The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN POLICE SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We in the north have a tremendous problem when it comes to OPP services. I am not talking at all about the officers and those who back them up. As for the quality of people we have serving on the detachments throughout the northwest, I'm sure we could find no better.

What I wish to bring to your attention is the lack of personnel. Can you imagine -- and this happened the other morning in my riding in the OPP district of Kenora to be exact -- someone calling the district detachment to report a mess of garbage, a hazard, that had just been dumped on the Trans-Canada Highway and being told that there were only two officers on duty and one of them was in court?

This is a detachment that covers 885 kilometres of highway, the towns of Keewatin and Jaffray and Melick, with a population of somewhere around 6,800 people. Then we have their summer boat patrol to cover another 4,000 or 5,000 people on Lake of the Woods. Again, one officer to service these needs.

Let's take a look at the area of the detachment of Sioux Lookout, with a population of 6,500 people year-round, another 5,000 summer residents, 607 kilometres of highways, and as well a marine unit in the summer. Again, with a complement of some 19 personnel, of which only 14 are constables available at any one time, this detachment is often left with only one officer to service their needs between 6 pm and 5 am. In light of these situations, I call on the government to take immediate action to address the needs of these residents serviced by the OPP.

OAKVILLE WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario will open the Oakville Waterfront Festival on June 12, and it will continue through the 13th. I invite everybody to come and share with us in this three-day festival of celebration of our natural harbours and heritage. There will be entertainers, boat shows, street and video dances, a pancake breakfast, boat races and a musical revue. Participants in the festival will form a human chain along the seven kilometres of Lakeshore Road to toast the nation's 125th birthday.

The town of Oakville is alive. The spirit that is Oakville is its people, and that spirit has been very evident throughout the last year of the festival. The combined expertise of the town and the entrepreneurial spirit of the chamber of commerce, supported wholeheartedly by the mayor and the wonderful sponsors, have combined to provide a great inspiration.

What has galvanized the town is the recognition that we can all work together. People are behind the success of this waterfront festival, all the hundreds and hundreds of individual volunteers who gave a little time or a lot of time, but always their enthusiasm and their interest. They can feel justifiably pleased with themselves.

I thank all of you. We are all proud of you. I am proud to be your member of provincial Parliament. We look forward to everybody coming to Oakville during the waterfront festival.

LEONA OLBEY

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Last Thursday evening the Minister of Citizenship and the Lieutenant Governor presented the Ontario senior achievement awards to 20 very special people.

It's with great pride that I pay special tribute to one of those recipients, Leona Olbey. Mrs Olbey is a constituent of Windsor-Walkerville and was nominated by the Greater Windsor Senior Citizens Centre for the way in which she lives up to their motto, "Strong spirits, young hearts, active minds."

She puts in many hours raising funds for the centre by checking coats at nights and on weekends at the Cleary Auditorium and Convention Centre. She also makes and sells soup and sandwiches at the seniors centre and has comforted many people as a long-time volunteer at the Hospice of Windsor.

Mrs Olbey is determined to keep her heritage alive as well. She has been volunteering with the North American Black Historical Museum and Cultural Centre in Amherstburg for 10 years and has been a supporter of the museum since its beginning in 1975.

She is a woman who places a very high value on the importance of education and for the last 24 years has been involved with the Hour-A-Day Study Club. Her responsibilities include screening and awarding scholarships and bursaries to young black students in Windsor and Essex county.

Even with that busy schedule there is still plenty of time to practise her faith at the British Methodist Episcopal Church and to be with her husband, Howard, and their family. Mrs Olbey is a non-stop volunteer. Her caring, innovation and leadership are an inspiration to all of us who know her. It is with great pleasure that I add my congratulations and thanks for her contribution to our community.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I am shocked at the funding shortfall that has befallen the Art Gallery of Ontario. I am nervous about the remarkable bureaucratic Newspeak in the minister's announcement.

The cash-starved Art Gallery of Ontario is one of two or three cultural showpieces that are the spirit of Ontario. During times of fiscal restraint the emotional and spiritual health of our community requires that funding for the arts be maintained.

The Toronto Star noted in its lead editorial on June 6 that the minister "has effectively slashed the operating budget of the Art Gallery of Ontario to $9.5 million from $12.1 million." Close to half of the gallery's staff may lose their jobs.

But there are other questions. Must the second $1 million referred to in the minister's announcement really be tied to a doubtfully needed restructuring and reorganization of the gallery, or could it better be designated clearly to maintain operations and avoid layoffs? Indeed, is the gallery really in need of restructuring at all, or was that idea simply floated to hedge a $1-million grant? Will the gallery ever see that money? Even if we share the NDP government's apparent view that the AGO needs to be brought closer to the people, surely funding cuts are not the way to achieve that goal.

The minister boasts that she has given the AGO an opportunity. Some opportunity; an opportunity perhaps to swallow hard, choke a little and try to maintain service while the rug is being pulled from under this showcase of the spirit of Ontario.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On June 3 the Minister of Culture and Communications revealed her cowardice when she furtively issued a news release announcing drastic cuts in her ministry's funding for its agencies and transfer partners. The minister didn't even show this House the courtesy of making a statement about a decision that will result in massive layoffs at the Art Gallery of Ontario and TVOntario.

Not only is this minister a coward; she is also a failure because she has not met her stated objectives of preserving outreach and access. The Art Gallery of Ontario, for instance, says it will have to cut outreach and education programs. The minister has responded by creating a task force which, as a Toronto Star editorial says, looks like an attempt to take over the gallery's independent board and destroy its arm's-length relationship with the government.

The minister has also caused major problems for her transfer partners by forcing them to go through two months of this fiscal year before receiving their funds. Ontario libraries have yet to receive their grants. Is this because the NDP government is using the interest on these funds to help keep the deficit in check?

Libraries, like other agencies, are worried that they will face major service cuts and layoffs. The chair of one library board has told me that his board will have to close branch libraries if it does not receive at least the amount of last year's grant.

I suggest that this minister take a cue from the Wizard of Oz. She should resign and go on a quest for courage, a brain and a heart.

1340

ANDREW DESLAURIERS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to pay tribute to North York fire captain Andrew Deslauriers, who died last week from injuries he received while fighting an office fire. Captain Deslauriers was a 25-year veteran of the North York Fire Department. He will be missed by his family and by his many friends in the North York Fire Department.

I'm sure I speak for all members of this House when I offer our deepest sympathy to his family. The tragic circumstances of Captain Deslauriers's death remind us all of the debt we owe to firefighters. I would like to extend our sincere appreciation to all the heroic men and women who daily risk their lives in order to protect us.

LEGAL FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Something very unusual, something without precedent in the history of this province, has taken place today in Ontario. Effective today, the government will begin collecting an additional $76 million in taxes through the justice system.

If you intend to seek justice in Ontario courts, as of today, your fees relating to civil matters have gone up by 70% -- this notwithstanding that this government has committed to ensuring that all Ontarians have equal access to justice, even the middle class.

If you intend to buy a home in Ontario, as of today, your costs to obtain title information from your registry office have gone up by $200 to $300 -- this notwithstanding that this government is committed to doing everything it can to spur on housing starts and to ensure that first-time home buyers get the breaks they need to make that first big purchase.

If you intend to die in Ontario, as of today, if your Ontario estate is worth more than $50,000, you are categorized as wealthy and you will have to pay the equivalent of a hefty surtax which is triple the fee charged for those dying with an estate worth less than $50,000 -- this notwithstanding that this government is committed to consulting the public about a death tax before implementing any such tax.

What is precedent-setting about this new $76-million tax grab is that not one word of debate was permitted before its implementation. This government, by edict of regulation, has decided to raise the costs of doing business with our courts by $76 million. Taxation without debate is taxation without representation, and this will not be lost on the good people of Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): National Transportation Week 1992 is celebrated in all regions of Canada June 7 to 13. It is used to honour the heroes and achievers in transportation, to recognize the contribution of this industry to economic and social development and to help talented young people take up careers in the transportation industry.

Safe and efficient transportation systems enhance the quality of life for all citizens and promote economic prosperity and social development. Ontario needs a well-maintained, integrated transportation system that is safe, dependable, effective, efficient and environmentally sound.

People who live and work in the greater Toronto area realize that much of our infrastructure is currently operating at or above capacity. According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, congestion on our roads added an extra $2 billion in 1988 to the cost of business in the GTA, a figure which has increased since then.

Renewing our commitment to transportation infrastructure is only effective when it is accompanied by a plan of action. The expertise of government, business and residents must be brought together to ensure the continued success of growth in Ontario. I call on the government to bring forward a strategy and a timetable for the provision of an efficient and competitive network of transit and roads.

EDWARD JOHNSON ARCHIVE COLLECTION

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): The archive collection of world-famous tenor Edward Johnson has returned to his birthplace in Guelph. The University of Guelph library will house some 70 boxes of cultural history that make up this collection. It includes diaries, letters, recordings and photographs of some of Johnson's famous friends, including Toscanini and Puccini. The collection was donated by Johnson's grandchildren.

Edward Johnson starred in Europe and at the New York Metropolitan Opera. He returned to Guelph in 1950 and lived there until his death nine years later. His name carries on in the Guelph artistic community through the Edward Johnson Music Foundation, which launched the Guelph Spring Festival. This spring the festival marked 25 years of enriching the artistic fabric of Guelph. The Edward Johnson Music Foundation also runs a program which shares some of the world's finest musicians and singers, including Canadian artists, with the community.

The Guelph Spring Festival is one of many community groups that has been working since 1984 to bring a civic centre to Guelph. This broadly based project will have a tremendously positive effect on Guelph and area. The centre was passed by three successive city councils and over $2.4 million has been raised in private donations. The centre will also become the jewel in Guelph's green necklace -- 22 kilometres of river walk along the Speed River, stretching from the west end of town to Guelph Lake.

At a time when we are concentrating on rebuilding this economy, we must remember the arts are important because they reflect and celebrate our humanity and rebuild our spirit.

The Edward Johnson archive joins other world-known collections at the University of Guelph, including the Bernard Shaw collection and the Lucy Maud Montgomery collection.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member for Lambton, Mr David Smith. Welcome.

This is indeed a very special moment for your Speaker as I introduce to you this afternoon a very distinguished visitor seated in the gallery, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Honourable John Fraser. Welcome.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think you should be aware and everybody should be aware that the executive of the York Mills Progressive Conservative Association is seated in the members' gallery west.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.

Also, I would invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon the officer of the House whose report we have just tabled, Ms Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of Ontario. Welcome.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Mr Speaker, I would like to table some privileges of mine that have been breached by this government in the disclosure of information and the way it was done last week, through the Ministry of the Environment and the Interim Waste Authority, when they announced the candidate sites. I was told the day before that I would receive them first thing on Thursday morning. I have to point out that that did not happen. As the Environment critic I did not receive them until later that day. I also have to point out that the county of Simcoe, the town of Markham and various other communities that are impacted by these decisions did not receive this information until much after the fact.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I fully realize the member's interest in this matter. I must regrettably inform the member that while he has not lost a privilege, indeed he speaks of something that could be described as a courtesy, which apparently was not extended to him on this particular occasion. By bringing it to my attention, I'm sure he has alerted the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps that matter can be attended to outside the chamber, but I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

Mr Cousens: If I can just comment further on your response -- and I appreciate very much your response on it -- the minister did not even make a statement in the House on Thursday on this matter, yet it was the issue of the day to people concerned with the environment. Is there nothing I can do as a member of this House to at least convince, coerce or coax this minister to do what she should do so well?

The Speaker: You will recall on earlier occasions that I indeed expressed, as speakers prior to my office have expressed, that it is most desirable that ministers make pronouncements of new policy here in the House rather than outside the Legislature. There is nothing in the standing orders which compels that to occur. Again, the member has registered his concern and it is one which I fully understand.

1350

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is a little different from the previous point of order in that, even though it annoys the opposition, I understand what you are saying when you say that if a minister does not make an announcement in the House that's the government's prerogative and we simply complain.

However, there is a situation that has arisen today which I think is of particular interest to the Speaker of the House and all members of the House, and that is when we have the government House leader announcing by newspaper report that there are going to be major and drastic changes made to limit the role and responsibilities of members of the opposition, indeed all members of the House.

The reason I say this is different -- and I don't rise very often on the other matters -- is because every person in this House is affected by these substantial changes. If I were to be partisan, I would say they demonstrate that the Premier and his government are neither new nor democratic. I am very concerned that we have changes that will affect you in your role as Speaker, that will affect people at the table who give advice and that will certainly affect the House leaders and all members of the House by limiting their opportunity to speak in this House, by limiting the amount of time this House actually sits and by making other drastic -- I know you want me to be reasonably brief, and I will be -- and unprecedented changes in the rules of this House which are going to have a marked effect on the mood in this House, if nothing else, but certainly on the operation of this House.

All of us recognize that the role of the opposition and of government backbenchers and others in the government is to debate in a thorough manner the legislation that comes before this House, with the opportunity to delay until such time as the public is aware of the consequences and to put forward every possible argument. We have, instead, something not even announced to the opposition at all but snuck in on a Thursday afternoon by the government House leader. We're faced with the situation today where he says these new rules are going to be debated today and every possible day after that until they're passed. Mr Speaker, that does not demonstrate to me any respect for this House, and I ask for your intervention.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order, the House leader for the third party.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to express my concern as to the way the government and the government House leader are proceeding. There will be plenty of opportunity, I presume, with the current attitude of the government, to read into the record many speeches by the current-day Premier, the former Leader of the Opposition, and by the current-day government House leader, where they referred to, Mr Speaker -- I am not using this term but I'm sure they have -- Gestapo tactics of majority governments of years gone by of whatever political stripe.

I just want to impress upon the Legislature and the people of Ontario that what we see today is an abandonment of parliamentary democracy as we have known it in Ontario for the last 125 years and that now we're going to have government by imperial edict. There's a reason why this Legislature has performed as well and as cooperatively as it has for 125 years with the rules it has. The Premier may laugh if he wants to at that suggestion, but I can tell him that before he was in this place there were House leaders like Elie Martel, Bob Nixon and Tom Wells who understood what compromise and negotiation and the art of parliamentary democracy were.

Today we see that this government, which supposedly has championed the cause of democratic principles -- until it assumed power, that is -- now believes that it should be able to govern by a stroke of the pen and by imperial edict. If that is the government's intention, as opposed to negotiating and observing rule changes and creating constructive rule changes -- I note there's nothing in here that improves how the committee system works, which the government House leader has often said needs to be improved upon. There's nothing in here that gives more independence and power to individual members. I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold would be very interested to know that his debate time will now be limited to 30 minutes.

There's nothing in here that addresses any of those aspects of parliamentary reform. The only things in here are draconian measures so that the government can use its jackboots to walk over the Ontario citizens' and the people's rights and principles.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines and the member for Parry Sound: A couple of points may assist the members.

Of course I am aware that on the Orders and Notices paper today is printed a government resolution which sets out some proposed real changes. The member for St Catharines asked for the Speaker's intervention. The member will know that the Speaker cannot, first of all, deal with hypothetical situations. There is something on the order paper that needs to be called forward before there will be a debate. At the end of a full and complete debate, then normally the question is put and there is a vote in the House. It would not be proper for the Speaker to try to interfere in any way with the procedure which has been set out for some time on the way in which we do our business.

I will say, however, to the member's concern, because I recognize, as the member stated, that he rarely is on his feet with respect to procedural matters in the House unless it is a matter of deep concern to him, that the preference of speakers always is to have things dealt with in a very orderly and timely way. The legislatures that function best are those that function without surprises. I certainly understand that and concur, but the member is asking the Speaker to do something which in his capacity he is not able to do in order to assist the member.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EQUITY IN EDUCATION

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would like to inform members today of some important steps which my ministry is taking to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in our province's school system.

Over the past several months I've been meeting with educators and representatives of diverse racial and ethnocultural communities who are concerned about racism in Ontario's educational system. In this regard I'd like to first thank my colleague Zanana Akande, the Premier's parliamentary assistant, for her participation and for her advice to me. This assistance, of course, has been in addition to her efforts at creating 5,000 new summer jobs, focusing on employment and training needs of primarily black youth.

As members know, the Premier and the member for St Andrew-St Patrick announced Friday an additional $20 million to create a total of 8,500 new summer jobs through Jobs Ontario Youth.

The key issue that has been identified in my discussions and must be addressed is that of systemic barriers in the education system which prevent racial minority students from reaching their full potential. Clearly our education system can and must change to ensure that our schools foster equality for all of our youth. They must change so that racial and cultural diversity are appreciated, respected and are integral to the system and its institutions. I am therefore pleased to inform members of a number of measures that my ministry is taking in cooperation with our education partners and communities to address issues of anti-racism and ethnocultural equity in Ontario's school system.

As members would know, two weeks ago I introduced Bill 21 for first reading. Amendments in this bill are in keeping with the government's policy with respect to anti-racism, native education and employment equity. This legislation will require all school boards to develop and submit for ministry approval policies on anti-racism and ethnocultural equity as well as employment equity, and I look forward to the collaboration of all parties and members in the House towards speedy passage of this legislation.

