The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise in my place again to bring a most desperate situation in my riding to the attention of the Minister of Health. Families in the community of Dryden continue to be torn apart as their seniors must leave the community because Dryden does not have a facility to house its seniors.

Minister, I've brought this to your attention a number of times. As well, a great number of people from Dryden are extremely disappointed that you have not answered their letters. They are looking for direction on this issue.

Mrs Inge Desautels, chairman of the Dryden Extended Care Organization, wrote to you on June 29 to request a meeting with you and to express her concerns. Quoting from this letter, she says, "We will explain and show you first hand what aging has in store for us, what it is like to be separated at the age of 80, not by death, but with a 120-kilometre barrier separating a senior couple." She goes on in her letter to ask you to examine again this very grave problem facing the seniors of Dryden.

CBC Newsworld ran a feature news story on the protest march organized by the Dryden Extended Care Organization. The whole country now knows about the ministry's inability to act on the needs of the Dryden seniors. Minister, representing the people of Dryden, I again ask you to meet with the community leaders and give this situation your personal attention so that the needs of the Dryden seniors can be met.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): While our assembly discusses a number of items of public importance, some issues a little less important than others, it appears what should have been the most important issue at this time, namely, our Canadian Constitution, has not been afforded the opportunity for debate in this Legislature. For that reason, I will be dedicating my private member's hour tomorrow to a resolution concerning our Constitution, a resolution stating that the Senate of Canada be abolished.

I want to make it very clear that my resolution will not negate the premiers' and the federal government's tentative package; however, I feel that Ontario should have been decisive on this issue at the outset and during the recent negotiations.

I make no apologies for wanting a strong federal government, and I fear that the present proposal for a triple E Senate appears to create a negative chamber which will further impede the ability of the federal government to effectively govern.

I want to provide an opportunity for members of this assembly to express their opinion about this important part of the constitutional package. We did not focus on Senate reform during the initial stage of discussion. Reforming the Senate seemed like a minor part of our attempt to include Quebec. When our committee held its discussions, Senate reform was not the focus, nor was it the focus of most Ontarians. Now the Senate has become one of the major issues of constitutional change, and I want to say that I believe the Senate of Canada should be abolished rather than reinvented in another form.

I look forward to hearing the views of at least a few of the members on this important issue tomorrow morning.

VICTORIA HALL

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): In my riding of Lambton county and the town of Petrolia from 1887 to 1889 a building was erected by the residents who had a vision. Their vision was to have a suitable venue for the benefit of the cultural needs of the community. Consequently, a structure developed and was known as Victoria Playhouse Petrolia or VPP, now known as Victoria Hall. Over the years live theatre thrived in the area. For a short period during the 1950s and 1960s it remained closed with the advent of movies and TV. In 1967, centennial year, volunteers restored the hall and live theatre returned.

On January 23, 1989, a devastating fire destroyed this famous landmark. Residents, in the usual tradition, decided to begin rebuilding the legacy and again volunteerism played a most important role. As a result, from the ashes has risen a new building designed in the manner of the original Victoria Hall. This gives everyone reason for celebration. To do this the week of September 20 through 27 has been set aside for many special events to celebrate our heritage and will include many noted Canadian musicians and painters along with children's programs.

I'm also pleased to announce that my colleague the Honourable Elmer Buchanan will be in attendance to open Victoria Hall and help celebrate the agricultural heritage of Lambton county. On the evening of September 26, 1992, a gala opening ceremony will take place. I invite everyone in this House to attend and commemorate the rebuilding of a legacy.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): If Bill 154 becomes law, what will happen to the recipients of government cheques who now use cheque cashing outlets? Will cheque cashing go underground, as some people fear? My answer is no. This government has every means at its disposal to avoid such an occurrence.

We can learn from Quebec's experience. That province introduced similar legislation in 1978 without first ensuring that low-income persons could cash their cheques. Problems arose which have since been rectified. This won't be the case in Ontario. We can foresee the needs of low-income citizens and be prepared to respond immediately.

Financial institutions have expressed their readiness to work with the appropriate ministries. The president of the Canadian Bankers Association says in a letter addressed to me, "I am confident that we can negotiate an arrangement whereby all Ontario citizens will be treated equally when it comes to accessing banking services."

Low-income Ontarians will not be left out in the cold by Bill 154. The Minister of Community and Social Services and the Treasurer speak as though they were powerless; on the contrary, the means to resolve the cheque cashing problem are at their disposal.

1340

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the storage and disposal of PCBs. It is my understanding there are approximately 20 sites in the city of Orillia that are used for the storage of PCBs that at one time were used by the electrical industry as a cooling and insulating fluid for industrial transformers and capacitors. Minister, you must help businesses and industries to dispose of the PCBs you are forcing them to store on their properties. I sent you a letter on this some time ago. We need an answer.

RAY WILES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On an unrelated matter, I would like to pay special tribute to a fine sportsman, a horseman and a man who was a credit to the sport of harness racing, Ray Wiles.

Ray Wiles was fatally injured in the course of a race at Barrie Raceway one week ago tonight. This evening there will be a special tribute to Ray from his fellow drivers, trainers and owners, as well as track officials. That's taking place at Barrie Raceway prior to the first race.

Ray Wiles was a man who led a life to which many politicians should aspire: He did his job quietly; he helped those who asked for assistance or just needed a hand; he always did his share and then some.

Ray Wiles gave his life to the sport he loved. He will be missed on the A tracks, as well as on the smaller ones, and at the fair race circuits throughout Ontario.

I would like to express my deepest sympathy to the Wiles family on behalf of our community and all racing enthusiasts throughout Ontario.

ANNE VOWLES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I would ask members of this House to join me in congratulating Anne Vowles, a resident of Chateau Gardens, Parkhill, on the occasion of her 90th birthday today. Last Sunday I had the honour to join Anne, her family and friends to celebrate her birthday, her contribution to the political life of Ontario and her active involvement in the communities in which she has lived.

Mrs Vowles has been a lifelong member of first the CCF and then the NDP. She worked with Tommy Douglas and Donald MacDonald, ran as a candidate for the CCF in the provincial election of 1947 and the next provincial election in the riding of North Middlesex on budgets sometimes as low as $75 with homemade signs, and still, despite the astonishment from some at the door that a woman would seek political office and often in the midst of ill-informed red scare tactics employed to discredit CCF candidates, managed to pull 900 votes.

Anne Vowles's deep community interest was reflected in her many years as a leader and role model for young women in Canadian Girls In Training, and later when she retired to Port Franks and joined both the choir of Knox Presbyterian Church and the local seniors club.

There were many present last Sunday to thank Anne Vowles for the efforts she undertook on behalf of the community and also for serving as an inspiration to other women who would seek public office. For this, I would like to add my thanks.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I'm glad to see that the Minister of Transportation is in the chamber and at least one member from the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Earlier today Lyn McLeod and I had an opportunity to visit the city of Hamilton and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. She and I had an opportunity to examine and evaluate the serious traffic and transportation problems the people of Hamilton are faced with. We had an opportunity to survey the route of the proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway, a road which is so absolutely crucial to resolving the current problems of congestion, in addition, I'd say to the Minister of Transportation, to providing for the next phase of economic growth throughout the entire region.

We were able to see with our own eyes why 90% of the people of the area are so determined that the expressway will be built. We have come to understand more fully than ever why the level of anger and resentment against this government is so very high. We came to understand more than ever that the NDP decision to cancel the Red Hill Creek project had nothing whatever to do with morality or with the environment, but it had to do simply and tragically with protecting the political careers of the Bob Mackenzies and the Brian Charltons of this world who remain in the tight political grip of self-serving interest groups that are entirely out of touch.

I invite the minister to make the trip we did. Get in your limousine and go down and look at the site and talk with the people. You will be convinced that the expressway has to be built.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): It's time for the Premier of Ontario to accept responsibility for the problems people are having in York, Durham and Peel with this government and the Interim Waste Authority. It's time for the Premier himself to take account of what's going on in the province. The Minister of the Environment is not listening. The Minister of the Environment is not responding to the concerns people are raising. The Minister of the Environment is not looking at other options. Instead, she has placed 57 proposed landfill sites for consideration in the greater Toronto area. The Minister of the Environment is not being practical.

Last evening, when we had close to 1,000 people in Whitchurch-Stouffville discussing this, we asked the question whether or not the rail-haul option should be considered for an environmental assessment. They said, categorically, yes. It was almost unanimous that they wanted it to be considered as an option, rather than just the 57 sites we are now looking at.

I think it's high time the people of Ontario realize that Premier Robert Rae appointed Ruth Grier as Minister of the Environment. He is responsible for this government. If she's not going to respond, if she's not going to listen, if she is not going to be involved in the issue that is so large and great surrounding Toronto now, then the Premier himself has to accept the responsibility for this issue and the Premier has to get involved. He has to start listening, because right now the people feel left out of the process. The Premier is the person of whom I'm now saying, "That's the one we will go to, not Ruth Grier."

REFUGEES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Speaker, a little while ago I talked to you in this House about the Munoz family. Indeed, you met Mr Munoz sitting right here. He was the person who had received his deportation order for August 7 and in the interim had filed a final appeal for humanitarian and compassionate grounds to be considered, with a view to letting him and his two youngest, Canadian-born children remain here in Ontario.

Ms S. Wright from the Department of Employment and Immigration in Mississauga telephoned me today to tell me -- and of course they should have known better than to even have the slightest hope for some generosity or compassion from the federal government -- that no, these people are going to be sent back to Argentina.

We are looking for assistance for, quite frankly, a lawyer to come to the aid of the Munoz family and especially the two Canadian-born citizens. I believe this province, by way of the Attorney General, has the responsibility to protect the interests of those two Canadian-born citizens. I believe the official guardian can effectively intervene and acquire status to appeal the final order of the federal minister of immigration on behalf of these two Canadian citizens, these two children. Who better deserves protection from this government than children who are being sent to a land they weren't born in, who are being denied their rights as Canadians and as Ontarians?

This government, this Ministry of the Attorney General, this Ministry of Citizenship, should intervene immediately to bring this injustice to an end.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm pleased to announce today the selection of nine projects across the province to serve as pilots for a new service philosophy which is designed to help social assistance recipients get back to work. This new philosophy is opportunity planning and is key to this government's reform of social assistance. The nine pilot projects will test various ways of introducing opportunity planning into the social assistance system.

Opportunity planning was an important recommendation of both the Social Assistance Review Committee's report, Transitions, and the report of the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation, called Back on Track. Simply stated, opportunity planning is a service that helps people on social assistance make the transition to self-reliance.

Last year, as part of the government's commitment to social assistance reform, it was announced that $5 million would be provided to establish at least six pilot projects in opportunity planning. Early this year a request for proposals was sent out.

The response to that request was overwhelming. We received almost 200 proposals for opportunity planning pilots from all over the province. With the help of an independent review committee made up of individuals with expertise in related programs and representing a wide cross-section of interests in the community, we selected the nine projects being announced today.

The pilots will be located in the Waterloo region, Ottawa-Carleton, Peel, Nipissing, Muskoka and Parry Sound, Kenora, Mississauga, Etobicoke, the Algoma district, and Burleigh Falls.

1350

These projects are as diverse in how they propose to deliver services as they are in geographical location. What they share is an emphasis on consumer involvement, partnerships with employers, agencies, and the systems that deliver social assistance in the community, and attention to serving the diversity of people on social assistance, including members of employment equity groups.

In addition to these nine projects, we will provide $500,000 to first nations opportunity planning pilot projects. These projects will serve primarily native Ontarians who live in first nations communities. The ministry intends to work with first nations representatives in determining which projects will be funded.

It bears repeating: The concept of opportunity planning is key to this government's plans to reform Ontario's social assistance system. The renewal of this province's economy will be stronger when the social assistance system is thought of as a springboard to individual independence and not just as a safety net that all too often entangles social assistance recipients. These pilots will help us learn how opportunity planning can be used.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I wish to read a statement to the House today in my capacity as Solicitor General of Ontario.

I am pleased to announce that this government will deliver on its promise to increase public safety and security in our communities through enhanced support for police. Today the Ontario Provincial Police will be receiving approval of funding to hire an additional 241 uniformed officers above and beyond its current contingent.

I take the issue of public safety very seriously. I have been working closely with the Treasurer and with senior policing officials for several months to develop a strategy to address Ontario's policing needs.

An increase of 241 uniformed officers will have a very positive impact on new police initiatives in the areas of family violence, anti-racism and sexual assault, as well as on other community policing and prevention initiatives designed to enhance public safety and security.

