnic organizations. Ethnic singing and dancing, ethnic foods -- you name it, the festival has got it. You can see why the festival slogan is, "See the world from your doorstep."

The events will kick off this Friday night, 17 May, with the Queen's Ball. The highlight of the second weekend will be the 25 May grand parade through the streets of downtown St Catharines. Each week night will have at least two events at various ethnic organizations around St Catharines. Each weekend will feature a variety of day-long festive events.

We urge Ontarians to come to St Catharines some time during the next two weeks. Drop by for an evening or, better yet, join us for an entire weekend. Not only can you enjoy the folk arts festival with us but you can also take in a play at the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, see the beauties of the fruit trees in bloom in rural Niagara or, on 18 May, celebrate with us the grand opening of the St Catharines museum. For a weekend with something for everyone, come to St Catharines.

I hope to see all the members at the folk arts festival.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Ramsay: I would like to bring to the attention of the House today a very wasteful procedure practised by this government, and in this case particularly by the Minister of Culture and Communications.

I, like all members of the House, am very grateful when we receive notification from the ministers about application grants or the granting of allocations to any of our constituents, and I am particularly grateful to the minister for doing this.

But in one day last week I received 26 individual notification letters, copies of which I am happy to receive, but 26 copies of them, each in their addressed envelopes. I think this is very wasteful. I appreciate the notification, but all I would need would be a listing of all the grants that my libraries received -- on a piece of paper would be fine -- and that could be mailed over in one envelope rather than on 26 pieces of paper and 26 envelopes.

I would ask the minister if he would practise one of the 3Rs that we all believe in, to reduce some of this waste. It would not only free up some of these resources but it would also maybe free up some of the time that his staff, I am sure, could use doing other, more useful things.

1340

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to inform all members of the House that today marks the beginning of Royal Week 1991.

Royal Week is a time during which all Canadians celebrate Canada's heritage and life as a community under the crown. The varied programs and events which will be held throughout this week will serve to remind Canadians of the many benefits, political, social and cultural, that we share in and that constitute our heritage as a Commonwealth nation with the Queen as the head of state.

Royal Week festivities will end with the celebration of Victoria Day on 20 May, which commemorates Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time of Canadian Confederation, and the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, which is honoured on this day by the Dominion of Canada.

Many Ontario municipalities have also proclaimed the official observation of Royal Week in their communities this year, including Metropolitan Toronto, the cities of Toronto, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, Burlington, Hamilton, Brantford, the borough of East York and the town of Dundas.

The message which these municipalities and the people of this province are sending to the Premier at the start of Royal Week is clear. Loyalty to and respect for the Queen is strong in Ontario. The Premier's modern Ontario in which the Queen plays a diminishing role or no role at all is in reality an NDP fiction with no basis in fact.

On behalf of these municipalities, I again call on the NDP to reinstate the Queen's name in the police oath of allegiance. During this year's Royal Week, the Premier would do well to recall the meaning and the significance of the motto on Ontario's provincial coat of arms: Loyal in the beginning, so remaining.

FUEL SPILL

Mr Waters: Early Friday morning, the Eastern Shell tanker ran aground outside Parry Sound, which caused a gasoline and diesel oil spill 1.6 kilometres long and 150 metres wide, containing 162,000 litres of fuel. Luckily, the Canadian Coast Guard was able to contain most of the spill. However, it has been reported in today's Toronto Star that diesel fuel has floated to the south and west sides of Franklin Island, contaminating what is mostly government-owned crown land.

Environmentalists have said that there is little environmental effect on the area and the fish and the bird populations. I am pleased to hear that today the Ministry of the Environment will be assessing this area for contaminants and environmental impact. The cleanup effort should be completed within a matter of days.

The situation is a source of great concern to me because of its potential environmental effects. The frequency of this type of environmental disaster must be addressed by all levels of government to ensure that precautions are taken to eliminate or minimize these types of spills and that measures are taken to help in the financial cleanup effort.

As reported in the Toronto Star Saturday, last year there had been a three-member panel on tanker safety which made recommendations to add a $2-per-tonne levy on all oil products transported through Canadian waters to improve safety measures and to help with the cleanup efforts of such disasters. This recommendation has not been implemented as yet.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr Curling: It appears that the Solicitor General is unconcerned with ensuring that his ministry complies with the requirements of the freedom of information and privacy legislation.

Five months ago, a request was made to the Solicitor General under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to information regarding the government's proposals regarding Sunday shopping. The request did not seek privileged cabinet information. It was a simple request for briefing notes and policy papers regarding the impact of the government's Sunday shopping proposals on the Ontario public.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the ministry has 30 days to comply with the request or provide written notice of its intention to extend the deadline for compliance. The compliance date for this request was 1 March 1991, yet to date we have not received the information requested -- more than two and a half months, and we have not heard anything.

The Solicitor General will undoubtedly be familiar with the sensitivity of freedom of information, given his involvement in the problems which emerged around the police and their interpretation of the municipal freedom of information act earlier this year.

What happened to the commitment of the Premier and the NDP to open and accessible government?

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Carr: Police have been reporting a dangerous increase in the number of crimes involving firearms. During a recent seven-day period in Metropolitan Toronto, guns were prevalent in 30 crimes. The use of guns by criminals between 1986 and 1990 has increased by 149%. Just this past weekend, two OPP officers were shot as they attempted to apprehend a car thief. The members of Ontario's various police forces face these realities every day.

This week is Police Week. Police Week provides us with the opportunity to pay tribute to Ontario's law enforcement officers. Theirs is not an easy job, but a thankless job. Considering the above, it is important to demonstrate to members of our police forces that they have our unqualified support.

In order to learn more about our communities and to show support for our local police, members of the Progressive Conservative caucus will be visiting police stations and in many cases actually going out on police patrols.

The police forces of Ontario have implemented measures designed to ensure that the police and individual citizens work together in their pursuit of law and order in a manner that is effective, responsive and sensitive to the realities of our changing community.

The reality is that our police forces are among the most modern, effective law enforcement agencies in North America. Yet our police forces are under siege. The NDP, in order to cater to a few vocal minorities, has undermined the morale of the forces and brought their integrity into question.

Law and order must become a focal point of this government.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr O'Connor: On 7 June and 8 June, the South Lake Simcoe Naturalist Club will be holding a conference in an attempt to draw public attention to the deteriorating environmental quality of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The main focus of this conference will be how to change people's attitudes and actions within the watershed to ensure that the lake will be healthy for future generations.

The aim of the conference is to support prompt action by this province on the implementation of the Lake Simcoe environmental management strategy. The conference will also help to establish goals and firm timetables for action for the elimination of watershed erosion, runoff and phosphorous pollution within the lake.

To add a positive frame to tackling the enormous challenges faced in the conference, the South Lake Simcoe naturalists will be holding a festival throughout Environment Week from 2 June to 8 June. The festival will have such activities as hiking, biking, bird-watching, an art exhibit, tree planting and others.

The conference will take place in the town of Georgina at Lydia's Restaurant and Conference Centre at Lyndhurst Park in Baldwin, right on Highway 48, six miles south of Sutton.

Many important workshops have been scheduled covering such topics as fish and wildlife, water quality, environmental management and the environmental citizens' movement. I will be participating as a panellist giving the opening remarks and I invite all members of the House to join me at this important event.

In closing, although the event is an important part of Environment Week, we must all remember that Environment Week is every week.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to ask all member of the assembly to welcome this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Pompeo Tranquilli, the mayor of Pescina, Italy, and three of the city councillors from that city of Pescina.

1350

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Hon Mr Hampton: I am very pleased to be able to inform my colleagues in the House about a concentrated, province-wide, anti-drinking and driving campaign.

For the second year now, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving has designated this week as Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. The week starts today and runs until the end of the Victoria Day weekend on 20 May.

The Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, created in January 1990, is made up of volunteer representatives from some 40 different organizations throughout the province which are involved in activities to fight impaired driving.

Community action is an extremely important element in confronting the problem of drinking and driving and this council ensures that there is co-operative government and community action.

During the past fiscal year, the drinking/driving countermeasures office of the Ministry of the Attorney General provided over $200,000 in support funding for 26 prominent anti-impaired driving groups which are active throughout the year. I am particularly pleased to note that the number of high schools in the province participating in the Arrive Alive school-year program has again increased from 117 schools last year to 134 schools promoting this important message among their peers in the 1990-91 school year.

This summer, the Ministry of the Attorney general will provide funding, in 30 to 35 locations across the province, to hire two high school students per community for the months of July and August. These students will continue the work started this week and will promote public awareness during the dangerous summer months.

Community groups and the provincial government will not be the only ones active during the Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. A request has been sent out by the Premier to all municipal and regional councils to declare their support by proclaiming Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week in their communities. Last year approximately 100 municipalities declared their support and we expect the number to increase during this year's campaign. Corporate sponsors are also playing a role promoting Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week by delivering anti-drinking-and-driving messages.

Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week is really the highlight of a larger year-round effort to reduce impaired driving. I am happy to report to the Legislature that our determination appears to be paying off. Recent statistics from the 1988-89 Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook, produced by the countermeasures office of the Ministry of the Attorney General, show that in 1980 police reported 30,101 drivers as "had been drinking" or "impaired." In 1989 police reported 42% fewer drinking drivers, that is, 17,488 fewer.

Many members in the Legislature have worked to help realize this reduction. The figures are even more significant when we consider that there has been a 26% increase in the number of people licensed to drive in Ontario from 1980 to 1989, from 4.99 million to 6.29 million. One of the most reliable indicators of alcohol involvement in traffic crashes is the percentage of automobile driver fatalities with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit of 0.08. Of those drivers tested in 1980, almost 50% were over the legal limit. In 1989, only 30% were over the limit, the lowest figure reported since these data became available in Ontario.

Finally, I am pleased to inform the House about our new anti-drinking-and-driving media campaign. In conjunction with Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week, two powerful 30-second television advertisements will be released this week. These ads are combined with exterior transit vehicle ads and some selected print media.

This year's theme is the same message as last year's, "You can lose a lot more than your licence drinking and driving." Based on research, we are still targeting young male drivers, who have always been the worst offenders. This year, however, we are aiming one of the ads more particularly at the older 25- to 34-year-old male. Our research shows that 25- to 34-year-olds accounted for the largest percentage of drivers impaired by alcohol -- 38% in 1988 and 1989, followed by 16- to 24-year-olds at 26%.

Since the early 1980s, peers at school, community groups and the government have been sending a message to the young men in the 16- to 24-year-old age group and we can now see that this message has registered. They have reduced their involvement in alcohol-related crashes at a rate faster than any other age group, but research also shows that we must continue to reinforce and remind them of this message. This will ensure that their resolve not to drink and drive continues.

It is our intention to continue to remain active in all efforts to reduce the death and destruction caused by impaired drivers on our roadways.

RESPONSES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Sorbara: I guess the best thing that could be said about the announcement of the Attorney General today is that in making this announcement he has carried on in a tradition that was established by the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, in maintaining the Arrive Alive program and the Driver Sober Week. But it is interesting because the government -- the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the government in general -- has come under some criticism, I think unfounded, suggesting that they have actually been destabilizing police forces in Ontario. I reject that criticism, but I want to say to the Attorney General, the Premier and the government generally that choosing to make an announcement today about the Arrive Alive program and the Drive Sober Week, and not making an announcement about the fact that this is also Police Week, sends a certain signal to police officers around the province.

The other interesting thing is that the Attorney General could have made announcements on a number of things today and he did not. What is surprising is what the Attorney General is not doing. The Attorney General should know that the rate of homicide in Metropolitan Toronto this year is up fully 100% and that gun control in Ontario is an absolute shambles. I tell him that his newly appointed police commissioner of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, Susan Eng, stated on the radio this morning that it is so easy to buy a gun in Metropolitan Toronto that the criminals do not even bother to try to smuggle them in.

The government has ordered an RCMP investigation into the activities of the Solicitor General and presumably of the Attorney General and his ministry as well, and we have not heard about that.

There has been public criticism of the jury system and there is no announcement about what the Attorney General is doing about that.

The courts themselves are still so backlogged that the Attorney General should realize that he is running out of time in the very time frame he established for himself to deal with court backlog. Indeed, it is a great irony that today he would be celebrating Drive Sober Week and the majority of the cases that are getting thrown out of court, because of court backlog, are charges of impaired driving. What the Attorney General should be doing when he stands up today is telling us how he is going to make sure that the charges being laid by policemen are actually getting to the courts and being prosecuted. It is a sham to think that we would invest so much money in videos and community discussions to promote the eradication of drinking and driving when, at the same time, when our police officers are pressing charges those cases are going to court and they are getting thrown out of court.

There are a number of other things the government should have been announcing today, and we have yet another announcement about another week that we are going to be celebrating in the province. For example, the Minister of Labour is apparently undertaking some discussions to bring about dramatic changes to the Ontario labour relations goal. The Minister of Labour was quoted this weekend as saying, in effect, when he brings forward his policies all hell is going to be breaking loose. Why do we not have a statement by the Minister of Labour in this House today about what it is he is proposing? It seems to me that the only news is that private sector business has walked out of those consultations and yet we get these announcements in the paper. We have no idea what is going on, and community by community business leaders are taking a pass where it comes to investment because they do not know what the Minister of Labour is doing.

We do not even have an announcement today by the Premier about how he is going to get this Legislature back at work. My friends to the left, the Tory party, have destabilized this Legislature for the past three weeks, I think it is, and yet we have no program from the government to get us back down to business, no indication about how it is going to make this Legislature work again today. It may well be that we are going to have yet another day of the reading of lakes all over the province from the leader of the third party. And what do we get from the government? We get an announcement about the continuation of the Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. We support this. What we do not support is the fact that the government has now had several months in this Legislature to get us out of the recession. What we have is really nothing at all.

1400

Mr Harnick: I have had personal contact with people involved in motor vehicle accidents as a result of drinking and driving. I have seen families that have been devastated when someone is killed by a drinking driver. I have seen devastating personal injuries inflicted as a result of people drinking and driving. I have seen the aftermath of collisions involving drinking and driving at first hand. The aftermath of such an event is not a pleasant thing to see.

The problem we have is that we have had too many exercises in public relations and not enough action. John Bates, president of PRIDE and whose face is probably well known to every member in this Legislature, has spoken to virtually everyone here to urge them to implement certain programs to reduce impaired driving everywhere. Most of his requests have fallen on deaf ears.

I urge the government to stop concentrating on public relations and start concentrating on definitive programs of education, enforcement, charges and conviction. Unless that is done, these public relations announcements will not help anyone in this province.

Mr Runciman: In response to the same statement from the Attorney General on the Arrive Alive program, we in the Conservative Party are very supportive of the program. At the same time, we are somewhat concerned about the government's lack of action with respect to innocent accident victims in this province and its failure to act on the Liberal no-fault plan brought in last June.

We had very serious expressions of concern by that party's member for Welland-Thorold as a backbencher and later on as a minister of the crown, but we have seen no commitment on the part of the Premier and no caring in respect to the views he expressed last August about innocent accident victims in this province. If the Attorney General and the current government of Ontario are genuinely concerned about innocent accident victims, I think they are going to act very quickly and they are going to act to restore the right to sue.

In jurisdictions that have brought in no-fault insurance -- and the Treasurer is a very strong supporter of pure no-fault -- we can take a look at Quebec where an analysis was done. Under pure no-fault insurance, accidents tend to increase, especially fatal accidents. If indeed there is genuine concern, let's see this government act quickly. If they care about innocent accident victims, it is long overdue now to restore the right to sue.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Hon Miss Martel: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is very substantial in nature and very lengthy, therefore I would like to distribute copies of my remarks to you, to the members of the table, to the opposition leaders and to the House leaders for both opposition parties.

Mr Scott: Think of your father when you read this and how he'd react to it.

Hon Miss Martel: The same way I intend to.

Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of order which I trust you will consider. My point of order is that the constant use of repetitive motions for adjournment of debate and adjournment of the House should be ruled out of order as an abuse of process and we should get on with the business before the Legislature.

My remarks focus on two points: first, that what has transpired in the House over the last number of days is an abuse of process and of democracy; and second, that you as Speaker have an inherent authority and duty to prevent such abuses of process from bringing the work of the House to a standstill.

For the last six days the business of this House has been held up by repetitive motions for adjournment of debate and adjournment of the House. It is our view that the third party is not willing to halt its hijacking of the Legislature. These tactics are an attempt by the third party to accomplish the goal articulated by the leader on 6 May 1991 in this House when the member for Nipissing clearly stated to this House, "People know where I stand on the budget; I am not going to let it pass." This statement and the ensuing procedural tactics show a total disrespect for the democratic process.

The House leader for the third party will undoubtedly argue that his party is merely exercising its legitimate right as opposition to stall debate until the government agrees to send the budget out to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for public hearings.

Yet on 8 May 1991 when the Premier suggested that the budget bills would be debated in committee, the leader of the third party, as well as calling the Premier a dictator, replied that it would serve no purpose at all because the NDP has a majority on the committee.

The leader of the third party knows that any matter related to the budget can be raised in committee in the debate on budget bills. What he opposes is that the NDP has a majority on those committees and that at the end of the day will vote in favour of the government, a practice that has gone on for years in our parliamentary tradition.

Further to our concern with the Tory tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade, not only of House work but of all committee work, with no prior notice to the government. Before coming into the House to pose the question, the leader of the third party did not ask the Premier whether he would consider public hearings on the budget. Their House leader never asked me, nor did the Treasury critic ever approach the Treasurer.