I'm also pleased to inform members that I'm establishing a new assistant deputy minister position within the Ministry of Education responsible for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity. As an assistant deputy minister, this senior ministry staff person will provide leadership in the ministry to ensure the development and implementation of a truly anti-racist curriculum throughout Ontario schools; the development, implementation and monitoring of school boards and ministry corporate policies on anti-racism, ethnocultural equity and employment equity, and effective in-house ministry training for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity. A number of key ministry staff will carry out their work under the direction of the new assistant deputy minister.

In addition to ministry staff I'm inviting the participation of our education and community partners. I will be asking for assistance from school boards, teacher federations and community groups through assignments to my ministry to work with us so that the solutions reached are truly shared by all the partners in education.

The new assistant deputy minister and I will continue to seek advice from representatives of the concerned community groups such as Concerned Black Educators and AMENO, the Anti-Racist Multicultural Educators' Network of Ontario, and I'm happy to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of representatives from these two organizations. We will also expand our discussions to include greater representation from communities concerned about issues of language and culture. This consultation will be ongoing until we have in place the structural changes needed to address systemic issues of racism and to ensure the implementation of ministry policies and activities which address the issues.

Our efforts will only be successful with the active participation of all people who face the systemic barriers that stigmatize race, language, culture and ethnicity. We will take the necessary steps with our partners to ensure that Ontario's education system is responsive to the needs of a multicultural and multiracial province and encourages the participation of all citizens equally.

In doing so, everyone in Ontario benefits. Our end goal is student achievement. We must see dropout rates decrease and more of our students leaving the system literate and with a fuller appreciation and respect for their own cultures and those of all their classmates.

My ministry and this government are serious about dealing with these issues. The initiatives I am announcing today are part of a series of important steps which our government is taking to deal effectively with racism in Ontario.

Finally, as part of this ongoing effort, we obviously look forward to the report of Stephen Lewis tomorrow and his recommendations for improving the environment for race relations throughout Ontario.

1400

RESPONSES

EQUITY IN EDUCATION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am very pleased with the announcement today. I do hope this is a long, long-term commitment. I hope it is also a financial commitment. I hope the consultation mentioned in this document includes students; I didn't hear students mentioned in this document. I hope it will include parents. I know it will include educators, because they have been mentioned, and community leaders.

I am very pleased that this government has appointed an assistant deputy minister, because an ADM in any ministry in this government provides a new level of accountability. It includes a new budget line, and I think that's very important in this matter.

A new leader in an area such as this provides sustained leadership, and for that I am grateful. I am grateful, and speak, I hope, on behalf of the school boards of Ontario, because many boards in this province have been dealing with this issue for 15 years. This is not a new issue to many boards. It hasn't just been discovered by this government.

Many boards in this province began, as I say, 15 years ago, and certainly a lot of boards began five years ago under the previous government, when we developed anti-racism policies. It has been on the ministry's agenda for a long, long time and will be for a long, long time. Many boards have excellent policies and staff trained in these areas and I'm very pleased that you mentioned that you are going to bring them forward in the form of secondments to this ministry.

You mentioned two areas, Mr Minister. You said that curriculum must be worked on and must become more sensitive. I hope, and I didn't hear it in the document but I'm sure you meant to say it, that this curriculum will give minority students in this province a pride in their heritage. That is something they've been looking for; in fact, they have come to this Legislature mentioning that. We must get more reliable knowledge bases in the curriculum of this province. Let's hope your initiative today will do that.

Professional development strategies are also going to be a high item in this agenda. I didn't hear mentioned, but I know again that you must be including secretaries and caretakers and bus drivers as well as superintendents and educators.

You didn't mention professional personnel policies, Mr Minister, but again I know you want time lines, I know you want a mechanism for appeals, and I know you want to develop strategies for recruiting minority people into positions of responsibility.

One other area I would like to mention is the assessment and placement of minority students, students who come from different backgrounds. I hope and trust that parents will be involved in these assessments and that the original assessments that are made in schools across this province will be in every case possible made in the language of that student, and that the assessment of the student will be delayed, if necessary, until a suitable adjustment period has passed.

I hope the ADM will be working with guidance departments across this province, because it is in guidance departments that the hopes and dreams of students are often formed and sometimes, unfortunately, also curtailed. They must be taught to inspire all students to reach their full potential.

I hope the ADM will also be responsible for research in this anti-racism area, research and regular reviews, because, as we all know having lived through this year of 1992, things can change. Things can change very quickly, whether they be instigated by social or economic policies, or both.

So, Mr Minister, I know your intent is, as is mine and our party's, that all students will reach their full potential and that racial minority groups will take leadership roles, from the very first days of student council right through the whole program of the educational system. All school boards in this province must be given every single support they can to respond to the needs within their own community, whether that be in-school activity or extracurricular activity. This must be a commitment of your government for its entire life and for every government that follows in this province.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, I'm going to begin my response by making a statement, using some of the words of the minister himself in his announcement today; that is, his concern about "systemic barriers in the education system" that in my view prevent not only racial minority students from reaching their full potential but prevent many students across this province, whether they be special education students, or students who want to be trained to get a job, whether they be students in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, central Ontario -- not just in the city of Toronto but right across this province -- who are looking for leadership from your government and from you, Mr Minister, to provide the kind of programs that will get them jobs.

We're not going to solve the problems we have in our cities and we're not going to solve the problems of young people getting jobs and enjoying school and staying in school with summer jobs only. These summer jobs, especially for the racial-minority students, should be part of their education program for a period of at least three or four years. We should have a goal at the end of it. Their training in the summer should be their summer jobs. We've known this for a decade and we've done nothing about it. I hope this announcement today isn't just another piece of paper, where no one's going to do anything about it and follow through.

Mr Speaker, I want you also to know that I object to the way the minister has gone about making this announcement today. The statement on Bill 21 was introduced May 26 during orders of the day; we had no chance to respond. The Jobs Ontario Youth was announced last Friday, June 5, when many of us were caught off guard and didn't really know what the minister had in mind when he made that presentation; I was making a speech at the moment. I think these kinds of announcements are important enough to make in the House to the elected representatives before they're made in public; it helps us a lot.

I should also say that I hope this new ADM, who I think is needed because I think these jobs have to get done, is not a new additional ADM in the Ministry of Education; it's not needed. In these times when we are all taking a look at putting our money in the front lines, we don't need more admnistrators. We need someone to do this job, but not a new ADM.

I should also say that as we take a look at groups such as the Concerned Black Educators, with whom I have met and for whom I have a lot of empathy because they are so frustrated in getting anything done, and the Anti-Racist Multicultural Educators' Network of Ontario, who are equally frustrated, I think if they had a chance to stand in my place today and make the statements I'm making, they would say that what we need are long-term changes in the delivery of education in this province.

The reason we have so many young people out there hanging out in shopping malls, causing difficulties at the island, is because they want to be in school, they want jobs, and they want this government to make education for young people a priority.

I challenge the minister with his program. I hope it will be successful. We certainly will do everything we can to help. I would point out that not one new piece of curriculum has been developed for anti-racism and ethnocultural policy, yet Bill 21 will be debated and passed by this government, hopefully before the summer. This bill was introduced for the first time under the auspices of Bill 125 a year ago; and now we are talking about developing curriculum a year later.

I say to the minister right now that I hope his process will change, that I hope our young people will benefit from this program, and I hope it's not just another piece of paper.

1410

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This government has failed young people. They've cut back on the ranger program by 37%, they've cut down on tree planting up north, they've cut down on summer experience programs. They forgot about it in their big budget. It was in their Agenda for People. This government has not got an agenda for young people. To say you've got a program now for black young people is good, but what about all the rest of them all over the province? What about the ones in Windsor, northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, everywhere?

You're out of it. You don't understand what's happening and you're not going to solve the problem if you think you can do something just for seven or eight weeks or a short time during the summer. There is the fall, there is a time afterwards. You've got business so discouraged they're not generating jobs. You've got labour reform. So where's the private investment coming in to say, "Let's generate some confidence in the province of Ontario"? This government is destroying that confidence. There isn't confidence in the government. Why not work with private enterprise so that everybody can work together to generate jobs rather than turn jobs away, which is what you're doing with your other government policies?

LEGAL AID

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It arises out of a question asked by the honourable member for Eglinton of the minister responsible for women's issues last week on June 2, in which the minister indicated that she could not comment on a rumour that the legal aid plan was being amended so as to prevent married women and children who are in family court from selecting their own lawyers. The minister said that as the announcement had not been made she could not and would not comment on it because it is speculative.

I understand, Mr Speaker, your ruling, made many times, as recently as today, that you can only encourage ministers to make their announcements in the House. We have a special opportunity today, however, in respect of this point, because the Attorney General is going to make that announcement tomorrow in Ottawa, and I would ask him and the Premier, who is present, to listen to your exhortation, which I expect will be forthcoming very shortly, to make announcements like that in the elected assembly of Ontario, where we can comment on them as well as others.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St George-St David, I appreciate the fact that he has listened carefully to previous rulings, and indeed I suspect that every member in the assembly is well aware of the rulings which have been made from this Chair, and no doubt they will do their best to keep that in mind as government policy comes forward.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe my privileges as a member have been breached. Last Thursday, the Interim Waste Authority released its long list of candidate sites for the landfill site search in the Metropolitan Toronto-York region. One of those potential sites, M6, is located on land which is part of the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek watersheds and which is recommended for inclusion in phase 3 of the Rouge Valley park.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that on November 20, 1989, all parties in this House unanimously passed the Progressive Conservative opposition day resolution in my name which called on the provincial government to designate the Rouge Valley system as a provincial park.

More recently, this government's own terms of reference for the Rouge Valley park project directed an advisory committee to prepare a strategy and time frame for preparing a parkland for the area north of Steeles Avenue. In response, the advisory committee recommends in the preliminary park management plan that the park include the valley and stream corridors extended to their headwaters and all the publicly owned lands within the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek watersheds which were acquired for the north Pickering and federal airport project. According to this management plan, the implementation of phase 3 of the park for lands north of Steeles Avenue is of vital importance to the integrity --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member indicate succinctly which privilege she believes has been lost?

Mrs Marland: Because this land is important to the integrity of the entire Rouge system and because this means that the provincial government must not even consider locating a landfill in M6 --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate very much the subject material she has brought to the House's attention. There is no particular privilege which has been lost here. However, she does I think have material that might be the focus of a question during question period, and that portion of the program we're about to begin. It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week the Premier indicated in this House, if I can quote him almost directly, that Ontario had gone through the recession. On Friday the unemployment figures came out, and those statistics showed that in Ontario the unemployment rate had risen to 10.9%, the highest rate now in nine years. Communities such as Thunder Bay, Windsor, St Catharines and Ottawa saw their jobless rates jump substantially in May, just at the same time when the Premier said there are signs the economy is picking up in Ontario.

I would ask the Premier how he can reconcile the bad news this province received on Friday with the statement he made on Thursday that we had begun our recovery, that we had come through the recession.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What the figures showed for Ontario were similar to what they showed for the United States and for Canada, that is, at the same time as the rate of unemployment has increased in Ontario and as it has increased across the country and increased in the United States, the number of people who are employed has also gone up. It has gone up quite substantially. I would say to the member that what we are told this means is that there are more people who are returning to the labour force to look for work and that this in itself is a sign that some recovery is taking place.

I'm not denying that the recession has been very tough. I'm not denying that it's had a serious impact on the province. I'm not denying that a combination of things have been tough over the last two or three years. What I am saying is that there are some signs of increased employment. They are contained in the statistics that were revealed last week by Statistics Canada, which show that employment in the province last year was up by 20,000, a fact which I would have thought the honourable member would be applauding today.

Mrs McLeod: The reality is there were more people in Ontario in unemployment lineups looking for jobs that don't exist at the end of the month of May then there were even in the month of April.

In the government's budget, the Treasurer indicated it would be our housing industry that would lead our economic recovery. We see today that in that very industry there are reported 7,000 fewer home starts last month than in the month of April. There are 109,000 fewer people employed in this industry than when this government first came to power. It is the increase in housing starts which is the traditional sign that a recession is beginning to turn around, that economic recovery is at hand. Given these statistics, we would have to say the economic recovery is not at hand.

I wonder what the Premier would have to say to Aldo Pinero, who is an unemployed carpenter with a family of three who's been out of work for five months, or what he might say to Paul Michelin, who's an unemployed mason with a wife and two children. I wonder if the Premier can tell these construction workers and others like them what part of his industrial strategy, whether it's the Labour Relations Act amendments or the worker ownership plan or the investment fund or the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, is going to put these people back to work.

Hon Mr Rae: What I would say to the people you have mentioned, what I would say to the people across the province, what I would say to all of them, is that, first of all, with respect to the housing industry in particular, the last budget contained information about the government's commitment to non-profit and cooperative housing which clearly demonstrated -- and if you talk to people in the housing industry they will say: "Yes, times are tough and they've been difficult. If it wasn't for the investment the provincial government has put into plans, unemployment would be even more severe than it already is."

The Jobs Ontario homes fund will expand our support for non-profit housing programs by 20,000 units, creating 2,400 jobs and generating $2.1 billion in capital activity in the construction industry.

The fact remains that the measures the member has described, as well as other measures, we do believe are contributing and will contribute to recovery in the housing industry, as in other industries in the province.

1420

Mrs McLeod: This government over and over again talks about its hopes, its beliefs, its wishes and its prayers. The reality is that there were 7,000 fewer home starts in May than in April. I come back to the government's economic strategy, its plans for renewal and its hopes to be able to turn this reality around.

They promised the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in the spring session of the Legislature; we haven't seen it yet. They promised the worker ownership bill; it's tied up in committee with the Ontario Federation of Labour itself opposing it. They promised, as part of their industrial strategy, an investment fund which is being opposed by the very pension fund holders who are supposed to contribute voluntarily to the fund.

The industry minister makes a statement about an industrial strategy and says he can't implement it until the economy picks up. The government's budget is committed to creating 125,000 new jobs this year. We are two months into the year already and we are still in a situation in which there are some 64,000 fewer jobs in this province than there were a year ago.

I would ask the Premier if he could tell this House whether he still believes the Treasurer's job creation forecast of two months ago, and what part of his proposals are going to create all of these jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic, because the Liberal Party has taken now to becoming the party of gloom and doom.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mel Swart was right. You haven't got the guts to be a good NDP Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: If the member for Renfrew North would just control himself --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Mr Conway: -- what everybody else stands for. What else does Bob Rae stand for, you gutless wonder.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Now don't make a ruling about "gutless wonder." You'll leave us with nothing.

The Speaker: I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order. The member for Renfrew North, I know the respect which he has for the assembly and for Parliament and I know that he would not want language to be used which would cause disorder.

Mr Conway: On that point, Mr Speaker, I can assure you I appreciate what you've said. I will not be calling people liars in this place. But my concern is that while I am prepared to take lectures from a lot of people, I'm not prepared to take a lecture about consistency in politics from a man like the leader of this government who on key questions like integrity in government, like public auto insurance, like gaming and casinos --

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

Mr Conway: No wonder that Mel Swart --

The Speaker : I ask the member for Renfrew North to take his seat, please. Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour. When the Minister of Labour introduced his amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this House last Thursday he stated that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this legislation is going to kill jobs. Again that falls into the category of wish and prayer more than a willingness to look at the evidence. Since the minister made his announcement, the auto parts company Hayes-Dana has indicated that it has cancelled plans for an $8.3-million steel casing expansion because of the uncertainty created by the labour act amendments. These jobs will go elsewhere because investors see Ontario as a poor place to do business.

I would ask the minister if this does not in his mind constitute clear evidence that this legislation, coming in the midst of a harsh recession, will in fact discourage investment and ultimately kill jobs in Ontario?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The answer to that is no. I think this legislation, if we can start changing around the confrontational approach to one of cooperation in the province, is a very positive move.

Mrs McLeod: In the absence of any evidence that the legislation can create jobs, and when there is evidence that it will cut down on and kill jobs, I don't know how the minister simply can keep denying the evidence that is building. Again the minister and his government have done no studies of their own to indicate whether this legislation will kill jobs. The only study this minister or the Premier has referenced, as we have asked for some understanding of the impact of this legislation, is one that was conducted by Noah Meltz of the University of Toronto.

The minister says that the Meltz study indicates that the amendments could be positive, that they could lead to lead to more productivity. Hardly strong words and, I suggest, more of a wish and a prayer than anything else. I have a copy of the Meltz report. It is exactly four pages long. This report suggests that it is difficult to assess the impact of the proposed reforms and that to do so would require a detailed examination which he has not undertaken in this paper.

I ask the minister if he does not feel that this issue is serious enough to merit the kind of detailed examination and study that his own consultant has called for. How could he possibly base this initiative on a four-page paper which in itself calls for more examination?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition conveniently forgets that we've had probably the most extensive consultation on this issue that we've had on any legislation in Ontario. I think if she read the Meltz report, it would also say that consultation and a change in the attitudes with which we deal with labour relations in Ontario could very well lead to improved productivity in this province.

