[Report continued from volume A]

1800

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Continuing the debate on government notice of motion number 11.

Mr Harnick: It's indeed a pleasure to be able to rise and speak on an issue of such great importance to this Legislature and to the members who occupy it.

This set of amendments to the rules, to the standing orders, is not perfect. I don't think that when we have to compromise, we ever walk away with what we individually feel are perfect solutions, but this package is a compromise that I believe the respective House leaders worked very hard to arrive at. It's far better than the proposition that was originally delivered to this place by the government House leader.

The regret I have is that we should never be in a position to have to amend our rules by having a gun put to the head of any party or any individual in this place. Because that is the way these standing orders have been amended and the way this evolved, I look at this process and I must say I can't be happy with it. The finished product is a product I will support, but the way we got to it is absolutely wrong. We should never have a set of amendments thrust upon us, a gun put to our heads and told, "If you don't like these, then you'd better make some kind of deal, because this is coming." I don't think that's the way rules have ever been changed in this place before.

I look at these rules and, as I say, they're not perfect; they're much better than what was originally brought to us. I'm not happy about the fact that the parliamentary calendar is now going to be two weeks shorter, that there are now going to be eight fewer question periods and that because of that, the government can be less accountable to the people of this province. I don't like that. I don't find that this particular amendment is necessary. The only reason it's there is to avoid accountability, and I think that's regrettable.

I look at the issue of time limits on speeches, and in terms of the constituency work we all do -- I know every member in this place works very hard at his or her constituency work -- we consult with our constituents; we ask our constituents for their opinions on the issues that are of great importance and we ask for their input. Then when an issue comes along that we want to speak on, we have to be able to stand in this place and have an unfettered opportunity to do that. We have to be able to express the views of constituents without extreme time limitations. I find that the opportunity to stand for only 30 minutes to represent the views of your constituents on a major issue is a real restraint on all members in this Legislature.

The major item that is of contention with respect to these changes to the standing orders is the time allocation provisions. My colleague the member for Parry Sound went through those in great detail. I'm not going to go through each of the sections again, but it's of interest that people have said, "Well don't worry about those time allocation changes, because they'll seldom be used." Well, Mr Speaker, I tell you that one has to have extreme trust in the government to believe that. I'm not sure, because of the way this whole process unfolded, that I have that trust.

Quite frankly, if one reads through Hansard about the closure debates that have gone on in this Legislature in the last 15 or 20 years, closure motions were virtually non-existent until some time into the late 1970s, and since the late 1970s and through the 1980s and to this point in time closure motions have become more and more frequent and we have seen these motions.

For instance, I recall not more than a month or two ago, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stood and brought a closure motion. There was no explicable reason to do that yet it's in the standing orders. It will be used and to expect that the government won't use it whenever times get difficult is asking a lot in terms of the trust that members of the opposition have to have.

I believe that now these are going to be part of the standing orders, we will find that these time allocation procedures will be used frequently. I don't have the trust to believe they'll only be used in rare circumstances, maybe once or twice a year. I find that if you have to even use these provisions maybe once or twice a year, that's too many times. But they're here, they will be used, and I think that's regrettable.

I have reviewed these amendments. I'm a little bit concerned about the fact that the amendments seem to fly in the face of some of the amendments made the last time the standing orders were amended. At that time it was done consensually. I'm a little bit concerned that where at one point we gave you, the Speaker, a broad discretion with respect to certain issues such as closure, we're now taking that discretion away. We elect a Speaker. We did that; you are the first elected Speaker of this Legislature. That was a very significant event in the history of the Legislature, and I think it was a fundamentally good thing. It was a more democratic way to proceed, and I don't think anyone in this chamber would argue with that.

When we go ahead and have a closure section in the standing orders that allows a discretion for the Speaker but then follow this up with an amendment dealing with time allocation that does not permit the discretion of the Speaker -- the duly elected, democratically elected Speaker -- then what we are really doing is weakening the powers of your office, sir, and I regret that very much. I think that is an issue I would have preferred to see dealt with in these amendments. I would have preferred to see the Speaker's discretion with respect to time allocation.

I am going to support these changes. I think these changes, in terms of the involvement of all the House leaders, were drawn with a view to permitting this place to work better. As I said, the process and how we got into the process I have great objection over. The actual process itself, the negotiations that took place between the respective House leaders, were good; they were productive. But how we got into that situation is something I very much regret. Because the changes are made with a view to making this place work better, I will support these changes and I hope we can get them passed and get on with the business of this House as soon as possible. Thank you.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Willowdale for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Carleton.

1810

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It seems such a short time ago that I was talking about a different motion on the Orders and Notices put forward by the government House leader in a unilateral, arbitrary way and I'm glad, I'm happy, that the government House leader has withdrawn his motion and put forward a motion negotiated between the various parties. I am only sorry we had to debate and waste the time of this House for a period of five days in order to force the hand of the government to come to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith. It is indeed unfortunate that had to happen, and I think it's unfortunate for two reasons.

Number one is that while I will be voting to support the changes with regard to these rules, I believe we could have had some other changes to the rules which would have made this place a more efficient institution, an institution which would be supported by the public to a greater degree than these rules will afford the members that opportunity.

Having been in this Legislature for 15 years now, I have seen rule changes take place in 1978, in 1986, in 1989 and now in 1992. I just want to read the opening paragraph of a former Clerk of this House, Mr Roderick Lewis, who was the Clerk of this House for 40 years, so Mr Roderick Lewis had considerable experience in this place. He saw many parliaments, mostly by one party, but he also shared the experience of his father, who was the Clerk of this House between I believe, about 1923 and 1937 or 1938. When Mr Lewis talks about his historical perspective of the House and the standing orders, he basically opened his remarks in his book, The House Was My Home, which he wrote after leaving this place, by saying as his opening paragraph:

"For the many years that the writer was the Clerk of the House, and on several occasions on which he was required to redraft standing orders or specific standing orders, his aim was always to keep the procedure in the House as simple and uncomplicated as possible. Of recent years, with various committees sticking in bits and pieces to meet some condition which may or may not arise again, they're in the danger of suffering from the malaise that afflicts the procedure or rules in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and the House of Commons of Canada; that is, they are cluttered up with a lot of unnecessary furniture."

I am becoming more and more of the opinion as my experience expands in terms of time that perhaps Mr Lewis is correct.

When I was speaking the other night, I talked about the standing orders being our constitution in this Legislative Assembly, and as I watch the constitutional discussions go on in this country, and having participated in some of those constitutional conferences, I am becoming more and more of the opinion that as we try to specify what will happen in this case or in that case and not leave it up to the parties involved to negotiate a reasonable settlement, we are getting ourselves into more and more trouble.

I think the recent constitutional discussions about how to put Canada together are more in danger of falling apart, or the ability of the country to stay together and keep together and to maintain the country is a fault which is arising from the fact that each part of the country wants specific clauses to take care of their individual problem and are not relying on the goodwill of the other partners in Confederation to make reasonable and logical and genteel decisions about what they will do in the future.

I see the Minister of Natural Resources, who's been involved in those constitutional conferences as well, and I am reading more and more articles as the days go by as more and more people are saying, "Maybe we should just stick with the status quo." I'm even hearing that from people in the province of Quebec who are saying, "Maybe what's being offered now is even worse than what we have in terms of the status quo."

One of the problems we are facing with the constant -- not "constant" changing of the rules; we couldn't say that. One of the problems that seems to be arising is that in the past two changes, the 1989 changes and these changes, there are specific rule changes intended to deal with specific circumstances which may arise in this House.

I can tell the Speaker, having read the motions and the standing orders, that this will not stop the opposition from being able to delay the government when it chooses to do so. They will find a method and a means to do it. The only way we can bring respect back to this institution is if the parties can get together and work out reasonable compromises when the government is putting forward its legislative program, the opposition realizing that the government has to make progress and the government realizing it must accede to some of the wishes of the opposition.

I want to conclude by saying that I wished the serious negotiations with regard to these changes of rules had transpired over a little longer period of time. I know the government had a concern about its labour relations bill, but I believe that had the government House leader come in with his motion and allowed a period of serious negotiation over, perhaps, a two- or three-week time frame, maybe if he had brought the motion in earlier -- for instance, had he brought it in in May and given opportunity for party members to get out and seriously negotiate. Parties don't seriously negotiate until the government drops its hat or puts its agenda on the table; that's when the serious negotiations take place.

I feel that the government, the opposition and the private members in this House could have benefited to a far greater degree than what I call, in my view, our somewhat important but not catastrophic rule changes. I don't think these rule changes will change the overall tenor of what happens with regard to business in this House.

Finally, I would have liked to see, now that we have an elected Speaker, a greater degree of discretion given to the Speaker on a number of matters. I mentioned before that one of those matters dealt with supplementary questions in question period. I would like to have seen a stronger role for the Speaker so the Speaker could in fact deal with situations not specifically taken care of in the standing orders. I know from your previous rulings, Mr Speaker, that you feel especially constrained by those rules. Therefore, when a speaker rises or when a rule is used, perhaps out of the context or the intent in which it was put forward, you and your predecessor have felt constrained to make what some might consider a reasonable ruling by those who might be objective observers from neither side of these two sides of this House. I had hoped that if in fact we were into serious negotiations, that kind of understanding or that kind of discretion -- at least to start towards that kind of discretion -- could have been given to whomever the Speaker might be in the future.

1820

Mr Speaker, I really hate to pass this opportunity off as well, because you don't get to serious negotiations with regard to the standing orders very often in a Parliament. This will probably be the last time we'll see standing orders changed before the next election, because it just doesn't seem to happen that frequently and that's why I would have liked to have seized upon this opportunity to deal with some other matters which I believe would have been very progressive, which would have put into the public's mind a much better institution and would have made the institution a more reasonable and logical place in terms of how the public views the Parliament of Ontario.

Last, I think it's important that I'm viewing and voting for these changes as a small step towards a more efficient Parliament. I believe we could have done a lot more, but I believe, and have believed for 15 years as I have sat here as an MPP, that my first duty is to protect this institution. When I spoke last Monday night and when I'm speaking today, I'm saying that members of the Legislature must continue to fight to improve this institution and that we as MPPs must fight for it not only for the government of the day or the position we're in but for our future legislatures, because that is the only way the people of the province will continue to have some faith in us.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Carleton for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I just want to speak briefly. I've been listening to the debate with some interest. The rules of the House are changed very infrequently and when they're changed it's always at the instigation of the government. The interesting thing about what we have had happen in the recent history in Ontario is that for the first time in close to 50 years we have had all three parties with an opportunity to serve as the government.

I remember speaking to the present Premier shortly after he was elected, and he was literally overwhelmed at the work and the issues that he had no concept of when he was in opposition. He said to me that was the most dramatic change he'd seen in his movement from this side of the aisle over to the other side of the aisle. As a minister in the previous government, I can tell you, when you're sitting on that side of the House and you're in question period, you're looking at the clock to see how quickly you can get that clock to run and to see how you can stall so that the opposition doesn't get a chance to ask you a question. When you're on this side of the House, it's just the opposite. You want that clock to grind to a halt so you can get your shots in at the government.

It is exactly the same thing when you are debating a bill. If the government has a bill that is contentious, it's immediate reaction is, "Let's get this in and out of the House as quickly as possible." When you're in the opposition, it is just the opposite. You want as much time as you can to delve fully into the ramifications and the implications of that bill to make sure all the concerns expressed by everybody out there are addressed. That is the way the system works.

Now, you would think that a government that spent so much of its life in opposition -- and unfortunately, except for one member I see on the opposition side, everybody in the House at this moment is a first-time member of this Legislature --

Mr Sterling: There's Hayes too.

Mr Kwinter: Oh, I'm sorry. There is one other; there are two.

The point I'm making is that when the government party was in opposition, it was an absolute master at delay, at tricks, at coming up with procedural situations where it could bring this House to a halt.

My concern is that the government has brought in these rule changes not because people were clamouring for change in the rules; we had our last rule change in 1989, and it was done with consensus. The reason it is being done is that the government of the day feels it would be expedient to have these changes for its purposes, not for the good of the Legislature, not for the good of the parliamentary system, but it is expedient for the government to have these changes because it would make its life easier.

In conclusion, all I want to say is remember that these same rules you're changing you may have to live with in a new Parliament. If I were a cynic, I could tell you that if the polls show just before the election that this government is not going to be returned, I would not be the least bit surprised to see the House leader table one Thursday afternoon a whole new set of House rules so that when they come back in opposition, their life would be a lot easier.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Wilson Heights for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to begin my remarks this evening by first expressing my regrets to the Community Living Association of South Simcoe. Because of the late night sittings we've had this week, a couple of nights ago I had to miss a very important meeting of CLASS, as it's referred to locally, and I want to extend both my regrets and my appreciation to Mrs Margaret Bricknell of my riding who invited me to that. I did have the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Community and Social Services about their concerns, and I'll be communicating to Mrs Bricknell and the members of CLASS Ms Boyd's response to the concerns they raised.

I want to set the stage for my debate this evening -- and I promise not to be too long -- with some quotes I dug up from parliamentarians dating back over a century, parliamentarians representing a cross-section of all three political parties, because I think it sets the stage for my argument this evening.

Former Liberal leader Edward Blake in 1873 said, "The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the people, and the rights of Parliament are the rights of the people."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier on April 9, 1913, said, "Heaven is my witness that I would rather stand here today defeated and in opposition by that appeal to the people that stand over there in office by the power of the gag." He went on later in life to say that the rules of the House are certainly the bulwark of freedom.

Sir John A. Macdonald in 1861 said, "Parliament is a grand inquest which has the right to inquire into anything and everything."

Rodolphe Lemieux, Speaker of the House of Commons, in 1925 said: "The rules of the House are made for the protection not so much of the majority as of the minority. The majority can always protect itself."

It brings us up to more recent days. Bob Rae on March 29, 1990, in debating then Bill 68 on auto insurance said: "The members of the Legislature are being denied the right to debate this issue and to show just how far this government has gone in caving in to the demands of the auto insurance industry in Ontario. That is what this represents. This government is bringing in the guillotine earlier in a debate of larger substance than any government in the history of the province. That is what the government is doing. It is going to pay a price for it."

He went on to say, "When it comes to an issue on which they know they are fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unpopular because they are taking rights away from every citizen of this province, the minister" -- and at that time he was referring to the Liberal minister, Mr Ward -- "brings in closure and the guillotine.

"There is a fundamental question here about the rights of opposition members and about the rights of the public.... The reality is that this government believes it has the right to do whatever the hell it wants to do, regardless of the views of the public and regardless of the views of those of us who oppose."

1830

Again, the Premier, Bob Rae, following the Speaker's decision not to rule that the Liberals' closure motion was out of order, back in 1990 again he went on to say: "I think we are now living with rules and with precedents in this House which will not stand democracy well at the end of the day. It would be far better to have real consensus among all the parties as to how the business of the House should be ordered and some greater willingness to listen to those of us who are in opposition."

The current Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader, Dave Cooke, on April 3, 1990, again, on the time allocation debate and the bill was Bill 68, auto insurance:

"This government, the majority party in here, is prepared to do anything to the standing orders in order to get its legislation through, even if it means changing the routine proceedings that we normally go through.... I would suggest that" -- and he's referring to time allocation -- "is incredibly unfair. It will result in the process not holding the government accountable....

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

Again, Mr Cooke, on July 13, 1989, referring to Bills 113 and 114:

"We believe that this motion is clearly out of order on the basis that there is no provision in our standing orders for time allocation, as we have argued in the past.... I think it is the Speaker's role to protect the process and the minority. You must protect the integrity of the legislative process. You must rule this motion out of order if the integrity of this place is going to be protected...At a minimum, Mr Speaker, I feel you must take this matter under consideration. This is a precedent that will haunt the Legislature for years and years to come.... I think it is a short-circuiting of the process and begins to make a farce of the legislative process.

"Time allocation, I think, is a sad commentary on this government. It is a sad commentary on the majority that has become more and more removed from the people of this province."

Perhaps the most profound hypocrisy, if I may say, comes from a member's statement uttered by Dave Cooke on Monday, June 12, 1989, when he was in opposition. Mr Cooke went on at that time to say:

"I think it is important to look at a couple of the issues that have led us to the point where the government has brought in unilateral changes to our rules to make this place an undemocratic institution in Ontario.

"First of all, the Sunday shopping issue:" -- it's amazing how issues keep repeating themselves -- "If members recall, the former Solicitor General, Joan Smith, signed a unanimous report that called for the maintenance of the status quo and in the 1987 election the Premier said" -- and he's referring to Premier Peterson at that time -- "he had absolutely no intention of changing the law.

"Then the government got its majority and completely flip-flopped on the issue. In other words, they said one thing during an election and another thing after. Obviously it was the opposition's job, role and responsibility to hold the government accountable for that flip-flop no matter what the means would be.

"On the Smith affair," -- Mr Cooke went on to say -- "when the then Solicitor General went and visited the Lucan police station a few weeks ago, it obviously was the opposition's responsibility and role to hold the government accountable and to impose decent standards on the cabinet of this province, because the Premier obviously had no intention of doing it at all. He thought that because of his majority and his arrogance he could get through it and the opposition be damned.

"The government wants to avoid accountability by making this place undemocratic. This is a big, arrogant government and we simply will not let it get away with these types of activities. We have offered for quite some time to negotiate rule changes in a non-partisan, three-party approach."

Finally, for the quotes, I'd like to quote from the now Treasurer, Mr Floyd Laughren, who on January 24, 1989, in debating Sunday shopping, Bill 113, and Bill 114, the Employment Standards Act, said, "The real motive for the government," he's referring to invoking closure, "is to get these bills out of the way...and let the political heat cool off a bit because the government has not been doing very well this past session."

"They, the Liberals, are not as concerned as most of us and do not regard the whole question of closure as being as offensive to the parliamentary process as most of us do.... It really is offensive to have the government do this.

"The government finds itself walking down that road of abuse of power very easily, after only a year and a couple of months of having that power.

"I think that the government House leader, and he will not like this, follows that adage of Ronald Reagan, who said that," -- he's quoting Mr Reagan -- "'The worst abuse of power is to have it and not use it.'"

Mr Laughren goes on to say, "Now we have the government House leader saying: 'By golly, we have the power. Let's use it. Let's bring in the time allocation motion and use it....'"

In the 1980s the rule changes were usually introduced by the government of the day after extensive consultation with the opposition parties. Not only had the NDP changed the rules but it has changed the way in which these important matters have been historically dealt with. I know other speakers this evening and in the past have spoken on this topic.

I believe this is a breach of parliamentary tradition and the unilateral heavy-handed, hold-the-gun-to-the-opposition's-head approach that the government has taken to bring in the rule changes that we're debating this evening.

It's a breach of parliamentary tradition and it's just one more tradition, I believe, that the NDP have run roughshod over. Others include, and you've heard me speak often of, the oath to the Queen. I think in caving in to Susan Eng the NDP has foolishly forgotten that the monarchy serves to protect citizens against the arbitrary misuse of power.

The NDP became the first government in history to attempt to remove daily prayers in the Legislature. We had some discussion about that one day.

As recently as two years ago, Bob Rae was railing against Ontario's traditional casino economy; today, sadly, the NDP is looking towards casino gambling to solve Ontario's economic woes.

In November 1985 the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly released a lengthy report which recommended changes to the standing orders. The report and subsequent negotiations between all three parties resulted in major amendments to the standing orders in April 1986.

In June 1989 the member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, then the Liberal government House leader, introduced a motion for extensive rule changes without consulting the opposition parties. The outcry at that time, from the opposition, I believe, caused the Liberals to back down and a new package of amendments was eventually agreed to by all three parties in July of 1989.

The point there is that Mr Conway didn't have the audacity or the arrogance to actually call the motion he had tabled in this Legislature. He simply was using it as a tactic. He has spoken quite eloquently in this House of really the need for all-party consensus when bringing in such important rule changes.

The most contentious aspects of the current rule changes are the limiting of debate and the fact that closure motions would not be subject to your interpretation, Mr Speaker.

I believe the rule changes will hinder a member's ability to articulate the concerns of his or her constituents in this Legislature. In placing a limit on the rights of members, the government is silencing the voice of the people, and that refers back to the many quotes which I spoke of in the beginning of my debate.

During my short time, some 21 months as a member of provincial Parliament for the riding of Simcoe West, I've had the privilege to be able to voice many of the concerns of my constituents in this Legislative Assembly. Some of these concerns include policing. On several occasions, as you are well aware, I have stood in the Legislature and tried to impress upon the government the need to provide 24-hour policing for the Stayner and Wasaga Beach Ontario Provincial Police detachments.

1840

I've shared with members the horror stories of crime that plagued the Smarts Pharmacy in Creemore, and Ferris Enterprises, which is the gas station in Singhampton, because criminals in my riding knew when OPP officers were going off duty. OPP staffing levels, I'm pleased to report, have improved somewhat in my riding, and I would like to think that those staffing levels have improved because of my efforts in this Legislature to make the government aware of the severity of the problem.

I've spoken at length about hospitals in this Legislature. I persistently brought this issue before the Legislature and I think that the rule changes will limit my ability to do so in the future. The issue of hospitals, particularly in Simcoe country, surrounds the redevelopment of our four hospitals. At every opportunity I have implored the government to follow through on its commitment to redevelop the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, Stevenson Memorial Hospital in terms of its outpatient department, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital and, of course, Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie.

While no sod has been turned, the government, I believe, has paid attention and has at the very least renewed its commitment to assisting these hospitals. I'd like to believe that the government's commitment to this project was enhanced by the constant badgering of them in this Legislature.

The very serious issue of laid-off workers is another issue I have persistently raised in this Legislature: the plight of workers in my riding who have been forced to bear the brunt of this profound recession in the form on layoffs and industrial closings. I find it somewhat ironic when I have to explain to these workers that my inability to make the government aware of their plight is because the government has restricted my ability to raise their concerns in the Legislature. That's my fear for the future.