The challenge of meeting emerging policing needs in Ontario is being met through the implementation of community policing. As all in this chamber are aware, my ministry is moving policing in this province towards community policing. I believe that community policing -- police and community working cooperatively together -- is critical in this multiracial and multicultural society.

It is important that the OPP be provided with adequate resources with which to not only enforce the law, but to promote justice through a partnership with the communities it serves to better plan, manage and deliver policing services.

This announcement represents a total commitment of approximately $20 million in additional funding for the OPP, a rather clear demonstration of this government's support and this minister's support of the police in this province. Today's announcement builds on the decision made by the government last month to extend $14.4 million to the OPP, a decision which has allowed the provincial police to lift its hiring freeze. In addition, at the end of the last fiscal year, this government gave the OPP $10 million to help reduce its accumulated operating deficit. This brings to about $45 million the total new funding made available to the OPP by this government during the past number of months.

Hiring of the additional uniformed officers will be phased in over three years to accommodate training requirements. Sixty additional uniformed staff will be added during the current fiscal year, 75 more will be hired next year and an additional 106 officers will be added in the following year. Officers will be assigned on a priority basis to detachments identified as needing additional resources. The remaining officers will enhance the already high level of service the OPP currently provides throughout our province.

These staffing additions will take place without any requirement for reallocation of existing officers and without the need to disband or discontinue such special services as the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program.

I would like to acknowledge the support of the OPP leadership as we have worked towards this announcement, and to welcome to this chamber OPP Commissioner Tom O'Grady. We are also joined today by Bob Hunter and Grant Scharf from the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

I am especially pleased to be able to satisfy our concerns about the ability of our provincial police service to deliver the public safety initiatives that the people of Ontario expect and deserve. I believe that the safety and security for everyone in Ontario will benefit from today's announcement.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As all members of the House recognize, this is a routine announcement. The only story in this announcement is why you have allowed the services of the OPP to deteriorate so badly over the past 20 months.

You have put a freeze on any hiring when the crime rate in Ontario is increasing. You have put a freeze on hiring at a time when the population of this province is increasing and when the services of the OPP are required. Your Premier has had members of the OPP tied up investigating members of the opposition for some period of time, and we recognize now that perhaps they will be able to go back to their old duties.

What we see as well is that he is phasing it in over three years. Of course, this is what governments always do. You always have additional staff coming on-line for the OPP over a period of time. This is nothing new, and the only news in it is that you have waited so long.

It's quite clear that the only reason the gentlemen who are sitting in the gallery at the present time and the members of the OPP have this announcement is that the minister is in so much trouble for neglecting his duties in the Ministry of Correctional Services, and so he has to come up with some kind of so-called good news announcement, which of course is extremely routine, as we know. It shows what the minister might be able to do if he looked at the files in his office once in a while.

If we look at what MPPs from this province have been saying for the past period of time, they have described the deterioration of this service in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, western Ontario and all over the province. The OPP had to call press conferences around the province and produce a video to put the pressure on you to do anything about a problem which you've done nothing about for so very long.

I bring to the attention of members of the House that even with this announcement, the historic and important OPP Pipes and Drums and OPP Golden Helmets have disappeared for ever.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too would like to respond to the announcement of the Solicitor General. Mr Solicitor General, I must admit that a good number of times I've brought to your attention the lack of OPP services throughout the north. Whether it be Sioux Lookout, Vermilion Bay, Kenora or other communities in my riding, we know there's been a tremendous lack. But when you say today that you're introducing something that is going to take three years, they're words that are not going to match the actions of tomorrow. We need help in the north tomorrow; we don't need it three years down the road. Mr Minister, I look forward to finding out how these words will match the actions we will see in northwestern Ontario tomorrow.

1400

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm responding to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services. This is, again, another reannouncement. Fifteen months ago, on May 1, 1991, the then Minister of Community and Social Services said this item was to be fast-tracked. That was a reannouncement of November 1990. Is this fast-tracking or is this a turtle walk?

This announcement described a "new service philosophy" when opportunity planning is almost a household word in this province because it was first introduced in 1988 in the Transitions report. The fact that 200 proposals came forward certainly supports the understanding and way in which this item has been overlooked by this government, and nine responses to 200 proposals are considered worthy of an announcement in this House. This may be new to the NDP government, but it's certainly not new to the people of Ontario. This initiative has been requested over and over again since the very first day this government took office.

The announcement, again, is vague in specifics. It has no long-term commitment. Pilot projects may or may not disappear. It's based on people; it's based on groups. I don't see one mention of the word "individual," which we all know is key to opportunity planning.

In November 1990 this government promised $54 million to this initiative, and then, in last year's budget, $5 million was designated but not spent. Today we get $5 million. Will it be spent? I sure hope so.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): It's hard to believe that the 1.2 million Ontarians who are living with the support of general welfare assistance or family benefits in this province can take much comfort in this government's announcement today as their leading-edge commitment. The truth is that when the Treasurer announced the Jobs Ontario program with much fanfare, there was much hope attached to that.

Your first statement in the House, Minister, some four weeks ago, was to announce that $100 million was going to be committed to building redundant and surplus day care centres. You know that's what you're spending the money on, and that's where your commitment has been, for your ideological experiment. The truth is that now your second announcement in this House on the Jobs Ontario initiative is to offer $5 million over five years, less than $1 million a year, to the poor of this province -- 1.2 million.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): It's $1.1 billion over three years.

Mr Jackson: The member for Hamilton West has his finger pointing at us. Not once in this initiative is there any reference to food bank supports. Only one of the nine projects deals with the disabled community in this province. This government should be ashamed of itself that when it puts its priorities on the table, the poor are coming last -- dead last. That's not a distortion of the facts, and the member for Hamilton West knows it.

Hon Mr Allen: You know it.

Mr Jackson: I know it because I'm the chairman of Burlington Food Share and we're laying off staff because your government is withdrawing support. We have 2,000 people using food banks in our community, and you've got nine projects. The truth is that in this announcement there were 191 projects turned down. I simply reiterate that you've got $100 million for your day care experiment, to put them out of business, and you've got $5 million for the 1.2 million Ontarians who are forced, because of their circumstances, to be on social assistance in this province. Those are the facts, and if the member for Hamilton West doesn't like that, he's a member of cabinet and should speak up to the Premier of this province and the Treasurer, who are setting those kinds of priorities.

Unfortunately, there's far too much window dressing on this sensitive issue on the part of this government. The fact is that if it was a priority for the thousands of children who are living in poverty in this province it wouldn't have given them 0.5% for the children's aid society and other support groups. That is the legacy of this government, and five years for nine projects and $5 million isn't going to amount to very much to help the poor in this province.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In the time left, I want to respond to the statement by the Solicitor General in respect to the additional funding and hiring of additional uniformed forces for the OPP. This is a positive step and I feel extremely good about it. I want to compliment initially the police association, which is usually quiet in matters like this, but because of the lack of response from this government got very actively involved.

We had a petition, tabled with the government some time ago during an opposition day sponsored by the Progressive Conservative Party on police services in this province, from close to 15,000 Ontarians concerned about the failure of this government to provide adequate funding for the OPP.

I also want to mention the member for Dufferin-Peel, David Tilson; the member for Simcoe East, Al McLean; the member for Simcoe West, Jim Wilson, and the member for Burlington South, Cam Jackson, who've raised issues of concern related to the lack of adequate funding for the OPP over the past couple of years.

In respect to this, I think there's something like 90 members of the OPP who've been lost through attrition in the last year or so while there's been a hiring freeze on. We think this is a good first step. It certainly doesn't come close to meeting the manpower needs policy of the OPP, and we'll be continuing to pursue this matter with the Solicitor General.

In respect to policing at large, we still have grave concerns about the attitude and approach of this NDP socialist government towards police officers in this province. We see in respect to appointments like Susan Eng, the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. We see a close adviser to this government, Dudley Laws. Certainly serious questions can be raised about that gentlemen. Lennox Farrell is a close adviser to the Minister of Citizenship, who's most prominent for assaulting an ambassador and his picture appearing in a major daily, lying out behind a paddy wagon, handcuffed. We have the Premier of this province, after a shooting in Metro Toronto, saying, "There's a disturbing pattern of violence against blacks," without knowing any of the facts and casting aspersions against all police officers in this province.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under section 31(a) of the standing orders of the House, which reads:

"A minister of the Crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

The principle of parliamentary government is that government proposes and Parliament disposes, and we must have the information with which to do so. I'm given to understand that a decision has been made by this government to delist what could possibly be up to 100 or more drugs from the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The decision has also been made that no announcement of that course will be taken while the House is in session. Section 31(a) talks about information concerning "ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

In no public issue relating to our medicare program and its delivery under health care is there an issue that is quite as important to seniors and to people on social assistance as the decisions which have been taken by the government in this course.

There were 11 minutes, 37 seconds in ministerial statements today when the Minister of Correctional Services completed his remarks. More than eight minutes remained in which the Minister of Health could have presented to the House the decision that had been made by government.

It's offensive to this Legislature, to seniors and to people on social assistance that she did not do so.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's interest in the matter which she describes to the Chair. I must tell the member that on a number of occasions I have informed the House that the Speaker does not have the power to have ministers make statements and that indeed there's time allotted each day for ministers to make statements, should they choose to do so. It's a voluntary process.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement on this matter now.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? No, we do not.

1410

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 150

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order which I think is of significance to you particularly and to all members of the House. That point of order revolves around the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who as you know is one of the acting Speakers of this House, and the fact that on Thursday of this past week, on 16 July, the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton indicated to Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, that he would be able to continue his speech.

I don't want to deal specifically with that matter, because I know you've had some discussion of that. What concerns me about this is, in the House yesterday afternoon the member for Victoria-Haliburton, I think in his capacity as one of the acting Speakers, rose to suggest a way out of this particular dilemma where his word was going to be broken; in effect, the word of the Chair was going to be broken. He suggested that unanimous consent be given to allow the member for Carleton to proceed.

Unanimous consent was denied by the government. The government House leader then went down to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, the acting Speaker, and berated him for the suggestion and had other cabinet ministers go down to berate him until such time as the member left the House.

My point of order -- because you want me to get to the point of order -- is that people who are supposed to be independent, those who sit in the chair, might be intimidated by the government House leader. I wish you would look into this matter, because the next time he may be knocking on your door.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for St Catharines: Conversations which occur either in the chamber or outside which are of a private nature are not the jurisdiction of the Speaker, and what the Speaker can deal with are points of order or privilege which are brought to the floor of the House. Indeed the matter of which he spoke was dealt with yesterday. I understand the concern that he expresses as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Over the past 24 hours I've had the opportunity to review the documentation released yesterday by the Minister of Correctional Services, to whom this question will be directed.

I want him and the House to know that, having looked at all of that information, I am, if it is possible, even more incredulous and angrier than I was yesterday. I want to turn particularly to the former deputy minister's memorandum of July 15, 1992, that written by Ms Palozzi a day after Mr Runciman's question in this House, directed to the secretary of cabinet.

In Ms Palozzi's quite remarkable memorandum -- remarkable, in my view, for what it does not say as much as for what it does say -- she indicates that she took a decision on or about July 2 not to inform the Minister of Correctional Services about the allegations of serious and consistent sexual harassment and assault at the Bell Cairn centre, to quote the memorandum, after "a thorough discussion with senior ministry officials" and "appropriate and expert legal advice."

My question to the Minister of Correctional Services is, who were the expert legal advisers who advised your former deputy minister not to inform you of those events?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I wasn't present at those particular meetings. I hesitate to assume, but I assume that that advice would be from the ministry's legal branch.

Mr Conway: I'm trying to be dispassionate, but these answers, I say to you, are incredible and infuriating. Here we are now, almost 10 days after the member for Leeds-Grenville reported to the House a matter of grave concern to all of us, and today the Minister of Correctional Services, who unlike the former deputy remains in his post, cannot tell us who the expert legal advisers were in his own department who advised the then deputy not to tell the minister of the serious and persistent pattern of sexual harassment and particularly the very serious sexual assault that is alleged to have occurred at Bell Cairn on or about June 1.

My supplementary to the Minister of Correctional Services is this: When did anyone in the office of the Premier or in the Cabinet Office first learn about these incidents at Bell Cairn and elsewhere within the Ministry of Correctional Services? Will the Minister of Correctional Services tell me and the House, to the best of his knowledge, when anyone in the Premier's office and/or in the Cabinet Office first learned about these so-called Bell Cairn incidents?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I responded to the member in his initial question, it was my recollection that it was the legal services of the ministry, which I assumed that it was, and I have confirmed by checking back on my notes that it was indeed.