Mrs McLeod: I'm really not trying to conveniently forget anything. I am trying to raise real concerns that we hear being raised out in the communities. Surely the minister can't simply shrug off the fact that there are many sectors of our economy that fear this legislation is going to destroy jobs and will permanently harm Ontario's competitiveness and productivity. We're not trying to be simply obstructionist. We recognize the fact that on Friday the Premier announced the appointment of a labour-management advisory committee that he has mandated to look at the ways in which management and labour can work together, presumably in the context of the proposals the government's bringing forward. We ask that the government undertake this as a very serious and constructive approach to resolving the concerns we believe exist about the legislation.

I ask the minister whether he will do what he did for the agricultural sector and refer his proposed Labour Relations Act amendments to this advisory committee before second reading of the bill, so that a thorough examination can be carried out by this joint committee of the impact of these proposals, and if he will go a step further and suggest that this advisory committee set up sectoral subcommittees to look at the impact of the proposals on each of the different sectors, whether it is tourism, retail, manufacturing, agriculture or the construction industry.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have real difficulty in understanding why the leader of the official opposition doesn't understand that legislation far beyond anything we've brought into the province of Ontario doesn't seem to be hurting the economic realities in most of Europe. I also can't understand why she doesn't realize that it's about time that instead of putting down workers in Ontario, as she does every time she raises one of these questions, we started involving them in the decisions that are made that affect them and their future in Ontario.

Interjections.

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

1430

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last Thursday my caucus colleagues and I introduced 20 pieces of legislation in response to your labour bill. In those pieces of legislation we are calling for an impact study or an inquiry into the effects of your labour legislation changes on jobs, investment and competitiveness in the 20 regions of this province.

Premier, since your Minister of Labour has refused to do any impact studies, or at least to table them with the House if he's done them, will you tell us how many jobs will be threatened, lost or perhaps even created if you think there'll be any created? Will you agree to undertake the inquiries we called for in the 20 regions of this province last Thursday?

Hon Mr Rae: I just don't think you can take one piece of legislation out of context. You have to look at the overall approach which the government has taken with respect to the reduction of the corporation taxes on investment; the way in which, for example, on manufacturing processing we've taken action together with the federal government; the way in which we've worked with the private sector in solving a number of individual problems; the fact that financial support from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to businesses to create new jobs this year is 96% higher than in the last year of the former government, 96% higher in terms of the kind of actions we've taken in the middle of this recession.

As I said on Friday, we are looking forward very much to a very constructive dialogue with the members of the labour and management communities in looking at improving the overall climate, including, obviously, this particular legislation, but a number of other factors need to be taken into account as well. I would say to the honourable member that we are looking forward to a balanced debate in the House, we are looking forward to a consideration by the committee and a study by a number of people of what is being proposed, and then to a conclusion of the debate in the fall, which I think is, after all the consultation has taken place, a perfectly reasonable line of direction coming from the government at this time.

Mr Harris: I am not debating today the time frame or the government's right, of course, to deal with legislation, but the 20 regional bills we introduced call for an inquiry into the effect of this piece of legislation. You don't want to isolate it. If you don't want to isolate it, why deal with it?

We are dealing with this particular bill, and what we are interested in knowing, and I think all members would want to know, particularly the backbench members of your party, who have been given a new-found freedom to vote their conscience on these issues instead of how they're told -- I think they'd want to know what will be the impact of this legislation on workers. The bill calls for that for all workers, including specifically women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, native peoples, youth and older workers. My caucus believes very strongly -- and I believe the business community believes, everybody you spoke to in Japan believes -- that your labour legislation proposals are a payback to the union bosses and will destroy investment, will cost jobs and will close factories. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Hon Mr Rae: I think there is very substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, I was interested to read an editorial in the Montreal Gazette on Saturday indicating that it's hard to understand the kind of rhetoric which this legislation has produced in Ontario, given that it's been in place in the province of Quebec for 14 years and given that there are some features of our bill which are less restrictive than the legislation in Quebec.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Editorial in the newspaper. Real good. It came out after your legislation.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that the committee will have a chance to call witnesses and to call people who have expert testimony to provide. The committee will have the opportunity to do precisely the kind of study the member is referring to. If it's a study he wants, then I would ask what better place for a study to be overseen than within the committee that will be dealing with the legislation?

Mr Harris: On Friday, as we've already heard from the leader of the Liberal Party, Hayes-Dana announced that it is putting the brakes on an $8-million expansion in St Marys. The reason is your labour legislation. We have heard from a number of investors and potential investors and employers from around the world that they are reconsidering creating jobs in Ontario because of your legislation.

I would ask you this, Premier: Can you tell the 2,000 employees at Hayes-Dana and the thousands more who depend upon the facility and the new ones who may have been hired why you are proceeding with this legislation and taking away their jobs? Also, can you explain to every member of this Legislature, in government and in opposition, why you refuse to do any impact studies of this legislation on jobs, existing and potential, in this province? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member again that if he would look at a balanced approach and look at the decisions that have been made by Chrysler, look at the decisions that have been by Ford, look at the decisions that have been by a number of major companies, they clearly point to a continuing confidence in the workforce in this province. I'm convinced that a reasonable, balanced dialogue with the business community and with everyone out there will reinforce the sense that Ontario is a good place to do business and that we have everything to gain by improving the climate of labour-management relations in this province -- everything to gain from that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, we all agree that if we could improve the climate, things would be better. Everybody I talk to says your legislation's way of proceeding is destroying the climate, not improving the climate. When you understand that, then we'll get the kind of consultation we need.

The Speaker: Is this your second question?

Mr Harris: My second question, Mr Speaker, is to the Premier as well.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Premier, your government House leader has served notice that no legislation will go forward in this House until he passes rule changes. We're not opposed to discussing rule changes in this House or outside of this House or in any forum in which you'd like to do it. But I find it a sad excuse for governing, when unemployment in this province is at its highest level in nine years. I wonder if the Premier would tell me this: How many jobs will be created in the province as a result of this urgent and important discussion on rule changes?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I'll refer all questions involving the rule changes to the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to rule on whether in fact the government House leader is entitled to answer this question. If I'm not mistaken, Mr Speaker, you have ruled on a previous occasion that the government whip could not be asked a question in her capacity as whip but could only be asked a question that related to her portfolio. She was not permitted to answer the question, in accordance with your ruling. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, with all respect, that the other portfolio the government House leader has as Minister of Municipal Affairs has nothing to do with the rules of the Legislature, and therefore he cannot answer the question, on the same logic you used on a previous occasion.

The Speaker: I understand the member's point. He will recall that on an earlier occasion the question had been directed directly to a minister without portfolio. In this instance the question was referred to a member of the cabinet by the Premier, and in that capacity the member is allowed to respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Allow the member to respond. The government House leader.

Interjections.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, if I might be given the opportunity to answer the question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, ever since the Premier asked me to serve as government House leader, I have had many opportunities to engage in discussions with the House leaders from the opposition parties to talk about the need for changes in this place. If ever there was an example of why there needs to be changes, we can see it happening this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1440

Hon Mr Cooke: I think what the people of this province want the Legislature to do is deal with the public business that is before it. It's been clear in the last several months that this government has not been allowed to proceed with the government agenda. That has been absolutely clear.

The statistics are clear. When the Liberals were in power they were allowed to pass about 31 pieces of legislation per sitting, the Conservatives about 32 pieces per sitting. We've been allowed 12 to 14 pieces. The opposition parties have to understand. We respect the ability of the opposition parties to oppose; that's their job. But I don't think the opposition parties have demonstrated very clearly that we also have a responsibility to the people of this province to govern.

How many jobs are going to be created? I guess I could ask the leader of the third party how many jobs were created last Thursday when we listened to private member's bill after private member's bill as a tactic to have nothing done in this place.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This morning you, Mr House Leader, said in a statement, "We simply don't have time to play these games while the public awaits job-creating legislation." Mr House Leader, I couldn't agree with you more. We're all waiting for legislation that will create jobs. I can name any number of proposals you've talked about dealing with, any number of bills, some requiring up to 200 amendments, any number of directions that will kill and destroy jobs in this province. Can you name one bill, what piece of legislation you're so anxious to get on with, that will create jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: I served in opposition for a long time, so I understand the role of the opposition parties --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- but if you take a look at this place, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the budget bills from the 1991 budget were passed. The opposition wouldn't even let this government proceed --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- with budget bills from the 1991 budget. Now, if that isn't an example of this place not working and the opposition not allowing the government to govern, then I don't know what a better example is. We've got to reform this place. We've got to make this place modern. All we're suggesting is that we bring the Ontario Legislature in line with other legislatures across the country. It's about time that's done, and this government is determined to do that.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is incumbent for all members of this House to tell the truth, and I believe you would substantiate that. The government House leader has not mentioned a very vital point of truth, which is that this House was due to come back by the calendar on March 8, and this government delayed it till --

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. The member will know that's not a point of order. The leader of the third party with his final supplementary.

Mr Harris: Regardless of when the House comes back and when it sits, I assume that the minister not being able to name one piece of legislation is an admission that there is none, that in fact there is nothing the government wishes to call that will create a job. That's what I infer.

I see him looking. Let me suggest to the government House leader that you do have a bill that we believe could create some jobs -- that is, the Sunday shopping bill. Let me also suggest to the House leader that the only reason I can see for you wanting to limit speeches to 30 minutes for job-creating legislation is so you can shut up your own backbench members and get that bill through the House, because we could pass that bill today except that there's a filibuster by NDP members brewing to stop the one job-creating piece of legislation.

By way of final supplementary, the truth is that other than that bill that we've been pushing and calling for and we're ready to deal with and pass today, there is nothing on the books that will create jobs. I understand how desperate you all are to take the heat off your job-killing labour legislation and the fact that you have no agenda to create jobs --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: I would really, seriously suggest to you, Mr House leader, and through you to the Premier and your cabinet: Why don't you call a real piece of legislation this afternoon that might have a chance to create some jobs instead of playing games with the rules and tying up this House for the next two weeks on that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party can make whatever arguments he wants to make. The fact of the matter is that he wants to take a look at the budget this government introduced, which had thousands of jobs created. He'll want to look at the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order and I would ask the member for Oriole --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's a lie. That's not even a white one.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole needs to withdraw the comment that she just made. It's unparliamentary, and I believe she knows that.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, the House leader has clearly stated something that is not factually correct. I withdraw the word "lie" and say that he has been not factually correct.

The Speaker: The fact that a member withdraws an unparliamentary remark is all that's required, and I do appreciate the fact that the member did that. Now that order is restored, perhaps the minister could continue.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm not going to run through all the proposals and all the programs the government has introduced. They've been reiterated --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): He Martelled. Keep Martelling.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Cooke: Rather than continuing to try to talk, I think the opposition parties have clearly made my case: We need rule changes in this place. The place isn't working.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Willowdale: Perhaps just prior to the issuance of a writ the member for Scarborough-Agincourt could ask a question.

1450

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with your credibility. You may recall, Premier, that I think a solemn commitment you made was that you would eliminate Ontario income tax for the working poor. You not only have not done that, Premier, as you know, but you've actually gone in the opposite direction. In three weeks every single person in Ontario will see his or her Ontario income tax go up more than 5%, including the working poor.

My question to you is this, Premier: What possible justification do you have for breaking this commitment and for increasing the personal Ontario income tax on the working poor by more than 5% on July 1?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Any tax changes the government has had to bring in I think are a clear response to the fiscal reality facing this province, which I'm sure the member is aware of. The prospect of a deficit that would be unacceptably high and would face all of us with a common problem in the future has led the Treasurer to make the recommendations in his budget that he has made.

Mr Phillips: I can understand the need to deal with the deficit, and I can understand the need to raise taxes in certain areas, but on this particular one I sincerely question, Premier, why you would choose to attack the working poor.

We've now seen case after case, Premier, where you've gone back on the solemn promises you made in the election campaign, whether it be the common pause day, whether it be the tax on the working poor, whether it be public auto insurance. All these things were solemn commitments made by you during the campaign.

Premier, you remember that in this building you called the previous Premier a liar for this very thing. You said he was a liar. It was the "Honest Bob" campaign. You weren't going to do that. You called him a liar. My question to you is this: You used to call these actions lying. You said that where a political party promises one thing and does something different is a lie. Premier, how would you describe your promising one thing in a campaign and doing the exact opposite now that you're in power?

Hon Mr Rae: The facts as I understand them, and I know the Treasurer would be glad to answer this question even more fully than I'm going to be able to answer it today, are as follows: Ontario's personal income tax is now the third lowest in Canada. The net impact of the measures that have been put forward by the Treasurer is that for lower- and middle-income taxpayers -- that is to say, individuals who are earning less than $53,000 -- there will be no increase in the combined federal-Ontario income tax as a result of the federal and Ontario 1992 budgets.

Mr Phillips: I ask the Premier to get the facts and report back to this House before we adjourn today. That is not a fact. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer ordered the Minister of Education to send out a retraction to all his households for that particular reason. I ask the Premier to come forward with the facts before the House adjourns.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the Premier wish to respond? No?

New question, the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm prepared to wait if the Premier wants to answer that question.

The Speaker: The member for Markham has the floor to pose a question.

Mr Cousens: No, I said I am prepared to wait.

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take it that the third question being asked by the honourable member was some kind of third supplementary being allowed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the House comes to order, then I can address the question.

Indeed the Chair was wrong. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt was very quick to his feet and the Chair should not have allowed what the member was posing as his second supplementary since we were into the rotation where there was simply one supplementary. The error was the Chair's, for which I apologize. We are now on to the third party, and the member for Markham has his opportunity to ask a question.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Do you have the Hansard?

Mr Cousens: I have the Hansard. On November 2, 1988, with regard to the Rouge Valley, when you were opposition critic for the Environment you said:

"Surely, if this government really means to preserve the Rouge Valley, it must realize that such a corridor, freeway or expressway is entirely inconsistent with preserving the Rouge Valley. Why has the minister not requested Scarborough and Metro to delete the corridor from their plans? That is how one preserves the Rouge."

The question I have is, does one preserve the Rouge and other environmentally sensitive areas such as the Oak Ridges moraine, the Ganaraska and Lake Ontario by placing a landfill site near them? Simply, can you preserve environmentally sensitive areas by placing a landfill site close to them? Certainly when you said that's how one preserves the Rouge -- you wouldn't put a road through it -- can you say the same now with regard to landfill sites being in close proximity to the Rouge?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I suspect the member is referring to the statement made by the member for Mississauga South earlier today, which alleged that the Interim Waste Authority had selected, as one of its potential landfill sites, land within the Rouge. I know the member, having been through the committee that dealt with Bill 143, is very familiar with the process this government has set up, a fair and open process where the Interim Waste Authority determines environmental criteria, applies them and develops a list of sites.

I just want to draw the member's attention to one of the criteria that has been selected by the Interim Waste Authority and is very clear. It says, "Screen out the portion of the Rouge River Valley where the provincial cabinet has declared a provincial intent to establish a park in the Rouge River Valley to include buffer zones." I think that's the answer to his question.

Mr Cousens: Two words sum up your response, and those are that you have become "environmentally dishonest." You proclaim that the Rouge Valley --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat. Adding an adverb in front of a word that is not parliamentary does not help any. The member for Markham will know this, and I trust he'll withdraw the remark.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw "environmentally," Mr Speaker, and certainly I would --

The Speaker: I don't think I heard that one properly.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw any offence in the words, but there's something the matter with the minister's response.

Interjection.

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

Mr Cousens: The minister proclaimed that the Rouge Valley would be protected at all costs, yet the Interim Waste Authority has different plans for the Rouge Valley. All of us who suffered through the public hearings on Bill 143 know that you are the Interim Waste Authority. You have legislated the mandate for the Interim Waste Authority and you've restricted its options to landfill sites only. You can't look outside the greater Toronto area; you can't look at incineration.

Placing the responsibility for the site selection on the Interim Waste Authority is green hypocrisy and calls into question your credibility as Minister of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment is out of control. The Premier has said that the Rouge will be protected, yet the Interim Waste Authority says it is a possible site. You have said it is the responsibility of the Interim Waste Authority and you've referred to some of those guidelines. I ask you, Madam Minister: Who is setting the environmental agenda for the province of Ontario and can we trust it?

Hon Mrs Grier: The answer is, he can trust it absolutely. This government has dealt with what have been crisis headlines in the GTA for the last decade: "Nowhere to Put the Waste"; "Put the Waste all over the Province"; "Put it in Plympton"; "Put it in Marmora." This government has laid down key environmental policies, incorporated them into legislation and established a crown agency to implement those policies and to take future landfill sites through an environmental assessment. That's a first, Mr Speaker, and that's something he can trust implicitly.

