Journal des débats 1993-nov-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services why he continues to drag his feet on social assistance reform. We were all rushed off in early July to a training centre for the introduction of the document Turning Point, but since then little has happened.

The tragedy is that social assistance spending in this province now exceeds spending on education. To add to that tragedy, the level of education of applicants for social assistance is quickly rising; we now have university graduates and we now have vice-presidents of companies standing shoulder to shoulder with the most vulnerable in our communities.

Questions and concerns continue to mount both in the minds of the recipients and the providers about Turning Point, the government blueprint on social assistance reform.

Staff wonder if and when they will be retrained. Recipients fear new eligibility criteria and wait patiently for counselling and personalized planning. Municipal partners want to know what role they will play.

The end of this government's mandate is fast approaching. I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to stop stalling on this issue. Social assistance reform must be a front-burner government priority.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I have yet another example of how government has failed to live up to its commitment to consult the people. A prominent member of the Madawaska highlands advisory committee has resigned from that committee. He has done so because this government's approach is unaccountable and fundamentally flawed.

Renfrew county warden Dermott Calver resigned from the committee yesterday for some of the following reasons: He has no faith in the Ontario government's stewardship of our natural resources; as a member of the committee, he was given no power to make decisions about the future use of the highlands region; and, finally, Mr Calver believes that the agenda is driven by either outside special interest groups or the government itself.

This government has made a farce of the democratic process. The Minister of Natural Resources must stop paying lipservice to public committees and engage in genuine consultations. With true consultation, the minister will find that the people want to maintain traditional uses of land in the Madawaska region. They want to continue forestry, tourism, hunting, angling and conservation.

CAVE SPRINGS DOCUMENTARY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to inform the House that Cave Springs, a most unique conservation park in my riding, will be the subject of an upcoming documentary on Maclean-Hunter cable TV. The half-hour show, produced by Patti Crossley of Port Dalhousie, will be shown throughout Niagara on community cable 10 at 8 pm Saturday, December 4.

Cave Springs, located in the town of Lincoln, has been a focal point of interest for many years because of the ice cave and magnesium spring. Its historical significance runs the gamut from lost treasure caves to early Loyalist settlement. The most interesting place to visit in the park is the ice cave. In winter, there is no ice or snow inside the cave. It stops at the entrance. But as the warm days of spring turn into the blazing days of summer, ice forms and thickens in the cave. You figure it out, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Margaret Reed, fondly known as the Witch of Cave Springs, has been giving tours of the site for years. She especially enjoys casting the magical spell of Cave Springs on school children. The documentary has captured the essence of Cave Springs and the spirit of its keeper, Mrs Margaret Reed, a wonderful senior who says she'll live for ever because she drinks the magic water of Cave Springs.

The show will be distributed to other interested cable stations throughout Ontario and Canada. I urge this House to keep an eye out for this documentary and to pay a visit to Cave Springs.

CHRISTMAS SEASON

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): The Christmas season is fast approaching and it is a season that I, for one, am glad to celebrate. While many of us think of Santa Claus, holly and Christmas trees, except perhaps the grinches in Management Board, we must give some serious consideration to those less fortunate than ourselves. For many of the homeless in Ontario, Christmas is just another cold day in a doorway. In this province, we have record high levels of unemployment and an ever-increasing lineup at the welfare offices. The 119,000 welfare cases handled last month in Metro represent support for 210,000 individuals, with a 400% increase in the number of children who are dependent on welfare compared to October 1989.

Let us give consideration to how these citizens of our province are going to deal with this upcoming Christmas. Let each of us think seriously about making donations to the Santa Claus funds around the province, the charities that do so much valuable work in our communities and, unfortunately though they exist, the food banks, which are so important in ensuring people have enough to eat.

I would also like to pass on a message from a constituent of mine to the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier. This is what a constituent of mine, Hamish Broadwater, told me to ask on his behalf of the Premier and minister. He said, and I quote: "Tim, please remind them that real people cash welfare cheques. Will you please ask the Premier and minister to make sure that the cheques arrive early enough so people have them to celebrate Christmas, not like last year."

1340

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Tricia Devlin and Diane Smith of the Body Shop in Owen Sound have presented me with hundreds of cards signed by constituents who are calling for elimination of child poverty.

One measure to ensure that children are not hungry is the breakfast program which my leader and my caucus have long pressed this government to establish in Ontario. As I have told the House previously, if the Minister of Education and Training wants a successful example, he need look no further than Owen Sound, where the local Red Cross and other community agencies have designed a pilot project for the students in kindergarten to grade 6.

This sort of program where government acts as a facilitator between private industry, community groups and boards of education guarantees that our school children start each day with a nutritious meal. Because it is done in partnership with the private sector, there is little or no cost to the already overburdened taxpayer. As well, it will go a long way to helping children from homes where there is not always enough food to keep them healthy, alert and keen to stay in school.

We can do much to help eliminate child poverty, not only with the breakfast program but with less intrusive government policies and a much fairer and more responsible approach to taxation. We cannot ask the people to keep paying and paying and paying, and we must welcome the private sector and encourage it to create jobs so we can have the sort of healthy economic climate where parents work, where children are fed well and where no one lives in poverty.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I am pleased today to inform the House that Lambton county continues to support and participate in Ontario's waste reduction action plan. The townships of Moore and Sombra recently received grants totalling $100,000 under the municipal recycling support program. The townships of Moore and Sombra are two of over 520 municipalities actively working to divert waste through recycling.

Presently, municipal recycling programs service over 3.1 million households across the province and together produce 444,000 tonnes of market-ready materials annually. This program, when combined with others under the waste management reduction plan, has enabled Ontario to meet the 25% diversion target and will make a significant contribution to our next goal of at least 50% waste reduction and diversion by the year 2000.

This government is committed to a safe and clean environment, and through commitments such as the municipal recycling support program, I am pleased that my riding of Lambton is participating to meet the goals of Ontario's waste reduction action plan.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On Monday of this week, I had the privilege of asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he would introduce Bill 77, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Statute Law Amendment Act, for second reading before the end of this session. His answer was vague and also unrelated. Mr Minister, on behalf of every citizen in Ottawa-Carleton, I once again invite you to introduce this very important bill, and let's have an open, democratic debate.

I find it very unfair that you or the member for Ottawa Centre would ask the opposition to guarantee a quick passage of this bill. We need an opportunity to debate so we could introduce five amendments, and let you, the majority government, decide if these amendments could be incorporated.

You have an open invitation to serve the public of Ottawa-Carleton with the same dignity and treatment as other municipalities in the province of Ontario. Our request is a fair one, Mr Minister. Will you do it?

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Tomorrow, Sunoco and UCO Petroleum will introduce ethanol-blended gasoline to Metropolitan Toronto. As someone who has supported fuel ethanol for many years in this House, I believe that tomorrow marks an important step for ethanol-enhanced gasoline.

Ethanol, as an octane enhancer, is both an economic and environmental plus for the province of Ontario. On the economic side, Ontario corn growers achieve a new market for their product and our economy reduces its dependence on imported fossil fuels and additives. On the environmental side, ethanol reduces pollution. Growing crops remove carbon dioxide from the air. Ethanol-blended gasoline burns more completely, ensuring lower emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons during winter months.

It's ironic that just a few years ago the Peterson Liberals rewrote fuel regulations to prevent the use of greener fuel. We have made very significant progress since that time. Ethanol-blended gas is the greenest fuel any car can utilize without undergoing any modifications.

I encourage the motoring public in the Toronto area to support ethanol-blended gasoline to benefit the environment and reduce pollution. I hope that in the future we will see more locations in addition to the one opening tomorrow at the Sunoco station at 640 The Queensway in Etobicoke at East Mall.

CINDY CONDER

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I'd like to take a few minutes, less than 90 seconds, actually, to talk about Cindy Conder. Cindy Conder is presently the warden of Prince Edward county, but she's retiring after only seven years of being a municipal politician.

The reason she's doing this is because she has a young family. When she first started into politics, she had no children. She now has two and I think she finds that the workload is a little too much, considering that she is a young mother.

I just want to say that in her short time Cindy Conder has made some great contributions to the community. She was first elected as a councillor in Athol township, the township where I live. She then became the deputy reeve and eventually the reeve, and this past year she has spent her term in office as the warden of Prince Edward county.

She's done a great job. Her family, especially her husband, Curt, need to be commended for sticking by her through these difficult times.

I want to congratulate her on a difficult year as warden where she's had to deal with things like planning, deer and ferries. I just want to say that she has done a great job. She's contributed to the community and I wish her the best of luck in the future. Maybe in the future she'll get back into politics, at a later time.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DRIVERS' LICENCES / PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): During the past year, this government has introduced a series of measures designed to make Ontario's roads safer. Each of these initiatives brings us a step closer to our goal, simply of making Ontario's roads the safest in all of North America.

Our plan for improving road safety has many facets. There are many causes of collisions. There are, of course, many diverse responses that will indeed save lives.

Today, we'll move first reading of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1993, the legislation to allow graduated licensing of new drivers to begin in the spring of 1994, next spring.

In the government's coordinated plan to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America, graduated licensing is indeed an important component, but by no means the only component.

Nous estimons que la délivrance graduelle remportera un succès en Ontario, comme cela est évident et comme cela a été le cas dans d'autres pays à travers le monde, dans le cadre d'un train de mesures qui visent à améliorer le comportement des conducteurs, la cause de 85 % des collisions ici en Ontario.

Nous préparons donc, en réponse, un vaste programme. Ce programme vise à améliorer la sécurité routière qui met l'accent sur le comportement des conducteurs et particulièrement sur le comportement des conducteurs agressifs, des conducteurs inexpérimentés et de ceux qui conduisent en état d'ébriété.

For evidence that these measures will work, we have only to look at the state of Victoria in Australia, where a package of road safety measures fully reduced traffic fatalities by 47% during a short period of three years.

We can change the statistics here as well. We can save lives, reduce injuries and cut the $9-billion cost of collisions each year.

By introducing measures such as these amendments and Bill 47, our government serves notice that it will not accept the annual price of deaths and injuries caused by collisions.

The legislation I will introduce responds to committee recommendations. We have made two changes to the requirements for new drivers under level 1 of the system.

1350

First, in the revised legislation only one passenger is allowed to ride in the front seat with a level 1 driver. That passenger must be the experienced driver accompanying the new driver.

The second change makes the new driver vehicle sign voluntary for level 1 drivers. We will, however, provide all level 1 drivers with signs they may choose to display.

Graduated licensing has received very broad support from the people of Ontario. I'm happy today to acknowledge the Transportation critics who have shown their concern for safety with strong and non-partisan support for graduated licensing.

I would particularly like to recognize the support of the members for York Mills and Nepean, Mr Turnbull and Mr Daigeler. They have championed graduated licensing. They anxiously awaited its introduction. They contributed to the committee's review of the draft legislation.

Now it is my sincere hope that they shall continue, in the collective, to demonstrate their support as it moves towards the system. Members of the House can be proud of their role in bringing this measure forward.

We are indebted to the all-party committee chaired by the member for Sarnia, Mr Huget, and to the work of my parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Mr Dadamo.

By introducing draft legislation today and by holding an all-party committee review, we have accelerated this legislation. Working together in the same way in the future can only ensure that important measures for the public good come forward as quickly as possible.

I thank the members opposite once again and look forward to their continuing support vis-à-vis our goal of making our roads the safest in North America.

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Ontario's universities play an important role in the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the province. Over the years our universities have adapted to the changing economic and social conditions and have provided Ontarians with exceptional educational opportunities built on a tradition of quality and excellence.

Once again conditions are changing. It is expected that Ontario's future economic growth and prosperity will be based on industries that are knowledge-intensive. By the year 2000 at least half of all new jobs will require post-secondary education. Studies suggest that employees will have to upgrade their skills every four years simply because the pace of technology and the growth of information are evolving at tremendous rates.

Based on these and other trends we can expect demand of university services to grow. Because of this, our universities need to increase enrolments beyond the high levels they are already accommodating today.

As we discuss the need for greater accessibility to university programs, we must also be aware that governments at every level are limited in the financial resources they can give to public institutions. Therefore, like all other publicly supported institutions, universities will have to find new ways to provide improved services.

Last year the Ministry of Education and Training gave nearly $2 billion in operating grants to Ontario's universities. I'm aware that there are those who say that that's not enough and that the system needs more. But what is clear is that our universities and this government must work together to find new ways of providing services.

That is why I have written today to the Ontario Council on University Affairs and asked it to conduct a review of the system of distributing grants to Ontario's universities. As you know, OCUA provides advice to me on funding requirements, the allocation of funds, graduate and professional program approvals and any other matters related to the university system. In conducting the review, I have indicated to OCUA that the objectives to consider are as follows.

The first objective is accessibility. Although the universities have provided high levels of accessibility to date, more needs to be done. We must make sure that Ontarians have the opportunity to enhance their skills as they face the economic reality of restructuring and the need to be properly skilled for the jobs of the future.

The second objective is teaching. It's clear that there must be a stronger emphasis on teaching in our universities. Teaching must have a more central role in our universities and finding different ways to deliver university programs to the public must be part of the discussions in this area.

While emphasizing the role of teaching and the learning process, we also recognize the significant role of research in our universities. The relationship of research to teaching and the appropriateness of various sources of funding for research deserve examination in the context of provincial resource allocation.

The third objective is the role universities have in an integrated educational system. It's essential that our universities move to develop a system which permits the transfer of credits not only between universities, but between the college and university sectors and from previous learning experiences. This must be done more easily than the current system allows.

The fourth objective for consideration is developing ways and means to ensure that scarce resources are used efficiently. We should examine putting incentives in place to encourage academic program cooperation, rationalization and sharing between institutions. I believe that the greater differentiation and increased interdependence have the potential to increase both quality and accessibility to Ontario's universities.

Finally, the funding system must encourage sharing and cooperation among our universities, colleges and others, and not become a barrier to accessibility, adaptation and restructuring.

It is critical for the wellbeing of our universities and the province that we have in place a funding system that is suited to meet our priorities with the resources we have available.

With these objectives in mind, the Ontario Council on University Affairs will examine the current breakdown of spending between teaching, administration, research and community service. OCUA will look at the balance between these areas as well as the accountability for the resources that are dedicated to each.

I want to assure the universities that during this review the corridor system of funding will continue to allocate grants and operate within the existing accountability provisions.

In conducting the review, I'm confident that council will consult thoroughly and widely with students, faculty and staff of the institutions as well as provincial organizations and professional associations. I also encourage the council to communicate with groups representing alumni, parents, labour and employer organizations.

I look forward to receiving the OCUA's advice on this very important issue late in 1994.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me say to the Minister of Transportation, in regard to his project with graduated licences, that I'm pleased to see the bill finally introduced. As the minister knows, and as he acknowledged, we've been working with him for quite some time. In fact, the ministry has been working on this project for more than four years and we now finally see it coming to fruition.

I think all of us would like to make sure that we have a debate still in this House, but then that it is implemented. I'm sure it will in fact lead to the safety of our young people and of any new drivers in the province. We're looking forward to the debate, we're looking forward to seeing precisely what is in the bill and we will continue to work with the minister and the ministry on this project.

I should say, though, that as late as this morning we didn't really know what was going to be announced this afternoon, and there were going to be all kinds of other measures that really had nothing to do with the graduated licences. I do hope, however, I say to the minister, to see Bill 74 as well come forward still. We will deal with it. We have already indicated that we also want to have discussion on this. We're supportive and we're looking forward to that measure.

I should say that in his statement the minister is very proud of his safety initiatives and refers to Bill 47. But Minister, just before I came into this House -- and this is the problem: you're mixing apples with oranges. Your Information and Privacy Commissioner has just sent us a letter saying that he has the most serious questions about Bill 47. He feels that, really, the government ought to withdraw it. Here's what your privacy commissioner says, "We believe that the Ministry of Transportation needs to re-examine the use of photo-radar and assess other possible mechanisms which may be utilized to achieve improved road safety."

We want to work with you on road safety. I think graduated licences are one step in the right direction. Photo-radar is a totally different matter. I hope we get an opportunity to discuss that as well.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's saving lives.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): There's not one shred of evidence.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: I can give you plenty.

Mr Harris: Send it over.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Durham East to please come to order.

1400

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The good news is that the government has recognized that we've got some fundamental problems in our university system in this province. It's recognized that these problems are directly related to funding and it recognizes as well that unless this government shows some leadership, these problems will not go away.

The bad news is that the government should have come to this realization a few years ago. It's also bad that the crisis which exists in this province in terms of university funding and the lack of accessibility is now going to continue until at least the 1995-96 fiscal year, and that's the earliest opportunity for this government or the next government to implement changes arising from these recommendations.

I hope the minister will direct the council to do whatever it can to establish a funding system which recognizes that university students, whether part-time or full-time, young or old are, in so far as the university is concerned, their client group. Universities exist, obviously, to fulfil a number of obligations, but one of them surely is to serve students and not the other way around.

For this reason, a new formula for funding should reward a university for good teaching, for smaller class sizes and for more contact time. Of course, the university funding must also be geared in such a manner as to reward a university for being accessible to all Ontarians.

University accountability is another big issue of the day and I hope the minister will direct the council to make recommendations as to how universities can be made more accountable: more accountable to students, to taxpayers, to society as a whole. We've got to look at questions like tenure, like sabbatical, like allocation of resources between teaching and research, between applied versus theoretical research. We've got to look at the programs we're offering in this province. We've got to ask ourselves whether those are the kinds of programs we want our universities to offer.

If the council shrinks from these questions, it won't be doing a thorough job and I'm convinced these questions can be asked and addressed in an intelligent manner without unduly interfering with the autonomous role we need our universities to play in our society. Undoubtedly, in the halls of academe, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when we broach these kinds of questions, but this government and the council have an obligation to explore that thoroughly in the best interests of the people of this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You're zapping the students with tuition increases when you said you'd abolish them, and you're underfunding the universities.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I welcome the announcement by the minister today of the photo-radar bill. Sorry, Freudian slip; I don't welcome that. I welcome the announcement by the minister today on graduated licensing. This is an announcement which is overdue.