Beyond that, this member opposite started, I believe it was last week, with all kinds of questions, assertions, speculations of all sorts and all manner. He was given very responsible and forthright answers. He chose not to believe them. Those questions have now been shown to him in black and white and in a quite factual way and confirmed that which I have told him. He now has all the information, at least the pertinent information with respect to this matter, and he can draw whatever inferences he wishes.

We have two investigations ongoing: one by the police, who are looking at the problems at Bell Cairn; and the second by Judge Hansen in terms of an independent review of all of the facts and all the considerations that are pertinent and relevant to this situation. Surely, Mr Speaker, that, coupled with the information and the confirmations he was given yesterday, should be sufficient while we await Judge Hansen's report.

Mr Conway: I listened carefully to how this minister chose not to answer my questions, and, pathetically, this minister seems to believe that ignorance is his excuse. I submit to you, sir, that ignorance is his crime.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Ask a question.

Mr Conway: I will ask a question. We all know this is a highly centralized government. I know that Dina Palozzi has good and strong connections in both the Premier's office and in the Cabinet Office. I ask again, to the best of the honourable minister's knowledge, when did anyone in the office of the Premier or in the Cabinet Office first learn about the so-called Bell Cairn incidents, the incidents that are complained of, for example, in a March 2, 1992, memorandum by your own assistant deputy minister, who raises an alarming concern about what he considers to be the rising tide of abusive and assaultive behaviour at that facility?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite knows well when and how the issue was raised. It was raised by the honourable member opposite. He knows subsequent to that the matter was dealt with in a positive and a very expeditious way. If he can't remember, let me recount for him the three major, positive, immediate, expeditious steps that were taken: (1) A police investigation was commenced so that perpetrators of any alleged crime could be brought to justice. (2) The Bell Cairn centre was closed so that we would not have in our ministry or anywhere in the public service a workplace that was other than free from harassment and discomfort to any of the employees involved. (3) Judge Hansen was appointed. That's direct, it's positive, it's expeditious, it will come to the bottom line of the question, and I quite frankly perceive all of these additional questions as some kind of expedition of some sort.

1420

Mr Conway: My second question is to the minister of justice, the Attorney General. His colleague the Minister of Correctional Services released materials yesterday that tell us, among many other things, that at a meeting on July 2, 1992, the director of the legal services branch of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services attended at a high-level meeting with a number of other senior executives within the Ontario public service, at which meeting there was a full and apparently frank discussion about the very serious allegations of sexual assault and gang rape that were alleged to have occurred at Bell Cairn on or about June 1, 1992.

My question of the minister of justice is simply this: Since the director of legal services for the Ministry of Correctional Services is one of his lawyers, when did the Ministry of the Attorney General, and most especially either the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General himself, first learn about the incidents at Bell Cairn, most especially the ones that were talked about at the July 2, 1992, meeting held by the former Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, Ms Dina Palozzi?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I'm advised that the director of legal services in the Ministry of the Solicitor General spoke to the assistant Deputy Attorney General for civil law matters shortly after July 15; in other words, after this matter was raised in the House by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Conway: We have documents --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: My supplementary to the minister of justice is this: When did he or Judge Thomson, his deputy minister, first learn about the incidents at Bell Cairn, and what did he or Judge Thomson do when they first learned about the issues that were put before the director of legal services for the Ministry of Correctional Services, allegations of the most serious and grave kind, on or about July 2, 1992? When did the Attorney General and his deputy first learn about these allegations at Bell Cairn and what did they do upon first hearing of these very serious matters?

Hon Mr Hampton: I first learned of the issues surrounding Bell Cairn when they were raised in the House here on the 15th. I'm advised that the Deputy Attorney General learned of them the same day, and following question period of that day, the director of legal services in the Ministry of Correctional Services was contacted by the assistant deputy minister of the civil law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General to ask for information that might be pertinent to the issues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The final supplementary belongs to the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: We have the memorandum of the former Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, which I must say I do not personally believe was written entirely by her, nor do I believe it was written on July 15. It is my submission that this was written --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Are you saying it's a forgery?

Mr Conway: Well, it was written, I believe, by a committee and backdated to July 15, because there is no way this information could have been pulled together in 18 hours.

Ms Palozzi's July 15 memorandum states that she chose not to inform her minister of the most serious and grave allegations of the most serious and grave sexual assault, she says, because she had appropriate and expert legal advice. That expert legal advice clearly came from justice department lawyers.

Will the minister of justice, the Attorney General for Ontario, commit this day to table in this House forthwith the expert legal advice that was tendered by his lawyers to Ms Palozzi which would have helped her make her decision not to inform her minister about matters of first-order importance?

Hon Mr Hampton: I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware at this time that any advice was given by the director of legal services in the Ministry of Correctional Services by way of memorandum to the deputy minister of corrections. I'm not aware of that at this time. What I am aware of is that the director of legal services did attend a July 2 meeting.

While the member opposite assumes he is some sort of expert in this area, I want to say, just to get this on the record, that the director of legal services in the ministry of corrections is an experienced crown attorney. She has conducted many sexual assault trials. She has been a policy adviser to the women's directorate. She has instructed judges and crown attorney's defence counsel on issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment. She is aware of how sensitive and how difficult these issues are for victims.

Out of that July 2 meeting, I am told that basically what happened was this: First of all, there was at that time no tangible information available to give to the police. There were no complainants who were willing to come forward at that time. Unfortunately, there were no witnesses who were known at that time. There were no details.

Second, there was a very real danger that if a police investigation were launched at that time without giving the victims an opportunity to come to grips with what had happened to them, that would have amounted to a revictimization of those two women.

So while the opposition here wants to cast fault on everyone, I think the point is this: There were people in the ministry who were dealing with a very difficult social situation, one that has existed for many years, and were trying to do their best in this instance for the victims, to provide the victims with the kind of support they needed so that the matter could then proceed correctly.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber a very special guest, the Honourable T. M. Jacob, member of Parliament and Minister of Culture for the state of Kerala, India. Welcome to our chamber.

1430

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. For the past week and a half now he has indicated he is personally not responsible for the fact that, as I've described it, a passive coverup occurred within his ministry with respect to allegations of a gang rape on the grounds of a provincial institution by provincial employees. He's indicated that although practically everyone else within his ministry knew about it, he didn't, and he feels that's an adequate defence.

I think there's much more to this. I received another phone call today from a senior person in the ministry, and I know this person to be a credible source. The caller told me it is the view of senior and junior staff in the ministry that the minister is uninterested in the ministry, incompetent and unavailable. There is no confidence in this minister among senior and junior staff, and the ministry is said to be in a mess.

The minister and the Premier have placed a gag order on the staff, as we found out yesterday when we tried to contact them. He's also attempted to place a gag order on the former deputy minister, Dina Palozzi, to cover up for the incompetence of the minister. In fact, this is one of the biggest coverups that's ever happened in this Legislature. The minister and the Premier have spent a lot of time defending their positions on this issue, yet the former deputy minister has been forbidden from telling her side of the story.

How does the minister justify that? Why is he afraid of what the deputy minister might say? You've defended yourself, but you've forbidden Ms Palozzi to tell her side. Will you lift that gag order? Let her tell her side of the story.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): First of all, I find those remarks very offensive indeed. I find them totally unfortunate, and I regret hearing them from him or anyone else.

I cannot answer for what was in the minds of other people. I can tell you that the information I gave this House last week was correct and that it has been confirmed. It has been confirmed in writing, in black and white, and it is signed. Beyond that, I find these inferences totally inappropriate and unfortunate.

In terms of the issue itself, all of the effective and immediate steps that would have been appropriate have been taken.

Mr Runciman: The minister regrets hearing comments like that from me, and I regret having to say that in this House. I do, seriously. I said earlier that I personally like the minister. But I want to say that these are grave charges from a very credible source, and the minister's evasions and denials just won't wash any more.

This is a coverup by the Premier and his government that makes Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

I want to say that the deputy on this matter was effectively blindsided. She was fired five minutes before question period last Wednesday by the Premier personally as part of a salvage operation, a political coverup of this minister's incompetence, sacrificing a 20-year civil servant with a blemish-free record of commitment to women's issues as part of this coverup. The deputy should now be given the opportunity to explain her side of the story. She's been thrown to the wolves by the Premier and told not to say anything to the media.

If there's nothing to hide, Minister, we have to know why you're covering this up. Why are you not allowing the deputy to speak publicly? Will the minister tell us why the gag order is in place, for not only Ms Palozzi but other ministry staff -- they won't talk to us -- and will he recommend to the Premier that the gag order be lifted immediately?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have to try to bring some rationality back to these questions coming from members opposite. Who called for the police investigation? This government did. We did. Who called for the independent inquiry which will be conducted by Judge Hansen? This government did. We did. They would seem to be strange actions indeed for people who were trying to hide or cover up something, wouldn't they?

Mr Runciman: That response is regrettable, to say the least. The fact of the matter is that senior and junior ministry staff have no confidence in the minister. They think he's incompetent. This is a fact. To resolve this issue we must put it before a parliamentary committee, call Ms Palozzi and senior bureaucrats forward and find out what they think of the minister. Let them come forward. Don't say that. Let them come forward. If it's indeed true, and we know it is, then the minister must resign.

This is a massive vote of non-confidence in this minister from his own ministry. They have no confidence in him, but they've been told to keep quiet, and the phone call I received today confirms it. Will the minister do the right thing today, have the gag order lifted and direct this entire issue to a parliamentary committee for a full hearing, to provide Ms Palozzi and senior ministry staff the opportunity to tell their side of the story?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite seems to want to shift the whole issue, the whole matter, and the unfortunate alleged occurrences at Bell Cairn. The facts, in black and white, in writing, signed, clearly suggest -- they don't suggest; they say it -- that I was not informed and that the matter was raised in the House by the member opposite before I was able to be advised. Knowing that, I don't understand what kind of circumstance this member is after and what kind of trail he's trying to follow, but it surely isn't the matter at hand.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Yesterday, Minister, I asked you what an independent review entailed. You told me: "We want to have her review the ministry responses with respect to those allegations" of sexual assault. "We want to have her provide for us certain conclusions with respect to the way the matter was handled in respect to the ministry. We are also going to have her interview staff," and included in the staff were ministry employees. How is she going to carry out this independent review? Is she going to do it in public? Is she going to let the public hear an examination of all the witnesses, and will you recommend that that be the course that is taken?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I responded yesterday as to what would be done and how it would be done. I've indicated that to the member. He's repeated that very same answer back to me this afternoon so I know he's aware of it. In terms of Her Honour, I have every confidence in her. Her background and credibility suggest that an excellent job will be done in every aspect she reviews.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting that the minister, who claims he's telling the truth and has nothing to hide, will not recommend that this review be done in public.

Minister, I'm referring you to the Public Inquiries Act. Section 2 says:

"Whenever the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it expedient to cause inquiry to be made concerning any matter connected with or affecting the good government of Ontario or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof or of the administration of justice therein...the Lieutenant Governor in Council may...appoint one or more persons to conduct the inquiry."

1440

I don't know when the good government of Ontario or the public administration of Ontario could be questioned more than it's being questioned now. We have had a situation that leads everyone to believe there is systemic sexual harassment within your ministry. If ever there was a time that we have the public crying out for a public inquiry into good government, this is the time. Will you instruct Judge Hansen to conduct her inquiry pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act so the public can see that justice is being done?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think the citizens of Ontario can expect justice to be done using two very capable forces -- namely, the police force which we have commissioned to investigate this matter, and second, an independent review by a very capable, neutral third party, a judge, both initiated by this government so that information can be delivered.

Mr Harnick: Minister, I've now had the opportunity to ask you four times to hold a public inquiry. You are telling us that you're telling the truth, you're telling us that you have nothing to hide, yet you don't have the guts to stand here and answer my question and tell the public that you can have the inquiry so that everybody can see, so that witnesses will be summoned. All you do is convince everyone in this chamber and everyone watching that you have something to hide.

Now I'm asking you for the last time: Will you have to guts to call a public inquiry to examine not only everybody else's actions but your own actions or inactions?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First, may I say that I'm pleased the member is asking that question for the last time. There are, in addition to the police investigation and the third-party independent fact-finding investigation we have commissioned through Judge Hansen --

Mr Harnick: You don't have the guts to clear your own name. You're a wimp.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, do I have to be subjected to that kind of harangue?

Mr Harnick: Yes, because you're not telling the truth. You don't have the guts to have a public inquiry.