1500

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question will be asked in a more gracious tone. It's for the minister responsible for the Office for the Greater Toronto Area. It has come to my attention that the office is using StarPhone as a vehicle to talk about some of the long-term issues affecting the greater Toronto area, of which Durham East is a part. Why is the government using StarPhone? What kind of information will be provided to my constituents of Durham East who may be interested in this service?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The Office for the Greater Toronto Area, in cooperation with a number of other ministries and in consultation with the 35 municipalities within the greater Toronto area, has been developing a strategic plan to guide the future growth of this area, a growth that's expected to take the population from the current four million to six million over the next 25 years.

What we have done with StarPhone, which is an information service available by telephone to people within this area, is to provide messages and information about transportation, economic vitality, greenlands and sustainable communities. We're monitoring the effectiveness of the program on an ongoing basis, and we believe that use of StarPhone provides the member's constituents in Durham East and all the residents of the greater Toronto area an opportunity to get information in a timely and convenient way.

Mr Mills: I guess we're all obsessed with costs these days. What is that service going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm pleased to tell the member that it's a very cost-effective way of distributing information. The cost for 13 weeks of use of the service is $5,350, and in the first three weeks the Office for the Greater Toronto Area made use of the service, we had over 2,000 calls. Many of those people merely wanted to listen to the recording. Many others left their names and addresses and asked for follow-up information and to be involved in the consultations that are ongoing and that are so very important about the future of the greater Toronto area, and we think it has proven to be a good way of disseminating that information.

LEGAL FEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question was for the Premier, but he's disappeared from the House so I guess I'll have to find another minister. But he's responsible for everything that happens over there. I guess I'll go to the Attorney General with this, in the absence of the Premier, who has left early.

The people who voted for the Premier's government probably didn't necessarily agree with all the policies this government had in its platform and probably didn't believe that this government could manage the economy of the province particularly well, but they did believe that Premier Rae and others in the government would be different, that in fact they would be open and would be honest and would be upfront in their style of government. In light of that, could the Attorney General tell us why he tried to sneak in a $76-million tax grab through the back door, a tax that, for instance, will triple the cost of probating a will, even for a modest estate by today's standards?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member knows full well, I believe, that over the past six years the Ministry of the Attorney General under this government and the previous government looked very seriously at all court fees, and in fact over the last six years has increased a number of court fees, simply to provide the funding we find necessary to make provisions for the justice system. A number of court fees were raised this year and there were some increases in probate fees. Those increases are not out of line with other increases in court fees. Neither in this year are they out of line, nor are they out of line with increases in past years.

Mr Bradley: If this money was so important to the government of the province, one would have thought a measure of this kind would have been at least mentioned in the provincial budget.

My colleague the member for Ottawa South in his statement today raised the fact about housing costs, and in view of the fact that, with a good deal of publicity and fanfare, the Premier headed to a federal-provincial conference talking about making housing more accessible to people of modest incomes, could the minister of justice of the province, the Attorney General, tell the House why the registry offices all over the province have now increased the cost of a house by $200 to $300, simply by increasing the fees that the government is bringing about through the back door?

Hon Mr Hampton: I take issue with the assertion that there's a $200 to $300 increase. The fact is that with respect to property transfers, part of the province does work under the Registry Act but an ever-increasing part of the province works under the Land Titles Act. As I've indicated, some fees were increased across the province. They were neither of the magnitude the member suggests, nor in their eventual impact are they anywhere near the amount the member suggests.

I simply point out that in increasing some of the fees of the court system, we looked at increasing those fees which we felt would not have an impact on access to justice. In other words, they would not block deserving people from having their issues resolved in our courts. I think we've been effective in doing that. We've increased those fees which would not impact on access to justice. We've increased those fees where we believe there would be relative ease in paying those fees.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION SPENDING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I want to reiterate: It's to the Minister of Transportation, not Hans Christian Andersen. We don't want a fairy tale today when he answers. I'd like a very simple answer.

The Premier and the Treasurer have been talking a great story about the need to renew Ontario's crumbling infrastructure and to stimulate Ontario's weak economy. In the light of these commitments, could you explain why the Ministry of Transportation capital budget for this year, on an estimates basis, is some $310 million less than last year?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I take a great deal of pride to answer what, a priori, seems to be a shortcoming or a pitfall. Suffice to say that after the budget tabled in this House by the Treasurer a couple of weeks back, we remain the largest capital budget in the province of Ontario. We spend more money on transportation to put people to work than any other ministry. That's the truth, that's the reality.

You will also recall so vividly, because I do as if it were this morning, that the Treasurer has made the announcement that $2.3 billion over the next five years will be used for capital programs, and this year, as we speak, $500 million will be used for capital programs to put people to work. We remain confident at Transportation that we shall secure a very large chunk of that infrastructure money.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased I made the admonition that I didn't want to go to Hans Christian Andersen, but as usual we have had a fairy tale.

As I said before, the capital budget, on an estimates basis, if you can read these, Minister of Transportation, is some $310 million less than last year. The Premier has trudged around the country talking about the need for massive spending. He's been begging the Prime Minister to fund infrastructure, and yet you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. How can you possibly say you're going to fund infrastructure and you want massive development of Ontario roads when you are reducing the budget?

1510

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, if only the member opposite could focus and inform the House as to what project or projects have been either delayed or cancelled. There's been none. Everything is business as usual, everything is on stream.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Pouliot: But the member must be aware that this is an open-minded administration, and therefore we are looking at new and innovative ways to secure capital so that projects will not be cancelled nor delayed. Quite the contrary, sir, they will be accelerated so that more people will be working and, just as important, people will look forward to the kind of programs and services their tax dollars so well deserve.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, I'd like to raise with you a question of public safety that is causing a lot of concern in my riding. It has to do with a nuclear power facility across the lake.

As you know, the question of accidents at nuclear power plants is of great concern to many people. They realize that accidents don't respect international boundaries, and this reactor is actually quite close to us. It's only around 50 miles across the lake.

I know there are constituents in my riding who are prepared, in the case of an accident, to leave immediately, but the problem is that they have to know about the accident before they can take action. On March 23 of this year an alert was called at that plant, yet the city was not informed.

I would like to know, Mr Minister, what types of procedures are in place for municipalities to be informed of these types of incidents when they occur, and further I'd like to know what your ministry is doing to ensure that the type of incident that occurred in March does not happen again.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): In most cases like the one the honourable member has described, a call is made to city officials from the emergency planning Ontario branch of my ministry to inform them of a situation that is ongoing.

In the specific case the member refers to, the reason the city of Kingston was not informed by the province of the incident at the Nine Mile Point reactor was that the state of New York did not inform the province of Ontario of this circumstance. New York state officials stated that the alert was simply a technical compliance with the regulations and there was no danger to public safety, and therefore they didn't call.

Quite frankly, however, we don't perceive that to be acceptable here in the Ontario, and officials of the emergency planning Ontario group have been in contact with the officials of New York state and have come to a situation where we have ensured that they will in fact contact us whenever that kind of event occurs; in turn, our ministry will inform the municipality of Kingston and other municipalities that may be affected.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, as you know, this wasn't the first time an incident happened, and I'm sure it could happen in other nuclear power facilities. Certainly it has come under quite a bit of discussion at the Kingston city council. I would like to be assured that the kind of information people need will be there, not only when an alert happens but before, so they'll be ready to take action; certainly that there will be pressure on nuclear power plants to make sure they are as safe as possible.

Is there anything that your ministry can do about this problem of making sure that people are well informed of the operation of nuclear power plants?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes, we can, and one of the greatest things we can do to avoid these kinds of difficulties is to communicate with one another. As I indicated in the original response, these communications have been built on and enhanced and I think will satisfy everyone.

In the particular case of the city of Kingston, the members of the Emergency Measures Organization have agreed to meet with the officials of that municipality to discuss the circumstance with them to keep them fully informed. I think that kind of briefing will stand everyone very well.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): To the Minister of Culture and Communications: Ontario only has one provincial art gallery, and the effect of the minister's present policy is to reduce its operating budget from $12.1 million to $9.5 million in one year. The effect of this is that 200 employees, almost half the gallery's staff, will immediately lose their jobs.

Today in the Globe and Mail the president of the two unions at the art gallery says, Minister, that one of your paid political speechwriters is Susan Crean.

For reasons of her own, this speechwriter, Susan Crean, who lives in British Columbia, has been a vitriolic and long-time critic of the provincial art gallery. The union president says in her letter, as the editorial in the Star did on Friday, that your speechwriter is trying to drive a wedge between the gallery and its employees on one hand, and the ministry on the other, and that the gallery has not been fairly treated by you.

Does the minister endorse the views of Susan Crean? Why does she use this paid political speechwriter to do her hatchet work?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Susan Crean was contracted once within my ministry to do a function for us regarding gathering 100 artists from all over Ontario. She was hired as a scribe to do a report on that gathering, and opening remarks.

If the honourable member thinks that freelancing for the government amounts to a gag order, he is incorrect. We do not require people who are contracted under this ministry once never to have anything to say against something they themselves don't like. Susan Crean has been writing on the art gallery since 1974, and I hope she continues to do so. That is her right to do so.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Given that the NDP unanimously supported my Rouge Valley park resolution, and given that the terms of references in the government's management plans call for the preparation of a park plan for lands north of Steeles, I contend that my privileges as a member have been breached in the inclusion of site M6 in the long list of candidate sites for the Metropolitan Toronto-York region landfill site search, and I therefore request, through you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the Interim Waste Authority, be required to withdraw site M6 immediately from the long list of candidate sites.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member may know that the status of resolutions passed in the House is not the same as the status of legislation which is passed in the House. While I appreciate very much her concern in this particular instance, she does not have a point of privilege. Of course, she has a point about something which is of intense interest to herself and many other people within this chamber and without.

PETITIONS

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF YORK NORTH

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have two petitions, the first to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by some 30 persons:

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

"That the Ontario government change the name of the riding known as York North to York-Mackenzie."

I signed this petition in support.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The second petition reads as follows, opposing the introduction of a new tax on real estate gains:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases, a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

I signed that as well, Mr Speaker.

BRONTE CREEK PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents who live in my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bronte Creek Provincial Park is used by families throughout the Halton region and the province for pleasure and recreation throughout all seasons of the year;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the Bronte Creek Provincial Park, with its present boundaries, remain open to the public for pleasure and recreation through all seasons of the year."

1520

TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Waste Management Corp is proposing to build and operate a huge centralized toxic waste incinerator at a landfill site in the heart of Ontario's farm land in Niagara;

"Whereas toxic waste must be treated at the source because transportation of such huge volumes of toxic waste on our highways is suicidal,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the Ontario Waste Management Corp."

On this petition are 498 signatures from residents of Niagara. I also affix my signature to this petition.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by a number of residents in my riding and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative of Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has promised to introduce a new tax on real estate gains; and

"Whereas there is simply no evidence to suggest that real estate gains taxes either contribute to lower land and housing prices or raise significant revenue for the government; and

"Whereas in some cases a new tax on real estate gains may even raise prices by reducing supply; and

"Whereas the tax as proposed in the NDP's Agenda for People will adversely affect the entire real estate market in our community; and

"Whereas real estate gains are already subject to heavy taxation from federal and provincial governments,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Honourable Floyd Laughren, Treasurer of Ontario, not to proceed with an additional tax on real estate gains."

Mr Speaker, I have signed my name.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

That is signed by some 225 people from Unionville, Toronto, Markham and Aurora, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 27 members of my constituency and immediate area in support of legislation for the regulation of social work in Ontario in order to protect the people of Ontario from unskilled, unethical and incompetent practices.

I have signed my name to this petition.

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by a number of individuals in my riding which is dealing with irradiation, and they are asking the Legislature to take all steps to do anything against irradiation, to permit irradiation to appear on the supermarket shelf but only with proper identification and labelling to that effect.

I have affixed my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 460 people from Prescott, Owen Sound, Welland and Ridgeville. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 49 constituents from Middlesex county who ask the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the Brant report, in view of the opinion by these constituents that their concern around agricultural land and their wishes that there be a limited annexation were not met in the Brant report.

I have signed my name to this petition.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalized casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a quick-fix solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

It's signed by 44 individuals from my riding of Wellington.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition with 42 names from the communities of Peterborough, Bethany, Fraserville, Cameron, Woodville, Millbrook, Havelock and Bancroft, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

HUMAN RIGHTS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have the first of many petitions here today from a group of 68 organizations regarding the inclusive neighbourhood campaign.

"Whereas there is a shortage of affordable rental housing units in Ontario; and

"Whereas this shortage most affects individuals and groups facing discrimination and social and economic disadvantage, for example, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees, first nations people, women, gay men and lesbians, seniors, youth, single parents, people with children, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors and people on social assistance; and

"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Code affirms that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, handicap or receipt of social assistance, and that any policy or factor which results in this exclusion of people who come within the prohibited grounds of discrimination is illegal; and

"Whereas people who cannot afford to buy a house are often excluded from the lower-density neighbourhoods, which are generally well served by community educational and recreational services; and

"Whereas many thousands of home owners in all municipalities across Ontario have created additional units in their homes that have not changed the quality of life in their neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas tenants in such illegal units are not guaranteed the legal rights and protection that tenants in legal units have, therefore creating two classes of tenants; and

"Whereas zoning practices are exclusionary and are a violation of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario agreed to article XI of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

"We therefore petition the government of Ontario, in particular the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Citizenship responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Code to immediately put an end to this widespread violation of human rights across the province by amending the Planning Act so as to require all municipalities to permit the creation of additional rental units that meet health and safety standards in neighbourhoods zoned for single-family housing."

I affix my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition from eastern and western Ontario with 283 signatures. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition from Arn and Shirley Small and their hardworking staff at the local Beaver Lumber. These hardworking people are opposed to Sunday shopping. That's what the petition is about.

1530

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

This is signed by 23 citizens of Lucan and area. I have signed it myself.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario containing 99 names from my riding of Dufferin-Peel and surrounding area.

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people,

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 26 members of my constituency who object to the expense related to the erection of bilingual signs in Ontario. I have not affixed my name to the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

This is a petition signed by members of Slater Steels, Wellington Plumbing and Heating Ltd, Bravo Cement Contracting (Toronto) Ltd, Victaulic Co of Canada Limited and Le Page's Limited. I have signed my signature to this.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that has been signed by 388 people living in Sioux Lookout, Milverton, Elmira and Mississauga. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

LAND-LEASED COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition that reads:

"We, the residents of a land-leased community, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake felt the previous government set up a committee to report on land-leased communities but took no specific action to protect these communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake feel it should be a priority of this government to release the report and to take action to bring forward legislation on the following issues that surround land-leased communities; and

"Whereas the residents feel the government of Ontario should examine the problem of no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity; and

"Whereas the residents of these communities do not receive concise and clear information about their property tax bills; and

"Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land-leased communities which place unfair restrictions or collect commissions on the resales of residents' homes; and

"Whereas there has been a confusion resulting in the status of residents with long-term leases where they fall under the rent review legislation,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to follow through and to release the committee report for the land-leased communities and to propose legislation to give adequate protection to individuals who live in land-leased communities."

It's been signed by people like the Kings, the Moffats, the Smiths and the Pattersons, and I affix my name.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for presenting petitions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This is a deferred vote. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

1540

The House divided on Mr Charlton's motion for third reading of Bill 118, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 63

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 38

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Scott, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion 7.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will not speak at length because I think these matters have been before the Legislature on many occasions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As the chairman of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, this is the first time I am aware of that we have been required to discuss a matter in this Legislature before my caucus has had an opportunity to meet and discuss the proposal the government is putting forward. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think it's quite inappropriate that this government order of business is called at this time.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, I wish to support my colleague who has just spoken to the Legislature in regard to what the government is doing this afternoon. I think it is highly unfair of the government to introduce such a massive package.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): That is not a point of order. It is not a point of order.

Mr Mancini: So you're going to allow the government to change all the rules? That is what you're going to allow to happen here.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke, you have the floor.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, if it's a right point of order, the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, I believe the minister stated that this Legislature has discussed these rules before and that he therefore would not take time in explanation.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, thank you.

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Cooke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that over the period of time that my party has been in office the whole issue of whether there were going to be rule changes discussed in the Legislature or not --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South, order please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, only you have the floor.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, obviously with the kind of concern that's being expressed by the opposition, I will be very brief indeed. The rule changes as they are being proposed will, in my view --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Essex South. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The rule changes that we are proposing to the House today would simply bring the rules of our Legislature --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm getting exercise anyway, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the best way to approach it would be to allow the opposition to speak. I or colleagues of mine can make comments at an appropriate time. I put the rule changes. They're explained. They were on the Orders and Notices paper. I ask the House to debate them. I'll turn it over to the Liberal Party.

1550

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, I warn you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We just can't go on this way.

Minister, do you have further remarks? Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Unlike many others, I am delighted to participate in this debate and, at the risk of being slightly immodest, I think it is right and fitting that I should begin this debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, you have the floor.

Mr Conway: I repeat that unlike others, apparently, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to begin what I expect --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Very what? Say that again. What was that word?

Mr Conway: I look forward to beginning this debate --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Sean, you can't be pleased about this.

Mr Conway: Well, I am pleased in a perverse kind of way, because I think it is right and fitting that I should be the one, of all people, to begin this debate.