I took the trouble before coming into the House of looking up when I first asked a question to the minister on the issue of graduated licences and it was in November 1991, shortly after I became Transportation critic. Minister, you will recognize that throughout the piece I have been asking you, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to move forward with this very important legislation to make our roads safer and to help our children, and adults who become new drivers, to be integrated into the road system more safely.

I will read the legislation with great interest and I anticipate that there won't be significant changes over the draft legislation which we looked at in the summer recess. You will recall, Minister, that during that time we expressed some concerns with the timing. We believe you should have brought this bill in for first and second reading in the spring and we should have been working on committee during the summer, working with a second reading, and then indeed we should have been able to have implemented it this fall.

Having said that about this bill, I want to move on to the great concern I have. The fact is that your ministry has been trying to pressure the opposition parties into accepting an omnibus bill. The reason for this omnibus bill -- I see the minister is pointing his finger at the Liberals; that may well be.

Minister, we need to have longer-truck legislation. You have Bill 74 that you brought in during the spring session. You could have moved forward with this. Instead of doing that, you tried to tack it on to this legislation.

Will you expeditiously move forward with this very important legislation, and in the meantime, will you cancel the fees you're charging for the permits so those people who are waiting for this legislation can immediately order the trucks to stimulate our industry?

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My comments are directed to the Minister of Education and Training and colleges and universities. I'd like to tell him that we're in support of the letter and the intent of the letter that he sent today to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, asking it to conduct a review on areas that we ourselves have spoken about: accessibility; stronger emphasis on teaching in universities; the transfer of credits between universities, and between college and university and from previous learning experiences; asking the universities to look at ways to encourage cooperation, rationalization and sharing of resources.

I think it's extremely important that in his letter he emphasized that the students going to our universities must be qualified students and that we're looking for standards first. In fact, he says -- this is important -- not in his own words but by inference, even for underrepresented groups.

I think that the questionnaire we talked about last week left the wrong impression and I hope he takes a look at the wording on this now that I have seen it. It did leave the wrong impression. So we're pleased with the letter today, but we're not pleased with that questionnaire. It sends the wrong message.

I think it's extremely important that he's recognized that universities are important to Ontario's future economic growth and prosperity, that a knowledgeable population will have a better chance and that training and upgrading are equally important.

We certainly know that universities have had to operate on less money, so when he talks about accessibility he's not talking so much about dollars, although he does go on to recognize the importance of teaching. We'll be interested to hear what the universities say about how the professors spend their time in the four different categories.

Transfer of credits and integration across Canadian universities, not just Ontario universities, are extremely important. I think we have to have Canadian standards. Our young people should be encouraged to study in other provinces and sometimes in other countries, but more importantly, we have to get a handle on what's happening here now.

Rationalization has never been more important. I think we want the minister to take a look at New Directions, Volume Two, where we have given some ideas on how this can be accomplished.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT HOTEL EXPENDITURES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Over the past three years, we have brought forward example after example of government waste, but your government still refuses to do anything about it.

Earlier today, I tried to contact the Workplace Health and Safety Agency but couldn't reach anyone because 77 staff members were out of the office at a two-day staff meeting at the posh Guild Inn. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency's offices, as you may know, are on Bloor Street in Toronto. I don't know how big the meeting rooms are at their Bloor Street offices, but there are free meeting rooms at Queen's Park, all within walking distance.

My question to you is, why is the government paying thousands of dollars to hold these meetings at the Guild Inn instead of using the free government meeting rooms in the Macdonald Block, and why has this government done nothing to stop the wasteful use of hotel space for meetings that could be held right here at Queen's Park?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member has raised a question that has been raised here a couple of times before. On every occasion when it's been raised before, when we checked into the meeting rooms that were or were not available at Queen's Park, they were all being utilized. They are utilized on almost a full-time basis.

The member has raised the question again today. I'm prepared to look into it because I don't know the answer to his question. We will look into it, but the member should remember that the meeting rooms that are available here at Queen's Park are at a well over 80% utilization rate all of the time.

1410

Mr Mahoney: The minister should know they are available -- we've checked it out -- and they are free.

Minister, this is not the first time that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has got into trouble for wasteful hotel spending. In the spring of 1992, these same civil servants held a two-day meeting at the posh Queens Landing Inn in Niagara-on-the-Lake. When we questioned the government at that time, the Minister of Labour justified the cost by saying the civil servants got a good deal on the rooms. Now the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has decided to pay $120 per night for 77 staff members to stay at a two-day retreat at the Guild Inn.

Let me just give you an example of the type of place they're staying in, for your information. It's called: "A garden sanctuary, Toronto's most treasured resort, a country retreat in the city. Set on the crest of the Scarborough Bluffs, the Guild Inn sits among 90 acres of forest lawns and woodland trails. The charm and elegance of our guest rooms, with their picturesque views, will delight visitors."

Minister, how can you justify this? What are you going to do to cancel this waste of taxpayers' money, and what are you going to do to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite makes very good use of a promotional man's or woman's lovely words describing the setting. I would suggest to him, though, that the words describing virtually any accommodations here in Toronto are very similarly written.

I've said I would look into this matter. I don't know what decisions were made or what accommodations were required or what other accommodations were available. I'll look at that.

Mr Mahoney: I understand you could get a free meeting room and lunch included for $7 at the Macdonald Block instead of the Guild Inn.

I'm glad the minister mentions that those might be words used to describe other facilities in and around Toronto, because the retreat at the Guild Inn is just one example of questionable hotel costs expended by this government. After they promised to crack down on this kind of wasteful spending, after the notorious SkyDome staff meetings, nothing seems to have been done.

Just looking through the public accounts book, which I'm sure you're familiar with, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in hotel bills spent by this government last year. In fact, this document only lists the worst offenders, where costs by any ministry exceed $40,000.

Minister, let me give you some examples: The Ministry of Labour at the Holiday Inn, $81,000; Management Board at the Chestnut Park Hotel, $47,000; Management Board at the Constellation, $63,000; Skills Development at the Royal York, $61,000; Skills Development at the Holiday Inn, $54,000; the Attorney General, $51,000; the Attorney General, $79,000; the Ramada Inn, the Attorney General, $50,000; Transportation, the Sundial Inn, $72,000. The list goes on and on.

Minister, answer the question directly: What is going on? When is this government going to do something about controlling its spending that's currently out of control?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member again is very good at a wonderful flourish here in the House. I'm going to answer his question in three ways: firstly, by saying that this government that he says has done nothing has taken very aggressive initiatives at reducing expenditures, and we'll stack the numbers up against those same kinds of dollars spent by the Liberal administration for five years any day of the week: reductions in travel costs, reductions in accommodation costs, reductions in overtime by 50%.

This government has done a wonderful job. There's still more to be done, perhaps, but we've made significant progress in dealing with the kind of extravagance those characters dealt with as a norm around this place.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question on one of my favourite subjects, namely photo-radar, is to the Minister of Transportation. Earlier today Ontario's independent privacy commissioner, Mr Tom Wright, released a detailed critique of your policy for photo-radar contained in Bill 47, a bill currently before the Legislature. In his detailed critique, the province's independent privacy commissioner raises a whole host of concerns and objections to your policy.

Minister, have you seen Mr Wright's letter of November 24 in this connection, and what will your response and the response of your government be to the objections contained in Mr Wright's letter of today?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member from Renfrew brings a most valid and interesting point indeed. That's the reason why, before proceeding on a full-time value, you have a pilot project. We have no intentions, absolutely none, to invade. In fact the privacy of individuals is a sacred trust with this government. We're only interested in the safety measures initiative that we've announced.

I haven't seen the letter today, for the very simple reason that it demands meticulous analysis, line-by-line examination and our possibility to comply, and we're looking forward to it. More important perhaps, only in the context of the major announcement that we've made regarding graduated drivers' licences, as soon as we leave this august body, the first order of business will be, as a team, to look at the recommendations, for they are indeed taken very, very seriously.

Mr Conway: Happily for the minister, I have a copy of Mr Wright's letter, and I will take a moment to summarize the views of Ontario's independent privacy commissioner on this photo-radar matter. In his letter to the Chair of the legislative committee, Mr Wright observes about your government's policy in this connection a number of things. Among his concerns are the following.

Your photo-radar legislation, he believes, has the potential to violate Ontario's protection-of-privacy legislation. Furthermore, the province's independent privacy commissioner concludes that your photo-radar legislation will not deter speeding, as the government hopes and has advertised, because, the province's independent privacy commissioner notes, the policy does not have the consequential aspects of drivers' licence suspensions or demerit points. In fact, according to Mr Wright, the policy is a licence for some people to speed, if the British Columbia example is to be credited. Furthermore, the province's independent privacy commissioner writes today that your policy in this connection is a licence for the government to raise money.

Given this detailed and stinging critique of your policy on principle grounds by our privacy commissioner, will you not, Minister, today commit to withdrawing this legislation and doing as the commissioner suggests: looking for better alternatives?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Really, I can only say the following once, and it's not by way of compliment but simply observation: The member opposite is unique in compounding the errors of misinformation.

1420

On the one hand, we have a privacy commissioner when it suits the purpose, and in the very same vein, in the same breath, that privacy commissioner becomes the expert on transportation. The member across is a juggling artist, a conjurer of illusions that find better auspices under a tent or in a sideshow or a tombola.

We will look at the letter. Everywhere where photo-radar has been introduced to save lives we have seen the consequences. We have seen a drastic reduction in the number of fatalities. This is our focus. Let's not get away from it.

You started with privacy. We respect privacy, we commit ourselves. It's a sacred trust with this government, and photo-radar is also a sacred trust in making our roads safer.

Mr Conway: Finally, this week's internal government magazine, Topical, has a front-page story highlighting the government's new attitude to raising taxes, the so-called non-tax sources of revenue on fees. This particular edition of Topical holds out photo-radar as a very fine example of how this new revenue-grabbing can be done. The government's clear intent is highlighted in this week's Topical.

Today we have the privacy commissioner's letter which undresses your photo-radar policy and leaves it standing naked in the wind. The only thing that's hanging out there is a revenue grab.

Would the minister not agree with the privacy commissioner that the time has now come for the government to stop, to listen and to look for a better public policy in this connection, a public policy that has as its primary concern road safety and not tax-grabbing?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Such eloquence. Surely, during these busy times, the member opposite has better things to do with his time than reeling off, peeling off this parochial Topical review, unless he's looking for a job.

The people of Renfrew who are listening today and place their trust in this member are not paying his handsome wages simply to have him read newspapers in the Legislature.

What is being said here is in error. There is no direct quote from the party. This is how desperate the opposition is. They keep talking about money; we keep talking about saving lives.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day. Within --

Interjection.

Mr Harris: No, it's not me. I'm still asking the question.

Within the last hour we learned that Standard and Poor's has lowered Ontario's credit rating from AA to AA-. According to the agency, in making this announcement today, the decision reflects your government's weakened resolve to contain its deficit both this year and in succeeding years. It is also thought, Madam Minister, that other bond rating agencies are ready to follow shortly.

Can you tell us today what impact this will have on our deficit, on our ability to borrow money and on the cost of that money if we can borrow it in the future?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will attempt to give the member as full an answer as I can and follow up with any additional information directly from the Minister of Finance at a later date.

The news from Standard and Poor's today is certainly very disappointing for this government. In fact, we are very surprised at the actions that have been taken.

The members opposite laugh, but with respect to this government's record in controlling expenditures, there has not been a record of any other government that matches this. For the first time ever in the history of this province, we have seen program expenditures actually go down this year from last year after years and years of seeing them raised at double-digit rates.

We have taken extraordinary action, members opposite will know: the actions with respect to $4 billion of savings through the expenditure control measures, $2 billion through the social contract measures. The deficit would have been projected to have been around $17 billion and we've been able to hold it to under $10 billion.

For the rating agency to say that there is a weakened resolve with respect to expenditure control in this government is dead wrong. It's very surprising that they would use that as their excuse.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: In response to the specific question about whether or not we think that this will cause problems in terms of borrowing money, in fact the credit rating agency, in downgrading us to a AA- at this point, also put a stable outlook on the government's fiscal situation --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- which means the fact that it's secure for borrowing, and we should be in a position to continue to borrow with ease in the markets at this time.

Mr Harris: Actually, I'm rather shocked that the minister says she was surprised. Last week on the Dow Jones wire, Walter Schroeder, president of Dominion Bond Rating Service, from whom we have yet to hear, was telling all the money-lending agencies things such as this:

"Ontario wants to hit $10 billion as the magic number, but by our calculations, the deficit is closer to $11.8 billion. The province is moving capital spending from its own budget on to crown agencies and rerecording those expenditures on roads and buildings as loans instead of the true deficit figures."

Schroeder also goes on to say that the impact of not believing your numbers, of the smoke and mirrors, is such that "it would have a significant impact on Ontario's liquidity and access to long-term debt." That is what the net result is, he says, and this is a week ago. Today you tell me you're surprised.

Minister, the real world out there is trying to tell you, your Premier, your cabinet, your Treasurer and your government something. It's trying to tell you you can no longer live on a credit card, for ever borrowing more and more as if it was so much play money. It's also telling you that smoke-and-mirrors accounting is not going to work, that they see through that, that the true deficit is now approaching $12 billion.

You knew this was coming today. Your Premier knew it was coming today. The Treasurer knew it was coming today. Yet they're not in the House. We've had no statement and we've had no acknowledgement. Can you tell us why this crisis in Ontario's financial state didn't even warrant the appearance of the Treasurer and a statement in the Legislature today?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member across knows full well that the Premier is in Guelph at this time, and quite frankly I think that we can have this exchange with respect to this issue. The Treasurer will be available to make a statement later on this afternoon. I will continue to say that we are disappointed and surprised at the action of this rating agency, particularly suggesting that this is as a result of a weakened resolve with respect to expenditure control.

Earlier this year the Treasurer made public the fact that as a result of reconciliation with federal government and provincial income taxes, our revenues were another $800 million lower than what we had expected and what we had forecasted. We moved aggressively to address that through offsets on the expenditure side to the tune of $500 million. That is an incredible response. We are continuing to control expenditures.

Let me speak now, as a member here, not as a representative of the Minister of Finance. I want to say that --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please shorten your answer.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- there's something that surprises me about how credit rating agencies act in this situation. The federal government deficit, we know for last year, went from a projected $35 billion to over $40 billion, and the credit agencies didn't blink an eye. For this fiscal year, next week we will hear it will go from a projection of $42 billion to up to $45 billion.

Let me say that I still remain surprised and disappointed at this action. I believe that we are doing everything we can to control expenditures, but we are governing in a way that is fair to the recipients of services in this province.

1430

Mr Harris: All I want to say to the minister is this: These are the same bond rating agencies that for 42 years gave us an AAA rating when Progressive Conservative governments managed the affairs of this province. They are the same people. You started losing it on a slippery slope, you big-spending Liberals, mismanagers, and you've carried on the same way. They're the same referees.

Minister, the consequences of this are very serious.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Question?

Mr Harris: The higher the cost of borrowing, the less money there is for human needs. There is less money for education, there is less money for health care, there is less money for social programs for those who need them, there is less money for skills training, all those programs, those social safety nets that for 42 years we nurtured and cultured and built in this province.

What this means is that the fiscal deficit and the human deficit that we hear so much about these days --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask your cooperation, please. Question?

Mr Harris: The fiscal deficit and the human deficit we hear so much about these days in fact are one and the same thing, and it has become a crisis because you could not manage the taxpayers' money.

Minister, would you not agree with me that this crisis calls for a new budget today, or at the very least a definitive interim statement on the serious deterioration and worsening state of Ontario's finances?

Hon Ms Lankin: In a moment, I'll come to how Tories share information about deficits and projected deficits, but let me say the Treasurer has released Ontario Finances and the documents that show exactly where we are with respect to the projections for this year's deficit. We have revised those figures in light of the reduction in provincial income tax reconciliation from the federal government. We have revised it in result of further actions that we've taken on the expenditure side.

Let me say that the province's credit rating remains in an AA category. We remain fully capable of borrowing and we are a strong credit performer with respect to the bond agencies. I really, really think that we have to put in perspective what the member opposite is saying with respect to this being a crisis in the fiscal situation. We remain on track with respect to a strong agenda for controlling expenditures.

But I want to say that we believe we have to have a balance in our fiscal policy. We have to have one that helps us achieve the downward tracking on the deficit but allows us to continue to preserve services in this province and to preserve jobs in this province. There's a balance to be struck here, and to hear the member opposite, in light of the federal Tories' skyrocketing deficit, try to tell us that we haven't been clear with people about numbers is a bit hard to take. He talks about preserving all of these social services and programs. This is the man who on the weekend said that if he were Premier, he would unlegislate, unregulate, untax, ungovern. This is Attila the Hun across the way, let me tell you.

We have a balanced approach, one which will control expenditures, which will preserve services and preserve jobs in this province, and we're sticking to it.

Mr Harris: I knew all the union people were in the audience Saturday; I didn't know you were there as well. But welcome to our party any time.

The balance that we're looking for is a balance between what you say you are going to do and the action that belies what in fact is happening in this province. That's the balance that's missing that the bond rating agencies are seeing through.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the acting deputy Deputy Premier for the day.

Rumours are floating around that Ontario Hydro may soon sell some of its divisions and assets to the private sector. On October 28, for example, the Premier said, "We must examine how we can marry the best traditions of the province and the best traditions of a public utility with the reality of the marketplace." Bob Rae said this. Minister, can we expect an announcement on the privatization of Ontario Hydro in the near future from your government?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will refer that to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): There are no plans to privatize Ontario Hydro.

Mr Harris: That's fine for you to say. You may not have plans, but obviously your Premier and Maurice Strong are saying other things. Hydro is forecasting a $2-billion loss this year. It has restructured its internal operations to make it more attractive to the private sector. Hydro chair Maurice Strong has asked Premier Rae to review the legislation over their finances. Yesterday, the Premier said, "It is absolutely essential for us to lever the public dollars that we have in partnership with the private sector to get things moving."