The Speaker: While the choice of vocabulary by the member for Willowdale is not necessarily unparliamentary, the member will know that this is a very sensitive issue. Perhaps it would be helpful to try to find more temperate language as a way to both ask questions and receive answers and hopefully resolve the issues that are before the House. I ask the minister if he could succinctly complete his remarks.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The third point I wish to make --

Mr Harnick: Tell us why we can't have a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- in addition to the police and the investigation by Judge Hansen, is that there are certain --

Mr Harnick: Answer the question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: If the member opposite would please quit that diatribe and allow someone to responsibly answer his own question, there are certain sensitivities --

Mr Harnick: No. Just tell us why you won't have a public inquiry. You've got no guts because you're not telling the truth.

The Speaker: Order. Need I say more, the member for Willowdale?

Mr Harnick: I'll withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister will know that the issue is very much you, Minister, and your competence.

As we look back over the history of this institution, there was sexual harassment virtually from the time the place opened up, and in the documents you released yesterday we saw even more instances. It was a series of them, starting last September and going on, it looked like, almost monthly, a series of sexual harassments and, we understand, sexual attacks. Yet in the document that you released yesterday the deputy minister was very clear that she was reporting on only one incident, and that is the incident in early June. She didn't comment on whether or not she had told you about any other instances.

The document is very clearly and carefully written to limit itself to that one incident. It's only that incident about which she is saying you weren't informed. It's not about the incidents in September and all the other months. As I say, the letter is very carefully crafted to say that it was only that instance she didn't tell you about. It goes on to mention that she would have told you about the incident in the future; it indicates that she would have told you about other incidents.

My question to you is this: Why did the deputy not release in her letter a confirmation that you were not told, neither you nor any of your staff, about the incidents in September and October and all those other incidents? Why was it limited to this one specific instance where she said that you weren't informed?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot answer for what was in the minds of other people. Secondarily in response to that question, I urge the honourable member to read that letter in its entirety, because the answer to his question is also contained there.

Mr Phillips: You make no sense, to be honest with you. The letter is very clear. It says that in that instance you were not informed. The letter does not go on to say that in no other instances were you not informed. The letter does not say that neither you nor your staff were not informed about all those other instances. I would ask you to get up and read the portion of the letter that says you, nor your staff, were never informed at any time about any of the problems at Bell Cairn from the day it opened until July 14. Read me that portion of the letter where the deputy says that you were never informed about any problems at Bell Cairn.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can't do more than refer the member to the letter that he has in his own hand. I am not going to join him in making speculations or innuendo out of it. In my view, it touches on a variety of very salient points. They are clear, they are direct and they are confirmation of what I told this House from day one.

Mr Runciman: I know the minister was not advised of what was happening in Bell Cairn, and I think the deputy can be taken to task for that matter. But I want to say there were extenuating circumstances in respect to that ministry which the minister is not prepared to accept responsibility for. Those are the questions of disinterest, the perception of incompetence and his general unavailability.

We've had indications of systemic problems widespread within the ministry, the ministry generally in a mess. I want to ask the minister, has he had any concerns prior to this incident coming forward about the performance of his deputy? Was he happy with the performance of his deputy? If he had any concerns did he ever discuss them? Can he give us an indication of how he felt Ms Palozzi was performing prior to this occurrence.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This is not a forum, so far as I know, for a job evaluation exercise. If the member opposite is trying to get me to say something bad or difficult with respect to the deputy minister, he is not going to be successful in that regard.

Mr Runciman: Well, they didn't care about providing a forum for Ms Palozzi. They hung her out to dry. They've got a gag order on her and other ministry staff and won't even let them tell their side of the story.

Mr Runciman: We think there are very serious problems. I have a letter I'm going to send over to the minister now which confirms that this ministry is indeed in a mess and concerns sexual harassment charges. We've blocked out relevant portions of the letter for release, but I'm going to also send an original copy to the minister.

This is relevant to the ministry of corrections and the minister allowing the promotion in a regional office of an individual who is under investigation regarding sexual harassment charges. I'll just abbreviate this. There is considerable concern within the ministry; there is not widespread knowledge of this. During the interim, the individual has been promoted to a job which requires responsibilities with respect to the government's sexual harassment policy; a searing indictment. I indicate that this is not signed, but I think it's another serious charge added on to significant charges.

1450

We've talked about damage control here for a political coverup. I'm asking this minister again: Will he allow Ms Palozzi and other ministry staff to come forward and speak to a parliamentary committee? Let's open this to public airing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Interjections.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I call your attention to order 23(k).

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Hon Mr Wildman: The use of "abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder" in the House. I wonder what action you're taking in regard to that order.

The Speaker: If there is indeed grave disorder, the House can be recessed for a while. Members will know that the clock continues to move. If members wish to spend their time yelling at each other, then the clock will continue to move. I ask the minister to respond to the question if he so chooses.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I've responded in a factual way. The information is before everyone, it's been released, the investigations have been called. What more can one say?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. My question concerns Bill 154, An Act to prohibit the Charging of Fees for the Cashing of Government Cheques, introduced by Mr Morin, the member for Carleton East. Certainly his bill has generated some interesting debate and raised some concerns among all members. The problem is that cheques issued by the government are being cashed at cheque cashing institutions such as Money Mart, which charge a percentage fee for this service.

There is concern by members of this Legislature and by the Daily Bread Food Bank that family benefit allowance cheques and other social assistance funds are not fully received by those people for whom the cheques were intended. Banks, trust companies and credit unions require acceptable identification of any person cashing a cheque, unless they happen to have an account at that particular bank. Factors such as the requirement for acceptable identification, restricted hours and accessibility may result in people turning away from banks, trust companies or credit unions.

My question to the minister is this: Are cheque cashing institutions such as Money Mart an alternative to banks, trust companies and credit unions in the province of Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Our members have expressed their concern, just as the member for Carleton East has, about the whole issue of people charging money at these cheque cashing outfits and therefore lowering the amount of social assistance that's available.

We are very concerned that we might make the same mistake the province of Quebec made in passing this bill before we complete our negotiations with the Canadian Bankers Association, which the Treasurer and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have undertaken and which in fact are moving along quite well.

We also want to be sure that we have really done as much as we can to encourage direct deposit of cheques for social assistance recipients. We have about 33% of recipients who are currently on direct deposit. We are negotiating with four different municipalities to attempt to do that with general welfare assistance as well. We are moving along with this, but if we do what the province of Quebec did and close down these operations, effectively, there will be many people who will have no place in order to cash their cheques, and that, therefore, causes hardship for themselves and their children. We don't want to make that mistake in Ontario as they did in Quebec, and therefore we want to put these other things into place before we take that action.

Mr Johnson: The minister has at least in part answered my question, but I would like to know what action the government is taking to meet the needs of social assistance recipients who are indeed presently in need of this service.

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I said in answer to the member's first question, we are first of all encouraging direct deposit. We have a campaign that is in place this summer to encourage that and to further that. We are working with the group that is beginning the consumers' council to ensure that there is widespread information available to consumers about their ability to have that service.

We are working with the Canadian Bankers Association to try to do two things, and they are very important. One is to ensure that there is non-stigmatizing, appropriate identification means for social assistance recipients, because it is not appropriate for us to demand a different level of identification for them than for other citizens.

The second is to negotiate a form of indemnification for banks. Their concern is that many social assistance recipients have a bad credit rating, have not been able to sustain a good banking relationship, and therefore they are refused as clients. The banks are saying that if we can negotiate an indemnification against fraud for them, they will be much more willing to allow these folks to open accounts and therefore be able to use the banking institutions that all of us enjoy.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. We've learned over the last two years that when ministers get into trouble in this government, they have found that there's always one response that seems to work. The response is: "It wasn't my fault. It was somebody else's fault, and here's the person who it was."

You only have to think of the former Solicitor General, who said that he didn't write the letter, he didn't sign the letter. You only have to think of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who said she didn't organize a conference at a ball game at the Dome, that somebody else did and, "Here's the bureaucrat who did it; it was her fault, not mine." Even Shelley Martel, who at the end of the day admitted she told a lie, said she did it because she was overworked by her staff and her schedule was too long for the day and she "lost it." So we all find in this government that there's always somebody else to blame when a mistake is made.

The minister has set a new high standard. His explanation is: "I wasn't told anything, I didn't know anything and the people who were supposed to tell me didn't tell me about it. Even though they had all been worried about it for 10 months, since the day I left the place when I cut the ribbon, and had been writing memos to each other, and 12 to 18 of them were concerned and the director of legal services was giving legal advice, I knew nothing."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Scott: It may be fair to say that it's all somebody else's fault. But I ask the minister, will he do this, in fairness? If you want to blame the others, by all means, be my guest. But in fairness, will you permit --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Mr Scott: In fairness, will you permit your deputy, whom you propose to blame for not telling you anything, and the director of legal services, who didn't tell the Attorney General anything either, both of them distinguished, long-term public servants, to tell their side of the story? Why should you have it all your own way? Let them tell the public what they know.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Pardon me, but all I did was present the facts. Members opposite seem to have a problem with that. What can I do?

[Laughter]

Mr Scott: I hope our TV audience will forgive us, but if it weren't so serious and if it didn't concern the administration of public affairs in Ontario, it would be absolutely laughable.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, come to order.

1500

Mr Scott: The excuse of all these ministers is: "I didn't know. Nobody told me. I'm sitting here at my desk and no one comes and tells me anything." That isn't the way you run the public service.

I'm not going to call for the minister's resignation again. I frankly don't care whether he comes or goes. He can stay with the walking wounded in cabinet if he wants to. I simply say this to him: Your government imposes obligations, for example, on chief executive officers of companies for whom lack of knowledge is not an excuse.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Scott: Why do you take a standard that you will not permit in environmental affairs, in occupational health and safety, in labour standards and in a whole host of other matters where you lay down rules for others? Why don't you submit to the kinds of rules you ask others to submit to?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In documents which I have released, the answer and the facts of this issue are very clear. When seized of this information, I took exactly the proper managerial actions in terms of the police closing the centre and of calling an independent judiciary into the process to bring forward recommendations and information as a result.

I can't tell the member opposite what was in the minds of others.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mr Pilkey: He will have to depend on their own factual account in writing that he has before him and that he was told of previously by myself.

The Speaker: New question, the member for London North.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is not to the Minister of Correctional Services because I believe this minister is --

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mrs Cunningham: -- unaware and unwilling to be aware of the problems facing women in his ministry.

My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Madam Minister, since my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville raised this unfortunate case in this assembly last week, we have heard a great deal about the Minister of Correctional Services's decision to close himself off from uncomfortable information. If we didn't hear it, we have read about that ministry in this report in detail.

The minister has said he didn't know that two women are alleged to have been attacked at Bell Cairn, and I believe he didn't know that. He also said -- and can you believe this, Mr Speaker? -- that he didn't know about the facility's troubled history. There is no way, given the memorandum of February 24 -- you can all read it -- and another memorandum of March 1992 -- you can all read it. It was sent not to a regional director but regional directors, copied to many staff. This has been known in this ministry, and for this minister to stand up and say he's unaware of the problems in this correctional institution is unbelievable.

I have to say, Madam Minister, that you have the responsibility to educate your cabinet colleagues, to warn them that they cannot close their eyes nor can they allow the people who work in our institutions to close their eyes to the systemic discrimination and injustice described in this report, which I read with sadness. Minister, why did you fail to fulfil that responsibility in Allan Pilkey's case?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I simply reject what the member has suggested. This is a government that takes responsibility right across all ministries. In fact, our backbenchers are as concerned about this issue as we are. We have discussed the issue of sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment, within our caucus and within our cabinet on a number of occasions. Many of us on this side of the House are survivors of sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. We feel very deeply about this issue and our male colleagues feel very deeply about this issue.

We have worked with the Management Board secretariat in terms of the policy that is in existence, but we all know, and the members on the other side of the House know, that policies against sexual harassment have been available in this government for some time. The issue is trying to change the attitudes; bring out, in the people who are being affected by sexual harassment and sexual abuse, the confidence and the safety they need in order to actually be able to survive themselves and find ways to bring this forward.

I want to be very clear. I am absolutely disgusted by the actions of both members of the opposition parties in terms of --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South is to come to order.

Interjections.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to say to the Minister of Community and Social Services that it's that type of soapbox, BS statement and incompetence that led to sexual harassment by their incompetent ministers over there. Tell him to straighten up his act. Have a public inquiry.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Parry Sound take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This House stands recessed for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1507.

1519

The Speaker: The member for London North with her supplementary.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I was disappointed just before you adjourned this House for a break to hear the minister talk about being disgusted with the opposition parties with regard to this issue, because I have to tell you that we're pretty disgusted with the lack of action on behalf of this government, all of us on this side of the House.