Let me be perhaps a bit indelicate. We have some members in this chamber who don't know the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside as well as I do. I know him better than anyone in this place. I have been in the parliamentary trenches with the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside, and I must say that it is a very particular and idiosyncratic pleasure to be with the government House leader in these matters.

It is no secret that I relate to him like Stephen Lewis related to Morty Shulman. I don't like the member for Windsor-Riverside. In fact, on a number of occasions I can tell you that I have behaved badly because I dislike him so completely. I give him credit as a resourceful and hardworking fellow who has I think done very good bidding for his colleagues; I take nothing away from him on that account. But in my dealings with him I have often found him to be a man whose word is not worth the paper it is written on. I find him to be someone of a very disagreeable kind. I'll tell you, three years ago in a similar debate I found his disagreeableness endless. I found that it verged on the despicable. I'm glad he's leaving, because it will make --

Interjections.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): He's leaving because he's a coward.

The Deputy Speaker: Please, I don't accept that type of language in this House. Please.

Mr Scott: I withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I understand the harshness of this language and I don't offer it lightly, but I tell you that I have a history with this honourable member on this file. The things he's done and the utter worthlessness of his word in this debate over the years has been, as I say, from my own personal point of view, absolutely breathtaking. So unlike others, what I have today surprises me not a whit -- not a whit.

I would have thought the leader of the government would crawl out of here today, however. I would have thought he would crawl out of here on his virtue and his long face today, because in a session of NDP flip-flops we have another one. I want to say to my friends opposite that before this debate is over we are going to have chapter and verse as to how government notice of motion 7, offered by the honourable government House leader today, is at complete and absolute variance with everything that David Cooke and Bob Rae and David Reville and Ross McClellan and Elie Martel have stood for and fought for all the years they have been in this Legislature.

I'm sorry my friends from the Globe and Mail aren't here -- I saw one of the reporters here a moment ago -- because I want to begin with the beginning of this public notice. We didn't get it, of course, in the regular way. I think it's important to observe how members of the Legislature got notice of this significant government public policy.

Let me say, in ways that I suspect again put me at variance with a number of my colleagues in the opposition, I am very willing, probably much more willing than most members of the opposition and many in the government, to consider rule changes. I'll be very mischievous in telling you why: because there is one group of jackboot artists in this place that I would like to have some tightened rules to apply to. That group is the NDP.

I have been bad. I will admit that over the 17 years I have done some things that don't do me much credit in retrospect. My party has done some things of which I did not approve, and I will be specific. In 1982, 10 years ago this month or last month, when I was away in southeast Asia, my friends undertook the ringing of bells, a copycat of what had gone on in Ottawa. I wasn't here, but had I been I would have fought that with every ounce of my being, because I find that kind of tactic fascistic. I find it absolutely outrageous. It contradicts the very reason we have a Parliament. I don't think it was a very creditable day for the Liberal Party of Ontario when my colleagues rang the bells.

I think I'll let others speak about my friends in the third party. They've had some anxious moments themselves, where they've engaged in some tactics that I suspect, over time and with some reflection, they might not have perhaps wanted to be highlighted in their parliamentary résumé.

I know I'm not the most dispassionate and objective observer in this matter, but in my time in this Legislature, generally speaking, the group of people that has been most consistently outrageous in the twisting and bending and flouting of the rules of this Legislature and the Mother of Parliaments from which we descend is none other than the New Democratic Party. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that no two members have been more predictably outrageous in their jackboot tactics than Dave Cooke and Bob Rae.

To be piously lectured to now by the member for Windsor-Riverside, as he has in the statement made to the Globe and Mail today, is to lie awake and hear the tones of Elmer Gantry, is to read Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale, to see hypocrisy on stilts. There's no other phrase for it. It would be like me coming to this House and advocating the virtue of short speeches and silence; I would expect all my friends on all sides to simply throw up their hands in laughter and incredulity. But to get a lecture from Dave Cooke and Bob Rae about the need for a kinder, gentler, more productive Legislature is hypocrisy itself.

I mean, I ask my friends of some standing, who was it that denied Bob Nixon --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask you to be very careful in the choice of your words.

1600

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your advice. I understand, in a particular way, your sensibilities. I must say, if all honourable members had your sensibilities we would not have the kind of raucous place we sometimes have. I ask you to recall that day three years ago, I think it was, when Bob Rae and Dave Cooke decided that we were not going to allow the Treasurer of Ontario to read his budget. Remember that?

Before I get into the particulars, I was really touched by the way this all became public. Did the House leaders receive information through regular channels? My friend the member for Bruce is now here. He shakes his head in the negative. What did we get? We got a story in this morning's Globe and Mail. I want to say something about my friends in the Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper. I read it on a daily basis. I'm sorry to say this, and this is probably being politically incorrect, but I've been struck in recent weeks by the new protocol in the Globe and Mail where it offers up government accounts, or rather quite one-sided accounts of government propositions.

There was a time, when people like Norman Webster and others were here, when if one were leaked information, as obviously the Globe and Mail was in respect of government notice of motion 7, there would have been some effort to consult with perhaps the learned Dr Graham White at the University of Toronto, to say nothing --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I picked up the paper this morning and there it was in the Globe and Mail, a big headline saying, "MPPs Face A Long, Hot Summer." In an article by Richard Mackie, quite an extensive article which clearly was based on government notice of motion 7, we have the government's rationale. I guess I say to my friend Rick --

Interjection.

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

Mr Conway: I want to say that I read the morning paper, the Globe and Mail -- I didn't see it in any other paper -- and I saw the government rationale. I'm going to go through that in a moment, but I must say I'm disappointed. I know times are tough in the newspaper business; I know budgets are being restrained but there was a time particularly when national newspapers, I thought, felt the need to balance these kinds of accounts.

There is very little balance in this story -- as far as I'm concerned, no effort at all to consult. I don't really care if there's any consultation with the opposition, but I would have thought that perhaps some of the learned parliamentary experts might have been consulted for the other side on this. It is a very interesting story that the government, quite frankly, could have written itself.

I congratulate the $125,000-a-year spin doctors who are there. That's their job. I don't mean this as a criticism of the government. If you can do this and have it printed, then you've won something of the battle --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Gerry McAuliffe is presumably earning his money. I simply make the point for some of my friends in the press gallery that when I see a story like that I'm reminded how times have changed. I want to look at the article. I'm going to just touch on some of the points in the article.

Mr Scott: Would Tommy Douglas have hired Gerry McAuliffe?

Mr Conway: I don't know. Let me read from some of Mr Mackie's article this morning:

"The Ontario Legislature faces a long, hot summer as the NDP government fights to change the Legislature's rules to help it push through several major bills the opposition has threatened to block."

I want to digress for a moment. It's quite clear under the rules of our place when this particular notice of motion had to be in the hands of the Clerk. It was almost certainly in the hands of the Clerk on Thursday, June 4, of last week.

Mr Speaker, I ask you and honourable members of this Legislature to think what else came on Thursday of last week: the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, much talked about, much promised. Some of us thought they would be before the Legislature in something other than the last three weeks of the normal sitting of the spring session. What we got on Thursday was, first, the very controversial amendments to the Labour Relations Act, about which controversy my friends in the government know only too well; and surreptitiously handed at one and the same time presumably to the Clerk's office and to the Globe and Mail, government notice of motion number 7.

Let there be no confusion. Government notice of motion number 7, the Dave Cooke-Bob Rae rule change package, is principally New Democratic grease to make more fluid and more easy the legislative rails on which sit some very controversial bills like the Labour Relations Amendment Act. There is a causal relationship to be sure between government notice of motion number 7 and the Labour Relations Act, without any question.

Mr Mackie helpfully goes on in this article this morning to predict that it's not just the Labour Relations Act but it's the other legislative items that the government is concerned about -- so concerned, I might add, that the normal spring session began about three weeks later than normal this year at the government's insistence.

The government is concerned about its pay equity legislation and it's concerned about a variety of other initiatives that are outlined in this proposal. Mr Mackie helpfully observes that the NDP is worried about opposition Liberals and Tories who want to exact some accountability and focus some public debate on this myriad of government bills.

I thought this was very touching as well, that government House leader David Cooke complained, Mr Mackie helpfully observes, that in their opposition the Liberals and the Tories had changed the nature of the House rules by insisting on lengthy debates and votes at stages of the legislative procedure that had gone smoothly in the past.

That is manifestly not true. There are other words that Bob Rae would use to describe that kind of presentation of the case. I won't use Mr Rae's words. I'm not into that kind of four-lettered language, but I repeat, Mr Cooke's expression of views as reported by Mr Mackie is simply not true. Of course, since it's Mr Cooke, some might be surprised. I certainly am not.

The article goes on to cite examples where the opposition is now asking for votes on first reading. That, Mr Cooke argues, is something new. Mr Cooke should go back and look at the history of the NDP in this Legislature over the last 20 years. He would understand where some of these tactics came from.

I perfectly understand what first reading is all about. I have always believed that people should have the right to introduce a bill on first reading and it should be supported, because all we are doing on first reading is offering the Legislature an opportunity to see the particular legislation. But the NDP over the years have been very quick to force votes on first reading and then to run out of the chamber and manipulate and misrepresent what that first reading vote was all about. Oh, my friends in the NDP, how they have a coloured past at variance with their sainted present.

We see as well Mr Cooke's angst and concern about the fact that we are now getting some lengthy debates on third reading. I myself am guilty of that, because some honourable members like the member for Riverdale were here the other night to hear a fairly lengthy speech from myself on third reading of the Hydro bill. I will admit it was a lengthy oration. It was probably too long. But I have to tell you that I was very concerned by what we heard in the course of the public hearings on the government's hydro and energy policy and I felt I should use whatever time was available to report on those proceedings.

1610

Let me just ask my friends opposite to go into Hansard and look at what the NDP did in recent years with respect to legislation around the common pause day and what it did around legislation concerning public auto insurance, to name but two. I'm going to tell you, Mr Speaker, that if you want to see lengthy third reading debates, one only has to look at what the NDP has done over the years. I can think of those two examples from memory, but it is a much longer list. Now Mr Cooke goes on in the article to say the government is frustrated because it's been allowed to pass only 13 pieces of legislation.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Thank God.

Mr Conway: Mr friend from Prescott says, "Thank God." I think there are some elements in the community that would affirm what my friend from Prescott has said: Thank God. I must say the NDP has this idea that it was elected with 37% of the vote and that it's got 74 seats, and don't people on the other side and in the community generally understand that this gives it a majority mandate to run the province for five years and let the opposition and the critics outside take the hindmost?

I've been struck by the number of times my friends, particularly the newly elected members over there -- good people, to be sure -- have said: "But don't you understand? We won the election and your job is essentially to affirm or to allow the passage of that which we in majority conclave have decided is in the public interest." Some of you may even remember those days 25 years ago when John Robarts used to say, when pressed: "Why? Simply because we're over here and you're over there." The opposition used to bristle with that kind of arrogance that some said characterized four decades of uninterrupted Conservative rule.

I will say to my friends opposite that they have won the right to run the government of Ontario. I obviously have no ground on which to challenge that. But there is a process, and admittedly there is a process that we always want to be changing and updating. I believe that what has made the British parliamentary tradition so strong and so lasting is its elastic and evolutionary character. We have an obligation to look at the way we do business in this Parliament and see how it might be altered.

I have been struck by some of the views of new members who've come here and said, "We don't like the maleness of the place, we don't like the slowness of some of the pace and we don't like the kind of consultation mechanisms the previous legislatures and previous governments have decided on." That's altogether good and healthy and I have no quarrel with that.

I just have to say to my friend Mr Mackie, reporting my non-friend Mr Cooke, who complains that there have only been 13 bills passed in this session -- my friend the Liberal House leader will speak to this at a later date -- that a significant element of that is the government's own responsibility. Not all; we bear some without any question. But I was in a caucus meeting the other day --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I don't see how you can sit there and support your government's activities, Kimble, laughing your way through this afternoon when this stuff is an affront; it really is.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I want to use but one example.

Mr Elston: You guys have no knowledge of the way this place works if you're able to sit there and let this stuff go through here. I cannot believe you guys. You're outrageous.

Mr Conway: I want to use one example of the current session, and my friend the member for Bruce and perhaps the member for Oriole can help me in this, because I think I'm remembering it accurately. About six months ago the government, through I think the minister, Ms Ziemba, in her several responsibilities, introduced what is generally called advocacy legislation --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yes, three pieces.

Mr Conway: Three pieces in a package.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Jolly good legislation it is.

Mr Conway: The member for Peterborough says, "Jolly good legislation it is," and who am I to question her interjection? I just want to make this point: At last report, that government bill is now back before a committee with I think something approaching 200 government amendments. I think it's actually 190 government amendments.

I say to my friend from Orono, whose fault is that? In my experience around here, when you get a bill where you've got 190 government amendments --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): To their own bill.

Mr Conway: -- to their own bill, that is a clear indication that one of two things obtain: Either the policy was not clearly thought out or understood, or the drafting was perfectly abominable.

I have to say to my friends opposite, and I know I speak for my friends in the Liberal and Conservative opposition, I think the member from Manotick, my friend Stormin' Norman Sterling, has had some private legislation in this respect. I think there is a broad base of consensus for this legislation. But here we are, months after the government introduced its legislative package, three bills, and we have 190 government amendments.

I say to my friends in the assembly, that's not the opposition's fault. I can tell you that if you think -- and the new members may not understand this, although I think many of them will --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): A lot of us probably know more.

Mr Conway: Listen, I don't want to indicate that the members opposite are without understanding in these matters. I've had some good dealings with them and I find them to be not an unreasonable group, but I just say to you --

Mr Elston: This is the type of stuff that got them elected. I'd like to see your speeches that would have supported this before --

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the member for Bruce that he will want to keep his powder dry, because before I'm finished, this Legislature is going to be treated to chapter and verse of speeches offered by no less a luminary than the leader of the government himself and his serpentine acolyte, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: He said "serpentine acolyte." He could have said sewer dweller.

The Deputy Speaker: Your choice of words is not acceptable.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw.

Mr Elston: For the clarity of the record, can I repeat them to see which ones we withdraw?

Mr Conway: Perhaps a better word would be "saturnine." I'm not so sure. It doesn't quite capture my enthusiasm for the government House leader.

But fortunately the record is replete with speeches from my friends opposite, the leader of the government, the government House leader, even my old pal Rosco McClellan. Boy oh boy, Ross is going to be in this debate before it's over, and so will David Reville; so will those pillars of NDP parliamentary virtue.

I come back to my main point. I just think of the advocacy legislation as one example where the government does not know what it's about or where it's going. I heard from some of my colleagues that the rent review legislation was a mess and was substantially overhauled by the government and the opposition. I tell you, the energy bill, Bill 118, when I think of its introduction, it's quite clear that many in the government did not know what the act was that they were amending. Again, I've got to watch my language because I can't say what I believe, but Bill 118 was amended in two or three places where the government had, let me say, given an incomplete understanding of reality as it was. I'm just picking, willy-nilly, examples from the legislative menu of the last year.

Now we have Mr Cooke crying crocodile tears in the Globe and Mail, to apparently a very receptive reporter, that the government has been allowed to pass only 13 pieces of legislation.

1620

I didn't bring it with me because time was short today, but I saw from the House leader the other day a list of bills that the government had to have either through all stages by the end of June or at least through the second reading stage before we adjourned for summer, and on that list were a bunch of bills that hadn't even been introduced. I remember one of them was the Ontario Labour Relations Amendment Act.

This was a government paper of about four days ago. We have a list of several items, many of them very important, that are to be introduced in the last week or two of this session and in some cases completed in all stages, or in other cases, like the Labour Relations Amendment Act, we're going to conclude the debate on principle before we adjourn on June 25.

I want to say something that may be equally obnoxious to some, but I ask myself, what would the NDP have done if a Tory or Liberal House leader had moved as this government did today with government notice of motion 7? My experience is that the first reaction from the NDP under those conditions would have been to threaten to burn the Legislative Building down. There would have been no containing their outrage. We've had NDP-sponsored demonstrations that nearly came crashing through that door. Oh boy, do I remember that day.

Mr Hope: And you know why.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Chatham-Kent betrays a very important point. He says, "And you know why." You see, this is the point with the NDP, whether it's Shelley Martel fighting Jean-Pierre Donahue, whether it's Michele Landsberg attacking the paediatrician in North Bay, whether it's Randy Hope defending the demonstration that nearly came barging through the door of the chamber here --

Mr Hope: Peaceful.

Mr Conway: Peaceful? I was here, and if you were, you were out there. I'm just going tell you, those three examples make a very important point about the NDP, whether it is the lofty Michele Landsberg or the earthy Randy Hope: If the cause is right, anything goes. If the cause is right, the NDP and its partisans are justified in slamming the doors of the legislative chamber open, they are justified in denying the Treasurer the right to read a budget, they are justified in ministers writing letters to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and the Minister of Northern Development is justified in publicly attacking and slandering a doctor who would deign to attack the NDP's sainted agreement with the Ontario Medical Association on the so-called fee and related issues.