The Conservative tactics have had nothing to do with bringing out alternative points of view on the budget, often the goal of delaying tactics by the opposition. In fact, in the budget debate the leader of the third party has the floor. But he refuses to exercise his right to debate and orders his party to repeat dilatory motions for adjournment of debate and of the House. His actions mean that there has been very little debate on the budget in this House despite public interest in the NDP's first budget. Both the government members and the members of the official opposition have had their right to debate in the House taken away by the repetitive use of dilatory adjournment motions by the minority third party.

The present delaying tactics are unprecedented in that they are preventing debate on the government's budget. They also follow on the heels of attempts to block previous government legislation. For instance, the third party attempted a filibuster on our rent review moratorium legislation. A time allocation motion had to be moved to end this debate. The Tories appear determined to ensure that none of the government's programs will get through.

While the leader of the third party may dislike the results of 6 September 1990, the New Democrats did win a majority of seats. In our parliamentary democracy, that gives the New Democrats a right and a responsibility to govern.

The Tories have not only stopped debate on Ontario's budget; they are also preventing any government legislation from being passed including the wage protection fund, which will provide moneys to deserving workers, and Bill 17, support and custody orders enforcement, which will ensure that payments owing to single mothers are received.

Furthermore, the Tory tactics have meant that little committee work is taking place. The Tories will not even allow the select committee on Ontario in Confederation to meet at night to consider its work. This committee and others have had to turn away witnesses who have travelled great distances to come and speak. The Tories are preventing the public and the government from developing a consensus on Ontario's role in Confederation at a critical point in this country's history.

Mr Speaker, as you are well aware, the New Democratic Party has spent considerable time in opposition. The NDP is sensitive to the position of the opposition and is aware of the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. In order to carry out its function, the opposition must have the tools it can use to allow time for other voices to be heard on issues. However, this does not mean that these tactics can or should be used without limit. The government must also be assured that it can get its program through in a reasonable length of time.

As the Liberal interim leader said in the House on 7 May 1991, when he was disassociating himself from the Conservative call for public hearings on the budget,

"In government and in opposition, we have felt that the government of the day should be able to put forward its plans, have them debated and have them settled democratically."

Ultimately, we are all here to govern and to take care of the needs of the province. People did not elect any of us to ring the bells interminably, to waste time or to waste their tax dollars. Common sense tells us that the kinds of procedural tactics that have been used in the past weeks are not appropriate.

1410

Procedure does not exist only to protect the rights of the minority. It exists to balance those rights with the rights of the majority to govern. Balance is the key, and balance and reasonableness are what has been missing in the past two weeks. Professor C. E. S. Franks has written in his book, The Parliament of Canada:

"The purpose of parliamentary procedure is not to ensure that every member can say as much as he wants on every topic, or that groups or individuals can prevent decisions which they do not support from being taken, but to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on the one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration and change, while on the other hand a minority cannot immobilize the whole system."

That a minority in the Ontario Legislature has immobilized the whole system is a statement of fact. That this immobilization of the Ontario Legislature by the third party is an abuse of process and an abuse of democracy is, in my submission to you, Mr Speaker, very clear for all of the reasons I have just outlined.

The question that remains is whether you as Speaker can and should take action to prevent this hijacking of the Legislature when the standing orders do not explicitly support or condemn the procedures being utilized by the third party. In my submission, Mr Speaker, you do have the authority to end this procedural impasse and you should use your authority to restore the integrity of the processes used in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, the repeated use of dilatory motions for adjournment of debate and the House is a very old tactic. Its use in fact brought about the first closure motion by a Speaker in the chair. The ruling by the Speaker on this occasion, on 2 February 1881 in the House of Commons in London, dealt with the same situation that you are faced with here. In this case the Speaker used his discretion to end what he considered an abuse of process. The ruling is so apt that I would like to read it you:

"The motion for leave to bring in the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill has now been under discussion for about five days. The present sitting, having commenced on Monday last, at four o'clock, has continued until this Wednesday, a period of 41 hours, the House having been occupied with discussions upon repeated dilatory motions for adjournment. However prolonged and tedious these discussions, the motions have been supported by small minorities, in opposition to the general sense of the House.

"A crisis has thus arisen which demands the prompt interposition of the Chair and of the House. The usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effective debate. An important measure recommended in Her Majesty's speech nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent, in the interests of the state, by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the action of an inconsiderable minority, the members of which have resorted to those modes of 'obstruction' which have been recognized by the House as a parliamentary offence.

"The dignity, the credit and the authority of this House are seriously threatened and it is necessary that they should be vindicated. Under the operation of the accustomed rules and methods of procedure, the legislative powers of the House are paralysed.

"A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded, and I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely upon its support, if I decline to call upon any more members to speak, and at once proceed to put the questions from the Chair. I feel assured that the House will be prepared to exercise all its powers in giving effect to these proceedings.

"Future measures for ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment of the House. But I may add that it will be necessary either for the House itself to assume more effectual control over its debates, or to entrust greater authority to the Chair."

Mr Speaker, the issue of the House assuming more effective control over its debates we will leave for another day. It is unfortunate that the rules that govern debate in the Ontario Legislature, the standing orders, can be manipulated to delay proceedings to the point of blocking all government business, as has been occurring over the last few weeks. The ability to deny the right of the majority to govern does not exist either in the federal or British parliaments.

However, today we are asking that you as the Speaker use your discretion to rule in the interests of the House and all its members.

On 14 April 1987, the Speaker in Canada's House of Commons spoke at length about a Speaker's discretionary power. He made reference to the above-mentioned ruling of 1881, which ended the paralysis of the British House, as part of the centuries-old tradition that supports the use of discretion by the Speaker. He succinctly summarized his position in this way:

"There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its members."

Today we are asking that you, as the Speaker of this House, use your discretion to rule in a way that will end the present impasse in this House in much the same manner as the Speaker of the British House did on 2 February 1881 and the Speaker of the Canadian House did on 14 April 1987. We are specifically asking you for two rulings that would bring the practice of the Ontario House more closely in line with practices of other Houses of Parliament. These are as follows:

First, we respectfully request your ruling that the mover of an unsuccessful dilatory motion to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House loses the floor for the remainder of the debate on the matter under discussion, as is the case in both the Canadian and British House of Commons.

Second, we respectfully request your ruling that you as Chair have an inherent discretionary authority to refuse to put the question on a dilatory motion where in your opinion such motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Alternatively, should you find for any reason that the specific rulings we have requested are not appropriate, we would ask that you use your judgement in formulating a response to the present impasse in the Legislature that is duly respectful of both the rights of the majority to govern and the rights of the minority to oppose.

Mr Elston: While I recognize that we have been struggling for some time with the issue of getting on with the debate around the budget and the paper and there is a disagreement between my friend the member for Nipissing and my friend the member for York South which has really fallen into one of those childhood-like tantrums which has brought this place to a standstill, I think it is a little outrageous that the House leader for the government party today stands and places the burden of solving that particular childhood-like dispute on your shoulders.

I very much find it offensive that they are looking to you, as the elected and the seen-to-be-evenhanded administrator of all of the rules, to remind you of your responsibilities and the requirement that you have to maintain order in the House. If this is the type of activity the government House leader has in mind in trying to resolve what has become a very difficult situation for all of us, because we would prefer to get on with business, I would suggest that she should probably consult other authorities with respect to what can be done to resolve the impasse of the day.

It is not difficult to come to some sort of conclusion that would lead to successful discussions, even if it has to be face-to-face between the leader of the third party and the leader of Her Majesty's government. It cannot for me, Mr Speaker, be seen to be even and fair and just in the people's assembly to ask you to drop the closure on all those of us who have not yet had a chance to speak at all on some of the very important issues. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that we spent some days wrestling with Bill 4, which was a very difficult bill to deal with in this House, and at the time the closure motion fell at the behest of the member for Windsor-Riverside, we in this party had been unable to effectively allow as many of our speakers to perform as is necessary.

While you, Mr Speaker, are being asked, again on your own notion, to prevent certain of the members of the third party from speaking too long or putting too many motions in front of you, I would assure you that it would be a matter of course that if you felt, or if it was felt by the government party, whose numbers speak for themselves, that we were taking too long in expressing our opinion, they would likewise weigh upon your courage and ask you to cut us off and prevent us from putting our piece as effectively as we should.

1420

There is no question that the remarks of the House leader of the government party have been directed more specifically towards the third party -- I understand that the difficulty is between the government and the third party -- and in fact have even resorted to the highest authority and quoted our interim leader, the member for Brant-Haldimand, and effectively have seen the tradition of parliamentary government here rest with the Liberal Party at a very high level indeed.

One of the primary difficulties with this point of order, if you find it to be such, is that they are asking you, on your initiative, to become something less than impartial. In fact, you are asked to intervene on the side of the government to help force through its business on a day-by-day basis while the rest of us, whose duty it is to oppose, constructively or otherwise as the times may necessitate, are left as a minority without any authority on whom we can rely.

I find, Mr Speaker, when the lecture has been given to you and your Chair, and when they remind you of the weight of the office which you bear, that this is just a first step in a minority's very dismal future prospects at the hands of a very pushy and arrogant majority. This is but a first step in ensuring that Her Majesty's loyal opposition will not be able to effectively put pressure on Her Majesty's government because we have a different point of view. Are there substantial differences of point of view? Mr Speaker, I will advise you that there are indeed substantial points of view, differences between and among the parties.

We believe in an economic system that has done well by all of us, and there are substantial steps being taken by the government to impose a new order which throws away the economic vitality that has been Ontario up to this present time. There will be an extended debate required to talk about that. But with this sort of instruction falling on your shoulders, given by the majority House leader, it will be a very precarious position you will find yourself in if you allow the debate to go too long.

They elected you, Mr Speaker; they may determine to unelect you. I do not think this sort of instruction from the House leader of Her Majesty's government party is therefore sufficient to cause you to even consider it as a real point of order. It may in fact be a point of view. They may in fact be looking to the Chair to bail them out of the difficulties which an assertive and very proud government party wishes to avoid: some kind of compromise with the meagre remnants of the Conservative Party now in third position in this House. But the rules of this House prescribe that there shall be ample time for the voice of the smallest minority elected here in this Legislative Assembly to be heard on the floor. Yes, indeed, if the member who is an independent at this point stands in his place to speak, he ought to be able to speak. It is your duty during the debate on bills and during debate on other matters to recognize that member if he stands, although he represents but one of 130.

It seems to me, therefore, that you should throw out this material, but if you should decide this is a valid point of order that you wish to consider, could you please allow those of us in Her Majesty's official, loyal opposition to submit written reasons and remarks about why we think that you should not make a positive decision on the request by the government House leader.

It is fairly clear that this material was well researched. Although the heat of a very beautiful May weekend perhaps pushed them quickly through some of their authorities, because we find them relatively weak, I think it is none the less imperative that you allow Her Majesty's official opposition to reply effectively to this written material.

We could have received notice of this. We could have been able to respond much better. I, being very short of words and unable to respond fully to all the material here, would wish to respond much more fully to protect the rights and the privileges of the members who are represented here in the Legislative Assembly under the Liberal Party banner. I would even speak to assist my friends here to my left, philosophically to my far right, but they likewise can speak for themselves. But I do wish to point out the danger this entails for the Speaker, who is needed here in the people's assembly.

It is but a first step. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that this will be the first shot and then we will see several motions which will prevent us from fully examining the legislation which is about to be brought before this House. They will tell us how long we can speak and how many of us can speak, and they will be asking you and the Chair and those people who are assisting you in the Chair to shut us up. Mr Speaker, that is not proper.

That party has a history even longer than ours of doing funny things to the procedures of this House in holding up the business of the day. At one time, the member for Nickel Belt prevented the reading of the budget. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold is known for his long, long speech in the Legislative Assembly wherein he read nothing but telephone numbers and messages being called in to him so he could keep on his feet. But not once did we stand and say to the Speaker during our trials, "Mr Speaker, it is your duty to take us out of this." We acted with resolve. We had to take the action as the government party, and we took that as a responsible party and said, "The business must proceed."

If there were no other way out of this dilemma, perhaps, by stretching the imagination, it could be said that the Speaker owes a duty to the people of the province to take them out of it. Well, there is a way out of this dilemma. The member for York South and the member for Nipissing could come together and they could resolve to allow this matter to go out even briefly, or even to craft a press release -- because I know the government has legions of craftspeople who are able to make nice press releases -- which would make them both look good and they could send it out to their party faithful and whomever they want.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think they can do that.

Mr Christopherson: Didn't work for you.

Mr Elston: Listen, we won a great battle. But whatever it is, I will in fact even help them put it together if they would just get their heads together. Why in the world, when they cannot be bothered talking to each other face to face, would they visit this on your shoulders and ask you to lose the station and the position of Chair? Because when you make the first move, I suggest it will be then taken a second step and a third step as the leader of the government party stands in her place and provides you with marching orders in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Cousens: This is the most serious moment of the 35th Parliament. There is no doubt that there is no more serious a moment than this, when a majority is about to try to take away the rights of the minority in a Parliament. In this, the 35th Parliament, I see this as a major opportunity by the government to bring its power into focus, using the Chair against the opposition to achieve the government's ends.

There is nothing light about this presentation that has been made by the government House leader. It is in breach of the basic rules that have been agreed to by all parties in the development of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.

Our party has expressed, as the government has rightly said, extreme outrage at the budget that has been tabled by the Treasurer and Minister of Economics for the province of Ontario. We have no desire to break any rules that are established by the Legislature. The rules of the Legislature are of long standing, they have been agreed to by all parties, and they make it very clear what we can do. I believe that up to this point the Chair and the deputies who have been in the Chair have recognized that we on this side of the House are taking very seriously our responsibility. There is no doubt, if you look at what the conduct of business is as defined here, that it is exactly what we have been doing.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you look at the statement that has been presented by the government House leader, the government House leader is trying to make a case when there is no case. The case is the fact that we are living within the rules of this House, which are well agreed to, and the government is about to try to force upon the House another set of rules that have not been considered before.

1430

It would be absolutely hilarious if it were not necessarily so sad, the fact that the government, when it was in opposition, used every device and technique possible to try to draw attention to the issues and in so doing was able to articulate a concern that otherwise it felt could not be expressed.

In our position as the Progressive Conservative caucus in Ontario, under the leadership of the member for Nipissing, we have decided that there is a major need for public hearings on this budget. There needs to be the openness that was declared by the Premier and his government when they took power. We are not seeing that consultation now. We want to make sure that the public has a chance to consider the ramifications of this budget. It is beginning to be felt.

The whole process of this House is one in which the government decides the agenda. The agenda is such that there will be a budget and six days for a debate. Then following that we get on to the rest of the agenda of the government. When in fact there are other bills that come out of that budget, this House does not normally start to debate them until December, at which time the public at large is thinking of Christmas and other things. They have already started to pay the new billion dollars in taxes. So at that time it is a non-issue by virtue of the public. They have grown to accept the recommendations of the budget.

The government is able to use its majority and the time allocation that we have in December because everyone is ready to leave this place. So the debate on the budget virtually ends after the six days that are allocated to it in this House.

The fact of the matter is that it is far too important an issue for us to think that we can deal with the budget just in a few hours in this House. There needs to be the opportunity for our caucus to express that concern in a reasonable way and within the guidelines that are defined by the standing orders of this House.

The fact is that this government House leader has come forward today without giving any notice of what she is doing. I think that our leader gave very immediate notice of his unhappiness with the smiling budget that the Premier and the Treasurer presented. To them it was a laughing affair. To us it is something to lament and to cry about, because indeed there is something happening in this province, and if we do not stand up to it, the Liberals will not stand up to it and neither will they.

Who else can stand up for the rights of the people of Ontario? We are standing up right now. The government is not standing up for anything. They are standing up there and shoving it right down the throats of the people of Ontario. If we as Conservatives who believe in a social conscience and a strong economy do not make that statement, if we do not stand up, who can stand up for what we believe in? The government will not do it; the Liberals will not do it.

Mr Speaker, I apologize for the emotion that comes from my heart, because I did not have all weekend to prepare one of the longest points of order that we have ever seen in this House. I have not had the time to go back and dig into the history of the British House of Commons, into 2 February 1881, well over 110 years ago. If you talk about digging, that is what the government has had to do in this case, and what it has dug out is something that is not related to this House.

If we are going to deal with the history of this Legislature, we have reached a point where we have together developed standing orders that have a history of their own for this Legislature. You as Speaker have been selected by this House to interpret those orders. We on our side of the House beg of you an indulgence that is the test of your seat as the Speaker in this House, that should you in your position give credence to the points that have been presented by the New Democratic House leader, you will indeed be moving towards a decision that takes away -- and this is the fundamental point.

Mr Drainville: Unprincipled.

Mr Cousens: You cannot stand to hear it, can you? You cannot stand to let someone else speak. People are elected in this province to make a presentation and you --

Mr Drainville: Unprincipled.

Mr Cousens: I think it is absolutely intolerable that a person is elected to represent a riding in the province of Ontario, wants to make some points on what I believe is one of the most important issues in this House, in the 35th Parliament, and the rump of the New Democratic Party will not allow me to continue. Are the socialists not about to let me --

The Speaker: First of all, it is most helpful for the Speaker if indeed he is able to receive advice from different members. It would probably assist the member for Markham if he would direct his remarks to the Chair and if others on the government side would do him the courtesy to allow him to present his remarks.

Mr Cousens: It was the warmest weekend, but it is the coldest day for democracy that I have seen in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Cooke: Boy, with one-liners like that, you are going to go a long way.

Mr Cousens: I think you are just showing abuse of the House, not only with the House leader's point of order but with the interruptions you are making when I am trying to address this concern. I would say it is arrogance, and the New Democratic Party will stand judged for trying to take away the democratic right of the people who are duly elected in Ontario.

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham address his remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, as you review the recommendation made by the government House leader I trust you will also look back into the history of this House when in fact it was the New Democratic Party at that time, when it was in opposition, that was trying to make its own statement and refused to allow the government the right to read the budget.