I think everyone in this House who represents the public is very much aware of the challenges out there in the real world with regard to women's safety, especially recently, and certainly sexual abuse in the workplace. This minister, more than anyone I personally know, has dedicated her life to making this world a better place for women. I say that as a compliment. But I also have to say this government does not have a monopoly on caring about women's issues. We care on this side of the House as well, and we too have experienced what this minister says she has experienced.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mrs Cunningham: I'm asking my question with regard to a comment I read today. It went something like this: Women said they were attacked by their coworkers and then they were silenced by "fear of reprisals if they pressed charges against the men involved."

The minister who is responsible -- after a whole year of reports on these incidents; not just the one that my colleague raised, but on everything -- says he's now going to get to the bottom of it.

As the minister responsible for women's issues, will you explain why it takes media headlines and a public outcry before this government takes action on allegations of ongoing harassment and gang rape at a government facility?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As soon as this government knew about these incidents, it went ahead and acted very vigorously. We didn't wait to hear about these incidents, however, in order to act vigorously. We have worked very hard to improve the sexual harassment policies of the government to begin to build the confidence of women within the government that this is a government that will listen to the complaints that have been there for a long time and that is prepared to give them voice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am tired of being silenced myself in this House every time I try to talk about the need to give victims voice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are very, very tired about the fact -- that in this whole discussion over the last week the opposition has made a political football of the pain and suffering of women, and that is not appropriate. What we are saying is that we are dedicated to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Renfrew North. Would the minister take her seat.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Since about 1988, devastation has hit my community and a number of communities in the province. Lately the constituents have a number of concerns, and one of our birthday gifts in Kent county was the possibility in the next year of 300 jobs in my community being moved to Mexico from Wallaceburg, Ontario.

I've seen the devastation that has taken place in Kent county under the US-Canada free trade agreement and now with the entry into negotiations with the North American free trade agreement. The call of the Premier last week that we must withdraw from the talks that are taking place was well received by my community. Bear with me because I know I'm not going to get a supplementary on this.

One of the things that was supposedly clarified by the Prime Minister in 1988 was that the rules of origin were in place, and now they're telling us today that the rules of origin have to be clarified. It's been very hard for the people of my riding, which is being devastated; 300 jobs is very devastating to a small community. I want to know what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and this government are going to do to protect the workers that I represent and have represented since 1988 when this trade agreement came in.

Bear with me. I know you're getting off your seat. One of the things that is very important to us is to make sure that you as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology are reflecting the concerns of the people of my riding. I would like to know what has been going on since last week.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): On Monday the trade ministers met with Michael Wilson in Ottawa. We have an update on the NAFTA negotiations. In fact, the federal government is trying to proceed and hopes to meet the deadline which it has set.

The position of this government has been that there are far too many outstanding issues. In the case of the auto industry, 90% of auto manufacturing is in the province of Ontario, and we have not yet seen even a draft of the proposal on autos. There are still outstanding issues on wearing apparel, the dispute resolution section has still not been resolved, investments have still not been resolved and, of course, labour standards and enforcement are not even on the table.

In light of these uncertainties, I urge the federal government not to proceed on George Bush's agenda of trying to get re-elected as President of the United States. Indeed, we said that in the light of recent and continuous harassment by the United States, we should withdraw and send a clear political message to the United States that we are not prepared to proceed with an agreement as long as it continues to harass Ontario workers and industries.

MOTIONS

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Mr Cooke moved that on the sessional day on which this motion is carried, when the House adjourns that day it shall stand adjourned until September 28, 1992.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): We have to speak on it.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. My error. It is hard to believe, but it is possible for the Chair to make a mistake. Does the minister have any opening comments?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- or perhaps a point of personal privilege that arises out of the exchange between the Minister of Community and Social Services and the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville: My admiration for both of them is complete, if somewhat constrained, and the minister is entitled to give any explanation in this House that she wants to give, but she alleges that the opposition parties have taken political advantage of this incident.

She's entitled to that view, and I wouldn't constrain her right to say it, but I think, in fairness to the House, the minister will want to concede publicly in the House that had it not been for the member for Leeds-Grenville, these events, which had gone on in the government for 10 months, would have remained undiscovered. In that sense, albeit accidentally, the member for Leeds-Grenville has done more for gender equality in this month than any member of the government.

The Speaker: The member will know he does not have a point of order.

Mr Scott: I thought it was one of my better ones.

The Speaker: That's a surprise to the member for St George-St David, I realize, but he does not have one. He speaks, of course, of a very sensitive and difficult issue which is currently before the House.

The honourable House leader for the official opposition.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I am concerned about what is taking place here today, because what you know is happening is that the government House leader has found another way to bring a closure motion on debate in this Legislative Assembly.

I gave the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader, a letter which indicated our Liberal caucus was prepared to give second reading debate today and tomorrow and vote on second reading of Bill 75, and that we would be finished with that bill so it could go out to committee.

Then I was told that I could not get second reading debate --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Must-haves.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Now we can't have our time, or what?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.

Mr Sorbara: Why should we come to order? They're shutting us down.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Centre to come to order.

Mr Sorbara: They're trying to shut the place down.

1530

The Speaker: I ask the member to come to order.

I remind all members that on this particular motion there is a 30-minute time limit per speech. The clock is running. If the Chair needs to bring the House to order, the clock continues to run. I would ask all members in the chamber to try to have an orderly debate and allow the honourable House leader of the official opposition the opportunity to speak.

Mr Stockwell: This is all we ever debate; we only ever debate closure motions.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, in fairness to me, the commotion began because of other things and you've taken time away from me. I did not cause the commotion. I was beginning my remarks and now I'm being punished by losing three minutes of my speaking time.

The Speaker: I draw to the member's attention that the honourable House leader gave up his 30 minutes.

Mr Elston: That's not my fault. Now you're taking three minutes off my time. Listen, Mr Speaker, let's be very clear about what is happening in this place. Any time they want to interrupt our speeches, any time they want to cause commotion, you stand in your place and you let the clock --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You were interrupted by your own member behind you.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Algoma. Stop the clock, please.

I must say to the House that without the cooperation of all members it is virtually impossible for any Speaker to maintain any semblance of order for debate. I implore that this House find a way to allow orderly debate to take place on the floor of this chamber.

I am asking that the clock be reset to 30 minutes. I ask that all members allow the honourable member for Bruce to make his debate uninterrupted, and that in succession every member of this chamber recognized by the Chair will have an opportunity to be heard without interjection.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I begin again by telling the people in the province that this is another way the government has found to bring closure on bills in this House. Mr Speaker, as you know, we have had a whole series of new rules brought into this place that allow the government to push through anything it wants to push through. It is known now as 44a. It was debated yesterday or at least on Monday with you or another Speaker in the chair.

You delivered a decision yesterday with respect to the effect of 44a; that is, after the first three days of debate on second reading, 44a can be brought to close off any further debate by having votes at every stage of a bill's natural process through this place arising upon their order being called.

When we know that 44a does have one limitation, and that is a three-day second reading debate before it can be introduced, now the government House leader comes to this place and says he is moving that this place adjourn on a certain day when this motion is passed, meaning that we have Bill 168, Bill 164, Bill 75, Bill 169 and several others -- which he says are his must-have legislation -- which presumably then would have to be nodded on, or there has to be a sincere indication by the government that it doesn't care to have this legislation passed.

In my view it is a very sad day in this place when you allow standing order 45, which is known commonly in this place as closure, to stand side by side with standing order 44a, which has a restriction about when it can be introduced, to be augmented by this type of a very nasty piece of business.

What the government has done is found a new way to exclude the members in this chamber from doing anything with respect to asking questions that need to be answered in the public interest. And why is he doing this? Because he is afraid to face the criticism that goes with Bill 75. He knows full well that the people of London and Middlesex are not all unanimous in their support for this bill, and he knows very well, very clearly, that there is a whole series of ratepayers in the city of London and people in the county of Middlesex who are wondering about their financial future's security.

It seems to me that what this man has done, after we have had but one opposition speaker on his feet and not yet completing his debate, is he has moved to shut us down, or he has, in his infinite wisdom, told everybody that we will all decide it's not worthwhile asking the public questions that need to be addressed.

Why is it that after these rules have come into play, a man who is the government House leader, who said, "Trust me; I will not use these new rules at all to do what you think is unreasonable; trust me," has used standing order 44a on two occasions on two bills that have been brought before this House?

It is my view that if we were given time, he would move it again on Bill 75, the London annexation bill, and I would say to him after three days of second reading debate, "Go right ahead." If he doesn't want to listen to enough of the public concern about that bill, that's his problem. He should know people are concerned about the Brant report. He should know the people of London are concerned about the elimination of the PUC. He should know that the people in Middlesex and London are concerned about the elimination of the suburban roads committee. He should know that the taxpayers in those two municipalities are worried about whether London can entertain all the costs that are associated with the annexation. He should know that the people in the town of Westminster are concerned about whether or not the water and sewage problems in their areas are going to be addressed as part of the new city of London. He should know that all those questions are out there, and he should know that he has either not completed or will not make public the results of his studies of the financial implications for both Middlesex county and the city of London.

Why are we now moving to be closed down? It is because this government House leader and this government is unprepared to listen to the voice of dissent. It is not that we are always right in dissent; it is not that we are always clearly in possession of the better way; but it is right on all occasions that a person who lives in Canada, a person who lives in Ontario, at least until now has had the right to express his or her dissent in this chamber in a way which puts his case, right or wrong.

That is what has been taken from us, and it's been taken from us by a group of people who have always proposed that they, as New Democrats, possessed solely the ability to really implement democracy in our society. They've accused the Tories of being undemocratic. They've accused the Liberals of being undemocratic. They have said that the New Democratic Party is the only party that allows freedom of speech, freedom of dissent and stands for the rights of the minority.

What is the history of this Parliament? It is a trampling under their feet by the New Democrats of every person who would wish to raise a concern about policies of their government. It didn't just begin now; it began with a whole series of problems out of this chamber.

Mr Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

1612

The House divided on Mr Elston's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 30; nays 62.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: There were two reasons for moving the adjournment of the debate. One, quite frankly, was so that we could get on with the real business of the House. The second was that I had a couple of telephone calls to reply to because of the shenanigans being orchestrated around Bill 75 and the end of the debate being orchestrated by the government on its own piece of legislation. The only way I could get to take the call from some important people in the London-Middlesex area was to move for an adjournment of the debate so that I could have time to speak to the people locally and consult also with my caucus colleagues.

The first time this particular motion came to the attention of any of us was at about 2 o'clock this afternoon, when the government House leader refused an offer by the Liberal Party to debate Bill 75 both today and tomorrow, ending with a vote on second reading tomorrow afternoon, which would allow the government to complete its business on that bill. I then indicated quite clearly to the member for Windsor-Riverside, the government House leader, and to my colleague for Parry Sound, the third party House leader, that we could then go on to speak about the issue of adjourning the House. But in no case did I feel that it was appropriate that this House be adjourned prior to completing what the government has maintained for so many weeks has been a very full agenda of public business.

I find it extremely interesting that the people who voted in favour of dispensing with the debate on this motion to adjourn the House were the opposition parties, which have maintained all along, during the course of a series of shenanigans orchestrated by the government, in particular by the Premier, to end debate in this place, that we want to do the business of this House, that we want to debate the real business of this House, that we want to do bill after bill after bill that the people opposite want done.

Mr Speaker, let me take you back just a few weeks ago when we found that the government House leader was starting to orchestrate the story in the press that the opposition parties were preventing the business of the House from being --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, might I have the clock stopped, please?

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are many private conversations and it makes listening to the gentleman who has the floor very difficult. Please. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I know they don't want to listen to this stuff, but it is part of the way of this Legislative Assembly, at least until the government majority puts in new rules that say we can't even talk about this stuff. Quite honestly, I expect these people will move to further restrict the amount of time we can speak.

But let me take you back to June 4. About June 4, you can recall that the press was rife with all kinds of suggestions by the government House leader that the opposition parties, and in particular the Liberal opposition, were being so obstructionist that something had to happen, that something had to be done, that the government could not tolerate it because it had fully 121 pieces of legislation which it had to have passed.

At that particular juncture -- I think it was up to about May 24 -- they had only introduced 17 of those bills, and in fact the key element of this session's legislative work, the Ontario labour reform bill, was not even yet brought to this House. But on June 4, Bill 40, the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, was brought forward and was introduced at about 2:30 or 3:30 in the afternoon, and lo and behold, shortly after that, on the afternoon of June 4, there followed the rule changes which were brought by this government under the auspices of that democrat, Bob Rae. This contained a whole series of restrictive items which would, I think, have appalled even the most cynical of politicians who have ever dealt with any study of any Legislative Assembly in the history of parliamentary government.