It sounds as though we're on the brink of privatizing Hydro. Are the Premier and Maurice Strong on the brink of doing that?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am sure that Maurice Strong is not going to engage in brinkmanship. I would indicate to the member that we certainly are in a very serious situation with regard to the future of Ontario Hydro. The restructuring that has been going on is significant. It has achieved a significant downsizing of Ontario Hydro. Yet the financial situation related to the decline in the demand for electricity and the significant debt that Ontario Hydro is facing, thanks to previous governments' decisions to build Darlington, are serious problems.

The restructuring, though, is making it possible for the subsidiaries of Ontario Hydro to indeed get involved with the private sector, to be involved in joint ventures in order to ensure that we can move forward together to enhance the economy and the job opportunities of this province.

Mr Harris: I'm not sure it's acceptable to blame George Drew, who embarked upon the electrification of this province, one of the great tools that for 42 years provided us with hope and jobs and prosperity and opportunity. However, if that's what you wish to do in response, that's fine.

On October 28, when asked about a British-style privatization, Maurice Strong said, "If we move, it won't be ideologically driven; it will be driven by the practical necessity, the advantage, the need of Ontario." That's why he's going to move.

Given the fact that the finances are falling through the roof, given the fact that the deficit is mushrooming far in excess of the previous budget, that the deficit is now at $2 billion at Hydro, there's a lot of uncertainty about what is happening.

We know you are desperate to find a way to repair your finances. What concerns many is that Ontario Hydro will be put on the chopping block for no other reason than to address your financial woes: not for the sake of efficiency, not for the sake of ensuring an adequate supply of affordable power.

We would like this assurance: that before there is any proposal to fire-sale agencies or divisions of Ontario Hydro, there will be a full debate in this Legislature and full disclosure so that we can ensure that it's not just a fire sale to try and grab some dollars to shore up your treasury, but that in fact it's in the interests of Ontarians.

Hon Mr Wildman: The article to which the leader refers specifically indicates that Mr Strong said there would not be a British-style privatization in this province. In fact, I think all of us can be proud of the fact that this government has attracted such a qualified public servant to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro that has taken the significant changes and moves to restructure that corporation for the future of this province in a way that no other government has been prepared to do since I've served in this Legislature for 17 years.

1440

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier as well. Today we had confirmation of Standard and Poor's downgrading the government's credit rating. The minister will know that the NDP government inherited a solid AAA credit rating from the previous administration.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: That's a fact. That's a simple fact.

It was in 1991 that you were downgraded the first time. In 1992, you were downgraded a second time. Today we heard what I hoped we wouldn't hear but I suspected we would; that is, that the Bob Rae government has been downgraded a third time.

My question to the minister is this: What are the costs of this downgrade? We believe that the incremental cost simply on borrowing this year will be $25 million, and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers of this province will be $200 million a year in increased debt-servicing cost. Can you confirm that this is the number we're talking about, and if that is the number, what does the government plan to do to correct that?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member will probably know that I don't have that number readily available for him. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would be able to answer that question more specifically.

With respect to the likelihood of increased costs this year, we do remain fully able to borrow on the markets. The rating, as you will probably know, as it moved from AA to AA- and also went from a negative watch to a stable watch. So that actually is one that assures the markets with respect to the province's borrowing. Most of the province's borrowing is not engaged in short-term borrowing; it's longer-term borrowing, which hedges us against changes in interest rates but also in terms of this credit rating. So in terms of the impact this year, I don't have the number, but I think it's mitigated by some of those factors that I raise.

What I want to say to the member is that, regarding the credit rating downgrade, he makes reference to the fact that this has been the third time this government has experienced that. It's the third time over a period of what has been the most serious recession this country has faced since the days of the Great Depression. He compares that to an AAA rating during the boom years of the late 1980s. He says that's simply a fact.

I have to say it's simply a fact that at that time, there was tremendous economic activity across this country, across North America. We're at a time in which a tremendous recession has taken place, and not just in this jurisdiction. In fact, we remain the third-highest credit rating of all the provinces in Canada. So I would like the member to put that in perspective when he asks these questions.

Mr Phillips: I think that for the minister to indicate this isn't extremely serious indicates she doesn't understand the implications of this. Three downgrades in three years is dramatic. It's serious. It is sending an enormous signal to the province of Ontario. It will cost the taxpayers $200 million a year in extra interest costs.

I would say to the minister that one of the reasons they've done that is they don't trust the books. They don't believe the numbers. I hate to say that, because I happen to have confidence in the Minister of Finance; I don't have much confidence any longer in the Premier. We have outlined in documents several instances where the government is not coming clean with the numbers. The rating agencies have seen through the government numbers, and that is why they've downgraded it.

Will the minister today undertake to come back to the Legislature with a budget that reflects what the rating agencies know but what the people of the province haven't been told; that is, that the real deficit in this province is well over $11 billion right now? That's what the rating agencies have seen through, and that's why we have a lower rating today. Will the minister undertake to come back to the Legislature and present the Legislature with a true set of numbers that will allow us to see what the rating agencies have seen?

Hon Frances Lankin: I reject the premise of the member's question. In the Minister of Finance's documents there has always been very clearly set out what the deficit projections are, what the capital budget requirements are and what the total consolidated borrowing requirements are. Those numbers are not hidden; they are all there. They are in the budget documents. They are in all of the Ontario Finances.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Bunk. That is bunk and you know it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: For the member to say that we haven't come clean with these numbers is incorrect. It is true that the auditor, as part of a national move, is suggesting that all provinces move to consolidate capital and operating budgets. That is totally different from saying that we are not showing these numbers. The consolidated borrowing requirement is there and it's very clear.

Mr Stockwell: Why wouldn't the auditor sign the books?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West. Minister.

Hon Ms Lankin: I didn't for one moment suggest that the fiscal situation facing the government was not a serious one. If this government did not believe it was not serious, we wouldn't have taken extraordinary steps to move from what was a projected $17-billion deficit to bring it down below $10 billion. Of course we think that this is serious, but for the member to give credence to the stated reasons behind the credit rating downgrade, that we are somehow not controlling expenditures, is to mislead the public. We clearly have, for the first time in history, brought in an expenditure program which is less than it was in the previous budget, the first time in the history of this province that has ever happened.

I would conclude by saying that we will have an opportunity in the next few months, as the new federal government tries to come to terms with the inherited deficit and increased deficit, projected to be more than $12 billion over projection, to develop what I hope will be a national response to this situation, which exists in every province and federally.

I would point out that the federal government can borrow money cheaper, has interest rate policy, monetary policy, has policies in its hands that provinces don't. I hope the new federal government will not continue the practice of passing off the debt to the provinces as the former federal government did, to the tune of $28 billion that we are paying for in Ontario now.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to try to shorten your answers.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, it's 48 days today since the murder -- perhaps a more appropriate word is "execution" -- of Constable Joe MacDonald in Sudbury. Following that murder, as you know, Mr Clinton Suzack, an individual who was out on early release granted by the Ontario parole board, was charged along with another individual for that murder.

You committed yourself to having a so-called independent inquiry conducted within 30 days following the murder. As I said at the outset, it's 48 days now, Mr Minister. Can you indicate to the House, to the people of the province, especially Constable MacDonald's family, where that report stands and when we can expect to have it tabled in this House?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As I indicated in this House, I did commence an investigation into and a review of the decision. I have received the investigator's report. Upon receiving that report, I forwarded it to freedom of information officers as well as to the Attorney General, criminal law division. I have been advised by them that as a result of freedom of information considerations and, in particular, possible prejudicing matters that are now before the courts, it is not legally appropriate for me to release that report.

It is my intention, however, that at the conclusion of the matters that are before the courts, given freedom of information considerations at that time, the report will indeed be publicly tabled and made available for all to review.

1450

Mr Runciman: That's a nauseating response. That's the impact it has on me. I'm telling you, we are just sick and tired of this kind of response in terms of investigations like this. We get the same kind of response time after time: No answers in respect to this. When we do finally get a version of it, it's politically sanitized to protect the tail of NDP appointees and not to try to get to the bottom of some very serious concerns.

That board is dealing with something like 57 reviews a week. We had an individual murdered and we need some answers. The family certainly needs answers. Police officers in Sudbury want answers. I think the public of Ontario wants some answers.

The terms of reference of the study had nothing to do with the arrest of that individual; they had to do with how the parole board came to this decision. That's all, Mr Minister; nothing to do with what you're talking about, nothing that's before the courts.

We want to know from you today, preferably today or in the very near future, what action you're going to take in response to what occurred here. Obviously, a mistake was made. We have all the facts; you have all the facts. There's no justification for that individual being out on the streets. You know it and I know it.

When are you going to tell us exactly what you're going to do in response to what happened, especially Mr Suzack being out on the streets?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I have stated already that I have accepted the investigator's findings. I am taking and will continue to take any action that is appropriate, but unlike the honourable member across the way who wants to create his own justice system, we have an established justice system. I have asked the Attorney General's office, not myself or my personal assistants, but the Attorney General's ministry, criminal law division, for a legal opinion as to the releasability of the report and I have advised the honourable member of the advice I was given. For me to do otherwise would be an absolute abdication of the responsibilities bestowed upon me as Solicitor General.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We know how important it is that social assistance dollars go where they are most needed. There's a good deal of public concern and sensitivity, I might add, about the issue of welfare abuse, even though we know it's not widespread, only about 3% of social assistance expenditures. Our government is taking some initiatives in this area.

Recently in my riding, the city of London council hired investigators to recover social assistance dollars. My questions are, how much money will be recovered, how will this money be reallocated and how will this reallocation be cost-effective?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member having given me notice of this question so that I was able to provide her with some details as well as dealing with the broader issue that is raised.

As I've indicated on various occasions in the House, we do take the question of abuse and fraud in the system quite seriously. The specific initiative the member refers to is one of a number of initiatives that are under way now which have come out as a result of the enhanced verification initiative we put into the system last spring as part of our expenditure control plan.

In this particular instance there is a team of additional staff being hired with additional funding from the ministry. The expectation the city of London has set is that it believes it can recover something in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million or $2.6 million that is now, it believes, being overpaid and that when that is netted against the cost of the staff it will result in a net savings of about $1.9 million. Obviously, those dollars will then be used in the system to ensure that support continues to be given to those people who need it.

HIGH-ALCOHOL BEER

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I'd like to ask a page to take over some information. Madam Minister, my question to you is on the issue of high-alcohol beer. You will know that these beers are at least 42% stronger than regular beer and 78% stronger than light beer. I have received information from the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving which indicates some disturbing information obtained from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, and I've just sent that information over to you.

I would like to give you one example of the information we've received: A female up to the weight of 120 pounds will be over the legal limit for one hour after consuming only one bottle of high-alcohol beer.

Minister, your government has done nothing to ensure that consumers are aware of how strong these beers are relative to what they are accustomed to. How do you justify the fact that your ministry has done absolutely nothing to educate consumers about the impact of extra-strength beer?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm sure the member is aware that I met with -- I'm trying to remember all of the names, all of the anti-drinking and driving groups -- MADD and PRIDE and some of the others about this very issue shortly after Labatt's released its high-alcohol-content beer. In fact, to the member, who asked why I didn't do something about it, I have done something about it. I expressed that very day my concerns, which are very similar to the issues expressed by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and all of these groups.

What we have done is meet with the industry and tell them very clearly that they were to take some volunteer action immediately and get back to us; otherwise we would be looking at higher pricing and modifications in advertising. The industry has come together and has in fact come up with a voluntary code around this which I am tentatively endorsing at this point in time, but we will be watching very closely to see how this works.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, your government has taken absolutely no action around the issue of responsible advertising. Yes, the industry has voluntarily agreed to a national code on marketing high-alcohol beer, but you have merely said that you are pleased and you endorse the code.

In April 1992 you said that you didn't think voluntary guidelines would do enough to eliminate, in that case, sexism in beer advertisements. Yet now you seem to believe that voluntary guidelines are good enough to ensure that consumers, particularly impressionable young people, are fully informed about the effect of extra-strength beer.

Minister, voluntary guidelines are one thing. You have totally abdicated responsibility on this issue. Will you commit today to bringing in a series of public service announcements informing young people, informing the servers of beverage alcohol and informing the general public about the impact of high-alcohol beer?

Hon Ms Churley: First I'd like to say that high-alcohol beer is not new in Ontario. About 15% of the market already is high-alcohol beer. Some of it I think goes up to 31%. The introduction by an Ontario company, a Canadian company, of a new high-alcohol-content beer has certainly raised the issue. I think that's positive. But it's not the first high-alcohol-content beer ever to be introduced in Ontario. They have been available to the public for quite some time.

We are working directly with the industry, and I think successfully. When I met with MADD and the others, we talked about the kinds of issues that are of the greatest concern. Certainly, marketing to youth is obviously a very grave concern. I expressed that to the industry. They know what needs to be done.

Are you suggesting that the government, when we're in a recession, when today you're all on your feet talking about how high the deficit is, take on the responsibility of the industry to start advertising and letting people know out there itself and paying for it itself that this is a higher-alcohol-content beer? I'm sorry, but they cannot keep having it both ways. It is their responsibility.

I, as minister, and this government are making sure that they meet their responsibilities and market this correctly and properly and let the people of Ontario know about this beer. That is their responsibility and they should pay for that.

1500

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. What does the judiciary think of your plan to automate court reporting in Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think it's fair to say that there are mixed feelings. We certainly have had some judges, particularly those who are familiar with and have taken the time and the trouble to look at the modern technology that is available, who are willing to see through the pilot testing of automated court reporting whether or not we can guarantee the integrity of the record, and they are prepared to look at the situation in that way. They certainly would not be prepared to go to a system which includes all automated reporting at this point in time, because there is some nervousness on the part of the bench.

The other issue is that our judiciary works closely with court reporters and has genuine anxiety for the sanctity of the jobs of the people with whom they've worked, and has made very strong representation on behalf of those employees, that they be redeployed and still have work available to them if they are affected by the pilot projects.

Mr Harnick: I wish the Attorney General had the same concern for the sanctity of those jobs as the judiciary does. The real crux of this problem is that we have the minister telling the judiciary how to administer its courts.

I introduced a private member's resolution that would have transferred the responsibility for the financial and administrative control of the courts to the judiciary from the minister. Do you not think that in administering the courts in Ontario, the judiciary should be allowed to decide how to allocate the resources available?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are certainly moving, in the work that we're doing with the Provincial Division, through the memorandum of understanding that I signed with the chief judge, towards a day when there is more management responsibility for the judiciary itself. I certainly support the ability of the judiciary to have a greater sense of control over the management. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the ministry, to this House, to the government and to the taxpayers of Ontario, to be mindful of the costs of administration of justice.

One of the issues that we are facing is how to maintain the integrity of the court record and do that in a way which takes advantage of technology that has never been available before. We cannot afford to have our courts be the Jurassic Park of the technological era, and many of our judges are well aware of that. We also must be prepared to look at ways in which we can redeploy staff and make them more available so that as we reform the court system, we can use those employees in a way that is more flexible and in a way that allows us to have better administration of justice.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Back on the 17th of this month, the member for Mississauga West asked me: "Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King made an incorrect statement to the committee and misled the committee?" It's a question that had been asked in this House a number of times prior to that particular day, and the answer is the same as has been given in the past.

Mr King, as the member knows, reappeared before the committee to clarify any misunderstanding which may have arisen from his previous remarks, and the committee as well had a letter from the auditor saying that he was fully satisfied that the issues had been resolved between him and Mr King.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Obviously, the minister did not understand the question, because it had never been asked before. It couldn't have been asked before because Mr Di Santo made the remarks in committee the very day I asked you the question.

If I could help you, Minister, Mr King said in Hansard: "As a matter of fact, the company that held the real estate holdings of the new building that WCB is building had been audited by the public auditor." The auditor said that was not only not a matter of fact, that it was indeed incorrect. My question to Mr Di Santo was, "Do you agree with the auditor that Mr King's statement was incorrect, not a statement in fact, and indeed misleading to the committee?" Mr Di Santo said, in answer to my question, that Mr King's statement was wrong.

My question, Minister, was very simple. Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King's question was wrong and thereby misled the committee? If indeed you agree with your chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, will you fire Mr King?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I said earlier, I find it strange that the question keeps getting asked, when the auditor himself has said that he is satisfied with the answer he got back from Mr King. I would also say to the member across the way that I'm getting a little tired of his fishing expeditions and witchhunts with the board when the problems at the board are because of Bill 162, which you people were responsible for.

LANDSLIDE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, last June the people of Lemieux in my riding witnessed one of Ontario's largest landslides in its history. Over 20 hectares of land on leda clay, one of the world's most unstable soils, slid into the South Nation River, producing one of Ontario's greatest natural disasters. Incredible numbers of large trees, root systems and soil have accumulated to create a major, dangerous dam across the river, holding back a huge volume of sediment-laden water that awaits to rush down the river once the dam breaks.

Since June, there have been numerous attempts by various groups to approach you and your cabinet colleagues to impress upon you the horrible time bomb sitting there waiting to explode at any time. The federal government has made available $350,000 to hire people to clean up the mess this fall, sir, on condition that your government comes up with a measly $100,000 for the required specialized equipment.

That federal money is still waiting for your share that you refuse to contribute. Your delay in responding has caused the situation to become a lot more dangerous and expensive, to the point that some entrepreneurs are now refusing to get involved in proposals to clean up because of the serious risk to human lives.

Next spring, your government will definitely face a multimillion-dollar damage repair bill because you have refused to liberate $100,000 so far. As you and your government have been telling Ontarians that you are serious about reducing costs, why the heck would you rather spend millions over the next few years than come up with the $100,000 now?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I haven't refused to do anything. It's under the Minister of Natural Resources. I refer the question to him.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'd like to answer, Mr Speaker, but apparently it --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member has spoken eloquently, but I think he knows, as other members in this House know, that when you have this type of situation which might be termed a disaster, there is a process, and that process basically requires municipalities to come up with some of the money and the province will come up with some of the money. I've had ongoing discussions with the member. I know he's spoken to people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We will do what we can to help the situation, but the municipalities involved will also have to come up with some of the money.