When it talks about things that were not precedented, it is in my mind a hypocritical type of act for a government that wanted to have public hearings in 1982 when the present Premier was then leader of the third party. He was calling for public hearings on the budget at that time. Now when someone else is in a similar position and is asking for a similar kind of hearing, we are being stonewalled by the government for such a simple approach to openness and public discussion.

The fact of the matter is that in 1990 the New Democratic Party refused the right of the government to read the budget. Now we are seeing a government that is going into the largest deficit ever in the history of Ontario. Are we in opposition are to allow it to slip by? That will not be the case.

By using the standing orders of this House, we are anxious to make sure that this government understands our request and our desire. There is no doubt that the New Democratic Party has not had the mandate for this kind of action. Three people in eight have given them that power, yet now the people of Ontario may as well just go and put a bushel over their heads because for the next four years the government is going to do everything it can to stifle the opposition, refuse the opportunity for us to deal with it and then just go and do what it wants willy-nilly.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, in reviewing this pointless point of order, that if you decide in favour of the government on this issue, you will be casting a very heavy stone against democracy and against our opportunity to present fair and honest and open debate on something that is fundamentally important to the long-term benefit of Ontario. I beseech you not to make a speedy decision. In fact, I beseech you to consider very seriously the rights of opposition in your consideration of this very important matter.

1440

Mr Sorbara: On the same point of order raised by the government House leader, Mr Speaker: I anticipate that in conjunction with the request of our House leader, you are going to be deferring your decision on these very extraordinary requests that are being made by the government House leader and that you are going to be providing some time for opposition members to be heard on these motions and at the same time allow for written submissions, certainly from our party and, I presume, from the third party as well.

If it turns out that you are prepared to reject this point of order entirely at this point, then obviously there would be no need for my comments, and if I see you rising and about to do that, I certainly will yield the floor to your judgement if you are about to make a ruling of that sort.

In the absence of that, I do have some comments to make about the substance of the requests made by the government House leader and the authority upon which the government House leader is basing these points of order.

Might I begin by pointing to the first paragraph of the statement by my friend the government House leader, where she suggests that you should take the rather unusual step of ruling "out of order as an abuse of process" the various tactics undertaken by the third party and that we should, under those circumstances, get on with the business of the House. If I might just quote the government House leaders, she has said:

"First, that what has transpired in the House over the last number of days is an abuse of process and an abuse of democracy; and second, that you as Speaker have an inherent authority and duty to prevent such abuses of process from bringing the work of the House to a standstill."

First of all, I do not think it is necessary for me to remind you, but I will remind you, that these very rules require you as Speaker to govern your governance of this House based on these rules. You would know the rules very well, but if any other member checked the rules no member would find in the rules, an inherent authority on your part to intervene in the debate and the dilemma that presently grips this House. So my first submission to you is that the idea of asking you to intervene based on some sort of inherent authority not founded in the rules is in itself an abusive suggestion made to this House.

Second, the government House leader has, I think, the audacity to suggest that there is in what has been going on here over the past few days an abuse of democracy. To me democracy is rooted in my right to stand up in this House as the representative of some 200,000 constituents in my riding and express my opinion freely. If my opinion happens to be the opinion of the member for Nipissing, that the House should now adjourn, I can express that opinion and this House can express its opinion by way of a vote. That is not my view. My view is that this House should get on with its work, but certainly it should not get on with its work by the intervention of the sort that is being proposed today by the government House leader.

Before I take us and the members of the House to a substantive analysis of the three requests being made, I think it only appropriate to review some of the history of the very party that is now asking for an intervention of the sort that is unprecedented, at least in my time in this House, and based on most substantive authorities, in this House in the history of our province.

Let's look at what the New Democratic Party did in opposition. Mr Speaker, at that time, during certain of those debates, you were a member, but you were defeated in 1987 and so you were not here for some of the most outrageous tactics that this House has ever seen. We were involved in a very difficult debate in this House over the question of what rules should apply to Sunday shopping in the province of Ontario. The member for York South, now the Premier of Ontario, said that he would oppose this motion with every legitimate means. I want to remind you what those legitimate means were.

Not just for six days, but for days and days and days in this House we were unable even to get to the orders of the day because those members chose to stand up and for some four hours every day in this House read petitions. Those petitions could have been read in a matter of five minutes. They could have been collected together and they could have made the point that some 10,000 people had petitioned. But did they do that? No. What they did was divide them one by one, for hours and hours and hours each day. There were countless interventions by the Speaker to the effect that it was unnecessary for the individual members to read the whole body of the petition. Nevertheless, notwithstanding those interventions by a very competent Speaker requesting that the members of the New Democratic Party not read the body of the petition, they went on and did that for days and days.

Why did they do that? Because they thought that by doing that they could somehow prevent the government from considering the legislation. The legislation was considered. It was finally debated after all of those tactics, far worse than the tactics we see now from the member for Nipissing, yet we went on and on to listen to those petitions.

What happened with those bills, Bill 113 and Bill 114? They were considered by the House. The government of the day, our government, had a majority and the bills were passed over the objections and the votes of the now government party. Those bills were reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Ontario Court of Appeal and were found a few months ago to be constitutional in their nature. The very government that read petitions day after day to block their inclusion, the very minister, the Solicitor General, who is now under investigation, stood up in this House and celebrated the fact that those bills were held to be constitutional. That is the kind of hypocrisy that characterizes the notice that is being presented by the government House leader today.

In 1988 I presented a bill in this House, Bill 162, dealing with the reform to the workers' compensation system. Once again the member for York South stood up in this House and all around the province and promised that he would intervene and block the passage of Bill 162 with every legitimate means at his disposal.

What did we see in that debate? Not two or three or six days of tactics, but tactics that brought this House into the unusual circumstance of sitting right through the month of July, based on a campaign led by the very person, the member for Sudbury East, who is now the government House leader. She was the champion of that endeavour. Now what do we see? We see her standing up and asking you, sir, to take steps that have never before been taken by any Speaker in the history of this Legislature. They now ask you to intervene to allow them an easier time in passing their legislation, notwithstanding the fact that when they speak in public places, they champion principles of democracy.

I do not need to go over the details involving the blocking of the reading of the budget by the member for Brant-Haldimand a couple of years ago in this House, but talk about arbitrary activities. What the member for Nipissing is asking for is rather simple, and I believe it could be negotiated if the Premier would just pick up the phone and call the member for Nipissing and try to negotiate a settlement of this business. Two egos the size of this very room are having a dispute, so what do we have? We have the government House leader intervening on behalf of the Premier so she can get on and present a legislative package to the province of Ontario.

I say to the government House leader, I say to the Premier, they should pick up the phone. Politics is the art of the possible. Politics is about negotiation. She said in her statement in the Legislature that this intervention was taken up without any notice, without any advance call to the government House leader. She makes that part of her statement.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to wonder collectively with the rest of us whether the member for York South, the Premier of this province, has bothered to pick up the phone and call the leader of Her Majesty's third party, the member for Nipissing, and say to him: "Would you come to my office, Mike? Can we talk about this? I don't want to send the budget to a committee, but can we discuss it?"

Let the press ask the Premier whether he has done that, whether he has tried to negotiate. He is the great champion of negotiation. He talks about a new partnership in the province of Ontario. Has he done that? Has the government House leader picked up the phone and said, "Can we negotiate our way out of this?" I believe it has not happened.

1450

Now, Mr Speaker, let's get to the substantive parts of the point of order that my friend the member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Northern Development and the government House leader has made in her submissions to you. These requests are contained in the last three pages of the written document that has been distributed to us.

"First," she says, "we respectfully request your ruling that the mover of an unsuccessful dilatory motion to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House loses the floor for the remainder of the debate on the matter under discussion as is the case in both the Canadian and British House of Commons."

Hon Miss Martel: Right, right, so that means they can't continue to hijack.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I hear the government House leader interjecting saying, "Right, right, right." Well, I say to her and say to you, wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason you can do that in the House of Commons and the British House of Commons is that it is in the rules. That is why the Speaker can stand up and do that. It is not in our rules. These are the rules that govern how we proceed here.

If my friend the government House leader wants to change the rules, she has the majority. We changed the rules. We eliminated the ability to read petitions. We said you can only do that for 15 minutes, and it was a violent debate when we debated the rule changes. The Premier was involved in that debate and he condemned us for modernizing the rules of this Parliament.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that this is not the substance of a point of order. If the government House leader wants that rule, let her introduce it and we will debate it, but let her not stand up in this House and suggest to you that you have some superauthority.

"Second," she says, "we respectfully request your ruling that you, as Chair, have an inherent discretionary authority to refuse to put the question on a dilatory motion where in your opinion such motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House."

Again, if you look at the index, if you read the rules, there is nothing about a Speaker's inherent authority. There is nothing that suggests in these rules that somehow you can overcome the dilemma of a few days' delay in this House. You have no inherent authority to do such a thing, Mr Speaker.

Hon Miss Martel: Well, you don't know the rules.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the government House leader continues to interject and says I do not know the rules. I just want to say to her that if I do not know the rules, then her suggestion that somehow her requests are valid really strain credibility.

But before we get to the third request, which I believe to be the most outrageous, let's examine for a minute what awaits us in this abuse of democracy, as the government House leader has suggested. Let's look at the bills that are awaiting our consideration.

The first is a wage protection package that the Premier would like debated in this House. I would like it debated too. I think it is a very interesting bill, but if you pick up the bill and read it --

Mr Bisson: What about SCOE?

Mr Sorbara: We will get to support and custody orders enforcement in a second.

If you examine that bill, you will find that the bill is retroactive. The Premier himself said he intends to make sure that every worker is the beneficiary of the bill back to the day when he and the government were sworn in, so the fact that we cannot debate it today because the member for Nipissing is using these rather ridiculous tactics is neither here nor there.

It is like a budget bill. The taxes are being collected, the charges are being made, and the fact that we have not had an opportunity because the member for Nipissing, as leader of the third party, chooses to use tactics is neither here nor there. We are not abusing democracy. This notice to us that the House shall now operate at the command of the government House leader is the true abuse of democracy.

Then, let us get to the support and custody order enforcement bill, Bill 17. We are anxious to get to that bill in this House. The government is anxious and we are anxious. I am not sure what the view of the third party is. But I want to say that once again Bill 17 is a bill that is not urgent in the sense that anything turns with the general public on whether or not it gets passed today or tomorrow. The government has already said publicly that it does not actually plan to enforce the bill, make it part of the law of the land, for several months. In fact, in committee I was told that it would not be until 1 January of next year. So if we do not debate it today or if we do not debate it tomorrow or if we do not debate it until next September, nothing turns on it. There is no abuse. There is no citizen who is denied a right or an opportunity. There is no individual who is going to be denied a payment under the program because we have not been able to get to that bill today.

Finally, let us turn to the final request, and I believe the most outrageous request, of the government House leader. She says:

"Mr Speaker, should you find for any reason that the specific rulings we have requested are not appropriate, we would ask that you use your judgement in formulating a response to the present impasse in the Legislature that is duly respectful of both the right of the majority to govern" -- that is really what they are interested in -- "and the right of the minority to oppose."

Mr Speaker, that request I think should be taken by you as, if not an insult to your responsibilities, then the most outrageous request that could be made by a government to an impartial Speaker, because when you look at it, it says, "We're having trouble. We don't know if the requests that we've made under our point of order are legal and legitimate. We have no real authority," except some case in 1881 in the British House of Commons, when they still had poorhouses and they were hanging people. That is the authority they turn to.

She says: "We don't even have sufficient confidence in the requests that we have made to believe that you'll pass them, so" -- she says to you, Mr Speaker -- "would you help us out of this dilemma? Would you figure out something? Would you speak to the Clerk, would you speak to the table officers? Would you call other parliaments? Would you consult with other speakers? Help us out of this dilemma."

There is really no dilemma, but that is outrageous and an insult to your impartiality, that somehow you should take it upon yourself to go beyond the rules that we have, that you have been enforcing with great dignity during this difficult time, that you should set the rules aside, that you should undertake independent research, that you should ignore the traditions that have been established through 125 years of speakers in this House and go out and find them a solution.

I guess there was a time in this House when speakers did sort of bow to the government's needs. There are stories about some activities between speakers and clerks and governments and premiers that really shocked those of us who respect the modern traditions of democracy. But surely one of the great things that we did during the last Parliament was to change the rules that govern us in this House so that we could, for the first time, elect a Speaker to regulate the affairs in this House and do so under these orders. It was only a few short months ago that you were elected and you agreed to stand for election and you were voted the confidence of this House. When you took the chair, you took on very significant responsibilities.

This place is the heart of democracy. This is the place that 10 million people turn to in the province of Ontario to assure themselves that their rights and freedoms as individual citizens are guaranteed. The fact that an arbitrary and capricious government would say to you, notwithstanding your independence and the fact that you rule in this House in a non-partisan, independent way, that you should take it upon yourself to formulate a response to its problems is, I think, the most outrageous request and submission that I have ever heard made to the way in which we practise democracy in this great Legislature.

I ask you, not on behalf of our party and not on behalf of this Parliament even, but on behalf of the greatest traditions of our democracy and our Parliament in its 125 years, to reject this request; to listen to our submissions carefully and await our written submissions, but to reject this request and not allow this government to intervene in the ongoing development of this Parliament and its issues in a way that is contrary to the standing orders that all of us agree to abide by when we sign the oath that makes us members of this Parliament.

1500

The Speaker: To the government House leader with respect to an alleged point of order: Because it was lengthy, I appreciate receiving it in writing. I take it as a serious matter and I will be most pleased to spend some time considering it. I very much appreciate the contributions by the member for Bruce, the member for Markham and the member for York Centre. As was mentioned, I certainly would be delighted to receive written submissions from any member of the assembly. I would appreciate receiving those submissions at your earliest convenience and certainly, if at all possible, within the next day or two.

I also appreciate the sensitivity that is shown to the responsibility and role that the Speaker has to play. No one told me the job would be easy. I am not anticipating that it will be, but I appreciate your advice. I will take this under advisement. If members have other submissions, by all means please try to get them to me as quickly as possible and I will rule on the alleged point of order.

Mr Harris: I have a few preliminary comments I would like to make today, Mr Speaker, on two matters that I believe have been raised by this point of order and that you must decide on.

The first is: Is it a point of order? I suggest to you that it is not a point of order. Any time any member of this Legislature, let alone the House leader for any party, the House leader for the governing party or the House leader for a majority governing party, comes to you as my Speaker, as Speaker of all of us, and directs you as to how you should rule, I take that as an affront. I take it as an affront to my rights as an individual member. I take it as an affront to the rights of the opposition. Surely, were I a backbench member of this government, I would take it as an affront as well.

For that reason alone, Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that this point of order is not worth considering as a point of order and should be filed in file 13 as an affront to parliamentary democracy, as an affront to the impartiality of the Speaker. That is what I take from the first two requests that have been made by the government House leader today.

I find the third request just as offensive. The third request asks you to try and come up with some other tactic, I suppose. You should spend your time as the impartial Speaker of all of us, as the first elected Speaker under our new standing orders, where we accept you unanimously as our choice, accept your rulings and give up the right to challenge your rulings. It is an important change that we made in the standing orders and, Mr Speaker, it is one that you know I am very supportive of. I really find those three requests offensive. They should be thrown out as a point of order.

Second, I would like to make a few preliminary comments while we have time to analyse this document, but I would like to make a few preliminary comments on the point of order, or alleged point of order, itself.

Mr Elston: It's a point of view.

Mr Harris: I agree with the House leader for the Liberal Party that it is a point of view, and until such time as it is ruled otherwise, I do have a few things to say about it.

When it comes to taking away the rights of members, I would like to quote from Erskine May, 21st edition, page 125, "Obstructing Members of Either House in the Discharge of Their Duty." It says, "The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings." Those proceedings are introduction of bills and the right to petition Parliament.

If there has been any abuse in taking away the members' rights, it has been by the government House leader and supported, I presume, by the Premier in saying: "We will take away the rights of opposition parties to introduce bills. We will take away the rights of citizens of this province to petition the Legislature. We will bypass that in the orders of the day and we will proceed directly to whatever it is we want to do."

Second, in this same copy of Erskine May, page 132, "Protection of Petitioners and Others":

"Petitioners and other persons soliciting business before either House or its committees, eg, counsel, agents and solicitors, are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament, and obstruction of, or interference with such persons in the exercise of their rights or the discharge of their duties, or conduct calculated to deter them or other persons from preferring or prosecuting petitions or bills or from discharging their duties may be treated as a breach of privilege."

If ever there has been a breach of privilege, again under the protection of petitioners, it has been by this government House leader in taking away the rights of the people to be heard by way of petitions in this chamber for some four days now.

There were a few things in the statement that was read today I would like to comment on as well in a preliminary way. The first is on page 2:

"Further to our concern with the Tory tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade, not only of House work but all committee work, with no prior notice to the government. Before coming into the House to pose the question, the leader of the third party did not ask the Premier whether he would consider public hearings on the budget. Their House leader never asked me, nor did their Treasury critic ever approach the Treasurer."

Mr Speaker, you will find that I raised this matter in the House on 1 May. I asked the question about sending the budget to the committee on Wednesday 1 May. I do not think there is a person in this House, including the Premier, the House leader or any observers of the Legislature, who has not been very clear on what concern I was raising: that of taking away the right of the people to be heard.

Second, in the next paragraph, the House leader for the New Democratic Party says: "The Conservative tactics have had nothing to do with bringing out alternative points of view on the budget." My tactics have everything to do with bringing out alternative viewpoints on the budget, including that of Bob White and 9.5 million Ontarians. What I have stood up for is the principle of the right of the public to be heard, to bring forward alternative views. I believe that has been very clear, and that statement by the House leader for the New Democratic Party is absolutely 100% false.