On several occasions in raising these important issues, particularly laid-off workers, it has taken me more than the 30 minutes now allocated for speeches. It has taken me much longer to bring all of those concerns to the Legislature during the time I was given and during the evening or the day time that we have to bring those concerns forward. I think it's instructive to remind the government that all of us who sit in this Legislature do so at the discretion of the people of Ontario and that the people of Ontario, at the end of the day, will be the judge on whether or not we're able to effectively serve their interests in this Legislature. I believe that the new time limit that's been imposed on speeches will severely hamper my ability as the member for Simcoe West to do that.

Restructuring is another issue. I almost feel that the government wants to stifle debate on this particular municipal issue because all members of the government party, I believe, are embarrassed to be continually reminded of their never-ending stream of flip-flops and hypocrisies. It's especially difficult for constituents in my riding to believe that the New Democrat party and government, which supports and encourages restructuring, is the same party and in opposition boldly stated that it would not support forced restructuring.

I recall very well, during the 1990 election campaign, Mr Rae's visit to the north part of Simcoe country, where he specifically made the promise that he would not force municipal restructuring on municipalities if those municipalities expressed the desire to not be restructured. Well, that was then and this is now. I've received hundreds of letters and phone calls from my constituents who oppose restructuring, and I'm not exaggerating. I have received hundreds of letters and phone calls. As a result I've used every opportunity to make the government aware of the overwhelming feelings of my constituents, including two private member's bills which I'm sorry to say were both defeated by a solid NDP bloc voting against my private member's bills.

I feel, however, that the government may be infringing upon my ability to continue to give a loud and clear voice to my constituents at Queen's Park. While ordinary Ontarians are unaware of the implications of these rule changes, I feel they will come to realize, over time, the significance of these changes. The current government House leader certainly waxed profound on the issue while in opposition, in April 1990. Mr Cooke said at that time:

"I continue to argue that these types of changes and motions that are being moved by the government, whether it has been time allocation or in this case the motion to move to orders of the day, are an inappropriate way to start writing our rules. If we do not have the process of coming to consensus on rules, I think that while the government might view the effect to be more time for government business in the short term, the end effect will be that this institution will not run smoothly on a daily basis."

Mr Speaker, the government House leader now appears to believe that the institution, this Parliament, works best when he holds a gun to the head of the opposition. He and his colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for another flagrant case of NDP hypocrisy.

Finally, it's an intellectual copout to rationalize the rule changes as being consistent with those in other jurisdictions. As Ontarians we have some of the finest political institutions, largely because these institutions are founded upon a Parliament that has effectively balanced the rights of minorities with those of the majority.

It is a sad day for politics in Ontario. It is a sad day for the rights of the minority in this Parliament. I truly believe from the bottom of my heart that the government and the NDP will regret holding a gun to our heads and forcing us to accept their rule changes.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Simcoe West for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate, and recognize the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won't be very long. That'll be the last time you'll hear that because in future --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I don't mind heckling at all so you can let them go ahead, particularly mindless heckling. In the future you won't have to worry about hours and hours of debates because in the new rules the longest you'll be able to speak will be some 30 minutes.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I'm quite sure he isn't in his seat; I'm positive about that. If he were, I'd know it; he's been sitting across from me every day.

I'll put forward my thoughts on this in I think a reasonably non-partisan way. It was noted earlier by the previous speaker from the Liberal party that in the past less than a decade, all three parties have had the opportunity to govern this province. There have been some differences between the three parties, but in a lot of ways there has been little if any difference, particularly when it comes to the rules of debate and the rules this House abides by when dealing with legislation.

I don't come at this with any great degree of history, just a couple of short years, but the first thing I learned was that the Speaker -- although it's a very prestigious and honourable position, and this is no reflection upon the Speaker today -- really has very little direct control or power in the operation of this government. He runs the precinct, which is a nice way of saying "Queen's Park," a different word for Queen's Park.

1850

After sitting through this House for a couple of sessions, the next thing I discovered was that those in opposition are probably the only people other than the Speaker who have less power, "power" being the operative word for somebody who can effectively make change. The biggest thing you can do in opposition is embarrass or force a government into changing some small portion of the legislation, maybe even an amendment or two.

Clearly in the last couple weeks this government has brought forward amendments to legislation that range into the hundreds, and I'm not making comment that that wasn't a good idea. The point I'm trying to make is that the number of amendments that have been accepted by the government from this side you could probably count on both your hands.

I don't particularly think other governments were much different, but as a member of the opposition, with these rule changes I'm beginning to question whether this is what this place was meant to be like those hundreds of years ago in the British parliamentary system. If they could see into the future and looked at 1992 and the debate that takes place today, was this what they envisaged when they decided to go ahead with this kind of democratic process -- as I say, I'm not being partisan; I think all governments are guilty of this -- a democratic process that turns opposition members into less than effective members, a process that basically tells the government members -- I believe all government members, past or present -- how to vote?

You vote the way the government goes, and that's called party unity, discipline. You vote the way the government says you're supposed to vote. Even if you don't agree with it, you do it because it's party discipline. Then you're told how to speak and what to say and how you defend the party line or the government line -- or the opposition line, in a non-partisan way. Then you're told when you can speak and what you can say. What the constituents have to say in your local riding -- and I've seen cases of this in my two short years in this House -- doesn't really matter a lot because you're told how to vote and how to speak and what you can say. Under the new rules, what adds insult to injury is that now you're told how to vote, what to say, when you can speak and then you're also told to sit down after 30 minutes, that you've talked long enough.

That may well be the process that was envisaged those many, many centuries ago. I don't think so, though. I don't think it was meant to be like this. I don't think it was meant to send people from across this province to this Legislature and be whipped on votes, be told how to vote and how to speak and what to say.

Although you may be suggesting this is a grander argument or a grander debate, the rule changes really are another chip, another shot at the process. It hasn't happened in just two years, it hasn't happened in two decades; it's happened over a long period of time. It's almost that you elect the NDP or the Liberals or the Conservatives and then someone comes up here to fill a seat that could be filled by a robot, on a lot of occasions. Oh, you might come up with a heckle now and again or a good question, or you dig up a little dirt on the government or the government comes back with a witty response to a quick question. But at the end of the day, what does it matter? Because you have to vote, and when your member votes, they're representing you. You have to speak, and when that member's speaking -- I look around in this House. Usually we end up in debates like this and the House is virtually empty most times, and you look at people reading -- no offence; right across the floor, and I'm guilty -- reading, taking notes, snoozing almost.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): They're taking notes on your speech.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to think so, but I don't believe it. And of course heckling, which I understand. I'm one of the worst hecklers, and I make no apologies for it. I think that's part of the process as well.

The interesting thing is that we just went through a committee where some motions and recommendations and a report was put forward about opposition members and about private members and how they can have a say in the operation of this House. Private members? How about just members: government members, opposition members. I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that if these rule changes come forward --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You don't have a heart.

Mr Stockwell: The member says I don't have a heart. I think that's rather typical of that member, suggesting that if you don't agree with him you must not have a heart. Ignoring that, I will say that I know people across that floor, I knew them in their lives before they came here, and I know they don't support these rule changes.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Ha, ha, ha.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't know the member for Cochrane. Maybe he does, but I know the rest of them don't, and they're going to vote for these rule changes. Then you come to the quotes. This is the most amazing part to me. Again, it's non-partisan; I'm not suggesting the NDP is guilty of this any more than the opposition party is. It just so happens that probably today they are because they're the government. But you can get Hansard out and read debates of years gone by, and you're reading quotes that are diametrically opposed to what the government is doing today. It's like water off a duck. It's: "So what's your point? Why are you bringing that up? Sure I said that before, but I'm in government now." As if that's some kind of excuse for me doing something absolutely different than I suggested months and months before.

It's the process, in a lot of respects. It's the members. It's all our fault, and do you know why it's all our fault? Because if either party was across the floor in government at this time, I'm not so sure that both these parties wouldn't be introducing something similar, because it's convenient. I can say in my mind I wouldn't vote for it, but you know what? I've never had to sit in government. Having never had to sit in government, I'm not so sure that party discipline doesn't play a far greater and more important role than maybe I think. Because I know over there are people who don't agree with this. I know they don't agree with it, and I think they're principled people who are voting for it. I'm not so sure that their principles are any less than mine, and I'm not so sure that if I were in their place I could be any different. I hope I would be, but I can't be sure.

It has become pointless to stand in the House and go back through Hansard and read quotes by the Premier and by the House leader and by the Treasurer and so on, mostly because they're not here -- I'm not blaming them; they're busy people -- but, second, because it doesn't make any difference, it doesn't matter. I don't even think you're embarrassing them, because it's accepted. When you get into government, everything you said before, all bets are off.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): You change your mind.

Mr Stockwell: To change your mind is acceptable. I believe in changing your mind, but I can't believe in changing your principles. That's the big difference. You change your mind about going to the beach; you change your mind about buying a house. You don't change your mind when it comes to your principles. I don't blame this government alone. I think it's happened by all governments in the past.

So the point I get to is that it is very ironic to stand here today and look across the floor at this government, this government that I've seen in opposition at city councils across this province talk about minority rights. The interesting part is that I'm part of the minority now in this Legislature and it is not protecting me. There are backbenchers who are part of the minority, I think, and it is not protecting them.

1900

Mr Mammoliti: You're wrong.

Mr Stockwell: They say I'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong, but I don't believe you're protecting the minority. I'm finding that very difficult to buy, because, as I said before, that's not changing your mind; that's changing your principles.

I often recall talking many times to the NDP when the Liberals were in power, and the standard joke I heard with the NDP was: "Hi, I'm a Liberal. Here are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." It must be government that does this to people, because they're worse.

We'll now, as members of this House, try to effect change by this government. We won't have the option of speaking for more than half an hour, no matter how important it is that we speak for more than half an hour. No matter how of my constituents think I should stand here and read their concerns into the record, it doesn't matter. No matter how important the member from Windsor thinks his constituents are, he can't speak any longer than half an hour. It is 30 minutes, no matter how important any of us think it is.

Mr Speaker, I ask you, and the members across the floor particularly, how important was it to them -- and you weren't here -- that Peter Kormos spoke for 17 hours? Was that important to you? Was it important? Of course it was. Never will that happen again. Never can a filibuster take a place. Never can opposition stand up and say, "What you're doing is wrong and I'm going to draw attention to it," because the minority rights are gone.

Once you change the rules, you never change them back. There's one other sad commentary here and this is very telling: If this government loses the next election and the two other parties win the next election -- one or the other -- they won't change them back, because now they're government and now they can ram their legislation through this House and the members opposite will be sitting on this side of the House wailing about the unfairness of it all. It's very ironic.

I know there's another member who wants to speak to this. A lot of times, in my darker moments I suppose, as we sit in this House when I stare at empty chairs and talk over the din of conversations around me, realizing that I'm talking to potentially an audience but the audience doesn't exist in this building, as I'm sure the viewers will hear, it does become somewhat frustrating. You don't think anyone's listening, and in my darker moments I think there would be times that the taxpayer would be better served if we just elected three leaders, a Liberal, a Conservative and an NDPer, and we could save all the money, the $30 million we spent on all of us this past period of time when they brought that down.

You could buy yourself a staff for significantly less than $30 million and the three of them could debate in this cavernous Legislature. They could talk about the issues of the day and there wouldn't be any heckling. You know something that would be very good, Mr Speaker, you wouldn't even have to have rules about 90-minute speeches or 30-minute speeches, because you wouldn't have anyone making speeches, just the three leaders.

I suppose one day, the way these rules are going, we may well end up that way, because as we tighten the noose around opposition members and we tighten the noose around government backbenchers to the point that they have fewer and fewer rights and privileges and they have less capacity to represent the people who elected them, they'll eventually become obsolete and all we'll have is three leaders, a big hall, a lot of bureaucrats and no idle conversation when they're talking.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke West for his contribution to this debate and invite further debate.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I will be fairly brief in my comments but I did want to speak, just for a moment, before the member for York Centre gets a change to go on at some length about it.

I'm more concerned about the entire process than anything else. This House has worked for many years because of the fact that parties on all sides have cooperated. Some of the members will look at me and see that I've been one of the ones who have been fairly aggressive in coming to this House and some would say maybe haven't cooperated, but it's my feeling and my belief that one of the treasures of our system is that all three parties were able to get together and decide what was going to happen.

The debates are often eloquent in here. We've got many members who do such a fine job, even the present members, some of whom are here this evening. They've spoken eloquently on a number of occasions on things that are very important to them. But all the debates happened because there was cooperation among all three parties. I think what these rule changes say more than anything else is that there's been a failure. I'm not going to apportion any blame to any party or any government, but I think one of the sad realities of these changes is that the cooperation has, for whatever reason, died. So we now need to have some of these rule changes come in because all three parties aren't able to get together.

It's important, I believe, that members get a chance to speak on behalf of their members. There is nothing better than getting an opportunity, as a member -- and I know all the members will say this -- to stand up and speak on behalf of your constituents. What I quite often do, because quite often my constituents will say it more eloquently than I can, is I will read into the record what some of their concerns and comments are. It gives them a chance to think they are being heard on a particular piece of legislation.

We're lucky, in the opposition; we can get up pretty much any time we want and speak, and some of the members in the government can't, on a particular issue. In fact on almost any issue you can get up and speak and are almost encouraged to get up and participate, because when you have 20 members it's difficult, sometimes, to speak on it.

But one of the things I've been able to do is to be able to carry forward the concerns of the people of my riding on an issue. Some of them will be one individual somewhere who will send some particular piece of information to me. On other particular issues you will get stacks of it. I guess the most important thing is we've always had an opportunity to get on the record the concerns of the average person. The government, at the end of the day, will do whatever it wants but in this forum it has to listen.

We had an exchange earlier today where the member for Wilson Heights had a chance to, I think very eloquently, speak to the Treasurer about many of the concerns that were there. He said it better than I think very many people could, and I know the member for Wilson Heights is here. I said to him after, "You said to the Treasurer in the 15 or 20 minutes that you spoke probably everything that many businesses, many individuals, many taxpayers would've liked to have said," but the average person doesn't get a chance to do it. They only get a chance to do it through their members.

1910

At the end of the day the Treasurer will make the decisions next year about what is going to happen, and in this particular case, I must say, in a non-partisan manner, he listened and truly tried to understand and appreciate what some of the concerns were. My concern with some of the rule changes is that we will lose that opportunity, that by narrowing it down and capping the amount of time a member can speak, the public's ability, through their member, to affect change will be diminished.

I certainly am not one of the ones who is able to stand up and speak for many hours. When I kiddingly said I was going to try and beat Kormos's record, it probably would have been to just get some of the concerns of the other people on there. But it is important for the people of my riding and the people of the province to know this is the place where their voice can be heard, where they can have captive, sitting across on the other side, the Premier of the day or the Treasurer of the day or the Minister of Energy of the day, where their voice has to be heard, not necessarily listened to or adhered to, but they have to be here and listen, although that's changing even now and this place is becoming less and less relevant.

In this day of media clips, I was amazed to see that one of the groups didn't want to come in and appear before the standing committee on finance and economics, and it was a group protesting over a plant closure. During that debate, they had people who were coming in and speaking eloquently about what needed to be done, on the standing committee on finance and economics.

Another group came out and had a protest on the front lawn. Of course, the media were there and they had one individual bringing them up to the microphone. They would do the piece for the television clip and then they'd go on to the other side. So already I think this House is becoming not as much relevant to the average person because he realizes, "If you're really going to effect change, the way to do it is to get the 30-second clip on CFTO, Global, CTV, CBC or whatever."

I think we'd be amazed, and I think the Speaker often reminds us, that there's 250,000 people who listen to us speaking here. I'm afraid that by diminishing the amount of them, we may lose some of that. All the speeches in here won't be great. All the speeches won't be relevant. All the speeches won't necessarily be on topic. Lord knows that in this place that happens more often than not. But at the end of the day, I think the public will say, "We would have liked to have had as much of a chance as possible to influence the government."

I think this was well respected. Most of the members who are on the government side think opposition members like to get up and hear themselves think on occasion -- maybe some of them do -- but I think all members on all sides, when they speak, really do want to get to the point quickly, try and make their point and get on. I know there are occasions where, because of rule changes and working between groups, you try to put pressure on by holding things up a little bit, but at the end of the day, I hope the relevance of this Legislature, that we worked so long and hard to get into -- as you know, when we all were elected, we all felt a great deal of pride because we were a pretty exclusive group coming here.

I hope at the end of the day these rule changes will not make this House less relevant then it is today. It has evolved; at the beginning there wasn't the direct communications and we weren't on TV. Maybe some would say this House wasn't too relevant then because nobody knew what was going on and that people spoke where. Nobody knew. The bills were passed and away we went. With the advent of television, the communications, more and more people were able to flip and watch what was going on here.

People will come to me and say, on a particular issue, "I just wanted to let you know so that you could bring it up in the House." Bringing it up in the House won't effect change from the Treasurer or the Premier, but they do feel better that their view, however small it may be in the scheme of 9.5 million people -- it is very important they have the opportunity to do this.

We need to speed it up. I'm one of those who honestly and truly believe that this process is bogged down, not only in this House, but the whole bureaucracy and how the bills are passed. Coming from an industry where I'm interested in trying to get things done, I think we all came in here frustrated and probably more so even the government members who thought they would come in here and move mountains within months. Because of the slow process here and the slow process of going out to committee and the slow process of going through the bureaucracy with the regulations, many people feel frustrated. If you look at it today and say, "What did we hope to accomplish after we were sworn in in October till now?" they feel very frustrated.

But you have to realize that on the other side of it, there are people out there who have genuine concerns, and I think it's been mentioned more often then not. One of the things I've learned about here is that when you come in, you've got to realize and try to look at it from the other people's perspective. I know that's difficult to do, and probably at times I'm the worst at it, but you've got to realize that when you're in government, the agenda isn't to push things through quickly.

I must say that the government has talked about discussions and cooperations and committees. They have done that, they've had many discussions through many bills, and we spent last summer on some of the bills. But I hope as a result of these changes the bottom line is that we will not diminish this House. I hope as a result of this cooperation we see going on now where two of the three House leaders are talking and working together will not be diminished, because if that dies, then I think indeed this entire process will.

The one thing we need to do in this entire House is attempt -- and I think there would be agreement on this. We disagree on numerous aspects, but there does need to be give and take on both sides. I guess it's one of the pillars in here -- the Speaker will know -- that says that in this chamber hopefully we will listen.

When we scale it down to 30 minutes, I hope that doesn't take away from the members' ability to try and understand the other viewpoint and to remember that this House is here as the voice of the people. I hope the cooperation that's needed will be enhanced by these rules, and I hope at the end of the day the people will still feel that their voice is heard on a particular issue. The problem is, people say, "If you can talk in just 30 minutes, if you really want to hold things up, what you'll do is just talk, every member, for 30 minutes regardless of whether it's an important bill or one that's not too important."

I would hope that groups and individuals would speak on something that's important to them. I would like to have less debate on some of the bills that are non-controversial, the ones that are out there where there's very little feedback from the public, and have more debate on some of the things that are substantial. In some of the committees I've heard some of the members and I've heard individuals in this House speak for two hours and not touch on the same point. In fact I've kidded some people and I've said I would like to have that ability, and my wife said, "I hope you have that ability, but never use it." But in some of those two-hour debates you will hear things that are really important and are what the public is thinking about. There are very few people that can do that, but I hope as a result of this the public will still feel that this place will not become less and less relevant in our day-to-day operations.

We already know in the scheme of things the hours now when people listen to the debates are geared around the question period. I don't think that was always the case. Things have evolved because of the communication process. What the people want, and nowadays the fact is people don't have a great deal of time to sit at home and listen to debates with two people working and trying to get the kids to bed or one off to soccer and the other one off to ballet. But at the end of the day this is the one true forum where the people making the decisions, the people who are here tonight, the ministers who are involved, do have an opportunity and are forced to sit and listen to the views of people of this province through their elected member.

As to the rules changes that came about, I am more saddened because of the lack of cooperation and the way it was done more than anything else, but at the end of the day I hope that this legislation will be looked upon as something that will be an improvement rather than something that really limits the debate, because overall the people who are out there at the end of the day will say to a government of the day, "You have the right to make any decision you want when you win an election, but you don't have the right not to listen to the people regardless of how outrageous, how different or how small that voice is." What happens when you limit it -- the big concern is, where does it stop? It's unended and people say that's too much. Then we got it down and it was going to be maybe two hours. "No, that's still too long," so now we're down to 30 minutes.

My basic feeling is that a member can be restricted in a half-hour, and I don't like the fact. I don't think any of my speeches have been a half-hour, although I said I'd be short and I'm carrying on here, but I honestly truly believe that the members in this Legislature are not here to disrupt and to prolong debate, but that they really truly try to get their points across to the government.

I will close by saying that this is not a pleasant day from my standpoint to see that changes are needed, but we will attempt to work to see that some of the concerns and the problems that are out there don't happen again, because the average person doesn't understand the rules. I've been here a period of time and I still don't understand them quite fully. Hopefully at the end of the day people will say that they're not being muzzled by these changes, and we will work to ensure that things get through and that the people of this province are heard.

1920

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oakville South for his contribution. The honourable member had made an inquiry of the Speaker, and indeed for his interest and information there are in fact two mottos which are carved in Latin, one to my left of the chamber door and translated it says, "Fighting is not smart," and the other motto to the right of the chamber door when translated -- and it's our official motto -- says "Hear the other side." I appreciate the inquiry and invite further debate.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I guess it's an interesting consequence that you've just translated that motto "Hear the other side" before I begin my comments on what has happened here under this motion and in this Parliament and in this province over the past few days culminating in this motion, because what this is all about when you render it down, when you take out all the words that just add fluff and flair, is that the government in Ontario has determined to reduce the capacity in Ontario for the other side to be heard.

If I were a more generous person, if I were a more magnanimous person, perhaps if I had a larger heart, I think I would be beginning my comments by ironically congratulating the government House leader. He's won. He waged a brutal war. He used virtually every tactic that I've ever seen used in Parliament to get his way. He won. But I'm not in a generous mood and I'm not prepared yet to congratulate him. I'm still angry. I'm still hurt. I'm still offended. I'm still troubled. I'm still wounded. I still feel very, very badly about what's happened here.

