Journal des débats 1997-juin-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Next month, 650 delegates from more than 40 countries will arrive in Kingston for the first world conference on breast cancer. The July 13 to 17 conference will bring together for the first time breast cancer survivors, scientists, environmental groups, doctors and other health care professionals and activists in an effort to develop a strategy to combat one of the leading killers of women on this planet.

The statistics present a compelling case for the necessity of this conference. Worldwide, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by 26% since 1980. It is predicted that breast cancer will kill over one million women worldwide in the year 2000. In Canada, we have the second-highest rate of breast cancer in the world and it is the leading cause of death for Canadian women between the ages of 35 and 55. This year, 5,400 women in Canada and 46,000 in the United States will die from breast cancer.

There are few of us who have not been touched in some way by this horrible disease as it preys on our mothers, daughters and friends.

I want to congratulate the organizers, particularly Karen Weisbaum, the president, and Janet Collins, who conceived the idea, the volunteers and those who have contributed funds for their efforts over the past three years, in making this global event on such a crucial health care issue possible. It is a stunning achievement.

Queen's University and the greater Kingston area warmly welcome the participants and hopefully the sharing of scientific and medical information and personal experiences will contribute to an early cure for this dreaded disease.

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES REPORT

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I was remiss. I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the Individual Members' Expenditures Report for the fiscal year 1996-97. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Recent studies have indicated that property taxes in northern Ontario would increase on an average of 40% as the result of the downloading of services and costs to municipalities. In Sault Ste Marie, for example, the mayor says that the withdrawal of northern support grants would mean a loss of $13 million for this community alone.

But I guess northerners should not be worried, because for the past two years Mike Harris has been consistently saying that he's only doing what he was elected to do.

I want to point out that I have here a copy of the Northern Focus Tour report, part of his platform that was issued in January 1995, which had some encouraging words for northerners, words like: "A Mike Harris government will work closely with northern municipalities to forge a new and better working relationship. As part of the new relationship, we will end the downloading of services to the municipal level...."

If the people of northern Ontario are not happy, then they can let the government know that things have to change. Remember these encouraging words from Mike Harris, and I want to quote again from the Northern Focus: "Northerners are fed up with dictates from Queen's Park. They're not interested in consultation without real listening, or promises without real action. Legislation must be tailored to suit conditions in the north...."

Could somebody please give the Premier a copy of Northern Focus? I think he must have lost his, because all we see is his dumping and downloading on to the municipalities and forcing property taxes up.

EVENTS IN QUINTE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to personally invite each and every member of the Legislature to visit the beautiful riding of Quinte this summer.

The premier event of every summer in Quinte has to be, without a doubt, the Belleville Waterfront Festival and Folkorama. Sample ethnic food from every part of the globe. Take the kids for a ride on the midway. Enjoy live music, waterski shows, fireworks. This year's party runs July 11, 12 and 13.

The hottest street rod show in Canada comes to Trenton this July 4, 5 and 6 with the Canadian Street Rod Association's Canats '97. A wide range of vehicles will be on hand from street rods to new cars. This show will be a must for every car enthusiast.

Trenton has so much more to offer, including the 10th Annual Bathtub Days races and the RCAF Memorial Museum. The activities that take place in Quinte this summer are so numerous, I can't mention them all.

Whether you choose to rollerblade along the Bayshore Trail, sail the Bay of Quinte, shop the stores of historic downtown Belleville or visit the Hastings County Museum at Glanmore House, there is sure to be some activity for every member of the family. So please come and join with me and many other people in Quinte county. We certainly want to welcome you this summer.

TELEHEALTH

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Earlier this year the Hospital for Sick Children and Thunder Bay Regional Hospital completed a one-year pilot project that allowed children to go into a room in Thunder Bay and, through videoconferencing, they were seen by a specialist in Toronto. The initial project, which was funded by the hospitals and various charitable groups, was a tremendous success. In its first year, Telehealth successfully served over 150 families in the Thunder Bay area alone.

This program clearly benefits a huge number of children in Ontario, but they now find themselves struggling to find the long-term funding needed to retain the necessary staff. Thunder Bay, Sioux Lookout and Orillia already have Telehealth links. Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay and Timmins have the technology but they lack the funding to hire the nurse who is essential in running the remote site.

Telehealth providers need enough funding to hire that nurse and to pay the phone line connection, but the Ministry of Health has yet to commit to this funding. At a time when this minister says he wants to find new and creative ways to enhance health care in Ontario, I urge him not to lose sight of this opportunity that will cost the province very little yet provide vital care for many of Ontario's sick children and their families.

By using this technology, families are not only spared the expense of travel and accommodation, but the sick children involved are spared the stress of a trip to Toronto when they are already very vulnerable.

I understand there is ongoing discussion between the ministry and the Telehealth providers and I implore the minister today to provide the necessary stable funding to allow this program to continue to serve children in my community and to expand across the province.

1340

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to bring a message to the Minister of Labour. At lunch-hour I was speaking to a rally outside her office at the Ministry of Labour, with a large crowd of public sector workers and their supporters who are protesting this government's anti-democratic Bill 136.

I think it says a lot that on one of the hottest days we've had this year these workers cared enough about democracy -- a lot more than this government does -- that they were prepared to be out in the public and express their point of view.

Unfortunately, this government doesn't feel the same way about going out into the public. One only need look at what's happening with Bill 99, the attack on injured workers, the attack on WCB, where we're having the last afternoon of hearings here today at Queen's Park. This is a minister and a government that promised injured workers they would have full province-wide public hearings. What did we get at the end of the day? Four half-days here at Queen's Park and a measly six days to try to cover the entire province. This government refuses to hold the meetings in a room big enough to accommodate all the injured workers who want to be there. They're spilling out into the hallways and other meeting rooms, and yet this government still refuses to extend the hearings.

On a day when we're also likely going to debate the rule changes, where this government is shutting down democracy even further, people in Ontario have all the proof they need that this government is the most anti-democratic we've ever had.

PAKISTAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): It's my privilege to rise in the House today on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Pakistan's independence and of Pakistan-Canada friendship.

As a result of the partition of India, Pakistan became an independent and sovereign state on August 14, 1947, and a republic within the Commonwealth on March 23, 1956, comprised of the two provinces of East Pakistan and West Pakistan.

Canada's close friendship with Pakistan has resulted in the signing of several important trade agreements, including agreements on education, culture and communications. In 1994, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Punjab signed an agreement to become sister assemblies and so come into an even closer mutual cooperation.

Independence is truly a most valued gift. Freedom to live and work in the dynamic identity of our own culture, religion and way of life is one of the most powerfully positive experiences a people and an individual can ever have.

Pakistan's long relationship with Canada shows that the Pakistani people understand independence not simply as "freedom from," but even more importantly, as "freedom to": freedom to develop new international relationships, freedom to become economically and technologically advanced, freedom to begin a new journey of self-discovery and self-affirmation.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I congratulate all Canadians of Pakistani background, a number of whom join me in the House today on Pakistan Independence Day and in Pakistan-Canada friendship. May that friendship deepen and expand as Canadians of all backgrounds continue to work together to understand and love our particular traditions. Salam Alekum.

ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE PRESS GALLERY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have just been handed an important news bulletin to share with members of the Legislature regarding the press gallery elections.

"Richard Brennan, Windsor Star, was elected president for the seventh consecutive year. The Badger credits his success to press gallery apathy and a lack of breathing challengers. He will not move into Stornoway, unless he becomes leader of the official opposition.

"James Rusk, Globe and Mail, was elected vice-president, print. Rusk, 87, ran on an anti-smoking, pro-violence ticket.

"Raj Ahluwalia, CBC Radio, was elected vice-president, broadcast. Ahluwalia, who asks the longest questions in the history of journalism, promises to be stern, if you don't mind.

"Bill Walker, Toronto Star, was elected treasurer because he can count past 10 and buys at least that many beverages for his thirsty associates on Fridays.

"Monica Kim, Global Television Network, was elected secretary. She won by a landslide by promising to keep Robert Fisher on a short leash."

The Queen's Park press gallery members know that by far the most important and far-reaching measure being forced upon the Ontario Legislature involves the procedural rule changes which will allow the Harris regime to bulldoze its legislation through our provincial Parliament in record time and with a minimum of debate, analysis and examination.

With the new press gallery executive in place, even if relegated to cubby-holes in the fifth-floor attic by Mike Harris, these draconian rule changes will receive intense scrutiny by our Queen's Park scribes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): As the Chair, I would certainly offer my condolences to those people as well.

PAKISTAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Fifty years ago in 1947 the world saw the beginning of the end of colonialism. The first country to win its freedom and set the course for the rest of the world was Pakistan, when on August 14, 1947, it was declared an independent country. This year, as Pakistan celebrates its 50th anniversary of independence, I want to congratulate on behalf of our caucus all Canadians of Pakistani descent.

This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first south Asians to Canada, many from places now called Pakistan. Pakistani Canadians over these years have made an immense contribution to the socioeconomic and cultural life of Ontario and of Canada. From doctors to lawyers, entrepreneurs to social activists, trade unionists to business people, feminists to environmentalists, Pakistani Canadians have enriched our society in many ways. They bring to Canada a rich heritage of over 5,000 years of civilization originating in the ancient Indus Valley city of Mohenjo-Daro on one hand, and the Muslim religion on the other.

From the snow-peaked mountains of the Himalayas to the plains of Punjab and the delta of the Indus River in Sind, Pakistani Canadians have come to Ontario and have left an indelible mark in our society. Once again, on behalf of our leader Howard Hampton and all of the NDP caucus I want to congratulate all Canadians of Pakistani descent and thank them for the continuing contribution that they make to our society.

G.L. ROBERTS COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's with pleasure that I rise to address the House today regarding the 25th anniversary and reunion of one of Oshawa's educational pillars, G.L. Roberts Collegiate and Vocational Institute.

This south Oshawa school was built 25 years ago to fulfil a need to prepare Oshawa's students for their futures, and G.L. Roberts has done this job admirably. G.L. Roberts was named after a prominent Oshawa educator, George Lake Roberts. Mr Roberts was a teacher, principal and superintendent with a strong commitment to educating Oshawa's youth.

The school has often become involved in innovative programs to offer increased educational opportunities for the students who attend the school. Currently, one such opportunity that G.L. Roberts offers is the Saturn camp. This several-day program offers students challenges in communication, group problem solving and the opportunity to set more personal goals.

This school has constantly sought to enhance the education of Oshawa students. As one of the community's cornerstones in south Oshawa, G.L. Roberts has a warm place in the hearts of many of its alumni. G.L. Roberts has done well with its first 25 years to prepare Oshawa's youth for their futures. The community support and dedicated faculty and staff of the school are committed to continuing the tradition of excellence in Oshawa's youngest high school.

I would like to congratulate and wish all of those who call G.L. Roberts Collegiate and Vocational Institute their alma mater a good reunion this weekend.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a Pakistani delegation headed by Mr Yusuf Shah, consul general of Pakistan, Mr Khalid Sarwar, representing the High Commissioner's office, and former member of the Pakistan Parliament, Prof Da Har Qadari. Please join me in welcoming these guests.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a response from the Honourable Gregory Evans, Integrity Commissioner, to the request by the member for York South on whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had contravened the Members' Integrity Act.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): It was my understanding, Speaker, that the Premier would be in attendance, and I have a question for the Premier.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): The Premier will be here shortly, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Would you like to stand that question down?

Mr McGuinty: Yes, I would, Speaker. The second question as well.

The Speaker: Third party?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I as well have a question for the Premier, so I'd like to stand that down.

The Speaker: Then we go to third questions, official opposition. Restart the clock, please. Member for Sudbury.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES SPENDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We know, Minister, that your deputy minister doesn't like to work out of Sudbury, and we know that you don't like to come and visit Sudbury, and we know that you like to take Sudburians and commute them in a working mode to Toronto, and we know that this takes away opportunities for our Sudbury economy to grow, but enough is enough.

1350

Will you confirm to the House today that your ministry leased a house between May 8, 1996, and May 8, 1997, a house that just recently sold for $500,000, a house at 13 Rathnelly Avenue for these travelling Sudburians, at a cost to the taxpayers of Ontario of $3,100 a month and that the total lease amounted to $37,200 last year? Will you confirm that that's what you paid on that lease?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): It's true that we spent the past year relocating eight staff positions back to Toronto. We confirmed this in the Legislature in May of last year. The positions were moved back to Toronto to strengthen the ministry's role in provincial decision-making, something we promised the ministry would do in A Voice for the North. During the past year we have allowed employees to travel back and forth while they relocated. This cost the ministry about $135,000 last year, much less than the estimated $250,000 cost due to some innovative measures, including the use of leased vehicles rather than rental cars.

I would add that moving employees to Sudbury and then having them frequently travel back to Toronto for the government's meetings is expensive. For example, during the NDP's years of 1994-95 travel costs from Sudbury to Toronto were $480,000.

Mr Bartolucci: I think that's a yes, the lease was for $37,200. I can't understand what this minister is thinking about. When over 60% of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines building is either vacant, used for storage space, used as dead space or used by other agencies, this minister thinks it's cheaper to relocate employees, at a cost of approximately half a million dollars, to Toronto.

Minister, will you confirm another example of your waste of taxpayers' money? With 60% of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines empty in Sudbury, not used by your ministry, did you spend $369,000 to retrofit, to repair and to replenish your offices here in the Whitney Block?

Hon Mr Hodgson: There are quite a number of allegations in that statement. First of all, let me assure the House that the ministry was downsized. We found it was more efficient as well as serving the north. People in the north told us they wanted to keep the front-line offices in place. That meant that the NDO offices and the storefront operations in 29 small communities were not affected. Yes, we found some savings on the administrative side, which is located in Sudbury, so a downsizing took place there.

In Toronto, the Management Board realty corporation moved agriculture from a leased facility into Grenville Street. The MNDM building was moved to the fifth floor of the Whitney Block and there are relocation expenses. But over the government-wide initiative, that saved money, getting out of a leased building for the Ministry of Agriculture and moving them into a government-owned one.

HATE LITERATURE

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Attorney General. I want to ask you about the anti-Muslim hate literature that was handed out at Weston Collegiate over a week ago. As you know, the flyer is hateful towards Muslims and attacks Weston Collegiate for allowing Muslim students to pray on Fridays in the school auditorium. The flyer, and I hope you will agree with me, is absolutely despicable.