1510

The third point, on the same page 2, the next paragraph: "The present delaying tactics are unprecedented in that they are preventing debate on the government's budget." The present delaying tactics are not at all unprecedented. In fact, if I can quote from the former NDP House leader when dealing with a specific piece of legislation that his party was determined to stop, was determined would never pass -- not just allowing the public to be heard -- at that point, the former House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, said, "If the member thinks five days is a filibuster, than he has got something to learn about the proper procedures and the role of the opposition parties in dealing with controversial items like this."

Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that this budget, which is not only 180 degrees in the wrong direction, but in a different direction than the public was led to believe the Premier would come forward with, is surely controversial. It is controversial enough that now Bob White has changed his mind on this budget, and obviously this motion today has more to do with the plummeting polls than it does with the concern about how this House operates.

On page 3, the House leader makes mention of this fact: "As the Liberal interim leader said in the House on 7 May 1991, when he was dissociating himself from the Conservative call for public hearings on the budget...." There is no doubt that the Liberal Party wants to dissociate itself from my opposition to this budget. This deficit is as much their fault as it is the NDP's fault. So do not bring in the Liberal concern. They are as much big spenders as the government, which causes high taxes and high deficits. Do not bring them into this. We clearly understand that the Liberals think massive spending two or three times the rate of inflation is okay. So we understand why they do not want to join in this call for opposition to this budget.

Also, on page 3 -- and I think this is a key point -- the House leader for the New Democratic Party says this: "The purpose of parliamentary procedure is not to ensure that every member can say as much as he wants on every topic, or that groups or individuals can prevent decisions which they do not support from being taken, but to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration and change, while on the other hand a minority cannot immobilize the whole system."

This is the crux of what we are after and I thank the government House leader for bringing this forward because this is what we are dealing with. We must balance the rights of the majority to govern, as she says in her quote, "to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration, and change..."

I am fighting and will continue to fight for the right of the public of this province to be heard, to come before the parliamentary committee to pass their comments on this budget exactly as the parliamentary guide of Canada says I should do.

I want to comment briefly on the quotes on pages 4 and 5 as well. This was the ruling of 1881; 110 years ago we had a ruling in England. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the New Democratic Party's thinking on how legislatures and the House of Commons should operate is about the same as its misguided, outdated, economic thinking evident in the budget it brought forward.

Many changes have occurred in the last 110 years. Many rule changes have occurred here in Ontario. We are dealing with a set of procedures right here in the Legislature of Ontario that are dramatically different even from 1982 when the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, insisted along with the Liberal Party that hearings be held on a budget. If they have to go back 110 years to some outdated ruling, as I say, perhaps as old as their own philosophy, then I suggest they have not been paying attention to history for the last 110 years and how legislatures and parliaments operate.

I said I would make my remarks preliminary. I would like some time to review this, but there are a few thoughts I wanted to put on the record. Mr Speaker, I remind you that the last time the Premier did not like a budget he would not even let it be read in this House and presented to the people of this province. The second-last time he did not like a budget, he brought down a government and forced an election. Remember that one?

The circumstances were different then in that there was a minority Parliament. Were we in a minority Parliament situation, I have no doubt either that this budget would be withdrawn or that we would be into an election. But one has to recognize the realities of a majority government, and I recognize those realities.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: If the Premier and the opposition members who are interjecting want an election, I say we are ready to have an election today, tomorrow, next month or any time on this budget. Never --

The Speaker: Before everyone rushes to get their lawn signs, perhaps we could hear the remainder of the remarks by the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Last summer we saw the fastest free-fall in the polls, surpassed only in the last week by public opposition in outrage over this budget. If it is an election he wants, fine, I say to the Premier; we are ready.

Recognizing the reality of the majority government and recognizing the reality of this budget, I have simply asked that when a Premier brings forward a fiscal plan that will destroy this province, that is 180 degrees against the wishes of the people and that is 180 degrees different from what they were led to believe they could expect when this Premier was elected, then I have simply fought for the right of the people to be heard.

Before we embark upon this four-year, $35-billion mistake, this $35-billion doubling of the deficit, before we saddle the public and their children with this massive debt, I am representing the right to be heard of the people who utterly reject this budget.

Mr Speaker, I know that you, as one who has to uphold the rules of this Legislature, as one who understands the rights of members, as an elected member who understands the rights of the people as they are expressed in standing orders and in ruling after ruling, understand that the people have a right to be heard.

1520

Hon Miss Martel: There are a couple of comments I would like to make to reiterate the position we have taken and to support our case.

First, the point was raised by members of both opposition parties, who are questioning the inherent authority of the Speaker to deal with this House, that nowhere in our standing orders does it say that at the end of the day you have an inherent responsibility to deal with matters and how this House proceeds. In particular to the member for York Centre, who is just arriving and who does not know the rules, let me point out to him standing order 1, which says very clearly, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it your intention that every member of this Legislature is going to be able to speak twice on this point of order? That is what is happening now.

The Speaker: The normal procedure is that the member who raised the point would wrap it up if there were additional information to present. I did not realize the member for Parry Sound wished to have a contribution. If other members have information that is not repetitious that they wish to bring to the Speaker's attention, I would be most delighted to hear that information.

Earlier, I had an indication from the member for Ottawa West that he had some information for the Speaker. Perhaps the best way to proceed is to hear from him and then from the government House leader. As I mentioned earlier, if it is of any help to members, if you have additional information you would like to present to me in written form, I would be most pleased to receive it. Perhaps by moving along we can actually get to question period.

Mr Chiarelli: I wanted to refer to a precedent that is less than one year old which was handed down in this Legislature towards the end of May of last year. It concerns a question of privilege or a point of order I raised well into the filibuster that was being conducted by the member for Welland-Thorold. At that point I stood in the House and cited a number of precedents suggesting that the then Speaker should perhaps intervene and permit other members to participate in the debate and other proceedings to take place.

Some of the same precedents I was quoting then are now being quoted by the House leader for the government. I do not want to go into a quotation of my full argument of that date. For your information, Mr Speaker, if any research is going to be done, my point of order was raised on 23 April 1990. The then Speaker issued his ruling on Monday 28 May 1990. A fairly extensive ruling was issued at that time, but I just want to quote a very small portion of it for your information and for members of the House, because I think it is very relevant, right on point.

It is important to keep in mind also that this point of order was raised when the member for Welland-Thorold was somewhere into his fifth week of conducting debate on a motion that was taking place at that time. The Speaker is referring to several of my precedents, one from Beauchesne and the other one from the Parliament of England that was referred to. If I can, I would like to quote what the Deputy Speaker said on 28 May 1990.

"The statement in Beauchesne cited by the honourable member is accurate as far as it concerns the House of Commons of Canada. The rules of that Legislature specifically provide for time limits on most speeches in the House and its committees and, therefore, do not permit 'an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak.' The situation is different in Ontario. Except in very limited circumstances, our standing orders do not impose time limits on speeches. I remind the House that our rules were only very recently extensively amended, and there was a conscious decision by the House not to impose general time limits on members, speeches.

"In such circumstances, the Speaker is not in a position to impose time limits on members' speeches or otherwise restrain or prevent members from speaking to a matter at length, provided that there is otherwise no breach of the rules or practices of the House.

"The member for Ottawa West also cited a case at the House of Commons at Westminster. On 2 February 1881, Speaker Brand terminated a debate on his own responsibility.... In this instance, Speaker Brand declined to call upon any more members to speak, even though Irish members still wished to continue the debate and proceeded to put the question after saying that the 'dignity, the credibility and the authority of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they should be vindicated.' It is important to note, however, that his action was supported by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and that the following day a resolution was adopted augmenting the Speaker's powers."

Mr Speaker, the point I am making is this: The ruling of last year in this House, which I believe you must take as a precedent, indicated that there is no authority in the Speaker to restrain any speeches or any procedures unless it can be shown clearly that there is a breach of the rules. Additionally, the Speaker said clearly that the precedent referred to by the House leader at that point was not relevant to the Legislature of Ontario.

I would refer these precedents to you, Mr Speaker, and ask you to take them into account.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I would like you to consider several things. At the outset I would like you to consider that in reality the government House leader is asking you as Speaker to change the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature. That is exactly the reality and the result of what she is asking you to do here this afternoon. I would like you to take that into consideration.

I would also like you to take into consideration the words of the most vocal opposite interjector, the Minister of Housing. I think we should feed him some of his own advice. On 3 April 1990, in the debate on auto insurance, Bill 68, just a little over one year ago today the then House leader for the New Democratic Party, who is now the Minister of Housing, had these words of advice and wisdom for the Speaker of the day:

"We would argue that time allocation, generally speaking, is not provided for in our rules, and since the Bill 94 debate and time allocation we have rewritten the rules of this House twice. The last time they were completed was last year. Not under any of those circumstances did the government raise the issue of building in time allocation provisions in the standing orders of this House. Therefore, the government had the opportunity to negotiate it and deal with the changes in the rules, as the process normally calls for and has been the precedent in this Legislature."

He goes on to say, "That demonstrates very clearly that this government, the majority party in here, is prepared to do anything to the standing orders in order to get its legislation through, even if it means changing the routine proceedings that we normally go through."

1530

In the very same debate he goes on to say:

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

He goes on to say that this is incredibly unfair. I concur; it is incredibly unfair. I would suggest that the only way that in effect the standing orders can be changed is for all three parties of the Ontario Legislature to do so by consensus, as has always been done in the history of this place.

I would also like to add some comments made by the now Premier on 29 March 1990, during that same debate:

"The reality is that this government believes it has the right to do whatever the hell it wants to do, regardless of the views of the public and regardless of the views of those of us who oppose. They are not even prepared to give us the time. I want to ask the minister, why are the opinions of the insurance industry, the schedule of the insurance industry, the money demands of the insurance industry and the financial demands of the insurance industry more important to him than the opinion of the public of Ontario?"

I would ask the Premier the very same question. Why is the opinion of the public of Ontario, which could be very easily heard on this budget through reference to a committee, with open public hearings, not important to the Premier of Ontario? It was obviously very important just a little over a year ago. It is not important to him any more.

I want to refer very specifically to a few of the points that the government House leader has made in her written submission, which obviously she has taken some days to deliberate over. Before I go on, Mr Speaker, I might add that I think it would be most appropriate if you would wait until you receive written submissions from the other two House leaders or leaders as well before you rule on this very substantial point of order, if indeed it is a point of order at all.

I refer to page 2 of her written submission, where she says that what the leader of the third party opposes is that the NDP has a majority on those committees and at the end of the day will vote in favour of the government. That is not true at all; that is not what the leader of the third party is saying. He does not question the NDP's right to have the number of seats it has in here. He has never questioned their right to have the number of members they have in standing committees.

What he has questioned is the fact that this party and this Premier went around the province last August and early last September with a document called An Agenda for People which did not show anywhere near a $10-billion surplus, and now he has gone 180 degrees in the other direction. All we are asking for and all my leader is asking for is that the people of Ontario, who are going to have to pick up this $10-billion tab this year and $9 billion next year and $8.5 billion the year after that and $7.8 billion the year after that, have an opportunity to come and be heard. That is all he has ever asked for. I do not think it is an unreasonable demand.

The government House leader goes on to say, near the bottom of page 2 in her written submission, that these delaying tactics are unprecedented. These delaying tactics are not unprecedented at all, not at all. I can recall a leader of a party in this place in 1988, who is now the Premier of the province, stopping a budget from even being read on the floor of the Ontario Legislature. There is no comparison between the two. Talk about hijacking Parliament; that is taking it to a ridiculous extreme because he did not happen to agree with a piece of legislation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget. It was Sunday shopping, I believe, that was the issue of that day. To say that this is unprecedented -- this is extremely mild in comparison to the politics and the delaying tactics that the present Premier of the province of Ontario has practised in the past.

I would also like to give members some evolution of the budgetary process with respect to bills and budget bills going out to committees and budget deliberation by committees, because that is the gist of what the government House leader is talking about.

Mr Elston: Keep talking, Ernie. They are all leaving.

Mr Eves: I must be doing a good job.

In 1982 there was a request by the official opposition of the day, the Liberal Party of Ontario, that Bill 115, being a sales tax amendment bill, a bill arising out of the budget in May 1982, go out to committee for public deliberation and hearings. Up until that point that was totally unheard of in the province of Ontario. That had never been done before in this place.

The government of the day and the Treasurer of the day, Mr Miller, agreed to send that bill out. It had never been done before. It was a request of the official opposition. The Treasurer of the day, the government of the day, acquiesced to that request, and for the first time in the history of the province a budget bill went out to committee for public deliberation and debate.

I would also like to tell members that with respect to that same request that was made by the official opposition in May 1982, the New Democratic Party leader, the member for York South, as he then was, told reporters, "The budget should be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings." Not just the bill, not just bills arising out of the budget, but the entire budget should go to a committee of the Legislature for public hearings and debate. That was the member for York South, who was then the leader of the New Democratic Party, which was then, I might add ironically, the third party in the province.

The member for York South appointed the NDP finance critic, the member for Windsor-Riverside, to head a party task force to travel across the province hearing public submissions. That is when the bells rang, I believe, for some four or five days. That is what the Premier of the province thinks you should do with budgets and budget bills that you do not agree with when you are the third party. You should send them out to committee for public hearings and debate. He said so in May 1982. I think he should take his own advice. I think that is exactly what should happen in May 1991.

The government House leader goes on, near the bottom of page 2, to talk about her party having a right and responsibility to govern. I think truer words were never spoken, but they are not exercising that responsibility and they are not doing a very good job of either running the government or this place, I would suggest, or they would not find themselves in the mess they find themselves in here today.

She goes on to talk about what, in her considered opinion, the leader of the third party, our party, is stopping the government from doing. Our leader and our party are not stopping the government from doing anything. They are stopping themselves. All they simply have to do is agree to send the entire budget, as a package, out to a standing committee of this Legislature for full and open public hearings and then get on with whatever piece of legislation they want here in the House this afternoon. They are the only people who are stopping anything from happening around here.

On page 3 she talks about, "Balance is the key, and balance and reasonableness are what have been missing...." I could not agree more. They are totally missing from the government benches and the government House leader.

Talk about treading on the rights of various people in this place and talk about treading on the rights of individual Ontarians: for the last four days the government House leader has spent her time during motions moving motions that we skip over petitions, that we skip over introduction of bills, that we skip over reports by standing committees of the Legislature and go directly to orders of the day. I would think that is perhaps a far more significant and valid point of order than the one she has raised here this afternoon.

She has prevented individual members of the Legislature every day for four consecutive days from introducing petitions that people all over the province want introduced in this place. She is also preventing individual members from introducing private bills. She is preventing her own government from introducing government bills. Why? As a procedural tactic, as a game of procedural one-upmanship.

1540

I do not think that sits very well and I do not think she should be coming into this place with a point of order asking you, Mr Speaker, in effect to change the standing orders because she cannot figure out a way out of her dilemma over there.

Hon Mr Cooke: You know that's wrong.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Housing is saying, "You know that's wrong." I suppose he was totally wrong in 1982.

I have made the points that I want to make with respect to this point of order. I seriously would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider whether it is even a point of order at all, because I think there is a very large question mark there as to whether or not this is even a valid point of order.

Mr Elston: It is a point of view.

Mr Eves: A point of view, the House leader for the Liberal Party says. It certainly is a point of view; not a very valid one, in my considered judgement. However, I do not think it is a point of order to start with. If, on the other hand, you should consider that it is a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think you should very seriously consider what the government House leader is asking you to do. She is in effect asking you to change the standing orders unilaterally because she does not like them or agree with them.

The Speaker: New information?

Mr Harnick: Yes. This alleged point of order is apropos of nothing that went on in this Legislature today. It is not supported by or in response to anything that happened in this Legislature today. If this point of order is directed to what went on here for the last six days, what it is is an indirect challenge to the Chair. What the government is doing by bringing this point of order now is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.

Last week, when things happened that the government House leader did not like, there was no order by the Chair that what was happening was out of order. Everything that was done was sanctioned by the Speaker. To bring this point of order now is a challenge to the Chair. It is a challenge to the Speaker, and that is contrary to the rules.

What they are doing, and I say it again, is trying to do indirectly what they are not allowed by the rules to do directly. There must be some foundation upon which this point of order could be brought. There is none before the Legislature at this particular time. What went on here last week was something the Speaker ruled on each time an incident occurred, and each time an incident occurred the Speaker ruled that what was being done was in order. The government House leader is challenging the Speaker. This cannot be done according to the rules. The rules were amended, and this present government was part of that amending of the rules process. In fact, this government knows what it gave up and what it received in return for the amendments that were brought in. One of those things was to give up the right to challenge the Chair.

In addition, if I might point to a few items -- I appreciate that you are getting anxious, Mr Speaker, but I believe I am within my rights to be doing this.

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, I appreciate his approach, if it is not repetitious, if it is indeed new information for me to consider. I did mention to all members that you could present something in writing. Yes, I am a little anxious to get on with question period, but if you have new information, by all means tell me.

Mr Harnick: I do not believe that anything I have said right up to now has been mentioned by any other speaker. That being the case, I think I am entitled to carry on. Further, I might say I have very little confidence in supplying a written argument. I know you will be inundated with written arguments, Mr Speaker, and it is going to be difficult for the Speaker to digest all of those written arguments when 130 members -- I notice my friends across the way have constant comments, so I would expect that every one of them, particularly someone who is as familiar with the rules as the former House leader across the way, will just inundate you with written submissions, because they have so much to say about this. The fact that there is an attempt to abuse the process of this Legislature would, I know, prompt them more than anyone else, because of their past record of self-righteousness, to supply you with written submissions. I quite frankly relish the opportunity to stand here now and speak to you directly.