Among the terms of those standing orders suggestions brought by the government House leader was an imposition of a 30-minute speaking time limit on motions just like this. While I began my remarks by indicating that there is now a conspiracy among standing orders sections 44a and 45, and now under the time allowed for each member to speak, to do nothing but prevent debate in this place, I think people will not have recognized the sinister nature of that until they now find that under this motion, we have but 30 minutes to speak to routine proceedings in this place. Before we could have spoken, as an individual member, for an extended period of time.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is a great deal of noise in the chamber and it makes it difficult for everyone to hear. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This will be about the third or fourth time the government party has shouted me down with its continual yipping. I know the poor people on the government benches don't want to listen to criticism about how little debate they allow to occur, but if they don't want to listen, they can sit out in the east lobby. They are right at hand if they wish to be at hand for any kind of interest they may show in this.

But it's obvious what is happening. If they can't get us with rule 45, which is a closure motion to shut us down, if they cannot get us with 44a, which is the time allocation motion, which by the ruling of the Speaker yesterday --

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Did Greg Sorbara give you permission to say this?

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, can I ask that you bring the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to order? He attends this place so infrequently.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please, to all members, do show respect for the chamber and for the member who has the floor. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asked if he had given me permission to say that. I say quite honestly that I don't have to ask his permission to speak in this place. I ask only for the permission of the Speaker if I can speak my piece.

1620

Hon Mr Philip: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked whether Greg Sorbara, the real House leader, gave him permission, not myself.

The Acting Speaker: Okay. It's not a point of order. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: They are so bitter. I can't believe for a moment that they are so bitter about the opposition's ability to speak freely in this place about freedom of speech.

I can't understand for a moment why it is that the New Democratic Party is so offended when people want to speak in opposition to its motions and in opposition to closing the Legislative Assembly. They're the people who told us they had 121 pieces of legislation to pass. We hadn't barely got by the Ontario labour relations bill and they wanted out of here. Their whole agenda was done. Then they said, "No, give us Bill 150 and we'll be out of here." Now they say, "Give us Bill 75 and we'll be out of here." But so you know what? We have to give you 150 and we have to give you 75 without any debate.

They allowed only one opposition member to complete his debate on third reading on Bill 150, which was the debate finished by my colleague the member Scarborough-Agincourt, and right in full tilt the member for Carleton was brought to earth not only by the power failure, which I now wonder whether it could have been orchestrated by someone, and was prevented from completing the flight of ideas which were, in my view, going to convince a whole series of people, at least on the government benches, to vote with the member for Carleton and in fact probably against their own bill. But he was shut down.

Then there was moved under standing order 44a what amounts to a closure motion which said that even though a member of the third party has not completed debate on third reading -- not one single member has completed his or her debate -- the debate is over, it is done, it is closed off.

Now the conspiracy is complete as we deal with another part of those new rules brought in by the government. They have brought in this motion which is designed to have this House rise without completing nearly half, maybe not even 10%, and if I sat down and figured this out, maybe it is less than 5%, of the agenda which they complained they were unable to bring to this House. They never introduced very much of it. Maybe they introduced just over half of the bills they said they wanted to introduce in this session, but I have not counted 121 pieces of legislation the government wanted to do.

Heaven knows they wanted to do but one bill. They really wanted only to do Bill 40, and as soon as they did enough of the shenanigans to make everybody concerned, they brought in the rule changes. They got Bill 40 by shutting us up, by closing down the debate and now they want to run away from this Legislative Assembly because they really had no business they wanted done in this place at all but Bill 40.

If they'd really wanted to do Bill 40 in the way that is traditional in this Parliament, they would have said in their speech from the throne, "We wish to do the labour amendment act because it is the most important piece of government business that possibly can occur." That would have been okay. It would have been much better had they brought that speech from the throne, backed up by the traditional budget in the spring by the member for Nickel Belt, which also would have, in my view, supported the labour relations amendment act if they had then brought the bill into this place in April so that we could have talked about it.

But when did they bring that bill into this place, when we usually rise at the end of June? They brought it in on June 4 so that nobody would have time to study that bill, so that no one in this province would have time to raise objections and so that no one would be able to consider in a timely fashion the provisions that were first brought to the public light by this government.

We know what these people have done to cause the events to move to their new rules. The conspiracy is now complete with the limitation on the speaking time by each member on routine motions like this. It is but for the public to understand that "democratic" in the New Democratic Party is a word without meaning, without substance, without currency whatsoever.

There is a whole series of other arguments to make in this House about why we should not adjourn, but the most important reason we should not adjourn in accordance with this motion is that we have not got to the work of this House. We have not been allowed to debate, in any event, but they have not allowed us to call into question any of their policies because they won't call the stuff for debate at all.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: There is a whole group of people over there who are laughing and barracking at me, because they don't understand that to get government business done, until they change the constitution of this province, we will have to have first reading of a government bill, we will have to have second reading of a government bill and we will have to have third reading of a government bill, with the royal proclamation and signature by His Honour.

I don't quite understand how to get this across to them, but this chamber is the place where we do legislation, and while they may not want to hear criticism of their legislation, part of the process of doing public business is to listen to people, right or wrong, bring the points of view to this place so they can be measured in debate.

We don't expect on very many occasions to be able to persuade the people across there that our views are correct, but we should have no trouble at all as single members representing constituencies, in common with all the other members in this House, in convincing those people that we have a right to speak. If there is a member in this chamber right now, if there was a member in this chamber who has ever served here, who believes there is not a right for all of us to represent our constituents, he or she should stand up and declare himself or herself as being unworthy of the trust of the constituents who elected him or her.

We are not gifted with respect to having all the right answers. I realize that, and anybody who has ever served in this place will have realized that. But I realize more than anything that if we are unable to put our cause, then this chamber is not serving the population of our province, and it has served our population for over 100 years, or just about 100 years -- this particular chamber. This style of government, however, has served us for as long as we have been historically recorded in this province, indeed in the days when we go back to the first meetings in the 1790s.

I am very, very concerned that what we have seen happening in this Legislative Assembly, in a period of but a few weeks, has been a regression to a time that preceded the great reforms of 1840, when responsible government -- at least we were taught in our elementary courses and in Canadian history courses -- was brought, through the reports of Lord Durham and others, to the fore in the province.

Why do I say responsible government is being taken from us? Why do I say that the parliamentary government we have been so accustomed to using to do the public business of this place is being destroyed? It is being destroyed by the new set of rules, not, if you look at them one by one, so sinister as to destroy everything we stand for in terms of democratic deliberations, but when you look at them together as a package in the hands of a Premier who would do only as he will and nothing but what he wishes. That is what is so destructive of us.

What is so destructive of the concept of responsible government? It is the way in which the prime minister of this province sustains ministers who are unable to do their public administration in a way which lives up to the standards the Premier said at one point -- his early stages, I now admit -- he was going to exact of them.

There are real problems in this Legislative Assembly when we are faced with a government that says it has business but then makes motions that cause all of us great concern about the way it is conducting itself. They're not doing their public business. They're not doing their ministerial business. Good heavens, we've been through a whole series of nasty affairs, the latest of which of course is the Pilkey affair. It seems to me, more than anything else, the headline that stood out so clearly the other day, which said "NDP Sex Scandal" in the local newspapers, said it all and it really did cause the panic that has stricken those people on the government benches.

1630

Why have they moved this motion today? It is because we were examining the Pilkey affair for another day, getting close, it seems to me, to the real answers behind those glossed-over replies to our questions by the Minister of Correctional Services. I can't for a moment believe that we would not be doing the public business if it weren't for the Pilkey affair.

These people are stampeding out of here. They don't want to do pay equity, they don't want to do the London-Middlesex annexation bill before we rise from this chamber. Why? It seems to me they have already feigned that they have some interest in those two particular pieces of legislation, but they have decided on their own wicket that they are going to get out of here because the member for Leeds-Grenville was bold enough to tell the Minister of Correctional Services that he wasn't doing his job and there were serious problems associated with the public administration of his department.

If it weren't for the member for Leeds-Grenville, a member with whom I have sparred on occasion as a government member and with whom I have served on committee in opposition in prior days, if it were not for his attentive ear and his sympathetic and listening and caring character, we would never have heard of the problems that were going on and rampant in the Correctional Services ministry. Goodness only knows, the minister himself, he says, was not told and he didn't know what was going on.

So why is it that we have this motion to can the work of this Legislative Assembly when the government has let it be known that fully 121 pieces of important government business were to be done this session? It is because the government is afraid to confront the people with the real truth around the Pilkey affair.

Why is it that they are not having a public inquiry so that the judge who has been appointed could do the work in public, so that she could call witnesses, in fact swear witnesses in so that the evidence could be collected in a way that would be seen to be not only open but also just?

It is because there is fear of what the facts will allow. Why are we convinced there is fear about that? We are convinced because we know the gag order has gone out to silence the Correctional Services ministry employees. The gag order has gone out to prevent the former deputy minister from speaking and defending herself in public.

I know more than almost anybody else in this chamber that this government is running, that it is hiding and that its sole reason for bringing in the rule changes had nothing to do with 120 pieces of legislation but everything to do with one piece of legislation, the Ontario Labour Relations Amendment Act, and it is now being used on every piece of legislation whether the government says it has any degree of importance in this place or not.

There is a whole series of very important and frightening pieces of information to put before the public yet about the Pilkey affair, I am convinced. We have not yet been able to get through the very heavy armament that has been stacked around the Premier's office and around the Correctional Services ministry by the people who do the daily work of repair for this tattered government.

I have never seen a government act more harshly to people who would criticize it than this government. Before I moved the adjournment of the debate, I started by saying that it is the way of these people now to prevent anybody from speaking out against them. They incriminate people who would raise a concern about their policies. That's what happened in the infamous Martel affair where, of course, the minister of the day, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, actually lied about a doctor in Sudbury who was resisting a public policy with respect to OHIP.

Now we have a whole series of other problems coming out. What happens? As soon as the questioning becomes very close to the Premier, he attacks the member for Renfrew North. He attacked yesterday the member for St George-St David. He attacked the member for Leeds-Grenville. We saw the Minister of Community and Social Services attacking the member for London North. We heard them rail and rant against each of the members of the opposition who had the nerve to ask whether or not there was some transgression of ministerial responsibility.

There are a whole series of other issues about which I think we could speak at length. We can't. We can speak only for 30 minutes, but I would say to you that the business of this House is not yet done. There is, for this session, yet more work to be completed and I choose, in an amendment to the motion by Mr Cooke which I am about to put, only two pieces of business which I think are important and should not be dispensed with prior to our adjournment.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Elston moves an amendment to Mr Cooke's motion of adjournment of the House, that in no case does the House adjourn until second reading of Bill 75, London-Middlesex annexation, and second reading of Bill 168, pay equity, is complete, and that on completion of second reading of these two bills the House stand adjourned until September 28, 1992.

Any further debate on Mr Elston's motion?

Mr Elston: I would just like to say, as I introduce this amendment to the motion, that this will test the government's resolve. This allows them to get those two bills, which they say they need, done before we rise. They're laughing because they know right well they don't care two hoots about London-Middlesex. They don't care two hoots about pay equity. What they care about is getting themselves out of here so they can escape the Pilkey affair and so they don't have to answer to the public. I want all the people in this place to vote for this amendment to that motion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Elston's motion.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today to debate both the amendment to the motion and the motion. I think it's kind of ironic that a government that claimed it had 117 or 121 pieces of legislation it had to have passed now is introducing a motion without completing some fairly significant pieces of legislation it had in its agenda. It is now moving a motion to get out of here and return on September 28. That having been said --

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You don't allow us to debate anything.

Mr Eves: I say to the honourable member who just interjected that this is hardly the time for any government member to be talking about limiting debate, in light of the time allocation motion we saw passed here yesterday. In fact, I and other people have indicated in this place that it was not a time allocation motion at all. It was a closure motion described as a time allocation motion and I think, quite honestly, a very sad day for legislative debate in Ontario. Now, any time a government, when it wants to move a stage of a bill other than second reading, can simply, under the guise of a time allocation motion, say, "We're cutting off debate effective now; no further debate," as happened to my friend the member for Carleton, who'd only just started his remarks; he's not even given an opportunity to speak, and that eliminates debate on that particular stage of the bill. It is going to be a sad day indeed if that's the way the government is going to carry on and if that's the way time allocation motions under new standing order 44a are to be interpreted in the future.