The Metro police hate crimes unit is ready to lay charges. The only reason that it hasn't laid charges is because you still have not given your consent, which is required under the Criminal Code. The Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Association for Islamic Relations held a press conference today. They are anxiously waiting for you to act. They are disturbed indeed by your government's lack of response.

Your government continues to deny the problems of racism, discrimination and prejudice that exist in our society. When incidents like this occur, and I would think that you above all ministers would be understanding of this, time is of the essence. It's in your hands, you've had enough time to respond. Why are you holding up the process?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'd like to say that I treat these matters very seriously and with the utmost priority. When the police investigation that is apparently ongoing is completed and material is conveyed to me, which it has not been, I will immediately review that material, as I am obligated to do under the Criminal Code provisions. I will give this Legislature my undertaking that I will do so with the greatest dispatch. I can say that I have not had anything conveyed to me at this particular point in time.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Attorney General, the hate crimes unit has indicated that they're ready to lay charges. All they need is your approval. Just how long does it take you to get paperwork sent up four floors to your office, or has your infection of the family support plan and that inefficiency spread to the whole Ministry of the Attorney General?

Every hour that you delay expresses nothing less than condonation of this pernicious hatred that's exemplified in the pamphlet that you're well aware of. Why won't you, as Attorney General, use your authority? Two days ago, you promised you'd be reviewing this within hours. It's now 48 hours later and you've done nothing. Your inaction does nothing other than express some implicit support for what took place in that high school. Tell us when you're going to instruct that paperwork to get to your office so you can rubber-stamp it and the police can do what they want to do.

Hon Mr Harnick: I very much take issue with the allegation that has just been made that I in some way condone the kind of behaviour that the member makes reference to.

Mr Kormos: Two days after you promised. Completely intolerable.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harnick: I indicated the other day, and I was very clear, that within a matter of hours of the material being conveyed to me, I will review that material and I will do it in a way that is appropriate in order to make the decision that I may be asked to make. Certainly again my commitment will be that I will do this with dispatch, and when the investigation is completed and the material is provided to me, I will do what I'm obligated to do under the Criminal Code.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Solicitor General. Minister, as you may be aware, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics recently released a report on crime in Canada. Many of my constituents who are hunters and sportsmen have contacted me regarding this report. They're telling me that this report only confirms what law-abiding sportsmen have been saying all along, that they are not committing crimes and that the $85-million federal firearms registry in Bill C-68 is a waste of taxpayers' money because it will not stop gun-related crimes.

Minister, do you agree and can you update the responsible firearms owners of this province as to the status of the constitutional challenge against this costly firearms registration?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): From the outset, we've expressed our concern that the registration provisions of C-68 represent a significant administrative burden and take police away from front-line policing responsibilities.

The government has analysed the data which clearly demonstrate that the proposed registration program for all firearms would not be effective in controlling crime. For instance, handguns have been required to be registered since the 1930s, but the fact is that only 10% of guns used in crime are registered. That means that 90% of handguns seized by police are not even registered and many are actually smuggled.

We know it's not legitimate, law-abiding firearms owners committing these crimes. That's why we have joined with the province of Alberta in its constitutional challenge of the registration provisions of C-68. On June 12 the Attorney General filed Ontario's factum in this case, and we expect it to proceed in the near future.

Mr Ouellette: It is encouraging to hear that Ontario is the voice of common sense in this matter. That centre for justice statistics report contains statistics which state that only 2% of violent crimes involve a firearm. Clearly, the issue is not registration, but catching those criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes and smuggling. This is something responsible firearms owners, such as farmers and sportsmen, have said all along.

Can you assure my constituents and the people of Ontario that the government of Ontario's police services are taking steps to fight illegal weapons trade and smuggling which seem to be the source of the vast majority of guns used in crime?

1400

Hon Mr Runciman: I want to assure the member that the government is determined to make it tougher for smugglers, period. Whether criminals are trying to bring bootleg liquor into the province or illegal weapons, we are taking action to stop them. In April, I participated in a federal-provincial summit in Cornwall to examine ways to combat illegal firearms crossing our borders. As a result, we created a dedicated interagency unit to target the illegal importation, circulation and criminal use of firearms.

I can tell you that the provincial weapons enforcement unit has been very successful in combatting illegal weapons. This year to date 60 weapons have been seized and 332 charges have been laid against 80 people. Some of these investigations have resulted in additional charges and seizures related to illegal drugs, explosives and pornography smuggling.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would it be appropriate to have a recess to give the Premier time to come into the House, since he's supposed to make a statement?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for St Catharines, unanimous consent is always in order to recess. If you'd like to seek that, that's without a problem.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I expect the Premier at any moment now. I suggest we do another turn in the rotation. That would leave lots of time for the leaders' questions. If there's still a problem at that point in time, then yes, by all means, we'd have a recess to ensure that the questions would take place.

The Speaker: As far as I'm concerned then, we don't have unanimous consent to recess at this point in time. Let's continue. If it comes up again, I'll seek it at that time.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Minister, we have been pressuring you over the last couple of weeks for some action on smog and pollution in Ontario. What we've heard is nothing more than hot air and rhetoric as to what you plan to do.

The reality is we have received a copy of Ontario's Smog Plan 1997, your long-awaited document that you haven't released, that you've been working on, and clearly what is astonishing is not what's in this document but what is not in this document. What we have seen from this leaked document is nothing more than simply rhetoric and feel-good buzzwords about what you plan to do. There isn't any substantial action in reducing smog and pollution in this province.

You have set a time line in this document of 20 years. Do you believe it's acceptable that it's going to take this province 20 years to reduce emissions? You have made no reference to any emergency action smog plan. You have made no difference to vehicle emissions.

Minister, can you explain to the House how you can stand behind a document that clearly lacks any real initiative to deal with smog in Ontario? Frankly, you have failed the people of Ontario, failed this Legislature.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): First of all, I want to indicate to the member that the target which was set for 2015 was not set by this government, as I understand it. It was set by a previous government to reduce emissions by 45%, based on the 1990 level, by the year 2015. It was, as I understand it, set in conjunction with other environment ministers from across the country. It was based on scientific, technical advice and health standards. Therefore, I have picked up that particular challenge and am trying to forge towards doing that.

The member opposite has received the document, which is called Ontario's Smog Accord, which is only one of many elements in our attempt to deal with this particular problem. It is a new thrust which I would be glad to explain to the member in reply to his supplementary question.

Mr Agostino: The reality is that what this minister is doing and saying often equals the emissions that come out of the smokestacks across the province. Minister, you simply do not have the political clout in cabinet to get environmental changes through. We've seen that time and time again. We have seen it through vehicle emission testing. We've seen it through this long-awaited smog plan.

There's nothing in this plan. It is simply empty rhetoric and feel-good buzzwords. There's not one initiative in this plan that outlines how you're going to deal seriously with smog across Ontario. You talk about voluntary standards by companies. You talk about credit programs. You fail to acknowledge that you have to use the heavy hammer of government at times to go after polluters in Ontario. You've let them run free.

The reality is that policy in regard to environmental protection in Ontario is set in the boardrooms of this province rather the cabinet room.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Agostino: When will you start protecting the interests of Ontarians' health and the environment and stop protecting the private sector and your corporate friends, who don't want any environmental --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Sterling: I believe the member is looking at this document in isolation. This document is only one of many thrusts, as I told him before, to deal with smog in this province. I have, on a personal level, been in contact with more representatives of the United States, who are causing 50% of our problem, than any Minister of the Environment has before me that I'm aware of. We have lowered the gasoline volatility this summer to reduce the threat of smog -- the first government to ever do that.

We have set a PM-10 standard, a particulate standard, which no other government has ever done in this province before. We are revising 75 air quality standards, which no other government has done before.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: We are seeking help from all the people of Ontario in a partnership to do additional things that are not required by law but will be put forward by them as their attempt to help us with --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

I think we'll revert back to leaders' questions at this point in time, and we'll go with the leader of the official opposition.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could we have unanimous consent to revert back to ministers' statements?

The Speaker: The Premier seeks unanimous consent to revert to ministry statements. Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the indulgence of the Legislature.

I want to rise today and respond to the report of the Integrity Commissioner with respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

As members of this House will know, our government established the Health Services Restructuring Commission in an effort to remove partisan politics from the necessary and difficult process of health care restructuring.

This commission was established as an independent body that could operate at arm's length from the government. In that spirit, several members of both sides of this House wrote to the commission on behalf of their constituents. Earlier this year, the issue of a minister writing to the commission was raised.

The Integrity Commissioner has found the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted in good faith and in the belief he was entitled to do so when he wrote to the commission.

Two other ministers, Mr Runciman and Ms Cunningham, have informed me they have also written to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Both did so in the belief that they were entitled to do so. For example, Mr Runciman was of the view that he was expressing an opinion about an issue he believed to be outside the commission's mandate. None of the ministers believed the commission was a quasi-judicial body.

After setting up the arm's-length commission, the government delegated to it the government's authority to make restructuring decisions. It was our view that this mandate did not involve the adjudication of legal rights.

However, in his report today, the Integrity Commissioner wrote that he considers the Health Services Restructuring Commission not only to be independent but also to be a quasi-judicial body. Therefore, we accept that the commissioner would also extend his opinion to the two other ministers as well.

There are many agencies and boards within the government. Some are clearly quasi-judicial in nature; others need clarification, particularly those recently established. The issue of what does or does not constitute a quasi-judicial body does need clarification. As well, all members need to know what is and what is not acceptable conduct, then, when dealing with these bodies.

Further, the role and conduct of ministers responsible for agencies such as the Health Services Restructuring Commission must be clarified. For example, the Integrity Commissioner himself says the minister could have personally consulted the Minister of Health on restructuring matters, instead of consulting the independent commission. Until now, we had been of the belief that that was inappropriate.

1410

I have therefore asked the Attorney General to meet with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner to clarify these issues for the benefit of all ministers and all members so that all of us know how and under what circumstances we can represent the interests of the constituents who elected us.

In the meantime, I would recommend that all members refrain from writing to the Health Services Restructuring Commission until we receive further clarification from the Attorney General.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): There was an exceptional event that occurred in the history of this Legislature today: The Office of the Integrity Commissioner carefully reviewed the actions of one of Premier Harris's cabinet ministers and made a determination.

So that people outside this Legislature understand the Integrity Commissioner's function, he tells us, according to legislation that is in place, whether our activities are appropriate or inappropriate, he tells us whether what we are doing is acceptable or unacceptable and, more than anything else, he tells us whether we are acting according to the law or whether we are acting unlawfully.

I know the Premier uttered a statement a few moments ago which essentially does nothing to address the essence of the finding made today by the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner found that the minister, Al Leach, is in breach of the legislation that governs our behaviour. He said that the minister has broken the law. It seems to me that in those circumstances what the Premier should have done today is he should have stood in his place and said that he has asked for the resignation of the minister, and to that he should have added that he accepted that resignation.

Based on what he has just told this House, he should then have added that he asked for the resignation of Ms Cunningham and the resignation of Mr Runciman, because they too, in keeping with the finding laid out in this decision, are clearly in breach of the law. They have done something which is unacceptable, which is inappropriate and, most important of all, which is unlawful. That is very, very clear. What the Premier should have done is said that he senses that something fundamentally wrong has happened, that he is not going to allow it to stand and that he is going to take the necessary steps to ensure that the consequences are felt so that all members of his government understand the seriousness of this matter.

The Premier would have us believe that there is some question here as to whether or not, from the government's perspective, this is indeed a quasi-judicial body that operates at arm's length. I suggest that he read the decision rendered by the Integrity Commissioner, where the Integrity Commissioner quotes the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health is quoted by the Integrity Commissioner as making some of the following statements in this Legislature. At one time, the Minister of Health stood up and said, "The honourable member is well aware that a commission has been set up and that is, with respect to its decision-making processes and the decisions it would make, at arm's length from the government"; "that it will be at arm's length from the government, take the politics out and get these studies implemented."

The Minister of Health also said, and he's been very clear on this from the outset, "We are putting in place a system whereby a Health Services Restructuring Commission will be able to, at arm's length from government, use the authority and implement the restructuring reports as recommended." Throughout, usage of the phrase "at arm's length" has been employed by the Minister of Health. It has been perfectly clear, according to the Minister of Health, that this is an arm's-length, quasi-judicial body. But now the Premier tells us: "No, we want it both ways. We're not quite sure."

This government has been today hoisted on its own petard. If it is indeed an arm's-length, quasi-judicial body and the Integrity Commissioner has in fact made the finding that this minister is in breach of the law, that he has contravened the act that governs our behaviour in this Legislature, then you have no choice, Premier, but to stand up once again, tell us that you are going to ask for the resignation of Minister Al Leach, of Minister Cunningham and of Minister Runciman, because they have all clearly, in keeping with the words offered by the Minister of Health on numerous occasions in this House, broken the law. You have no choice.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Premier, I'd like you to listen to these words: "I think the Premier is going to want to continue to reflect today on the signal he is sending out on the standards, on what this is doing to the impression of all politicians by the public of this province."

Premier, those were your words, uttered on December 17, 1991, in this House. Today you have chosen not to live by those words, because if you had chosen to live by those words, you wouldn't be coming in this House telling us that you have asked the Attorney General to go and meet with the Integrity Commissioner to clarify something that the Integrity Commissioner has stated a very clear and definite position on.

I hope the same Attorney General will remember, when he has this meeting, what he also said back on April 28, 1992, on this issue: "I believe people should know right from wrong, and if someone transgresses, they should know that they should resign, or the Premier should know, without needing something written down, to say, `If you breach morality you're going to be out of the cabinet.' I believe that should happen without having enforceable rules because we should know better than that. We should be at a higher level."

Premier, there is no doubt in our minds that what you should have done today on the failure of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for women's issues to resign -- on the facts that you have stated today in your own statement, you have no choice but to request their resignation. You can't cut it both ways.