1510

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mrs MacKinnon from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Region 2, I.W.A. Building Society.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr57, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc;

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing, at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr57, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc. and Bill Pr64, An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, I believe you have a point of order.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I wish to advise the House that the report of a judicial inquiry, pursuant to section 50 of the Courts of Justice Act, into the conduct of the Honourable Judge Walter Hryciuk was delivered to the Lieutenant Governor this morning.

The inquiry was recommended by the Ontario Judicial Council and was conducted by the Honourable Madam Justice Jean MacFarland of the Ontario Court (General Division). I have been provided with a copy of the report, and pursuant to the act it is now my duty to table the report in this assembly.

The report concludes that Judge Hryciuk's conduct is incompatible with the office of a judge and recommends that he be removed from office.

I will be taking a few days to consider the report and will have no further comment until I have concluded that review. Copies of the report are being distributed through the mail boxes to each member of the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)

On motion by Mr Pouliot, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 122, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Code de la route.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before you proceed, we have not yet had the tabling of the previous report. It must happen before you can move to the next order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make a statement?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Briefly, our government is committed, as you know, to making Ontario roads the safest in North America and this by 1998. Today, we're introducing graduated licensing legislation that will help us reach that goal. Traffic fatalities are a leading cause of death in this province. Sadly, traffic collisions are the leading killer of young people in Ontario between the ages of 16 and 24, but statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher collision rate than drivers with several years of experience.

Studies show that it takes between two and five years to develop all the driving skills and judgement needed to avoid collisions. This graduated licensing program, which already has the support of most members of the provincial Legislature, allows inexperienced drivers to gain driving experience gradually in conditions where they face low risks.

During the summer months, a committee of this Legislature sought public input on the draft bill tabled in the spring. Two changes --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm under the impression that these remarks at first reading of a bill should be only brief and note the high points of the legislation and not give some editorial.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills is absolutely right, and I wish that everybody would be aware that when a bill is introduced the remarks should be extremely brief. You're not debating the bill, you're not reading the bill, you're just giving a short explanation of the bill. So, Minister, I would ask you to abide to this.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, but this is crucial for the safety and in fact I'm speaking for some people who no longer have a voice --

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am about to conclude. First, only one passenger is allowed to ride in the front seat with a level 1 driver and that passenger must be accompanied by an experienced driver; second, a vehicle sign identifying a level 1 driver as a new driver will be voluntary; and, finally, for your consideration, kindly, graduated licensing will help curtail the more than 1,100 deaths and 90,000 victims that occur every year on Ontario roads.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You'll have ample time to debate it. Please. I've asked you to keep it short.

Hon Mr Pouliot: One sentence, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your kindness and your fairness, your courtesy indeed. The measures being introduced today build on our strategy to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America. I thank you for your courtesy and tact, Mr Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION / ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 16:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the standing committee on social development shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time but not later than 12 midnight on its regularly scheduled meeting days for the purpose of conducting public hearings; and that the committee shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Tuesday, December 7, 1993. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day. At 5 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on social development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.

That two hours be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Why don't you time-allocate your own speech?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The member opposite suggests I should time-allocate my own speech and I shall do that in very short order. I will ask all honourable members to follow my example.

This time allocation motion dealing with Bill 100 is a time allocation motion that comes forward today simply because of an inability between myself and the opposition House leaders to reach agreement on the scheduling of witnesses before the social development committee hearing presentations on Bill 100.

The steering committee of that committee recommended, and the committee has requested, the right to sit additional hours to hear the witnesses. That's the request of the committee but, for whatever reason, we've been unable to get agreement out of the opposition House leaders and the two opposition caucuses to proceed to fulfil the wishes of the members to hear all of the delegates and to get this bill completed before the Legislature adjourns for the winter break.

1520

I know that members opposite will get up and say that this government is again ramming through another piece of legislation, but I would suggest that the rhetoric here in the House is less a reflection of reality than the sincere comment of the committee members themselves and their desire to see this legislation completed and proclaimed in this province without any further undue delays.

Those members from all parties who have been involved in this issue I think better than the rest of us understand its importance rather than perhaps its partisan politics in the larger forum of this Legislative Assembly.

Again, it's with regret that I proceed with this time allocation motion, but the motion is a motion that's designed to allow the committee to sit the extra hours it has requested to hear the deputants who want to make presentations on this bill before we deal with the final passage of this legislation. It's unfortunate that it has to happen this way, but after several weeks of trying to reach agreement, as House leader for the government I've been left with very little other option. So here we are today.

I commend this motion to all members of the House in the understanding that sometimes those who do the work around issues like this are in fact correct in understanding the importance of a matter like this one proceeding and proceeding quickly.

Mr Offer: I am taking part in this debate, and I wish that we did not have to once more debate another time allocation motion, another in a series by this government which has done nothing less than institutionalize time allocation in the Legislature, which, for another word, is just shutting out the public.

The member may talk about this as an issue of partisanship. Well, I get real worried when they speak of partisanship and that there shouldn't be any and then themselves embark on what clearly is the voyage of political partisanship in their motions, because what this type of a motion does is exclude the public. It excludes the public from taking part in a committee process.

It excludes members of the Legislature from voicing the concerns of their constituents, from voicing the concerns of others who may not be their constituents but people interested in a piece of legislation, from using their member, from using a member of the Legislature, either by letter or through the constituency office or through Queen's Park, to say: "Here is the piece of legislation in a committee. Here is my concern, and I would like to be a part of that committee process, and, secondly, for you to bring forward the concern which I have raised."

In many cases, it doesn't matter what the issue itself is, it's the process that is most important, because when you institutionalize these time allocation motions, what you are doing is you are shutting the door on thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, preventing them from taking part in a very real way as to how the legislation should proceed through the Legislature, as to how committees should progress.

The House leader today does nothing less than to say, "This time allocation is the stick that we are going to use to beat down anyone who wants to comment on a particular piece of legislation." The sad thing is that it is not the first time this weapon has been used. The government uses these types of weapons day in and day out.

I know that those who are speaking on the issue of photo-radar, another piece of legislation, are themselves the subject matter of time allocation. A piece of legislation which has caused great concern throughout the province --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is with regret I note that the House does not have a quorum. On such an important motion I think we should have a quorum, Mr Speaker.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: We are debating an important motion and it is a motion which is without question slamming the door on many people in this province, on many community groups and really, in large measure, it is stopping us as legislators from doing the thing for which we were elected.

Before the call took place I was talking about the fact that this is just another in a series by this government of institutionalizing time allocation, institutionalizing closure. I was using the example of Bill 47, I believe is the number, which is the photo-radar. It's a piece of legislation which has caused great concern throughout the province.

There are those who feel that that piece of legislation is wrong. They are concerned that the piece of legislation has nothing to do with highway safety, is rather a licence to speed, and the government has used time allocation, I believe two days, to hear the public on an important piece of legislation of great concern. This piece of legislation carries the same impact.

We have to start to ask ourselves, why is it that the government seeks to impose on the people of this province, not just on the members of the opposition and in fact on their own members, time allocation? Why is it that they seek to impose on the people of this province the shutting out, the locking of these legislative doors so that people who are concerned with pieces of legislation, people who want to take part in committee processes, people who want to share their thoughts, their experiences, their expertise, can't do it? They can't do it because of motions such as this.

I know those who might be watching on the legislative channel either live or later on this evening will be saying, "What exactly is a time allocation motion?" Basically what it does is it limits debate and it limits the public consultation process. Basically what it does is it says to a vast number of people: "You can't take part in this legislative process. You can't be part of a committee because we have allocated the time." That basically shuts people out, because there are many more people who want to be heard on this legislation and as well on other pieces of legislation.

It is a dangerous weapon. I don't refer to it as a tool. It is a dangerous weapon freely exercised by the government. Never before in the history of this province, I would predict, has time allocation been used by any government as much as this government now.

1530

What does that say? It says that there is a government that is in chaos. It is a government that doesn't know how to order its own matters. It is a government that doesn't like to hear opposition, so the best way to do that is to shut the doors to any opposing views. Far be it that the opposition just comes from elected representatives. There is opposition on a vast array of legislation by this government throughout the province. The government feels that the easiest way to listen to those groups is to shut the door so it doesn't have to hear them.

The problem you have is that you suffer. You should suffer, and rightly so, because what you are doing is cutting out the reason for which we are here. You are cutting out the reason for which we have committee hearings. You are cutting out the reason that people should be part of any legislative process, and that is to voice their concerns, to voice their opinions, to share their expertise so that any piece of legislation becomes either a better piece of legislation or, by listening to the people of the province, something that should never be passed into law.

You don't want to hear that. You don't want to hear comments that can improve legislation. You don't want to hear comments from individuals who are opposed to the legislation. You want to carry on in terms of a shell of existence. You want to put over you a cone of silence, and for that, the legislative process is very much weakened.

I can tell you that many people are not going to forget how you have used this type of weapon. They are not going to forget how you have shut the door on their being part of the legislative process. They are not going to forget that you have, in an arrogant, self-centred way, ordained what should and should not be, to the exclusion of the people in this province, the people we have been elected to serve.

For that, I stand opposed to this particular motion. I stand opposed in principle. I stand opposed to the fact that it is just one of a number of motions of time allocation which do nothing less than say to the people of this province, "We don't want to hear you."

This government is wrong. It is wrong in its policies; it is wrong in the process in which it drives its policies through this Legislature. And for that, I hope that all members of this Legislature, including members on the government side -- because you are shutting the door on your own constituents -- will stand up once in the life of this Legislature and say no to the motion of your House leader: "No, it is wrong to exclude my constituents. It is wrong to exclude anyone's constituents who want to be part of the legislative process."

I only hope that the members, not only in the opposition but also in the government, will say that motions to exclude people from legislative processes are wrong, motions that exclude people from being part of any hearing are wrong. This motion is wrong, and we will vote against it.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm standing here to oppose this motion to close off opportunity for the members of the committee to hear all of the information that I think is very important in dealing with a very important piece of legislation, Bill 100.

Everybody knows that Bill 100 is An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act. The Regulated Health Professions Act has been discussed in some form or another, or at least the need for it has been discussed, in our communities across this province for probably as long as eight or nine years. It's taken a very long time to come to a conclusion with regard to those discussions and with regard to the wording so that all parties could agree, as far as possible, to the final solutions contained in that piece of legislation. I think the success in the end was because we did indeed take the time to do it right. This closure motion this afternoon does not allow us to take the time to do the amendment correctly and with the kind of input that's necessary to make it an amendment that we can all support, that we can all be proud of: one that is extremely, I think, controversial but necessary.

In the last few days, we have in fact received from the government -- I'm now talking about all members of the committee -- the consolidated report, Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, commonly referred to as the RHPA Bill 100, and proposed government amendments.

Mr Speaker, you yourself I know have sat on committees of this Legislative Assembly in the past. It's one of the processes down here that I've not always been proud to participate in. On some occasions I have, but in the majority of cases I think we've looked at legislation in a manner that we wouldn't look at any other rules in society. That is, we get a piece of legislation. We look at it for a few days. The government of the day gets dug in. We ask the witnesses to travel from all parts of the province: regular, everyday citizens, professionals, sometimes interest groups and others. Often we don't listen. More frequently, we don't do our homework, which I've accused members of this Legislative Assembly of before. But I think the underlying point that I'm trying to make is, we need the time.

We received these amendments at the beginning of this month. It's been very difficult to get them out to individuals: not as difficult to some of the professional groups, but certainly to individuals, and as everyone knows, we're trying to meet the needs not only of the professionals in the medical community today but of the patients, who have often referred to themselves as victims in corresponding with those of us who represent them. I think under those circumstances it's even more important that we take the time to do it right.

Mr Speaker, if you could just take a look at what we're having to deal with here: absolute pages of amendments. When we get up to page 6, section 43, part I, there are whole columns of amendments on that one section. We take a look at a very controversial one where there is disagreement with regard to clause 1(3)c, where the Ministry of Health proposes to strike out this provision and substitute a new provision. This is the tentative wording, whatever that means; this would be the amendment, the one with regard to "behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient that are demeaning, seductive or exploitive". Section 1(4): MOH proposes to delete this provision, which is one we've talked about before, and then, with regard to section 4 of clause 1, no further amendment proposed at this time. This is all new. It's taken a lot of time to discuss the implications of every word in committee so far.

It's my understanding that we've had one day of public hearings where in fact the professionals have had an opportunity for input. We're now closing debate on this motion with just a few hours left, and this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that this government's going to have to deal with.

My recommendation to the government would be this: If in fact they do want to come out with some important legislation before the break at Christmastime, whether the House will prorogue or otherwise, why don't they just come out with the Regulated Health Professions Act, bring it to the House for approval and then in the break take a look in a very careful way and listen to all of the possible input we can get with regard to these pages of amendments.

In fact, they haven't even been written up in the normal form that you would look at legislation in this regard. Just pages in a loose-leaf binder: that's all I've been able to get. If somebody has something different, I wouldn't mind having it. But at this point in time, if there is one I'd like it. But at this point in time, the best that we've been able to get are pages of amendments.

1540

What does this really mean? I guess I could speak on behalf of anyone who has written. This letter is on November 22 to all concerned MPPs and staff, Queen's Park, from Sylvia Catherine Bradley, Out of Patients Advocacy Network in Toronto, regarding public hearings on Bill 100, and I read and quote:

"The standing committee on social development has allowed only three days of public hearings on Bill 100." This is before the closure motion. "We understand the importance of having this bill reviewed and returned to the House for third reading quickly. It would be preferable that it be passed so that Bill 43 can be amended to adequately address the issue of sexual abuse by health professionals before Bill 43 is proclaimed into law at year's end.

"However, once again, victims are being victimized by the system that is supposed to protect them". The very thing that we're trying to do in our committee, in fact, is to protect victims, and this particular individual who represents the Out of Patients Advocacy Network, is saying that we're victimizing them by allowing just three days of public hearings.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't know why we have to be interrupted when we're trying to make a statement or reading from a simple letter that somebody wrote to us. But I would appreciate it if in fact I could get on the record on behalf of the people who have let us know that they want their voices heard.

"Once again, victims are being victimized by the system that is supposed to protect them. The first day of hearings," tomorrow, "is entirely given over to professionals and their advocates. Only a very few of the advocates for victims have been assigned any time on the last two days of the scheduled hearings, and we are told that there is no time left."

These are the feelings of so many citizens across this province. It's not a matter of having three more days; it's a matter of not having perhaps as many as six more days, and having them at a time when families can be here, not late into the evening when it doesn't matter, but during the day with some time's notice, perhaps a week or two's notice.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You refused to hear it. It's easier for women to get out in the evening.

Mrs Cunningham: The member for Durham-York is saying it's easier for women to get out in the evening. That's not the point. The point is that there are more than 50 letters from people who want to talk about being victims, and it's extremely important that we have scheduled the amount of time necessary. I sat on this committee just a week ago and I knew that this week there would be two days, and I knew that the two days this week and next week would not be enough, given the briefs and the letters that I received as an individual member.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Members of the government -- not all of them, but a committee member of the government is saying that we refused to sit late. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this being an untimely way to complete hearings, whether we sit late or otherwise, on a piece of legislation that should be bending over backwards to get input from victims and others who are interested in helping us in a very sensitive area in the administration of health care in our province.

I really do commend the government with regard to the processes that they've used with the regulated health care legislation, the Regulated Health Professions Act. But it took a long time, and the reason that we're all there supporting it is because, to the best of all of our abilities, with a lot of agreement sometimes to agree to disagree, we got behind it and supported it because it was the best we could do collectively. Pushing citizens around like this is not going to get the support of the citizens of Ontario, and I really object to a closure motion on such a sensitive piece of legislation that affects, at least according to the witnesses and according to the authors of this report, the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients.

In fact, I have to say thank you very much to Marilou McPhedran, the chairperson; Harvey Armstrong; Rachel Edney; Pat Marshall; Roz Roach; and Briar Long, coordinator, for the work they did in, I think, very difficult circumstances to help us in making recommendations in this regard.

They talk about their mandate and they talk about making the recommendations work. They talk about their list of recommendations. They talk about what happens next.

I have to say that two days for this legislation, given the kind of input we've been able to receive with regard to all kinds of information that would be helpful to this government, is simply not enough.

As I take a look at the report of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Regulated Healthcare Associations on Bill 100, Submission to the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Social Development, I have to say that in the introduction it says, "Several of the associations who are members of the coalition also intend to appear before the committee to present their respective views on issues or concerns other than those raised in this submission." That is a very important statement. The expectation of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Regulated Healthcare Associations on Bill 100, which put this report together, is that other associations would indeed have the opportunity to appear before the committee.

It's extremely important, if we're going to have consensus, that we be able to question witnesses, ask what their intent is and actually get updates from the individual groups and individuals with regard to the more recent amendments we're looking at.

When they talked about the objectives with regard to Bill 100, they talked about a number of amendments. "In order to be effective, they stated that Bill 100 must be and be seen to be reasonable, fair, balanced, comprehensive and not unduly intrusive." How can we be seen to be reasonable, fair and balanced if we don't take the time to listen to people?

I really wish this government had had more effect on changing the system of committees down here. In fact, they might do that in the next year. They've certainly heard many of us complaining about it. We shouldn't be rushing through important, ground-breaking legislation that has been needed for such a long period of time without having the support and confidence of the public that we represent, not only of medical groups but of patients and victims. They have a right to tell their story. We as elected officials should be thanking them for wanting to address our committee.

It says another objective of Bill 100 is "deterring sexually abusive behaviour by health care practitioners." In order to do that, there has been new language recommended for the one controversial section, which I've lost, but others who are more knowledgeable than myself will remember it. Let me see if I can find it quickly. I can't find it quickly. It's hard to find things quickly when you've only looked at them for a few minutes, so I'll just leave it for the moment.

Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Once again, I believe that with such important debate on the matter of sexual abuse, the government should ensure that this House has a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for London North may resume her participation.