I don't think very many people in Ontario yet know what has happened here over the past few days culminating in this vicious little piece of business that we're now debating, so I want to explain to the people of Ontario what's happened. I want to explain it to the government. There are very few government members here. There are very few opposition members here. There is no one in the galleries that I can see. The press has gone home and maybe just one or two people or 1,000 or 2,000 people are watching this debate tonight and wondering what this is all about.

In fact some people will think this is a rerun of this afternoon's debate, because there are a number of people who actually tune in to the parliamentary channel in the evening to watch a replay of the afternoon proceedings. To them I say, we are still here and we are in the final hours of a debate on a motion that I personally believe is one of the most serious mistakes that I've ever seen made in a Parliament in Canada and certainly the most serious mistake made in the Parliament of Ontario.

Why do I say that? It's quite simple. What's happened here is that the government, the state, the executive, the cabinet, the power of the state has been increased and the power of the opposition, the power of the minority, has been reduced. I want to just tell you, I think the last thing we need in this great province is a further augmentation and a further centralization of the power of the state.

I know the tactics that the government House leader has used to try and suggest that the only thing he's doing is reducing the time allotted for speeches, doing away with filibusters, making the Parliament more efficient, he said. "We need to make the Parliament more efficient." Let's translate that into language that people can understand. The government is going to be able to effect and achieve its goals more quickly and more easily and those of us who have been elected in an opposition and in a minority are going to have less power to oppose.

Bob Rae and Davie Cooke, the Premier and the government House leader, think that's just fine. Maybe the people of Ontario think that's fine as well, but I don't think that's the case. I don't believe that the people of Ontario think that the further centralization of power, a power grab by the government, a quieting of the opposition, is in the best interests of our democracy.

Democracy's a magnificent form of government. Why is that? The answer, in my view, is that the great thing about a democracy is that it defuses the collective power exercised within the state. It puts some power in the executive and some power in the Legislature and some power in the judiciary and some power in business organizations and some power in labour organizations and some power in municipalities and some power in community groups. In Canada it puts some power in the individual as well. It was only 10 years ago that we incorporated into our Constitution a Charter of Rights, which is an eloquent document that says that the individual shall have power over his or her life.

In a democracy the power is defused. In a totalitarian regime, in an autocratic regime, in a dictatorship, the power is centralized. There is no economic power outside of the government in a totalitarian regime. There's no personal power; there's no individual power. People call that repression. They fight against it, they rebel against it, they give up their lives and they sacrifice the lives of their children in order to establish places just like this, legislatures, where every single day that we sit a government can be held to account.

That's what happens, and every single thing that a government wants to do must first be debated in this chamber. Every single tax that a government wants to impose must first be approved by this chamber. But this chamber is made up, by its very nature, primarily of government members. They already have all of the power. In the end, they can force a vote on a tax or on a law, no matter how progressive or regressive. Ultimately, because a government has the majority, it can always win, so the only interest in having a Parliament is to have a minority, an opposition -- right now it's the Liberal party and the Tory party -- to hold the government to account. A little bit of the power we have to hold them to account has been robbed from us by the government House leader and the Premier. I will establish, later on in my remarks, authority for the proposition that this has not been negotiated; this has been robbed from us.

1930

What did they do? What is this motion that is now before the House? What is this little power grab by the government to quiet the opposition, which wishes to raise questions about waste management bills and rent control bills and labour bills and tax bills and municipal bills? How did they do this?

They did three things: First, they shortened the life of the Parliament. On an annual basis they said, "We're going to sit here less time." Just ask yourself, Mr Speaker, whether the shortening of the life of the Parliament is consistent with the government House leader's arguments that we are not getting our business done and that we've got a whole bunch of bills to pass, and they're not being passed. If you were in that situation, sir, would you shorten the life of the Parliament? If you didn't like question period and if you didn't want to have to defend what you were doing every day that we sit here in the House, what would you do? Shorten the life of the Parliament, reduce it by a week, two weeks, a month, three months; only call it once every two years.

The first thing the government House leader did was to shorten the life of the Parliament -- pretty clever of him: Take away question period, take away opportunities to question the government on the legislation it brings, take away the opportunity for us to debate the public's business and exercise the responsibility that we, as opposition members, are supposed to exercise; that is, examine legislation right to the minutiae of individual clauses, if that's necessary, and hold the government to account.

The first thing he did was to shorten the life of the Parliament. The second thing he did was to limit the time in which members can debate. In fact, as I see the member for Mississauga South has now taken the Chair, the speech I'm giving tonight which, I regret to say, is going to be of some length, will be the last occasion until the rules are once more opened up and modernized and the last opportunity in this province to speak at length about a serious issue. When these rules are finally voted on, on Monday, which they are going to be unless, miraculously, some government members change their minds -- I want to tell you frankly that I don't expect this speech or any speech or anything to change their minds. They are ideological, they are theological and they believe anything their masters tell them. I'll expand on that later.

The government House leader, in his determination to quiet opposition to socialist government in Ontario, is limiting the time in which we can speak. I find that reprehensible. I think the very word "Parliament" comes from the French word "parler," which is to speak. One of the essential elements of a democratic society is the right to speak. In the repressive societies, in the totalitarian societies, you don't have that right to speak. That's taken away from you. You can be picked up off the street if you say the wrong thing. You can be arbitrarily put in jail. But here we have a Parliament and we have the right to speak, and if we speak too long then the people who vote us in will hold us accountable if they disagree with what we say.

But the government says it's time now to limit the right to speak. Well, if you want to quiet your opposition, then limit their right to speak, limit their right to demonstrate. If you want to ram through some legislation, limit the time the matter can be debated. That's the third thing: that this socialist government, this government that proclaimed itself a breath of fresh air in Ontario, is also limiting the time a matter can be spoken about. We call it a time allocation motion.

It sounds wonderful to the people who rarely come here or never come here: "Oh, they're going to speak less. They're going to limit the time for debate." Well, you might think that's a good idea, and if you think that's a good idea, then welcome to socialism in Ontario. It's going to be great because the socialist agenda will now be able to be achieved with much less opposition, at least from those who were elected to hold the government to account. Because from now on, after this thing is voted on, any time the government gets in trouble on a particular bill, it can simply bring in a time allocation motion.

Doesn't it sound just antiseptic? Time allocation motion: It sounds marvellous. It's almost something that you'd think Madison Avenue made up or some Hollywood director approved for a script, a time allocation motion. Wonderful. "They're debating a time allocation motion." But what it really means when you translate it into ordinary English is: "We're going to cut off the right of the opposition to continue to speak on the matter. We're going to cut them off."

Do you know when they're going to cut us off? They're not going to cut us off when we're way off base. They're not going to cut us off when we're making no sense at all and having no impact. They're going to cut us off when we're saying what the people really believe. That's when they're going to cut us off, when we're making a political impression with the people who elect us.

Let's face it: This is a political institution. We are here on the authority of the people who voted for us. We are here having been given a mandate from our voters, and if we're here and making long speeches and our speeches ring true in the minds of the citizens of Ontario, the government now will have the power to cut us off.

They give one day for debate in this clever little Dave Cooke motion. Here's how it works. We get to debate a piece of legislation now for three days. People think that's a long time. Really, it generally amounts to, on a legislative day, 7.5 hours. It doesn't matter how important it is; we get to debate it for 7.5 hours. Then the government has the power, under the Dave Cooke regime, to cut us off. In good old socialist Ontario we have one more day of debate, and that's on a time allocation motion. Anything can be put in that time allocation motion, including an allocation of one more minute or one more hour or one day in committee or no days in committee. Anything at all can go in there and you've got one more day of debate.

I ask my friends over there in the government: Are you going to do that when our speeches are way off base, when we don't have any following for what we're saying, when people think we are not on the right side of the issue? Heavens, no. You'll let us speak for ever when we're on the wrong side of the issue. It's when what we say rings true that you will cut us off. We have no reason for debating in here other than we believe that we represent some views.

Tonight I'm here with a longish kind of speech because one of the things I feel strongest about, of all the issues that come before me, is the sacredness of this institution. Yes, I'm a Liberal. I'm not a socialist and I'm not a Tory; I'm a Liberal. But that's not as important to me as being a democrat, someone who believes very strongly in our democratic institutions: the independence of our courts, the importance of a Charter of Rights, the freedom of the individual and the freedom and independence of Parliament.

1940

Tonight a few government members have stuck around to see the most significant reduction in the power of Parliament since the Second World War. It's the only time it's happened. It's the only time that the trend towards a freer, more independent Parliament has been the order of the day for any government.

The great sadness of this -- well, there are really four points. There are really four things that are so self-evident if you know this place and if you read the history, so self-evident that what the government is doing now is wrong.

First, the legislative history of this place since the war has been a progressive one. In other words, every change in the rules has made this Parliament more independent of the executive, the cabinet, the Premier, the head honchos in government. Every single measure of significance that has been taken has made this place a more independent institution. Every single measure has expanded and acknowledged the rights of the minority. There's a 30-year history that I'm going to be speaking about in a few moments and all of it has been in that direction. Suddenly, with the election of a socialist NDP government in Ontario, that history is starting to turn around and this is the first significant step.

It's interesting, too, because it's classic. Just read the history of virtually any government. For a government that fears its opposition and fears for what it is doing, the first thing it does is change the rules of the game. It's the first thing it does. Go back in history as far back as it was written and that's what happens. Here it's happening and nobody stayed to witness it. There's no one in the gallery to witness it. There's no press here to write about it. They don't care about it either.

On the government side, there are a few members here, simply because they've been told to be here and not one of them -- save and except the member for Welland-Thorold -- had the courage to speak on it. Not one of them has had the courage to speak on it other than the government House leader who introduced it and the member for Welland-Thorold who opposes it, and we'll get to that in a while. The whole history of Ontario since 1960 has been reform that has acknowledged the rights of the minority and tonight we are going to conclude a debate that turns that around.

I want to acknowledge the presence now in the gallery of the reporter from the Windsor Star. I don't want to say anything about him because I might not be charitable.

First, we are going to look at the legislative history. I'm going to remind the government members about what has happened over the past 30 years, because most of the people in this chamber tonight on the government side have only been here for two years. They're meddling with the rules, having been here for two years. You don't do that. That's what Mulroney did. He got into power and he wanted to start to meddle with the Constitution. Look at the mess we're in now.

The second point I want to make -- this one is difficult for me to make because I am so desperately angry at the New Democratic Party right now I could just spit. But I have to acknowledge, and will acknowledge in this debate, that it was the New Democratic Party that always fought the hardest in this Parliament to expand the rights of the minority. It was always the New Democratic Party. Stephen Lewis did it and he was brilliant. Bob Rae, now the member for York South, the Premier of Ontario, also did it and Donald MacDonald and the late Jim Renwick.

I'm not saying they were the only ones. There were great members on our side as well while we were in opposition who contributed significantly to that battle to expand the freedom and independence of the Parliament. But I must confess, and I almost want to bite my tongue, that it was the New Democratic Party that led that fight. It was always there. It always was prepared to give long, eloquent speeches and fight and negotiate for expanding the rights of the minority. I can't believe what's happened.

I think frankly that's one of the great dilemmas that the people of Ontario are having right now. They can't believe what they're seeing and hearing from the New Democratic Party, the socialist government which has always championed the causes. Then they get in power and it's almost like a nightmare. My God, what are they doing?

I remember Bob Rae talking about the casino economy, and now we are going to have casinos. I remember Bob Rae making great speeches when he was a member of the opposition -- and we're going to get to that later on -- about parliamentary institutions and the primary responsibility of the Parliament to protect the rights of the minority, the opposition, to hold the government to account. After tonight, forget about it. Parliament becomes less relevant.

I think this is one of the most fascinating aspects of what the government House leader has been saying. It's almost like Animal Farm. The government House leader stands up and says, "These rules are rules that are found in all the other parliaments in Canada, notably the House of Commons."

Do you know how much relevance the House of Commons has these days, with all due respect to my colleagues who are federal MPs? Not very much. Nothing happens up there. There are no battles any more. The government can ram through its agenda at will. That's why no one listens to the debates there in the afternoon: because it's all time allocated.

Do you remember the GST, which that party over there, now in the government, said it was going to fight? Remember the GST? They encountered a little problem there; there was one little hitch that wasn't fixed yet. It was called the Senate. So what did the Prime Minister of Canada do? He fixed the Senate. He stuck some more Tory members into the Senate to get the GST passed, so now that's fixed as well.

But the government House leader, Dave Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside, says, "Hey, these rules are in other parliaments in Canada." You're damn right they are and that's why those other parliaments in Canada are not very effective.

We're taking away the right to filibuster. You'll never be able to filibuster in this Parliament again. Jamais. Never again will you be able to filibuster in this Parliament. The last filibuster I recall was when we were in government and they were in opposition. It was their filibuster and it was on auto insurance and it was the member for Welland-Thorold who was filibustering.

Do you want to know something, Madam Speaker? He did a magnificent job. You were in Parliament at that time. You will recall that when the filibuster ended, all parties stood up and gave him a round of applause, a standing ovation, not because we believed that what he was saying about automobile insurance was right but because he exercised that rare tactic in this Parliament, the filibuster. Absolutely rare. I mean, I've only seen one. That was Peter Kormos's.

I say to you tonight the fact that there can be no more Peter Kormos filibusters means that this place is not what it once was and what it should be in the future. Do you know why I think we should still have the right to filibuster? Because the rules we have here allow a government -- remember, governments have the majority -- to cut it off. We knew that when Peter Kormos was filibustering. We knew we had the power, the sharp knife, to cut it off. We believed he was wrong in substance but Parliament demanded that he have the opportunity and the right to carry on.

The world didn't come to an end because the member for Welland-Thorold filibustered. Indeed, once he had to speak all night long. The world didn't come to an end; the province was better for it. The bill ultimately passed. But the opposition which the member for Welland-Thorold represented was fully and completely expressed in this Parliament, and that will never be able to happen again now that Dave Cooke is running this place -- never again.

1950

Theoretically it will not be able to happen. That is eliminated. The right to filibuster has been eliminated, and it's been done by the party that used to be the champion of the minority, the New Democratic Party, now in government, now bringing you socialism à l'Ontario. It ain't good and it's not going to work and it's not going to get re-elected. One of the reasons it's not going to get re-elected is because of what it's done tonight to this Parliament.

The third point I want to speak about tonight is just to say a few words later on about the tactics the NDP has used in opposition. The Kormos filibuster, I think, was an appropriate use of the opposition minority's power, such as it is, as if we have a great deal of power in the face of a government that has 74 members and an arbitrary cabinet and a mean-spirited government House leader.

The tactics of the NDP when it was in opposition were extremely interesting. They were orchestrated by David Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside, when he was over here. I don't know how he has the gall to stand up in this House and, having used all those tactics for all the years he was opposition House leader, now stand up in this Parliament and say, "Those tactics aren't available to you any more, ha ha ha." That's really outrageous, I believe.

They used the tactics for at least five years in opposition, then we had an election and they got in power and said: "Those tactics impede the business of the House and impede the government's agenda. Let's eliminate them. You've got one day to debate this thing," one day to debate this measure, which eliminates filibustering, the right to speak freely and the right to speak at length -- eliminated; one day to speak about it. That's Dave Cooke in government, certainly not Dave Cooke in opposition.

Finally, the fourth point I want to speak about tonight --

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): I would like to remind the member for York Centre to refer to members by their riding or by their title.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I notice that the habit of calling the member for Windsor-Riverside "Dave Cooke" has become prevalent in this chamber, and I haven't heard the real Speaker make that point very often, but it's a good point and I'm going to try and do that and not say the name "Dave Cooke" any more tonight.

The fourth point I want to make, and perhaps I'll start on that one, is that there was no crisis. There was no parliamentary crisis that would give rise to the kinds of draconian rules that were introduced by the government House leader on June 4. There wasn't a parliamentary crisis. There was no problem, as they say -- pas de problème. We were actually moving along relatively well, given the lateness of the session, first, and second, the controversial items on the agenda. There was no crisis. In fact, I was absolutely shocked that there were any new rules put on the order paper. I was sincerely and honestly shocked that that happened.

But I've figured out since what was actually going on, and I want to speak about that for a few minutes tonight. It really is incredible. I mean, you've got to hand it to the government House leader. He orchestrated a crisis and then he brought in rules on the basis of that crisis, and it was all smoke and mirrors; there wasn't any crisis in the first place.

This is ground that actually the House leader for the third party has covered, but I think it would be appropriate to cover it again. Remember that these rule changes were brought forward on the basis that there was urgent need to get on with the government's business and the opposition was stalling. Do you remember that? I remember that. I remember those allegations. They were the silliest allegations I had ever heard. Let's go back to our rules. Let's try and establish, let's try and see, based on the real evidence, whether there was a crisis or not. The government House leader said, "Government business isn't being done."

Those who understand our standing orders, those who read them, know that the standing orders require that in the springtime this House return to work on, in this year, March 9. That's the second Tuesday in March. That's what the standing orders say right now. So all of us, having recessed on December 19 last year just before Christmas, were anticipating coming back to Parliament to hear a throne speech and debate government business on March 9.

Well, guess what? The government cancelled that week. They said: "Don't come back. We're not ready yet. Don't come back." They cancelled the week, a whole week of sittings, when we could have been dealing with government business -- cancelled. The week after that is normally taken off, and of course we had it off. The week after that, the government cancelled the sitting. It said: "No, you don't have to come back here. There's nothing to do. We're not ready yet." Another week eliminated from the calendar. What about the week after that, the week of March 30 to April 2? The government cancelled it again. A whole month where we could have been sitting and we weren't.

Who's creating the crisis? All of us were ready to come back and debate the government's legislation. But they said: "Don't bother. Stay at home. There's nothing to do down here. The sitting is cancelled." One whole month. We actually didn't realize at that time that the government was sort of orchestrating this dilemma of a whole bunch of legislation piling up at the end of June. If we were smarter, we would have smelled a rat and we would have realized that something was going on. I mean, a whole month of sittings. It's unusual for the high-class, socialist reform government to simply cancel a month of the Legislature, but I think we were a little bit naïve.

That takes care of the month of March. We didn't even sit then. There was no business. We couldn't do any business because the lights were out. The table officers were home. The Speaker was off God knows where, and we were in our constituencies or doing the other work that we do. Then we came back finally on I guess it was March 3 or 4 --

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): April 6.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, April. Thank you. I guess it was April 6, yes, and heard a throne speech. You know, God bless us, throne speeches. It was just like every other throne speech that's been read in this place, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing and not giving any direction for the province, but there was a throne speech. Then the government spent a million dollars advertising the fact that people could send in for their free copies of the throne speech, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing --

Interjection.

2000

Mr Sorbara: That's right. My good friend the member for Wilson Heights reminds me that the great -- this is a clever government. In the first section of the Toronto Star, there was the entirety of the throne speech reprinted. A few pages closer to the front was this big ad coming from your friendly socialist government saying, "Please write us and we'll send you a free copy of our throne speech, which is full of sound and fury and signifies nothing."

That week the government introduced one bill, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act, Bill 1. Well, whoop-de-do. It allows David Crombie -- am I allowed to say "David Crombie," Madam Speaker? -- to continue the good work that he's doing in helping us to rethink our waterfront and to plan for the future in the entire greater Toronto bioregion, as David Crombie refers to it.

So that week the government introduced one bill, on the waterfront regeneration trust. The next week we did sit and the government introduced two bills. Well, that's twice as many as it introduced in the first week. One of them was a corporations tax bill and the other was a mining tax bill. Hallelujah, the government is getting on with its new tax policies and whoop-de-do, there are two new bills on the order paper. Whoops, I smell a crisis. Legislation is being held up. These bills are now on the order paper and the opposition hasn't passed them yet.

You know, we don't feel very good about passing tax bills. If we talk a little bit longer about passing a tax bill, perhaps the citizens of Ontario could forgive us for that. There is zero tolerance in Ontario right now for new taxes. The Treasurer introduced $1 billion worth of new taxes in his budget and that took us beyond the zero tolerance level. People are angry as I have never seen them out there about taxes, and the government says, "We want time allocation, please, to get our tax bills passed." Forgive us for objecting. Forgive us for wanting to debate them somewhat longer than the government would like. Forgive us for wanting to speak a little bit longer on these matters.

That's the week of April 13 to April 16. Remember, we only sit four days. We're going to sit less once these rules are changed. The week of April 20 to April 23 there was no legislation introduced at all in this House. The week of April 27 to April 30 there was one bill introduced: the Ontario Loan Act, Bill 16. We've now passed that. That gives the government the authority to borrow $16 billion -- no, I'm sorry, I think it's $12 billion. I may be wrong on the figures.

Let's go to the next week, May 4 to May 7: no legislation introduced. Let's go to the next week, May 11 to May 14: no legislation introduced. Then we come to constituency week. The place is closed down, the lights go off, we go to our constituencies and obviously no legislation can be introduced. Parliament isn't sitting.

We come back to work on May 25 and on the four days that we're sitting, we have a rather unimportant education amendment bill introduced, a miscellaneous bill -- I think we need it, I think it will pass, I don't think there's a problem -- and another bill introduced by the Minister of Education: the Education Amendment Act (Education Authorities and Minister's Powers). That's Bill 21. Very important and progressive legislation, although no one in the province save for a few bureaucrats and parliamentarians knows what those bills are all about. Certainly those who are out of work are not relying on these bills to help them.

Then May 27 we've got a whole slew of bills introduced, actually five. We have the Colleges Collective Bargaining Statute Law Amendment Act, a piece of legislation that will allow part-time teachers at community colleges to organize themselves in a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining. Okay. Actually, we were going to do it in the last year of our term. We never got around to it. We had an election; we were defeated. This is not terribly controversial stuff.

Then Bill 25 was introduced, the Parking Infractions Statute Law Amendment Act, a way to collect parking tickets a little bit more quickly and eliminate some of the terrible mistakes that are made in parking tickets; that is, not being anywhere near Toronto on a certain day but getting a summons saying you were parked illegally in downtown Toronto. Remember, that was a problem for the member for Cambridge. He got into a little trouble, lost his cabinet job -- pretty sad situation -- wrote some letter to a justice of the peace.