I will go this far, Premier, in saying to you that I actually believe there may be some room for a clarification of the rules or for at least a reclarification of the rules. The point is this: The rules, as they stand now, are interpreted on our collective behalf, and under which we have no flexibility, by the Integrity Commissioner. That's the system that we have in place. That's the system you accepted when you were on this side of the House. That's the system you accepted when you stepped over to that side of the House, up until today, when the tire hit the road, up until it was time for you to apply that common sense you've talked to us about, up until it was time for you to show that you respected the rules by which we work.

You can't continue to say, "Yes, those are the rules; we have to be held to a higher standard," and the minute it becomes your job as Premier to enforce those rules, you say, "Sorry, I want the rules clarified."

What you really mean, Premier, is you want the rules changed. You want to change the rules? Fine. Bring in some suggestions; we'll deal with them. But that won't change what's happened to this date. And what's happened to this date, Premier, is quite clear.

The report from the commissioner couldn't have been clearer. He called the minister's actions a "flagrant breach of parliamentary convention in that the HSRC was set up as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal to operate at arm's length from government." There is not even any area of dispute. There's not even any area of doubt about that. You may think that it's tough. You may think he is coming down hard. You may think he is really coming down heavily on your minister, on your ministers, you may think it is completely embarrassing for you to have to call for the resignation of not one but three of your ministers, but the sheer and undeniable reality is, Premier, you have no choice. You have no choice if you want anyone in this House and, more important, if you want anyone out there to believe at all that you have any respect left for the rules of this Parliament and for the rules of our system of governance.

1420

You cannot continue to flagrantly abuse the system you have inherited. If you want to make changes to the rules, we'll debate those changes. We may even be prepared to say that in some areas there is room for improvement and clarification. But until those changes happen, you quite frankly have no choice. The same standard you held us to when you were on this side of the House you have to apply when you're on that side of the House, because that's the price of sitting in that chair. You can't re-create the rules as they suit you from opposition to government. You, Premier, and many of your ministers who sat on this side of the House were up on their feet time after time after time to remind us of that stark and sheer reality. Now it's up to you to remember that that reality also applies to Mike Harris. Mike Harris can't escape that reality, and you're doing your office a disservice as long as you continue to do that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

(CONTINUED) REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. I wonder if you truly understand the significance of the statement you made here in this Legislature a few moments ago. It seems to me that you are so desperate to avoid the loss of not only one but three ministers today that -- consider this -- you are now telling all members of this Legislature that they should not be making overtures to your commission, which you put in place; that we cannot act in the interests of our constituents to speak to this commission, your commission, about the importance of hospitals to our communities. Do you understand how twisted that is? We're at a point now where, in an effort to avoid the loss of three of your ministers, you are telling us we can't act on behalf of the interests of our constituents. Is that really what you're telling us, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No. What I'm telling you is that the Integrity Commissioner tabled the report today. I have accepted 100% of the recommendations of his report. I think the member for Dovercourt said that when I took on this office, I took on an obligation to live with the rules -- I am living with those -- and that I took on the obligation to live with the penalties. I am living with those.

I have accepted the report from the commissioner in its totality. I have accepted 100% of the recommendations of the Integrity Commissioner. I further am suggesting that I think additional clarification could be required, and until we have that clarification, I am advising certainly our members that they may wish to refrain from writing to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. That would be my advice.

Mr McGuinty: The report we obtained today leads us to one overwhelming, overriding conclusion: that the minister, Al Leach, is in breach of the legislation, that he has broken the law and that he should resign. Furthermore, based on what you have informed this House of today, we now understand that Mrs Cunningham and Mr Runciman, both ministers in your cabinet, have also broken the law. They too should resign. The ball is now in your court. You cannot escape from this one. You have no choice. You have no option whatsoever. Will you do the honourable thing and ask for their resignations?

Hon Mr Harris: You might want to be a little cautious that anybody has broken the law. What I have said is that the Integrity Commissioner has tabled a report. He has recommended that I take certain actions, and I have taken all of them.

Mr McGuinty: What we're talking about here today, Premier, are your standards. Once again the ball is in your court. The Integrity Commissioner has considered this very, very carefully and taken a good deal of time to do so. His conclusion was that your minister broke the law -- no ifs, ands or buts about that whatsoever. He broke the law that governs the behaviour of members of your cabinet, specifically dealing with an arm's-length, quasi-judicial body that you put in place.

You have no choice but today in this Legislature to tell us that in addition to Minister Leach's resignation, you're going to ask for and you're going to accept the resignation of Minister Cunningham and Minister Runciman. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: What I have done -- and I don't mind telling you that when I received the report of the Integrity Commissioner I was surprised, given the advice we had been given both legally and in Health, in the drafting of setting up the Health Services Restructuring Commission there. None the less, in spite of the fact that I was surprised and the minister and a number of us in government were surprised by that, I have taken the step to accept, completely and entirely, the advice we were given by the Integrity Commissioner.

What the Integrity Commissioner said, for the record, since you didn't want to put this part of his report in the record, was that the "action was an error in judgement." He said it was "based on his limited experience in government." He said it was "made in good faith in the mistaken belief he was entitled to do so." He said, "I recommend that no penalty be imposed."

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you understand full well that the Integrity Commissioner has no authority whatsoever in determining who sits in your cabinet and who does not. The ball is in your court. The judgement that's under close scrutiny here now is yours. We already understand about Mr Leach's judgement. That has been examined carefully and found to be wanting. Now your judgement is under scrutiny. We want to know what you are going to do in the face of this broken law under Ontario legislation.

We have a minister who has clearly and flagrantly broken Ontario law. That is the finding in the Integrity Commissioner's report. What we want to know here today is, what are the fallout consequences from that? Are you standing here and telling us that there is none?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr McGuinty: If that's what you're telling us, the consequences of this are negligible. They are nil in so far as your cabinet is concerned and in so far as your government members are concerned. Will you not ask for the resignation of those --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the consequences are rather far-reaching, perhaps for other bodies that are set up that maybe members have not interpreted as being quasi-judicial as well. I think it's a very far-reaching decision and ruling. It could have implications for all of us, not just on executive council but for individual members as well.

Having said that, I have asked the Attorney General to seek advice or clarification on that directly with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. Awaiting that advice, I'll be pleased to share that advice certainly with the members of cabinet. I'm happy to share with all members of the House. I'll share it with my caucus. If you choose to ignore it, you can do so. But I think it's fair that we have that advice from the Attorney General and from the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, what you are effectively saying today in your statement is that you are not satisfied with the Integrity Commissioner's report. You are not satisfied with it. You are not prepared to accept it and its implications. You're trying to get around it now.

1430

I just can't understand this. We've got a case in point here where the minister has been seen to interfere in a quasi-judicial, arm's-length body, and now we're going to have the Attorney General begin to exercise interference on the part of this government in terms of the office of the Integrity Commissioner.

The findings here are perfectly clear. The minister is in breach of the law; so are the other two whose names you identified for us in this House a few moments ago. You have no option. You've got to ask for their resignations. If they don't give them to you, then you've got to fire them. It's as simple as that. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Quite contrary to what the member is alleging, I am satisfied with the report of the commissioner. In fact I go further, to seek further clarification to see what implications this may have in other areas.

I suggest to you that it appears to me that the leader of the official opposition does not accept the report of the Integrity Commissioner, you do not accept the advice of the Integrity Commissioner, and you are asking me to overrule the recommendations of the Integrity Commissioner. If you're asking me will I ignore the advice, will I ignore the Integrity Commissioner, no I will not. I have accepted his advice and his recommendations lock, stock and barrel.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, just to make it perfectly clear and to avoid the necessity of the Attorney General getting involved in this, I want to read for you a copy of a letter dated May 27 of this year directed by the Integrity Commissioner to Pat Hoy, a member of my caucus. Mr Hoy was inquiring as to whether or not it was appropriate for a backbencher to make overtures to the hospital restructuring commission. This is what the Integrity Commissioner said:

"As Mr Hoy is a backbencher, it is my opinion that the letter is appropriate, being an activity under section 5 of the Members' Integrity Act, and does not place Mr Hoy in contravention of the act."

End of story, Premier. We don't have to worry about backbenchers now.

Let's come back to what this report is all about, what the conclusion is all about. It's about your minister being in breach of the act. It's about, now that we understand the full implications of this, two other ministers clearly being in breach of the act. You have no option, Premier. You cannot wriggle out from under this one. You have been hoisted on your own petard. This is an arm's-length, quasi-judicial body. You've got to ask for and demand the resignation of your three ministers.

Hon Mr Harris: We are accepting the report and the recommendations. But let me tell you that we have legal opinion that, for example, backbench members ought not to write to a judge --

Interjections.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's in contempt of everybody, the Legislature.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harris: I have been given advice as a backbench member on dealing with judicial and quasi-judicial bodies as I understood them in the past. I have been given advice that certain things were no-nos for backbench members to write to such bodies.

Clearly, there are some letters that are appropriate, but there are some that I think would not be. If you do not want the wisdom of seeking that clarification for the future, that's fine. I think it is incumbent and I am suggesting to all of my caucus that we might want to seek that wisdom, we might want to seek that advice.

In the meantime on the case before us, I not only have accepted the Integrity Commissioner's report, I have accepted his recommendations and advice too.

The Speaker: New question, member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Premier. You can continue to express surprise at the fact that what Minister Leach did was found to be a breach, but certainly there's at least one member sitting on the front benches, one member of your cabinet, who would not have been surprised, and that's the Minister of Health. Only a few weeks ago, in answer to a question from my colleague from Riverdale, when she was asking him to intervene and save the Women's College Hospital, his answer was this:

"Mr Speaker, the honourable member would be asking the honourable member to break the law, and you should rule that out of order. That is not allowed in a Parliament. You are not allowed to coerce another member into breaking the law. The law is clear that this commission is at arm's length."

If the law is clear that this commission is at arm's length, why isn't it also equally clear in your mind and the Minister of Municipal Affairs' mind that he broke the law and he should resign?

Hon Mr Harris: There are lots of commissions and agencies that may be at arm's length, but what we are dealing with here is one that has been ruled quasi-judicial and should be treated as quasi-judicial. I don't mind telling you that members of our cabinet and our office were not clear that this was a quasi-judicial body in the same sense that we understood. Perhaps you are all much wiser than everybody else; I don't know that.

Having said that, as we've evolved with this new Health Services Restructuring Commission and we now have a ruling by the Integrity Commissioner, I have asked all members of our cabinet to respect that.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Harris: I have asked the caucus as well that they might want to be cautious while we seek clarification. In the meantime, I am astounded you're asking me to ignore the advice of --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Silipo: Premier, you just don't get it. We're asking you to live up to your responsibility, since the Minister of Municipal Affairs won't, and fire the minister. The Integrity Commissioner concluded:

"...Mr Leach is having difficulty in adopting an attitude which is less confrontational, more consistent with his...office...and more appreciative of the parliamentary conventions associated therewith."

He goes on to say how Minister Leach dismissed as frivolous the complaint by the member for Riverdale, a complaint which the Integrity Commissioner himself found to be very serious indeed. Then, of course, there is his basic statement with respect to Mr Leach's breach in regard to the hospital restructuring commission, where he called the minister's action "a flagrant breach of parliamentary convention in that the HSRC was set up as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal to operate at arm's length from the government."

The issue is quite clear. It's not about whether we're clear or you're clear; it's about applying the rules that exist. Why won't you apply the rules and fire the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

Hon Mr Harris: The member for Dovercourt, in response to the statement I made today, fully accepting the report of the Integrity Commissioner, said something along the lines -- I believe I'm paraphrasing but it's how I understood it -- that when I accepted the job as Premier and when members accepted their jobs in cabinet, we accepted the rules and procedures around the integrity act. If there were matters, they should be referred to the Integrity Commissioner and we should respect what the Integrity Commissioner says.

I think it would be very clear today that there would be no reason for any doubt that it would be inappropriate for any member, either in his capacity in cabinet or acting as an MPP, to represent their constituents and write to the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

Here is what the Integrity Commissioner said about Mr Leach: "He acted in good faith, in the mistaken belief he was entitled to do so."

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

1440

Mr Silipo: Premier, it's not just about the commissioner's findings. It's now an issue about your own conduct as Premier and the benchmark you set for acceptable behaviour by your ministers.

This is a minister who, quite frankly, hasn't screwed up today for the first time. On February 3, 1997, the Integrity Commissioner, in response to a complaint filed by the member for Riverdale, found the activities of Mr Leach's executive assistant to be inappropriate. Yet when questioned in the House, the same minister defended the actions of his staff member. On January 22, I don't need to remind you, the Speaker found that the activities for which this minister is responsible constituted a prima facie case of contempt for this Legislature.

Three very serious incidents in five months, Premier. How can you expect us to accept a standard of conduct that would accept a minister continuing in his office who has been so seriously in breach of his responsibilities not once but three times in short order?

Hon Mr Harris: We have the Integrity Commissioner and the legislation to be able to refer these matters to. I suggest to you that I don't believe it's appropriate that we ignore his advice.

With regard to any member of my cabinet who has had made three or more mistakes in the last five months, all the members of this executive council, including the Premier, make many more mistakes than that every day. But I'll tell you this: We do our very best on behalf of the people of Ontario. We interpret the laws of the land with honesty, integrity and in as straightforward a nature as we can, but from time to time we will make many mistakes. In this case the mistake that was made was ruled by the Integrity Commissioner to have been done in good faith, with a recommendation of no penalty.

The Speaker: New question; third party.

Mr Silipo: In light of the Premier's answers, I'm going to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's clear that your Premier is in a real jam. He's got a situation in which you and two of your colleagues -- you have been found, and obviously, on similar facts the commissioner would have to find the same in terms of your colleagues: that you broke the law.

I'll repeat for your understanding, because somehow it hasn't quite registered. He called your actions "a flagrant breach of parliamentary convention in that the HSRC," the hospital services commission, "was set up as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal to operate at arm's length from government."

Minister, why won't you do the honourable thing, accept responsibility, accept the fact that you've broken the law and offer your resignation to the Premier?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What I will do is accept the advice of the Integrity Commissioner. I acted in good faith. There was no intent on my part to try and influence anyone. What I did was ask the commission to extend time for constituents to submit information, which I honestly believed at the time, and still do, was an appropriate thing to do on behalf of my constituents. The Integrity Commissioner has taken all that into consideration. His recommendation was that I made an error but it was done in good faith and that no penalty be imposed.