1550

Mrs Cunningham: I was actually referring to section 3, the definition of sexual abuse of a patient and the proposed government amendment as being one that's going to take some time to look at on behalf of both the physicians and the victims of sexual abuse in physicians' offices or other places.

The Ad Hoc Coalition, which we are grateful to, I'm sure would appreciate the opportunity to be part of a process where there's some confidence in the government with regard to not asking people to come down here a couple of weeks before Christmas and into the evening. It's not a matter of my availability or my caucus members' availability.

I think that the Health critic, Jim Wilson, who has been following this on behalf of all of us very carefully, will be speaking later this afternoon. He can probably say it much more succinctly than I myself with regard to the accusations by government members; I haven't heard them myself. But I have this afternoon heard the member for Durham-York, where he accuses us of not being available in the evenings. That's not the fact.

The fact of the matter is that if you really do respect the witnesses, you will give them lead time. You won't ask them to come to this Legislative Assembly next week in the middle of their schedules. I think you will give them a fair bit of lead time. Obviously he's feeling somewhat threatened because he knows that this is not possible, given the closure motion we're dealing with today.

This coalition is in complete agreement with each of these objectives that this legislation is trying to address. They state that:

"We approached our review of Bill 100 and evaluated each part of Bill 100 against the objectives. The recommendations we have made in this submission, after extensive and invaluable consultation with victims and survivors, victims and survivors groups, the regulatory boards, MPPs and government officials, are designed to improve the workability and effectiveness of Bill 100 in achieving these objectives."

Some time during the second week of November, I was able to send this consolidated report out to the health care professionals and victims that had been in touch with my office. We've not heard a lot back from them yet with regard to the proposed new amendment by the government. I certainly would appreciate the time to get advice from my own riding, which I think is a riding that's particularly interested in health care and in the provision of professional health care on behalf of professions that are expected to do such.

I'd like also to talk about the reaction with regard to the bill on behalf of Dr Joan Downe, the president of the London Academy of Medicine. She's "not surprised that so many doctors object to mandatory reporting of potentially abusive gestures or remarks, because their meaning may be misunderstood. As well, it may be more effective for a doctor who encounters a colleague making such remarks to challenge that person, correcting their behaviour, than be forced to report them to the college."

I'd certainly be interested in her recommendations on the new wording, as I would be in the other list of some 73 individuals who keep us informed with regard to issues in health care in London and Middlesex. We haven't had time to get that, and I think that two nights next week is totally irresponsible, even if we sit after 6 o'clock. It just seems to be a problem for the member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: I have no problem sitting in the evening.

Mrs Cunningham: The problem for the member for Durham-York is that he would like to tell the public that we don't agree to sit. We do agree to sit.

Mr O'Connor: Good. Let's get the House leader in.

Mrs Cunningham: The problem is that we would agree to sit during the break. We're not just going to agree to sit for two nights so that the government members can go home early for Christmas. We would like to work in January and in February and get input from victims and health care professionals themselves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We agree to sit and we'd also like to sit with a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum? Could the table check if indeed there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for London North may resume her participation in the debate.

Mrs Cunningham: Because we're talking about quorums etc, I think it's a good time for me to certainly let the public, who may in fact be interested in this motion this afternoon -- another closure bill on behalf of the NDP government, which has probably put forward more closure bills in its session than all other governments in the history of this province combined.

We expect that they perhaps will do more because, you see, what they haven't learned is that in a democracy, such as we're privileged to be part of, people have to learn to give and take. Because you don't always win in committee, that doesn't mean to say that the opposition members who represent the majority views of the public from time to time have to give in to these closure motions and have to give in to the threats of the committee. That's what's happening to us.

Sometimes I've attended committees where very few of the government members have had anything to say representing their individual constituents. They take their marching orders from whomever is the whip of the committee and the others hardly ever have an opinion. I have no idea where the thrust and the force is coming from for closure on this bill. I don't know whether it's coming from the minister, whether it's coming from the Premier or whether they just want a nice little Christmas present, something they think will be received positively by the public of Ontario to prove they've done some work.

I don't know what the thrust is, but I know one thing, and that is that the people who have been abused and who have something to tell us about that abuse and whom we want to talk to us about the new definition ought to be able to be heard. They need some lead time to do that. They shouldn't be rushing to come down here in the evening before Christmas. Their responsibility, which they're prepared to accept, especially those who have young children in school, is be support their families and their children during these times. They want to take part in the festivities of the holiday season which will be beginning in our schools in full force next week.

The Ontario Physiotherapy Association, in its submission to the standing committee of the Ontario Legislature on social development, said, "We congratulate the provincial government for the introduction of Bill 100, the starting point for dealing with a very difficult issue." The starting point meant to them, in discussing their recommendations for change to the bill, that they had an opportunity to speak at all stages. My view is that "all stages" includes new recommendations as distributed on November 4 in the consolidated report of the Regulated Health Professions Act and proposed government amendments.

I would challenge the government and ask it if in fact it's gotten out to the groups that have already spoken and may have something different to say with regard to the proposed new amendments.

They say, "The commitment of the Ontario government to legislate against sexual abuse in an unbiased, efficient manner is strongly supported by the members of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association." I wonder if they would consider a closure motion before their colleagues and before patients have been heard unbiased and efficient? I doubt it.

"Bill 100 raises serious concerns for those practising in our profession. We unquestionably support the principles addressed in this bill." That's great; we should be proud of it. "However, we fear the potential implications on the caring and physical components of our practices if this bill remains unaltered." They have not had an opportunity to take a look at the new amendments.

How about the Ontario Psychological Association, another group that I deal with, a group that's very active actually in London, Ontario? They feel very strongly that the committee should take the time to listen to all witnesses. It would be the nature of their work that people listen and that people have an opportunity to be part of the democratic process. That is not happening with this closure motion that's before us today.

1600

Bill 100 is an act to amend the RHPA, as we know. "To members of the social development committee: Given the limited time available to presenters, this submission is being circulated for your information in advance of today's hearings. We look forward to discussing this with you later today." This is from the Coalition of Colleges and Transitional Councils.

I just have to tell you that even given the 15 minutes, many groups were not pleased with the lack of opportunity they had in making their points and answering questions from the members of the committee.

They say that "colleges are responsible for the regulation of health practitioners in the public interest. This duty is fulfilled through such activities as scrutinizing applicants for registration, discipline, quality assurance and assessing fitness to practice." That has been their role. Do you not think that if we have pages of new amendments tabled just last week, the colleges would like to have something to say on the record in committee about this?

We have never, as long as I have been in this Legislative Assembly, which is for more than five years now, had bills presented to the committee and hundreds of amendments tabled weeks and months later. We are going over legislation ad nauseam, rewriting hundreds of new amendments, and regulations from time to time. We just wonder, who is advising the government? Who's doing the work? Who has respect for process?

Then, when they don't get their way, because most of us haven't had the time to consult with the experts and the citizens we represent, they bring forward a closure motion. One wonders some days if we are participating in a democratic process.

Therefore, I have to say in closing my observations on this motion today that one of the very first responsibilities I had as an elected member of this assembly was to represent the Legislative Assembly of Ontario five years ago in the province of British Columbia, where in fact there was a seminar put on by the Association of Legislative Assemblies of the Commonwealth.

We were looking at procedures. I was very proud at that time to say that in Ontario we had probably the best track record of any provincial government on the whole issue of closure. At that time, 1990, I think we may have experienced some seven or eight closure motions, the responsibility of both the Conservative government for some 42 years and, at the time, the Liberal government for, I think it might have been, two or three years.

We carefully, in order to make that presentation, researched the Hansards of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It would be most interesting to see the consistent viewpoint of the New Democratic Party members in the Legislative Assembly at that time, including today's Premier, Mr Bob Rae. No one could have been more vocal or adamant about this process -- no one. It wouldn't matter what Hansard anybody looked at.

Now, as a matter of convenience, to make themselves look as if they're doing something and hoping to badger the opposition members in a democratic process and, more important, to muzzle witnesses, professionals in the field of medicine, health care providers, homemakers and, more important, victims of sexual abuse and members of advisory committees to this government, they are bringing forth a closure motion on this very important piece of legislation.

It is with regret that I've had to put these remarks on the Legislative Assembly record this afternoon. This is one of the reasons -- these closure motions, the lack of interest and really hearing from grass-roots Ontarians, from family members and women -- that this government, I believe, will never be elected again.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): It is with a great deal of pride that I rise to speak on this motion and this bill. I'm proud to be part of a government that is finally moving and working substantively in this very significant area, an area of sexual abuse of clients by health care professionals.

The member opposite speaks of the importance of this issue, and it is a significant issue. It's an issue that has been with us not for three years, not for a decade or a generation, but for generations upon generations and decades after decades, and there has been no substantive action to this point.

The issue through three governments has been a follow-up, a very slow process with the RHPA. It has finally come to legislation. The amendments to the RHPA, this specific issue, this specific bill, are finally coming to our attention and to our Legislature.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is acting. As legislators it is our duty, the duty of all of us, to act in the public's best interests, to act here in the interests of those professions, yes, but also of those many, many victims of abuse by professionals. It is important for us to establish codes that regulate those professions and ensure that such abuse does not occur. It's a responsibility of all of us when we are here in this chamber to act not simply as members of the governing party, the third party or the opposition in a way that reflects partisan politics, but particularly in a bill such as this, to act in a way which reflects well upon our community and upon our Legislature.

I worked for many years with adults who were molested as children. I saw them not only in the day, but every week I spent an evening with groups. It is essential for people like these, who have been abused in a rigid and totalitarian way, that they have people who are flexible and accessible to them.

It is essential that they have someone who will spend that time in the evening with them, just as I did for many years. At the end of those evenings -- they were very, very difficult group sessions -- I was usually exhausted and tired; so are we here, but we owe it to those many women -- I say women because most of the people involved are women -- to sit those extra hours in committee to hear their testimony. Just as caring mental health professionals do, so do we. It is to our credit that we should be doing that too. Frankly, if we do not have that flexibility, if we do not have that accessibility to those victims, I think it reflects badly upon us.

At this point, to cut off debate, to not allow people that access during evening hours, is a bad reflection upon our institution. That's why I am supporting this motion to allow people the opportunity to come before our committee to express their concerns.

1610

These are people some of whom were abused decades and decades ago by professionals. These are people, and I know many of the people personally, who have been shut out by those very colleges that are now being reformed, and they need to be heard. They need to be heard on their terms as much as is possible. They need to have that access, that flexibility, that opportunity to express themselves to a trusting person. That is what happened to them for the most part when they were abused. That trust has been abused and it takes a long time to restore it.

When I speak of those many, many people whom I know, I know them by name. I know them as Josephine, I know them as Nancy, and I know a few of the men as well. Their tragedies should not be repeated. I think it behooves us to rise above partisan politics and to afford them security and a trusting environment with professionals, something that will not be offered if we just drag this on. They need that access and they need to know that after 10 years of debate on these issues, they will have the security of a regulated health profession wherein they will be able to make full complaints and have appropriate hearings and have supports.

At a partisan level -- I'm a member of a profession that's not recognized in this group -- I could say this bill should not go forth because our profession, social work, is not recognized, and it is after all the profession that works most closely with these people. But I'm also a legislator and I know it's in the best interests of most clients that while perhaps some professions are not recognized, some are.

If they have those protections -- and hopefully some day our government will move forward to offer protections across the board to all such people -- when these people have been molested, have been abused, they need those protections and they need that security. I think it would be shameful for us to be rigid and inflexible when people who have been so abused need that access.

I hope that the members of the Legislature will reconsider a partisan approach to such an important issue and allow this bill and this debate to move forward.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Il me fait plaisir de parler sur l'avis du gouvernement, qui veut encore une fois limiter le débat en Chambre.

Je crois que c'est devenu une pratique du gouvernement actuel de limiter le droit de parole, la démocratie non seulement dans cette Chambre mais devant le grand public qui veut se présenter devant nos comités pour s'expliquer, et en plus de ça, pour nous donner des idées pour mieux améliorer les lois dont nous sommes responsables dans cette Chambre.

Encore un fois, c'est une journée sombre, je le répète, dû au fait que le gouvernement actuel a obligé, a mis en place ces mêmes limites pour la Loi 47. On l'a fait pour la Loi 8 sur les casinos, on limite les débats, aujourd'hui on parle de la Loi 100 et la semaine dernière on voulait faire exactement la même chose avec la Loi 77.

Imaginez-vous lorsqu'un gouvernement ou un député du gouvernement exige que, «Oui, nous allons présenter un projet de loi en Chambre, mais par contre, nous voulons avoir la garantie que ce projet de loi sera passé le plus tôt possible.»

Alors, je me souviens, et je suis sûr que vous vous souvenez des grands débats sur l'assurance-automobile lorsque le gouvernement et l'opposition du temps faisaient face à ce genre d'obstruction. La loi a été changée en 1991 pour accommoder le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, le gouvernement actuel, pour lui donner les pouvoirs nécessaires pour passer sa législation, et je crois qu'un gouvernement majoritaire a le droit d'employer ces lois-là.

Mais par contre, lorsqu'on dévie -- et moi j'appelle ça dévier de la loi -- lorsqu'on emploie d'autres moyens pour faire passer un projet de loi quelconque qui empêchent les gens de pouvoir s'exprimer, je ne peux pas accepter ça. C'est inacceptable, en 1993, pour un gouvernement qui a été élu sur ses bonnes promesses.

Pourtant, en 1990, ce gouvernement, qui parlait d'un gouvernement ouvert, qui parlait d'un gouvernement démocratique, qui voulait que le petit des communs ait accès non seulement à l'édifice mais à toutes les lois et ait accès surtout à nos comités pour qu'on entende ces gens qui sont satisfaits ou mécontents des projets de loi -- je crois que ça reflète le manque de respect que ce gouvernement-là a aujourd'hui envers notre institution, notre Chambre lorsqu'on met les blocs, comme on dit en bon français, lorsqu'on empêche les gens de s'exprimer. C'est devenu, je le répète, une pratique qu'on veut pratiquer tous les jours.

Je comprends que Noël approche et que les députés néo-démocrates veulent retourner à la maison. Mais par contre, nous avons des Conservateurs et nous avons des Libéraux qui fêtent Noël mais Noël est seulement le 25 décembre. Présenter une telle résolution, une motion en Chambre aujourd'hui voulant limiter les débats du projet de loi 100 est inacceptable.

En plus de ça, comme vous le savez, les trois partis s'échangent une liste prioritaire de projets de loi à venir dans cette Chambre. La chose a été faite en septembre, et aujourd'hui on s'aperçoit que le gouvernement ne respecte pas sa propre liste prioritaire.

Jour après jour, on ajoute des projets de loi qui n'ont jamais fait partie de cette liste prioritaire-là. C'est une marque contre notre institution. Nous, les politiciens et les fonctionnaires, sommes critiqués tous les jours par les gens de l'Ontario que nous sommes inefficaces, qu'on ne peut pas nous faire confiance et que ce sont des jeux, comme celui d'aujourd'hui, qui donnent aux politiciens et aux politiciennes, qui doivent vraiment être responsables de leurs actions, le mauvais nom.

Un gouvernement qui n'a pas d'agenda saute de crise en crise. Les gens de l'Ontario vont se souvenir de l'injustice qui se passe aujourd'hui et de l'injustice qui se passe à peu près dans tous les projets de loi. Je siège au sein de plusieurs comités et on présente des projets de loi. Le projet de loi n'est même pas accepté en deuxième lecture, qu'on lui présente une dizaine ou une trentaine --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe West on a point of order.

Mr Jim Wilson: I don't mean to interrupt my honourable colleague. However, with an issue of such importance before the House, I believe the government should have a quorum in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please check to see if indeed we have a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1620

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present.

Le Président suppléant : Le député d'Ottawa-Est peut continuer sa délibération.

M. Grandmaître : Je ne vais pas recommencer et perdre le temps des gens mais par contre, je le répète : lorsqu'un gouvernement exclut la participation du public et exclut la participation des députés de cette Chambre, ce gouvernement n'est pas responsable de ses actions, c'est sûr, mais n'est pas responsable en Chambre. Ça, c'est important.

Comme je le disais tantôt, on nous présente des projets de loi en comité et la deuxième lecture n'est pas encore terminée qu'on nous présente une dizaine ou une trentaine de modifications. Imaginez-vous, puis sans règlements : les règlements, ça va venir plus tard. Quand la Loi sera passée, alors là on va encore changer les règlements sans revenir en Chambre pour en donner des explications.

J'allais dire que c'est malhonnête, mais ce n'est pas acceptable -- le mot n'est pas acceptable, je crois, en Chambre -- qu'un gouvernement ait ce pouvoir-là, ait cette liberté de conduire, de gérer ce gouvernement de la façon dont il le fait.

Le gouvernement néo-démocrate, le gouvernement ouvert au peuple, à tous ces gens-là, limite encore une fois et met en menottes, rend muets les gens qui veulent participer. C'est inacceptable, en 1993, une telle action d'un gouvernement néo-démocrate.

Pourtant, lorsque M. Rae était dans l'opposition, et vous en avez été témoins, on sentait qu'on pouvait avoir confiance en M. Rae parce que M. Rae avait les réponses à tous les problèmes qui existaient en Ontario. Il avait les solutions. Pourtant, on le voit agir depuis l'élection de 1990, et je sympathise avec lui parce qu'il fait face à une situation financière très difficile qui n'a pas été causée par l'Ontario. C'est un problème global, mondial. Mais par contre, lorsqu'on voit le gouvernement présenter ou tenter de présenter des projets de loi pour venir en aide aux gens qui souffrent dans la province de l'Ontario, on s'aperçoit que le gouvernement a très peu de solutions, et je le répète, de crise en crise.

En 1993, si le gouvernement de M. Rae tente de passer les menottes à tout le monde, de nous dire que pour chaque loi nous allons avoir un temps limite pour les discussions, ce n'est pas un gouvernement néo-démocratique, ce n'est pas un gouvernement démocratique. Il devrait changer son nom.