Let there be no confusion about what the NDP modus operandi is and has been. I look across at the quizzical look on the member for Scarborough East and I have to believe that some of my friends opposite would probably shy away from the kind of tactics the NDP has, dare I say it, graced this House with in my time. But I'm going to tell you, the leadership of this party over the last decade, the leadership as provided by Bob Rae and David Cooke --

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I was referred to by the speaker, the member for Renfrew North. If he's on the subject of physicians being slandered, he's failed to mention the fact that the member behind him said that I was involved in some scandalous behaviour that made me withdraw from being the parliamentary assistant, which is quite inaccurate. I think if he's on the subject of political unfairness, he should have mentioned that.

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately I could not hear the remarks, but if there were statements that offended you, I'm sure that if it was an offence, whoever made them will apologize.

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I was out of the House on other business today and got an urgent call to come back, that this sort of stuff was happening. I've been sitting collecting my thoughts on all of the events that have transpired over the past few days.

I happened, almost by accident, to be here on Friday last, and my privileges as House leader of the Liberal Party were certainly violated. On two occasions during that day I asked members of the staff of the government House leader what the business would be for today. Not having been made aware of the fact that there had been a motion filed, having been told by those people that they had no idea, Mr Speaker, I want you to look into the fact of whether or not the privileges of the opposition House leader --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That has been raised --

Mr Elston: No. Not by me.

The Deputy Speaker: Not by you, no. This is not a point of privilege.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry. What is a point of privilege? If you ask what the business of the House will be for Monday -- we were not told on Thursday; we were not told on Friday. We come in here and see an article written by Richard Mackie. I am responsible for getting the things ready for the day. What is a privilege and what isn't?

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of privilege. The member for Renfrew North, you have the floor.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since there had to be a filing of this notice by 5 o'clock on Thursday, what duty is it of the table of this House to provide information to the rest of the people in this Legislative Assembly so that we can prepare? This was done prior to 5 o'clock on Thursday. Notice was not given to us, but it was given to others. What is the duty of your table?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have been around here a little while too and I've observed what's gone on here. I've watched every Thursday afternoon, and at a quarter to 6 or 6 o'clock the last duty is for the House leader to give us the order of the business for the following week. Mr Speaker, that did not happen. I did not know what was going to happen in this Legislature today. My privilege as a member has been violated by this government.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The member for Scarborough East raised some point of order or privilege, I'm not quite sure what it was, and made reference to "the member behind the member for Renfrew North." I believe he was referring to me and I believe he was referring to a speech I gave a couple of weeks ago, at which time I outlined some 25 conflicts or behavioural problems from within the cabinet and the back bench. He was included as one of them.

I don't understand what his problem is. He did resign his parliamentary assistant's post, and apparently there was some cloud over that. That is the reference to which I was referring.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Frankford: I think I should have the opportunity of responding to a statement that there was some cloud over me.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The point of order was raised immediately. I've asked you if there were any comments that were made. This is not a debate.

The member for Renfrew North, you have the floor.

Mr Conway: I want to pick up on what my friends the members for Bruce and Simcoe East said, because I can go one better. I was here on Thursday evening. I was right behind the Speaker's desk at about 6:30 when Mr Sterling, Mrs Cunningham and I were trying, together with the government House leader, to resolve the business of Thursday evening and Monday. I well remember what the government House leader said and didn't say about Monday.

But I have an advantage. I long ago stopped trusting and stopped believing the government House leader, because in my experience, which has been considerable, I have found the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, for all his industry, for all his intellect, for all his creative capacity, to be a man whom you could not trust and whom you could not believe. So I warn anyone here who might be wishing to invest very much of himself in trusting and believing the member for Windsor-Riverside, because my experience is, you are going to be quickly, sadly, often and painfully disappointed.

1630

On Thursday evening at 6:30, when we were trying to resolve the business of Thursday evening and get the House adjourned, the question was put as to what was going to be on the order paper on Monday and Thursday. We agreed, I thought, that we would deal with the PC opposition day on Tuesday, the Liberal non-confidence motion on Wednesday, but Monday and Thursday were blank sheets. This is at about 6:30 on Thursday, an hour and a half after Mr Cooke had to have submitted government notice of motion to the Clerk's office. There's no question about what's happened here.

I'm sure the government has some kind of rationale for this and we will hear it later. But I might say to my friend the member for Etobicoke West, why would one want this rather interesting package of rule changes now? I gather that the government House leader said, "The government business is going to be government notice of motion until it's passed." Do you know what? I think it's not primarily targeted at the opposition, truculent as we are or may be. Dave Cooke and Bob Rae have decided they are not going to tolerate the Peter Kormos insurgency. Bob Rae, like Pepperidge Farm, remembers, and Bob Rae will remember what made Peter Kormos famous. What did Peter Kormos do on the Elston Liberal auto insurance bill? Many of you weren't here.

Mr Elston: He did it for Bob Rae. Bob Rae hugged him with enthusiasm.

Mr Conway: Oh, he did it for Bob Rae. Do you know what I like? I can only remember one incident, but I want my friends opposite to understand the difficulty of this lecture today. We had a day in this House about three years ago where a New Democratic member stood up and called a member a liar just so he could get a vote on the Speaker's ruling to start ringing the bells for days on end. The NDP did that. It was a very honourable activity. That's just one of the things they did --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Put an end to it. Change the rules.

Mr Conway: My friend from Durham Centre says, "Put an end to it." I did, because I think that is thoroughly discreditable conduct. I just ask you to think about it.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): That was then.

Mr Conway: No. I don't think it's ever appropriate to stand up and call another member a liar in this place, although Bob Rae did it. You see, that's our problem. As my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was observing today, if you applied the Bob Rae rule to the happy world of NDP flip-floppery these last two months, there's no question what you'd be calling Bob Rae, but honourable members, hopefully, would not follow his discreditable example.

As the member for Bruce rightfully observes, to have seen the member from Welland engage in the kind of outrageous tactics he did and then to see the outrage applauded by a Brezhnev-like bear hug offered by Bob Rae makes this day a little hard to take. That's not because I'm not prepared to change the rules.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I probably am. You see, I had so many NDP jackboots drilled into me that I've got more reason than most people. The member for Windsor-Riverside: What can I say that I haven't said in an unparliamentary way already? I just come back to what has to be observed. I don't think in the first instance that this government notice of motion is directed at us. I think it's directed at the Kormos insurgency because, Mr Speaker, I'm hearing, and from very reliable sources, that people like the member from Welland, together with his lieutenant, the member for Yorkview, are out working on getting a number of members to engage in the debate on the Sunday shopping bill.

I tell you, Mr Speaker, if Peter Kormos decides to do to the Rae government on key issues, for him, like public auto insurance or the common pause day, Dave Cooke and Bob Rae have a big, real and lasting problem --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The member for Yorkview will come to order.

Mr Conway: Because having written the rule book a few years ago, Mr Kormos can now apply the rule and the tactic to his own beloved leader.

Mr David Winninger (London South): You have a very fertile imagination.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for London South says I have a fertile imagination. Isn't that interesting? I only say in response, as fertile as my imagination is, I never dreamt I would live to see the day when Bob Rae would say: "There is no need for a pause day. There is no call now for a public auto insurance scheme as we offered it 18 months ago. We now are prepared to consider dumps in the Rouge and Whitevale and 45 other places." And my favourite example: In the party of Woodsworth and Jolliffe and Stanley Knowles and Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg, the NDP has come to believe in social gaming and casino gambling.

I say to my friend the member for London South, it is indeed a brave new political firmament that has such New Democrats in it. So for all the fertility of my mind, I can tell you that there have been developments in recent days which indicate I am very narrow and very blinkered in imagining what might have been possible, and the government is but 21 months old.

But let's go back to the announcement in the semiofficial Mackie article this morning.

Interjection: Pravda.

Mr Conway: Al-Ahram, as they used to say in the Middle East. This I like. I thought this was really interesting. I warn my friend the member for Bruce not to rise too quickly, because he has more than cause. "Mr Cooke gave notice of his intention to change the rules two weeks ago in an interview with the Globe and Mail." So why do we bother with printing all this paper? Why do we bother with the House leaders' panel? Let me say that I'm not going to stand here --

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been listening to the debate and considering the motion and I'm going to ask you to rule that this motion is out of order. I want to refer to several rules, which are fairly clearly set out.

I would like to refer you to standing orders 52 and 53, in particular standing order 53:

"Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week."

That's mandatory. I want to refer to standing order 52:

"Except as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader or a minister acting in his or her place."

I think these two rules are very clear and very explicit. It says that "except as otherwise provided" there is a discretion. Then it makes it mandatory to set the order of business on the Thursday before.

1640

Mr Speaker, I want to refer you to the Hansard for June 4, 1992, under the heading, "Business of the House."

"Hon David S. Cooke (Government House leader): Mr Speaker, before I move adjournment of the House, pursuant to standing order 53 I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

"On Monday, June 8, 1992" --

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to bring the member to order if I could, for a moment, please. I've heard quite a bit at this point in time. I have discussed it with the table officers to try to be sure of my ruling on this.

As far as I can see, I would like to say that the honourable minister did say, in this House at 11:45 on Thursday, what his intentions were going to be, therefore I don't believe that there's anything out of order at this point. I'd like to continue with the debate. The honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There's no question as to what I heard on Thursday night at 6:30 pm when the government --

Interjection: You've got to recognize a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I beg your pardon. Yes, the honourable member has a point of order.

Mr Chiarelli: With due respect, Mr Speaker, I was in the process of making a point of order and I hadn't completed it. I think you were anticipating what my rationale and what my reason was. I would like the opportunity to complete the point of order.

The Acting Speaker: From the information that the honourable member has made, you indicated that the honourable minister did not indicate ahead of time that he was going to be dealing with these issues. At 11:45 in the evening he stated what would be happening in this House. I think that indicates that he has given notice, and therefore there's nothing out of order.

Mr Chiarelli: If I may refer to the rule again, it does not say the minister can state on two occasions on a Thursday and change his mind. It says here quite specifically "Business of the House," and it says quite specifically that he was not dealing with this motion number 7 whatsoever. Mr Speaker, I want to refer to rules 52 and 53 again. I want you to take it under advisement and perhaps give your ruling at another time, but I believe this motion is out of order as improper notice has been given.

As I look at Hansard from June 4 it indicates, "On Monday, June 8, 1992, I will announce the business for Monday, June 8, 1992." The point I'm making is that this is not a proper announcing of business contemplated under rule 53. I'm not sure there's even a precedent, to which the table is referring, to say that at some subsequent time, because of a surprise motion and the evening going on beyond the regular time, the House leader would stand up and do a new business of the House or whether that is in fact in order.

I believe members are entitled to rely on the business of the House as indicated in Hansard on page 1163.

The Acting Speaker: You have made the point. I will take it under advisement. I will be speaking on this issue in the next few minutes. Yes, another point of order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: In support of the member who has just spoken, I would like to indicate a couple of factors which I would like you to take into consideration. First of all, it's now quite obvious to all of us here that the government House leader had filed this notice of motion with the Clerk by 5 pm last Thursday. I don't understand how the government House leader could tell the House and the members at 11:45 pm, some seven hours later, that he didn't know what the business of the House was going to be the following week.

At the very least he wasn't being totally up front, if you will, with the Legislature and the members of the Legislature. He is required by the standing orders, before the adjournment of the House each Thursday of a session, to give notice as to what the business of the House will be in the following week. He clearly did not do that. What he really said was: "Unbeknownst to any of you, I've filed what I'm going to deal with on Monday but I ain't going to tell you. You have to come back on Monday to find out." That's exactly what he did.

To further aggravate the situation, he indicated to my staff that we would be dealing with Bills 166 and 165 on Monday. That's what he indicated to my staff last Thursday, that's what was agreed upon, and we show up today only to read a story in the Globe and Mail -- he obviously provided the information to the Globe and Mail before the paper could've been printed, and it was on my desk when I arrived this morning at Queen's Park -- and he chose to send me a hand-delivered letter with the notice of motion at 10 am this morning.

I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that this motion is totally out of order. If the government House leader would like to do it properly and in the right fashion in accordance with the rules, then we'd be happy to deal with any motion he should so introduce. But this motion was not introduced properly. He has not complied with rules 52 and 53 of the standing orders and in fact, if anything, went out of his way to cover up or be covert about what he really planned on introducing in the Legislature today.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable House leader for the third party. I will take this under advisement.

Mr Mahoney: I have an additional point there.

The Acting Speaker: Additional point on this point of order.

Mr Mahoney: My colleague has pointed out in that section 53, "Before the adjournment" -- and just bear with me very briefly -- "on each Thursday...the government House leader shall announce the business...." That's 53. If you move back to 51, it very clearly says, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day."

The following day from a Thursday sitting, since this Legislature does not sit on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, is Monday. He has apparently lived by that section of rule 51 by printing it in Monday's Orders and Notices document, but the first part, that it must be laid on the table before 5 o'clock the preceding day of business of this Legislature, was not followed through with and therefore it is out of order, in my view.

I would then take you back to section 50, which says, "A member who has given notice of or moved a motion may withdraw the same," and then go back one more to 49, and it says, "No motion, or amendment, the subject-matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that if you put all those together, then clearly he did not notify this House before 5 o'clock. He has violated that section of the rule. He then went on to print something he had not given notice of. His only option is to do what it says under section 50, which is that he himself withdraw the motion under the standing orders, and then under section 49 he would not be permitted to put this draconian motion again during this session.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sorry if this is dragging on and it's bothering the members opposite, but I think it's rather important, as I'm sure the people in this province think it's rather important when you try and usurp the minority's rights.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member please state his point of order.

Mr Stockwell: I think the point of order is very well thought out and very factual. I think it would be important for you as Speaker to rule on this point of order right now, or at least recess this House for a period of time until you can decide --

Interjection.

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

Mr Stockwell: I think it would be important for you to recess this House for a period of time until you decide the length of time, how long it will take for you to reach a decision on this, because, Mr Speaker, I believe firmly that this whole debate is out of order. If this government is concerned about wasting government time, this is the most appropriate time for you to recess and bring back a ruling in some 30 minutes to an hour so we can understand whether we're dealing with an issue that's properly before us.

According to the rules of this place, it would appear very obvious that the government House leader knew full well at 11:45 -- and I was here Thursday night at 11:45 -- what the business of the day was today, and he -- I don't like to use the words "misled the House," but he simply did not, for some clandestine purpose, inform this House what we were going to be debating today. I would ask that you recess the House for a brief time and bring back a ruling. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honourable member for Etobicoke West first of all to withdraw the statement about misleading the House. That's totally unparliamentary and unacceptable.

1650

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect to you, what I said to you was --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member can't say it indirectly.

Mr Stockwell: What I said was that I don't want to say that to the House.

Interjection: If he withdraws that, it means he did.

Mr Stockwell: That's right. Mr Speaker, to withdraw it means that I do want to say that to the House, and I don't.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I have discussed the situation with the table officers. There has been due notice given. Nothing is out of order at this point, and I would ask the honourable member for Renfrew North to continue with his discussion.

Mr Conway: I just want to say to my colleagues in the opposition that it's going to be a long, hot week or two or three. I don't want to be too hectoring on this subject, but I simply say, remember with whom you're dealing, you're dealing with David Cooke, and if you think the Marquess of Queensberry rules apply when you're in the ring with David Cooke, you're wrong. You need to protect all parts of your anatomy, and you should not assume that there is going to be fair play. I don't want members to get too excited, because you have to know with whom you're dealing. You're dealing with David Cooke, and all one can expect from David Cooke is all we've ever got from David Cooke, which is what we've got today. That's his signature, that kind of legislative and parliamentary tactic.

There is no doubt what happened here. I understand why the government is anxious to proceed. I guess the only point I want to make is that there are ways in which this can be done. This little trick is probably technically correct, but I say to my friends in the government that they are going to pay disproportionately for this little win today. You'll see what I mean. I'm not here threatening anything outrageous, because I haven't got the energy for that sort of stuff any more and I don't have much interest in it either, but this place only works if there is a --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has a point of order. The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague the member for Renfrew North because he's doing such an excellent job, but I really feel awfully compelled to raise a question with you, sir.

You've been informed on the previous point of order, referred to as under sections 53 by my colleague, and 51, 50 and 49 by myself, that everything was filed in a timely fashion. So I'm interpreting that to mean that the table officer has told you that 51 was complied with, which would mean that the notice required under the standing orders were indeed laid on the table or filed with the clerk of the House before 5 o'clock on Thursday. You didn't give us that explanation, but that's the only assumption I can arrive at as a result of your ruling.

If that is the case, then clearly what you are being advised and what you are telling us is that the House leader, prior to 5 o'clock on Thursday, when the House was still in session, without any discussion with my House leader or the House leader of the third party or indeed with anyone, without any discussion of this, that the House leader filed the documentation with the clerk so as to comply with this section under the standing order.