If the Integrity Commissioner doesn't believe that I should resign, I don't see any reason why I should. I think he has the authority to make a recommendation calling for a resignation. He chose not to do so after taking all the facts into consideration.

Mr Silipo: The commissioner wouldn't have taken everything into consideration, because the commissioner was only dealing with this one breach. But you yourself have been found to be wanting on two other occasions, on at least two we are aware of: when the Speaker found a prima facie contempt against you and your ministry, and when the commissioner, on a separate occasion, found your actions on February 3 with respect to your assistant to be inappropriate. Yet, like now, you just seemed to slough off the issue as if it wasn't important.

It is not sufficient for you to say you are accepting what the commissioner found, because you are not. You are not accepting the standard to which the commissioner is holding us all and particularly today is holding you. If you did, you would be doing the honourable thing, and that is to tender your resignation to the Premier. Again I ask you, why won't you do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon Mr Leach: They make accusations about breaches, but let me read what the Integrity Commissioner said on the original inquiry from the member for Riverdale, "The commissioner found that the minister did not violate the act, either personally or as a result of his executive assistant's activities." The commissioner found that there was no problem with the original one.

In this one, he did say there was an error in judgement but it was made in good faith, and that is absolutely true. It was done in good faith. I was acting on behalf of my constituents in a matter in which I believed that I had jurisdiction. I wasn't requesting the commission -- or did not try to influence their decision. I asked for an extension of time, which they granted. The Integrity Commissioner has taken all those things into consideration and accordingly recommended that no penalty be imposed.

Mr Silipo: The Integrity Commissioner, as you know, cites in his decision the case of the federal Minister of National Defence, who wrote a letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the immigration case of a constituent. In that case, Mr Collenette resigned because the immigration minister acts as a court of last resort in immigration cases and therefore, in writing to the minister, Mr Collenette was interfering in a quasi-judicial process. He accepted the high standard which all of us have to accept when we take on the office of minister.

Minister, you clearly also interfered with a quasi-judicial process. There is no denying that. There is no question about that. It's not an issue of whether you acted in good faith. The facts are undeniable, and the facts call for you to accept the responsibility for your actions, to do the honourable thing and to resign. Why will you not accept your responsibility and do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon Mr Leach: I am accepting the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner. He's very clear. He says that no penalty should be imposed. He has taken everything into consideration and made that recommendation and I intend to comply with that.

The Speaker: New question; third party.

Mr Silipo: I have a question to the Premier. We've heard a lot today about ministers acting in good faith. I want to recall for you incidents that took place back in June 1991. Your Deputy Premier, in commenting on the actions taken by two of my colleagues at the time, the then member for Scarborough West and the then member for Sudbury East, when they tendered their resignations for simply having written a letter, your Deputy Premier at that time, in accepting that action, in accepting their tendering their resignations and taking responsibility for their actions, said, "I think in that respect, at least, I have more confidence than ever in the system we have here in Ontario." He accepted that that was the standard of integrity that all of us should live by when we sit on that side of the House, particularly when we sit in the ministers' chairs.

Why are you today lowering so significantly the standard of conduct now that you're sitting in the Premier's chair?

Hon Mr Harris: I believe it was your government, with the support of all parties, that elevated the standard to put it to the Integrity Commissioner for all cabinet members and for all members, to try and remove decision-making from a partisan, if you like, as to nature, degree and penalty of offence. We have accepted that. When we took office two years ago, we accepted not only the rules; we accepted the Integrity Commissioner as the one who ought to interpret and arbitrate those. I think it is not consistent to say, "Take part of what the Integrity Commissioner says, but not all." I would prefer to accept all of what the Integrity Commissioner says and I have done so in this case.

1450

Mr Silipo: The Integrity Commissioner does not replace you and your responsibilities towards the Parliament. You see, Premier, the big mistake you made in the way in which you've dealt with this and in the announcement you made today is that now you have turned this very clearly into an issue about your standards and your conduct. If you had done the honourable thing and asked for the resignations, or if your ministers had done the honourable thing and tendered their resignations before your even having to ask them, this issue would have blown over in short order.

We understand the balance that has to be struck. We understand how close to the line this is. But what you have done, Premier, in standing up and sloughing this off is to say to us and to the people of Ontario that you are now rejigging the standards because it's now up to you to apply the law and you don't like the effect it's having on you and on your government.

Premier, I ask you again, will you reflect on this matter, will you do the honourable thing and have the minister and the ministers responsible for these breaches of the law resign?

Hon Mr Harris: Nobody is sloughing anything off. Nobody treats these matters more seriously than do I. It is with that thought in mind -- that I think it is important to have credible, believable standards of good faith, as well as reality -- that we accept the Integrity Commissioner's recommendation on this matter.

You are quite right that I and this administration and this government will be held accountable for all of the policy decisions we make and for all of the standards we set for ourselves, and will be measured against that at the appropriate time. Just as I accept 100% the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner, I will accept 100%, in two or three years' time, the recommendation of the people of Ontario.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Last November you made some very specific commitments for this government on education. You called it Our Pledge to Parents. In that pledge you promised that you would "provide students with a solid education that gives them the knowledge and skills to compete and succeed in Ontario and around the globe." What have you done to live up to your pledge?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for the question. In fact, I have with me right now, today, Our Pledge to Parents that we put out to the people of Ontario. In it, if I can read from it, it says:

"We will provide students with a solid education that gives them the knowledge and skills to compete and succeed in Ontario and around the globe, and to contribute to our society as responsible citizens.

"What your child will learn: We will implement a rigorous and demanding curriculum that will focus on the basics: reading, writing, spelling and grammar, math, science, geography and Canadian history. Our standards will be clear, measurable and comprehensive in all grades."

I'm pleased to say that the beginning of that curriculum, the start of that curriculum, the maths and the languages for grades 1 to 8, were released a matter of a few weeks ago and are now circulating throughout the education system.

"How your child's progress will be measured: Standard, province-wide tests will tell you whether your child has learned what is expected. Parents will receive individual test results for both their child and their local school."

Right now those results are going out to parents so they can know how their student is doing with the grade 3 results we did across the province.

Mrs Munro: Minister, in the second part of your pledge you promised to ensure "early and continuous help for special-needs and disadvantaged students," to ensure "students will learn the self-discipline and skills that are vital to achieving their success," that we would respect teachers' professionalism, and that, "Students and teachers will work in schools that are safe and free from violence and drugs." Are we meeting these promises too?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know the honourable member is concerned about the special needs students in Ontario, as are all the members of this chamber. I know we're all disturbed when we hear reports these children may be becoming lost in school budgets. That is why we have set out on the course of having an allocation model that will meet the needs of every student in the province, particularly special-needs students, and that is why there is a separate category for funding special-needs students, so that we can make sure their needs are met.

The member has also raised the issue of discipline. When I talk to parents and teachers, and yes, even students across the province, the issue of discipline comes up constantly. We will be taking initiatives over the course of the next few months to very seriously address the issue of discipline in our schools, to talk with parents and teachers and students about the discipline code. We intend that the school councils in every school across this province that are in law in Bill 104 will have a lot to do with the code of discipline in their individual schools so that we can make sure students are protected and that the code of conduct is proper.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. What today is all about is your standards. It's lending focus on those more so than at any time in the history of your government. You, today, are under the microscope, and people in this province want to know what you are going to do in the face of a finding by the Integrity Commissioner that your minister broke the law, is in breach of the Members' Integrity Act, interfered with the workings of an independent, arm's-length, quasi-judicial body.

In his report, the Integrity Commissioner says, "In my opinion, Mr Leach is having difficulty in adopting an attitude which is less confrontational, more consistent with his present office as a member of the executive council, and more appreciative of the parliamentary conventions associated therewith." He goes to say, "I am satisfied that the Honourable Allan Leach contravened the Members' Integrity Act...by communicating with the chair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission."

Premier, what are your standards in these circumstances? What do you think is the right thing to do?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, I want to say we treat this matter very seriously, but I want to take exception as to what the people of Ontario have on their minds today. I believe it's jobs, taxes, quality health care, quality education, how their members can represent them and make sure their views are heard by decision-makers.

Your interest today, as this report is tabled, is my response to it and what standards we accept. I accept as a standard not one whit less than the Honourable Justice Gregory Evans.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you can't dodge this one. This is about your standards, and that's what people are gaining some insight into here today. We've got the case of a minister for whom this is the third strike. He once condoned a staffer of his who contacted a law office with a view to expressing disapproval of an action that was started against this government. This was the minister who on the second occasion was found in a prima facie way to be in contempt of this very Legislature. Now, most recently, this is the minister who is said in this report by the Integrity Commissioner to have been involved in a "flagrant breach of parliamentary convention in that the Health Services Restructuring Commission was set up as independent quasi-judicial tribunal to operate at arm's length from government."

Once again, today is all about you, and you can't dodge that. Are you going to or are you not going to do the right thing? Clearly, the right thing in these circumstances is to ask for and to demand the resignation of your minister.

Hon Mr Harris: I understand that in your role as opposition you are proffering that in your view that is the right thing to do. I am accepting the advice of the Honourable Justice Gregory T. Evans, Integrity Commissioner, who suggested to me what was the right thing to do, and I am doing that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Premier, let's see if you are in fact accepting the findings of the commissioner, because the Members' Integrity Act, under section 34, which deals with penalties, has four different kinds of recommendations that the commissioner can make: that no penalty be imposed, that the member be reprimanded, that the member's right to sit and vote in the assembly be suspended for a specified period of time, or that the member's seat be declared vacant. Each of those penalties have to do with the member's rights as a member of this assembly. They don't have anything to do with the member's rights as a member of cabinet because only you, as Premier, have that jurisdiction and that authority.

1500

First, Minister, you cannot escape, by sloughing off on to the findings of the commissioner, your responsibility to hold the Minister of Municipal Affairs up to a certain conduct and to call in this case for his resignation. Why won't you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I have a clear choice here. I can accept the partisan advice of the Leader of the Opposition, I can accept the partisan advice of the member for Dovercourt or I can accept the impartial advice of a former Chief Justice who has analysed all the facts in this matter and who is, on unanimous recommendation as an appointment of this Legislative Assembly, the Integrity Commissioner. I have chosen to accept his advice.

Mr Silipo: Premier, please listen to this. The commissioner -- and check with him if you need to -- does not have any authority to recommend to you that you should fire a minister as a minister. He can only recommend to this Legislature actions that the Legislature may or may not then take with respect to the rights of a member as a member of this Legislature, not as a minister of cabinet. That's for you and you alone to determine.

That's why, Premier, it comes back to you, and it comes back to you on a minister who was three times in five short months found wanting by the Speaker once, by the commissioner twice. What kind of conduct are you accepting and what kind of conduct are you asking us to accept? To what low levels have you stooped if you will not in this circumstance accept or demand the minister's resignation?

Hon Mr Harris: I am getting some advice from the opposition benches to take part of the report but ignore another part of the report.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Kenora, I would ask that you withdraw the comment that you made, please.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I withdraw.

Hon Mr Harris: I am hearing, by way of interjection, that it is my job as Premier, I believe, to seek out the best advice that I can. I have done that throughout my political career. I have freely acknowledged on a number of occasions that I believe one of the strengths I have brought to the position is my rather humble admission that I am not an expert on very many things. But I have been known to recognize those areas, particularly in the case of the law, where I am not an expert nor trained in the law, to seek the very best advice that I could.

In this case, it was in fact the critic for the official opposition who asked for the opinion and the advice of the Integrity Commissioner and I have accepted that. I don't know why you have not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I've got a point of personal privilege from the member for Cochrane North and I've got a point of personal privilege from the member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege under section 21 of the standing orders. The Premier earlier in the day indicated that he had a legal opinion that would caution backbench members against writing to the hospital restructuring commission. That is in clear contradiction of the written opinion that one of our members has from the Integrity Commissioner.

The Speaker: May I ask the standing order you're citing?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, 21, the right of privilege.

This clearly is a muzzling of backbenchers, not only of the government caucus, but of all parties. It comes at a time when we are about to leave for the summer recess and the hospital restructuring commission is about to make significant decisions affecting many of our communities.

I ask, Mr Speaker, if I may before you render your advice, that you, first of all, have the Premier table that legal opinion for all of us so we may be advised of the grounds of that legal opinion.

Second, Mr Speaker, I believe it's incumbent upon you to resolve the issue of the contradiction between the apparent legal opinion the Premier has received and the opinion we have as backbenchers from the Integrity Commissioner. I believe this is a very serious potential breach of our privileges.

The Speaker: I'm going to recess the House for 15 minutes, and come back.

The House recessed from 1509 to 1530.

The Speaker: On the point of privilege brought up by the member for Fort William, I do not believe any privileges have been breached. I appreciate your submissions, but after careful review I don't see it as a breach of privilege.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Point of order.

The Speaker: I want to go to a point of order for the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance and instruction on how to pursue the rights of the members in this assembly.

I draw your attention to the members' standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and to the Members' Integrity Act, which is contained therein. If you look to section 34 of the Members' Integrity Act, it sets out under subsection (1): "Where the commissioner conducts an inquiry under subsection 31(1) or (2) and finds that the member has contravened any of sections 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 to 12 or 14 to 18, has failed to file a private disclosure statement or a statement of material change within the time provided by section 20, has failed to disclose relevant information in that statement or has...." It goes on to set out those sections. In this case, we're talking about section 4 of the act.

It then goes on to say that the commissioner shall issue a report and shall recommend in the report:

"(a) that no penalty be imposed;

"(b) that the member be reprimanded;

"(c) that the member's right to sit and vote in the assembly be suspended for a specific period or until a condition imposed by the commissioner is fulfilled; or

"(d) that the members's seat be declared vacant."

Subsection (2) says, "The assembly shall consider and respond to the report within 30 days after the day the report is laid before it."