Je vais demeurer en Chambre pour entendre les membres du gouvernement qui vont débattre cet avis, qui vont appuyer cet avis et dire que c'est une bonne chose de dire aux gens de l'Ontario : «Nous avons un gouvernement majoritaire en place et merci bien pour l'élection de 1990. Nous n'avons pas besoin de vous.» C'est une insulte et c'est une injustice qu'on fait aujourd'hui.

Le Président suppléant : Je remercie l'honorable député d'Ottawa-Ouest pour sa participation. Further debate?

Mr Grandmaître: Ottawa East.

Le Président suppléant : Ottawa-Est, excusez. The honourable member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's another sad day for democracy in the province of Ontario. As the member for Ottawa West has pointed out so eloquently -- Ottawa East, excuse me. It's much like my riding; they get Simcoe East and West mixed up.

As the member for Ottawa East has so eloquently pointed out, Bob Rae would certainly not have put up with this type of behaviour from a governing party during his many, many days and years in opposition. It seems to me that the government's intent is to pass this legislation as quickly as possible. I will get to the machiavellian reason for that; I will get to the truth in this House.

But I do want to say that if their objective is to truly debate this bill and to hear from all of the stakeholders, to hear from victims, from survivors of sexual abuse, to hear from health care professionals, then I do not understand why we have this closure motion, why they want to close down debate. It seems to me that any logical person would see that that's certainly a contradiction and would see that the truth of the matter is that the government doesn't want victims or survivors of sexual abuse to actually read what is in the legislation.

This has to be unprecedented.

We have had two days of committee, Monday and Tuesday of this week. The first day was spent on strictly ministerial briefings, with no public or stakeholder input whatsoever. It was simply the minister beginning with what I thought was a rather eloquent and comprehensive statement of this legislation, and then we had briefings from the bureaucrats and a brief chance to ask the bureaucrats and the government lawyers questions about the legislation. But there was no public allowed on Monday.

On Tuesday, just yesterday, we finally got to hear from half a dozen groups, which, I may add, only represented health care professionals. That was the first day. We've yet to even hear from the survivors of sexual abuse, from their advocates, from their families, from their friends, from our families, our friends, and from our constituents. We've yet to actually hear from individuals of the public who know because they've lived through the trauma of sexual abuse; they know of its devastating consequences on their lives and on their family lives. Yet we have the government bringing in a motion to close down debate, to censor and close down the committee hearing process.

All of the evidence, in the short hearings we had yesterday, indicates that there are a lot of significant flaws in this legislation. In particular I remember the Ontario Chiropractic Association and the Board of Directors of Chiropractic passionately making the plea that we must come to consensus on some of the outstanding concerns that are still out there with respect to this legislation, and that consensus will take more time.

We're not talking about delaying the implementation or passage of this legislation for weeks and months. We are talking about a few more days. I think it's rather childish for the government House leader to have brought in this closure motion to once again censor and close down our right to debate what has to be one of the most important pieces of health care legislation to ever come forward in this province.

The point was made by the chiropractic association yesterday that if we don't get this bill right during this round, it may be at least another decade before this Parliament will once again revisit this issue and open up the Regulated Health Professions Act. That indeed very much concerns me, because if we don't get it right, my view, standing here today and from what I heard yesterday in the short hearings we had, is that if this bill is to proceed as written it may in fact have the effect of backfiring on the survivors of sexual abuse, on the victims themselves. I think that's an extremely serious point.

At the outset, I want to reiterate in this House the philosophy of my party, the Ontario PC Party, and where we stand with respect to the entire issue of sexual abuse. In particular with this legislation, the issue concerns sexual abuse by health care practitioners on their patients.

1630

Our party, as you know, Mr Speaker, has repeatedly expressed our full commitment to a philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors and other health professionals.

Since the release in 1991 of the final report of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, members of the PC caucus have supported improvements to both the responsiveness of the college's process and services for survivors. Our party believes that legislative measures to proceed towards the goal of zero tolerance are absolutely necessary.

The steps taken to remedy the problems identified in the work of the task force -- and I give full credit to Marilou McPhedran for the work of the task force and the College of Physicians and Surgeons for having initiated that task force and stuck with it. Indeed, actually to this point it has implemented the vast majority of the recommendations that were made by that task force.

But those problems that were identified must be further explored. Some were left unresolved. We have to be able to do so in a sensitive and timely fashion, and I agree with the government on that point.

But I will tell you that to bring in a closure motion after only one day of public hearings is absolutely unprecedented. It makes my blood boil. In fact, if the government's idea of this motion is to actually have us consulting, I want the government to know right now that I've had to cancel meetings this afternoon so that I can waste time in this Legislature debating this absolutely draconian motion.

Earlier this week, they closed down debate on photo-radar because they don't want the public to know that it's simply a cash grab. It will generate about $100 million in its first year. We have a government official in one of the government's own publications -- this was brought up by the member for York Mills yesterday -- indicating that indeed it is one of the most creative revenue generators this government has ever thought of; ie, it's one of the most creative taxes that this government or any government in the history of Ontario ever came up with. I am opposed to that initiative.

Last week, we had the government bring in a closure motion, close down debate on the issue and the legislation dealing with casino gambling, that from a party that was totally opposed to casino gambling -- in the past and believed it was a tax on the poor. I think they were right in that regard, that those who can least afford to gamble away their money are the ones who disproportionately end up spending their money on gambling. But no, the government didn't want to hear from the public on that particular issue, so it jammed that one through the Legislature.

Last year we saw the government change the rules of this House. I think it's unfortunate the public isn't fully aware of the constraints we're already under as a result of the new rules the NDP brought in. We're extremely limited in our ability to debate any issue and any piece of legislation. But no, the government's not satisfied with that type of gutter politics; it decides that it has to also, on a continual basis, every week now, bring in closure motions and close down debate.

They are bringing in a closure motion here today and we haven't even had debate with respect to this issue. It's absolutely mind-boggling. In fact, I never thought I'd see the day when a government, without actually having any debate, brings in the motion to close down debate. You tell me, Mr Speaker, whether that makes any sense whatsoever.

It's no wonder to me that these people are at 13% by some polls, 6% in the federal polls. The NDP party is not interested in listening in any way to the people of Ontario. They are not interested in any way, in my opinion, in allowing survivors of sexual abuse the time to thoroughly read this legislation, the time to go through it in a thoughtful way. It will take days to do that, and they're not allowing us the time to do that.

As I said, to be clear, yesterday when we came up to vote on the closure motion with respect to photo-radar we had to leave the committee for the 20 minutes it took to come up here and vote. We left three groups in abeyance until such time as we could get back down to committee. Committee members agreed to ignore the clock at 6 o'clock yesterday and to extend those committee hearings until just around 7 o'clock so we could hear from the groups that had been scheduled to appear. We did that as a gesture of goodwill. We didn't want to inconvenience the groups.

We had to come up here and then we found out that we had to vote on a closure motion on photo-radar, at the exact same time the government House leader was tabling today's closure motion on Bill 100, on an issue that is of utmost importance to all of the people of this province. They don't even want debate. The closure motion itself says that regardless -- and I want to read this. I think it's really important. It says in the NDP's motion:

"The committee" -- that's our committee -- "shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided," -- the date dictated -- "the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House."

I want survivors of sexual abuse and everyone in the province to be clear that regardless of what we do in the few days we have in committee downstairs, whether or not we're finished clause-by-clause, whether or not we have fixed the bill -- and we're told by both survivors and by health care professionals that the bill is in desperate need of being fixed -- whether or not we've done that, this government doesn't care, because the report of the committee will be deemed to be reported to the House and passed by the House.

It's mind-boggling. I can't think of a more polite term. I can think of a lot of terms that aren't as polite. Once the report comes up, Big Brother, who has already made up its mind on this, doesn't want to hear about these committee hearings. They don't want to hear from survivors. I'll get to why they don't want to hear from survivors in just a couple of minutes, because I think you'll hear a pin drop in this House when I express what's really going on here.

They don't want to hear from survivors because they'll pass this motion at a quarter to 6 tonight, regardless of what that committee does. That's an absolute insult to the dozens of groups and individuals scheduled to appear at that committee. It doesn't matter what you say, because this government's already decided what the bill's going to look like in its final form. If the committee isn't finished its business, well, it doesn't matter; the report will be carried by this House.

To add insult to injury, it says that only two hours will be allotted for third reading of the bill -- two hours. We can't fix the bill in committee; regardless of what we do there, it's a done deal. It comes up here, it goes through the motions here and if there are any absolutely outstanding issues from survivors of sexual abuse at that point which they feel absolutely must be dealt with, because they feel they're being run over roughshod by the health care professions or whatever, we get two hours of debate and no mention that the bill will be opened up here on the floor of the House.

It's just been a consistent pattern of not wanting to hear from the people of the province. I don't know why the government doesn't wake up. I've no idea why they don't want to hear from the people of the province. As far as I can tell, in dealing with a number of the NDP members, they simply feel their job is to come here and warm the benches.

In my riding I have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health next door, over in Barrie and Simcoe Centre. My 1-800 line for my constituency goes into his riding. His constituents can use it. I get more calls from that NDP member's riding where people have said, "We can't get an appointment with him," or, "We had an appointment. He told us he was a lawyer and he didn't know much about health," or, "He didn't know much about social services."

I'm doing about a third of that gentleman's constituency work on top of the 90,000 or 80,000 constituents I have to deal with. It's my pleasure to do so, but I also now have the added responsibility of dealing with many of the constituents in Simcoe Centre. They have told me -- I didn't think of the line -- their independent opinion is that he must be simply there to warm the benches, because he's not there to represent the people of Simcoe Centre and the city of Barrie area. I say to them, that is simply reflected in today's, yesterday's, last week's, last year's and last month's closure motions. They don't want to hear from the province of Ontario.

Remember, they were the party that always knew best. You couldn't outgreen them; you couldn't outsmart them; you couldn't outdo anything. In all-candidates meetings in the last election, they had all the answers. They're just running roughshod right over the people of Ontario.

1640

What we're talking about again is simply pleading with the government for a few more days, and those committee sitting days may actually go into the month of January. I'm perfectly prepared to cancel any plans I might have had in early, late or mid-January to come back to this Legislature in a thoughtful way, to sit in committee and to hear from the people of this province. That's my commitment to the survivors of sexual abuse and it should be the government's commitment, but no, it's not interested in hearing from anybody on this stuff.

The government I think is desperate to pass this legislation because there are a couple of really serious outstanding issues. I worked closely with Marilou McPhedran and she will back that up. During the months and hundreds of hours we spent dealing with the original bill, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, we worked very hard to bring in amendments at that time to deal with the issue of sexual abuse by health care practitioners.

Those amendments, I must say, were defeated by the government members in committee and, unfortunately, the Liberal members at that time voted against those amendments that I brought forward to that particular bill.

We worked very hard, and the report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients by the College of Physicians and Surgeons made it very clear that one of the things that absolutely must be included in this legislation is that when a physician or a health care practitioner is convicted and found guilty of committing sexual abuse, the fine the province levies against that health care practitioner, the money from that fine, should go into what at that time we were calling a victims compensation fund and in this legislation before us is called the therapy and counselling fund; that the money from those fines should go into the pool of money to assist survivors of sexual abuse to get the counsel and therapy they need to help get their lives back in order after such a traumatic experience, and often experiences, in their lives.

Lo and behold, I don't think the government wants the people of Ontario, in particular survivors, to know it's going to get rich on the issue of the sexual abuse of patients. Under this legislation, fines will be levied against those found guilty of committing sexual abuse. Those fines will go to the government of Ontario and not into the survivors compensation fund. The fines are pretty hefty: $25,000, up to $35,000. It's $35,000 every time a doctor or a health professional is found guilty, convicted and fined, and that money goes to Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae and Dr Ruth Grier. It doesn't go to help survivors; it doesn't go at all.

One of the fundamental recommendations coming out of the task force report a couple of years ago was that that fine money should go to help survivors. The government shouldn't be getting rich on the backs of the victims of sexual abuse, and that's what this legislation does. I think that is abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent.

For years the government told us, when it was in opposition, that it was always possible to have legislation where fines could go into designated funds to help, in this case, the survivors of sexual abuse. They've done a complete 180-degree turn on this one. They have decided in their lack of wisdom that, no, that money can't go to survivors, that it should go to the treasury of Ontario, and it'll be spent on roads and bridges or driving day care operators out of business or driving small business out of business -- all that ideological stuff the government is wasting the taxpayers' money on. That's where the money is going to go from the fines.

I tell you, it's disgusting, absolutely disgusting. It's gutter politics, and I think they were trying and they are trying to ram this legislation through so that survivors of sexual abuse won't catch on to that.

They provided me with the opportunity today, in a rather machiavellian way, to make that point public before the people of Ontario. I hope, in what limited committee time we have available, that people will get down here and give the government a blast about that point, because it is unconscionable, it is immoral, it is wrong. It is not something the government said it would do.

The other point with respect to the therapy and counselling fund is that the colleges of the health care professions, and there are 24 regulated health care professions, themselves will have to pay for the up to $10,000 worth of counselling and therapy that victims or survivors of sexual abuse will be entitled to.

The reason we have to absolutely look at this part of the bill is not only that the government is going to get rich on the backs of survivors but, secondly, some of the smaller new colleges, like massage therapists, for example -- they made this point yesterday very briefly in the 10 minutes they had before the committee. You're representing a whole college and you get 10 minutes -- it's disgusting -- and a new college at that, a newly regulated profession, one we fought so hard to have regulated two years ago and one that all three parties agreed to as part of the Regulated Health Professions Act in reregulating and making new colleges for the 24 regulated health professions. That small college isn't going to be able to afford to compensate or have enough money to ensure that the survivors of sexual abuse receive the therapy and counselling they're entitled to under this legislation.

Here's the point: If this is not changed, some of those smaller colleges said to us that it will be a disincentive for them to actually seek out and convict their members who may be committing sexual abuse. That is an extremely serious point that was made to us yesterday: that if corrections are not made to this legislation, there may be a disincentive to actually get rid of the problem and to deal with the problem of sexual abuse. What kind of legislation is that? It's ridiculous legislation, and they'd better fix it. But this motion today says to me they're not really interested in fixing that point either, so it may actually backfire on the survivors themselves.

The third point with respect to this is that, to me, there's an inherent conflict of interest on behalf of the actual health care practitioners' colleges themselves. From beginning to end of a sexual abuse complaint -- to conviction, if that's what it results in, to discipline, to fining, other than that the money goes to the government, to compensating the victims -- they are in charge of the entire process. So when you have them coming to you and saying, "If you don't get this right, we actually might not have the greatest incentive in the world to seek out those who are committing sexual abuse," you have to take it seriously because the public, the victims of sexual abuse, have no other avenue but to go to that college, to go to the alleged perpetrators' own college and seek a remedy there and try and get the compensation and the discipline on the offending member etc.

To me, there's a transparent conflict of interest, and it is in part also because of the definition of sexual abuse that the government has come up with. I want to talk about that in a minute. But that's an extremely serious matter.

Now I do want to say that --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if we do have a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe West may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Jim Wilson: I was talking about the possible disincentive here of the colleges themselves and their members to seek out and stop sexual abuse if the bill isn't fixed. In my heart of hearts I want to say that because these are professional, self-regulating colleges, I would hope that would never happen. But I found it an absolutely astonishing statement that was made yesterday in the limited committee hearings we have had.

1650

What we're talking about is the ability to reach consensus and, my goodness, if there was somebody in this House who talked about the need to reach consensus, who talked about fairness until it was nauseating those of us in the opposition, it was Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party. I don't think they can read a dictionary. I don't think they know what fairness means. Fairness, to me, doesn't mean bringing in closure so you don't hear from the people of Ontario; it means taking all the time you need to get it right. It means taking a piece of legislation out to the people of Ontario and saying to them, "We know there are some problems with this legislation and we think you're important." We think the people of Ontario are extremely important, and that's why we are here, not to serve our parties, not to serve the NDP, not to be self-serving, but to represent the people of Ontario.

When I ran, I made it very clear to my constituents and they made it very clear to me that they were not going to send someone to Queen's Park or to Ottawa who simply returned on weekends and lectured to them about what was good for them. With this closure motion, you are lecturing to victims and survivors of sexual abuse what's good for them. If the bill isn't fixed, it's going to backfire on the very people it's intended to help. When you have professions saying there are disincentives to stop sexual abuse in this legislation, you've got a very serious problem.

We are looking for a consensus. We have demonstrated our commitment to zero tolerance with respect to the issue of sexual abuse. I will not put up with a government that tries to spin anything but the truth, and the truth is that my colleague from Parry Sound, Ernie Eves, was the only member to bring forward a private member's bill which tried to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. You're playing catch-up with my party with respect to this issue.

Zero tolerance is the goal and you're not going to get zero tolerance in this legislation if you don't fix it. You can't fix the legislation if you close down the damn committee. So listen up, over there, in the three minutes I have left, and learn something, for goodness' sake. The people of this province are absolutely fed up with you people lecturing them about what's good for them.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: How can you sit here and talk about the health care system and blow a blood vessel at the same time?

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: I don't think that is funny at all, given that if I do blow a blood vessel, I'm going to have to join the ever-increasing waiting list to get any treatment in this province.

Rather than debating closure motions, for goodness' sake, you should be dealing with the health care system in this province, rather than frankly wasting our time here in this Legislature because you don't want to hear from the people of this province.

Democracy requires participation from the people. You are denying every democratic right. You're denying everything that Aristotle and Hobbes and the fathers of democracy talked about when they invented this system. You have a responsibility and an oath, which by the way they try to get rid of every once in a while, Mr Speaker, to God and to Her Majesty the Queen to serve the people of this province; not to serve yourselves, not to go home and lecture your constituents.

You have an absolute responsibility to hear from the people of this province and to act on their concerns, not your own ideological crap. You have to listen to what the people of this province want. You have to listen to the victims of sexual abuse, and we're not going to get the opportunity to do that in any meaningful way because you're closing down the committee after one day of public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Durham East.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think I have a point of order that we are honourable members in this House and we use temperate language. I do not like the term used, calling the government or suggesting that our policy is crap. I ask that the member withdraw that.