1640

I think it's also significant that we have some very important pieces of legislation that by the government's own admission it wanted to get passed, that it wants to get on with and that it feels very strongly about that now will not even be debated until the fall. We have Bill 168, pay equity, and Bill 169, the companion bill, the public service bill. Those are both very important and significant pieces of legislation that the Premier and his government have indicated time and time again are fundamental to his government, and yet we see his House leader here today saying: "Oh, we don't care about those two bills. We just want to get out of here. We want to come back on September 28 now."

You have to stop and think about why the government is doing that. The worker ownership bill, the London annexation bill, the gaming services bill, pay equity, its companion bill the public service bill, automobile insurance, Bill 164 --

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Sunday shopping.

Mr Eves: To say nothing of Sunday shopping, the Game and Fish Act, the Toronto Islands bill, the colleges collective bargaining bill; all of those very significant pieces of legislation are now in effect being put on hold, by the government that introduced them, so it can leave. There has to be a reason why any government would do that.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): July 22, that's the reason.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Colleges and Universities says July 22 is the reason. I realize it's into July.

Mr Scott: Allan Pilkey is the reason.

Mr Eves: However, I did think that some of these pieces of legislation were fairly significant and that the government would have wanted to deal with them before the House rose. The member for St George-St David has an interesting observation in that Allan Pilkey might be the reason. I don't think any objective observer can come to any other conclusion, quite frankly.

Up until today, we had a government that was bent on getting through all this legislation, and all of a sudden, in midstream, so to speak, with respect to Bill 150 and with respect to Bill 75, it is now saying: "Oh, we're willing to cut our losses and abandon all our legislation. We'll pick it up again in the fall. We just want out of here so we can come back on September 28." That's basically what the motion that the government House leader introduced today says. It also says something about how badly the government wants out of this place and how badly it doesn't want to have to come back for question period every day, like the one we had today, for example.

Now that I have calmed down a little bit from what I was a few hours ago, I want to say to the Minister of Community and Social Services that I've occupied your portfolio in the past, for a much briefer period of time than you've occupied it, and you shouldn't assume that people on this side of the House don't care about those very significant issues. That is what I was complaining about or protesting about, perhaps not in the most appropriate fashion. But to be fair, I don't think your remarks were all that appropriate either. There are caring, compassionate people on this side of the House who believe very strongly in those issues, as I know you do.

However, the reality is that there are also some very serious problems with respect to this particular incident or incidents at Bell Cairn. The whole fundamental principle of responsible government, of parliamentary government, is that the minister is ultimately responsible for the actions that take place in his or her ministry. That's what separates our system of government, which is called responsible government, from a republican or presidential system of government, where the cabinet is appointed and they're not elected people. That's what the whole fundamental principle of this system is based on, whether the buck does stop on the minister's desk or not.

There have been some very unfortunate incidents or occasions in this House, where ministers of all political stripes, for whom I have the utmost respect, have had to step aside because of something that happened, even on some occasions without their knowledge, within their ministry. That's what the entire issue surrounding the Minister of Correctional Services is about: If he did not know, should he have known? If he should have known, why didn't he know?

Censuring a civil servant or a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister or any one of a host of civil servants in any ministry and hanging that individual out to dry, so to speak, as the phrase has been used, or centring the whole focus of the thing on him or her may be appropriate to a certain extent but, ultimately, in a very serious matter the buck stops on the minister's desk, not the deputy minister's desk. It's the minister who has to assume that responsibility, not the deputy minister, and that is why we on this side of the House are a little concerned about that. It may very well be the fact that the minister did not know, but he should have known. There is no doubt he should have known. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that that is not the case, and that, I guess, is the crux of the whole matter.

Then when you get to the issue of the type of review, investigation, whatever terminology you want to place on it, it does test one's credulity that a judge is appointed by the very minister whose actions, in part, she has to look at in her review; that is not exactly an arm's-length, independent, objective review. She's supposed to be looking at the entire incident: what went on in the ministry, how it occurred. That surely includes the minister and whether he knew or not, what actions he did or did not take etc. To say that that can't be done under some system where she has the authority and the power and the terms of reference to call witnesses, to make them testify under oath, where she has some real power to do something about it other than put a written report on somebody's desk -- there's a very real difference there, and that's what we're upset about over here.

We're upset very much about the sexual harassment claims or charges or allegations. At this point, of course, that's what they are: allegations. If nothing else, I think this entire incident has helped to raise the awareness of all honourable members and, hopefully, the public as to what is going on out there. It's a very serious matter indeed and it has to be dealt with in a very positive fashion.

I know I've strayed a little bit, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence. To get back to the matter at hand, which is the motion to get out of here on whatever day this motion is ultimately passed and return on September 28, it's kind of surprising that when you have the Premier saying that Sunday shopping will now come to a full debate and a free vote in the Legislature -- I believe he made that statement several weeks ago. You have a significant piece of legislation such as that; you have automobile insurance.

If I remember correctly back to the summer of 1990, when the election campaign was on, automobile insurance was the issue, or certainly one of a few very big issues, on behalf of the governing party during that campaign. This issue and this legislation have been sitting around here for many months, and now to have the government House leader say, "Well, it's important to us, but it's so important that we'll put it off for another few months; then we'll just split and get out of here and come back on September 28," you have to ask yourself, why are they doing this?

The Toronto Islands bill: There's a bill that's been around for a while. It's been amended; it's been redrafted into another piece of legislation. It wouldn't take a great deal of time to debate that bill here, maybe a day, but they're not going to deal with that either.

For a government that's so committed to pay equity that it made that one of the fundamental principles of its platform to leave here without even debating that -- and the amendment the member for Bruce has put forward deals with that significant piece of legislation -- to say, "We want to leave without dealing with that very significant piece of legislation," I think says something about how badly the government wants out.

1650

I hate to go back to this, but I gave a speech here a few weeks ago about what the government in effect did when it had time to do a lot of these things. I know that in the banter back and forth in this place the government House leader has indicated -- and several members of the government as well -- "The opposition has prevented us from doing anything. They keep debating everything. We're not getting anything done anyway, so we may as well leave and come back in the fall."

For the weeks from March 9 to about June 1, they really didn't do a whole heck of a lot. Why can't a bill be passed just as readily in April as it can in June or July? If these significant pieces of legislation were so important and so significant to this government, then why weren't they ready to go? Why weren't they brought forward then? Why weren't they introduced then? Why weren't they debated then? Why did we wait until the week of June 1 before we got really serious about doing much of anything?

To say now, "It's July 22 and we can't get any of our legislation through, because we didn't bother to draft any till June 1, we didn't bother to introduce any till June 1, and now we want out, because the political heat's too great every day in question period" -- that's basically what this motion says.

People in London would like to know what's going to happen with respect to Bill 75, and whether you agree or don't agree with Bill 75, surely the people of London and area have the right to know what is going to happen with that very significant piece of legislation.

Mr McLean: I wanted to speak on it.

Mr Eves: My colleague the member for Simcoe East says he wanted to speak on it, and I'm sure a lot of other members do too, not just the members from the immediate London area. There are members who are concerned about the way the public utilities commission in that jurisdiction is being dealt with, the process of how it is being really dispensed with in that bill. That's a very significant issue that should be debated here and is a subject matter of the amendment placed forward by the member for Bruce here earlier this afternoon.

I also want to come back, Mr Speaker, to the time allocation motion we finally voted on late yesterday, because that is an issue that disturbs me greatly, as you probably have gathered from my remarks. At no time during the negotiations and discussions among the three House leaders did the government House leader even remotely indicate that he would use such a motion to totally stifle or cut off debate on a particular stage of a bill.

He indicated, as a matter of fact, that he would use it on only two or three very significant pieces of legislation in which there was a great deal of public interest, on which you would need public hearings. The way we thought rule 44a was drafted in whole says that it can be used only if there are three days of debate on second reading stage of the bill. He introduced it on Bill 150. There were only two days of second reading debate on that particular piece of legislation.

To come along under the guise of a time allocation motion and say that it is a time allocation motion despite the fact that it provides for absolutely no allocation of time, despite the fact that it's really just a guillotine motion that says: "Debate stops now. We don't care if you stop the member for Carleton in midsentence or in midspeech. We're cutting it off, we're having the vote, we're going to vote now and that's it" -- you can call that anything you want.

You can say that it's a time allocation motion under standing order 44a, but the reality is that it's a closure motion, pure and simple, and because the government knows full well that if it put forward a normal closure motion under standing order 45, it never would have got it through, because there hadn't been enough time, enough rounds of speakers, spent on third reading of Bill 150, and there would have been a problem for the government because it couldn't have got the bill.

In retrospect, they probably should have just proceeded with Bill 150 in its normal course and they would have had it by now. They would have had it a couple of days ago and it would have been done. But I think the government House leader overreacted. He overreacted and introduced a motion that really, if anything, just further provoked the opposition members of the Legislature, and it also very seriously, I think, impaired how the rules of debate in this place are going to work in the future.

I have already put on the record quite strongly my disagreement with the Speaker's ruling on this very important motion, because I think the Speaker's ruling on this very important motion has the effect of now being able to be translated -- any time the government really wants to introduce a closure motion, all it does is call it a time allocation motion and it gets passed without any further debate. There's not even the safeguard that's there for the Speaker's discretion that there is under standing order 45.

I heard the government House leader indicate, I believe it was yesterday, during debate: "This is third reading of a bill. Normally there's not a great deal of debate on third reading of a bill." That's quite accurate. That's a quite accurate statement. However, what he didn't say was that this bill, Bill 150, has 51 sections to it. When it was in committee, there were 49 government amendments made to 51 sections of the bill, almost as many amendments as there are sections.

Surely if there are 49 amendments to a 51-section bill, the members of the Legislature might want to speak about that; they might want to comment on some of those 49 amendments. It was in clause-by-clause, I understand, for one day. How can you fully debate and talk about 49 amendments to a 51-section piece of legislation in one day? Members are trying to get their concerns and their comments on the record.

I know that within the labour union movement itself there's some serious opposition to Bill 150. There are some very seriously concerned people out there, and whether the government members appreciate it or not, it is the duty and the responsibility of opposition members to oppose something the public is concerned about, or a significant portion of the public is concerned about. To have debate cut off in midsentence, as it was on Bill 150, is simply not acceptable.

I said yesterday, and I say again today to the government House leader, I think he should seriously consider clarifying the entire atmosphere around the recent Chair's ruling on this time allocation motion and standing order 44a and what the effect of that standing order is and what it means, because I can tell you that without that clarification and without that sort of cooperation and without that step being taken by the government House leader, this is going to be a very acrimonious place indeed, not just in the month of July but in the months of September, October, November, December etc. I think that is very important to parliamentary democracy in this chamber in the Legislative Assembly in the province of Ontario.

I can't really believe in my own mind that the government House leader negotiated this in bad faith. I don't want to believe that and I don't believe that. I do not believe that was ever the intent of the discussions and the negotiations, and I think the matter needs to be clarified.

It's going to be very interesting to see what the government members do with respect to Mr Elston's amendment, because Mr Elston's amendment says that in no case does the House adjourn until second reading of Bill 75, the London-Middlesex annexation bill, and second reading of Bill 168, the pay equity bill, are complete and that upon completion of second reading of these two bills the House will then stand adjourned until September 28, 1992.

1700

We're going to find out which government members are for or against dealing with the London-Middlesex annexation piece of legislation before we leave and we're going to find out, when the vote's taken on Mr Elston's amendment, which government members really want to deal with pay equity before they leave and which government members do not, because that's what Mr Elston's amendment is all about. I would suggest there are going to be some very uncomfortable members and ministers over there indeed when that vote is taken today or tomorrow.

What should have happened, in my opinion, is that the government House leader should have reconsidered his time allocation motion when he saw what a furore it had created. He should have taken about three giant steps backwards to look at the lay of the land and he should have merely permitted the debate on third reading of Bill 150 to go in the normal course of events. The worst thing that would have happened is that by Monday or Tuesday he could have invoked closure on the bill through standing order 45. We wouldn't have had any of this acrimony, we wouldn't have had any of this stir-up about the time allocation motion, we wouldn't have had the Speaker being placed in the unfortunate position of having to rule on a time allocation motion that really is a closure motion. We would have been done, we would have been out of here yesterday, with respect to Bill 150, and we could have been on to Bill 75 today and we could have debated it for two days and we could have accomplished the same thing the government wants to accomplish in a much less acrimonious fashion.

I don't know why the government thinks that every time it gets into a difficulty it has to change a rule or pass a motion or introduce closure or introduce time allocation to get the job done that it wants done. Why does the government approach the business of the House with that mentality?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Because they're incompetent.

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

It means not only the opposition parties giving something up; it means sometimes the government has to compromise. I don't think that this government -- and I realize it's a majority government and I was part of a majority government and I know the member for Bruce was part of a majority government --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I used to be part of it.