Mr Speaker, the report has been laid before the assembly today. As you know, the House calendar motion has this House adjourning tomorrow, coming back on August 18. At this point in time we would like your advice as to how to pursue fulfilling the requirements of the act. It would be our contention that it be appropriate that this be called as a government order for debate, either today or tomorrow. But given that this has not occurred in the Legislature to the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of the appropriate way in which to pursue this and we would seek your advice and help in constructing the appropriate appeal to the Legislative Assembly to comply with section 34(2) of the Members' Integrity Act and debate the report of the commissioner and respond to that report.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In support of that point of order, it seems to me that the rules are clear, that the report must be in the designated period of time of 30 days. It does present a problem for us who are here today. It says "within 30 days," which to me would mean anything from one day to 30 days.

Since the House is indeed not going to be sitting beyond Thursday, then it seems to me that the report should be dealt with either this afternoon and this evening -- in other words, today's session -- or tomorrow's session to be able to comply with that particular provision. So certainly I think the point made by the member is most valid.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to seek your assistance. I don't want to prejudge the position the government House leader may take, but I would hope he would agree with us and either call for the debate in this emergency today or tomorrow. If, however, that should not happen and then the Assembly, I guess, would be in contravention of the act, unless something else were done to comply, we would have a very serious situation. So the question is, if the government is not prepared to act, and I hope they are, then what assistance can you give us in the opposition to ensure that the Assembly is in --

The Speaker: Truly that is conjecture at this point in time, and I think before we enter into that realm we should determine what the ruling is that I will make, and the ultimate responses to that ruling.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, let me seek your advice. Is it your intent to make a ruling on this at the present time? I am seeing this for the first time. I really need to know what it means. It doesn't say that there needs to be a response today or indeed tomorrow. There may be other ways of dealing with this; I'm not sure. At any rate, there is nothing which advocates here that a decision or a response needs to be made at this present time. I can only submit --

The Speaker: Order, for a moment, please. I suppose that's what we're doing, just exactly what you said, and that's why I would seek your advice or input into what it is that you feel can and cannot be done according to the order here. That's why I'm hearing these points of order. I'm not even sure if they're points of order or if they're points of direction. If you'd like to provide some direction to the Speaker, then of course I'm willing to listen and hear them.

Hon David Johnson: I would submit, Mr Speaker, that no decision on this matter would be prudent today. I will certainly undertake to understand this better and understand in terms of what the obligations are on this Assembly as outlined in the integrity act, but it clearly doesn't contemplate the necessity for a response or a ruling here today. Again, I'll give you my undertaking to investigate this matter and to respond to you, and I think that would suffice for today, in my submission.

The Speaker: Let me just be clear for the members in the assembly today. I have a responsibility to interpret these rules as they affect the assembly, and that is what in fact I will have to do. I will have to interpret this rule. I'm hearing submissions on each particular party's or person's opinion of how this rule will be impacting the assembly and their interpretation on that rule. I want to be clear about that, particularly for the government House leader.

So if it's a submission you'd like to make, then I think the most appropriate time to make that submission about your interpretation of this rule and its impact on the assembly would be now.

Next, I've got the member for Welland-Thorold, who was up. I would want to go back, if the government House leader is interested, to him next.

1540

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I thank you kindly. Clearly, subsection (2) makes this mandatory. There's no equivocation about the word "shall." It not only "shall consider" but also "shall report." It also sets clearly and obviously the time frame "within 30 days."

This is the point I want to make: (1) It says "The assembly shall," and I suggest that implies it's not a matter for House leaders, for instance, to agree upon by virtue of taking outside the 30-day time frame; it's not within the purview of the assembly to deviate from what's required here. That puts the ball very much into your court, I submit. It's not a matter that can be called by the House leader of the government as an order of the day. It's something the assembly has to respond to.

Speaking to the 30-day time frame, I suggest that implies it's something that has to be done promptly and that the indication of 30 days is merely to accept the realities of a situation. But it is as much as saying it should be done at the earliest opportunity, because what it's doing is giving the assembly an opportunity to address the condemnation of certain behaviour by one particular member of the assembly. It could be more than one in this case, but the report refers to one particular member of the assembly. It's a condemnation of that member's conduct.

The House has an obligation to consider and respond to that condemnation. In the interests of both the person who is the subject matter, in this case the Minister of Housing, and in the interests of the House, I'm suggesting to you that it's incumbent upon you, as Speaker, to be responsible for ensuring that this happens, also to ensure that it happen at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any event no later than 30 days. I suggest to you that that is a proper interpretation here of "within 30 days," that the interests of everybody demand --

Mr Wildman: Thirty calendar days.

Mr Kormos: Thirty calendar days -- the interests of everyone demand that this be done at the first possible opportunity. I suggest that could be properly read in too, what's spoken of by virtue of it being mandatory, by virtue of this being one of the narrowest or most rigid time restrictions, I suggest to you, in any of all our rules. That it isn't designed to provide a great deal of leeway about when this is to be done, that the mandatory requirement that this be done within 30 days suggests very strongly that it be done at the earliest opportunity.

Hon Mr Johnson: This is a matter that has come up rather quickly that does, on the appearance of it, need to be responded to, using the words that I see, "within 30 days." If that's correct, then this is simply day one of those 30 days, and I would question the necessity for making a ruling that would, for example, require debate today or indeed a debate tomorrow in the sense that at the very least the Speaker does have the ability, under clause 10 of the standing orders, to recall the House at some point, with the advice of the government. That ability is there to recall the House, and presumably that could address the situation if there was a concern that a particular rule was not being obeyed. I think that would work.

Second, it's unclear for me, just seeing this for the first time, whether the 30 days in question pertain to sessional days or calendar days. I understand that the opposition parties would prefer it to be calendar days, but seeing --

Mr Kormos: That's what it says.

Hon David Johnson: It doesn't say calendar days; it says 30 days. Is that sessional days or is that calendar days? These are the kinds of things that would be difficult to interpret right on the spot, and I would think at the very least the parties should have some time to reflect on this at least overnight, and tomorrow would be more than adequate time for you. If you felt that a ruling was required this week, then I would submit to you that a ruling could be postponed at least until that point.

If this could be reasonably interpreted as 30 sessional days, then there is a good deal of time to respond. Even if 30 calendar days would be the interpretation, there's still tomorrow and there's still the ability to recall the House if that is required.

I might say that many of these reports, probably all of them, are considered, are accepted by the House and there is no need for debate. Members opposite may not think that's the case in this regard, but I suspect that on having the ability to study this, and clearly we have not had the ability to do the research, and I think that's important, if there is to be a ruling of some importance, then I believe all parties should have some opportunity to research, to understand the implications, to determine if there is a precedent in this regard, not only what words say on a page. You yourself, Mr Speaker, in making many rulings, are swayed by previous rulings, by precedent, by what has happened in the past, that sort of thing. I submit to you that information is not available here today.

Is it fair to be put in a place to have to make a decision in the absence of that sort of information? Is it fair for all three parties on the spur of the moment to have to put forward their best case in the absence of that sort of research? It may be more reasonable to revisit this issue tomorrow and at least allow the parties 24 hours to investigate, to determine is it 30 calendar days, 30 sessional days, is there a precedent for this, is there a way these things have been handled in the past etc? That would be basically my submission to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: First of all I'd like to point out for your consideration that standing order 10(a) clearly states that you have that power "[w]henever the House stands adjourned, if it appears to the Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House" to be recalled. The House has not as yet adjourned, so standing order 10 has no relevance currently. It only becomes relevant when the House is adjourned.

The way I understand it is that at midnight last night we passed a calendar motion which states that this House, after it adjourns tomorrow, will come back on August 18. So as far as the House is concerned, it's in session today, tomorrow and then on August 18.

There is nothing in the Members' Integrity Act that indicates that the word "day" should not be taken in its normal context, a day being 24 hours long from sun-up one day to sun-up the next day. It doesn't talk about sessional days anywhere in the act at all. It doesn't mention sessional days at all. I would just like to reiterate and agree with the member for Welland-Thorold that it makes it quite clear that there's absolutely no discretion there at all. I'm referring now to subsection 34(2):

"The assembly shall consider and respond to the report within 30 days...." It's extremely clear. It "shall consider" it during that period of time which, it seems to me, only leaves you two alternatives: We either consider it today and tomorrow, or possibly tomorrow, but I think this matter is of such an urgent nature that it should be dealt with immediately. There's not a question of recalling the House at some point in time later on. Standing order 10 at this point is of no relevance because the House has not as yet adjourned.

1550

Obviously the Members' Integrity Act is only three years old, but it's an act that an awful lot of thought and consideration went into. It is not merely just anticipating something that the House leader might say about referring it to some sort of a committee. The act is quite clear. It talks about the assembly. In the preamble as well, it talks about the rights of the members of the assembly. We have the right, in accordance with the provisions of this act, to consider and respond to the report. In my opinion, that should happen as soon as possible.

Mr Wildman: Just to respond to the comments of the government House leader, first, as other members have said, it's clear to all of us here what the calendar is. For the government House leader to argue that a law, a statute, when it says "days" is not clear that it means 24 hours is a little ridiculous. We are here dealing with a statute; we are not dealing with one of the rules of the House. If it were just simply one of the rules of the House, it might be arguable, I suppose, about whether or not it's a sessional day. This is a statute. If the statute meant "sessional days," it would say so. It says "days." So it is clear that we have to deal with this as an assembly in 30 days, by July 25. We also know that the calendar that was passed last night says that we are adjourning tomorrow and not returning until August 18.

The other point that was made by the government House leader about recalling the House was responded to by the member for Kingston and The Islands, but there's another problem with that. The statute puts the obligation here on the assembly, not on the government. The assembly must consider and respond to the report within 30 days. It's the assembly. The assembly might determine how that is to take place in order to be in compliance with the law, but how we deal with this isn't solely on the advice of the government; this is the responsibility of all of us as members of the assembly. Since we are adjourning tomorrow night as per the calendar motion, we must deal with this today or tomorrow. That's clear.

The government House leader said it would be better to have some time to consider this. I would suggest that on occasion in this House things happen which require members of the assembly to act immediately, without having the luxury of long periods to consider. For instance, when the Speaker ruled recently with regard to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that he considered there might be a prima facie case for contempt, it was the responsibility of the members to move a motion immediately, not to say to the Speaker: "Thanks very much for your ruling. Now can we have 24 hours to consider our motion?" The same applies here. The assembly must deal with it within 30 days. That means as soon as possible. We only have 48 hours. We've got to deal with this today or tomorrow.

The Speaker: I appreciate the submissions. They're all good, and I know the next few will be good as well, but it's important, I think, that if you make them, you not retrace some steps but give me some new information, and as briefly as possible. That would be very helpful. As I said before, and I will say always, I will not not listen to points of order on any of these.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, there appears to be some urgency that has been referred to by yourself, in comments that have been made by you and members of the House, that this matter be dealt with now. There doesn't seem to be, with due respect to you and with due respect to members of the House, anything in the Members' Integrity Act --

The Speaker: I just want to be clear to the member for Dufferin-Peel that I have made no comments other than the fact that I'm willing to hear comments. I want to make sure no one is presupposing my judgement. I know you said it's my willingness to deal with it now; I have not said that. All I'm saying is right now I'd like to hear some submissions.

Mr Tilson: The point I'm trying to make is that there's nothing to say that this House can't deal with this tomorrow.

Mr Wildman: Well, we need a guarantee.

Mr Tilson: I'm simply saying that with respect to making a decision now or dealing with it now, there doesn't seem to be anything in the act that requires that this matter be disposed of this very moment. That's the first comment I make.

The other comment I'd like to make is that we are spending some time of course on subsection 34(2). I would submit that subsection (4) further deals with this issue; in other words, the issue if the Integrity Commissioner has stated that there be no penalty imposed. Subsection 34(4) talks about the power of the assembly.

"Despite section 46 of the Legislative Assembly Act, the assembly does not have power to inquire further into the contravention, to impose a penalty if the commissioner recommended that none be imposed, or to impose a penalty other than the one recommended."

In other words, if the commissioner has said that no penalty be imposed, I would submit that's the end of it and that subsection 34(4) further defines what is to be done in subsection 34(2); that the only time subsection (2) comes into play or comes into effect is when a penalty has been imposed, or the recommendations -- in other words, one of the other statements has taken place. That's the second comment I would like you to consider.

The other issue that has been raised, I think the member for Kingston and The Islands and the member for Algoma have talked about what "days" mean. Everything in this place talks about sessional days. This whole assembly operates on what a sessional day is. A sessional day is defined by the standing orders of this House under order 2. "The term `sessional day' means any day on which the House meets." Not any calendar day; it's a sessional day. That's the only day on which this place legally can operate. We can't sit on any day we choose; it has to be a sessional day.

I would submit that this was the intent of the Members' Integrity Act when it said "within 30 days." You can't possibly take any other interpretation of calendar days, because we don't sit by calendar days; we sit by sessional days. Every day we deal with issues. Points of order have come up even quite recently on the interpretation of what a day is as to when orders must be disposed of during the House. A sessional day clearly means "any day on which the House meets." The arguments or the submissions that are being made, particularly by members of the opposition, that this must be dealt with in the next 30 calendar days are not correct.

Those are my submissions, in summary: (1) Because of subsection 34(4), because the Integrity Commissioner has not imposed a penalty, that's the end of it and the assembly need not deal with this matter any more. Why would they? That's why subsection 34(4) is there.

(2) If you decide my interpretation is not correct, then the question is, when must this House deal with it? I would submit that it must be dealt with in 30 sessional days, because that's what the orders of this place deal with.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, very briefly, I want to respond to the points just made. First of all, with respect to the Members' Integrity Act, section 34, and the implications of subsection (4) which indicates that, "Despite section 46 of the Legislative Assembly Act, the assembly does not have the power to inquire further into the contravention, to impose a penalty if the commissioner recommended that none be imposed, or to impose a penalty other than the one recommended," I would point out to you very clearly that in that section it indicates that the assembly does not have the power to impose a penalty if the commissioner recommended that none be imposed.

1600

Obviously, it contemplates the assembly debating the report and dealing with the report, but restricts what can be done by the assembly. If you read through that, it is very clear that if the commissioner issues a report, the assembly "shall consider" it, and then it goes on to deal with what the nature of the response would be and/or what the powers of the assembly would be with respect to that, but there is no variation from the dictate here that it shall be considered.

Second, I want to respond to the argument of the member with respect to sessional days. It has been pointed out to you, and I'll very briefly say again, that the standing orders of the House, the rules, refer to sessional days. This is a piece of legislation, and legislation, if it meant sessional days, would say that. It is referring to calendar days.