I take some umbrage at the statement the House leader has made on page 1, referring to the statement of my leader in which he said, "People know where I stand on the budget; I am not going to let it pass." She says, "Mr Speaker, this statement and the ensuing procedural tactics show a total disrespect for the democratic process." She goes on to say, "The House leader for the third party will undoubtedly argue that his party is merely exercising its legitimate right as opposition to stall debate until the government agrees to send the budget out to the finance and economics committee for public hearings."

What she is essentially saying is that she doubts the sincerity of my leader. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that that position, to doubt the sincerity of what a member says here, is unparliamentary. It is not right. It is getting to the point where members are on the dividing line between the words they can say and the words they cannot say in this place.

That statement made on page 1 of this document premises the whole attitude of this government and the whole attitude it brings to this chamber when it brings this argument in support of a point of order. That is why I think the whole document they laid before you should be suspect. They base the whole argument they make upon saying my leader is not being sincere when he brings to this House the procedures he has brought in order to fight a bad budget. I think everything in here has to be viewed in the light of that attitude.

My colleague the member for Parry Sound has stated, quite eloquently, that this government believed that budgets should be sent out so the public can comment on them. All we are saying is to let this budget go out and let people have a say.

What the government has said -- and this is new; it has not been discussed -- is go ahead and send it to a committee in pieces. Well, sending it to a committee in pieces where the public is not invited, where they cannot comment on the budget as a whole, where they have no input, is not satisfactory to our party.

The third paragraph on page 2 states, "Further to our concern with the Tories' tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade -- of not just House work but all committee work" --

Let me just stop for a second. Committee work and the schedule for committee work are dictated by the rules of this place, and when the bells are ringing in this place, committees do not sit. When routine proceedings are not completed, committees do not sit.

Again, what they say in this document is absolutely wrong. It is a complete ignoring of the standing rules of this Legislature. Again I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the tenor of this document is mean-spirited. It is almost, if you will, an attempted vengeance. It is an attempt to abuse the rules of this place.

1550

I would like to comment on the idea that the government says the Tory party is doing what it is doing without consulting with the government first. They almost make it sound as though, had we consulted with the government in advance and had we said, "Look, we want public hearings and we want you to give public hearings to this budget process; we want the public to come," they would have said, "Well, because you came to us at the beginning, we're going to allow those public hearings." But now, by saying what they are saying, what they are indicating is, "Well, you didn't come to us at the beginning, so you can't have those public hearings."

I would say, to use a phrase, "You can't suck and blow at the same time." That is what the government is attempting to do here. They are attempting to have it both ways. Again, they are impugning the integrity of the opposition, not just my party but all opposition, and that is improper.

When we get to the second-last paragraph on page 2, they say, "In our parliamentary democracy that gives New Democrats a right and responsibility to govern." Mr Speaker, I put it to you that when the government talks about democracy and in the same breath talks only about how New Democrats have a right, New Democrats have a responsibility, I submit to you again that this is a mean- spirited and improper point of order. No one has said this so far, Mr Speaker -- I notice you are getting restless in your chair again and I apologize, but this is important to me. No one has said, and let me be the first to say, that New Democrats do not have an exclusive right to govern and New Democrats do not have an exclusive responsibility to this Legislature or to this province. If that is the foundation upon which they bring this point of order, I submit that it has to be dismissed, because those reasons are élitist and improper.

If I might carry on --

The Speaker: Will the member for Willowdale take his seat for a moment? I am still waiting for something substantive which is new. I am asking members' co-operation. If you have additional information which is of a substantive nature, which has to do with the rules and procedures, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, I would appreciate if we can move on and begin the business of the day.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, unless you can tell me where I have been repetitive, I believe that everything I have said has been new. My interpretation of this document has not been discussed. I do not know why you are looking to me as if I am not saying anything new. I can appreciate that you are restless, but I believe the points I am making are important points, and I believe I am entitled to make these points.

On page 3 -- and appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I have to pause momentarily because I did not receive this document days ago when it was prepared. I am sure it was being prepared over the weekend. I have only seen this document for the first time this afternoon and that makes it a little more difficult to respond. They state on page 3, "However, this does not mean that these tactics can or should be used without limits." Mr Speaker, what I put to you is, who should be setting the limits? Are they limits that are to be set by the government because it has a majority? Are they limits to be set because the government forces the Speaker into an awkward position? Are they limits to be set by this Legislature because we have rules? Those are where the limits are set, and those limits are limits that were concurred in by the New Democratic Party when those standing orders were amended.

The government also states, "In government and in opposition, we have felt that the government of the day should be able to put forward its plans, have them debated and have them settled democratically."

Mr Speaker, if this is their idea of settling something democratically, abrogating from the standing orders that we operate under, again I will point out to you that their definition of "democratic" is not such as to permit you on the basis of what they have set out here to find in favour of this point of order.

If I can go on to page 4, there is some idea that my party disrupted this Legislature when it argued about the efficacy of Bill 4. The government at that time proceeded by the rules. This time they are not proceeding by the rules. But let me say that the comparison being made and the idea that my party attempted to hijack the Legislature when all it was fighting for was the opportunity to have more witnesses who were excluded from the process come before the committee and give evidence -- that is hardly what I call something that is improper. The idea of letting all speakers from all parties speak on Bill 4 is not something we here should be limiting; we should be expanding those opportunities. If anything, this government is not expanding those opportunities in this case.

On page 4, the government House leader states, "That a minority in the Ontario Legislature has immobilized the whole system is a statement of fact." That is not a statement of fact. It is a statement taken out of context as to what all the facts are. All the facts are that we have a budget that now has presented the people of Ontario with a deficit of $9.7 billion. What this party is doing is trying to get an opportunity for all members of the public to comment on that budget. It is trying to do nothing more than invite the public to a forum that the now Premier sanctioned in the past.

Again, I say the idea of immobilizing the whole system is not a statement of fact. It is a statement in support of muzzling the opposition so the public does not get the right to speak. The document goes on to say, "That this immobilization of the Ontario Legislature by the third party is an abuse of process...." The third party has done nothing more than follow the rules. If that is an abuse of process, I say to the House leader, amend the rules. Bring in new rules that suit the 74 people who sit on that side of the House, but do not accuse this party of abusing the process by following the standing orders.

In this document they talk about what this party is doing as being an abuse of democracy. The idea of muzzling the opposition and the idea of putting the Speaker in a position where he is being asked to rule outside of the standing orders -- I do not say that is an abuse of democracy in terms of what this party is doing; it is an abuse of democracy in terms of what the government is doing, and it is highly improper.

The government even admits on page 4 that the standing orders do not explicitly support or condemn the procedures being utilized by the third party. The fact of the matter is that if the government wants to proceed the way it is proceeding, it had better have standing order authority to do it. Everything we have done on this side of the House to provoke this government to send this budget to a standing committee so the public can come and speak to it has been done within the standing orders. It has not been done outside of the standing orders. They have no respect for the opposition or for the standing orders.

1600

When the government talks about the need for a new and exceptional course being demanded, I put it to you respectfully, Mr Speaker, that a new and exceptional course would be the wrong thing to do in these circumstances. The course that we follow is the course set by our rules. We on this side of the House, and certainly in my party, respect those rules and we follow those rules. If the government, out of frustration, decides that it has to take exceptional measures, that shows you the desperation of the people on that side of the House.

I urge you, Mr Speaker, not to stray from the standing orders because they want an exceptional course to be taken and they are demanding it in an imperative way. I think the language in this document is despicable and the government should be ashamed.

The Speaker: Is there more helpful advice?

Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Speaker. I apologize for taking up the time of the Legislature, but this is important to me. For the people on the other side of the House, this is a joke. It is their imperative that they force you to take extraordinary action. I do not think this is a case for extraordinary action. The idea of having a budget debated by the public before the government is not extraordinary action. That is decency. That is honesty. That is what this government used to advocate when it sat on this side of the House.

On page 6 of this ill-conceived, inconsiderate document it states --

Mr Perruzza: Throw it away.

Mr Harnick: I would like to throw it away. I am responding now to the member for Downsview, who agrees that this document should be thrown away. I am glad to see that someone on that side of the House is thinking. I know that when it comes to thinking it is something that is certainly within the prerogative of the member for Downsview. I am delighted that he does that on occasion.

When he says to throw this document away, I hope that the other members of the government who respect their fellow colleague and member are going to listen to him.

The Speaker: And your comments to the Chair?

Mr Harnick: I hope that they are going to listen to him and throw this document away. I hope that the government House leader gets up and withdraws this argument in support of the point of order and withdraws the point of order.

Finally, on page 6 of the document it says, "We respectfully request your ruling that the mover of an unsuccessful dilatory motion to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House loses the floor for the remainder of the debate on the matter under discussion." If ever there was a desire, an expressed and blatant desire of the government to muzzle the opposition, it is in that statement. I am surprised that they had the audacity to print it.

This is a government that is involved in investigations of the Solicitor General and that will not undertake to provide the copy of the report when it becomes available to the Legislature, a government that brings preferred indictments and will not give reasons, and now this same government wants to muzzle the opposition.

Mr Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I apologize for making you restless. It certainly was not my intention. I hope you have listened to me and heard what I have said and I hope you will consider it in spite of your restlessness.

I think that this government, which is so clandestine in terms of dealing with the Solicitor General, in terms of undertaking to produce reports to this Legislature when they become available, in terms of preferring indictments without reasons and in trying to muzzle the opposition, is wrong. I think that everything I have said indicates that this document is mean-spirited and is not the foundation upon which you, Mr Speaker, should be making a determination regarding this point of order. This document is the last place that you should be looking to find authority for what the government is requesting. Thank you for the opportunity and, again, my sincere apologies for making you restless.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, it is going to be my submission to you that before you rule on this motion, whether it be today or some days hence, you should give some consideration to examining carefully the management of this issue on the floor of the House and make a determination whether there are ways of adjusting the dispute which has arisen that have not been canvassed adequately.

Everybody understands that oppositions, and I speak of the third party now, when they see an issue that they take profoundly seriously, will engage in delays and in filibusters. Without putting too fine a point on it, that is what the third party is doing now around an issue that it regards as very serious. It can be called hijacking the House, it can be called obstruction, it can be called a filibuster, it can be called delay.

Every party does that in opposition, and the government party was no exception. I do not go so far as to say they wrote the book on it, but they certainly introduced some new refinements of it. Mr Speaker, even when you were a sitting member of the House, there were delays of an extraordinary type when your party confronted an issue that you took to be very serious, so serious that the tactics were justified.

The problem is not that these things occur, because they always occur. I was not here when our party was in opposition, but I am sure we did the same thing from time to time. The problem is not that these things occur; the problem always is how you manage the issue. The difficulty we confront here is that the government -- frankly, the government's leadership -- has managed this issue extremely badly.

The very motion today, on a day when everybody adjusts to the fact that the filibuster is just beginning to decline and run out of steam, the motion today confronting that fact is like throwing gasoline on the embers of a dying fire. It creates a whole new raison d'être for those who want to make their point about public hearings on the budget. That is a bad management technique.

The other absence of management technique to which I draw your particular attention as you confront the resolution is that every time obstruction in the House occurs, the way the problem is resolved, if you do not want to sit out the obstruction -- and obstruction does not last for ever; it never, ever has once, never has lasted for ever -- the way you deal with it is to try to get the obstructing party, if that is what you want to call it, and the government leadership together in an atmosphere in which the problem can be resolved. Sometimes that works; more often than not it works. The terrible thing is that that has not even been attempted here.

I remember on many occasions the previous Premier of the province, confronting this kind of obstruction from the NDP on more than one occasion, would call the leadership of the NDP into his office to canvass the various possibilities to see if something could be done to resolve the problem. It worked four times out of five, but it will never even happen if the government approaches the process with its own invincibility top in its mind.

If the government really thinks that no one has the right to speak against it, it will not try those things, but if it does believe that these members here are expressing fervently and profoundly views that they deeply hold, just comparable to views that the present government members deeply hold, it will try that technique.

I think, Mr Speaker, what we confront here is an issue that from the government point of view, I regret to say, has been very unsatisfactorily managed. I would hope that what the government would do before you are required to rule is withdraw this resolution.

The House leader shakes her head. She is adamant. She is dug in. She is determined. There is no way any concession will be made. The reality is that getting to yes, which is the art of negotiation, simply will not tolerate people who take a view as aggressive as that.

1610

If the government wants to compromise this result -- and I believe the government should want to compromise it; there is lots of room to compromise it -- I suggest respectfully -- I know the House leader will not want to do it, she is so determined -- but the first thing she should do is withdraw the motion. It can always be brought again on another day.

The second thing she should do is encourage her Premier to meet with the leaders of the parties to discuss the impasse that we confront. I can tell members from my own experience that that has worked four times out of five. Usually, what you are confronting at that stage from the opposition parties is a party that has got itself into an obstructionist bind and does not know how to get out of it. That means there is a real possibility for accommodation.

So I would ask the House leader, and I would encourage you, Mr Speaker, before you are asked, to take a step never before taken in the history of Ontario, to consider that the motion should be withdrawn and that you should be satisfied that determined efforts have been undertaken by the Premier and the leaders of the parties to solve, in a way that is satisfactory to all parties, the impasse that we confront. I can assure you that our leader, who has taken a clear line on this issue from the beginning, will be prepared to participate in such a process.

Mr Speaker, I do not say whether you have this power or whether you do not have this power, but it would really be an extraordinary thing to define either the existence of that power or its use until you are satisfied that the usual methods, traditional methods that we have employed in this House for generations to resolve this kind of impasse, have not been thoroughly tried and have been proved beyond doubt to be failures.

Mrs Cunningham: I think there is a lot of interest in this motion this afternoon. If I had been able to comprehend the first couple of sentences, I would quickly rule it out of order, but now we find ourselves in a position of looking at a point of order that is very substantial and is, we find, worthy of some debate so that we can point out our views to you, Mr Speaker.

I think that the government has found itself in a position where it has itself hijacked the House. There was not anyone who came this afternoon not ready to get into question period and there was certainly no one who got a phone call this morning to talk about anything different. Is that not the way it works when things are not going according to the rules of this House, if someone wants to change them? It seems to me that there is a way to change what is happening in the House, and I have to say that this particular government has not used that process to its fullest.

There is a precedent in the past. Certainly one of the pros in this House when it comes to reminding all of us about our responsibilities is the member for Windsor-Riverside, who reminded us on a number of occasions during the debates on Bill 68, as we looked at process, none of us wanting to come to the end of the debate, of course, and none of us wanting to take a look at a closure motion -- a lot of thought went into processes that could be used by the opposition to get its points across on that particular bill.

We find ourselves in the same dilemma right now. Many of us are trying to speak on behalf of the public during the opportunities we have here, and now we find ourselves asking for members of the public to be able to speak on behalf of themselves in public hearings. The government has already said the budget bills will go to a committee for public debate. Why not the entire budget? That is the issue here today. We find ourselves now being presented with a point of order which definitely is out of order, in my view.

I feel very strongly about this, Mr Speaker, as did many before me, and that is that you do not change the standing orders of this House -- and I speak directly to the House leader -- you never change the standing orders of this House by a mere point of order raised by the government in the Legislative Assembly. The very first standing order that the House leader for the government wants to quote from, and will quote from when she is given the opportunity to summarize, is 1(a): "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

The standing orders have been developed over years and years of hard work and change. In fact, it has been more recently that this Legislative Assembly did have a standing order that related to closure. That closure order is made around the business of the government. In this instance it is not appropriate. The advisers to the government, who I stare at reluctantly at this point in time, know that and did not in fact advise her to come forth with that particular procedure, and they were absolutely right. But on this one they did not give the government House leader good advice.

This point of order, in my view, is out of order. Mr Speaker, if you are being asked to rule on it, I think it is particularly unfair that the government should use a point of order to ask you to write new standing orders of this Legislative Assembly, because in fact if you do rule this in order, you will be implicitly adding to the standing orders of this House and it will very clearly say that on a point of order such as this, a government can stop opposition parties from taking actions they feel are important in the best interests of the public.

The only way the government can do that right now is to agree to public hearings. They do have that choice, and there has been very little negotiation around that point, very little compromise, I will add in fairness, with due respect, on either side.

But let me tell the House what happened. I am now quoting --

The Speaker: To the member for London North, just before you continue, if I could remind members that, first of all, there was an alleged point of order raised. It is a procedural matter. I have not yet determined whether in fact it is in order or out of order. I am reserving judgement of that. If any members have information which will assist the Speaker in terms of precedence of procedure or anything out of our standing orders which would be of assistance to me, I of course want to hear that information. This should not be an opportunity to simply debate political issues but rather to present the Speaker with information which will assist him in trying to determine the validity of this procedural point which has been raised.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I of course am trying to give you as much ammunition as I can for your ruling, because obviously you have taken it upon yourself to say that you will be ruling on this matter, and that of course is what we look to you for. Therefore, I would ask you to look, when you are making your deliberations, at the Hansard of 3 April 1990.

I will now quote the member for Windsor-Riverside when he was in opposition, and there are many precedents for his speaking to this particular process. At that point in time we were looking at Bill 68 and he talked about the process whereby the government and the opposition members came to a conclusion around what was eventually a Liberal government closure motion.

He started by saying: "If the member thinks five days is a filibuster, then he has got something to learn about the proper procedures and the role of the opposition parties in dealing with controversial items like this." This was after five days of some debate.