The same day, the Gaming Services Act was introduced. Now this bill is a real surprise to me, because I was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations from 1989 to September 30, 1990, and we had pretty much finished all the work necessary on this bill. I thought the socialist government had scrapped it. I really did. I thought: "Well, they didn't like the work we did on it so they've decided to do something else. That's their right. They're in government. They can do whatever they want. They have a majority." They don't need these new rules; they have a majority, I remind them. But here it is two years later and the bill is introduced and it's pretty much the same bill; a few little touches, maybe one or two minor amendments, inconsequential.

Finally on May 28, in this expanding legislative agenda, we have the Income Tax and Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Statute Law Amendment Act. This is the one we've all been waiting for. This is the one that is so controversial. I warrant that no member in this Legislature save for the Minister of Revenue, who I see seated in her seat, knows what's in this bill. And you know, it doesn't even matter, because when these bills are introduced they're made retroactive. The taxes had already been collected or the pension benefits have already been paid out.

Why do we need time allocation and an end to filibuster when the socialist government introduces so many pieces of legislation that are retroactive, that come into effect as soon as they are introduced, for example, the Sunday shopping bill? Who cares how long we debate Sunday shopping? It's retroactive. It's already law. The government did whatever it wanted. It doesn't need time allocation to pass that, except to quiet the member for Welland-Thorold. He's the only one in this party who will in an outspoken way condemn his government for doing what the government is doing.

I support what the government is doing. I don't like retroactive legislation -- I believe it's an abuse of what Parliament's all about -- but I understand that with tax bills, and occasionally with other bills, you make them retroactive. What does retroactive mean? It simply means that although the bill might not be passed for two years, the bill comes into effect on the day it's introduced. Do you need time allocation to ensure that it gets passed? Heavens, no. These bills never have to be debated, because their impact on people's lives is already there. Yet the government says it needs time allocation to pass its agenda.

Let's get on with it. The week of June 1 to June 4: First, we have a new retail sales tax -- more taxes. The Minister of Revenue is going to make it more difficult to sell your old clunker, your used car. "Don't ever underestimate the price on that little slip," the Minister of Revenue says to the people of Ontario who are driving old clunkers and want to sell them. If you do that, my God, she's got a system now to nab you and collect every single penny of tax. Again, it's the poorest people, the people who have to drive and sell and buy used cars who are going to pay for that one, thanks to your friendly, local, socialist government. What a mistake this was.

On June 2 we got a special education statute. It just replaced another bill that died on the order paper. June 3 was a great day. This was the day the Premier of Ontario stood up in this Legislature and said: "You know what? I've changed my mind on Sunday shopping. I think that things have changed. We're living in a new world. Forget all those speeches against Sunday shopping and in favour of a common pause day. Ignore our filibusters when we were in opposition. Ignore everything we've said up until this moment. Next Sunday all the stores are going to be open." He introduced a bill on June 3 to do that and give it retroactive effect -- wow! We don't need time allocation for this bill because it doesn't ever have to be called. We don't need time allocation for any bill. You ought not to enhance your power and reduce the power of the minority, of the voice of the opposition.

2010

Finally, on June 4, we found out what it was really all about. The Minister of Labour introduced his amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That's what it was all about. Time allocation and the end of filibuster and the other repressive measures are to get the labour bill passed and the trade union bill passed. I have a lot of time for trade unions. I was a Minister of Labour. Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, is a personal friend and someone I greatly admire and he doesn't need a time allocation bill to ram this legislation through. It's simply not necessary.

But on the day that the labour bill was introduced, in the afternoon, before 5 o'clock, quietly and without telling anyone the government House leader rose from his chair, walked over to this table in front of us, where the table officers sit and where the Clerk sits, and tabled the most draconian, most arbitrary, most repressive rule changes that have ever been tabled in the Ontario Legislature. He didn't tell anyone about it. He didn't tell the press, he didn't tell us, he didn't tell the Tories and he didn't tell his own members. He quietly tabled it. We found out about it Monday morning.

I want to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the rules changes we're passing today, repressive as they are and oppressive as they are of the minority, are nothing in comparison to what the government House leader quietly slipped on the table before 5 o'clock -- I hope, I say to the table officers -- slipped on the table without telling anyone.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: They were far more repressive; they were brutal. I'll tell you something: I've never read anything like it. They really were the most oppressive rules I have ever seen. They gave the government House leader the authority, on Thursday afternoon, to order everyone to work overtime Monday and Tuesday night. Now I know a little bit about the law relating to hours of work and overtime. I know we nearly lost an automobile plant in Oshawa over the issue of voluntary hours or work and overtime. Bob White was able to go into that confrontation and actually solve it -- maybe.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Another friend of yours?

Mr Sorbara: I say to the noisy member from Yorkview that he is a friend of mine.

Mr Mammoliti: They all love you, Greg.

Mr Sorbara: No, I say to the noisy member for Yorkview, they don't love me. But I think they respect me and I respect them and the role they play.

The Acting Speaker: I would remind the member for Yorkview that interjections are not in order, and the member for York Centre may proceed.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was saying that those rule changes that were slipped on the table before 5 o'clock were incredibly repressive. Hours of work and overtime be damned; the government House leader gave himself the authority on Thursday afternoon to say that this place would sit Monday and Tuesday nights. Do you know what that means? Ask a GM worker what it means for arbitrary ordering of overtime. It means you can never make a plan for Monday or Tuesday night to talk to your constituents, go and have a drink with someone, see a movie, go to a rally or protest in some other way because you've got to be available for work, because Thursday afternoon the guys sitting in the throne over there can order you to work.

I realize now that was a tactic. Apparently he said to himself: "I am going to table a really repressive package of rules and then I'll back off as the crisis explodes and I'll seem like a fair guy. I'll seen like a generous House leader who's willing to negotiate." Well, he's won. Remember, this is a speech in defeat. We've lost. The minority has lost. The ability to oppose in Ontario by opposition parties has been significantly reduced. I'm just here to lament that fact and to say that the government will live to regret this. More important, the people will live to regret this because I am so terribly afraid that some time some government is going to come into this province with brutally oppressive plans and they'll use these rules to drive them through. No one will remember how it all got started. No one will remember that the member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader, started this whole thing in a crisis that didn't exist.

Madam Speaker, I could take you bill by bill through the things actually on the order paper and I defy you to find controversy other than in the labour bill which, although, in my view, not having studied it clause-by-clause, has some good aspects to it and some not-so-good aspects to it. I simply suggest to the government that it's worthy of introduction and it's worthy of vigorous debate. Personally I don't think it's worthy of a filibuster. Other members might have a different view, but I think it's worthy of careful, clear analysis because it's going to change workplace relationships as between employers and the workers who are organized in a trade union.

The government was so worried, so terrified at what it was doing, that it decided it had better change the rules. Madam Speaker, do you have any idea how offensive it is to have the rules changed in the middle of the game? Do you know how affronted one can get over here when they say, "Hey, we just changed the rules"? It's like a pitcher who can't get in the strike zone, so he has the umpire make it bigger. He can't see his way to get the ball across the plate. That's their trouble over there in the government: They can't do it and so they've expanded the strike zone. They can strike anywhere now, and if it's a problem they bring in time allocation and it's all looked after. It's all antiseptic. This place is going to be so antiseptic from now on. Forget about Peter Kormos -- oops, I'm sorry -- the member for Welland-Thorold; no more filibusters. That's illegal in this place now.

I want to speak to the members of this House and the people watching this debate -- some think probably it's a rerun. It's not a rerun; we're still here. Democracy has suffered a serious blow. The opposition's power has been reduced and those of you who think the socialist government in Ontario's doing well should be happy; the other 80% of the people in the province should wear a dark armband. They should light a candle for one small but, I think, important aspect of democracy. All the more so because, if you look at the history of reform in Ontario -- and I'm going to go through it for you, Madam Speaker -- you will see that each succeeding government brought forward measures that expanded the independence, authority and effectiveness of Parliament. The member for Windsor-Riverside, the socialist government House leader, is the first one in history to turn back in a major way in that regard.

2020

I'm working from a document prepared by David Pond, the research officer of the legislative research service of our very competent library. This is not a Liberal document. This is a document prepared by the library in response to my request for some information about the history of reform of our rules in this Legislature. Obviously I'm not going to read it all; I think probably you may even rule me out of order, but I am going to be quoting from it from time to time. It begins like this:

"An account of parliamentary reform in the Ontario Legislature must begin in the late 1960s. Up until the last quarter-century, the Ontario Legislature was dominated by the executive" -- that means the cabinet; that means the circle around the Premier -- "and the Legislature exercised little control over the operation of government" -- right up until the 1960s.

Then something important happened. To quote Professor Graham White, who is the undisputed authority on this Legislature, he said: "The Ontario Legislative Assembly, as it existed prior to the mid-1960s, is more of a historical curiosity than a guide for the present-day institution." What he's saying there, simply, is that we've gone a long way from the mid-1960s.

Who started it off? It was Premier John Robarts who started it off. I've got a lot of respect for the late John Robarts. I had the opportunity to practise law with him for a very short period after he retired as Premier and after I graduated from law school. That's neither here nor there. I have more respect for what he did as Premier in opening the windows of this place, in opening the windows of the nation. John Robarts was responsible for beginning the rewriting of who we are as Canadians. The Confederation of Tomorrow conference he convened was the first significant step towards rewriting the basic principles that bind us together as a people, and he was a great Premier. He was a Tory. He was a great Premier.

What John Robarts did was establish a commission. Talk about consultation. David Cooke -- I'm sorry, the member for Windsor-Riverside -- slips some new rules on the table at five to 5 on Thursday night and requires that they be debated Monday morning before we've seen them. Compare that to what John Robarts did. John Robarts said: "The place isn't working well. The entire place isn't working well." So he established a commission. He appointed Dalton Camp. We still hear Dalton Camp. Those who listen to Morningside during the fall and winter season hear Dalton Camp every Tuesday morning. He appointed Dalton Camp. He appointed Farquhar Oliver, a former leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, and he appointed Douglas Fisher, a former CCF/NDP MP. He appointed those three people to examine the Parliament and find out what's wrong and make suggestions for reform. I think that was a pretty clever way of consulting and investigating and examining and proposing.

That commission is responsible for the Parliament we have today under the Legislative Assembly Act, which was passed in 1974. It provided that members should have staff and assistants, that they should have research, that there should be some order to this place, and particularly that there should be rights vested in the minority, that the executive -- that is, the cabinet and the Premier and the government House leader -- shouldn't have all the power to run the place in any way they see fit. It started with the Camp commission, appointed in the mid-1960s, reporting I think in 1971, and the act was passed in 1974.

Just listen to this, if you will. The Camp commission argued that the independence of the Legislature from the executive would be incomplete as long as the government physically controlled the precincts of the Legislature. Dalton Camp went so far as to say that it's so important that the Legislature be independent and that the minorities have rights that the government, the cabinet, the state, the Premier, shouldn't have control over these buildings.

He recommended that in 1970 and it wasn't actually completed until we were in government when in 1988 Richard Patten, the then Minister of Government Services and the member for Ottawa Centre, the predecessor of the now Minister of Housing, actually signed the document, the memorandum of understanding, that transferred responsibility for this precinct from the government to the Office of the Assembly under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy.

There were a number of other things the Camp commission recommended: more resources for members, including more personal staff and funding for caucus research; less haphazard scheduling of House business; a reduction in the party leaders' dominance of question period, and on and on.

The great thing was that these recommendations were actually acted upon. Even more important, I think, or perhaps as a way of explanation, in 1975 the Tories in Ontario had a rude awakening. They thought they were going to win another majority government and they fell into minority. Stephen Lewis for the NDP and Bob Nixon for the Liberals were able to wage such a successful fight that Bill Davis fell into minority.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): It wasn't 1985.

Mr Sorbara: I said 1975, I tell my friend the member for Kitchener, the former Minister of Energy.

What happened was that there was an election, and in that election the Tory government fell into minority. I'm not going to go over the whole history of that minority period; it actually lasted from 1975 to 1981. There was an intervening election in 1977. Again Bill Davis thought he could strike while the iron was hot and get a majority. Did he have a rude awakening: another minority government, so six years of minority government.

There was a whole host of reforms to the parliamentary system brought in, driven by Stephen Lewis and driven by Bob Nixon, who insisted that if the Parliament was going to be independent, somewhat more power was going to have to be given to the opposition.

These weren't big things; they were relatively small things. Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. The government was required to provide responses to MPPs' petitions within two weeks. The government House leader was required to announce the following week's business before the adjournment of the House on Thursday. The opposition had to fight for that simply so that it could organize the next week and have its research ready to comment on bills. Those things were fought for by Liberals and NDPs in opposition.

Question period was extended from 45 minutes to one hour. Those of you who are listening heard my friend the member for Wilson Heights speak earlier on about how, when you're in government, you want question period to get over really quickly, and when you're in opposition you want five, 10 or 15 more minutes. In that time, question period was extended by 15 minutes. The opposition had 15 more minutes to hold the government to account. I wouldn't be surprised if some day David Cooke brought in a rule eliminating question period if it ever got too hot.

On the reforms went. Subsequent developments, under the Conservative government in 1977 through 1981, included allowing substitutions in committees, providing that all estimates, budget papers, tax legislation and other fiscal issues would be referred to a new finance and economic affairs committee.

2030

In 1981 the Tories got back a majority government. The socialists now have a majority government and the same darn thing is happening. In 1981, under Bill Davis, all reforms stopped. Yes, there were committees that played with the idea that they could discuss rule changes and bring them forward to the House. They were there; they met; they gave reports to the Parliament; the reports were never acted upon. The majority was back. "We now have the power back and we want more power," said the Tories in 1981.

I remind those sitting in government now of what happened to the Tories in 1985: 42 years of Tory rule came to an end. It's always been my view that the reason we were able to defeat the Tories in 1985 was because they lost their enthusiasm for reform.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: We're having a number of interjections from members on both sides of the House who are not in their seats. Although interjections are not in order at any time, I suggest, especially if a member wishes to raise a point of order, that you be in your seat.

Mr Kwinter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I was almost hoist on my own petard. The point of order I want to make is that the rules of the House say that if you are going to make a comment, you should at least be sitting in your seat, so I would ask the member for Markham to please take his seat if he's going to interject. I wasn't sitting in my seat, but I wasn't making any interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Centre, please proceed.

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Do you recall back in 1981 when the Tories got their majority, that suddenly --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): You were still in kindergarten.

Mr Sorbara: I cannot resist reading into Hansard the comment of my friend from Markham, my neighbour -- who is, by the way, doing such a good job of fighting Bill 143 -- that in 1981 I was still in kindergarten. I wish that were the case. Actually, I was graduating from law school at the age of -- oh my God, I think 32 or something like that. But that's not relevant to the debate and we'll leave that as it is.

In 1981, Bill Davis was elected with a new majority and the government lost its enthusiasm for reform and, according to the historical record, certainly lost its enthusiasm for legislative reforms to enhance the independence and effectiveness of the Parliament respecting the rights of the minority. Virtually nothing happened. I want to note parenthetically that the kind of thing that the member for Windsor-Riverside introduced never happened either. The turning back, the taking power away from the minority, from the opposition -- that didn't happen under Bill Davis from 1981 to 1985, thank God, but regrettably, he didn't continue with reform either.

And 1985 brought a new Liberal government to power. The election of May 2, 1985, resulted in the swearing in of the Liberal cabinet on June 26, 1985, and David Peterson became Premier. The record shows that in conjunction with the opposition parties and respecting the opposition parties, a whole new series of reforms was brought in, including the televising of these debates all across the province so that the people could see and examine for themselves what is going on here.

Now the members of the socialist government want to reduce the time we sit and I think they want to do that because they know people are watching. When I stand or any opposition member stands and criticizes the government, that is broadcast around the province, and they want to shut us up because they don't want that criticism to leak out of this building and touch the hearts and minds of the people of Ontario. I can find no other justification for the rules that are being rammed through this Legislature this evening. The debates were to be televised. That reform was put into place.

The legislative committees of this House were strengthened. There was an expansion of the mandate of the Provincial Auditor, another institution of this Parliament which is designed to hold the government to account. That office was expanded. The authority of the standing committee on public accounts to examine and hold the government to account was expanded as well. It's gone now. The new public accounts committee under the NDP government refuses to examine anything that's controversial. I've resigned from it. I will have nothing to do with it.

There were a number of other reforms that were the subject of debate but didn't quite get passed, including the election of the Speaker by secret ballot. We ultimately did that, but during that 1985-87 period that was not done. But we did abolish certain aspects, including the right to appeal a Speaker's ruling, giving you, Madam Speaker, while in the Chair, more authority to independently organize this House and make rulings that cannot be defeated by a government majority -- a very progressive measure.

I want to re-emphasize this point, because it's so terribly important. Let's assume there were a Speaker in the Chair who always sided with the opposition and who tried to enforce the rules in order to give real life to the rights of the minority. Under the old rules, a government member could stand in his or her place and challenge the ruling, and then that ruling would have to be voted on, and if you've got a majority in the House, the government always wins. So it was that right to challenge the ruling of the Speaker which gave the government, until we abolished it, the right and the ability to control the Speaker. We abolished that because it was an abuse of the rights of the minority. Tonight, with these rules, we start abusing the minority again.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Very undemocratic party.

Mr Sorbara: The Non-Democratic Party, I say to my friend the member for Scarborough North. NDP now stands for the Non-Democratic Party.

There are examples that could take me from here to heaven of where this government is reducing the power of people in government who are opposed to it to speak out. Bill 143 is just one example, and I'm going to be getting to that later on in the evening.

There were a number of other changes made between 1985 and 1987 and, according to this researcher, in each case it expanded the independence and the effectiveness of Parliament respecting the rights of the minority. Believe it or not, that 30-year theme, from 1962 to 1992, comes to an end tonight. From tonight onward, the government has a very effective ability, a very sharp knife to cut off opposition whenever opposition is making it tough on government.

2040

I'm not going to go into detail of the reforms from 1987 to 1990. They were less controversial, and in actual fact they eliminated a few abuses and brought, I think, a finer ability for this Legislature to get on with its business. But even then, the way in which we came about arriving at what rules would be appropriate to change was by consensus, was by consultation, was, when we were in government, respecting the rights of the opposition and talking to them about how the rules ought to be changed.

Never in the history of Ontario's Parliament have rule changes been slipped on the table five minutes to 5 o'clock and the opposition parties ordered to debate them the following Monday without even having a caucus meeting to discuss our position on them. That is unprecedented in the history of this Parliament in the 125 years it has been sitting.

I mentioned earlier that one of the things that truly distressed me about this whole process is that as a student of politics and as a student of democratic institutions I have to confess in this speech and in this Parliament that the New Democratic Party in opposition, whether here in Ontario or elsewhere, had always been the clear and unequivocal advocate of the rights of the minority, and in particular in the parliamentary context.

It's worth noting some of the comments of members who still sit in this House, now in government, when they were in opposition. I think perhaps I'd like to begin with the words of the now Minister of Labour, the member for Hamilton East. In 1989 this House was involved in some very controversial legislation, Bill 162, some very significant reforms to the Workers' Compensation Act. I was the minister in whose name that bill stood in this Parliament for over a year. I might just say parenthetically that Bill 162 was before this Parliament for over a year and that was not an unacceptable amount of time for Parliament to be considering that bill given its controversial nature and the impact it would have on citizens.

What do we have now? Why are these rule changes here? Because the government wants to ensure that its labour bill is passed in just a few months. That's the agenda. Don't try and snow us with, "We want to make the place work better." Don't try and snow us with, "The people think that opposition shouldn't use stalling tactics." The New Democratic Party, for God's sake, invented stalling tactics. They developed them. They have apprentices in this House who became journeymen stalling pieces of legislation they didn't like. And now that they are master craftsmen in Ontario, they have become repressive. If we don't stop that here, they'll be repressive in the substantive law they bring forward.

The taste for power gives rise to a taste for more power. You give them the power to shut up the opposition and they say, "Hey, we can do what we want now." Those who feed their coffers and those who feed their minds whisper into their ears to say: "You can do what you want now in Parliament. You can have the golden apple. We want a bit of your soul, but you can do what you want now. The opposition at most can have four days. Second reading: four days, that's it. Don't worry, you can do what you want. Just give us a little bit of your soul. Sell your soul. Casinos: sell your soul. Sunday shopping: sell your soul. Auto insurance: sell your soul. You've got the power. You have power and that's what this place is all about."

They grab power tonight from us and I object to that, because the opposition needs some power too to say no and to say it loudly and to get the attention of the people and to make sure that power is not abused. That's the only role an opposition party has, to make sure that power is not abused, and our ability to do that has been reduced as of the moment this motion is passed, and I object.

Listen to what the now Minister of Labour said in 1989. He said: "Every time a government moves closure it gets easier, and democracy is just a little frailer as a result. This is a sad day for justice in Ontario, and I think another sad day for this particular government. The members of this government, argue as they might, know and know very well that there is no real justification for this closure motion at this time."

This was when Bill 162 had been debated for over a year in this Parliament. We weren't bringing in blanket time allocation motions; we were bringing in a time allocation motion to complete the debate after one year and one month's debate. The bill was introduced on June 20, 1988 and completed on July 26, 1989 -- a year and a month. The words were quite eloquent. I'm going to repeat them: "This is a sad day for justice in Ontario, and I think another sad day for this particular government." I'll tell you, talk about sadness.

For ever now, it's all over. Opposition parties' ability to oppose has been limited. The government members say, "Hey, we don't have to worry too much any more because they can't debate bills as long as they used to." I want to get on to that, if I might, to turn to what the traditions are in this Legislature in terms of length of debate, the shutting down of the opposition and the consideration of important legislation.