More important, the reason why you should interpret it that way, if you have any doubt at all, is if you look to the purpose of this section, subsection 34(1), it sets out that the commissioner, where he conducts an inquiry -- which has happened in this case -- and finds the member to have contravened sections -- which has happened in this case -- may impose penalties. Those penalties include things like, "That the member's right to sit and vote in the assembly be suspended for a specific period or until a condition imposed by the commissioner is fulfilled."

The sections that follow, where the assembly shall consider the report and give a response, allow within that response that the assembly may approve that recommendation of the penalty or may reject that recommendation. So if the commissioner has ruled and imposed a penalty of suspending a member's right to sit in this Legislative Assembly, the assembly is to consider that and review that and may, in its wisdom, reject that. Surely, you would not be looking at 30 sessional days in which to consider that. The consideration of the report must be done in a very timely fashion to assure full rights and privileges to all members of this assembly.

One other thing, Mr Speaker: I did ask you at the beginning for advice with respect to how we pursue this. I understand that within the standing orders there is, under rule 44(a), a rule that says: "A motion that the House discuss a sessional paper other than a committee report requires notice. No amendment may be made to such a motion."

It is not clear to me that this is a sessional paper, but I think that is something that should be determined, and if it is, I would certainly indicate the intention of our caucus to submit such a notice, and that notice therefore would be to debate this tomorrow. As we're talking about calendar days, that's the last day available to us. Given that notice would have to be provided before a certain time of the clock under the standing orders, I would ask for your assistance in helping us facilitate a response and direction as to our actions in a timely fashion that allows us to comply with both the standing orders and the intent of the legislation.

The Speaker: I understand that and I will give you my undertaking to consider it as part of the further deliberations. Furthermore, there's no rotation in points of order.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'll keep my remarks brief. You've heard plenty today. I just want to address a couple of issues.

One is the issue of urgency and why we should deal with it in a timely fashion. This is an issue of confidence in responsible government and the notion of ministerial responsibility that comes with that. Moreover, if you read the decision of Judge Evans, it clearly says that in this case we have a flagrant breach of parliamentary convention. There is certainly a prima facie case established that we must act with some urgency and some speed.

The Members' Integrity Act is clear that where there is a report of this kind, we have to respond within 30 days. That has been said. The member for Dufferin-Peel has said, "Well, there was no penalty imposed here, and therefore what's the big deal?" In fact, the Members' Integrity Act, in section 36(4), nowhere says, "If there's no penalty, you don't have to have a response." We are required to give a response within 30 days. That's the law.

As to the issue of "day," I think it's already been pointed out that the standing orders are very clear in section 2 that it's a sessional day. The Members' Integrity Act simply speaks to "day." The rules of statutory interpretation require you to interpret that liberally and broadly. You cannot import "sessional" into a statute that does not otherwise say "sessional."

I would also further point out to you that in the integrity act, all the references there with respect to dates refer to calendar years. In that same section around miscellaneous provisions, if you look at, for instance, paragraph 3 of section 36, it refers specifically to "calendar year." Therefore, I would argue that you are required to give a very liberal interpretation, that it ought to be a calendar day, that there is a need for urgency and therefore the House should debate this at its earliest convenience, which is now.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I will try not to repeat anything that has been presented to you other than to point out, because I think it's critical to this debate, that subsection 34(2) states, "The assembly shall consider and respond"; not necessarily make decisions, not attempt to change anything, but "consider and respond." Clearly, the legislation was meant to ensure that we deal with important reports that come from the commissioner.

I want to add to the argument of the member for Downsview, when talking about whether they're sessional days or calendar days, by pointing out that under clause 20(1)(a) -- this is under the Members' Integrity Act, the same one of which subsection 34(4) is being discussed -- it states that each of us as members, once we're elected, must "within 60 days of being elected" submit our disclosure forms. You know yourself, Speaker, as a member of this place, that the commissioner is very sticky, as he or she should be, about those days. That is not sessional days. That is very clearly calendar days.

Just to further drive the point home, if you will, subsection 18(1) speaks to "during the 12 months." Is someone going to suggest that those are sessional months? I think in this case there is a very clear message that those are calendar days, calendar months, as opposed to sessional, given that we are talking a piece of legislation versus the standing rules of this place.

I also would like to point out to you, Speaker, that someone had suggested that time limits may not be as big an issue as we are saying they are, given that you, under section 10(a) of the standing House rules, can call the House back. I would like to submit to you that we are of course dealing with a very hot political issue that involves whether members of the cabinet, as a result of this report, ought to be held accountable and be allowed to maintain as ministers. Therefore, the government doesn't want us to deal with this. We would like to. That's obvious to anyone watching these proceedings. It's certainly obvious to you. But to make the argument that we don't need to get a ruling from you today because you have the right to call the House back is not an effective argument in this case. The wording of 10(a) is, "Whenever the House stands adjourned, if it appears to the Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time," etc, etc -- "on the advice of the government." Speaker, if the government doesn't want to deal with this, they just don't have to advise you of that. Then you don't have the authority to call the House back.

The problem for us is that there are only two days left where we are guaranteed to be sitting. If we don't meet this requirement, yes, you can state that the House is in breach of the standing rules or it could even be in breach of the Members' Integrity Act. I'm not aware that you have remedy to make right our loss of rights, but you do have an opportunity at this point to ensure that our rights are upheld by allowing us to debate it either this afternoon, this evening, or some time tomorrow, and enforce that on this House. Otherwise, Speaker, I submit to you, if you don't do that, this issue will not see the light of day. We will not debate it. We will have lost our rights, and as much as you might like to, I'm not aware that you have any remedy to give us back our rights. I leave that submission with you, sir.

Hon David Johnson: That may be so, but this is hypothetical today. I would strongly submit to you that whereas the members opposite may wish this item to be dealt with this afternoon, may wish it to be dealt with tomorrow, if indeed what we're reading before us requires it to be dealt with either in 30 sessional days or 30 calendar days, there is nothing here that compels it to be dealt with today or tomorrow. Clearly, what is contemplated is "consider and respond" -- whatever that means -- "within 30 days." It's very puzzling to me, in light of that and notwithstanding the opposition's desire to do things on their own invented time frame, how a government could not be permitted to respond on the basis of the rule.

1610

A reasonable ruling might be to live up to the rule in some fashion, but I would fail to understand how a ruling must be responded to today or tomorrow. If at the end of the day it is considered that some consideration and response is needed within 30 days, there may be other ways of doing that. At this point, there is no violation. At this point, there is no discrepancy of the rules.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Like what?

Hon David Johnson: Like what? There could be unanimous consent to have the House sit on Monday. There could be unanimous consent with the House leaders dealing with this issue to recall the House at some point within the 30 days. The government could approach the Speaker and say that at some point, on the 25th day or the 12th day or any other day, in compliance with this, that yes we think we should recall the House. That would then --

Ms Lankin: No, this is the assembly, not the government.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I understand that the members opposite want to have their own interpretation of what's here, but clearly what's here does not require any consideration or response within one day or two days. There are all sorts of other rules that are contained here, but until there's a breach, until there's a violation, they cannot be enforced. There is no breach or violation. I see you've already got up.

The Speaker: I don't mean to shut it down. Let me just say quickly that I need to consult with someone with respect to this issue, and I would like to do that. If I could just do that and come back and hear the rest of the submissions, I'd appreciate it.

Hon David Johnson: Could I just make one more new point?

The Speaker: The point is this: I will hear your submission's next point when I get back. If I don't leave in three minutes, I won't be able to consult with this person.

Hon David Johnson: Okay.

The Speaker: Thank you. We can go on with petitions etc and allow me to come back in here and hear the rest of the submissions. I know it's asking a lot. I ask the members to indulge me. I wouldn't ask for this if I didn't need it.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): How long will you be?

The Speaker: How long? I don't know.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from Citizens for Local Democracy entitled "Petition to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature."

It reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to all the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I'm in complete agreement with its sentiments.

TVONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's signed by 10 people from Smooth Rock Falls. It's a petition concerning protecting TVOntario because of the broad coverage it gives and I support the petition. I affix my name to the petition.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Representation Act, 1996, states that: `For the purpose of representation in the Legislative Assembly, Ontario is divided into electoral districts whose number, names and boundaries are identical to those of its federal electoral districts'; and

"Whereas the new provincial boundaries have grouped the village of Arthur with the Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey riding; and

"Whereas the village is no longer included with most of Wellington and the flow of our people is to the south for employment, hospital services etc;

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

"We request exemption from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey riding to become part of the Waterloo-Wellington riding."

This is signed by approximately three quarters of the electors of the village of Arthur. I have affixed my signature to it as well.

TRAFFIC FATALITY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas on October 9, 1996, Mrs Popi Nikitopoulos was struck by a speeding car while crossing Avenue Road on a green traffic signal. The car struck her with such force that she sustained massive head trauma, numerous fractures and severe internal injuries. Eleven days after her accident she succumbed to her injuries and died. The driver of the car was charged with failing to obey a traffic signal and careless driving. On December 3, 1996, the case appeared before the Ontario provincial court. The crown agreed to a plea bargain with the defence to a lesser charge: failing to obey a traffic signal. The driver was fined $350.

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

"We are requesting a full investigation by the Attorney General into this case because we believe that the accused should have been convicted of careless driving in addition to failing to obey a traffic signal;

"Furthermore, the driving privileges of the accused should have been suspended for a minimum period of one year regardless of her driving record.

"In addition, we are requesting that the Attorney General amend the law to reflect a stricter and more appropriate penalty when a traffic fatality occurs as a result of someone's careless operation of a motor vehicle. There should be an automatic suspension of the person's driving privileges as well as a significant fine upon conviction."

There are well over 1,000 signatures here and I am pleased to attach my signature as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this government's contribution to prevention services made through the WCB has been reduced from $62 million to $47 million, with no explanation as to where this money has gone; and

"Whereas the prevention services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and other safety associations, thereby increasing the demand for the prevention services provided by the centre; and

"Whereas the government has gutted the certification training standards for health and safety committee members and replaced them with minimalist performance standards which, in combination with funding cuts, has resulted in a 40% reduction in the staff of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre is facing further cuts of $2.3 million to finance the establishment of several new employer safety associations, thereby duplicating administrative costs and services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the gutting of the funding of prevention services provided by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the moneys taken from the health and safety prevention services of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the other safety associations be returned to them."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

1620

CASINOS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It deals with the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices in Ontario and a request for the province to hold a binding referendum in conjunction with the 1997 municipal elections. I attach my signature to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government is proposing to completely change the structure of relations between the province and municipalities without any public consultation with Ontarians; and

"Whereas the restructuring proposes to download on to municipalities the cost of public transportation and essential social services like welfare and long-term care for seniors and people with chronic illness; and

"Whereas the restructuring takes away the power to levy tax on school boards and subsequently any real power over their schools and curricula; and

"Whereas the actions of the government are not respecting the promise to keep funding at an actual level and don't recognize that different communities don't have the same resources to absorb these new burdens and that it is creating some inequity in access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government does not show any interest in consultation of the population and it does not take into account the reaction of the population, it represents a threat to democracy; and

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, are hereby expressing non-confidence against the government of the province of Ontario because we are concerned with the inequities of the life of the province and the wellbeing of the children, neighbours and communities."

I've also signed my name to that petition.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have received petitions titled, Stand up for Rural Health Care, signed by people from Ohsweken, Fisherville, Cayuga and other areas in and near my riding.

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospitals, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities, and that hospital boards, district health councils, the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I agree with this petition and therefore affix my name to it.

COURT DECISION

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass bills empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

I agree with the petition and affix my signature.

SCHOOL PRAYER

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition here:

"The Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, being a firm supporter of the public system and the Protestant faith, does with the undersigned hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

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

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children and public safety in general."

I'll sign this so that it can be properly submitted.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms Castrilli from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 138, An Act to promote road safety by increasing periods of suspension for Criminal Code convictions, impounding vehicles of suspended drivers, requiring treatment for impaired drivers, raising fines for driving while suspended, impounding critically defective commercial vehicles, creating an absolute liability offence for wheel separations, raising fines for passing stopped school buses, streamlining accident reporting requirements and amending other road safety programs / Projet de loi 138, Loi visant à favoriser la sécurité routière en augmentant les périodes de suspension pour les déclarations de culpabilité découlant du Code criminel, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules de conducteurs faisant l'objet d'une suspension, en exigeant le traitement des conducteurs en état d'ébriété, en augmentant les amendes pour conduite pendant que son permis est suspendu, en mettant en fourrière les véhicules utilitaires comportant des défauts critiques, en créant une infraction entraînant la responsabilité absolue en cas de détachement des roues, en augmentant les amendes pour dépassement d'un autobus scolaire arrêté, en simplifiant les exigences relatives à la déclaration des accidents et en modifiant d'autres programmes de sécurité routière.

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

Shall Bill 138 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 40th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement, member for Nickel Belt?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Not other than to say the committee continues to chug along efficiently.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTION AGAINST PEDOPHILES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LES PÉDOPHILES

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 145, An Act to provide protection against pedophiles by preventing them from working in direct contact with children / Projet de loi 145, Loi prévoyant la protection contre les pédophiles en empêchant ceux-ci de travailler en contact direct avec des enfants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you have a statement?

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): The bill prohibits persons from retaining or continuing to retain the services of a paedophile in a position that involves dealing directly with children on a regular basis. The bill also prohibits paedophiles from acting in a position of that type six months after the bill comes into force.

A paedophile is defined as a person who has been convicted of sexual crimes involving children or in respect of whom a prohibition has been made to keep the persons away from children. The bill creates offences for persons who contravene the prohibitions. However, an employer who has employed a paedophile is not guilty of an offence if the employer has obtained a letter from the police stating that the employee is not a paedophile.

1630

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion, as amended, for adoption of amendments to the standing orders.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Wood had the floor.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On the last day, I had entered into a debate on the rule changes that the member --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Just a moment, please.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just wanted to clarify that we did have unanimous consent for the member to speak because of an unfortunate accident that occurred, and I think the member missed part of his rotation. So we certainly give unanimous consent to complete.

The Acting Speaker: That's right. That was agreed previously.

Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much. As I said, I appreciate the cooperation in the House. I wasn't sure at what point the speaking order was going to come back, but I had started out and had about five minutes on the clock.

The rule changes that are being proposed are very scary.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, can you take your seat for a moment. I ask the members of the House to come to order, please. I can't hear the member for Cochrane North. Thank you.

Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much. It's very important that people listen to what is being debated in this Legislature, because what we have here are rule changes that are being contemplated. If we go back to Bill 26, the bully bill that was brought into the House, we had to take drastic action in the assembly so that the public and the media would be aware of what the government was trying to do at that time. Under the new rules, if the Premier and his staff decide to put together a piece of legislation, that piece of legislation could be passed through all stages in this House and become law in less than a week. This is very frightening, especially with what we see happening in the Legislature today, where the Integrity Commissioner has made a ruling saying that the laws are there and that cabinet ministers shouldn't allowed to break the law. We know that not all the cabinet ministers abide by all the rules and regulations that are written down, and we could see all kinds of weird pieces of --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It appears to me that we do not have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, would you see if there is a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood: This shows the incompetence of this government. They were elected with a majority government of 82 members and it is their responsibility to keep a quorum in this House and to make sure that things run in an orderly fashion. If I were the Premier, I'd be getting hold of the whip and making sure he does his job or taking the money away from him. There's no use in giving people a few extra dollars to whip the people into making sure there is a quorum here. If they're not going to do their job, they should be replaced.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He's paid the same as a cabinet minister.

Mr Len Wood: There you go. Cabinet ministers get the same as the whip does, and we see that a lot of people are not sitting in here. We need 20 members to make sure there is a quorum.

One of the other concerns I have is night sitting motions. For example, the government House leader or the Premier or people in the Premier's office can decide that they want to spring a surprise attack on the opposition members in the House and bring in a motion, without notice, to debate any piece of legislation from 6:30 till 9:30 at night. As far as we're concerned, it would be very unfair if the opposition parties were challenged with this on a continuous basis.

The Legislature is the highest law body of Ontario, and for the present government to feel that they want to bring in rule changes that are going to shut out the media, shut out the opposition, whether it be the Liberals or the NDP, so that nobody will be aware of what piece of legislation they want to bring in, and we know there are a lot of pieces of legislation --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Despite the presence of the whip in the House, I don't think there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood: It's quite obvious that on a hot, sunny summer afternoon the Conservative members are out there around town and not doing their job as they're supposed to do: sitting in this Legislature, listening and getting involved in the debate. These are important things and we should have a quorum here at all times.

I could go through all the rules one by one. If you look at the muzzle that the government wants to put on the debate in this Legislature, they want to limit the debate. I know the member for -- John Baird -- brought forward some of the rules. He's saying he brought them forward, but I believe they were brought up in the Premier's office or in the House leader's office and he had very little to do with it. They're trying to compare --

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): On a point of order, Speaker: When we're being ridiculed for not having enough people in here, how can we not use the proper form of address when we're speaking to other members of the Parliament?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your point of order.

Mr Rollins: He referred to a member of Parliament by his name and not his riding, and I believe that's not proper.

The Acting Speaker: I believe you're correct, yes. I didn't hear that, but I must remind you, member for Cochrane North, to refer to members by their ridings.

Mr Len Wood: Thank you very much, Speaker. I'm well aware, but I don't why the member would be so concerned about people being named by their name. My name is Len Wood and I'm from Cochrane North and I'm proud of it. If the Conservative members are ashamed of their members being called by their names, how could they be recognized?

1640

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): You're the ones talking about rules.

Mrs Boyd: You are breaking the rules. That's the point.

The Acting Speaker: Member for London Centre, come to order.

Mr Len Wood: As I was saying, to go back to when Bill 26, the bully bill of all bills, was brought into this House, both opposition parties had to take drastic action to make sure the media and the public were aware of the type of legislation that was being brought through. Under the present rules being proposed, it would be possible for the government to bring in a bill like 26 -- and we're going to see more of them. We know that in August the government wants to beat up on the teachers. They want to adjust all their collective agreements, all their seniority lists and take a real beating-up attitude towards the teachers, probably in August when the Legislature comes back.

We dealt with everything in a fairer way when we were in government. We had some expenditure controls and we were serious about bringing the expenditures under control. We had a plan to balance the budget in our first term after being re-elected for another term. It wasn't to be, but we had the plan. The budget would have been balanced faster than what Mike Harris is proposing to do in his agenda, and it wouldn't have meant thousands of people being laid off.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't mean to interrupt. If you could stop the member's time, I'd appreciate it.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to hear the rest of the submissions that were being made earlier. I believe I left off with the government House leader. I don't see the member I promised to go to next, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and I'm sorry if he's not here. If he gets here before the government House leader is done, I gave him my undertaking to hear from him.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): There are two points I was wishing to make primarily. The one I think I mostly did make is that this is a matter that's hypothetical at this point. If indeed 30 days are required to fulfil some obligation, one would expect that the body involved, in this case the assembly, under the direction of the government calling it as business, would have 30 days to respond to that. In that case, it may be a legitimate ruling to indicate that the assembly, with the direction of the government calling business, should live up to that obligation. But to presuppose that that obligation won't be lived up to on the first day, and therefore to make a ruling that it must be considered on day 1 or day 2 when 30 days, either sessional or calendar, are allotted -- it puzzles me how anybody could argue on that basis. Obviously that hasn't got any merit.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Sessional or calendar?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Calendar.

The Speaker: I appreciate that you want to have input, but I'd like to have some degree of decorum.

Hon David Johnson: There are any number of ways, involving cooperation from all parties and involving your good offices, Mr Speaker, in which the assembly could consider this matter over the course of the remaining 28 days, whether those are sessional days or calendar days. I find it extremely hard to understand how a ruling would be appropriate at this point involving either today or tomorrow, the first two days of those 30 days.

Second, the words in question say, "The assembly shall consider and respond to the report within 30 days...." I don't know what that means. Clearly the word "debate" is not in there. We can all jump to conclusions; it's very convenient to jump to conclusions. For example, this afternoon the Premier made a statement on this very issue. The opposition parties have responded. The Leader of the Opposition has responded. The member for Dovercourt, on behalf of the third party, has responded. There was consideration in this House. There was response in this House. Indeed, all the members of this House had the opportunity to raise questions, and several members did avail themselves of that opportunity to raise the matter and to pose questions.

Mr Speaker, I'm not sure where the words "consider and respond" are defined and I'm not sure if there's any precedent in this regard. We don't have that at this point in time, but I would submit to you that it certainly wouldn't be an unreasonable interpretation that the House has considered this matter this afternoon: the Premier himself, the Leader of the Opposition, the member from the third party and a number of members raising questions on this very matter, in this very House.

Does it say the matter must be debated? No. I don't see the word "debate." Does it say there must be some kind of written report or any particular report?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): "Consider" means to reflect.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Lawrence says "reflect." Indeed the House did reflect on this situation this afternoon at great length, in terms of the statements, the responses, the questions. There was a considerable amount of House time spent on this issue this afternoon, at the most visible time of the proceedings of the House.

At the very least there should be some consideration of that, because I would suggest to you that there could be a very good case built that we have actually considered and responded to this report in this House on the very first day the matter was raised.

The Speaker: I will hear the submissions. I honestly think I've heard a lot of them and they've been good. I hear some repetition, so if we could just wrap this up, I'd really appreciate it. I want to go to the member for Algoma and then move around from there.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I appreciate the desire to deal with this expeditiously. We are not interested in prolonging this session, shall we call it.

In regard to the minister's submission, there are two problems with his submission, in my view. The first is that he makes it ignoring the fact that the House passed a motion last night dealing with the calendar. I submit to you, Speaker, that we cannot ignore that. Page 40 of the act, subsection 34(2) is clear. This matter must be dealt with by July 25 of this year.

No matter how the government wants to interpret this, it's clear what the words "consider and respond" mean in this House. It doesn't mean questions and answers. It doesn't mean statements and responses. All of us who have been in this assembly know what those words mean. By quibbling about those words, my disappointment is that the government appears not to want to comply with the law. Surely, if anyone would want to comply with the law, it would be the government of the province.

We have to consider and respond to the report 30 days hence. That's clear. Also, we must take into account the calendar motion. We have to deal with this by July 25. We have today and tomorrow. The government must, if it's serious, make it clear to all the assembly members how we're going to comply with the law. They are either going to debate it today or tomorrow or some time before July 25.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): There are some further points I'd like to make, Mr Speaker. The first point is that we have to look at the preamble of the Members' Integrity Act. If I could read a portion of that, it states as follows:

"It is desirable to provide greater certainty in the reconciliation of the private interests and public duties of members of the Legislative Assembly, recognizing the following principles." These are the four principles upon which this act is based:

"1. The assembly as a whole can represent the people of Ontario most effectively if its members have experience and knowledge in relation to many aspects of life...."

Then it talks about the members' duty in paragraph 2, "representing their constituents' interests in the assembly and to the government of Ontario."

1650

In paragraph 3, it talks about maintaining the "assembly's dignity and justifies the respect in which society holds the assembly and its members."

It is the assembly that has the rights here; it is not the government, it is not a committee of the assembly. This act deals with how the assembly's rights, privileges and duties can best be responded to.

Section 34, as has already been indicated on numerous occasions, is quite specific. The plain meaning of the reading of this section can only mean one thing: "The assembly shall consider" -- no discretion at all -- "and respond to the report within 30 days after the day the report is laid before it."

For the government House leader to suggest that because the Premier has made a statement and there have been certain questions about it, without the report even having been made available at that point to the members of the assembly -- not just to the House leaders, not just to the Premier, not just to the Leader of the Opposition but to the members of the assembly -- and to regard that somehow as having given the matter full consideration is in my mind just not correct.

Let's take a look at what the word "consider" means in Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition. It's quite clear. "Consider" is defined as: "to fix the mind on with a view to careful examination; to examine; to inspect. To deliberate about and ponder over." That is the definition contained in Black's Law Dictionary. It is not to allow a few questions to be asked and then just go on with the rest of the business of this House. No. It is to examine, inspect, to deliberate about and ponder. That means more than what the House leader has suggested here.

When you look at the reality of the situation, we have to do this as an assembly, not as a government, not as an opposition, not as a committee of this assembly, within 30 days of the day the report came here.

As a result of the motion last night, there are only two days to do it in: either today or tomorrow. I would respectfully suggest that you, as the upholder of the rules of the House, have to comply with the law. I know it's highly unusual perhaps for a Speaker to in effect determine what gets discussed on a particular day. If we want to be within the confines of the law -- and we certainly don't want to break the law; heaven knows it has been broken enough already when it comes to these kinds of issues around here over the last six months or so -- then surely to goodness we should deal with it either today and tomorrow or tomorrow.

It's obviously our preference, because we don't know how long the debate is going to take, that the debate start as quickly as possible, which would allow for a maximum of seven hours today and possibly eight hours tomorrow, for a maximum of 15 hours of debate. This is a very serious matter. For anybody who doesn't think so, who thinks this is a matter that can be debated in a couple of hours, I would just remind you of some of the statements the commissioner has made.

The commissioner states, for example, "To bypass the Minister of Health is not only a failure to show proper respect for the minister but in the present situation it is a flagrant breach of parliamentary convention." We're talking now about parliamentary convention. That affects every member in this House, that parliamentary conventions in the province of Ontario are adhered to.

I would suggest that in order to give this matter the fullest amount of debate, the debate should start immediately and let it run its course. It may be over in an hour or two, or it may indeed take the 15 hours we've got left between now and the time when the House adjourns tomorrow at midnight.

May I remind you once again that standing order 10 is quite clear: that the discretion you have when you feel it's in the public interest, on the government's advice, to call the House back only comes into effect once the House is adjourned. This House is not adjourned, so you do not have that option available to you at this time.

I would strongly suggest that we start the debate on this, because this is more than just about one particular minister; it is really about the parliamentary tradition we have in this House. I think we should do whatever we can, collectively, to uphold that.

The Speaker: I've got two more submissions. I have the member for Dufferin-Peel and the member for Downsview, and then I'd really appreciate the opportunity to consider it, if that's okay. The member for London Centre?

Mrs Boyd: Very briefly.

The Speaker: Okay, and the member for London Centre, and then I'd really appreciate the opportunity to consider these many fine submissions.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, there appear to be two issues before you.

Mr Len Wood: Three issues: Runciman, Leach --

Mr Tilson: Give me a break.

There appear to be two issues before you, Mr Speaker. One is, what does subsection 34(2) mean? What does "consider and respond to" mean? Is it being suggested that we're considering and responding to the commissioner? Is that what is being suggested? I don't think so. I believe the intent of this act was that the commissioner submits his or her report to the assembly -- it has been submitted -- and that it just doesn't sit on that table for an indefinite period of time. It's being suggested that the House must deal with it according to subsection 34(2). So preparing a formal report isn't necessary, which I think is being suggested, particularly by members of the opposition.

The fact of the matter is, we're having this debate now, which is essentially on the point of order, I believe, of the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr Wildman: These are points of order.

Mr Tilson: There may be several points of order, but we are indeed considering it. We are also considering it: There has been a presentation made by the Premier, there has been a presentation made by a representative of the Liberal caucus and there has been a presentation made by a representative from the New Democratic caucus. You can take all the words from the dictionary meaning you want, but I don't know where anyone can get that interpretation, that the words "consider and respond" mean that the Clerk, through the Speaker, must prepare a formal report, a formal document, that must go back to the commissioner. Then what's the commissioner going to do with it? Clearly the intent is that this assembly must look at this thing, must consider it, and that is indeed what we're doing.

The second issue, of course, is the topic of days: What does "30 days" mean? I have made submissions on that, although I feel obligated, because of the comments that have been made since I spoke, to talk on the issue of days.

When you look at the Members' Integrity Act, the limitation periods that are spoken of are talked about in two kinds of times. One is with respect to a member. A member must file his or her report I believe within 30 days, and there's a rule for that. Then they start talking, for example, in section 30, about enforcement. Subsection 30(3), for example, says: "The member making the request shall promptly give a copy of it to the Speaker, who shall cause the request to be laid before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, within 10 days after the beginning of the next session."