I think it is most unfortunate, given the request of the third party, the Conservatives, and of our leader at this point in time, that we have public hearings around a budget which is devastating for this province, unprecedented, with a projection of some $10 billion as a deficit. Really, if one wants to talk about anything and one wants to ask for the views of the public on anything, I think that is a very reasonable request. Given -- I underline this -- that in fact we already are having public hearings on budget bills, all we have asked for is that we talk to all items in the budget, and that is fair.

1620

I go on to quote the member for Windsor-Riverside, and I am talking about process now and I am talking about the only real vehicle that we have for compromise under the circumstances: "A verbal agreement by the House leaders was reached to limit the second reading debate and to deal with public hearings, and that was discussed in the House leaders' panel where it is most appropriate to deal with it."

Let me go on. "This demonstrates the fair and acceptable method by which we think these items of conflict should be dealt with in the House leaders' meetings and through consensus to the extent possible." Again, this is the NDP when it was in opposition. They talk about themselves. "The opposition has demonstrated very clearly its willingness to discuss this matter in a fair and equitable way with the government," through the House leaders' meeting.

I will skip a little bit, Mr Speaker. I am sure you can read this later on. "Then there was the government motion on public hearings, and that again was agreed to by consensus. It was a compromise." This is a key phrase: "We discussed it several weeks in a row in the House leaders' meetings." Several weeks in a row -- not one meeting, not two, but several weeks in a row. No one is saying we should be discussing this kind of thing for several weeks in a row, but how about a few hours in a row or a couple of days? How about a phone call saying, "Let's make a compromise"? Nothing, and then we get this ridiculous motion today which has literally held up the whole House.

The government should not blame the Conservatives today. Today the House leader was given very bad advice by her backup team, who in fact put forth a point of order which is out of order, which everybody knew would not be ruled out of order in respect to the government, so we now find ourselves in a very substantial debate. Points of order are fully debatable on substantive motions, and this is very substantive. In fact, this is so substantive that if it is ruled in order, we will change for the first time in who knows how long the rules of this House by a point of order put forth by the government. Ridiculous, just ridiculous.

You would not see a secondary school student council meeting run in this fashion; you just simply would not. The students would not have brought forth a point of order on an issue like this; they know better.

I go on to quote the member for Windsor-Riverside when he was in opposition. "Then there was the government motion on public hearings, and that again was agreed to by consensus. It was a compromise. We discussed it several weeks in a row in the House leaders' meetings" -- several weeks. "The original proposal by the opposition parties was for unlimited public hearings. The compromise was five weeks."

The New Democratic Party opposition at that time said, "We'll have public hearings for five weeks." We have not even had a chance to talk about how long they ought to be, but they have to happen. There is no doubt. The public wants to be here. They want to advise the government. With their people's agenda, they are going to listen to the public. What a joke. Here is our first chance to talk to a budget and they do not want to speak to the people about it, just about the public bills. That is just a ridiculous way to deal with it.

"Six days of those five weeks would be travelling throughout the province to get input from areas outside Metropolitan Toronto." I think that is a great idea. When we come to some kind of compromise around these public hearings, I think we should travel the province of Ontario. I think six days of the five weeks travelling may not be enough, but I certainly think it is a good idea, and the opposition party thought it was a good idea on auto insurance. Is it not therefore a good idea for the budget?

"It was discussed and ironed out in the appropriate way by the House leaders."

Could this be a member of today's government saying in the past, "It was discussed and ironed out in the appropriate way by the House leaders"? For anyone who is watching this program right now, I want to tell them that we have not begun to talk about a compromise. We had an initial discussion that perhaps third- and fourth-graders may in fact have, but we are talking about the business of the province of Ontario and a budget that has projected a deficit of some $10 billion in one year. I think the people have a right to come before this government, and that is what this point of order is all about. It is asking the Speaker in fact to rule on whether or not we can go out on public hearings. It is the responsibility of the government and the opposition parties to decide that together.

Hon Miss Martel: Now you're really dredging it. You don't really believe that. Try again.

Mrs Cunningham: What else would it be? The government House leader says, "That's not it." Well, I do not know what it is if that is not it. I cannot see that piece of paper. I suppose it is irrelevant, because I would rather get this on the record so that when the Speaker will be spending the long hours of the night trying to figure out whether this is a point of order or not -- which I hope he does not spend more than 30 seconds on -- at least he can refer to the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I believe, 3 April 1990, where the member for Windsor-Riverside says, "This clearly demonstrates the fairness with which the opposition parties were dealing with the government's agenda." That is when they decided for public hearings, and the compromise was five weeks, and six days of those five weeks were travelling about the province.

"The minority on this side recognizes and respects the rights of the majority in this place." The rights of the majority are in fact to carry out the business of this government, but at the same time it has to take into regard our responsibility in opposition, and that is to provide solutions to problems. The solution to the problem in this instance is that the government of Ontario was caught totally off guard with a projected deficit of some $10 billion. If we take a look at the NDP's Agenda for People, it projects some $2.5 billion this year at the most, in spending, not $10 billion in one year. The public of Ontario has every right to come down here and give their point of view.

Mrs Haslam: It is $1.5 billion.

Mrs Cunningham: Is it $1.5 billion? I added it up to something over $2 billion. I was trying to be kind, and now I hear members of the government saying it was only $1.5 billion. If that is the case, Mr Speaker, if they knew this government was going to spend $10 billion, put us in debt $10 billion more than we already are, do you really think that at that cost the people of Ontario would have elected this government? One of the alternatives on this particular motion is this: The government either agrees to public hearings or it calls an election. That is the government's alternative.

An hon member: Stop dreaming.

Mrs Cunningham: Oh, yes. I would project that at least that member would be gone on Bill 4 alone, and there would be a few other members, given their performance so far in this government, who would just kiss their seats goodbye. That is the way it goes. There is not one young person in this province who is prepared for one second to buy into this kind of budgeting. Why do we have a right to mortgage their lives and the money they make for their young working years and for ever?

I got elected three years ago because the Liberal government had a $1-billion deficit and I thought that was irresponsible. We saw nothing then. Whoever could have guessed that the Agenda for People promised -- and I am using the words of the government member -- a $1.5-billion deficit, $10 billion. No wonder we came forth with this process.

I am not prepared to stand here this afternoon and watch this point of order change the standing orders of this House. I am also not prepared to stand here and think that the government is so naïve as to get so excited about what our leader said during the debate on the budget, and that was that he would stop the budget. Give me a break, Mr Speaker. Did they really think, given the numbers in this House, that he could do this? That is the silliest interpretation of this responsible side over here. We are the only party coming forth and saying this is an irresponsible budget, we cannot afford it. People do not want to invest in Ontario, throwing money at problems as opposed to programs.

If we are really concerned about people who cannot take care of themselves -- and I believe that the public of Ontario is prepared to help, I really believe that, but I do not think throwing money at big government is going to help people who are looking for appropriate health care, social workers, job shadowing, care in the homes for the elderly or new schools. Throwing this kind of money at big bureaucracy is not going to help.

In ending, I do not believe this to be a point of order. There are two choices for this government. They can agree, through compromise and House leaders, to a forum of public hearings, whichever one we can come to some conclusions about, and I feel that it is their responsibility to do so, or they can call an election.

1630

Mr Offer: Prior to just a couple of moments ago, I did not know whether I would partake in this discussion, but after hearing some of the comments, I think it is a very important matter to discuss. It is a very important day, because this particular issue is one which really does in many ways abrogate or curtail what is in essence a right to speak on those issues of the day in the way in which the members chose to speak about them.

We have the opportunity and option in this Legislature to make points, to make our position known, to make our position in terms of support or opposition and all of the variations in between; to make them known not only to all members of the Legislature, but to all people who watch through the parliamentary channel. It may be that some, certainly on the government side, take issue with how those particular positions are made and the process by which they are made and, yes, I guess that as they all have a particular opinion, they have every right to make that known. But to do it in this manner by this particular motion is, I believe, not something, which is embraced in principle in the standing orders.

I will be addressing some of my concerns with this particular motion in the next few moments. I do not expect to be speaking at great length on this issue, but I do want to bring forward a few points of concern.

I see this as almost a trilogy of events that this particular government has undertaken since being victorious in the last election. The first event was that dealing with closure under Bill 4. I spoke on that matter and I am not going to dwell in detail on the past. I spoke on that matter because I felt very strongly that our rights as members to speak on an issue which impacted on so many people, not just tenants and landlords but a variety of other individuals in the province, were severely curtailed.

On that day I spoke in strong opposition to invoking closure at such a very early point in time. There were a great many points to be made, there were a great many positions and sensitivities from different areas of the province that had to be made, and the invocation of closure on that matter at that particular time did not in any way enhance the workings of this Legislature.

The second area in this trilogy, which has been used on more than one occasion by the government House leader, is the motion brought forward at the end of question period to immediately move to orders of the day. Some people will think: "What is so important about that? Why should members feel so opposed to that particular motion? It is permitted under the standing orders."

I do not believe the honourable government House leader is using that particular motion in the spirit in which it had been first devised. I believe that particular aspect of our standing orders was one which was to be used in extraordinary circumstances in extraordinary times and not to be used as a matter of course, each and every day. When that motion is utilized, then what we as members of the Legislature lose is the ability to read petitions into this Legislature by our constituents, who have formed together on a particular issue, who have with one voice by signing their names chosen to use their member to express their opinion.

That is an important area in this Legislature. It is a way in which the general public can see first hand that their opinions on one particular issue, unified, joined together, will be read by a member of the Legislature to be incorporated in Hansard for all time. That is important.

I have had on my desk a petition which has been signed by residents of Elliot Lake who have been concerned about the cancellation of out-of-province contracts that have resulted in 2,500 job losses. They have together signed a petition to fulfil a promise made by the Premier to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium.

Those are individuals who are not in my riding but have seen fit, as is their right, to utilize members of the Legislature to make their position known. That aspect of the Legislature and its workings are very important to its ongoing health, and the activity by the government House leader in what is, in essence, hopscotching from question period to orders of the day stops that. It stops each member from introducing legislation. It stops the government from introducing legislation. It is an issue, an example, where more and more aspects of the Legislature and its workings are being stopped. It is on that second area of this trilogy that I have some great concern.

The third area deals mainly with the actions of the government House leader today by referring to this new motion. I believe, Mr Speaker, that this motion is very much out of order. Much has been said about previous activities in this Legislature, all of which is true and well documented. Much has been made of the standing orders, especially 1(a) and (b), and I believe it is the position of the government House leader that standing order 1(b) is the mechanism, the root, that makes that particular motion valid or in order.

If that is the position of the government House leader, Mr Speaker, then I respectfully submit that by her own argument she has made your job easier because that particular standing order does not truly embrace the activities for which she wishes them to be used.

1640

We are today talking about, and I refer to the standing order, "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders." We may not agree with the particular tactics, procedural as they are, being undertaken by the third party. We may feel it is more important to deal with the issues of the day, the legislation at hand, to debate the budget in those areas where it is possible to so debate, and that is certainly a very valid position. But the government House leader has today foisted upon you an incredible responsibility, one which I believe is not in order, not in order because I feel that subsection of the standing orders is one which deals in areas where a particular party or member is doing something which is not provided for in the standing orders; not necessarily excluded but not specifically included.

That is not the case here. What we have had in the past few weeks is the members of the third party doing what is permitted by the standing orders. We may not agree with what they are doing, we may not agree with the tactics they are employing, but there is no one in this Legislature who can stand here today and tell you they do not have the right to do what they are doing, that the standing orders do not embrace what they are doing.

If that is the case, and I believe it to be, then it must necessarily follow that subsection 1(b) of the standing orders does not permit the government House leader to move the motion she has today. It must be taken, then, that the motion is out of order. I believe this particular motion by the government House leader is not in order. I do not believe a ruling on its substance is necessary, because the reason for the motion by the government House leader is one which embraces an activity by the third party which is authorized specifically by the rules of this House. To say it is specifically authorized does not mean to say we agree with the procedure undertaken, but it is to say we recognize it is permitted.

This is a third area where I am in great opposition to the government House leader and to the government as a whole. The first, as indicated earlier, was the invoking of closure at a very early opportunity in dealing with Bill 4, stripping away from us as members of this Legislature what is our very basic right, that is, to stand in favour or to stand against any one piece of legislation.

The second aspect is that motion which is used as commonplace by the government House leader whereby we move from question period to orders of the day, thereby once more stripping members of their right to read petitions, to read in pieces of legislation, not just government pieces of legislation but a variety of pieces of legislation, to do what it is we were elected to do.

And third is this motion today, which I believe to be clearly out of order. I believe the standing orders do not permit this type of motion to be made when an individual or individuals are doing something which is specifically allowed under the standing orders.

Those are three areas which demonstrate clearly that the government House leader and the government have just lost control of this Legislature. We are left today with a leader of the third party who has clearly backed himself into one corner and the Premier of the province who has clearly backed himself into the other corner, each of them screaming at each other to take the first step forward, neither of them being able to do so, for whatever reason we do not know. The result has been committees of this Legislature not sitting; people coming before this Legislature, after having been invited before committees to share with us their particular expertise, being told, "Thank you, but you must go home and maybe come back again;" being invited a second time and a third time and being told again, "Thank you very much, you must leave; we can't listen to you;" we as members not being able to debate the issues of the day, the pieces of legislation of the day.

I believe the time is long overdue for the leader of the third party to take a step forward from his corner, for the Premier of the province to take a step forward from his corner. To put this matter aside, if it requires that the budget be put out to a committee, then so be it. The world will not stop spinning, the taxes will not stop being collected, the issues will continue, but at least this Legislature will again become a place for us to debate the issues, at least this Legislature will again house those committee rooms where people can speak and share with us their areas of expertise, at least this is a place where people can say work is being done.

This motion by the government House leader is one which is clearly out of order. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to read seriously the motion of the government House leader, as I know you will, recognize that the reason for it is one which is not embraced in the standing orders. Also, before I sit down, please recognize that this is a very dangerous precedent. In the unfortunate event that you rule it is in order, rule in favour of the government House leader, a precedent will be set in this Legislature which will in essence rip up the rules of our standing orders. There will be no necessity for those standing orders, because we recognize on the opposition side in our role as opposition that at any point in time the government House leader would be able to stand on this same type of motion. We would in essence have no rules we can use; we would have no certainty that the points we can make would be able to be made in the time we would like them to be made. It would be a ripping away of the fabric and the history of this Legislature. This is a motion which is clearly, in my respectful opinion, out of order. I ask you to take that into consideration.

In passing and in closing, we are talking about something very important in this Legislature, and it would be interesting to hear one government member apart from the House leader stand up and share with us his or her opinion, even if it be in support of the House leader, to stand up and say how this Legislature should work according to him. Their constituents demand that. It is their responsibility as members of this Legislature to stand up and say, "This is my opinion of how this Legislature should work."

Not one single member of the government side has stood up, apart from the government House leader, and said, "This is my opinion on how this Legislature should work." I am concerned about that. Take off those gag orders. Members should stand up for what they believe is right. Do not be afraid. Their constituents are watching; they want to see where their member stands on the right of members to debate in this Legislature. Members have that obligation and responsibility to their constituents. We on this side are taking that responsibility seriously. I challenge members. We have the rest of this day. Stand up; let's hear how members really feel.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, on the same point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, on the same point of order. First, it is a shame the government has hijacked the House today through its naïveté and incompetence, I suppose, would be the best thing we could chalk it up to. No question, the incompetence of this government is proving to reach new heights every day this Legislature sits.

Mr Speaker, I have a real concern, first of all, with why we are debating this, as you put it, alleged point of order. It has been suggested in this House by the government that you received this six-page outline on its point of order some hours if not days before 1:30 this afternoon. I have very real concerns with your decision to in fact allow this debate.

1650

My first concern is that the point of order from the House leader of the government side starts: "I rise on a point of order. My point of order is the constant use of repetitive motions for adjournment of debate and adjournment of the House."

What exactly is this government using as its point of order? What standing order is being contravened by this House, by this party? Point to me in the standing orders exactly the point of order they are insisting we debate today. They have not given the point of order in their entire brief because there is no point of order. There is no standing order that is being contravened in this House by our particular advancement for public meetings and for public hearings on the budget.

Mr Speaker, I have real concerns about your judgement on the request by the government. My first concern is that you did not ask the government to identify within the standing orders which standing order is being argued about today. They have not itemized it in their particular brief. They have not suggested which standing order is being argued.

Apparently you had this hours if not days before 1:30, and that was never requested by you of the House leader. I suggest they do not have it in here. They do not have it in here because there is none. I think it was incumbent on you to stand before this House at that time and ask the House leader exactly which standing order they were requesting you interpret for them, because that is really what a point of order comes down to. They would like your interpretation on a standing order and whether or not we are within our rights to do what we have been doing for these past six days.

Through their naïveté and incompetence, they have hijacked the House for another day. That is the first concern.

The second concern is that considering that you have had this particular document --

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe that my privileges have been undermined. The member has alleged that information was given to you with respect to this motion hours before today or at least on the weekend. That is categorically incorrect and it should be withdrawn.

Mr Stockwell: I will certainly speak to that. As far as I understood, and I will be corrected, you received this particular point of order in advance. Was that not correct?

The Speaker: If it will assist, obviously this whole business is a bit contentious. I received notification at the same time as your leader and everybody else at whatever time it was when the government House leader rose.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I apologize. I thought it was stated earlier and I withdraw the comment. But my argument still stands. Why did you not request the government to itemize within the standing orders what standing order was being argued about? It is not in here.

Nowhere in this this six- or seven-page point of order, which is quite a long point of order, does this government point out exactly what it is taking exception to or exactly which standing order we are debating here today. Not anywhere in this document do they discuss exactly what rights are being trampled on by the opposition.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect to your non-partisan position here, I think it was incumbent on you to ask them just that question. I think I would have said to them, "What right is being trampled on by the Conservative Party?" That was not asked. It has not been itemized and it has not been stated, so we are having a long debate here about nobody knows which standing order and nobody is sure of what principles it is under.