I guess my question and my point of order would be for you to consider what is the purpose of these standing orders. I've looked for some definition at the beginning, hoping that it might say that these orders are in some way intended to guide the conduct of the members in this place, or the government in this place, or anybody; that they are here to provide some guidelines for members to follow, and that all notices in all sections under these standing orders would be for the benefit of the members. I would expect that they are here to govern us as members and would be for our benefit. My point of order and question for your to consider --

The Acting Speaker: No. I'd ask the honourable member to sit down for a moment and let me say a couple of things. The first thing is --

Mr Elston: Nobody told you to sit down the in middle of your sermons. Give him a chance.

The Acting Speaker: Actually, some people did, but that's another point. Hold on. My understanding is that you're talking about what was ruled upon, are you not?

Mr Mahoney: No.

The Acting Speaker: This is a totally different point of order?

Mr Mahoney: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, then. I apologize. Please continue.

Mr Mahoney: What I'm asking you to consider and to inform this House is whether or not our privileges are violated. While the House leader may have followed the rules to the letter, I'm suggesting that the unwritten rule that goes along with the written rule, the reason section 51 is there, is for the benefit of the members who must conduct business in this Legislature.

Surely to goodness, with due respect, it's not for the benefit of the Clerk or the table officers. It's for the benefit of the members. The reason you would file prior to 5 o'clock with the Clerk a notice of motion or lay on the table prior to 5 o'clock a notice of motion one day prior to the day it will become a printed part of the record in this place, the reason you do it, while it is not stated in exact terms, is to inform the members of this Legislature what business is going to take place. Surely to goodness, it's not to inform the staff.

Therefore, I believe the point of order and the point of privilege is clearly there in that the House leader simply laid it on the table, muttered something to the Clerk and left, and then the House continued to sit for several hours after that and none of us were made privy to this filing prior to the House leader having it printed in this document. How you could rule otherwise, sir, that our position has not been violated, would be very difficult for me to accept.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. I realize this is a very significant issue for the honourable member, but I do want to say that the ruling has been made on that. The minister has done what the minister was expected to do according to the standing orders. There is nothing out of order, and I'd ask the honourable member for Renfrew North to continue.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have explained in your ruling that the government House leader has complied with standing order 51. I still have yet to hear your ruling on whether the government House leader has complied with standing order 53, which says: "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week."

To me, that means exactly what it says, Mr Speaker. It doesn't mean, "My announcement is, 'Come back on Monday and find out what the business of next week is.'" It means that before the House adjourns on Thursday, you'll be upfront, honest, and tell the other elected members, if you have any respect for them or this institution at all, what business they will be dealing with in the following week. Did the government House leader do that or not, sir? I'd like a yes or no answer now; otherwise, I think my privileges and every other member of this Legislature's privileges are being impugned.

The Acting Speaker: To the honourable member for Parry Sound, indeed the minister did comply. He indicated what the work would be for the next week at ll:45 in the evening.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Rubbish. A point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Well, I've ruled on that particular point of order. The honourable member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I was in the House on Thursday night when the House rose, and I can assure you that if you are receiving some information upon which you are basing your decision that the government House leader gave us the business for the next week, then I'm afraid false information is being conveyed to you. I know that you, Mr Speaker, weren't in the House; therefore you would not be in a position to be able to judge that. On the basis of the fact that it was not presented on Thursday night, I ask you to rule on section 53.

Interjections.

1700

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I have indicated that the House leader did make an announcement. That the announcement was not precisely the way the honourable member would like it to be is something --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister made an announcement at that time of the evening. He made his announcement. Whether you agree with the content of that announcement or not is quite irrelevant. He indicated what would happen in the next week. That is the ruling of the Chair at this point in time. We'll go on with the debate.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; we're not going to continue --

Mr Mahoney: I have another point of order.

The Acting Speaker: On a new point of order, okay.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I realize that you're having some difficulty trying to be fair here. I just want to refer you to the Official Report of Debates (Hansard), Thursday 4 June 1992, under the section entitled "Business of the House." This is a quote from Hansard, so I'm sure it's accurate.

"Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before I move adjournment of the House, pursuant to standing order 53 I'd like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

"On Monday, June 8, 1992, I will announce the business for Monday, June 8, 1992, and Thursday, June 11."

If you're suggesting that this is proper use of the rules, what he did was stand up on Thursday and say, contrary to the rule -- not 53 rather, but 51. He referred to 53; he doesn't even know the rules. In 51 it says he must lay it on the table or file it with the Clerk before 5 on that Thursday. He snuck that in. Then he had to announce in the House what the business will be. Not that he was going to tell us what the business would be on Monday; rather, he knew what the business would be, because you have told us that he was in order and filed the appropriate documentation with the Clerk of this place. He filed it, he knew what the business was going to be and yet he stood up and said, "I'll tell you on Monday what Monday's business will be." If that is not misleading this place, sir, then I don't know what it is. Clearly, with knowledge he had because he had filed the notice, he had the knowledge and he refused to share it with the members.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga West has made this same point now three times, and he's done it very well, but what I'm trying to say to the honourable member is that there is no point of order, okay? That has been ruled upon. Member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to pick up where I left off by saying that if my friends expect the member for Windsor-Riverside to be honourable in these dealings, I'm sorry, they're going to be disappointed.

Mr Stockwell: He misled us.

Mr Conway: Oh, he's capable of that and infinitely more. Then, like the Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, he's prepared to preach about the importance of telling the truth and telling all you know. That's the delicious irony and the delicious paradox that's contained in the government House leader, that like the Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, who was the most grasping, mercenary schemer in that wonderful classic, he was of course then prepared to preach about greed, the root of all evil. The Pardoner is a good model for our friend the government House leader.

I guess I should say parenthetically that it was about 18 years ago, about this time of year, that we had a situation in this House where the famous Eric Winkler, the government House leader, did something that was almost more entertaining. I think we used to sit all night then. In the middle of the day, Eric Winkler decided it would really help his case if he printed up a second order paper, and that's exactly what he did. Of course, in the middle of the night, with the blood alcohol levels in this place being at 0.000, he was found out. I didn't have time to go back and look at the debates, but I can imagine Lewis and MacDonald and Renwick and what they said when Eric Winkler --

I think about that: a government House leader slipping in a second order paper for the day without notice. It's not exactly what the NDP has done here, but my friends over here make a very good point. The whole informing logic of those standing orders is that on the Thursday before the week begins, you tell the members what the business is going to be. The government House leader chose not to do that, though he's quite prepared to take into close confidence Mr Richard Mackie of the Globe and Mail, who wrote a most helpful piece in this morning's national newspaper. The article of this morning concludes with a very detailed outline as to precisely what the notice of motion 7 would contain. I know something about the Globe and Mail deadlines and I know when Mr Mackie would have had to have that information. I can assure you that it was well before this day, June 8, began.

Enough said about how it is that honourable members came to know what government business was going to be today and what the government thinking around rule changes was likely to mean. I have to let House leaders and opposition whips speak for themselves, but I must say that in my experience it's not considered sufficient notice to simply opine in the newspaper that you'd like to make some changes and have that --

Mr Stockwell: Where is Cooke? Where is he? Get him back in here to defend himself. Where is he? Where are any of your cabinet ministers, for crying out loud? Where are any of your veterans? They should be here.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Mr Conway: I then turn to the way in which this has been done for purposes of the House itself. There's only one word, I think, to characterize what the government has done, and that word is "unilateralism." Unlike any other time, when in my almost two decades of experience the House decided to begin the process of changing its rules, its standing orders, there was always -- sometimes with a little controversy, I might add -- an understanding that it was going to be done essentially by a working group made up of representatives of the various political parties in the Legislature. What we have here today is one of the most unilateral measures I can ever remember with respect to effecting rule changes.

Now that, of course, takes me back to 1989. I had, in the brief time today, opportunity to review the Hansard of 1989, at which time I had the great good fortune to have been government House leader and at which time I was confronted with a number of pressures around the place to bring our rules into some advanced sensitivity to developing realities. In early June 1989 I tabled, on behalf of our government, a notice of motion that outlined a number of initiatives we wanted to proceed with in regard to changing the standing orders. I might refresh honourable members' memories as to why we felt we had to do that.

I must say there are members of the NDP not present now who played a very active role in all that. Mike Breaugh, a very good friend of mine, long-time NDP MPP for Oshawa and now the NDP MP for Oshawa, was a very moving force in that whole post-1985 movement to bring about some changes to the standing orders and there had been a working group of the political parties concerning the rule changes.

But we had something more than just that working group. We had cases -- I mentioned a couple of them not too long ago. I went back to look at some of the Hansards. Toronto Star, April 22, 1988, the headline, "Bell Ringing Highlights Bad Blood at Queen's Park," by William Walker: "The growing acrimony among political parties at Queen's Park could bring business in the Ontario Legislature to a halt. The New Democratic Party of Bob Rae prevented Treasurer Robert Nixon from reading his budget on Wednesday" of that particular week in April 1988 -- unprecedented.

1710

In this same article: "The New Democrats, who prevented Treasurer Nixon from reading his budget Wednesday, are now letting the bells run ad infinitum at Queen's Park and they will probably ring through the weekend." They did. "The NDP traded one stalling tactic for another when they ended the reading of their anti-Sunday shopping petitions late yesterday afternoon. The Peterson government then introduced" --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: It gets better. "The Peterson government then introduced its Sunday shopping bill for first reading, but Bob Rae and his NDP colleagues requested" -- what? -- "a recorded vote on first reading." This is just after they would not let the Treasurer read his budget and let the bells ring for days.

"They came back and allowed first reading of the Sunday shopping legislation. Then they forced a division on first reading. At that point, the Bob Rae-Dave Cooke New Democrats walked out, vowing they would not return until the government agreed to province-wide public hearings this summer." That was April 1988. That was what Mr Cooke and Mr Rae, among others, were up to.

When I, as government House leader at the time, indicated that these tactics were increasingly unacceptable, and I think most people who viewed them saw them as such -- now it's interesting to hear no less a personage than the member for Windsor-Riverside say he doesn't like divisions on first reading --

Interjection.

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

Mr Conway: Mr Cooke said --

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to refer to standing order 23(m). It reads as follows, concerning the conduct of members in the House, that they're not permitted to introduce "any matter in debate that in the opinion of the Speaker offends the practices and precedents of the House."

My point very briefly is this: We have a government House leader who discloses surreptitiously to the media a notice of motion in this House. He introduces it secretly and privately with the Clerk. Then he stands in this House at 11:30 or 11:40 pm and says what the order of business will be the following day and refuses to refer to the matter that he has filed, released to the press, knows will be published to the world and that he keeps from the members of this Legislature.

I believe there is a serious breach of standing order 23(m), given the conduct of this particular member inside and outside the Legislature, preparing a notice of motion, releasing it to the Globe and Mail on Thursday, filing it with the Clerk at 5 pm, indicating that's what the business will be on Monday, and then standing in his place here on Thursday evening at 11:30 and not disclosing that information to this House.

Mr Speaker, if you read the words of standing order 23(m), I cannot help but think you will agree with me that this is a matter which offends the practices of this Legislature, and I would ask you please to reserve your ruling on this point. I think it is significant enough that you exercise caution and care and reserve your decision on this particular point of order.

The Acting Speaker: As I've indicated before to the honourable member and to the House, the honourable minister did what was expected of him in regard to the standing orders. There is nothing out of order. I'd ask the member for Renfrew North to continue.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm talking about 23(m).

The Acting Speaker: That's correct.

Mr Conway: Then in the 1988 experience, we saw the NDP refuse the government the right to present the budget. We saw the NDP divide on first reading of the Sunday shopping legislation and walk out for days on end. We had bells. We had petitions. Rae, Reville, Cooke and Kormos put on quite a show in 1988.

I thought it was interesting -- and I accept my responsibilities and some measure of the blame -- that David Cooke was grousing in the press then that he was really unhappy because Conway had reneged on an agreement to fund NDP opposition staff. I find, with my friend Mr Cooke, that most things at the end of the day are a perk and money question, and that's what he confessed in that particular interview to be a part of his driving motivation.

Then we get into 1989. Oh, boy, was that interesting. We had the contretemps around the Solicitor General, and did all hell break loose, Mr Speaker. Joan Smith had gone to the police station in Lucan in the middle of the night. I'm not going to engage in that debate again, except to say that Bob Rae was something. When I hear the new member for London Centre talk about the need for a kinder, more gentle lexicon, when I saw the salivating Bob Rae on the attack when it came to Joan Smith and Elinor Caplan and Chaviva Hosek and Lily Munro, I tell you, he drooled, Mr Speaker. The fangs were out. There was absolutely no kindness, no gentleness. It was a carnivore on the prowl. Oh, he was something. Part of the indignation was, "I, Bob Rae, with the help of my acolyte, Mr Cooke, will grind this place to a total halt," and that's what they did.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Why didn't you change the rules?

Mr Conway: Of course we did. But you see, I want my friends to understand the context, which I'm going to return to very shortly.

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask the honourable member for Renfrew North to please address the Chair.

Mr Conway: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want them to understand why we got the reforms of 1989. We got them because the New Democrats, in the main, read petitions endlessly. They called people liars to get bells ringing and walked out and let them ring for days. They wouldn't let people introduce budgets. You talk about not getting your legislation, Mr Speaker; Bob Rae wouldn't let the government introduce a budget. If that's not fascistic, I don't know what is. I consider that fascistic. I would object if anybody else did it as well.

Then the NDP in opposition said, "We're not going to allow interim supply." Bells rang. The Treasurer had to announce that people were not going to get transfers because we could not get control of the chamber. It went on and on and on.

1720

So it was in June 1989 that I brought forward a government notice of motion and put it on the order paper. As I remember, it had a number of provisions. Those provisions essentially ended bell-ringing, which I think we all privately agreed with. They put a limit on petition-reading, they changed the process around emergency debates and provided for a number of opposition days, and they provided for a number of other things.

I tell you, my friends in the NDP -- I can still see Richard Johnston, the sainted Richard Johnston, now struggling with his minor per diem at the chairmanship of the --

Mr Stockwell: Minor?

Mr Conway: What's $125,000? It's minor to Marc Eliesen. It's peanuts.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Or Andy Brandt.

Mr Conway: Or Andy Brandt, absolutely. But I've got to tell you, my friends opposite, when it comes to the old trough -- and if I represented Whitevale, I'd be looking at the patronage list. I tell you, I'd be looking at the patronage list right this instant.

But what I did in that debate in 1989 was table a government notice of motion that contained a number of proposals and said the government was prepared to talk. But I remember that day in 1989. Where my friend the member for Quinte is now seated Richard Johnston literally lunged out of his seat to denounce and decry what I had done.

Mr Hope: A bit like Jim Bradley today.

Mr Conway: Yes, a version of Bradley today, and it was probably even more expansive, even more explosive. What the government then did was put the motion forward and say, "Let's talk." But let me just tell you about what happened that day and a few days later. It was June 8, 1989, and --

Mr Mahoney: Happy anniversary.

Mr Conway: It is the anniversary. Thank you very much. Happy anniversary. It was June 8, 1989. On the motion of myself for changes to the standing orders, Mr David S. Cooke, member for Windsor-Riverside: "I have a question to the government House leader about" -- get this -- "his unilateral" motion, a motion that I put down and said we wouldn't proceed with until there had been an opportunity to discuss, to amend and to add in ways that we thought we could, based on the good work of the standing committee.

What have we got today? We've got no such commitment. We've had a dastardly, cowardly act, characteristic of the honourable gentleman who proposed it, which offers no opportunity for the kind of input that I think we could have and should have on the kind of changes that I think are in some respects timely. Oh, no, the man today who came, who offered and who skulked out of here behind his shamefaced leader, three years ago when I put the Peterson government motion respecting rule changes -- and it was just a motion that we were tabling for discussion -- had a question about all of this.

"I would like to ask the government House leader," said David Cooke, "does he not understand that on the two issues he is so concerned about -- the Sunday shopping issue where this party and this opposition used the rules in this Legislature to hold the government accountable because the Liberals said one thing during the election and then deliberately did the opposite after they got their arrogant majority, and on the Smith issue where they would not have accepted the responsibility for her inappropriate interference with the process of justice in this province if we had not used the tactics we did -- by removing the ability of the opposition to hold the government accountable, he is making" -- with these proposed changes -- "this place less accountable to the public and less democratic?"

Mrs Caplan: Who said that?

Mr Conway: That was the view three years ago this day of Mr Consistency, Mr Piety, Mr Purity, David Cooke himself.

Then, of course, we had the apoplectic observations of the member for Scarborough West, Mr Richard Johnston, who of course went on at great length talking about what a black day it was for democracy.

I just say to my friends that they were appalled three years ago because of a government notice of motion which was put on the order paper and not called for weeks, as it were, and a good group of people got to work.

I will admit that our intention in that particular motion was to focus the mind and to say to the opposition that we could endure the obstructionism of the day no longer. We proceeded in the course of the intervening six weeks, between early June of 1989 and that day on the 25th of July, 1989, when the new standing orders were adopted, to find a very real, meaningful and significant consensus for which people like Mr Breaugh, Mr Reycraft and Mr Eves, among others, were very responsible.