The Acting Speaker: It's bordering on being unparliamentary. Would the honourable member please contain himself.

Mr Jim Wilson: I agree, in the theory of democracy as put forward by the fathers of democracy, Parliament is to contain honorary members, but I have to stretch my generosity to believe that the members of the NDP government side are honorary members.

I give it to them because tradition states that I must, but I tell you, when you don't want to hear from the people who elected you, when you don't want to hear from labour, when you don't want to hear from your traditional friends who spent money and time in your ridings to put you here -- there was a huge labour demonstration, like none I've seen in my life, out front today against the NDP.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I've seen better ones than that.

Mr Jim Wilson: You have not. You haven't seen a demonstration like that from labour against the NDP.

I simply say in conclusion, it is a very sad day for democracy, a very sad day indeed. This is a serious bill, a bill that may not be open for another decade, and I tell the government, you better get this legislation right, and closure is not the way to go.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I am so tempted to start off in such a histrionic way, but I feel that perhaps I can do the same as the honourable member has done before me and build to the histrionics.

I don't get to rise in the House very much and I will tell you that --

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: Mr Stockwell's yelling already. There are times when I get up and make a statement --

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: Mr Wilson is now yapping. There are times when I get up in the House and they yell over at me and they say: "Why don't you debate, Karen? Why don't you debate?" Well, let me tell you, I wish you'd let me more often. The truth of the matter is --

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: Yes, you. Yes, you. The truth of the matter is that they make deals --

The Acting Speaker: Please, please, members. I would like you to control yourselves.

Mrs Haslam: I was just mirroring. The truth of the matter is that they make deals. The House leaders get together and they make deals and then they break them. We've been asked time and time again, "Would you give up your debating time to allow the opposition your time, to allow the opposition extra time to put their comments on the record?" and we say, "Yes, that's fine," and then they break it.

Then they stand over there, and I know, I've heard them before, and they say, "The New Democrats don't want to debate this issue. Nobody wants to get up and debate this issue," when the truth of the matter is, we've given up our time so that they can use our time to put their things on the record.

I'm here to work for the people of Ontario. I'm not here to throw histrionic fits. I'm not here to grandstand. I'm not here to do sidewalk theatrics. I don't like to play games. But I can't understand where they take that debating time, where I've given up my debating time. With 66 of us, it's very difficult sometimes to get on the debating list.

There are times when I haven't had an opportunity to debate a very important issue that I want to. But when I take a look around here, maybe debating with two Tories and three Liberals who aren't going to change their minds, who, in the case of Mr Wilson, aren't even listening, to allow me the opportunity to debate, to allow me the opportunity to put my ideas forward, I ask myself why I bother sometimes.

Maybe it is more helpful for me to be in my riding doing the work that's very, very important or it's more important to be meeting with my constituents here in Toronto or working on the committees. I share the committee with Mr Wilson, as a matter of fact. I share that committee that's looking at that very important piece of legislation. But I look around and ask myself, am I talking only to the committed over here when there aren't any members here to listen to debate.

I don't believe in standing up only to be put on the record so I can cut it out and mail it to friends and relatives. I believe if you're going to debate, if you're going to work in this House, you should work at something you have a chance at changing. I believe strongly in the committee structure, because that is where a lot of the work is done. A lot of the changes are done in the committee, not standing here talking to five people.

1700

They were talking about being extremely limited in their chance for debate. In 90 minutes for the first speaker and in 30 minutes for every speaker after that, if you can't get your points across, then I question your ability to get your point across in 90 minutes or in 30 minutes. Having three members stand up and say exactly the same thing doesn't change a lot.

With all due respect -- and Mr Wilson is leaving. He doesn't want to hear the rest of my debate.

Mr Jim Wilson: You're right.

Mr Hope: He said you're right.

Mrs Haslam: I know he said I'm right, and he's gone, and that leaves one poor Tory. I'm talking to one Tory.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we need more people for her to talk to.

Mrs Haslam: I do too.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe we should call a quorum.

Mrs Haslam: Perhaps Mr Wilson will join us now.

The Acting Speaker: Will the clerk check to see if we have a quorum, please.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Perth may resume her participation in the debate.

Mrs Haslam: It strikes me as passing strange that they call quorum and can't even get two Tories in the House on a quorum call. This party has been saying: "This is very important to us. We want to hear the debate. We want to partake in the debate. We want to listen to victims." We can't even get two of them to sit on committee. They send one, and the other one says, "See you later, buddy."

Well, I'm sorry. You can't come in here and throw a temper tantrum and say we're not listening, and then get up and not listen to the opposition's point of view. You can't say it's not fair and then have one in committee to listen. I'm sorry, I just find that very hard to believe.

The committee we were talking about was inviting people to come and talk to us, and we had scheduled them at 3:30. It was delaying tactics in this House that held up that committee meeting. We had to sit over there and wait for delay tactics to go through here on a point of order, on a point of privilege, on a point of this or that. None of them were of any validity, and we sit waiting in a committee room to hold these committee hearings while the shenanigans and the games go on in this House.

I really don't appreciate the games and I think enough is enough. I think it's time we said, "We've had our chance." We've worked two years on this particular piece of legislation. It's been held up time and time again in committee. It's in second reading. We offered to go to night sittings for the committee. We offered to extend the time. No, that wasn't good enough. It will come back in for third reading. We're making very good progress in the committee. We're listening to people. There are amendments coming out of that committee. That's where a lot of work is being done, and I think that's very important. The time will come when it will come back into the House for third reading, and we'll have spent a lot of time.

But to carry on this charade with five people is ridiculous. I think it is time to say to the people of Ontario, "We're here to legislate, we're here to work for you, we're here to get some important pieces through," and this is one of the things we want to get through that's very important. This is a very important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, as you know, because you've dealt with women's issues, this is a very important issue. We're dealing with sexual abuse by professionals, and this game-playing has no place in this particular piece of legislation. We need to work in committees to be sure that legislation is good legislation. We're doing that, and that's where the work seems to be taking place.

As I said before, we make deals; they break deals and deliberately tie up the House. When they tie up the House, maybe taxpayers would like to know that it's $250,000. They're quick to say, "Gee, you can't spend money on this and don't spend money on that, and cut the social programs," and then they stand here -- oops, there's not a Tory left in the House any more, not one, not one Tory in the House. I can see how interested they are in this particular piece of legislation.

I'm really pleased to see Mr Grandmaître, who's been here all day; Ms O'Neill, who's just come in, but she serves on the committee. I know how dedicated she is on this piece of legislation in the committee. I commend them for staying here and listening to our points of debate.

But at $250,000 a day to debate this kind of issue, it is ridiculous to debate holding up legislation. I don't believe in it and I don't believe the taxpayers of Ontario believe in it. I think they ought to start writing in and say, "Get off the pot and get on with the job," because that's where I'm at right now: Get on with the job. I'm sick of this game-playing.

I'm not going to talk long. I'm not going to talk on the legislation per se. I only wanted to have my say on this whole idea of cutting off debate when there are some of us who don't get a chance to debate because we've allowed the extra time to go to opposition members, just to have them turn around with delaying tactics and playing games. I'm just asking for the games to stop. I'm asking for us to get on with the legislation, to get on with the important work we do in committee and to get on with this important piece of legislation.

If it takes closure, then so be it. To my way of thinking, there are a lot of victims out there suffering. I think that if it takes closure on the nonsense that is going on in this House, then that's what we have to do to govern and that's what we'll have to do. I'm going to be voting in favour of this so, as I said, we can get on with the government's business of governing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to speak to the time allocation motion with grave concerns for the direction in which this government is taking the policy development process in Ontario.

Time after time we've seen the NDP majority in this House and in committees of this Legislature stifle debate on issues of serious concern to the members of this House and the constituents we represent. Time after time this government has demonstrated its refusal to listen to dissenting voices. Time after time we've seen the complete denial of any kind of meaningful consultation or debate.

Let me the cite the matter at hand, the recent difficulties we've encountered in the standing committee on social development of which I'm a member. The committee is currently dealing with Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. This important piece of legislation deals primarily with sexual abuse by health care professionals and has far-reaching ramifications in the health care community.

Understandably, many professionals who will be impacted by this bill want to contribute to the debate. The tying of this legislation to the Regulated Health Professions Act has indeed, within itself, increased complexities. Much, much more discussion is necessary on many aspects of the bill. For example, the therapy and counselling fund indeed merits further study and exploration of the alternatives presented by many of the professional groups.

Thousands and thousands of professionals in over 20 practice areas are to be subject to the same definition and are to be subject to the same rules of reporting and compensation of victims, even though their scope of practice and the resources of these professionals are, as everyone knows, less than equal. These health care professionals have spent considerable time and money to prepare briefs and to reschedule their valuable time -- in fact, often keep their patients waiting -- so they can appear before our committee to express their views on this very important piece of legislation.

1710

Yesterday, the very first day of public hearings, and may I add, before we had knowledge that there were going to be some evening sittings permitted, each professional association was allocated a meagre 15 minutes before a committee of this Legislature on such an important initiative. The Chair, working within these very limiting parameters, offered the opportunity for one question per presentation, time permitting. Thus, each caucus -- not each member but each caucus -- had the ability to place one question every 45 minutes.

Presenters, who were all either health care professionals or legal counsel, with the cumulative experience of thousands of years, were limited to 15 minutes to present concerns, alternatives and suggested amendments on this all-embracing, significant piece of legislation.

It's an understatement that the presenters were thus unable to bring forward their views as completely as they would have wished. In fact, many presented executive summaries or very condensed versions of their briefs. In addition, as I've already indicated, the members of the committee were unable to adequately pose their questions to the presenters, questions that would have helped both Ontarians and this Legislature to clarify and understand very complex issues from the professional point of view.

I would like to quote from one of the presenters at yesterday's hearings. In total frustration, this presenter said:

"You have heard from the Coalition of Regulatory Colleges, an organization born out of frustration, because the pleas of the professionals to participate in meaningful consultation were ignored, as were the pleas of other stakeholders. Never before in the history of...Ontario has there been need for a coalition" of professionals.

This gentleman went on to say: "We are all sincere in our desire to have an effective system of health care regulation and in our desire to address the issue of sexual abuse of patients by health care providers. However, a few days of committee hearings are not sufficient to address the serious concerns of those who wish to address you. I have 10 minutes to express the board's concerns, and you have that much time to hear them." That's important. "The board is concerned that if Bill 100 goes through, this will have been the only opportunity in this decade," and I thought that was quite a statement, "for anyone to have addressed the issue of sexual abuse by health care providers."

He concludes: "The board is concerned that, because of the faulty process, we may be wasting an opportunity to effectively develop legislation," legislation that would be effective and achieve its purpose.

We've heard this same sense of frustration expressed again and again, both in private and in committee hearings on other bills. Again, stakeholders are being given less than adequate time to play an important part in the development of policy that's going to affect their daily lives.

To add to this general sense of frustration in the Liberal caucus, the committee was presented with the government's amendments this past Monday, two days ago.

There are certainly many professionals who are concerned about the removal of "all exemptions to mandatory reporting." Opportunities to voice these concerns and others are severely limited by this government. The result is, of course, that these health care professionals feel cut out of the process completely. They feel that they have legitimate concerns and they're not being heard, and that this NDP government is putting forward a set of sham hearings on a piece of legislation that is already a fait accompli.

With evening sittings, we hope at least that all who have requested to present, whether individuals or organizations, will now be able to present, to be heard in a meaningful way. The Ontario Medical Association, the College of Dental Hygienists, the College of Optometrists, the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, the Ontario Dental Association and the National Association of Women and the Law until today have not been able to be included in our schedule. These important groups and many others I believe have the right to be heard. They believe they have the right to be heard and we as legislators have the obligation to hear them before we write this legislation in stone.

I ask the members opposite and you, Madam Speaker, is this not the essence of consultation? I mean real consultation, not the kind of consultation that Ontario is now regretfully becoming accustomed to: consultation by invitation only, consultation after the fact, consultation in time frames so narrow that they become meaningless exercises.

I believe that if Ontarians are to have confidence in this government, in its programs, in its legislation, indeed in Bill 100, they must feel that legitimate input was welcomed and was heard.

My caucus and I are happy that more hearings will be possible on Bill 100, a bill which is significant in many, many areas of the health care field. We are, however, less than happy, less than excited, that clause-by-clause examination of this bill, once the hearings are completed, and our debate in third reading, will be very severely limited.

And yet, as I came into the House I heard the previous speaker, the member for Perth, call this debate, a debate on limited debate, a waste of time. How can a member of this House indicate that voicing dissent on limitation of debate, voicing dissent on listening to another position, voicing dissent on not being able to present an amendment to a significant bill, how can a member of the NDP government talk about these things as a waste of time? I find that almost incomprehensible.

The frustration of yesterday's presenters and ourselves as members of Parliament will no doubt be continued as we go through clause-by-clause with its limitations and as we enter a two-hour debate on third reading. The hearings thus become a charade if the ideas, the concerns, the suggestions presented in the hearings have no possibility of being incorporated through amendments into Bill 100. That seems to be the course we are on now with the invocation of closure and with the difficulties of that time limitation in meaningful debate and exchange on the amendment side of this bill.

It seems that the NDP government is hell-bent to march us all in unison to the tune of its very own drummer within its very own time lines into passage of a piece of legislation which leaves many doubts and some fears in the minds of the professionals in this province and indeed in the patients the bill is meant to protect.

1720

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this time allocation motion because it allows me at this time to actually also comment on a number of statements made by the member for Simcoe West.

One of the things that I did want to begin by saying was that, as has been pointed out already, Bill 100 arises out of the McPhedran committee. It met for some time prior to our discussion of the Regulated Health Professions Act, and there were some 20 acts that this package comprised, and that dealt with a range of health care professions.

While we were going through that particular debate, particularly in going through the clause-by-clause section, we made frequent reference to the fact that we were waiting for that report, the McPhedran report, and that we had place holders assigned for the appropriate clauses to deal with the comments relating to the sexual abuse of patients by a range of health care practitioners.

So already during that summer and fall of 1991, the committee members were well aware that the Regulated Health Professions Act would include this type of legislation. In fact we are coming up to January 1, 1994, when this will be promulgated and will become law for the rest of the professions to now act upon.

Some of the professions who came before us yesterday in particular made mention of the fact that the Regulated Health Professions Act arose out of a consensus. I have some memory of the debates and discussions that went on during our deliberations of the Regulated Health Professions Act and I would say that it was by no means complete. The various health care professions did not give complete agreement to each and every clause that was in those some 20-odd acts.

During our deliberations we were in fact lobbied by 20 or more different health care professions, some that currently still remain under the Drugless Practitioners Act, the current Regulated Health Professions Act. There are 24 of them, and we had, during the time that we met as a committee deliberating this, well over 500 submissions from the professions and also some interested consumers.

But to return to the point of consensus, there was not consensus. The deliberations of the committee finally had to deal with a number of, shall we say, the more thorny issues. One of them, actually, I have had to recall, as Mr Wilson, the member from Simcoe West, was going on in a sort of tirade fashion, was the use of the name to describe the profession, the title.

I am here to tell the members who were not sitting on that committee that for some groups the correct name of their profession held an awful lot of weight, and I can assure you that for the chiropractic profession the word "doctor," the name "doctor," had a lot of value. There was a lot of discussion and debate in relation to how the members who practised medicine under the OMA would look at this or how the naturopaths would feel about this.

I don't want to revisit the Regulated Health Professions Act, all nine years' worth of work that Alan Schwartz and three governments and obviously many hundreds of people got involved in, but these issues were very real, in fact still persist, and the consensus has not been achieved.

I think ultimately what it comes down to after many years of discussion -- the McPhedran committee met during 1990-91. We are also talking about the fact that the preparation for Bill 100 now, as we speak today, would basically have taken about two years' worth of time.

So I would say that it is time for some decisions. In fact, as a government committee, our subcommittee in discussing these particular proposals on how people can come before our committee addressed the issue of allotting time to meet the schedule that has been given to all of the professions. They are well aware that January 1 is when all of this will come together, and this particular piece of legislation will have to dovetail with that.

We really and truly have to make that decision. We have been accommodating. We have said we will meet in the evenings. We will work to find the time to deal with the various groups. I have to say, with some disappointment, that not all members of the committee, particularly members of the opposition, have felt that was appropriate. We could have met in July and August. In fact, again that was not allowed because opposition members felt that they would like to meet again with stakeholders to peruse, to discuss, to work with the various stakeholders and try to resolve some issues.

We're now down to the point where we have to deal with the remainder of those issues and make some decisions. It is my opinion, as someone who has worked on a number of these controversial issues, having listened to the debate from the professions -- and now we'll also be hearing members from the consumer-survivor groups -- that we will be able to, as informed laypeople, make that decision, and we will be able to make that decision in a timely manner. It will not require months or years of continued debate. We have had the years of work in preparation to the point where we are today.

I personally cannot meet with the consumer-survivors we will be meeting in the next few days and say to them that we are going to stretch this particular legislation into 1994 and then in fact probably say to them this is going to require a much lengthier time for consideration.

I have to say, personally I was much dismayed at some of the comments from some of the professions yesterday. They knew that I was not happy, because I told them so during our discussion, because I foresaw that the effort was being made to stretch this out for some considerable length of time. It has gone on far too long.

The consumer-survivors want this legislation. They feel very strongly that they need the protection, and I personally agree with them. I think all of us, if we are honest with ourselves, will know from our constituency office experience and our personal friendships that there are people who have encountered these problems. They have not felt strong enough within themselves to take on the system. We have provided a mechanism whereby these people can receive redress and try to put their lives back together.

I believe the time is now. I will vote in favour of this time allocation motion. I encourage all members of the opposition to also recognize that the time is now, in 1993, not in 1994, not in 1995, not in 1996 -- 1993.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to speak to the closure motion which is before the House by once again indicating my concern at the number of closure motions which have been forthcoming from the government House leader and under the NDP government of Bob Rae.