There's another section too, clause 31(3)(c), which talks about the inquiry by the commission, which is what we're dealing with here. Clause 31(3)(c) says, "The Speaker shall...cause the opinion to be laid before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, within 10 days after the beginning of the next session."

All the references being referred to with respect to the assembly deal with sessional days. Why? Because you legally, with due respect, sir, have no legal ability but to talk about sessional days. You haven't the legal capacity to talk about calendar days. You simply don't have that authority. In other words, you could say, "We're going to consider and respond on day 1 or day 2." With due respect to you, we have 30 days. Even if you took the calendar, who's to say that you can force us to do that today? You can say, "Okay, we're going to come back some time in July," but you don't have that legal authority, because that's a calendar day, that's not a sessional day. I'm simply saying to you that the only legal capacity you have is to deal in sessional days, and sessional days, as defined by order 2, are the days on which this place is sitting.

1700

Those are the two other comments I make, just to summarize, to talk about the words "consider and respond." I say that has been done. That has been done now, that has been done with the Premier, the representative from the Liberal caucus, the representative from the New Democratic caucus. They have considered and responded. It has been dealt with.

If you say, "No, we need more than that," that will be an interesting challenge for you. Are you going to suggest: "You've got to have a week of debate. You have to have a week of something"? The bill doesn't talk about debate. The bill simply says "consider and respond." The next problem for you is, when are you going order us to do that? You can't order us to do it today. You can't order us to do it tomorrow. It talks about 30 days and I submit those are 30 sessional days. So we have today, we have tomorrow and, according to the motion that was passed last night, the limitation period continues when we return on August 18.

The Speaker: I have to seek a point of clarification from the member for Dufferin-Peel. You cited a couple of examples and I'd like you to clarify for me about sessional days being referred to in other parts of the act. It would stand to reason, and I put to you, if they were in fact speaking about sessional days in this part of the act, why would they not have stated it there like they did in the other sections?

Mr Tilson: That deals with specifically clarifying whether it's one or the other. You don't have a choice. You simply do not have a choice. You legally do not have a choice. You do not legally have a right to deal with something in a calendar day. These sections I referred to, sections 30 and 31, clearly talk about -- not a choice as well. If you say, "Okay, I'm going to count up 30 days from now; we're going to have a debate, we're going to have a discussion," how are you going to do that? That's the third sessional day. We have today, we have tomorrow, and if you call it back, say, July 15 -- I don't know what day of the week that is -- that's a third sessional day and you're breaching the act.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'd like to respond briefly to the comments made by the member for Dufferin-Peel. First on the issue of the report, he's concerned that the assembly needs to consider this report and whom this report would go to. It is indeed true that the statute is silent with respect to that. I think the issue is irrelevant; it doesn't matter. I don't think we are required to report necessarily to the commissioner but I would submit that we are required to report to the assembly itself in this particular case.

The other issue I wanted to raise is "consider and respond," and my friend from Kingston and The Islands has cited for you the definition in Black's Law Dictionary which is very clear on what that would mean. The definition is clear. It says that we must consider, ponder, that we have to examine in depth. The only way we can do that in this assembly is through debate. There is no other way. We can't simply raise it in the House and say, "We've considered it; this is our response," and it's over with. Our rules only provide for debate. I would submit to you that we have not had a debate here today. We have simply addressed the issue through a point of order. We've not had a full discussion of the issue.

The other point I want to make is with respect to the word "day," and you've already had quite a bit of evidence with respect to that. I pointed out to you before that if the statute meant to say sessional day, it would have said sessional day. You cannot import the language of another statute into this particular statute.

For clarity's sake, let me just read to you briefly from Black's Law Dictionary what a day is, and it's quite different from a sessional day. I won't read absolutely everything that's in here because it's a long definition. It says:

"A period of time consisting of 24 hours including a solar day and a night; the period of time within the limits of a natural day" -- a natural day, not a sessional day -- "set apart either by law or by common usage for the transaction of particular business or the performance of labour; in practice and pleading, a particular time assigned or given for an appearance, a return of a process" etc.

Nowhere does it say in the extended definition here that we are dealing with a sessional day as defined in our rules. That would be an artificial interpretation of this particular term and not applicable in this case.

The last thing I want to say to you, Speaker, is that there is an urgency with respect to this issue. You should look at this in every way as analogous to a ruling that you made with respect to a member who was found to be in contempt of this Legislature. You demanded that a motion be put forth immediately for you to consider. I would say to you that this situation is on exactly the same kind of ground. We have a report of the Integrity Commissioner that says a particular member of this assembly is in contempt, in a sense, of parliamentary tradition and in flagrant violation of those traditions, as indicated in the report, and moreover is found in breach of the act. I think you have no choice but to require immediate debate.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I would draw your attention to part 1 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. In section 2 it defines what a sessional day is, and even though that is defined at every place as you go through our rules, it talks about sessional days. There is no such definition, if you look at section 1 of the act.

Quite clearly there are definitions there, and had the integrity law been expected to be referring to sessional days, I'm sure they would have defined it as such. I would encourage you to look at this. Under clause 31(3)(c) you are required to lay the opinion in front of "the assembly, if it is in session, or, if not, within 10 days after the beginning of the next session." That precedes section 34, and section 34 clearly means that if we are in session, then we must consider and respond to the report within 30 days, and if we are close to the end of the session, I would submit, within the period of time the session is going to be meeting. We passed a motion last night that ends our session at midnight tomorrow night and it seems to me very clear that the consideration of the report must be done within that period of time.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank all the members for their submissions. These are interesting and new points of order. I will give this place my undertaking that I will consider it all very carefully and report back today before 12 o'clock, I'm fairly certain long before 12 of the clock.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Will the House recess until then?

The Speaker: No, the House can certainly continue while I'm studiously considering all the important arguments that were made.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM (CONTINUED)

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's good to get back to further comments on the drastic rule changes that are being brought in by this government to curtail the debate the opposition parties would like to carry on in this House.

Some arguments coming from the government members are that some of the rule changes are designed around the House of Commons, but in the House of Commons in Ottawa there are 301 members. In this House, after the next election, there will only be 103 members.

There is no reason why we cannot allow proper time for government members, backbenchers, opposition critics on the different portfolios to be able to take the amount of time needed to debate the issues and make sure that not only the listening TV audience is well aware of legislation that is brought in but also that the media have a chance to analyse the legislation that's being brought in and have proper time to do the writeups and further make the public aware of the motions and the legislation that's there. It's quite obvious that if the government is concerned about the attitude and the way we dealt with Bill 26 to make sure it was out in the public, if the rule changes are being brought in to make sure that incidents of this kind will not happen in the Legislature, it won't stop the opposition parties from finding other ways and means of making sure the public is well aware of what is going on, I might point out again, in the Premier's office.

1710

Most of this legislation that is being brought forward -- the attack on the workers in Bill 7 to scrap proper and good labour legislation, Bill 99, Bill 136, all these bills that are attacking the workers in this province and trying to turn the clocks back 50 years -- is put together by a few people in Mike Harris's back office. They would like to be able to bring them through first, second and third reading to become law before the public has an opportunity to be aware of them, even so the media would not be able to do write-ups on them. I don't know why the government wants to limit the amount of time I would need to debate a piece of legislation that affects my particular riding.

I know and the people in northern Ontario know that back in January and February of 1995, before the last election, there was a committee of Conservative backbenchers, when they had third-party status, who were travelling around northern Ontario saying they were going to protect and improve the roads and highways in northern Ontario, they were going to protect the railroads and airports, and now we see they've cut off the funding for all the airports in northern Ontario.

As a matter of fact, they even shut down the airline. I don't believe the government has received the $15 million or $16 million it was supposed to get by selling off the Dash-8 airplanes and the Twin Otter airplanes. They were still sitting on the ground not that long ago. From what I can gather talking to some of my people, the government might not have received that money yet. Instead, they shut down the government-run airline, which was giving good, efficient service into northern Ontario, and now we've gone to a fly-by-night private sector service that is not giving the coverage we need going into any places in northern Ontario.

The rule changes, the way I see them, are a matter of this particular government -- first of all, I don't believe they have any desire to sit in this Legislature. They would like to have this Legislature out of the way. Government gets in the way of Mike Harris and his cabinet doing things in this province by downloading and dumping on to the municipalities, forcing municipalities to raise taxes so that a year or so down the road they'll say: "It's not us, even though we cut the northern support grants to all the municipalities in northern Ontario, which in some cases make up 40%. They're the ones who are raising the taxes. They're the ones who are putting on the user fees in order to keep from going bankrupt and forcing property taxes to go up."

There are a lot of people who would like to continue debating the rules, because I for one and our caucus don't believe there are any justifiable reasons for making rule changes at this time, other than --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about all those important bills they've had to pass?

Mr Len Wood: If they wanted to pass all these bills, they could have brought them in and had the proper debate. We're sitting until midnight now. This is the second week we're having midnight sittings, and we haven't seen all the bills. None of the bills have been brought forward that the government said it needed. They need them before the end of June.

We know that over the last two years -- we're heading into the third year of this government now -- the Mike Harris government has repeatedly demonstrated its disinterest in the Legislature and the democratic process. Today, for example, the Premier is saying, "My cabinet ministers make mistakes." They should be resigning. He should be asking for their resignations, and if they're not going to resign, he should be firing them.

There are three of them, especially one in particular, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has broken the law. He's violated the law, a piece of legislation that is here involving the Integrity Commissioner, and the Premier is defending him. I'm sure we're going to be debating this particular issue probably into August and September or whatever. Mike Harris, as the Premier of this province, should be standing up and saying: "I have cabinet ministers who have violated the rules and regulations. They broke the laws and they will be replaced." We now have examples of at least three.

I'll give credit to the Minister of Health. When he was in violation, he resigned. He stepped aside and they had the investigation and a few months later he was put back into the cabinet. But Mike Harris is saying, "It doesn't really matter what my cabinet ministers do; I'm going to defend them at all costs." As a result now, people right across this province are laughing at Mike Harris as the Premier of this province. Even some of the Conservative backbenchers are laughing at him. I could see them chuckling today when Mike was up trying to defend some of the cabinet ministers, saying: "They make mistakes, but that's okay. We'll leave them here." It's a sad situation when you have a Premier who is taking that attitude. It's no wonder.

I was reading in the paper the other day where there were 60 or 70 people demonstrating and protesting at his private house in York Mills. The Premier lives out in York Mills, and I'm sure there are going to be thousands of people who will continue to protest the undemocratic process the Premier is forcing on the people in this province.

Rule changes are only one example. Most of the bills that are being brought forward are an attack on the municipalities, an attack on the working men and women in this province. One of the first acts they did was to take away food and shelter from the most vulnerable people, the women and children in this province, for no reason other than to give a 30% tax break to the wealthiest people in this province. A part of it is going to be on borrowed money; the other part is going to be taking the money away from the most vulnerable people.

Tomorrow morning is another act of aggression against the unionized workers in this province. It sounds to me like probably the Premier of this province wrote the resolution: "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should disallow the undemocratic requirement of mandatory fee collection by unions."

You talk about trying to pick a fight with groups of people out there. This is one way of picking a fight. I'm sure Mike Harris must have called Mr Fox into the office and said, "I want you to bring forward a resolution in private members' hour, and we'll deal with it from there." It's talking about how the government of Ontario should disallow the collection of dues.

Earlier in the day today as well as last night we were talking about budget bills, giving a tax break to the wealthy at the expense of municipalities and individuals. We talked about an individual getting between $25,000 and $30,000 a year who would get a tax break of $450. As a result of getting that money, property taxes are going to go up if they own a home and all the user fees are going up. The cost of everything when they deal with municipalities -- libraries, swimming pools, whatever -- is going to go up. You put $6, $7, $8 or $9 into a pocket, and then the finance minister says to the municipalities, "You've got to go and take that $8 or $9 plus $2 or $3 more out of their pocket, because we're cutting off all the grants that were given to you."

1720

I was looking at some of the articles that have been coming out in the rural newspapers in the 905 region where some of the Conservative backbenchers figure they might be safe because that's where a majority government could come from in the next election, but the newspapers are catching on to what this government is doing on rule changes and on other pieces of legislation. They're catching on and they're starting to write stories in the papers condemning the downloading and the dumping that is happening right across this province. Some of the commentaries are saying there's a time bomb ticking out there, that municipalities are going to have a very rough time to operate.

We know what's going to happen with the megacity in Toronto, where property taxes are going to increase. We don't know exactly how much yet, but we have different figures. We know that in northern Ontario, with the forcing of amalgamation and the reduction of the northern grants system for municipalities, taxes are going to go up anywhere from 25%, 30% or 40%. I mentioned earlier the city of Sault Ste Marie; they're going to lose $13 million, and in order to collect that $13 million they have to raise taxes.

We have a very aggressive government now. On top of that, they want to change the rules in this Legislature so the opposition will not have time to speak, will not have time to take the legislation back to their constituents and talk it over with them. There is going to be very little debate in the Legislature here. When Mike Harris decides there's some group of people out there that he hasn't attacked yet, when he has a dream some night and decides there is another group he'd like to attack, he's going to get his people together in the office and bring in a piece of legislation and attack another group of people. Now we find out, with the new rule changes, that legislation can be brought in for first reading, second reading and third reading, and it can be all done in less than one week. It's a sad situation when that happens.

You think people out there are happy with the 22 hospitals that are going to be closed down? When these hospitals start closing, imagine the pressure that is going to be brought on the Conservative members.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): You closed 10,000 beds. What are you talking about?

Mr Len Wood: The member for Huron has lost control again.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I have a motion I would like to move. I move that the motion to amend the standing orders as amended by the House on June 24, 1997, be amended by deleting the following: those sections of the motion which amend standing order 9(c); those sections of the motion which amend standing order 24.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wood, you have a few moments left.

Mr Len Wood: Thank you, Speaker. You're doing an excellent job making sure everything moves right along.

My concern and the reason for moving the motion is that under the proposed rules, for example, if I wanted to speak on Bill 26 and I was not the critic -- I am not a critic for the Ministry of Health or any of the major ministries -- by the time five hours of debate was completed, my time would be restricted to only 10 minutes. How can you deal with it, if we have legislation coming in similar to Bill 26?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Report continues in volume B.

25 juin 1997