Shortly after we were elected in 1985 we introduced a bill to extend funding to the last couple of grades in the Catholic school system. It was a hugely controversial piece of legislation. Before Bill Davis retired as Premier of Ontario, he announced that it was going to be done. Frank Miller inherited his job, didn't like the policy very much, then called an election, couldn't make up his mind, really, where he stood on it and lost the election. We were called upon to govern and we had said, in campaigning in 1985, that if we were elected we were going to do it, and we did it.

Compare that, by the way, to the extent to which the socialist government has implemented the agenda it promised in the election of 1990. Just compare it for a minute. Just look at it. Look at the agenda for reform and ask yourself, two years down the road, how much of it is implemented. Where's public auto insurance? Where's help for farmers? Where are the tax reforms that were going to come forward? They've all been abandoned.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): School funding.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Mississauga East says school funding. Oh, yes indeed, school funding: You dropped that the first day. But I want to go back to 1985 and to Bill 30, which was the bill to extend full funding to the Catholic school system. That bill was introduced for first reading on July 4, had second reading debate for some three days and then went to committee. It was in committee in that form for 17 weeks. That was right and proper. The reason it was right and proper to have it in committee for 17 weeks in 1985 was because the people wanted to be heard on it.

The Minister of Labour says that maybe we can get his labour bill into committee for five weeks. It's going to be during the summertime when people are on holidays and when they won't be able to comment on it. That's just fine for him, because now the theologians of social justice are in power, and frankly, they don't need to hear from the people as much as parliaments used to. That's what's going on in these rule changes, and that's why I'm speaking here tonight.

2050

Those 17 weeks were the first part of the debate on Bill 30. Then the bill was reintroduced in the second session of that Parliament, again another first reading. There was no need for a second reading debate. As a technical matter, the reason it was reintroduced was because we had a prorogation -- that means an ending of a session of Parliament -- and you needed to reintroduce the bill again. But we relied on those 17 weeks of hearings, and then after that we continued to consider the bill for 13 more days in committee. That's clause-by-clause consideration. Then we had committee of the whole consideration and then third reading debate on the bill and then June 24, almost a year later, royal assent.

I ask my New Democratic friends, was that wrong? Was it wrong to debate separate school funding for a year before passing it? Would it have been better to have had time allocation to cut off debate, to limit the ability of the citizens of the province to comment on the legislation that was going to affect their lives so dramatically?

I have one opinion, and that is that it is clearly not wrong; it is clearly the essence of democracy. We are going to strike the name "Democratic" from the NDP, because they have put a fatal wound to democracy with the motion that's on the order paper tonight. I simply want to refer them back to Bill 30 once again, 17 weeks of hearings. The people of the province had an opportunity to be heard. It will never happen again in Ontario, because governments will use time allocation motions to make sure it doesn't happen.

During that accord period, as we called it, with the NDP, there was another very controversial bill that took up much of the time of the Parliament. That was Bill 94. That was the bill, as you will recall -- you were a member then, Madam Speaker -- that put a ban on extra-billing by doctors. My God, was that controversial. Doctors would call you at your constituency office. Some would say, "Go for it, it's right," others would say, "You'll never get another vote from anyone in the Ontario Medical Association again."

There was a doctors' strike, demonstrations out on the lawn here, all of which are important and frankly essential elements of a vibrant democracy. The minority has a right to express itself, sometimes through its MPPs, sometimes through demonstrations, sometimes through strikes, sometimes through articles in newspapers and sometimes through the elected representatives standing up and making a fuss in Parliament.

Let me tell you about the fuss on Bill 94 as far as time was concerned. The first reading of that bill took place on December 19, 1985. Boy, were the doctors mad. They thought: "They won't really do it. You can't ban extra-billing in Ontario. We're too powerful," the doctors suggested. So first reading was December 19, 1985. That bill was debated on second reading in this Parliament for 14 days. When you think back or when you say it, it doesn't sound very long, but you know what? Under the time allocation rules, the new socialist government will be able to cut off debate after four days. That will end it. Second reading debate will be over and even then individual members will only be able to speak for 30 minutes. Some opposition members in 1985 spoke for hours and hours.

Was that wrong? Did that lessen our ability to govern? No, what it did was hold the government to account. It created some sort of balance between the power of the state and the power of the citizen, in this case doctors. It wasn't wrong. It didn't hamper the ability to continue to make widgets and provide a cup of coffee in a local restaurant or anything. It was democracy in action, even the demonstration and the doctors' strike.

But that's not the end of it. There were some 14 weeks of debate and then we went into that next session of Parliament that I talked about. We had one more day of second reading debate and then we sent it out for consideration in a committee. Even after the committee consideration, where members of the public come and make their points, we came back here and had 11 more days of debate in committee of the whole. Some people don't know what committee of the whole is, but it's all the members of the House sitting in committee, examining the bill clause by clause, clause by paragraph.

Was that wrong? I ask the government members. I ask the new age socialists. I ask those who will bring freedom and joy and justice and prosperity to recession-ridden Ontario whether it was wrong that we had 11 days of committee of the whole hearings on the bill to ban extra-billing. I don't think it was wrong. I thought it was democracy.

I was on the side that wanted to ban extra-billing. Some of the opposition -- not the NDP, to give them credit, but the Tories -- didn't want it, and in order to allow the doctors and those who were against the ban on extra-billing the formal expression of their opposition, they have an opposition party. That party spoke for them, and some members, frankly, spoke for more than 30 minutes. Now that won't be allowed any more.

Was it wrong then? I want to know why that was so wrong. If I could be convinced of that, I would sit down. I wouldn't oppose this thing any more and the government could have its way. Was it wrong? I don't think so.

I remember Dick Treleaven. I think he was the member for Oxford, the Deputy Speaker of the House. He wanted to filibuster and he had promised his constituency that he was so angry about this that he would speak for two days in the House. He actually did complete that by beginning a speech at around 5 o'clock in the evening, if I recall, and speaking past midnight, until about 1 o'clock in the morning. It expressed on behalf of citizens the response of some of the citizens to the ban on extra-billing.

You look back and say, "Big deal, 11 days of debate in committee of the whole." It'll never happen again. Time allocation will be moved in this House even before the bill gets out to committee, even before you know how controversial it is. They'll allocate time and say, "One day for committee of the whole; clause-by-clause consideration in one day." They'll do that. Believe you me, Madam Speaker, you and I should get back here on every anniversary of this night of debate and just look at the time allocation motions as they come in, and you will see that they will do that. The more controversial the legislation, the more tempted and the more anxious they will be, these new age socialists, to do that.

I want to move out of the 1985-87 accord period and make some reference to the NDP members in opposition and their approach to this Legislature when they were in opposition and what they thought was appropriate and right in terms of length of debate. I want to go back for a moment and remind you that the government House leader said the business of the House was clogged and we couldn't get any business done.

In going back to the 1987-90 period, I'm going to be talking first of all about that dreaded, awful subject, Sunday shopping. I want to remind you of who took up hours and hours of legislative time debating Sunday shopping in this Parliament under Bob Rae and under the Solicitor General, the bill that was going to bring back a common pause day that the Liberals had destroyed. We spent days on that here -- talk about wasting time -- and then about four months after the bill was passed Bob Rae said: "I've changed my mind. Forget it. We're going to open all the stores." Just like that. And they say we're wasting time.

2100

Their Bill 115, which was going to bring back the common pause day the member for Welland-Thorold still wants, took up a good deal of this session and then they said: "Forget it. We're getting too many calls. We've got to open up the stores. The economy's tough etc. Sorry." Well, they didn't say sorry. That actually irked me a little bit. The Premier did not have the courtesy to say, "Forgive me, those of you who had to go through all that business of dealing with our bill," not even the courtesy to say, "Sorry about that." This government does not have courage, but at least it could have courtesy. It doesn't even have courtesy.

I just say that parenthetically, because I want to go back to the really heated debate on Sunday shopping, the debate that took place while we were in government and while we introduced a bill which was designed to allow municipalities one by one to make up their own minds about Sunday shopping. I think it was a reasonable approach for the time. I think I would have preferred a bill that allowed the stores to stay open except if the municipalities decided to close them, but that's just the other side of the same coin.

It was in December 1987 that the then Solicitor General, the member for London South, Joan Smith, stood in this Legislature and made an announcement that the government intended to bring in legislation.

Remember, Mr Speaker -- I see now the elected Speaker is in the Chair looking fresh and refreshed. I wish I had had the occasion that you have had to refresh yourself. Oh, well. This is a wake for an independent Parliament, so if you've freshened up, all the better. I think even at a funeral you should look as well as you do, sir.

In December 1987 the then Solicitor General, Joan Smith, the member for London South, stood in the House and made an announcement that we were going to give municipalities the right to decide whether or not the stores would open. My God, did Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, flip out. He and his party flipped out in a way that I don't think any political party has ever flipped out before. This was going to be the end of civilization, family life, the end of freedom and justice for workers, retail or otherwise. This was, in the words of the Premier, the worst possible thing the government could have done in respect of Sunday shopping. They said some awful things about us. "Cowardice," they said, allowing municipalities one by one to make up their own minds on this."

Remember, I said the announcement was made in December. But as it turned out, because of the study that was going on, we didn't actually get to introduce the bill until April 25, 1988, fully four months later, Mr Speaker. And, as you know, because you understand how this House works, the winter recess intervened and the House didn't really begin to sit until I think the middle of March 1988. Right away the opposition NDP got on its tactics horse. They began to launch a powerful crusade to stop this bill. Talk about stalling. The bill hadn't even been introduced and the NDP opposition decided it needed to completely shut down the House to prevent the bill from being introduced. Do you know how they did it? They began to read petitions endlessly. This New Democratic Party that now thinks there should be no opportunity to delay in any way the legislative agenda began on April 14 to prohibit this House from doing business by the reading of petitions.

Let me read from the final status of business for that session under section 544 as to who was reading the petitions. For example, on April 14, Mr Breaugh, now a member of the federal House; Ms Bryden, no longer a member of this House; Mr Charlton, now the Minister of Energy, now in favour of these draconian new rules; Mr Cooke, Windsor-Riverside -- he invented the tactic. I just want to point out to you, sir, that Mr Cooke, as it reads here, the member for Windsor-Riverside, invented the tactic. They read petitions all day long and we weren't able to get to our legislation. Mr Farnan, for a short time the Solicitor General under the socialist government; Mrs Grier -- hey, the classy Minister of the Environment who's trying to dump Metro's garbage in York region; she read a petition that day.

Mr Hampton, now the high-class Attorney General -- doesn't do much, doesn't say much, but at least he's got the job. Mr Johnston -- you remember Mr Johnston, the member for Scarborough West. Now, nice appointment; chairman of the Council of Regents; fixed for at least the next six years. He's okay. You know something? If Richard Johnston were in this House right now, I don't believe he would let the government House leader do this. He had a tremendous love and respect for this Parliament, he honestly did. I think you remember that. Do you not agree with me, sir? He was a New Democrat -- we'll forgive him for that -- but he loved Parliament and thought the rights of the minority were incredibly important. He used to stand at that desk right there and argue for the rights of the minority. Now David Cooke is cutting off the rights of the minority.

I'm going through a list. That was Mr Johnston, Scarborough West; Mr Laughren, now the Treasurer. The guy brings out big budgets, big deficits; doesn't come to Parliament --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, wait till he gets to your name.

Mr Sorbara: I want to tell the Minister of Health that we will get to the former member for Scarborough-Ellesmere in a moment. Now the Speaker -- it won't be all that embarrassing, but you were there. You, sir, as well, when you sat in opposition, used to argue for the rights of the minority. You were a New Democrat. You still are a New Democrat. Thank God you don't go to their conventions any more. You made that mistake in your first year. You're not doing that any more; you're improving as a Speaker.

Mr Laughren is now the Treasurer. Mr Mackenzie, now the Minister of Labour, read a petition that day. By the way, I just want to remind my friends over there who weren't in the Parliament at that time that petitions were read for so long during that day and subsequent days that no business was done in the House for days and days and days. No business was done in the House at all. It got to 6 o'clock; the Speaker was forced to stand up and say, "It now being 6 of the clock, this House is adjourned until 1:30 of the clock," I don't know why they always say that, but they say that.

Ms Martel -- I don't have anything to say about her; Mr Morin-Strom, a former member for Sault Ste Marie; Mr Philip, Etobicoke-Rexdale, now the --

Mr Mammoliti: This doesn't have anything to do with anything. This is the fourth time he's done this.

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, just relax. The member for York Centre has the floor.

2110

Mr Sorbara: The member for Yorkview really loves Parliament. The member for Yorkview loves Parliament so much that he generally refrains from burdening us with his comments.

That day as well, the same day, Mr Pouliot, now the Minister of Transportation -- he got his budget cut this year; not building many roads, not doing much repair work, not getting much of anything done. He got a big cut in the capital budget for the Ministry of Transportation. I have no more to say about him right now. Now, Mr Rae --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Not the Premier.

Mr Sorbara: The Premier, the member for York South, Mr Rae, read a petition that day, a little stalling tactic; no business of the House done that day.

Mr Reville, no longer a member of this House but working in the back rooms in the Premier's office, probably gave the political advice on how hot it would be to bring in these rules. He is probably the guy who did the polling that said, "The people of Ontario don't care much about the rules so you can get it through and hardly anyone will pay attention." And David Reville was right: The press doesn't care about this; the press doesn't care if the opposition is shut down. They could care less. There are only a few of us who care about the wound to democracy that's happening tonight.

But I was reading a list. Mr Mel Swart, the predecessor of the current member for Welland-Thorold. I just have to interject here and say Congratulations, Mel Swart, because you, having been one of the most effective parliamentarians in this Legislature, at least in the time I've been here -- a New Democrat, but you forgive him for that -- had the courage at the NDP convention in Hamilton to say it like it is. He had the courage of his convictions and principles. The sad thing about the New Democrats in government is that they couldn't give a damn about principles if their lives depended on it, and their political lives do depend on it.

Mr Wildman, now the Minister of Natural Resources, was there and read a petition. He was the second-to-last for that day. He probably was standing in his place and looked up at the clock and thought, "I'll read this one. There'll be one more and they can't introduce that draconian Sunday shopping bill that would give municipalities the freedom to make up their own minds." They wanted a common pause day.

Mrs Sullivan: What was that called?

Mr Sorbara: They wanted a common pause day. They wanted retail workers not to have to go to work, although many other workers have to work on Sunday: nurses, doctors, technicians, airplane pilots, airplane flight attendants, a whole bunch of people. Most of the people are subject to being called in for work on Sunday. But they wanted a common pause day, and they wanted it so bad that they were going to stall even the introduction of the bill.

Under the orders we had that day, we couldn't get to introduction of bills to get the bill on the order paper so that a reasonable debate could begin. We could not get there. David Cooke accuses us of stalling, when he's got one important bill to get through and the day he introduces it is the day he takes away our right to oppose it effectively. In comparison to what they did then in opposition, you're telling me, David Cooke, that we're stalling? That was the first day. The same thing happened on April 18. The same thing happened with the same cast of characters on April 19. On April 20, the same thing happened.

I'm going to pause now and say a word about April 20. April 20, 1988, was the day in Ontario that the then Treasurer, the former member for Brant-Haldimand, Bob Nixon, was to read his budget. That was the day assigned for the reading of the budget. Just like any other budget day, hundreds of people had come to Queen's Park to hear the reading of the budget, to examine the budget carefully and to report on the budget. Outside this chamber the television crews were set up to do the post-budget interviews and Bob Nixon was preparing on that day at 4 o'clock to read the budget.

But the orders of the day said that the reading of petitions had to be completed before the budget was read, because you couldn't get to that point. Now I want to read to you from Hansard as to what happened --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member is not seated in his proper seat.

Mr Sorbara: I want to read to the members of this House and the people who are listening to this debate what happened at 4 o'clock on that day, April 20, 1988, when Bob Nixon, one of the truly great parliamentarians this Legislature has ever seen -- I want to read what happened at that time.

Mr Charlton, according to Hansard, wanted to read a petition. He read his petition and then in that seat right over there, the Treasurer of Ontario stood up and said:

"Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, 13 days ago I informed the House of my expectation to present the 1988 budget to the House on this day. The formal notice of motion is in your Orders and Notices, and I would ask unanimous consent that we end this order of business" -- the reading of petitions -- "as is customary" -- he was a great lover of custom -- "and give me an opportunity to present the 1988 budget.

"Mr. Speaker: The members of the House have heard the request of the Treasurer. Is there unanimous consent?"

Interjection: What did they say?

Mr Sorbara: Negatived. "No, he can't read his budget. We have to read petitions, because Sunday shopping is so important to us." I was never so humiliated in all my life. A Treasurer asks to read a budget and they say "negatived."

Mr Curling: I think you woke them up.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry for the outburst. There was no outburst from the Treasurer. He said:

"Hon R. F. Nixon: Since I have the responsibility for the confidentiality of the budget -- "

Then Mr Cooke, now the government House leader, interjected:

"Mr D. S. Cooke: On a point of order? What's going on?

"Hon R. F. Nixon: This is a point of order" -- I can just hear his voice getting a little angry. "I am on a point of order. Since I have that responsibility --

"Some hon members: Sit down.

"Mr Speaker: A new point of order.

"Hon R. F. Nixon: Since I have that responsibility, I have no alternative but to use standing order 35(d) and hereby table the budget in the House. Copies are available to all members. Those members of the press, political observers and people from the business community who are examining the budget at the present time will be let out of their lockup, and we can proceed with the business of the House as you would otherwise order, Mr Speaker."

Mr Speaker had no alternative but to say, "We will continue with the previous order of business." So we went to Mr Charlton, who read yet another petition.

They say to me that we're stalling, that we're imposing on the socialist agenda in Ontario. Bob Nixon, one of the great champions of parliamentary democracy, is prohibited from reading his budget because they are reading petitions in connection with a bill that had not been introduced into the Legislature. They did it, and they did it, and they did it.

Now they are in government by a historical accident, September 6, 1990, and they want to reduce my powers as a member of the minority and the opposition to hold them to account for what they do as a government. Mr Nixon was not allowed to read his budget that day, and I say to you that this government should really be ashamed about what it's doing now, particularly given what it did then in terms of tactics.

I'm going to get back now to Bill 113 and Bill 114, the Sunday shopping bills.

2120

Mr Mammoliti: You're bringing this up for the fifth time.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to my friend the member for Yorkview that there's no need for you to be here. You're not speaking on the bill.

I'm going to go back to the Sunday shopping bill. It was finally introduced on April 25, 1988. We spent eight days debating it in second reading at the request of the opposition. They originally wanted more, but eight days were negotiated. I simply remind the members of the government now that under the new rules that are going to be passed after tonight, four days will be the limit. After that, time allocation is in place.

Hon Mr Wildman: It won't be automatic.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Minister of Natural Resources says it will not be automatic. I say to him that not this month, not next month, but your successors, because they will get into political trouble, will make it automatic. That's why you shouldn't be doing this. That's why this is not right. That's why it's wrong to remove any possibility ever of filibustering, because some government down the road even more capricious than the one that's in power now will use these rules to its full effect and that's wrong.

Sunday shopping, 1988: eight days on second reading -- actually not really bad, when you think of it, for a bill that at least the opposition parties considered to be controversial. I concede that at that point Sunday shopping was a highly controversial issue and deserved a good, long debate. It didn't deserve the kinds of tactics that were foisted upon the Treasurer, Bob Nixon, when he tried to read his budget, but it certainly deserved eight days of second reading debate.

Then we had eight weeks of public hearings. A committee of the Legislature was charged with the responsibility of hearing from citizens all over the province as to their views on whether or not they favoured the then government's approach to Sunday shopping, which was pretty simple: Let the municipalities decide. We then brought the bill back to the Legislature and we considered it for 22 days in clause-by-clause consideration.

That certainly will never happen again under the new rules. No minister, because ministers are very busy, you see, will want to have a bill debated clause by clause for 22 days. Somebody might find something wrong with it and then the government would be criticized, so we'll have time allocation motions that say you can have two, three or maybe four days for clause-by-clause consideration. But certainly if an opposition is concerned about it, you'll be able to shut them down.

Now remember, opposition parties speak on behalf of the citizens out there who have a concern about what's going on here. They may not be very concerned about the rules, but when you bring in controversial and repressive legislation, they're concerned and they want us to raise these issues in debate. But from now on you're going to get your way. You have time allocation and all the tactics are gone.

Sunday shopping: 22 days of clause-by-clause consideration and then a nice little tactic invented by the New Democratic Party -- have a long two-day debate on the motion to report the bill back to the Parliament. Some people don't understand that. When a bill is out in committee, it gets considered and then the Chair of the committee reports to the Parliament, to us here in the assembly, what the committee did, and there has to be a motion to adopt that report.

The New Dippers, the socialists, then say: "Hey, we can delay this thing even further. We can have an unusual debate on the motion to adopt the report." That had been rarely done, but they used that to delay for two more days this terrible Sunday shopping bill which gave municipalities the right to make up their own minds whether or not the stores would be open.

Then we had two more days of debate in committee of the whole, and then we had one debate on third reading. The bill was finally passed in January 1989, fully one year and one month after the then Solicitor General, Joan Smith, stood up in her chair in this Legislature and announced that she was going to be bringing forward legislation.

Was that so wrong, I say to the government members, particularly members like the Minister of Natural Resources who has been in this place for so long? Was that so wrong that we spent a year considering that bill? Did that get in the way of the other stuff that goes on in government? Did that get in the way of normal commerce? Did that keep our kids out of school? Did that prevent families from celebrating the holidays? Was it wrong that we spent a year debating that bill?

I was offended by some of the tactics. I personally don't like tactics. If you want to speak to a bill and focus public attention on the bill, don't keep the Treasurer from reading his budget with a phoney flank of petitions. Get up on your feet and speak until you've got some attention. That's why I'm here tonight. I want at least some people to know that tonight democracy has been wounded a little bit, that the minority is going to have less ability to oppose the state, that the state has grabbed power from the minority and that from now on in this Legislature the debates will be less significant because our ability to hold the government to account has been reduced. That's why I'm here.