Mr Speaker, another concern I have is that you are hearing debate on this. If they cannot list for your own personal information which standing order we are debating, it would seem to me that you would stand up and say, "If you cannot tell me the standing order, I am going to have to rule this point of order out of order." It seems like a logical approach to the debate that has been brought forward. Instead of that we now have the House hijacked for another day.

We now come to the discussion on the government's concern today with respect to our party and what we are doing to circumvent the normal proceedings of this House. This particular request by the government is very dangerous. In my opinion, it is a very dangerous attack on the democratic process. This might be a point of interest, a point of view or a disagreement, and we often have disagreements between the two sides of the House.

I am not debating that this is a disagreement. Yes, there is disagreement on how this budget was struck; yes, there is disagreement between our interpretation of a good budget for this province and the government's interpretation. I think that is healthy in a democratic society, but because we have a disagreement and because we do what we have chosen to do and this government does not like it, it is bringing in a motion in a very heavy-handed fashion --

An hon member: A dictatorial fashion.

Mr Stockwell: -- a dictatorial fashion, very clearly dictatorial, to cut off the rights of the opposition parties. That is undemocratic, it is unreasonable and from the open and accessible government it claimed to be some seven or eight months ago, it is unbelievable.

They may not want to hear from the people of this province. Considering the budget, considering the fact that they are falling in the polls so fast they are beginning to crystallize, I can understand why they do not want to hear from the general public, but it does not mean that we as opposition have to kowtow to their particular agenda like their backbenchers have done for the past eight months.

The statement being made over there about their not having one member standing up to defend this is very clear. They cannot defend it. It is indefensible, just like their budget.

All this party was requesting was to do exactly what the government promised to do. Considering they have broken practically every one they have made, they would be nice if it could keep a promise. We were asking them to keep a promise to go to the people and ask them what they think of the budget that was brought down by this government. They do not want to do that. Although in 1982 they thought it was a good idea, some eight or nine years later they do not think it is such a good idea. It is very interesting how power corrupts.

Mr Speaker, in my opinion you are being used. You are being used by this government to bail it out from an awkward situation it finds itself in. They do not have the expertise and the ability or they do not find it within their domain to rise above whatever they need to do and negotiate a deal. They are asking you, without naming a standing order, to rule on a very nebulous point of order that no one can track down and rule on their behalf. They are using you to crush the opposition parties and to come down heavy-handed with no basis in fact, no basis in principle and no statement in this standing order book to rule against the opposition parties.

Mr Speaker, first, I do not think it is right that they should try to use the Speaker. Second, I do not think it is right that you should be entertaining argument on this. Third, it is not in order for you to hear debate on this because they cannot even tell you which standing order they are displeased with. All through this process they are asking you to remember which party got you elected. That is what they are asking you to do. They are asking you, "If you are really an NDPer, you've got to rule our way no matter how wrong, unfair and biased this process is."

Furthermore, they are asking you now to question the motives of the opposition parties. They are asking you to determine whether or not the motions put by us are unreasonable or unfair or not helpful for the operation of this House. They are asking you now to determine what our motives are for moving what motions. I do not really believe you can do that. You cannot question the motives of the government, you cannot question the motives of the official opposition and you cannot question the motives of the Conservative Party. In summary, you are here to maintain order with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.

This point of order does not have any semblance of fact within the standing orders. It does not deal with the realities of the situation which is contained in the standing orders. All it is is a government asking a Speaker to come down heavy-handed on the third party because it is so darned incompetent it does not know what it is doing. That is not a reasonable approach, Mr Speaker. I would ask that you right now stand up before this House and dismiss this bogus attempt of using your office and that we go to question period, because anything short of that is lending credibility to this piece of trash that cannot even outline exactly what standing order they are taking exception to. If they cannot even tell you what standing order they are taking exception to, how are you going to hear deputation from all parties about whether or not it is in order?

Mr Speaker, nothing is in order about this debate. They are incompetent. They do not know what they are doing. That is not your fault so you cannot bail them out.

1700

The Speaker: Do any other members have a contribution to assist the Speaker?

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. As you know, and I go back in history, when you were elected, I was the individual who seconded the motion because I believe in the principle that a Speaker of the House should be elected and not an individual who would be leaning towards and favouring any specific party. I have a strong belief and confidence in your ability.

From time to time, Mr Speaker, what will happen in this House is that you will be challenged in this way. You will be challenged by individuals who will test your ability to rule on whether things are in order or things are in principle. When the government House leader had moved that motion I was appalled, not at the fact that she had asked you to rule on things --

Hon Miss Martel: Were you even here? 1 don't even think you were in the House.

Mr Curling: As a matter of fact, I think her observation is quite inadequate. She now states that she does not even think I was here. I was very much here when she read that very long statement that rambled along asking you, Mr Speaker, to find out whether or not -- she did not ask you, she stated it was a point of order. I personally do not feel it is a point of order.

But I want to go back to the point, Mr Speaker. They are challenging you today to find out whether or not this is a point of order. If I can be of assistance to you, Mr Speaker: I have carefully looked at it. I went back and did my research and I do not find at all that is a point of order, if that is of any help to you. I know you listen to me very well because, as I said to you and I have said to the House, when you were elected I had that full confidence in the procedures that the House would conduct.

I am now questioning many of the things of this government that talks about an open government, that, "We shall not make favouritism in how we appoint people; we shall have legislative committees and cabinet committees that will assess people before we appoint individuals." But, oh, no, this is not done at all, Mr Speaker. I know your position now in ruling on this motion will come on the right side, will come on the side that it is uncalled for. As a matter of fact, as members have stated before, they are trying to find an individual, a scapegoat -- you are not like that, Mr Speaker -- to settle this dispute they have here.

I have been denied on many, many occasions to speak on behalf of the people of Scarborough North and 1 was completely annoyed, when Bill 4 was there, when closure was given and I did not get the opportunity to speak. Now they are trying the same strategy to shut us up.

Mr Speaker, there will be a time when we have to come to that point where I know the right to speak of every individual in this House will be protected. I am saying to you, as we debate this, whatever it is -- the alleged, assumed procedure here -- I ask you not to rule in favour of what they are asking you for. I think your credibility will be questioned. You are a man of high principles. I will lean on that and I am sure it will come in the right way.

The Speaker: Any other members who wish to be of assistance to the Speaker on this matter? Were there any concluding remarks on the point of order that are not repetitious?

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, there are several points I would wish to put for your consideration as well. I have heard many members of this House get up and try to say that they would challenge that anywhere in the standing orders of this Parliament there is in fact a section that the Speaker has some inherent authority to deal with the business and the matters pertaining to this House.

Mr Speaker, I want to go back to the standing orders and point out very clearly to all members in this Legislature wherein lies your authority to deal with matters in this House, whether inside or outside of the standing orders of this place. Section 1 clearly says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders," and they are so listed.

Subsection (b) in the same section 1 then says, "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition." Mr Speaker, this is where we find that we have the authority to bring to you our case. This is the same section on which we would say to you a point of order has been legitimately raised and should be dealt with by this House.

Mr Speaker, I go back to some of the precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition and refer to you what has happened in other jurisdictions in relation to this matter. The opposition made a mockery of the ruling that was made in 1881 and our use of that particular ruling. I would like to point out to you that not only did we use that ruling here, but the Tory Speaker in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, referred to that very same ruling in 1987 when he was forced to make a ruling in that House with respect to dilatory motions.

Mr Speaker, I want to read to you --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Clearly we are into the repetition that you were so concerned about in my --

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

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, it was not even worth a reply; you are quite correct. In any event, let me go back to the ruling that was made in 1987 in the House of Commons on this very point of dilatory motions and the authority of the Speaker to deal with dilatory motions, as the Speaker did in 1881.

I want to tell all the members over here in particular what Speaker Fraser said with respect to this very matter, and I quote.

The Speaker: Is that in the printed material I received?

Hon Miss Martel: This is new material.

Interjections.

Hon Miss Martel: Yes, it is, Mr Speaker. It is not included in the material that I presented to you. The quotation is as follows: "The practice of using dilatory motions as a means of obstruction is undoubtedly sanctioned by our parliamentary practice. However, many parliamentary jurisdictions in the Commonwealth place restrictions on the extent to which they can be used. For example, in the British House of Commons the Speaker has the power to refuse a dilatory motion if he believes it to be an abuse of the rules of the House. By the same token, he is empowered to allow them if he believes they are justified."

The Speaker continued and said: "I repeat my conviction that the entire question of the use of dilatory motions during routine proceedings needs to be examined and that no procedures should be sanctioned which permit the House to be brought to a total standstill for an indefinite period. Division bells are no substitute for debate."

Mr Speaker, I point out to you that that is exactly the kind of nonsense we have been putting up with in this House for the last six days. We would like the opposition to have a chance to speak. I remind everyone that it is the leader of the third party who has the floor, and the leader of the third party does not want to exercise his right to speak. He is afraid to speak about this budget. Not only does he not want to speak, but he has put a gag order on the rest of his members. He has directed all of them to move dilatory motions so that no other member in this Legislature can speak. That is what has happened. That is what is going on in this House at this point in time.

What has happened in the last six days? Let me just tell all the good folk who are out there watching this. This government has moved to an order of business. We have spoken on an order of business and put our case; for example, the wage protection fund, which we dealt with on Tuesday. The official opposition also put its comments on the record. It came to the third party and it had the audacity to adjourn the debate. That is how much they want to speak in this House.

1710

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

Mr Drainville: What's your point, Harnick? Out with it.

The Speaker: I am entertaining a point of order by the member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: The government House leader has not said anything new. She has confined her remarks to a repetition of what is in this --

Mr Drainville: What's your point?

The Speaker: If the member would take his seat for a moment, let me remind members of the procedure involved here. The Speaker has attempted to listen patiently to all of those who wish to be of assistance. The government House leader is now wrapping up, which is her right to do. I assume that she has a few more brief remarks to make. It would be helpful to all concerned if we would just relax -- the temperature is hot enough in here -- and hear the last few brief remarks. Then we can move on to other items of business.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, I am bringing new information to this House, relevant information, which is more than has been done by the third party.

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

The Speaker: Can this wait? This is some other matter, I take it.

Mr Harris: To be very brief, Mr Speaker, I agree with you that you have been very patient today.

An hon member: Debate the budget now.

Mr Harris: No, I just wonder if the House leader for the government, in her concluding remarks, could clarify whether all the examples she is giving us were pre-Magna Carta, pre-1492 or after.

The Speaker: If we are all relaxed, we perhaps can discuss the Magna Carta at some other time. It is close to my heart. Perhaps we can hear the concluding remarks from the government House leader.

Hon Miss Martel: It is most unfortunate that the third party would like to make a mockery of democratic procedures and rulings of other Speakers in this particular House. However, perhaps the best thing I heard this afternoon was the third party calling for an election. Can you imagine that with the Reform Party so close on their heels, these guys would call for an election? They would be out of here. There would not be many of them back, if any.

The two further points that I want to make are with respect to what we have requested of you this afternoon, Mr Speaker. I have heard many members try and say that what we are doing is in fact cutting off the ability of members to speak. I want to point out to all those members who have been sitting here for the last six days that what we are trying to do is stop the nonsense of the bells ringing so that all of us can have a chance to speak in this Legislature again. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

We have asked you, Mr Speaker, to take a look at precedents that are in other legislatures, both in the Commonwealth and in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I should point out to every member in this House that the whole matter of the dilatory motion is not in the standing orders in either of those jurisdictions. In fact, it is in practice that it has been used and it is in practice that the Speakers of those jurisdictions have ruled it out of order or indeed have moved that when a vote is lost a member of the third party or the opposition party will not be allowed to raise another point of order, will not be allowed to raise another point of adjournment, etc, and in fact the rotation occurs and continues and people do have a right to participate in the debate.

What we have asked you very clearly today, Mr Speaker, is to rule on the fact that a mover of a dilatory motion, once that motion is lost, should not be allowed to speak and the rotation should continue. That would let all of us participate in the debate. That is what we are here to do and that is what we would like to do, participate in this debate.

Mr Speaker, we have asked you one further thing, and that is a ruling from you as the Chair, who has authority under section 1(b) of these standing orders to deal with issues that are outside of the standing orders, to in fact use discretionary authority which has been placed in you to refuse to put the question on a dilatory motion that is frivolous. Mr Speaker, they have been frivolous for the last six days.

In closing, I submit to you that we have offered you precedents with respect to what happens in other legislatures. We have offered you precedents with respect to closure motions that have been put forward by other Speakers at other times and in other jurisdictions and reconfirmed as late as 1987. We ask you to consider all of these when you make your ruling.

The Speaker: Just to start a new item --

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

The Speaker: This is a new point of order?

Mr Eves: An entirely different point of order.

Mr Speaker: I would be very pleased to hear from you in just a moment. Another member had indicated a separate matter that he wished to bring to my attention.

Just so everyone is clear about this, first of all, I appreciate the contribution by the numerous members who participated this afternoon. I of course would welcome any written comments that you may have, either tomorrow or the following day, and I will come back with a ruling.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier, the member for Willowdale, in response to the Attorney General's statement, said public relations was falling on deaf ears. That statement I cannot accept, so I demand that he withdraw this statement and apologize to the House.

Mr Harnick: Certainly I meant no disrespect when I used that statement. It is common parlance; it is a common phrase. I meant no disrespect to the member. The member knows me well and he knows that. I apologize if I offended him, but I will say that is common parlance of the day; it is a common expression and I meant it as no more than that.

The Speaker: To the member for York East and to the member for Willowdale, I am certainly aware that it is a colloquial saying which no doubt many people have used from time to time. The member for York East finds that it offends his ears, and it probably would be helpful if the member for Willowdale could simply withdraw the comment.

Mr Harnick: Certainly, Mr Speaker, I thought I had done that. If I did offend the member, I apologize. I note that the Speaker mentioned in his comments "offending one's ears." I know that was not meant in any more than common parlance and I apologize if I offended the member. I was merely using a common, everyday expression and I meant no harm.

Mr Malkowski: I accept the member's apology, but just for his information, the month of May is Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Awareness Month.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Eves: On a new point of order, Mr Speaker: I will not take up much of your time, but just very briefly, Chairs of the committee of the whole House in this place sometimes find themselves sitting in the chair that you are in. We have been debating all afternoon a very important point of order and I would like to point that the member for Perth (a) is not in her seat, (b) is a Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House and (c) presumably could be put in the position where she is going to be acting upon the point of order that is being raised. She has been sitting here while the government House leader was wrapping up, as you call it, applauding her point of view. How can a person who is going to be required and asked to sit as judge and jury be sitting there applauding on TV before you have made up your mind?

1720

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, settle down, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members would just relax a bit. I realize it is a warm afternoon, both figuratively and literally.

To the member for Parry Sound, in case there is any confusion, the point of order was raised with the Speaker. The Speaker will deal with it. I have heard all that has been said. I will deliberate on it and I will deliver a decision on it later. I do appreciate his interest.

It is time for oral questions. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: While we would like to start question period, we have but four -- five ministers now -- of the crown. I wonder if we could take a few minutes to wait for the ministers to return. This was started by the government party and I would like that we have a full complement of ministers back.

The Speaker: This is obviously an awkward position. Is it agreeable to allow a few minutes for ministers to arrive? Should we just continue?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think most members would understand that members of cabinet had lots of other pressing obligations and did not --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I require the members' attention. We have a choice here. As you know, we will not conclude question period by 6 o'clock. We can either adjourn now, if members wish, for the day, or we can simply begin question period. If it is your wish that we begin question period, then that is what we shall do.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I was in the middle of a response when I was shouted down by the opposition. I think you would understand that members of cabinet do not make appointments the same day that suddenly the members of the opposition decide that they want to spend the afternoon debating this, and I think it is eminently unfair for the members of the opposition to expect that all members of cabinet would be here in anticipation of a question period beginning at 5:30. I think that is simply unfair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Mississauga North bring himself under control, please.

The Speaker has very little latitude in this matter. The standing orders are quite specific. We can begin question period now. Obviously at 6 o'clock we adjourn. Some of the questions will naturally end up being redirected. It is time for question period.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The question period is the single instance an official opposition like ours has to ask questions of the government ministers, and what we have confronted over the past couple of days is a dispute about how the House is to proceed that rages between the government and the third party. The problem is that today the government --

Mr Bisson: You spoke for two hours.

Mr Scott: Well, the honourable members on the other side will have to listen just for a moment while I make this point. The problem is that today the government provoked a dispute by introducing its point of order before question period began. If it had simply followed the normal rules of the House -- I have been waiting here since 1:30 to ask my lead question -- question period would have occurred at 1:30. Then the government House leader could have risen in her place and asked her point of order. If that had been done, the ministers would all have been accommodated and we would have had the advantage of having them all in their place for question period.

There are only four now. Four out of 30 are present, for reasons I understand perfectly. But if the government House leader had put her motion later, they all would have been here, question period would have taken place and the inevitable debate that followed on the House leader's motion would have gone on until 6 o'clock. This is an important example of incompetent management of the House.

Interjections.

Mr Scott: As a member of a party that is not --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London North, calm down.

Mr Scott: If the government House leader would stop yelling, I could perhaps finish up. If the government House leader would stop yelling, which is what has been going on most afternoons here on this issue, we could now --

Mrs Caplan: She's having another temper tantrum.

Mr Scott: Now, I implore the government, if it wants to stop this scene that is going on between the third party and itself, can it not do so without interfering with question period? The way to do that is to bring its point of order after question period so that the members in our party, who are here to ask questions, have the opportunity.