The reason I do that is that in many years gone past Mr Rae entered the House in a by-election when Mr Lewis resigned. Mr Rae became the leader after Mr Cassidy stepped down as leader. I can well recall that he felt very strongly about the fact that the opposition should have the opportunity to fully canvass all the arguments on any of the bills before the House, and he was a very strong defender of that particular opportunity.

1730

We see under his government, however, particularly since the change in rules which he implemented unilaterally, although with the support of the Progressive Conservative Party -- I was very surprised to see that because I would have thought the Progressive Conservative Party would have seen how the government would use this against the opposition and would have opposed it. But on that date they rolled over and played dead, for whatever reason. I don't know whether they wanted to get out of the House for a summer holiday or what it was, but at least they acquiesced to the jackboots which were being applied by the government on that occasion.

I'm concerned about the closure motions because I think they limit legitimate debate. I recognize that a government ultimately might have the opportunity to close down a debate that's been going on a very long period of time. But as I've indicated to the House in days gone by, the purpose of these debates is to canvass public opinion, to make the public aware of what is happening.

All of us have experienced the situation where we have encountered our constituents and they've said, "What is this particular bill all about?" or "How did this bill get passed and I didn't know anything about it?" They are legitimate questions. One of the reasons is that the bills tend to get passed very rapidly in this House.

Sometimes there are hearings. There is going to be a bit of an opportunity for hearings in this case. I think there should probably be more time provided for that, but also I think it's important to provide more time to discuss the amendments that might be brought forward by both the government and the opposition. If the hearings are going to be meaningful, if the hearings are going to be worthwhile, then I think it's exceedingly important for there to be legitimate debate over the amendments that flow from those hearings. That's what makes a bill stronger.

If we want the Parliament to work on a more or less consensus basis rather than a confrontational basis, it's important for the government to be able to accept amendments from its own members who may have some good ideas or from members of the opposition. Sometimes the members of the opposition put them forward at the behest of those who have made appearances before the committee.

I think it's important to at least debate those adequately. The provision of this closure motion really means that there won't be the opportunity for that kind of debate which I think is very healthy for legislation of this kind.

If the House sat a longer period of time, rather than the period of time that Bob Rae, as Premier of this province, has declared it shall sit, we would have more time to canvass the opinions, more time for committees to deal with these matters. But we all recall that when Mr Rae brought in his changes to the Legislature through the then government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, we found that there were a lot of changes. One of those changes was that the House would not sit as many days.

A lot of people out there think that members of Parliament don't work unless the House is sitting. Those of us who are part of this particular chamber know that is not the case, that there's a lot of work that is done in committee and that there's a lot of work that is done within the constituency. Nevertheless, I think they are hopeful that we will be more than glorified social workers, people who are simply servicing the individual needs of our constituents on an ongoing basis, but rather that we will be legislators as well, people who are carefully analysing legislation coming before the House. We are restricted in that by the fact that the government has now decided the House shall sit fewer days than it might otherwise sit.

I think another thing we have to look at is that now ministers have the opportunity to cut off debate when they see fit. In other words, there used to be a lot of negotiations that took place around here between the House leaders of the various parties and there was a consensus arrived at as to what the schedule would be for the purposes of dealing with legislation. Unfortunately, today it appears that the minister shall now arrive in House and simply declare how much debate shall be taking place within the confines of this chamber.

You as Chair, Madam Speaker, sitting in that position, used to have more power. You used to be able to use more discretion to determine, as an independent person, as a person with personal judgement, how much time should be allocated to any piece of legislation or whether in fact enough debate had taken place. While there may have been quarrels from time to time with what a Speaker indicated by way of ruling, there was a general consensus that one should accept that ruling and the House should proceed.

The member for Windsor-Riverside is here, the author -- I shouldn't say he's the author, because it's really the Premier who's the author. But I think "henchman" is probably not a word that's acceptable in the House, so I would say the protégé of the Premier. The member for Windsor-Riverside was summoned to the office of the Premier and told to put the boots to the opposition, to make sure that now the Speaker would not have as much opportunity, and of course they made these rules much more difficult for the opposition.

That's why I'm very concerned, because the member from Riverside as well, as a member of the opposition, used to utilize a good deal of time in criticism of the government, both constructive and less constructive criticism. I appreciated it in those days. It enhanced the debate. It helped the government to change any legislation that required changing. His ideas from time to time might have been accepted; in fact, they were accepted as positive suggestions from time to time.

The governments of the day didn't always close the door on the opposition. Unfortunately, with this kind of motion, with one motion after another of closure, we find that members of this House have their power diminished. At the risk of being repetitious from previous debates on this, because there may be a new audience of government backbenchers and front benchers here today, I keep indicating to you that the new rules and the application of those rules continue to diminish the role and responsibility of the member. In other words, if you're on the government side, you simply become a mouthpiece for the government. You're simply over there to parrot whatever the Premier and his unelected advisers have to say.

That's most unfortunate when that happens, because I think there are probably some good suggestions that would emanate from some of the people who sit on the government side of the House as well as the opposition side. Some of those may come forward at a caucus meeting where the public is not permitted, where the press is not permitted, but those ideas may not get to the floor of the House, and one of the reasons is because we will be confined in the number of hours we can debate. Now we are limited to 30 minutes.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It took you 30 minutes to answer the question when you were in government.

Mr Bradley: As the member from Riverside indicates, there are some occasions when less than 30 minutes will do quite well, thank you. There are other occasions when there should be flexibility so that someone may go beyond the 30 minutes to continue to deal with these matters.

I find it difficult to believe that members of the governing side want to see the former members of this House, unelected, who sit in the Premier's office and advise him have more power than they have, and indeed they do have more power.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What do you mean?

Mr Bradley: The member for Oxford interjects and says, "What do you mean?" I would say that I think the member for Oxford, legitimately elected -- I see a former colleague of mine sitting in the Legislature who must just be appalled at the new rules that have been brought in by a government that contains many people who used to be thinking differently about these rules.

The former member for Oshawa, Mike Breaugh, who is sitting in the gallery today, gave some eloquent speeches in this House on the issue of closure, on the issue of rules, and as a matter of fact, Madam Chair, did an excellent job, as you are doing at the present time, sitting in the Chair. He was considered to be impartial and he was considered to be bright in the ideas that he brought forward. I would only hope that the Premier would consult the former member for Oshawa when he is talking about new rules in this House as opposed to simply others.

The Acting Speaker: On that note -- would you stop the clock for a moment -- I would like to introduce and draw to the attention of the House the former member for Oshawa, Mr Mike Breaugh, who is in the east gallery. Welcome.

1740

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to allow Mike Breaugh to respond to Mr Bradley's speech.

Mr Bradley: I would be more than happy to yield the floor to the distinguished former member of this Legislature, because although I cannot speak for him, I only reflect to the House the views I have heard that if you go to consult Hansard, and there are many on the government side who wish Hansard were burned or -- I guess we can't burn it today -- shredded at the very least -- it is very difficult to be standing in this House today knowing that the member for Oshawa is here with the marvellous views he had about the role of the opposition and the responsibility of individual members.

I think you people in the opposition, opposition in this case being the governing side, should look very carefully at what the people are doing to you on the other side. They just want you to show up to cut the ribbons. They want you to show up to give the government line and everything, whether you agree or don't agree with it. Unfortunately, you don't have enough time to be able to stand in this House and give your true views on issues of this kind.

What we see happening today --

Hon Mr Cooke: Boy, I know what your colleagues said about you when you were in government.

Mr Bradley: -- is less and less power to elected people who are directly accountable to the electorate and more power to the mandarins, more power to the advisers of the Premier, more power even to some of the members, who are elected, the cabinet, who I used to think were all-powerful. But obviously there are people who used to be in government. I think of Mr McClellan who sits behind the government side, Mr Ross McClellan and others who are sitting there.

Hon Mr Cooke: How did you share power when you were in government?

Mr Bradley: The member keeps interjecting. I must be hitting a very raw nerve over there. When I was on the governing side, I always thought the opposition should have those opportunities to speak at some length about matters. I can recall that. I worried at that time about the possibility of people who were advising the cabinet having more power than the members, and that's why I felt it was important that our individual members have more opportunity to speak on matters of this kind.

That is what is happening today. I don't say exclusively in this House. If you look around at various jurisdictions, you will find that more and more the power is going into the hands of unelected people.

If you want to know why the people out there are frustrated, it's because you go to them and say, "It's not my responsibility, it's this board," or, "It's not my responsibility, the judge said this," or, "It's not my responsibility, the unelected people in the Premier's office said this."

Every time you go out to explain a decision, we find that often it isn't the government's responsibility. That power has been given over to others, and so the Attorney General can rise in the House and say, "Well, of course, I can't answer that question because the answer can be provided by somebody else." She's right. The way the system works, in many cases, the power lies with unelected people.

That's why I think when the Premier changes the rules, that's why I think when there are motions of this kind brought forward, every time it happens it diminishes the power of members of this House to bring to the House the viewpoints of their constituents and to try to reflect the constituencies in which they reside.

Some members don't worry about this because they think they're going to be able to get in the cabinet. They think, "If I don't rock the boat, maybe Bob Rae will let me into the cabinet." However, there are other members, my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, who isn't afraid to speak out from time to time, and the member for Wentworth East from time to time indicates his discontent with the government, but even then these people don't get a chance to speak very often because when a closure motion is applied it means that Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, or Mark Morrow, the member for Wentworth East, won't have the opportunity to bring their views to the House. I'm very concerned when they don't have that opportunity.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You know the feeling.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Others are making accusations. I'm having a hard time. There appears to be discontent and dissension within the government ranks. I would hope that wouldn't happen.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You did nothing. You just shoved it down our throats.

Mr Bradley: The Minister of Transportation is here, and I can recall when he was in opposition the viewpoint he held about closure motions, and I agreed with him at the time. When the government would ever talk about this, I would counsel the government House leader to say: "Look, we must provide adequate time for the opposition to be able to canvass the views, and perhaps we'll learn something from more public hearings. Perhaps we'll learn something from members of the opposition who have some good ideas."

I well recall I used to get a lot of advice from the member for Lake Nipigon, now the Minister of Transportation, on Ontario wines. He was very happy to give me counsel and advice in those matters. So I thought this was very helpful.

But when you apply a closure motion, you find out that the bill we're dealing with today won't be able to get the kind of consideration that it might otherwise have. It would be a stronger bill if you gave it that consideration. It would be a better bill. It would be a better explained bill to those who are making representations, because the government spokespersons sitting in the committee would be able to say to the people with questions and representations, "This is why we are moving forward with this particular portion of the bill," and it may be helpful in allaying the concerns of those individuals.

I'm sure there are some in the House here who used to come to legislative committees and were happy that they had the opportunity to make those representations. They were delighted that the government of the day was not applying closure, but allowing time for their views to be presented to the House.

Always there was a good deal of interest in what was being said, and I'm sure this government, when it has people coming before the committees, would want to hear and perhaps make some changes to its legislation or ultimately to the regulations that flow from this legislation when the opportunity presented itself. But that cannot be done when you have a closure motion before the House. That's what prevents the debate from taking place.

The member for Etobicoke West is here. He's another democrat; not a New Democrat but a democrat with a small "d," a lower-case "d," and he recognizes as well that out there people are busy trying to work hard just to make it in our economy presently. They don't have the time to look at the details of legislation. But from time to time they can tune in to the parliamentary channel, to the Ontario Legislature channel, and hear some of the debates.

Sometimes they've been convinced that the government is right. When the government brings forward legislation and various government members have explained it, in fact they may say the government side is right. More often than not, however, they listen to the opposition and say: "Why is the government proceeding with this legislation? Why don't they accept the very reasonable and well-thought-out amendments being proposed by the opposition?" Or indeed, as in the case of the photo-radar bill, "Why don't they simply withdraw the legislation and proceed in a different direction?

All of those opportunities are there when we are allowed to speak extensively, when in committee each of the amendments put forward receives a fair hearing. Even the people who are watching, and there are a number of people who watch this legislative channel, will phone us or phone government members and say: "Why don't you change the legislation in this way? Why don't you amend it in this way?" Sometimes that legislation is strengthened, because believe it or not, not all of the wisdom in Ontario resides in the Ontario Legislature, and particularly in this chamber.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Lambton is interjecting. I know the member for Lambton, being the good person she is, with some good ideas that emanate from Lambton county, would want the opportunity to be able to speak in committee, to listen to the legislation, to listen to the amendments put forward by the opposition and by others, amendments that are often initiated by groups making representations to committees, because she's an open-minded person. She's the kind of person I know who would be prepared to do that; not everybody on the government side is.

Sometimes they get what's called ministeritis. What that does is it prevents them from listening to what people have to say. They may hear physically what is being said, but they don't listen to what is being said by the people who are out there.

1750

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: All kinds of interjections. I'm being shouted down by the government side, but I'm trying to proceed.

The Acting Speaker: Would members come to order. I'm sure you would like to hear what the member has to say.

Mr Bradley: The Speaker is very concerned. She wants order in the House. I think she is a small-d democrat as well as a large-D Democrat, so she understands the importance of the compelling arguments that I'm putting before the House for consideration this afternoon.

I am calling upon the government to withdraw the closure motion. I am calling upon the government to not put other closure motions before the House after so little debate and consideration of a piece of legislation, because my memory of Bob Rae in this House is that he would want that kind of consideration for this legislation.

That is not to say that there aren't good portions of this bill. In fact, I think you would find a consensus among members of the House on many portions of this piece of legislation. There are some contentious items, however, that do require more debate and more opportunity to persuade the government to change its mind so that the legislation will be stronger, so the legislation will be more acceptable to everybody here.

I can recall having to read many petitions in this House that were coming in from people all over the province concerned about the rule changes that Bob Rae had imposed on this Legislature. They were very good petitions. They were excellent petitions. I know that people from Atikokan, people from Terrace Bay, people from Chatham, people from Plympton, people from all over the province were writing to us, sending in petitions, asking that we read the petitions in the House, asking the Premier to reconsider his ill-conceived and arbitrary rule changes.

We're now seeing the culmination of those rule changes in all of the closure motions and all of the time allocation and time limitation motions that are before this House in this session and in previous sessions under the NDP government of Bob Rae.

I can always hope, I suppose, that there are people who will listen. I can always hope that somehow the government House leader will understand that these rules should not be applied in the manner they have suggested. I can always hope that they will consult with the former member for Oshawa, Mike Breaugh, who on so many occasions in the Legislative Assembly committee, in this House, in the justice committee and virtually all committees of the House, and I'm sure within the provincial council of the NDP, made those arguments.

I understand the provincial council is meeting again this weekend. I have not received my invitation to attend the provincial council, but no doubt it will be very interesting. I don't think they'll be allowing the public or the press in, because there will be blood on the floor; no doubt about that. There is a lot of dissension within the NDP.

Interjection: That's your invitation.

Mr Bradley: I have an invitation. The member for Manotick has handed me this invitation, and I will try to make it.

I would like to be there when Mel Swart makes his presentation. You may say, "Why would he bring Mel Swart into this argument?" It's because Mel Swart was a man who stood for the right of the individual legislator to be heard. Mel on many occasions spoke at great length about matters in the House. I remember one day he was so incensed with a government motion of some kind that he actually was ejected from the House. Mr Sterling had to restrain himself, because he saw Mr Swart going by and he was speaking in principle about something.

I know Mel Swart, who has had many interesting things to say about this government in the last year, including calling for the Premier to resign, would be a person who would be very concerned about the kind of closure motion we see before the House this afternoon. That's why I think his successor, the new member for Welland-Thorold, Peter Kormos, does not come into the House to vote on closure motions, because I know he's the kind of person who would believe that opposition members should be able to speak in a detailed sense on legislation before the House.

Now, you ask the question, does this bill have some merit? It does have merit. Is this bill perfect? It is not perfect. Can it be improved considerably? The answer to that question is yes, it can be improved very considerably with input from members on all sides of the House and with more convenient hearings for those who are the consumer groups out there who would like to make representations to members of the Legislature.

I know that not only the members themselves, but staff of the Premier's office and staff of the various ministers and the civil service are there to hear these people make presentations. I have seen, in my experience in this House, the changes that have come about as a result of good ideas that have emanated from both the government and opposition sides and good ideas that have emanated from the general public, particularly those who have taken time to study these matters very carefully.

The member for Lake Nipigon knows I'm right. He smiles over there because he knows I'm right. He must have pangs of conscience bothering him when he sees the government House leader get up in the House and make an announcement that we have yet another closure motion. As a person from an outlying area, from northwestern Ontario, he knows it's important that views from all over Ontario are heard. I was speaking to the person who ran against him last time, who said to me that she was very concerned that he was going to feel the stress of having to live within the rules that Bob Rae had provided for members of this House.

My plea to my friends on the government side -- we don't have the numbers on this side. Combined, we have the percentage of the vote on this side, but we don't have the numbers in this House and we don't have that opportunity to be able to defeat the government on this. So I simply appeal to reason, I appeal to fairness, I appeal to the sense of democracy that might exist on the government benches.

I appeal to them to withdraw the closure motion. I appeal to them to change the rules which permit this kind of closure motion to be imposed on this House. I appeal to them to be more conciliatory, to, as the public say, work together as people of various parties to bring forward the kind of legislation which can meet the feelings and the agreement of all people in this province.

Unfortunately, we will not have that. We won't have as many people appearing before the committee as we could have to make their presentation. We won't have the opportunity to discuss the opposition amendments in the kind of detail they require, and we won't have that because the government House leader has decided we will not have that.

We all know -- perhaps some in the House don't, but most of us know that the government House leader gets his orders from the Premier's office. That's where they always emanate from. The Premier rules supreme, and he gets most of his advice from those who are not elected members but rather from those who are, as Mr Kormos once mentioned, people who are centred in Toronto and have a viewpoint which doesn't go much beyond the confines of the Legislative Building and the government buildings that surround this Legislature. We won't have that kind of input if the government proceeds with this motion.

I expect to see the government House leader walk in, in just a second or two, and announce that they're withdrawing the motion and that we will have a full and free debate on this matter.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1815.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one by one and be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Cleary, Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, North, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 59, the nays being 31, I declare the motion carried.

It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1820.

24 novembre 1993