I don't like the tactics. I think what those people there did, Mr Speaker -- and I'm glad you weren't part of that caucus or you would have been tainted by that -- to Mr Nixon when he tried to read his budget was among the most capricious and offensive things I've ever seen done here. It would have been all right; you could have continued to read the petitions the next day. But, for God's sake, grant Bob Nixon the right to stand up in the Parliament and read the budget.

The bill was passed, as I said, on February 7 and became law shortly thereafter. That's a year and about six weeks since the time when the government gave notice that it was going to introduce the bill. In other words, the issue was before the Parliament for a year and about six weeks. Was that wrong? It was a controversial issue.

One of the ways you allow the public to get involved in the issues and comment on them is the opposition keeps the matter before the Parliament and focuses attention on it. Now we're not going to be able to do that any more in the way it could once be done. I don't think, and I want to reiterate this point -- perhaps I haven't made it quite as clearly I can or should have. You don't do that with every bill. The Clerk will testify and you, sir, as Speaker will verify that many bills, I would say the vast majority of bills, go through this Legislature with a minimum of debate and discussion because they are routine, are non-controversial, have the broad public support of the population and need not be debated here.

But some bills are controversial. Rarely, a bill is so controversial in the minds of the opposition that a rare filibuster is needed. There's only been one in the past seven years. Was it so bad that the member for Welland-Thorold filibustered this Parliament on a matter he felt deeply and passionately about?

Mr Curling: For 17 hours.

2130

Mr Sorbara: For 17 hours my friend the member for Scarborough North reminds me, in one throw, in one speech, but several days. Days and days and days, day after day, he was the only speaker. People think about the 17 hours Peter Kormos debated in one throw or one go, but let's remember, he did far more than that, and I'm going to be getting to that after a little while.

The next controversial matter that was before this Parliament during the Parliament from 1987 to 1990 was a bill that I sponsored, Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. That bill was given first reading on June 20, 1988. It had been a matter that had been under study. The dual award system, as it was called, had been under study for I think 10 or 12 years in Ontario. I won't get into the details of the dual award system nor the details of the bill, because that's not really the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is whether we shall or shall not reduce the power of the opposition to hold the government to account.

Bill 162, as it was known and as it was numbered, was given first reading on June 20, 1988. Pretty soon the New Democrats realized that they had quite a bit to gain from vigorously opposing this bill, because frankly I admit as Minister of Labour it was a tough bill. It was the right bill but it was tough, because in some cases it provided that injured workers would get less under the new system than they would have under the old.

Parenthetically, I add that the workers' compensation system is now $12 billion in debt and there were financial reasons why under certain circumstances some workers would have to get less. But the beauty of the bill was that where a worker was seriously injured and really couldn't work again, he would get far more than he did under the old system, and that really was the debate, but because the trade unions were very opposed to the bill -- obviously the trade unions form constitutionally a part of the New Democratic Party; they sit in large numbers on the provincial council -- the party itself had to vigorously oppose the bill.

My God, was it a fight. I'll tell you, from day one -- well, actually not from day one. To do him justice, on day one the member for Hamilton East, then the Labour critic, my critic, stood up and said: "Well, we'll examine this. We'll have a look at what's in it and we look forward to debating it." But then it started, and it started with a vengeance. They organized protests in front of the building.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Minister of Community and Social Services said, "Tsk, tsk, tsk." That's what I say. I think protests are great. I think the way in which the member for Sudbury East opposed my bill was one of the most brilliant displays of effective parliamentary democracy I've ever seen. It was really good. She did her work well. We disagreed on substance, but never once did I say in this Legislature that we should qualify her right to do it.

That's the only point I'm making tonight. We're not talking about any substantial piece of legislation. We haven't got on to what the government hasn't done to fix the economy. We haven't got on to the budget. We will get on to that perhaps a little bit later. But none of the substance of this first socialist experiment is the subject of this debate. It's just a simple matter: the right to oppose that is vested in opposition parties and the right to hold government to account.

So Shelley Martel decided that she was going to make this her crusade and hold me, as Minister of Labour, to account. I said it then, and I say it now, that Parliament and our traditions demand that she have a right to do that.

Why is it that David Cooke, when he was over here, said that right should exist in the opposition and now that he's over there he has a completely different story? It's the hypocrisy and the inconsistency that is driving me crazy on this, that is driving me to speak for hours and hours. It's the hypocrisy and the inconsistency, and if this continues to go on in our legislative chambers, if politicians continue to be hypocritical -- when they're on one side say one thing and when they're on the other side they say another thing -- then we are finished.

We will be held in disrepute if we allow that to happen, and I have to take this opportunity to remind the entire world that no party has ever been so hypocritical as the New Democratic Party, the government in Ontario now, because when it was in opposition, it championed the rights of the minority and the independence of Parliament, and tonight, with this motion, it is wounding democracy and trying to shut us down and we haven't even done anything. We didn't read a petition one day -- I guess two or three days Mike Harris read lengthy bills. That's the Tory party, remember. He read these long, long bills that took up a good part of the day.

I think that's a dumb way to filibuster. If you want to filibuster, you stand up and you plead with the members of the House to see it your way, and that's what I'm doing tonight. I'm pleading with members of the government to see this thing, to remember how Shelley Martel opposed me through weeks of debate in this Legislature on Bill 162. Let's get into the details, shall we?

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: That's my tactic, and you'll use it to effect in a few years. My friend the member for Wentworth East says, "Sit down." Well, soon I'm going to sit down, sir. I want to remind them that this will be the last time in our lifetime that someone will be able to do this, even on really important issues. You'll never be able to do this again, to stand up and speak your mind and plead that the government take a different view, and this is all the ability we have. We don't have any more tools. The government can move a bill and soon we'll have time allocation on every bill and do whatever it wants.

If that's what the people want, if the people want the government to have even more power to get things done even more quickly -- the new socialist government wants new power to get its agenda without much criticism in the Legislature. If that's what people want, I plead with them to get on the phone right now and phone their MPPs and say, "Yeah, that's right, get that motion passed."

But if you don't want that, if you think that in a Parliament there should be a balance, that the opposition should have the right to oppose effectively -- now we never win but to bring attention to measures that we think are arbitrary and capricious -- then I say that people ought to get on the phone and tell their NDP members that they're not very impressed with the way in which this government is conducting the Parliament.

The thing that really just breaks my heart is that when they were in opposition, they were the champions of the rights of the minority, and now they are the first government since the Second World War to turn the clock back, to bring in repressive measures.

2140

I was talking about Bill 162 and the length of time we debated that. I want to point out that we were seized of that bill; in other words, it was before the Parliament for over a year. Was that wrong? Have you heard one NDP government member get up and say in this Parliament that those tactics were wrong? They're such champions of democracy now that none of them, save and except the member for Welland-Thorold, will get up and speak on this bill. Do you know what they want? They want to get out of here.

We're changing our rules. Presumably our rules should be important to us, and no government member will speak on it. No government member will speak on the change of the rules. These are the rules that are going to govern you for the rest of this Parliament and for the next Parliament when you're in opposition, and you won't get up and speak on them. I can't believe that none of you will get up and speak to this motion. I can't believe that you allow David Cooke, the government House leader, to order that none of you speak so this seedy little matter will be cleaned up tonight.

He says publicly that we negotiated one day of debate on it. That's not true. There was no negotiation. We were told that if we did not agree to just one day of debate on the change of the rules that govern the way in which you will conduct yourselves in here, then the bigger gun would be put to our head and they would use closure on the even more draconian model of the rules.

Would you describe this, Mr Speaker, as negotiations? Three parties have agreed now on a package of rules. It's all very sanitary. It's all very antiseptic. It's okay. No one should pay any attention to this. "Don't worry about it. It's all been negotiated." Give me a break. The workers at the Toronto Star know what negotiation is. They're actually negotiating. Is there any negotiation here? No.

Mr Phillips: Take it or leave it.

Mr Sorbara: "Take it or leave it. We'll use closure. It's all over." And only one member, among 74 caucus members, has the courage to stand up and talk about it.

I can't understand, by the way, why you're not interested in speaking on this. We've now agreed that we're going to be sitting through the month of July. We welcome that. We think that if the government wants to get on with its agenda, it's perfectly reasonable that the government ask that the Parliament sit in July. Besides if you take the standing orders, you'll see that the government has the power, even though we were supposed to recess actually today, at midnight we were supposed to recess -- read the standing order. It's very clear right there that the government can ask, through the Lieutenant Governor, that the Speaker reconvene Parliament whenever the government wants: another little tool in the hands of the Parliament.

Why don't any of you want to speak to this? These are the rules that govern your life in this Parliament. These are important to you. You're going to lose the next election. You're going to be over here in opposition and you're going to regret that you did this. You're going to really regret that you eliminated the unqualified right of free speech by elected representatives in this Parliament. I say to the government members, many of whom, or some of whom, including the chief government whip, are chuckling over there --

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to the chief whip that last Thursday our chief whip could have got 20 members in the House at a quorum call. I will speak to that issue a little bit later, quorum calls, another tactic.

What I was speaking about was Bill 162 and how long it was considered by this Legislature, overall a year, one month and seven days. We had seven days of second reading, and although the bill was introduced on June 20, we did not demand, like the government is demanding, that we get on with second reading right away. We allowed the bill to be aired in public a little bit.

Look at their labour relations bill. Remember, I said much earlier in this debate that the whole justification that drives the government in this thing is that it is afraid of the controversy its labour bill is going to bring about and it wants time allocation permanently in the rules so as to limit the criticism.

We introduced a controversial workplace bill and this was worker compensation; we allowed it to be before the public for several months even before it went to second reading. It went to second reading in the fall and was debated for seven days, a reasonable limitation, I think. The new limitation, under this government, is going to be four days and that's it.

The bill was in committee hearing, in public hearings, for seven weeks. I think that was a reasonable time, although I would have been amenable to more. I hear through the grapevine that the Minister of Labour, under the socialist government, is thinking of maybe letting his labour bill be before a committee for five weeks, but they haven't told us yet because after this motion passes tonight they can set it at three weeks or two weeks or whatever and we'll have nothing to say about it. We won't even be allowed to criticize it.

We had seven weeks of public committee hearings on Bill 162. The bill was considered clause by clause in committee, that is, the committee examines the bill word by word, paragraph by paragraph and clause by clause for 15 days. Was that wrong? Is any member going to stand up in this House and say this was inappropriate, that it shouldn't have been done, that we made a mistake and kept the bill there for too long?

From now on, no bill will ever get 15 days of clause-by-clause consideration, because they can shut us down. They can say in their time allocation motion, "We don't want to hear from you any more." They'll do it particularly when it's controversial. If the public out there doesn't like what's going on and if we are building public support for our view of things, as we are on Bill 143 -- I see my friend the member for Markham is here again -- Bill 143 is creating political brush fires like you have never seen in York region. No wonder they shut down debate on that one. But when controversial bills like that come up, as soon as the controversy starts to arrive you'll see a little time allocation motion. "Shut them down."

Believe me, sir, some people think this doesn't matter, because the press will raise it anyway, and that is not true. The press will only raise it if we raise it in this Parliament. Can I give you an example of that, which took place just over the past few days in this Legislature, Mr Speaker? You'll recall that for the past couple of days there have been comments and questions concerning remarks by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, which I believe and consider to be remarks that ought to be regretted. Do you recall that? Those remarks were made almost a week ago --

[Laughter]

Mr Sorbara: More and more of them are getting to the giddy hour. Fortunately, I say to my friends who are laughing over there, this is the one building in the whole province that can serve liquor without benefit of a liquor licence. Do you recall those comments? Are you standing up for something?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): No.

2150

Mr Sorbara: No? Okay, I just thought you were on a point of order.

The member for St Andrew-St Patrick made some comments that offended at least a significant majority of the people of this province. Those comments were reported last Monday, so they were generally known around the province. One newspaper reported them and very few television stations covered them. The issue was not a big deal. The same press gallery that covers question period and the debates in this House heard those comments and they didn't make a big deal of them. Then in the Legislature we started to quiz the Premier about whether he thought those comments were appropriate. We quizzed him pretty hard and we put, I think, some pretty important questions.

Finally the press -- the electronic media, the print media -- started to report it and raised the issue. They didn't do it last Saturday and I understand that, because the way this Parliament and this democracy works is that if you don't raise it in the Legislature, and my colleagues know that, if you don't make it an issue here, then it tends not to get reported and you can't bring it to the attention of the people.

So one of the mechanisms we have in a democracy is to raise the issues here, to put some focus on them so that others will hear what's going on. That's the only way to keep a government in check. It's the only way to do it. If you take away our ability to do it, if we can't do it any more, then I say to my friend the member for Etobicoke West -- I just echo his words -- there's not much use in being here, is there? There's not much use in simply hanging around and when you want to start to say something the government says: "We have the power to cut you off. We have the power to ensure that what you say is time-limited." It's like being stale-dated. You know, the sour cream is stale-dated. I never know why they put a time-limited date stamp on sour cream; after all, it's already sour. A best-before date -- they're going to limit us in the time we can speak.

I simply go back to what I said earlier. John Robarts, a great Tory Premier, started the initiative towards reform of this Legislature. He started that process. It had a 30-year history. Some very important people, including Dalton Camp, were involved in that reform. It had a 30-year history and in every case the reforms -- my Tory friends will know this -- were progressive, vesting not so much more power, vesting more responsibility in opposition members to play a role in the discussion of public policy. For some reason now that's going to be taken away.

The terrible mistake the Tories are going to make -- and I say this, Mr Speaker, through you directly to the Tories. I see that the Tory leader is coming in. You guys should not vote in favour of this. You guys, I say, Mr Speaker, through you to the leader of the Tory party, shouldn't vote for this. This is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but the way it is done, arbitrarily, described as negotiations, is wrong.

I hope and pray, just like Peter Kormos on the government side is against it, that there will be Tories who will not simply obey the whip of their leader but vote their conscience on this, vote against it. We'll lose. Of course we'll lose. They've got 74 members over there. We don't have a hope in hell of winning this thing. I could speak until the cows come home and we couldn't possibly win it, but when you're in opposition you don't expect to win. You lose battles. You lose, you lose, you lose, but at least you do what the people have asked you to do; that is, hold the government to account, sometimes with long speeches, except from now on that won't happen.

Before I got off on that tangent, I was talking about Bill 162 and how long we debated it. It was over a year.

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, sir. I think I heard the member for wherever he is from say I should talk about "how many lies." I wonder if you could do something about him, including removing him from the chamber.

Mr Mammoliti: I thought I said "lives."

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, what I quite clearly heard was something which was unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to simply withdraw it.

Mr Mammoliti: If it pleases the House, I will withdraw the word "lives."

The Speaker: I appreciate that. The member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr Sorbara: Speaking about the topic of lying, often my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -- we're seatmates -- with whom I share this second-row aisle gets out a headline that he keeps. I think he just keeps it for the sake of nostalgia. The headline reads, "Rae Accuses Premier of Lying." This was the style of the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, now the Premier, as he went into the last election. He said, "David Peterson lied to you about automobile insurance." Who lied about automobile insurance? "David Peterson lied to you about Sunday shopping. David Peterson lied to you about dump sites, lied to you about this, lied to you about that."

I think the one thing that could be said now about David Peterson is that he was true to his word. He believed in the things that he did and he kept consistent with the policies and the political promises that he made. Did we make a mistake in calling the election? You're damned straight we did. We made a mistake. I often apologize to the people of Ontario for that mistake, not because we didn't have the right to but because they say to us, "We are so angry at the NDP government, but we're angrier at you because you allowed them to be in power," and that's true.

People don't want this socialist experiment in Ontario. They are sick to death of the duplicity of this party, and tonight is one more example of that duplicity, when a government House leader who once in opposition spoke in favour of the rights of a free and democratic party is now prepared to move a motion to cut off fair debate and do it arbitrarily. And they called us liars. They are so duplicitous, they are so two-faced, they have gone back, they have brought in nothing of their Agenda for Reform, and if I could ask my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to bring me a copy of the Agenda for Reform when he has a minute or two, we'll take up that subject in a while. Oh, my God, it's right there.

Could I just spend a moment on the government and what it promised and what it's delivering and who's lying and who's not lying? They promised a minimum corporate tax. What we got is a study. They promised tax fairness to the working poor. Honest to God, I would like to defer to my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt who, on a point of order, could set out in about 20 minutes how the Treasurer's last budget was so in opposition to this tax fairness to the working poor.

The one thing that happened in the budget is that the working poor under Floyd Laughren, as of July 1 of this year, are going to pay more tax than they have in the history of this province. We're getting a tax increase, it's falling on the working poor and you can thank your friendly socialist government for that, this two-faced government that gives you its Agenda for Reform and simply abandons it about an hour and a half after the election. That was the second thing promised, tax --

2200

Interjections.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt used unparliamentary language.

Interjection: What did he say?

Mr Sutherland: He said the word "liar."

The Speaker: Just relax.

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, if you can give me a hand, what I said was that what they said in the document was a lie. I would ask for a ruling on that. I'm not calling anyone a liar; I'm just saying what they said in the document, their manifesto, was a lie.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and indeed other members, rather than try to find what may be the finest point of the needle, it might be more in keeping with what has generally been an extremely good tone of debate this afternoon and this evening if, instead, we simply directed remarks towards the rule changes and attempted to not use language which one might consider as provocative on either side of the House. In that way we might be able to proceed with what, as I say, has been a very orderly and excellent debate.

Mr Sorbara: I am now on page 1 of the Agenda for People. I heard a wonderful comment that I heard about five or six months after the government was elected and it started running away from these promises at a very rapid pace. Someone said to me, "What's happened to the Agenda for People?" and the comment was, "Oh, they've moved that to the fiction section of the library." It just said it all. It was a nice little piece of fiction, but it's certainly not something the government is going to implement.

The first thing is "Minimum Corporate Tax": not doing it. "Tax Fairness for the Working Poor": What the working poor got was an additional tax burden in the last budget above and beyond what they were paying before. Even if you only earn $10,000, the Treasurer's budget of a month and a half ago is going to increase your taxes. Even if you're earning $10,000, well below the poverty line, that's what you're getting. He had $1 billion in new taxes in his budget at a time when there was absolutely no more tolerance in any place in the economy for new taxes.

The government also promised "Succession Duties on Estates of the Rich and the Super-Rich." The good news on this, sir, is that if this government is in power long enough, there will be no rich and there will be no super-rich, so this policy won't have to be implemented.

"Speculation Tax": That, of course, is under study, as they say.

This is a great one: "Restoring Educational Funding/Property Tax Relief."

Mr Phillips: That was Tony Silipo.

Mr Sorbara: I think probably the now Minister of Education, in his former capacity as chair of the Toronto school board, actually believed, before he became a candidate, that this was going to happen.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Still do.

Mr Sorbara: That's good. The minister says he still does. Well, we'll just wait.

There was going to be "Interest Rate Relief" for a number of sectors of the economy, including farmers -- nothing; for the building of homes -- nothing; small business assistance -- that was, I think, actually a rather reasonable promise. Was it ever acted upon? No, never acted upon.

Here's the one that ignited a lot of people during the campaign. It was a central issue in the campaign: "Driver-Owned Insurance." I think I have a responsibility to read this to you:

"New Democrats for many years have proposed that Ontario have a driver-owned system of car insurance. And, over the last three years, we have consistently criticized" those Liberals for stripping "innocent accident victims of their right to compensation for their injuries, while enriching an already profitable industry. We would scrap the Liberal scheme and put in its place a driver-owned car insurance plan that's fair, affordable and accessible."

I'll tell you something. This was something that at least one New Democrat actually believed in. At least one of them believed in it. Everyone agreed to put it in their platform; only one of them actually believed in it. That member is the member for Welland-Thorold. He believed in it so strongly that he filibustered in this Legislature for days and days, the only one who's ever filibustered in this Legislature except for a rather feeble attempt by Dick Treleaven, the former member for Oxford. It was in a sense a filibuster; it went from one day to another, but only by about one hour or so. But Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, believed in it.

He believed in it so strongly that he made the life of the current member for Bruce, my House leader, the then Minister of Financial Institutions, miserable. It was Murray Elston who brought forward the bill to create a new insurance system in Ontario. It was called Bill 68. I don't know how all the New Democrats felt about it, but Peter Kormos really believed the rhetoric of the socialists that there should be a publicly owned system and that it should have full rights for accident victims to sue and recover in a court of law.

I could sympathize a little bit with the member for Welland-Thorold because I lived for a number of years in British Columbia, and in fact I was there when Dave Barrett was elected in 1972. I saw the system brought in there.

I thank the deputy Clerk for the water he's bringing. I apologize for having that other glass on my desk. That was inappropriate. It only had water in it, but never mind.

I was there in 1972 --

Hon Mr Laughren: How did you vote?

Mr Sorbara: I voted for the NDP. The Treasurer asks me how I voted and I've told him. I could not vote for the Social Credit Party; it was too right-wing for me. Frankly, the Liberals and the Tories were almost non-existent. I would have preferred that Justice Berger had become the leader rather than Dave Barrett. Just parenthetically, I'll tell you a wonderful story about Dave Barrett and his winning the convention that made him leader of the party. This is hearsay, but hearsay is permitted for the time being, before the government House leader outlaws it in this Parliament.

A friend of mine was a casual friend of the Barretts. This is back in 1971. Dave Barrett is at the convention. My friend's wife is sitting with Dave Barrett's wife and it's become clear that Dave Barrett is going to win. My friend's wife says to Dave Barrett's wife, "Well, what do you think about Dave becoming the Premier of British Columbia?" And she said, "It won't be the first time an idiot's the Premier of this province." I'm just quoting.

Anyway, Dave Barrett was and is an eminent Canadian now. He went through being a Premier to being a talk-show host. I don't know which he was worse at. He wasn't a very good talk-show host.

Hon Mr Laughren: Peterson was never even a host.

Mr Sorbara: Peterson never got to be a talk-show host. But I was there when Dave Barrett brought in public automobile insurance in British Columbia, and it wasn't actually so bad for that province.

2210

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): It was pretty good.