Do not look put upon, Mr Speaker, as if this is difficult. If you find it difficult, you can step down and there are deputies who can take your place. But I am entitled to make a point.

Mrs Caplan: Yes, he is.

Some hon members: Shame.

Mr Mammoliti: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr Scott: I do not want eyeballs rolling at me when I am making a submission.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, a point of privilege was raised.

Mr Scott: Well, I am on a point of privilege.

The Speaker: No, you raised a point of order. A point of privilege is to be taken immediately.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am very naïve at this game -- I am a new member -- but it really irritates me when the opposition and the third party attack us the way they do. Not only that, they are now attacking you. I find that very frustrating as a new member, and I think every one of them should be ashamed of himself and withdraw the comments.

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege.

Mr Scott: I simply put the point this way: It is possible, even in these times of stress, to have both question period and points of order, and it is possible to do it in a way that does not inconvenience the cabinet ministers, who I know have other appointments and meetings and so on that they have to go to. Again, if in future this happens, I would recommend to the government House leader that the appropriate thing to do is to allow question period to run its course. Then the ministers can go about their business. If there is a point of order to be raised, it can be raised immediately upon the conclusion of question period.

The Speaker: To the member for St George-St David, I appreciate his contribution. The awkward situation is that it is not really a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear as to what the Speaker is supposed to do, which is to get on with question period. I have no latitude in that regard, but I do appreciate your suggestions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One at a time. The member for Bruce, and then the government House leader.

Mr Elston: Since I had requested that we recess for a few minutes to wait for the ministers to come in and that has been rejected, might I ask if the Deputy Premier, the member for Nickel Belt, would allow us to ask the questions of the parliamentary assistants, as is allowed under the standing orders?

1730

Interjections.

The Speaker: A seemingly helpful suggestion suddenly gets everyone excited. That part I do not understand. If folks would calm down, then under the orders they can do that. One moment, please.

Under the standing orders, that procedure which the honourable member for Bruce suggests can be done only if authorized by the Premier, not by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The rules specifically state the Premier, not the Deputy Premier.

Hon Miss Martel: I appreciate the free advice that I have been given, but I certainly have no intention of taking it, especially given the quarters it is coming from.

I would like to point out very clearly that last week on two different occasions my cabinet colleagues and I came to this House at 1:30 prepared to have question period, and on two occasions the third party, before we began question period, began raising points of order with respect to questions in Orders and Notices. At both of those times they saw no problem in wasting between 45 minutes and an hour of the House's time so that we could not get to question period. So I do not particularly intend to take any of the free advice that has been offered here today.

The second point I want to put on the record is that this afternoon I moved a motion. I was the only one who spoke to it from the members of our party. The other parties continued on and on and on and delayed all afternoon. I think we should just proceed to question period.

Mrs Caplan: I rise on a question of personal privilege, Mr Speaker. I arrived in this House today ready for question period and, as all members know and anyone watching the House at this time would know, question period is the time when the government stands accountable for the policy decisions and the actions that it has taken.

I understand that you have a difficult task in calling to order the members of this House, but I believe that my privileges as a member were affected when the government House leader stood up at the beginning of question period today and called a point of order which she clearly knew would result in lengthy debate.

Following that debate, the government House leader has not seen fit to produce ministers for question period, and I believe that this is a legitimate point of privilege. I would ask, Mr Speaker, not only that you rule on that but that you direct the government that it must have its ministers ready and in fact rule negatively on the government House leader's point of order, which I believe was not a point of order, but was an opportunity by the government to not have to stand accountable during question period and to rob me as a member of my right to represent my constituents.

The Speaker: To the member for Oriole, I understand the concerns she has raised. It is not a point of privilege. What is in order is that it is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Bradley: One advantage of this is that I just made it to the top of the list on the questions, but that is the only advantage.

I think I will ask this question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is lurking behind the shadows over there and is making his way quickly now. I think he wants to hear this question. This is a question about the automotive industry. The minister would be interested because he represents a community which is involved in the automotive industry and because he is a representative in the cabinet who is speaking for the automotive industry and others.

My question is related to the tax which has been extended to some automobiles, doubled on other automobiles, and is having a very significant negative impact on the automotive industry in Ontario.

I quote to the minister from an open letter to the Premier and the Treasurer from General Motors, Local 199 bargaining unit in St Catharines. It said, "Lower emission standards are the answer to saving the environment, not higher taxes."

It also said: "GM workers' jobs in St Catharines could be threatened because they produce the V6 and V8 engines for vehicles that are subject to the tax. Auto workers, as individuals or through their unions, played a major role in the election of your government and contributed tens of thousands of dollars from their wages to that end."

The committee's letter stated, "We don't expect special treatment but we do expect fair treatment and not to find our jobs threatened by ludicrous tax policies."

In the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, when automobile sales are extremely weak, when the automobile-producing companies in North America are losing millions upon millions of dollars and when the Canadian auto industry is facing unprecedented competition from the United States, from Mexico and from offshore, would the minister implore the Treasurer to withdraw this tax and bring in measures which are more positive in nature, incentives to encourage what he claims he is trying to encourage through this punitive tax?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I appreciate and thank the member for his question and more particularly for his concern about the health of the automotive industry in Ontario.

The automotive industry is, of course, a linchpin to the Ontario economy, and I am very proud of the fact that I come from a riding that boasts an automotive manufacturer and car assembly plant, one of the most productive and high-technology automotive plants anywhere in Ontario, Canada or throughout the world.

Apparently, only 1% of the vehicles assembled in Ontario plants are subject to this tax. About 90% of the vehicles assembled in Ontario are exported out of this province and therefore the vast majority of the production is not affected; therefore, the vast majority of the jobs are not impacted as a result of this gas guzzler tax.

The Treasurer has indicated that he imposed that tax for environmental reasons, and I am sure that when he feels that kind of tax is not necessary or inappropriate he will review it in the light of that circumstance.

Mr Bradley: John Clout, who is the chairman of the bargaining unit of Local 199 and a person who has always been noted for speaking his mind no matter what, says the following, to assist the minister perhaps in this question:

"I have remained silent. But I cannot remain silent when the tax policies of any government, even one I support, are so regressive and asinine that they threaten the jobs of an industry I have worked in for 26 years and a membership I have served as an elected union officer for over 11 years.

"Imposing this tax at this time on an industry that represents the industrial base of our community and province and which is reeling already from the free trade agreement is mind-boggling to say the least. And this from a government that draws its support from workers' wages and votes. One can only assume that our policy makers are a bunch of incompetent so-called intellectuals who haven't got a clue of what goes on in the real world of industrial labour."

I could not agree more with that statement and I ask the minister as a result, in view of Mr Clout's comments, in view of the comments of Local 199 bargaining committee, in view of the comments and worries of auto workers all over Ontario, will he not recognize that this has a very negative effect on jobs in the automotive industry today and ultimately for many years to come, and will he not suggest in the strongest terms to the Treasurer that he withdraw this ill-conceived tax?

1740

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe the Treasurer certainly has heard the member's words. I do not believe any tax that was created throughout this budget would be welcomed or endorsed by any particular sector that has been impacted by any tax increase, whether it be a personal income tax or a corporate income tax, in which I understand there were no increases whatsoever. In any of those areas that were impacted, I am sure they would not have been well received. It is not therefore a particular surprise to me that this one was not well received either.

The good news, as I said, is that about 90% of that production is being exported to jurisdictions outside Ontario and therefore that production and those jobs are not impacted.

In terms of the Treasurer, I am sure that he has heard the words of those who have raised their voices in concern, as well as heard the member's voice here this afternoon, and I am sure the Treasurer will give appropriate consideration to those voices of concern.

Mr Bradley: Mr Clout, who, as I said, has fought for automobile workers in the province of Ontario for so many years, says:

"While I still hope for some good things from this government, its stupidity and incompetence is quickly leading me to lose faith, as I know it is many of our members. This government and in particular our local MPPs had better understand that we are workers and unionists first and NDP members or supporters second, so they had better get their act together and rescind this tax and put it where it belongs."

In view of these comments and in view of the fact that there is another way of achieving what the government claims it wants to achieve, in view of the fact that it could legislate lower emission standards, as our government worked with the government of Quebec and the federal government to have implemented here in Canada, and in view of the fact that it could have legislated fuel consumption requirements on all vehicles that are sold in North America, and in view of the fact that the best thing it can do both for the economy and for the environment would be to introduce incentives designed to replace older vehicles which are not efficient in terms of their miles to the gallon, as they used to say, and in terms of their automobile emissions, in view of the fact that all of those can be done, would the minister not suggest to his members in the cabinet that this tax be completely withdrawn and that they go back to the drawing board and introduce measures which will improve both the environment and the economy of the automotive industry in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated before, I am sure the Treasurer has well heard the comments from the member. I would not be surprised if he has not received the odd bit of correspondence from a few selective sources with respect to this proposal who have indicated some degree of nonsupport.

It is interesting to note, though, that apparently I am advised that Canadian Auto Workers President Bob White, who is well known to everyone, stated that changes to the gas guzzler tax are unlikely to affect his CAW members. From another source, Chrysler Canada publicly stated that no jobs are at stake as a result of the changes to the gas guzzler tax as reported in the Financial Post on 1 May 1991.

I hope that adequately responds to the question from the member. I can appreciate, as I said earlier, that no tax on any sector or any manufacturer that would impact any particular sector would ever be well received.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister shares my view that, without qualification, Ontario's most important resource is its people. However, I am very concerned over the government's recent action which opposes the full support and development of this province's human resources. I refer of course to the Minister of Education's decision to reduce the Ontario Basic Skills/Futures pilot project on 21 June 1991.

As I made the minister aware in a letter of 8 May, the Ontario Basic Skills pilot project is a program for adults requiring literacy, numeracy, job creation, search techniques and other basic skills upgrading, which will increase their access to advanced training and employment.

It has been estimated that in the Cornwall area one out of 19 residents has less than grade 9 education. Further, approximately half of the population has between a grade 9 and a grade 13 education. I believe the Ontario Basic Skills/Futures project has been very beneficial to the 99 workers who have utilized it in this program. If the program were to continue in its full form, obviously many more people would benefit.

In view of this situation, why has the Ministry of Education decided to cut back a program that is very important to the unemployed workers in the Cornwall area and important in this recession?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I agree with the member that the Futures programs have been very helpful, and indeed the ministry continues to support these projects at a very high

level. In addition, we are one of the recipients of the money that has been announced in terms of the worker adjustment fund, and a lot of that money will be directed in the same direction. So although individual projects may not have continued their funding in certain areas, the ministry has not dropped its commitment at all, and in fact the government has been very clear about its commitment in this area of skills development.

Mr Cleary: As the minister is aware Cornwall has been hard hit by the recession. A significantly high number of plant closures have translated into an unemployment rate of 20%. Further, the latest figures demonstrate that well over 10,000 area residents receive either unemployment or welfare benefits.

What will the ministry do to help unemployed workers in the Cornwall area who will not be able to participate in the Ontario Basic Skills/Futures pilot project as of 21 June 1991, since we all know that the recession will still be haunting us then?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Although this pilot project may not go on, as I said to the member, the worker adjustment fund, which is directed specifically at the groups that he has talked about in his question, will be available for project funding. It is not a question of not considering this an important issue for areas like Cornwall that have been hard hit. We certainly agree with him that there is a necessity for programming there, and we look forward to applications for programs that are specifically geared to deal with those people who have been hit by the recession.

Mr Cleary: When I meet with some 80 or 90 of my constituents later this week, can I tell them that the minister said that those other programs would be available to those constituents?

Hon Mrs Boyd: What I said was that those constituents and that area can apply for funds under the plan, and if they have programs that are acceptable under the criteria of the plan, I see absolutely no reason why they would not qualify, given the economic circumstances of the area.

The Speaker: A point of privilege, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: You were yelling at the one from the North earlier. I am the good guy from the West.

On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I am feeling somewhat violated here.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: I knew it would draw some reaction. But in all seriousness, under a point of privilege, I have been carefully reading through our book on the rules, and under part V in the standing orders, subsection 21(a), it states, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Subsection (b) then goes on to say, which I am sure you know, that, "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

The House leader referred to standing order l(b), wherein she stated that you had the authority to rule earlier on her point of order under the contingency section of our standing orders. I would suggest that perhaps there is not something in the standing orders that deals with lack of attendance by members of cabinet at question period. There may not be a rule specifically in there. Therefore, perhaps it comes under contingency.

1750

There is probably not a rule in here that deals with the fact that the government has chosen to fill up the cabinet section of its side of the House with members of the back bench to give some appearance that indeed there is a substantial attendance during question period. There perhaps is not anything in here that deals with the fact that the Premier and other members of cabinet whom we would like answers from are not in attendance, and perhaps there is nothing here that deals with the fact that members of the press gallery are not in attendance to perhaps record the questions and the answers --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Well, there are some here. One dedicated member of the press gallery is here to record not only the questions by members of the official opposition but indeed to record for the public and for members of all our constituencies the answers or non-answers by the members of the cabinet.

Mr Speaker, if we use the House leader's own logic, who has admitted that she put this draconian measure before you on your table for discussion, if you use that logic that she did it because the Tories did it the last few days of the sitting and delayed the House -- "If they're going to be nasty, then I'm going to be nasty," that is what she said -- I feel, Mr Speaker, that under standing order 21(a) my rights and my privileges as an individual member and indeed the rights and privileges of all of my colleagues have been clearly violated.

I also believe, Mr Speaker, that under the terms laid down for you by the government House leader under standing order 1(b) this would fall under contingency since it is not spelled out in the rules. If we are to accept the House leader's words and interpretation that the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition, coupled with the statement that refers to the standard procedures in the Legislature, I would fail to see how, Mr Speaker, taking into consideration this document, you could rule anything other than the fact that my individual member's privileges have been violated along with my colleagues. I would ask you to rule on that.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I appreciate the point of privilege which he raises. I will be pleased to report back to him at a later date. What I do know from the standing orders is that I think the only appearance I can compel is my own, which I try to do every day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have heard your point and I will reserve judgement on it and I will try to get back to you as quickly as I can.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I was very curious about his response to the previous question, with his answers about Bob White supporting the taxation on the gas guzzlers.

I would like to alert the minister to an article appearing in the St Catharines Standard on Friday 10 May.

"Canadian Auto Workers President Bob White appears to be having a change of heart over the province's new tax on gas guzzling cars. In a letter written Wednesday to Treasurer Floyd Laughren, Mr White says his initial reaction to the tax on budget night last week was that it would have a very minimal impact on the automotive industry in Ontario."

He goes on: "But since then he has said he has received a list of the vehicles that will be taxed. 'Many of these were not included in the original gas guzzler tax of the past government. In addition, we had discussions with senior officials of the motor vehicle manufacturers based in Ontario and, to say the least, they are very concerned about the implications of this tax on jobs, sales and profit margins.'"

Considering that the government quoted Mr White in the past and it takes great interest in his comments on exactly how to form government policy, considering that he has changed his mind because it is a bad tax, can we expect the government to change its mind because it is bad tax?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have in my hand the letterhead of the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Robert White, a newsletter circulated to the membership that indicates that only about 1.5% of vehicles produced here are impacted, and further, that this new tax will have a rather minimal impact on jobs. If Mr White has had a change of heart or there is some additional information, I am confident he would be prepared to share that with the Treasurer; and if he has not or will not, the member certainly has.

As I indicated earlier, the impact appears to be minimal. I am sure the Treasurer has heard these concerns. No tax is popular with anyone upon whom it is imposed and I am sure if there is new information brought to light it will be aired accordingly.

Mr Stockwell: If the members opposite applaud that, they obviously are hopelessly biased on this particular issue.

I believe the document the minister is quoting from is dated 3 May.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: This comment was made 10 May. Maybe the minister should get himself updated.

Mr O'Connor: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: This seems to be a day for points of privilege. The member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: I have been sitting in this House for quite a while now listening. On 30 April the honourable member opposite mentioned the impact the gas guzzler tax was going to have on the workers of Ontario. We heard it again today and we heard it from --

The Speaker: Your point of privilege?

Mr O'Connor: The point is that for 11 1/2 years I worked on the assembly line. My father-in-law has put 35 years on the assembly line. Not once did the price of the car ever come to the worker on the floor, asking him what he thought it would do to his job.

The Speaker: It is certainly a point of disagreement. The honourable member for Etobicoke West with his supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: After that outbreak quite apparently the minister's job is safe.

The document the minister is speaking about is dated 3 May. Mr White made these comments 10 May. He has had a dramatic change of opinion on the gas guzzler tax. He has requested a meeting with the Treasurer. He does not believe in this tax. Maybe the minister should update himself with exactly how the people who got him elected, both financially and with their feet, believe in his tax on the automotive workers in this province.

My question is, considering he is so out of date, would he be prepared to bring himself up to date, meet with Mr White, understand he opposes this tax and change his government's tax? The automotive workers oppose it, the unions oppose it, Mr White opposes it, the opposition opposes it and the car industry opposes it. Would he agree to have public hearings on the ill-conceived, poorly planned tax and allow the automotive workers who are opposed to it input into discussions on this tax?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Being a lifelong resident of the city of Oshawa and given my relationship with the automotive industry, I would like to say to the member for Etobicoke West that we appreciate his new-found interest in the automobile industry and the health of auto workers across this country. I suppose it is better late than never.

In terms of any additional or new information Mr White may be bringing forward, I have always known the Treasurer to be one who is open, ready and willing to have consultations with Mr White, the presidents of automobile companies or the head of any other sector. I am sure if there is new, additional information, the Treasurer will be more than pleased to receive it.

The House adjourned at 1800.