But it was argued at the time as arrogant and insensitive, and most of all it was objectionable, because I looked like I was going to move unilaterally.

What do we have today? Isn't it interesting, what Mr Cooke said three years ago?

Mr McLean: What did he say?

Mr Conway: He said: "You know, we are justified in doing anything to object" -- and I mean literally anything -- "to the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act policy that the Peterson government is proposing, because it is a policy at variance with what the Peterson Liberals suggested or didn't talk about in the 1987 electoral campaign. And we can do anything, anything at all, because we think Joan Smith should resign for what she did."

When I say, "They wanted to do anything" -- they did anything, much of it unprecedented in the annals of this Legislature. If I took that logic and applied it, for example, to Bob Rae's new policy on the common pause day or if I took Mr Cooke's logic of three years ago today and applied it to the Martel affair, I guess I would be justified in doing just about anything.

Of course, I haven't done that. I have been vigorous, I have been pointed and I have been perhaps a bit overdone in some of my criticisms around Ms Martel and others, but I'm going to tell you that I promise you this: I will not do -- nor will I attempt to justify those kinds of tactics -- what Bob Rae and Dave Cooke did in the Joan Smith affair or what they did about the so-called Liberal reversal on the Sunday shopping policy of 1989.

But you see, there is a record. It is quite a rich record in respect of what Mr Cooke and others said. Let me just add a little bit of what Mr Johnston said that day in June of 1989. This is all context for what you've done today, because I think new members ought to understand that traditionally the New Democrats have argued that there will not be any acceptable change to the standing orders that is not worked out by agreement among the three parties. That was the sine qua non of change to the standing orders, and that was a sacred and high principle of all NDP House leaders since I was elected 17 years ago, and that includes people like Elie Martel and, yes, the sainted and very shy Ross McClellan.

1730

Now today, you see, we have a brazen, dastardly, cowardly act of unilateralism and a Chicken Little government House leader who won't even stick around to defend the absolute contradiction of what he does in government vis-à-vis what his position in the opposition just a few short years ago was.

I understand, by the way, how the discipline of power amends one's perspective. I'm not one of these people who expects that you're going to be able, in many ways, to do precisely what you promised to do, because those are the realities of government, but I would have thought that on the standing orders you could have been true to your past word and your past principle.

Richard Johnston, a front-bench New Democrat, June 8, 1989, said: "Mr Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader, and my question concerns the unilateral act by which the Peterson cabinet decided what the rules of this House and its elected people should be. In my view, these proposals are reminiscent of a Family Compact style. Members on the other side of the government should always remember that government should act in Parliament as if it will be in opposition some day" -- should always remember that.

Would you listen to this: "If this is not a punitive act because of successes we have had using the rules that exist, why did the government House leader not bring in the countervailing proposals that have been suggested by committees of this House, agreed to by all parties, which he has down in writing? Why did he not bring in any of those but only a list of punitive acts directed at the opposition?"

You see, my friend Johnston had a good point there. It was not my intention to end the discussion or the changes around just what was on government notice of motion 5 in June 1989. I would never in my wildest imaginings have thought to have marched in and called my motion the day I introduced it. It would have been totally inflammatory. It was inflammatory enough just to put it on the order paper and leave it for a few days.

And my friend, my happy, dear, honourable friend the member for Windsor-Riverside, then indulged in a very gentlemanly observation about how I had done this on the day David Rae was to be buried. Oh, that was so nice. That was such a sweet touch. My friend David Cooke just is so generous. You people expect the Marquess of Queensberry? I ask you. He actually got up and observed that I had -- he didn't say it in so many words, but he essentially said, "Conway waited, almost, for David Rae's funeral," and that was the day I chose to introduce government notice of motion 5.

Boy, I've done some bad things around here and I've angered some people, but I think most people who've dealt with me know that that's not the way I operate. I'll tell you, I will never forget that day, and it taught me a lot about my relations with the government House leader. I thought that day, "Can you imagine saying that?" It was just about as disgusting and as subterranean an observation as I've ever experienced.

I apologized if that was anybody's imagining of my intent, but that was David Cooke three years ago. That was the kind of offering he had, I repeat, to a notice of motion I wasn't going to call and said I would not call for some time. I was hopeful that we were going to have a good discussion around the Breaugh report. We did, and six weeks later the package was unanimously agreed to with a variety of additional components added thereto.

I want you, my friends, to look back at those debates, not that anybody -- I mean, why would I bother? Nobody cares. But it's interesting to look back at what was said.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I care.

Mr Conway: The member for Yorkview says he cares. I hope he does. I know this business of standing orders and rules is not of great interest to most people. I suspect most people looking on would wonder what this arcane discussion is all about. "Aren't those people elected to do the public's business? Let them get on with it."

But you can understand how it is that we have some difficulty with the government strategy, as it was brought in under cover of darkness with no notice, with no commitment to do what was done in 1989, to say, "We are serious."

I repeat that you will find me, speaking for myself, a willing partner in some of these rule changes. I'm probably one of the real windbags of this place -- there's no "probably" about it; I am -- and I can accept some of the sanctions that will probably be targeted at me. That, to me, is not the point. The point is a style, is a consensus.

You can see what's happened here today. I'm sure some of my friends opposite are wondering, "What's this fuss all about?" The member for Cochrane North nods his head and says "Yes, I wonder what this is all about." It's about balance. It's about consultation. It's about memory.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I don't know what the problem with my friend the minister of consumer affairs is, because, I repeat, over the years we've had in this chamber a process by which rules are changed consensually. If what you're telling me --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I shouldn't be so patronizing?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. There are many interjections and of course they are out of order. I would like the honourable member for Renfrew North to address his remarks to the Chair. It would avoid a lot of confusion.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would just ask members to go and read the Hansard of July 25, 1989, to see the result of that six-week process that led to the significant changes of 1989. Most of us haven't had a chance to look at it, because of course this surprise attack today was without notice -- that's what surprise attacks are all about -- but it is very interesting to see what my friends opposite had to say at the time, and I'm going to return to this a little later.

I simply remind honourable members that we got the change. It was more expansive than appeared possible in early June 1989. I learned some important lessons and I understood that if we were going to have a reasonable movement forward there had to be support of some kind from the opposition parties.

What do we have today? We have had dropped in the press gallery quite a voluminous package from the government House leader. I don't know how many of you have had a chance to read it, but I'm going to read some of the press release.

"Government House leader David Cooke will introduce a motion in the Legislature today to reform the rules of the House so that important public business can get the attention it deserves."

1740

Quoting the illustrious government House leader: "I think most people would acknowledge that the Ontario Legislature does not work very well. Our rules are antiquated, allowing the opposition to eat up valuable time and tax dollars while important public business waits."

Mr Cooke is flatly contradicting himself of three years ago. Mr Speaker, I can't describe that quote for what it is, but I ask you to look at Mr Cooke of June 8, 1992, and read Mr Cooke of June 8, 1989. If you want to see elasticity in position, if you want to see variability in presenting the facts, if you want to see a nose growing as I speak, you just read what he said three years ago and you read what is offered in this package today.

I ask my friends opposite, and I come from a position of quite considerable willingness, to change some of these rules. In fact the irony for me is that there are things in this package which I was interested in to spend some time talking about three years ago. There was no restraining device known to man to contain my friends in the NDP at the mere mention of some of these ideas.

Now, three years later, I get my dear friend in consistency and truth, the government House leader, saying: "I think most people will acknowledge that the Legislature does not work very well. Our rules are antiquated. The opposition eats up too much valuable time, and tax dollars are wasted while important public business waits."

That is not true, I would submit. I know, as some people would want me to observe, that there are some debates that go on too long, and I'm quite prepared to look at constraining some of that.

Mr Winninger: Your time's up.

Mr Conway: My time's up. Well, I'm here for a reason and a purpose today. If you haven't understood it, then you will before the end of the day.

So our rules, recently adjusted, recently amended, are now very antiquated and they're not doing the job that they were supposed to do. Well, I'm going to let others in this debate, particularly the House leaders, the members for Bruce and Parry Sound, the whips, the members for Mississauga West and London North, advance more particularly their analysis of what's been on the docket.

I just saw a list the other day, I think it was Thursday morning, and what really impressed me as a former House leader was that there were substantive items that were on the "must have" list last Wednesday or Thursday that had not yet been introduced. Whose fault is that?

Mr Cooke of battle fame, 1989, goes on in this presentation to observe that the nasty opposition has been using the rules to examine, and in some cases to delay, government legislation -- and he's right.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've had an opportunity to look through the proposals by the government and I would submit that although they may not offend the standing orders per se, they in fact fly in the face of the whole purpose of freedom of speech in Parliament. Not only do they do that, but they deny a very significant principle of English justice, that you must hear the other side.

By trying to limit debate to 30 minutes, they are in fact trammelling the very fundamental English tradition of Parliament that you are to hear the other side. In addition to that, they're trammelling the very purpose of Parliament. I suggest that is a clear denial of all the privileges of the members of this House and therefore is totally out of order and is a breach of our privileges collectively.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The point of order has been addressed previously and it is in order. The honourable member for Renfrew North has the floor and may proceed.

Mr Conway: I was looking, in the brief hiatus, at a memorandum provided by the opposition House leader's office in respect of government business. I'm reminded again of some facts I think should be submitted to the Legislature this afternoon having regard to the stated concerns of the government in respect of not getting much business done, in this session particularly.

The points that have to be made and underlined are again some that have been made previously. For whatever reason, the government was three weeks late in meeting the House this spring. So here we sit in early June and obviously we've had fewer days than normal because the government could not meet the timetable contained in the revised rules of 1989.

I say to my friends opposite, whose idea was it to delay the opening of the Legislature from around March 12 to April 6? That's three weeks as I understand it: 12 or 15 sitting days. That, it seems to me, is your responsibility, not mine.

We have as well the priority bills. I was just looking. There were nine priority items on the House leader's list of just a very few days ago that hadn't been introduced yet. I can remember going to those House leaders' meetings in the days when Mr Cooke and Mr Rae were in the opposition and they would just laugh at me if I did not provide all kinds of time so the NDP caucus could deliberate over minor and major bills.

I used to operate on the basis that I had to give the NDP a minimum of 10 days' notice. Otherwise they would just laugh at me. The standard line at the House leaders' meeting was, "We haven't caucused that." I can tell the government House leader, "Don't even bother calling it for two weeks." If I knew it was good for me, I wouldn't poke or provoke the bears, because it was a sacred principle with the NDP that there had to be a full and frank caucus discussion.

Now, of course, we have as recently as last week nine priority items that haven't been introduced as of June 4 and now we have Monday, June 8, a first order requirement that all of this stuff be dealt with and isn't it terrible that the opposition is obstructing the government's business. The reality is we've had the shortest spring session in recent memory because the Rae government couldn't get its act together or wouldn't face the House until early April instead of early March. It has had major pieces of legislation hung up in various cabinet committees or wherever and, as we saw last week, the Labour Relations Amendment Act offered to the House three weeks before we would normally adjourn for the summer recess.

The chutzpah of the NDP House leader to say, "The opposition is tying up government business" -- of course, for my friends in the third party, we have Mr Cooke going on, lamenting in his press release today, "that terrible Conservative filibuster on the 1991 Laughren budget." I think that filibuster was an active debate. I don't remember the kind of jackboot tactics of 1988 employed by the NDP. I think the budget debate took something like 10 or 11 days. That now is a filibuster to be bitterly complained about.

This was another one I liked in the press announcement today, quoting the sainted and the very pure Mr Cooke from his press release today. "For the first time in the history of the Ontario Legislature, the House was dealing with 1991 tax bills a full year after they were introduced."

Mr Elston: That's not true.

Mr Conway: I don't think that's true either. I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I bet you I can prove we've had cases here in the last 25 years where the Legislature was dealing a full year after with budget bills that belonged in the previous cycle, but I didn't see that anywhere in the announcement.

1750

Mr Elston: The aviation fuel bill from our Parliament.

Mr Conway: My friend the opposition House leader says the aviation fuel bill from a few years ago is one example which would put the lie to that observation.

I was looking at that quote and wondering why in Mr Cooke's announcement today it didn't have a quote saying, "For the first time in the history of the Ontario Legislature, the opposition" -- namely, the Bob Rae, Dave Cooke, NDP opposition -- "went to the outrageous, outlandish, undemocratic extent as was done in 1988 to deny the Treasurer the right to present a budget." But no, it was missed for some reason.

We go on to some of the particulars of the proposal, and I think it's very useful for my friend the government House leader. He wants to see an end of gamesmanship.

Mr Stockwell: By filing a notice and not telling anybody?

Mr Conway: You carping oppositionist. How could you call that gamesmanship? This is what I like about my friends in the opposition. "If we New Democrats do a dastardly deed but in a good cause, it's all right."

Mrs Caplan: That's Bob Rae's Ontario.

Mr Conway: Bob Rae's Ontario is: "Joan Smith was bad, but Shelley Martel was okay in her slander because the objective was right. There was a doctor attacking a very sacred and sainted government policy." As I said, if we had taken the NDP approach to the rules and applied it to the Martel case, Dave Cooke and Bob Rae would really have something to worry about, but honourable members on this side have given a commitment that we will not stoop to such low levels as were stooped to by the NDP in 1988 and 1989.

The government House leader says he wants an end of gamesmanship. He wants an end of headline-grabbing tactics. So I hope Rick Mackie is going to recant in tomorrow's paper for the headline-grabbing tactic that must embarrass the two of them, Mr Cooke and Mr Mackie.

It's interesting to look at some of the proposals we have in this package. I couldn't resist, and I haven't had much time to prepare this, but I see the NDP government wants to make better use of sitting Monday and Tuesday evenings. The government wants to make better use of Monday and Tuesday evenings.

Let me just say this: For years, Elie Martel and Ross McClellan would go to the wall saying, "Let's get rid of night sittings." If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times: "Get away from night sittings. They are anti-family. They are unproductive. They are sometimes" --

God, should I recall that famous night in about 1984 when my friend Elie Walter Martel lay before me as a very classic example of what's wrong with night sittings? I won't forget that night. I can remember the vigorous dispatch of Bob Rae when he came to minister to his fallen colleague. I can remember the helpfulness of Bob Elgie, who saved the night. I can remember the parting shot between Elie Walter Martel and the Honourable Nick Leluk, culture czar for the Tory government, sitting in that seat over there. I tell you, that night Elie Martel made the case as to why we ought to end night sittings.

And Ross McClellan, now major-domo in the Bob Rae Premier's office, said on April 28, 1986, in commenting about rule changes: "I am especially pleased" -- as NDP House leader -- "that after so long a time we are abolishing evening sittings, which are a relic from the days when the Legislature met two or three weeks or a month per year and people had regular, full-time occupations. The attempt was to get the legislative session over and done with as quickly as possible." Ross McClellan joined the chorus of New Democrats who said hallelujah to an end to night sittings.

Now we have that nocturnal acolyte, the government House leader, slinking in here and thinking that none of us remembers that it would be a very good thing to end night sittings. I repeat that just a few short years ago it was the NDP's position that it was anti-family, that it was unproductive and that it was part of an end of a government agenda to ram the public's business through in a way that didn't afford the opposition opportunity to exact appropriate levels of accountability.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice that of the government members present in this House at this precise moment there is absolutely no one who was in this House prior to 1990 who would have any understanding of the examples the honourable member --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Mississauga South does not have a point of order. We will proceed.

Mr Conway: I'm going to conclude my remarks this afternoon in this part of the debate by saying that I was exercised today in my exchange with the leader of the government and becoming more exercised. You see, whether it's the common pause day, whether it's public auto insurance, whether it's casino gambling or whether it's unilateralism in changing the standing orders, the Bob Rae world of New Democracy seems to be forgetting its past principles, its past attitudes and its past approaches.

I referred today to that article or that interview of a few weeks ago, when Mel Swart was telling Rick Brennan of the Windsor Star, as he did on May 15, 1992 -- he now seems to be almost embarrassed that he nominated Bob Rae as the leader of the NDP 10 years ago because my old friend Mel Swart believed that Bob Rae was a man of principle, that what Bob Rae said, Bob Rae meant. I simply want to observe that we have in government notice of motion 7 another example where Bob Rae's principles and the principles of the NDP --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Welland-Thorold on a point of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know Mel really well and I speak with him regularly. He'd be real offended to be identified as one of Sean Conway's friends.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of order.

Mr Conway: He might be. All I know is that I was here for many good years with Mel Swart and we had some very good work together. I know that Mel Swart told Rick Brennan but three weeks ago that he's not at all sure that Bob Rae has the fortitude, has what it takes to be a good NDP Premier, because Mel Swart has observed that Bob Rae, since taking office 21 months ago, has apparently lost his way and lost his conviction.

I just want to say that government notice of motion 7 is another vivid and clear example, about the fifth in this session, where Bob Rae, Dave Cooke and the NDP caucus in this Legislature have forgotten, traded in, run away from or completely thrown out the window core values and central principles that they stood by and fought for for years and decades in this place.

With that observation, I will adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 9, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.