Mr Sorbara: Somebody up there in the government party says that it was pretty good. Why didn't you bring it in? You believed in it, for God's sake. People voted for you on the basis that you were going to bring it in. We don't agree with it for Ontario, but they voted for you and you betray them and you say that we're responsible for things being stalled in Ontario. I'd say to the Treasurer, through the Speaker, that I know how sad he felt, having campaigned on it for 20 years, to have to back off a promise, because he's told me about it. The fact is that you can't do that in Ontario, you can't do that in a democracy and expect that people will still have respect.

What you should have done is that you should have either brought it in or said: "We got elected on this. We are not going to do it, and therefore we are going to submit our resignation and go back to the people and let the people decide." You might have got re-elected.

We were on the Agenda for People and we were talking about driver-owned insurance. Peter Kormos felt so strongly about it he decided to filibuster, the one filibuster I've experienced during my seven or so years here.

What have we got? We have a bill that was introduced by the Honourable Murray Elston, the record shows, on October 23, 1989. We debated it for about five days in November and December of 1989, and then once again it went out to committee. It went out to committee for several weeks.

When these new rules pass, the government, if it's controversial, will let it go out to committee for a day or two. You see, what will happen, I say to the Treasurer, perhaps not in the treasury but down --

Hon Mr Laughren: Be fair.

Mr Sorbara: No, no, no. He says to me, "Be fair." We are writing rules for the future -- not just for your government but for all succeeding governments. I know what's going to happen here. What's going to happen here is that down the road -- maybe not this year, maybe not under an NDP government, maybe not under any political party that exists, but some day, some minister is going to have a very controversial piece of legislation which is arbitrary and capricious and hurts the people and he's going to say or she's going to say to the deputy, because he or she is going to be new and just tasting power, "My God, this is going to be controversial," and it's going to be the deputy minister who's going to whisper into the ear of that minister --

Hon Mr Laughren: Gerry Phillips wouldn't do that.

Mr Sorbara: -- "Minister, don't worry. We have a time allocation motion prepared for you in respect of this bill which will minimize debate and minimize opposition." Because as soon as you do this, it becomes part of the culture. Rules become part of the culture. The limitation of debate, a deputy --

Hon Mr Laughren: I agree with you. Gerry would make a great deputy.

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer makes fun of it. The Treasurer is one of the people --

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Let's get back to Bill 68. Peter Kormos decided it was time to speak up. I and my party and our government at that time did not agree with the view the NDP had about having a publicly run auto insurance system with full right to sue from anyone injured in an auto accident. We had done the studies and we saw that this was probably a completely unworkable system, so we brought forward a bill that we thought could work.

Interestingly, this government, the NDP socialist government, having been elected, is not changing it in any material way, except making it a little bit worse, taking away the rights of more accident victims to sue. Although you campaigned by saying that we would have a public, driver-owned system protecting the rights of innocent accident victims, your bill does one thing: It simply confirms the bill we had except it prohibits virtually any accident victim from ever suing.

Peter Kormos decided to filibuster. Notwithstanding that this bill had been debated for upwards of 30 days in the Parliament, Peter Kormos decided that he was going to take this thing on, and for one, two, three, four, five, 10, 15 days, he opposed this thing in the only way that he had available to him. That is, by speaking to this Legislature.

A week and a half ago, because they have a much less controversial labour bill coming forward on the order paper, there has been a determination that the Peter Kormoses of the world will never, ever be allowed to do that again. I ask my friends in the government: Was it wrong what Peter Kormos did? If one of them would stand up and say that that was wrong, then I could understand why you are bringing in these new rules. If that was wrong, then it makes sense what you're doing. If you confess that it should never have happened, if you say, "We regret what we put Murray Elston through and the government through; no one should be allowed to filibuster like that," then I concede and I'll retire and I will step aside. But if it was right then -- and I have not heard anything different -- then how does it get wrong now? How come it's wrong just because you're in power?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): He had style.

Mr Sorbara: Some idiot over there said, "He had style." I don't know who it was, but I think that was just an idiotic comment. It's not about style.

I want to say one other thing, Mr Speaker, about this part of my remarks and I want to say it through you, sir, directly to the Treasurer.

I remember when we were going through some rule changes. We were going through actually some discussion about rule changes, I think it was in mid-1989, and I happened to see --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You were in government then, huh?

Mr Sorbara: We were in government then. That's right. I happened to see Elie Martel in the hallway here, and Elie Martel, when he was the member for Sudbury East, was for many years the NDP House leader and another man who really understood how this place works and its traditions. He said to me something that I will never forget. He said:

"Remember, Greg: When you go about changing the rules, do it as if you are now in opposition. Do it on the basis that you're the opposition party. Write into the rules the stuff that you want as an opposition party, because one day you'll be in opposition. It might not be next year or the year after. Make sure that you respect the rights of the minority, because one day you'll find yourself in a different position. One day you'll lose an election."

I'll never forget that comment because it really hit home. I had a lot of time for Elie Martel -- not for the substance of his politics but for his understanding of this Legislature and the importance of an independent and effective Legislature. I'll never forget him saying, "Change the rules as if you're the opposition party, because some day you'll be there."

So I say to the government members now: I know the rules that you wanted when you were in opposition. Now that you're in government, you're changing the rules as if you're going to be in government for ever and the province doesn't deserve an effective opposition. That's wrongheaded. If we could bring Elie Martel into this chamber tonight, I believe he would testify that these things are wrongheaded. If we could bring Mel Swart in this chamber and if we could bring Jim Renwick in this chamber and if we could bring Tommy Douglas in this chamber and if we could bring David Lewis or Stephen Lewis or any prominent New Democrat, they would say this is wrong. What I speak here I speak for them as well, and I speak for all opposition parties who regret a grab for power by a government of any stripe.

2220

Mrs Sullivan: Even Floyd Laughren.

Mr Sorbara: Even Floyd Laughren, my colleague says, and I believe that to be true. I would love to hear what Floyd Laughren really has to say about what's going on here and this grab for power. The thing that worries me, sir -- and I'll be quite blunt about this -- having seen what's gone on under a socialist government for the past two years, is that I think they believe in a kind of ideological sense that all of that stuff was necessary: fair hearing, rights of the minority, fairness and justice and making sure that justice is seen to be done. I think they actually believe that that stuff was only important while other people were in power. They used to argue for things like the fullest environmental assessment you could possibly have, and they used to argue for intervenor funding -- another way of ensuring fairness in a hearing process.

What happened in this Legislature under Ruth Grier and environmental issues? The first bill that she introduced of any substance took away citizens' rights in a way that citizens' rights have never been taken away before. On an environmental issue, Bill 143, she arbitrarily and without any consultation empowered herself to be the czarina of garbage in Ontario. She arbitrarily gave herself the power to order that the Keele Valley landfill site, for example, could be expanded and extended on her order without any hearing. She arbitrarily vested in herself the power to say that the garbage that Metropolitan Toronto creates shall be dumped in some hole in York Region. She gave that power to herself without any hearing.

I use that just by way of example, because what troubles me is that I now think I understand the socialist mentality, and that is: "Fairness and the rights of the minority and the right to intervene are only important so long as we're in opposition, so long as we are the minority. But," they say now, as it seems, "if we're the majority, if we actually have power, we want all of it, not just some of it. We want all of it. We don't want to tolerate a jocular or powerful opposition. They cannot be jocular, they cannot make fun of us, they cannot ridicule us."

The Minister of Community and Social Services wants you, sir, to pay very careful attention to the language used in this House, and yet they do not apologize for the character assassinations that they involved themselves in when they were in opposition, whether it was the member for Oriole or the former member for Oakwood or the former member for Cochrane North. She wants to improve the language. She does not want us to refer to people's age or sexual preferences or indeed sex, but the character assassinations were okay. The opposition tactics that they used in opposition were okay, "But now that we've come to power," say the socialists -- and I think frankly this is the problem with socialism all over the world. If you get right to the root of it, the socialists preach one thing and then, having tasted the power, do something completely different.

When the history of this regime, this socialist NDP regime, is written, what will be said is the betrayal on every single promise that is made, whether it's silly things like Sunday shopping or important things like automobile insurance or other things like child care and providing child care spaces, minimum wage, the whole thing. Poverty, my God. They were going to do something on poverty. We didn't know that they were going to be instrumental in extending a recession that had already hit when the election was called, and on and on and on.

One of the things that's in this Agenda for People -- not Agenda for Power; we call it the Agenda for Power -- is the right to a clean environment: "We will pass the environmental bill of rights." Yes, right.

The only person who has introduced the environmental bill of rights is my friend from Oakville -- help me out, Barbara.

Mrs Sullivan: Halton Centre.

Mr Sorbara: Halton Centre, who introduced the Minister of the Environment's bill when she was simply Ruth Grier, opposition critic, and said: "You believed it then. Pass it now." But they won't even call it in Orders and Notices.

They said they were going to have less garbage as well. What they'll have is all of the garbage dumped in York region by fiat. You see, the socialists think that they are theologically invested with the right answers, and they can't stand criticism. That is what was wrong with the totalitarian regimes that have fallen in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. They couldn't tolerate criticism, but privately they gave themselves great, great privilege. The people suffered.

Hon Mr Laughren: People will laugh at this speech.

Mr Phillips: Yes, they will call in the police.

Hon Mr Laughren: You're being silly.

Mr Phillips: Calling in the police? You did that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I didn't do that. You're being silly. Nobody believes that kind of excessive rhetoric.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Treasurer says I'm being silly. Okay. Frankly, what is incomprehensibly silly to me is a government House leader who two years ago in this Legislature argued with some passion that the rights of the minority must not be trampled upon.

Hon Mr Laughren: Greg, accept the fact that it's a new government.

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer said, "Accept the fact that there's a new government." I accepted that fact on election night. I regretted it.

If he gets a little squirmy at the eastern European example and totalitarian regimes, I simply say if you go back in history, the mark of every government that starts to feel pressure is that it starts to change the rules of the game in order to reduce that pressure. That's the mark of a government that is becoming authoritarian.

I'm not saying that these guys are equivalent to what we've had in East Germany and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union. No, I'm not saying that. In fact, they've taken down all the signs that they used to have in opposition for the socialist international. You don't see them anywhere any more around the building. They were there then. I understand why they're down now in opposition. But I just used the example of authoritarianism. The taking away of the rights of the people is done step by step, reducing the ability of the minority and the opposition to have its say.

I regret it and I think it's wrong.

Hon Mr Laughren: What a whiner.

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer says I'm a whiner. I'm a whiner like Peter Kormos was a whiner about automobile insurance.

Mr Phillips: You're dealing with principles.

Mr Sorbara: I'm dealing with a principle. I don't think that very many people in Ontario or the world care very much about this principle, but I care about it. All of you in the government side care about it enough not to say a word about it. You cannot justify what you did then, as you cannot justify what you did now.

I think it's time now to hear some of the words used by those people who are now in government but once in opposition believed very strongly in the rights of the minority. Let's begin with the big guy himself, the Premier. I'm quoting of Hansard of June 19, 1989. Recall, if you go back, the issue of the day is Sunday shopping. Mr Rae is arguing that you can't qualify and you can't destroy the rights of the opposition to try to effectively oppose.

2230

He says: "I have a very simple and direct argument to make to you, which is this." He's talking to the Speaker, of course. "When the House considered the question of time allocation -- I'm not going to reargue the old law, because we've been through all of that. My colleague" -- Mr Renwick -- "the late member for Riverdale made an eloquent description of how closure was introduced in the House of Commons during the Irish crisis in 1888. I did my bit in talking about the introduction of closure in the House of Commons in Ottawa during the great naval estimates debate between the Liberals and the Conservatives, and Sir Arthur Meighen and Wilfrid Laurier, in those days. I do not want to go back and argue all those points."

But he says, and he makes the point with that preface, that closure is used when the hard issues are there. Isn't it interesting that the government introduced these new rules on the day it introduces its time allocation motion?

Mr Rae goes on to say -- the Treasurer might want to listen to this instead of muttering: "The longer I am here, the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power."

The member for Peterborough laughs. I'm quoting Bob Rae; that's what Bob Rae said. I tend to agree with him. I think the opposition tends to stand between the arbitrary use of power and a more responsive government, responsible to the people you're elected to govern.

Mr Phillips: I thought Rae thought that then, too.

Mr Sorbara: My friend from Scarborough-Agincourt says, "I thought Rae thought that then," and I think he actually did, but I'm not sure any more.

I quote again from Bob Rae, this time from January 30, 1989. Again, he hates Sunday shopping, he wants a common pause day, he's going to fight this till the end. We're talking about a one-time allocation motion to bring a one-year debate to a close. So Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, says:

"I want to speak very briefly in this debate. I have already indicated to you that I think this imposition of the guillotine is unjustified." And remember, sir, this matter had been before the House for a full year and we were bringing forward one allocation motion to bring it to a conclusion after a year's debate. So he says: "I think that this imposition of the guillotine is unjustified. It is unworthy of this democratic process that we would come to this, in terms of the government using its majority to simply force through legislation without any significant change and without listening to the vast numbers of people who are so strongly opposed to it."

You're so terrified about the opposition you're going to get that you give yourself time allocation rights even before the laws are introduced. He goes on to say:

"I also want to signal to you, sir, that we have fought this battle now for many, many months, indeed many years" -- although he's wrong on that -- "and it has become perfectly clear to us that this government is bound and determined to have its way. To put it bluntly, we can add that we know the government -- if this is what it is determined to do -- can in fact force the House to vote and can, according to you and your ruling, sir, close off debate."

The Premier actually makes an extremely interesting point that I think supports my case. You don't need these draconian measures. You don't need to shut us up more, because there already exists provision in the rules to do it if necessary, so why do you need even more rules? Why do you have to say that no one should ever be allowed, no matter how important the issue is, to speak for more than 30 minutes? How many speeches of more than 30 minutes have been made in this Parliament over the course of the past almost two years that you've been in Parliament?

Well, my friend Mr Sutherland is counting. Maybe five, maybe six. I wish some of you would simply go back to the journals of the House of Commons in the days of Laurier, in the days of the chief Father of Confederation, John A. Macdonald. Go back to the days of Bennett; go back to the days even of Diefenbaker, recent history, and read the debates. No one was troubled by a speech that went on for perhaps four or five hours, no one was troubled by that. That didn't impede the building of the railroad; that didn't stop the opposition from bringing Macdonald down in the Pacific scandal and bringing about the election of a government. Those long speeches didn't stop the ships from coming across the ocean and bringing new immigrants here. Those speeches didn't get in the way of the development of this nation, this country.

What are you afraid of? That we will speak on behalf of people who oppose what you're doing? People oppose what you're doing. You know that. You're so afraid of it that you now want to shut us down. I was quoting from this now government, which in opposition used to argue for power in the hands of the minority and responsibility in the hands of minority.

I have a quote here from Mr D. S. Cooke, the member for Windsor-Riverside. I won't bother with that one. I am so offended by his tactics in this that I won't give him the dignity of quoting him when he was a person of principle. But I will quote Mr Rae again who said on July 19 -- this is in conjunction with the WCB debate, the Bill 162 debate:

"I think it's important for everyone to understand why opposition parties decide to oppose certain kinds of legislation and why and how they decide that certain kinds of legislation or certain bills are going to be opposed in a particular strong and vehement fashion. There will no doubt be some who look at opposition parties and say that they are simply obstructing or opposing. Throwing up road blocks is the only thing our opposition parties are good for or know how to do in addition to imposing embarrassing or difficult or effective questions in question period." So he acknowledges this is difficult for opposition parties, does Bob Rae acknowledge. "But I would say that in fact opposition parties have to choose very carefully and, from my experience, do choose very carefully those bills and pieces of legislation which they single out as bills which they will do everything in their power to stop or slow down." That's Bob Rae.

Do you know what? He's right. If you look and examine fairly the order paper and Votes and Proceedings in this Legislature, you will see that most pieces of legislation pass through here routinely. They are not a problem. They are dealt with in the ordinary course of business. As Bob Rae says, it's only occasionally that we have to oppose in a strong and forceful way. For me, tonight is one of those occasions, because I feel so strongly that a government ought not arbitrarily to vest in itself additional power and particularly not at the expense of the opposition MPPs who, after all, simply express a point of view that resides among some people in the province.

Mr Phillips: I remember that first speech from the throne.

Mr Sorbara: My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt reminds me of the first speech from the throne. These become the words of the Premier and his cabinet and his caucus. My friend has pointed out one sentence I think is just so incredibly clear: "We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers, members of the Legislature and senior government officials. These standards will be developed in consultation with the other parties in the Legislature." Can I just repeat that? The hour is getting late. Can I just say that again? Bob Rae said, "These standards will be developed in consultation with the other parties in the the Legislature."

What I have to know before I sit down is, how does that square with the government House leader on the afternoon of Thursday, June 4, at five minutes to 5 in the afternoon, without telling anyone, slipping on to this table, the table of the Legislature, a whole new set of arbitrary rules that no one knew about, that he told no one about, and that he demanded we debate on Monday morning without even caucusing them? I want to know how that's consistent with what Bob Rae said in his throne speech. If someone would get up on a point of order and explain that we'd be all done, we'd go home.

2240

Justify that and the deed is done; you've got whatever you want. But you can't justify it, because it's inconsistent. The reason people out there are so disturbed at what's going on here in the new-age socialist Ontario is because there is this gap, this enormous gap, this Grand Canyon gap between what they said when they were in opposition and what they are doing now that they're in government.

Frankly, I think that is one of the things that is problematic with socialist regimes wherever they're found. That doesn't mean that every socialist government will be victimized by this kind of arrogance.

Talking about arrogance, I simply have to go back to the Premier's words in the throne speech, the words that launched this government. Be very careful, by the way, about this speech: The first throne speech of any government sets the tone for the entire period you're in office. In your case, I believe that is only going to be for another two years. Nevertheless this is the thing upon which you will be judged. Under the heading of integrity, Bob Rae said, "Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist." The abuse of power wherever it exists is right here. You don't have to look very far. The abuse of power, I say to you, Madam Speaker, is what you do when you table rules, sneak them in, and then you say as government House leader that they have to be passed "Or else we'll keep you here all summer, or else we'll ram them through, or else we'll use closure."

Well, the threat to keep us here all summer didn't work. We want to stay here all summer.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): You will be anyway.

Mr Sorbara: Yes, we do, I say to the member for Essex-Kent. Yes, we do. We want the government to bring forward its agenda and we want to debate it. We don't think particularly that having a summer off, getting out to do the things that we otherwise might have been doing, is all that important. If the government has business and if it hasn't had a chance to get it on the order paper before June 26, we want to stay all summer. There's nothing wrong with that. But you work on the basis: "You're going to pass these rules or you'll have to stay here all summer." Well, big deal. Who cares very much about staying all summer? That's what we're elected to do, to be here whenever there's government business. So you want to be here all summer? Bring forward the legislation.

You've got one controversial bill on the order paper so far, the trade union bill. And the day you tabled that bill you launched your power grab. It happened at 5 to 5 at night right here in this chamber, and since that time this place hasn't worked.

If any of you want to talk to anyone who has any experience with this place, you'll find that it never works unless there is a consensus to make it work, because what happens is that no matter how arbitrary and no matter how vicious you get with your rule changes, we will find a way. That's what opposition parties do. We will find a way somehow to express the importance of Parliament being independent and the importance of opposition parties to hold government accountable.

Again from the throne speech, Bob Rae says, "My government appreciates the contributions that its predecessors have made to the life of the province. It is a tradition we will respect." Balderdash. "We want the advice, assistance and ideas of the opposition parties." Give me a break. The rules that govern my conduct in this place are arbitrarily changed and Bob Rae says, "We want the advice, assistance and ideas of the opposition parties"? Come on. You change the strike zone, you lower the mound, you give the batter four strikes, you don't even ask me about it, you change the rules in one fell swoop and you want my ideas, my assistance and my contribution? Give me a break, Bob Rae. Who wrote that throne speech for you?

Don't do that to the people. Don't say you're going to do one thing and do another. If that's what it says in the throne speech, then surely to God, if you're going to change the rules, you get together a little committee and you work on it until you've got consensus. Nothing short of that meets that standard. Nothing short of that should be tolerated by any of us in this House, because the words the Premier said in that throne speech, as nice as they are, are not particularly new. What he is saying there is simply what has happened in this Parliament for a very good long time.

What's fascinating is that he said that and he's not doing it. He's not doing any of it. In those things which touch very close to the way in which Parliament works, we see the most arbitrary and the most capricious and the most intolerable approach of all.

I can understand the czarina of garbage doing what she did in Bill 143. She theologically believes that it's only her approach that can ever solve the garbage crisis. The truth is she actually created the garbage crisis, which was on its way to being solved before she was elected, but she gets advice, she talks to the interest groups and she takes a view, and at least we had a bill we could debate. The government ultimately brought in time allocation to end the debate. I guess that was reasonable, that was okay; it's a tactic that is used now and again. Every government has used it.

But the difference with the socialist government members is that they want it all and they want it for every bill, and they never want to run into a Peter Kormos situation again, even though they've already got all the power. Bob Rae declares the stores opened for Sunday, notwithstanding that he forced the Treasurer to read his budget outside this Legislature when he opposed Sunday shopping. He did it by decree. How did he do it by decree? He introduced a bill and said it's going to be retroactive. That means it never has to be debated here until the last day we sit before we dissolve the Parliament. It's retroactive, folks. The Premier has all the power.

2250

I want to quote once again from that famous first throne speech of Ontario's first experiment with an NDP government -- unsuccessful experiment. I think history will prove me to be true when I make that statement. The Premier says, and these are almost the closing words: "Over the life of our government there are many things that we want to accomplish. My government looks forward to a productive and lively session, where it will do its best to listen before it acts." I just want to repeat that: "it will do its best to listen before it acts."

I think anyone with a normal understanding of the English language would interpret those words, "to listen before it acts," to mean that the government, including the government House leader, before it changes the rules, would listen. I didn't know that listening before it acts, according to this government, really means that before it acts on changes to our rules, changes that will shut us down, it will take out a six-shooting revolver and put it at the head of the opposition. That's what happened; no doubt about it.