Mr Stockwell: I think you had a cup of coffee, didn't you?

Mr Eves: The member for Welland-Thorold said he used to be part of a majority government too, for a few weeks he believes, then he went out for a cup of coffee and, lo and behold, his name wasn't on the door any more when he came back.

Mr Stockwell: But he had a good picture of himself.

Mr Eves: It was a nice picture of him.

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

I think it's also important to remember in this process that in the system we operate under, the three-party system, it's very seldom that any one party ever has the support of the majority of the voting public in the province of Ontario -- in other words, more than 50%. That's pretty difficult to do even in an individual constituency in many cases, but certainly very difficult to do on a province-wide basis. You have to always remember that you didn't have the support, no matter how many seats you have. You had the support of approximately 37% of the population of the people of Ontario. That means some 63% voted against you.

We were in that position, I can remember, in 1981. I believe we got about 40% or 41% of the vote. That still means 60% or 59% of the people don't want you there. When the Liberals were in power it was the same thing. So I think you'd do well to remember that when you're chortling some time about the number of members you have.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): That's always been in a three-party system.

Mr Eves: I said that, it has always been in the three-party system, but what you don't seem to have grasped is that you have to give and compromise on some things. You can't always have everything your own way. When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be too petulant about it, don't be too autocratic about it and don't be too dictatorial about it. Try to approach it with a sense of spirit of generosity and compromise and you might find you get a lot more things done than you're getting done this way. Just some free advice for the government House leader.

Mr Sorbara: They haven't been here to listen for about six months.

Mr Eves: They're not here to listen, but I'm sure they will have Hansard and I'm sure they will have access to it.

I would like to say, before I conclude my remarks, that I think Mr Elston has put forward a pretty appropriate amendment to the motion moved by the government House leader here today. It's a responsible amendment. It calls for dealing with two very significant pieces of legislation before the House adjourns. It probably doesn't deal with as many pieces of legislation as we would like to deal with. However, it does accomplish that and I think we will be supporting his responsible amendment. I think the government members are going to be placed in a very difficult position indeed if they vote against this amendment, which really will be voting against dealing with these two significant pieces of legislation before the House rises.

Having said that, I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Your motion is out of order. It was already a motion.

Mr Eves: Excuse me, Mr Speaker. I would like to know why my motion is out of order, seeing that the member for Bruce has moved an amendment which is a piece of intervening business I have spoken to, along with the motion. I'd like to know why my motion to adjourn the debate on Mr Elston's amendment is out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound has moved the adjournment of the debate.

1739

The House divided on Mr Eves's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 31; nays 63.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this. I only wish we were doing this about a month ago. I think all of us kind of wish that.

I am a new member, as people know, elected in 1990. I came here in 1990 as, I guess, maybe somewhat of what you would call a naïve young member in some respects, in terms of the fact that I came here to debate specific legislation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Those who wish to leave the House may do so now.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, when the same interruptions were occurring in my speech, time was rolled back to 30 minutes. I appreciated that on my part. I would expect that we would show the same courtesy to the member for Oxford, but I think it should be done at a time when the people have removed themselves from the House if they wish to go and when the conversations are finished. In any event, I would ask unanimous consent to have the clock back to 30 minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No. The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the very kind gesture from the member for Huron.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please show a little respect for the member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: My apologies; I appreciate the kind gesture from the member for Bruce. The member for Huron is a kind soul as well.

As I was saying, when I came here and was elected, the idea was to be able to represent constituents, to be able to look after their needs, to try to solve problems for them and to debate specific legislation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Those who wish to leave the House or hold conversations elsewhere, please do so now. The member for Oxford, you have the floor.

Mr Sutherland: I came here to debate legislation and to be able to represent the constituents. With my background on student council, I was familiar with debating sessions. Meetings sometimes could get a little bit acrimonious, sometimes a little loud, and of course with disruptions and interruptions. May I say, though, that from my experience in terms of study of political science and my observations, I thought this place would be a little different. When you read in history about the many agorean debates and fine speeches, in effect, it should be.

I don't know whether it's the water, the air or whatever it is or just our basic physical setup that makes it a very adversarial place. It certainly is not the place I thought it would be. I don't say that in a disrespectful tone or to say that I am innocent.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. There are too many discussions going on.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, I don't say that in a disrespectful tone or in a very righteous tone because, Mr Speaker, as you are aware, I have been caught up in some of the atmosphere that is created in here in terms of heckling and interruptions that you wouldn't necessarily expect to see in a place where there is supposed to be esteemed debate about important pieces of legislation.

However, it does seem to me that I thought we'd spend a great deal of our time, most of our time debating actual pieces of legislation. From my experience, unfortunately, it seems that we don't always spend the time talking about the actual legislation being debated. If we had, then I suggest we'd have been able to get through most of the legislation that was put forward and still have been out of here by our normal time, the end of June.

Yesterday, in talking about Bill 150, I mentioned one example, about the member for Ottawa West, who on third reading about a gas tax bill went on for at least an hour and a half, maybe two hours, talking about gas prices in his area in Ottawa and how they'd been fluctuating. An important issue? Yes, no doubt about that, but certainly, on third reading of a gas tax bill, not the most relevant issue to be talking about. I say there are many examples of times when we as members need to be more succinct and get to the point. We can do it.

I understand when opposition members point out, "Remember when you were in opposition." I understand there's a lot of history to this place. I understand that some of my colleagues maybe, when they were in opposition, weren't what I'd call the most innocent people in terms of some of their antics as well in here. But it seems to me that somehow all of us have got to learn to put some of the bad things of the past behind us and move forward. How we move forward is a responsibility of all of us in terms of our conduct and how we act here in the House.

We also have had some discussion today in this debate about Bill 150. The member for Parry Sound mentioned again about 51 amendments on Bill 150 in the committee. Again, I want to reiterate that there was no specific time allocation put on any of the debate in committee on Bill 150, that most of those amendments were not what you'd call substantive ones but mainly wording changes to different sections as a result of some of the substantive amendments, that we had lengthy debate on Bill 150 at the committee stage and that we had hearings. The members of the opposition, if you go and check the Hansard, had more than adequate time. They raised several points that they were concerned about on many occasions, and repeated some of them. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt got up here in that debate and repeated them.

We do have enough time, if we all focus ourselves, to get through pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, we spend a lot more time on procedural issues and other issues. I think we all need to go back and look at how we focus our time. A couple of the debates that we had under the new rules, where we had time limits on the speeches members made, I found most interesting. Certainly it seemed like people were being more succinct. They were getting to the point. They were debating the pieces of legislation. We all have to work under the time constraints. Some bills, if we spend more time debating here, don't go to committee. Other pieces of legislation, if we don't spend as much time here, go to committee and out to public hearings.

Here we are on July 23 still sitting here. We have gotten through some pieces of legislation. We've gotten some out for second reading. Some are going to the committee stage for public hearings, for the people who elect us to make their points known on the issues, and then come back for third reading and clause-by-clause debate. We have spent a lot of time trying to move forward, trying to deal with pieces of legislation.

The opposition, as it feels is its right, has on some occasions decided it wants to debate issues and has on other occasions decided it doesn't want to debate issues. I call only one example to mind and that was a comment the member for Oakville South made in question period regarding Bill 40, not stating that we need to have all our time to debate it, but quite frankly that he was going to do everything possible to stop the legislation from passing. I think that point needs to be brought out in this motion to adjourn.

1750

There's a difference between having time and putting forward your disagreements and your criticisms. That's what this place is about. That's a very valid process. I encourage all members to do that here and outside the House, as every member has the democratic right of freedom of speech outside this chamber as well.

But we are here in July. I am somewhat surprised in some respects that we haven't had about 300 to 400 people all of us would be familiar with, mainly our family members, outside the chamber protesting that we should all be getting home so we can spend some more time with them. I think all of us realize the strains that are put on us in this job.

But we have tried to deal with legislation. For whatever reasons, some people felt that it's more important to talk about procedural issues than get on and debate, and I think we could have got through much more legislation. I'm not happy about the fact that we didn't; I don't think any of us are. But I think we could have got through a lot more of it if we had all wanted to focus on debating legislation, which is what we're elected for, rather than some of the showy, gamesy type of things that do go on here. Again I don't say that in a tone to say that we're innocent, I'm innocent. We all tend to do that somewhat, and that is unfortunate.

The point is that we need to focus in on debating actual legislation. If we could do that, we could get through it all. We could have been out of here by the end of June, and the public would still have its time to comment on stuff at committee stage. Ultimately, they'll make their judgements as they feel accordingly anyway.

I will end my remarks on that by saying that I think it is important that we do decide to adjourn the House until September 28 so all of us can continue to get on with the other things we have to do as members, the public will have some opportunity, and of course maybe, just maybe, somewhere in there we'll be able to fit a little bit of time for our family members.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Has the OPP been to your office this week?

Mrs Sullivan: The OPP have been to my offices on occasion at the direction of the government, but I want to address the question of why this motion and why at this time.

There's only one answer to that, and that is Allan Pilkey. The minister is known to be uninformed and lazy with respect to his ministerial responsibilities. The minister is known to appreciate the ribbon cuttings, the official openings, more than the work of being informed on a daily basis of the work, the problems, the current issues and the policy choices of his ministry, and the minister is one who carries neither the respect nor the confidence of his ministry officials. That's why this motion to adjourn, presented by the House leader, is before the House today.

I recall a similar motion when my colleague the member for Kenora asked in an earlier debate a question about constituency office staff involvement in the garnering of support for the Minister of Northern Affairs in the Martel affair, and the House adjourned very quickly after that incident. Now we have the Pilkey affair, and the word has again come to the government House leader: "Get us out of here. Don't let the opposition have one more day at him, at the Premier, at the Attorney General or at anyone else who is connected with the Pilkey affair."

That response doesn't stand up. With every word of his response in question period the minister has been shown to be incompetent, and there's a pattern in that train of incompetence that Bob Rae thinks ought not to be allowed to be seen by the people. Frankly, we believe that incompetence is so clear, and particularly with that minister, that it is the only reason this motion has been put forward.

I'd like to review, as we look at this motion, the pattern of this government of dealing with the House, the pattern of cutting off debates, of introducing rule changes, of not taking responsibility for actions at the ministerial level, the pattern of running from debate, as was clear when the House adjourned when my colleague the member for Kenora raised the issue of the Attorney General's staff in the House.

This government does not want Allan Pilkey to face one more day, let alone one more week, two more weeks or three more weeks of question period in this House. They do not want him to take responsibility for his actions and for his incompetence and his irresponsibility as a minister in a very sensitive issue.

The other part of the pattern of dealing with the House is not informing the Legislature and the people of Ontario about the issues of the day about which, as the standing orders say, the ministers should inform the House. We've seen so many instances where ministers don't make statements in the House, where the ministerial statement period, 20 minutes daily while the House is in session, is unused or only partially used.

Today I raised in the House the question of the delisting of more than 100 drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan. Shortly we will see the delisting of a number of OHIP procedures that will not be brought before this House where members of the House have a legitimate opportunity to discuss and to debate and to bring to the attention of the floor of this chamber the concerns and the issues associated with what is clearly and only the dismantling of the medicare system in Ontario.

That's what this government is doing, and it's doing it behind the scenes. The communication strategies that it's designing are deliberately set out to ensure that the House is not informed of major changes that are being undertaken by this government and therefore that the people of Ontario are not informed of those major changes.

Mr Speaker, I ask you what opportunity, for example, the government has provided to recipients of social assistance who will no longer have accessibility to vitamins for their children through the Ontario drug benefit plan, to certain cough suppressants when the choice for the practitioner is to move children perhaps on to a narcotic product rather than the products that are listed now. There has been no information received by social assistance groups, no information received by senior citizens, and that is a deliberate plan of this government. The announcements will not be made until the House is no longer in session.

I recall a must-have list the government House leader placed before us with great fanfare. There were 60-some pieces of legislation on that list: Sunday shopping was one of them; Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act was one of them; Bill 75, the London-Middlesex act was one of them; the Labour Relations Act was one of them, and of course we know where that is. Closure brought it in.

Pay equity was one of those on the must-have list. Pay equity was promised in the throne speech in 1990 by this government. The first reading of the pay equity bill was brought to this House in December 1991. The government House leader has not yet called that bill for second reading. This is a significant piece of legislation, an important issue for the people of Ontario, one on which legitimate and appropriate debate should be held, and the government House leader has not acted. Seven months later that bill has not been called.

We see intransigence, we see a stubborn insistence on the arbitrary use of power, we see an abuse of legislative process and, when disagreements occur, we see a government which simply closes off debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1800.