Don't believe the nonsense and the radio reports and the television reports about negotiation. It didn't happen. We had a gun to our heads. David Cooke said, "Either you're going to get these really repressive rules or you're going to get the more moderate variety, and you've got to do it by the evening of June 26 at midnight or else you'll get the repressive package." That's what he said. You cut through all the stuff and that's what was there: "Do you want to die by hanging or do you want to take some sugar-coated poison?" It's death none the less; not eternal death -- we'll be back -- but it cuts us off.

If there were a justification for it, if, for example, there were a crucial piece of legislation which hadn't met the timetable of the government, maybe I could understand, but that never happened either. The government has never missed its legislative agenda. It doesn't have much of a legislative agenda; it hasn't passed very many bills. But there is nothing that has not been done for want of legislative approval in this province since the socialists were elected.

Let me give you one example of what I mean. Shortly after this government was elected, I say to my children, who are leaving the gallery and I hope will stick around until I'm done so I can give them a ride home, because I won't be going on all night -- it's nice to see your children in the gallery. Someone's interested.

Shortly after the government was elected, it introduced a bill dealing with support and custody enforcement. It ultimately got the name "family support bill" or something like that. It had to do with giving the government more power to automatically deduct, from the pay of a supporting spouse, money that was owed to a supported spouse and the children. That's what the bill was about. It was pretty good legislation. In fact, it was developed by the previous Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, who I know is somewhere around the building.

Mr Phillips: There he is down there.

Mr Sorbara: There he is right over there. It was rather good legislation as it was formulated by the member for St George-St David. This new socialist government got it and we think made some serious errors in attempting to improve it. It was debated in the normal course in this House, it was sent to a committee and then we, the opposition parties, started to take some heat on this bill, the famous Bill 117. In fact the Premier, on a number of occasions during question period, accused me of keeping payments that would otherwise go to single mothers with children or separated mothers with children. He accused me of stalling that and, by implication, forcing those mothers to go hungry. What a load.

Do you want to know what eventually happened? After lengthy consideration and a lengthy attempt by the opposition parties to improve it somewhat, the proposals were rejected, as normally happens, and the bill got passed in June 1991. And do you know what the government did? The government put off proclamation of that bill until March 31, 1992, just a couple of months ago. But during all that time in the committee, the government members would say: "You'll be sorry for this. What you're doing by delaying this bill is denying mothers and children who would have support -- you're denying them that support."

Come on. I already checked with the ministry. They couldn't possibly implement this thing until March, and we already knew that. You can go through the rhetoric, you can try and build up your political constituency, but it's nonsense. It's not true. Stop saying it to the public.

But when the Premier blamed me by implication for making single mothers and their dependent kids go hungry, I got a little bit upset. It's outrageous to say we were delaying the implementation of that bill. There was fully nine months between final passage and proclamation and implementation. What a load they laid on us because we wanted to debate some substance and reflect a different point of view on a bill that in general we supported. What a load.

I say, Madam Speaker -- Mr Speaker again. The real Speaker is back in the chair looking fresher than ever. I don't want to say what the standard is in that regard, but you are looking fresher than ever.

I brought up the example of Bill 17 simply to make the opposition and the proposition that nothing this government has wanted to do has been impeded by virtue of the fact that opposition members have stood in their place to express a view, whether for five minutes, half an hour or an hour. Nothing this socialist government has wanted to do has been impeded by a filibuster -- which they are for ever eliminating -- by the reading of petitions, by the introduction of bills or any other tactic. I submit to you that we have never, during the first two years of this Parliament, stalled legislation in a way that affected the interest and the livelihood of the people of Ontario.

Sometimes we wish we could. There are certain bills that we believe are wrong, but we can't prevent them from being passed. I remember a housing bill, that first interim rent control bill that the Minister of Housing brought forward. That was really arbitrary, wicked legislation. That was the socialists feeling their oats and their ability to just cut through everyone and serve their political masters. That was a vicious piece of work and we fought it, but it passed. Besides, it was retroactive anyway and we were just trying to make the argument.

I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, that it is beyond doubt in my mind that what is happening here is that Ontario's first NDP government is getting jittery about not having an agenda so it is looking for new enemies. It has looked across the floor and seen the opposition parties and taken some gratuitous and I think vicious shots.

But the opposition parties are not the only ones the NDP is shooting at; they're shooting at just about everyone. Isn't it ironic? In that same period when we got the trade union bill and the new rules, the NDP party was sending out to people all around the province about the most mean-spirited piece of literature I have ever seen come from any political party, with the possible exception of the Marxist-Leninist group of the Communist Party. This little bit of work is really vicious. I am sorry if I have to burden you, sir, and the members of this Legislature with the contents of this letter, but this is a fund-raising letter which sets out the New Democratic Party's real assessment of what it thinks about what's going on in Ontario. This is from the famous Jill Marzetti. You've really got to listen to this because this is a piece of work, this is a honey.

"Dear friend" -- remember, it's at the same time when the trade union bill comes out and the new rules come out and everyone is getting this in their mailbox. They do plan well; I have to admit it. You and your New Democratic friends know politics really well. You know how to sharpen the knife and you know how to insert it and in the end you know how to give it that little twist that really makes you jump.

2300

"Dear Friend," the letter says. "Ontario is your province and mine." I don't know why Jill Marzetti thinks this province is hers, but anyway, that's what she says. "It belongs to people like us, people who work here, raise our families here, pay taxes here and vote here. But some big business lobbies are trying to take our province away from us. You and I and many other Ontarians elected an NDP government on September 6, 1990. We gave Bob Rae and his team a mandate to bring commitment back to politics and fairness back to government. We wanted a new Ontario, a better Ontario," says Jill Marzetti.

You got some of it. You got a new government. You got a better deficit. You got better rules if you're in government. You got a way to suppress the opposition. But she says, "The old élites, those big business leaders who keep the Liberals and Tories in their back pockets" -- boy, oh boy -- "don't want the same thing as you and me," says Jill Marzetti. No, no. "They prefer Ontario the way it was, when they called the shots and had everything their own way, no matter who else got hurt." Now, this is Jill Marzetti saying everyone else got hurt when the others were in power and it was big business that was shooting the bullets.

"They haven't accepted the verdict of the people." This is a refrain. Every time we criticize the government, they say, "Oh, well, you just haven't accepted that we won." What a load. Of course we've accepted that they won. We're politicians. We understand the democratic process. There was an election. They got 74 seats; they have a right to govern. What we criticize is what they do in governing, including tacky little fund-raising letters that characterize everyone who disagrees with them as being an enemy of the people. I'm not going to go on with all of this letter, because it really is too tedious. The theme of the campaign is that everyone should back off.

The latter part of it is a real hit at anyone involved in a business coalition. Get this: "Working arm in arm with the NCC are several big business lobbies who also want to stop all our positive changes dead." I want to repeat that. "Working arm in arm with the NCC are several big business lobbies who also want to stop all our positive changes dead." Then they list them: "The All Business Coalition, representing 42 major business associations. Its members include firms like Eaton's" -- according to the New Democratic Party, Eaton's is a no-no: Don't shop at Eaton's, they're bad guys, they want to stop everything dead. "Its members include firms like Eaton's, notorious for its hostility to working people." That is slanderous if it's said anywhere outside the House except in socialist Ontario.

The second group is the More Jobs Coalition. "Lobbyists for 85 corporate giants doing over $40 million in business a year, its well-paid consultant, F. A. Murray, is a former top aide to Conservative Premier Bill Davis." I say to the socialists that Bill Davis would never have brought in rule changes like that and your allegation that a consultant is somehow wrong because he has worked for Bill Davis is simply offensive.

There is a third group. Remember, these are the people who want to stop positive change dead in its tracks. It's called Project Economic Growth. "The biggest lobby of them all," says Jill Marzetti. "It works closely with master manipulator Hill and Knowlton Inc, the world's largest public relations firm" --

Mr Phillips: Isn't that where John Piper, the Premier's deputy, is from?

Mr Sorbara: I think John Piper, the Premier's deputy, is from Hill and Knowlton, the world's largest public relations firm, whose Canadian branch is headed by a former member of Liberal David Peterson's election team.

Now you've got the point, Mr Speaker. Everyone's supposed to send in this thing saying: "Back off. Back off and send me, Jill Marzetti, lots of money. Back off. Send me money."

Mr Phillips: Isn't Jill Marzetti on the central coordinating committee?

Mr Sorbara: She is indeed. I thought, are these companies really all that bad? Who are these companies that the government believes wants to stop it dead in its tracks? They include Coca-Cola Beverages; Coca-Cola Beverages is identified by this government as an enemy of the people. It includes companies like Avdel Inc. It includes companies like Marsh and McLennan Ltd, a very well respected insurance broker. It includes companies like Dare Foods Ltd. According to this socialist government, Dare Foods Ltd is an enemy of the people. It includes Canada Metal Co Ltd. It includes Chrysler Canada and Ford.

This is one thing I can't quite understand, because on the one hand the Premier often uses the example of Ford in his speeches saying that some companies like him, some companies like Bob Rae, some companies like the socialist government, yet Ford and Chrysler are both on this list of prohibited companies, companies that want to stop the government in its tracks. By the way, if you work for one of these companies, are you also on the wrong side of justice and on the wrong side of righteousness as viewed by the socialist government?

Canada Trust is another company that is an enemy of the people according to the NDP government. Cadillac Fairview, Goodyear tire, Schindler Elevator, Amdahl: all enemies of the people. Prior Data Sciences, a high-tech company: enemy of the people. Datatech Systems Ltd is an enemy of the people. Jill Marzetti says these companies want to stop the government dead in its tracks -- as, by the way, does the opposition, according to the government House leader, and that's why these new rule changes. We are somehow an enemy of the people and we have to be dealt with by new rule changes.

Let's go on. ITT Cannon Canada: an identified enemy of the people according to Bob Rae and Jill Marzetti as determined by their little fund-raising letter, which says, "Send me money and we'll fight these enemies of the people." Reebok Canada: I guess I'll have to change the shoes I buy. Commonwealth Resource Group Ltd: another enemy of the people. Oh, my God, Tim Horton Donuts. This is a great one. This is one I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations ought to pay attention to.

This is the list of people associated with those business coalitions that are trying to stop the government dead in its tracks. These are the enemies of the people. On this list on page 10 is Brewers Retail. The beer stores are the enemy of the people according to Bob Rae and Jill Marzetti. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is the chairman of the beer marketing board in Ontario. Her decisions have the effect of regulating the sale of beer, but the people who are actually selling it, according to Bob Rae, are trying to stop the government dead in its tracks. They're on the list of suspected companies.

"The Fax Doctor, Computerland, Creative Planning Insurance Agencies, Capsco Software, Eastern Auto Repair Centre, SHL Systemhouse" -- my God, that's a pretty good company; I didn't know the government was out to get it -- "Tower and Associates, Mobile Chemical, Ford Motor Co of Canada" -- there it is, an enemy of the people to be watched; it belongs to the wrong associations. Jill Marzetti has said that; Bob Rae has approved it.

2310

Just talking about the way in which these conspiracies are organized, remember on June 4 we had the trade union bill introduced, we had the rule changes introduced, this enemy list went out and then the next week Bob Rae had his little convention where he stood up and said in front of all the NDP delegates: "We're going to fight. We're not going to let this province be taken over." He got a little publicity and he thinks the whole thing worked. You know what? It did for a while, but you're going to lose, because in a democracy, no matter how many lists you make of the enemies of the people, the people will prevail and they'll reject it. I think there's very little doubt about that.

Control Data Canada is an enemy of the people identified on the Jill Marzetti list. Royal Trustco, Drake International, Kelsey's Restaurant, Warden Automotive, Marlin Travel -- I think the government contracts with Marlin Travel. Maybe you should change that, because if they're an enemy of the people, they might put you on a plane that's headed for you know where. That's the political plane you're on. You might get on a real one like that, but I hope not. Ticketmaster is also on the list of the people's enemies, as are Zenith Data Systems, Faxtel, Shoppers Drug Mart. I don't know about Shoppers Drug Mart. Under your Sunday shopping legislation you would have let them stay open, notwithstanding that the other stores had to close. But there you go; they're on the list of suspects.

Bulloch Systems, the Communications Group, Manulife Financial, Xerox Canada -- oh my God, there's a high-tech company now suspected; moving right along, as they say -- Minto Developments. That's certainly an enemy of the people. They develop land and it used to be that that was verboten under NDP theology. The socialist theology wanted to rid Ontario of developers.

Might I just interject parenthetically while I'm on that topic that the socialist theologians, when they were in opposition, really wanted to rid Ontario of the development industry and developers. They considered the development industry as a quasi-suspicious activity, always under suspicion, and they considered developers the business people from hell. You just look at their speeches and it's throughout all their speeches. Then they got elected and some marvellous transformation occurred.

For me, the time of greatest irony was about a month and a half ago at a luncheon put on by the Urban Development Institute -- it was actually a seminar -- and Dale Martin, who has been given a full-time job by this new government, actually stood up at that lunch and said to the development industry that it was now the policy of this government that development would lead the urban economy out of the recession. These words actually came out of his mouth. I repeat: Dale Martin, the guy who has done more to hamper and destroy the development industry, stood up on behalf of Bob Rae, because he said as a preface: "This is a new policy for the government. We now believe that development will lead the urban economy out of the recession." Heaven help us. There were some people in that room who were faint and needed glasses of water to revive themselves.

This is the party that thought the business of developing -- bringing on land, building new buildings on it and providing new houses on land -- was somehow an intrinsically evil activity. Now they say that development is going to lead the urban economy out of the recession. My goodness. I guess, on reflection, these duplicitous rules are not so surprising, given what else has happened.

Mr Speaker, I've just been advised that my colleague from Wilson Heights has a point of order, and in the spirit of consultation, if he rises, you'll note his point of order and I will sit down for a moment.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time. I've been waiting for the member for Guelph to re-enter the House and take his seat.

I've been in this House for seven years. I've always felt it is an honour that a member would get elected and be sent to Queen's Park to serve his constituents. I know that you, as the Speaker, have always kept a sense of decorum and order, a sense of proper presentation, in the House.

When this government was elected, there were --

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, put a sock to it.

Mr Kwinter: That's a very appropriate comment, because what is happening is that when this government was elected, there were snide remarks made about the Beverly Hillbillies. "The Clampetts have come to Queen's Park." Some thought that was an unkind remark, but I have to say to you, Mr Speaker, and I wish you would take this under advisement, that I sat in the House this evening and I noticed the hillbilly from Guelph wandering around this House without his shoes and without his socks.

I don't mind if that is the case, but I really think it's an insult to the members, it's an insult to the institution and it's an insult to what this Legislature stands for. I would ask that you make some sort of ruling to make sure that there's a certain minimal decorum in this House. This is a serious place, and the members who are here should treat it in that kind of a light.

The Speaker: To the member for Wilson Heights, indeed, first of all he's absolutely right with respect to your Speaker's concern about attire. The member should know that we do not have a dress code. I've had a number of members approach the Speaker on occasions with respect to a dress code. I have suggested that the members may wish to discuss that at the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and make the appropriate change in the rules.

If the member's description is at all accurate, it certainly would be something that I think is not acceptable, but I caution that the Speaker has no particular authority in this matter as there is no dress code. I appreciate the concern he has raised.

Mr Cousens: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the point has been well presented by the member for Wilson Heights, who has a standard and who also looks at the bottom of things. He's good at getting to the bottom of anything, and when he looks and sees that, there's no doubt he's got a point that should be taken further by the Speaker. Therefore, I would request very seriously that you take this further rather than just let it drop right now. It's too important a thing to just allow this stinky feet thing to continue.

The Speaker: To the member for Markham, I really don't believe there's any more I can add to what I've already stated. We do not have a dress code. I have indicated my feeling that this is a chamber which should be respected, and one way in which we respect the chamber is to have appropriate, decorous attire at all times. But you're asking something too difficult when there is no rule to which the Speaker can point. I would be quite delighted to be able to point to an order in the standing orders which set out a dress code, and such is not the case.

Mr Arnott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker:

The Speaker: I trust this is on a new point.

Mr Arnott: No, the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I too witnessed the member for Guelph walking around.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The member for Wellington, I have already dealt with this twice now and there is nothing more which can be added to the point. I would ask the member for York Centre to regain the floor.

2320

Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no comment to make on the points of order that were being made. When the point was raised, I was pointing out to you some of the enemy-of-the-state list that has been sent out by Bob Rae and Jill Marzetti in their fund-raising letter, a condemnation of a number of businesses that are alleged to be trying to stop the government in its tracks, such as the Ontario Food Processors Association. Boy, oh, boy. But I'm going to set this aside now, sir, and I'm going to wind up my remarks.

The deed is over. The deed is done. The knife has been sharpened. The government is going to have its way. The power of the opposition to hold the government to account is going to be reduced. But I don't think this defeat of the opposition, this elimination of the ability we have periodically and rarely to raise our voices loudly and longly, this control of speech, this control of members, this control of opposition, this control of criticism that the government seems to want, I don't think it's going to prevail for ever.

My note, my final remarks, my conclusion, is that if we continue to believe in a strong, vibrant democracy, and bring to what we do, wherever we do it in politics, the very highest of standards, then I believe we can recover from this. I want to tell you, sir, in conclusion, that this last couple of weeks have been extremely difficult for me.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Oh.

Mr Phillips: You wouldn't understand that.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I must say I find it --

Mr Sorbara: Because as I have explained -- yes, I think we'll just ignore the Minister of Housing -- through the course of these overly long remarks, the importance of this place and this Legislature for me transcends any particular issue. I have felt from morning till night since those new rules were put on the order paper that somehow I was being attacked somewhere.

Someone was trying to get me. Someone was trying to tie me up. Someone was trying to reduce my ability to do what I was elected to do. And I thought, "What is this business of politics all about? What in the world is going on? Why would a government that was the champion of a more open, more independent, more effective Parliament suddenly try to shut it down?"

I want to tell you the truth; I became despondent. You will know that yesterday I resigned from parliamentary committees, from legislative committees. I don't want to have anything to do with them any more.

A friend called me, and I described to him my problem, and he said, "You need to go out now to a bookstore and get a copy of Vaclav Havel's new book called Summer Meditations." You know who Vaclav Havel is, sir. He's the president of the new state of Czechoslovakia: a playwright, an author, a humanitarian, a brilliant man, someone who has fought for the people through his pen and through his advocacy most of his life, had never been a politician --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: -- had been in prison, again my friend from Mississauga reminds me, for years for his idealism. My friend said to me, "Go and read this book, particularly given what you're going through now and what the government is putting you through now."

I simply want to conclude my remarks by quoting from Vaclav Havel, who I think says it all, as the criticism will come to me for taking up too much time in this House tonight, for keeping the government House members, who refuse to speak on this motion, here. They all want to go home. I don't care about them wanting to go home, but I do care about the Clerks and the cleaners and all those other people, so it's over.

This is politics, but I think politics is worthy and I think it's worthy to stand in this place and deliver this speech. Vaclav Havel said:

"Genuine politics, politics worthy of the name, and the only politics that I am willing to devote myself to, is simply a matter of serving those around us, serving the community and serving those who will come after us. Its deepest roots are moral because it is a responsibility expressed through action to and for the whole. The responsibility, that is what it is, a higher responsibility."

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for York Centre for his contribution to the debate this evening and invite further debate.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm given to understand that there's unanimous consent for this vote to be deferred until Monday afternoon.

The Speaker: That may well be. We have a little procedure to go through first. I called for the debate. Normally it would come back to the mover of the motion, who is the government House leader. Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will be please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Pursuant to standing order 27(g), a request has been made that the vote on government notice of motion 11 be deferred to immediately following the routine proceedings on Monday, June 29, 1992.

Vote deferred.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following titles are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 1, An Act to establish the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency / Loi créant l'Agence fiduciaire de régénération du secteur riverain.

Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur l'exploitation minière.

Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Bill 28, An Act respecting Class Proceedings / Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings / Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Barreau aux fins de l'allocation d'une aide financière aux parties à un recours collectif.

Bill 77, An Act to amend The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979 / Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979.

Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation / Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy / Loi modifiant certaines lois concernant l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

Bill 165, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités.

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting FaithWay Baptist College of Canada.

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the School Sisters of Notre Dame of Ontario.

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Cambridge District Association for Christian Education.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of London.

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive 372595 Ontario Limited.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers.

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Pembroke and Area Airport Commission.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Vaughan.

Bill Pr26, An Act to revive The Peterborough Club.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Bill Pr30, An Act to revive The Sher-Bassin Group Inc.

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Town of Caledon.

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of North Bay and the Township of East Ferris.

Bill Pr33, An Act to revive Cinquemani Holdings Limited.

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Bill Pr39, An Act to revive The Dutch Canadian Alliance of Ontario, Inc.

Bill Pr41, An Act to revive Port Elgin Sportsmen's Club.

Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Tri-Delta of Toronto.

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting Arnprior-Nepean Railway Company Inc.

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Town of Mattawa and the Township of Mattawan.

Bill Pr86, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr94, An Act to revive Rideau Trail Association.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week on behalf of the House leader.

On Monday, June 29, 1992, the first order of business will be the deferred vote on the rules motion.

On Monday, June 29, and Tuesday, June 30, 1992, we will then deal with the motion on interim supply; second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend Certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment; second reading of Bill 23, the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities; second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance; second reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Education Act in respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers; second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services; second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act;

third reading of Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments; second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act; second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act; second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters; second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex;

second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands; second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping, and, last but not least, third reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I would move adjournment of the House.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This really isn't a point of order. I want to take the opportunity to thank the 20, 30, 50, perhaps 100, people who keep this building operating during my rather lengthy remarks. Some of the members have indulged me, but that's their duty as elected members. The others could have had an opportunity, had I not wanted to speak at length on this motion, to go home and spend the time with their families. They serve us extremely well and, to them, I simply ask their indulgence and apologize for the way in which I have disrupted their evening.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While it's not a point of order, I think all members appreciate the dedicated service that's provided to the members, the chamber, the assembly, by the excellent staff of our assembly, and especially during the long, tedious hours. We very much appreciate it.

Mr Silipo has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 2334.