L071B - Wed 16 Dec 1998 / Mer 16 Déc 1998 1
SUPPLY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1998
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to call the ninth order, third reading of Bill 74, the Fuel and Gasoline Tax Amendment Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Mario Sergio): I hear a no.
Hon Mr Sterling: That was the deal. We were to get that before 6 o'clock.
Interjections.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think the House wants to give the government House leader dyspepsia. My understanding was that at 6:30 we would begin with an hour on the social workers' bill. If that's not the case, then I think we should take a very brief adjournment -
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): The staff is here, social workers.
Hon Mr Sterling: I don't care whether the staff is here or not. I was to have that vote.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, at 6 o'clock I was in here for the vote. The vote was not called. The minister responsible for the government was the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not call the vote. What is the government House leader suggesting, that the opposition should call the vote?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I concur with what Mr Wildman has stated just now, but I also concur that it had been agreed to have the fuel tax bill called for third reading by 6 o'clock. But it didn't happen and certainly the opposition is not to be held responsible for it.
Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I again seek unanimous consent to call the ninth order, third reading of Bill 74.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I heard a no.
Hon Mr Sterling: I move that notwithstanding standing order 76(b), which requires a bill to be reprinted after being amended in committee, the House may proceed with the third reading stage of Bill 76, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers, during this evening's sitting.
The Speaker: You're going to need unanimous consent to revert to motions.
Hon Mr Sterling: Do I need unanimous consent to revert to motions to put the motion?
The Speaker: Yes, to put that motion. Do we have unanimous consent to revert to motions? Agreed.
Hon Mr Sterling: Do you want me to repeat the motion?
The Speaker: Yes.
Hon Mr Sterling: I move that notwithstanding standing order 76(b), which requires a bill to be reprinted after being amended in committee, the House may proceed with the third reading stage of Bill 76, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, during this evening's sitting.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.
SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL
Mr Sterling, on behalf of Mrs Ecker, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers / Projet de loi 76, Loi créant l'Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des techniciens en travail social de l'Ontario.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased to speak on behalf of the minister at third reading of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.
The underlying rationale for introducing this legislation is public protection. Social workers and social service workers deliver a wide variety of human service programs that benefit many thousands of our citizens every year. Many of the children and families receiving services provided by social workers and social service workers are at risk and are highly vulnerable. What followed those commitments was consultation not only with these two groups but several others, including educators and the educational institutions involved in their training.
On behalf of the government and the ministry, I would like to thank all groups involved in the consultation process that led to the drafting of Bill 76. They showed their commitment to improving these professions and strengthening public accountability through formal recognition. This bill would not have been possible without their help and support.
The legislation we are discussing today includes both professional groups, social workers and social service workers. The inclusion of social service workers in regulatory legislation would place Ontario in the forefront of all Canadian provinces. Social service workers are not currently regulated anywhere in the country. The inclusion of social service workers in the proposed legislation recognizes the growing importance of this profession in Ontario. It would also significantly expand the number of practitioners subject to the proposed college's code of ethics and practice standards.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Mario Sergio): Questions and comments?
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm looking forward to speaking to this bill shortly. What we are pleased with, and frankly surprised about, is that we managed to get this bill in the House for third reading after the kinds of antics that we went through yesterday at committee.
May I just say that in speaking about those who came forward to make presentations to our committee last night on this bill, we were also very disappointed that a number of individuals would have liked to make presentations to this hearing on the Social Work and Social Service Work Act but weren't allowed to because they weren't informed of the bill. We heard from many who did try to speak to the bill but were never notified that it was happening and in fact had some significant concerns with the bill.
Having said that, one of those was the Chiefs of Ontario, and those who work in the field of social work would know full well that for decades now there has been a movement among First Nations in Ontario so that more and more they are delivering their own social services. If ever there was a group that should have had an opportunity to speak with us, so that if they had serious concerns perhaps the government committee members could have allayed them, but they never had the opportunity to make that presentation, and that is a shame.
This was rushed through at the 11th hour in an unprecedented bill where you likely will have all-party support. The manner in which it was handled really was terrible. If organizations like First Nations had had the opportunity to speak that they should have had, to listen to government members explain why you chose to do things the way you've now selected to do them in the bill, perhaps they would have found the answers they were seeking. The point is that with this government they weren't even allowed to ask.
As we go forward with debate and, as I say, in an almost unprecedented way we likely will have all-party support with the bill, but we certainly could have found many, many ways to improve the process by which this bill was handled.
1840
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I should indicate that I will be speaking to Bill 76 as well. Second, there was agreement among House leaders that there would be one hour of debate total on Bill 76 that would be split among the three caucuses. Of course we intend to abide by that agreement.
Also, take a look at what happened here. The government House leader had to seek unanimous consent to revert to motions, to move that this bill be presented for third reading, even though it hasn't been reprinted, as amended last night.
It was the opposition parties that had to plead for what ended up being a mere few hours of public hearings stretching into the late hours of last night. Had it not been for the opposition parties seeking that and obtaining that, the government amendments that were presented last night wouldn't have happened. The government hasn't even said thank you yet, and I don't expect that they will.
The government doesn't understand and doesn't care about the fact that there were a large number of Ontarians who had a significant interest in this piece of legislation and were denied by this government the chance to make what would have been very important submissions during the course of committee hearings.
We heard the frustration last night. We saw the government trying to block access to the civil service, the policy bureaucrats who were present, who could have expedited matters and made things move a little easier last night. We saw the government blocking opposition members' access to those people.
We saw some very articulate and legitimate criticism of this bill simply being swept aside, simply being brushed away, ignored, treated with disdain. When you treat the legitimate criticism of members of the public with disdain, you treat the democratic process with disdain. That's what we witnessed last night. I'm afraid we're witnessing more of it this evening.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I didn't get an opportunity to debate on the bill and I just wanted to pass on some of the comments that I've heard from within my community in regard to this particular bill and to say that it's been a long time coming. We have seen social workers across the province organize and gather over the past three or four years, looking for such legislation.
It is not what I would see as a bill. I think the bill does not deal with the issues that need to be dealt with when it comes to the social workers of this province. But nonetheless, what they have is here.
I also want to have an opportunity to say that much of the services that are given by social workers are very lacking within the province of Ontario since this government has taken office. I'll just speak to one particular part, which is the section that deals with people with disabilities.
I've had an opportunity, as probably a lot of members of this assembly have, to deal with people in my constituency when it has to do with the issue of people with disabilities. I recently was speaking to Mr Howard Kyle, who lives in the city of Timmins, who has been trying desperately to access services in order for him to live independently at home.
There is a special program that was started up at the time the NDP was in power to allow individuals like Howard to purchase services themselves, with government money, to become managers of their own services so that they can find independence by living at home alone. Unfortunately, the government has not moved quite as quickly or as forcefully as they should have in this particular bill and people like Howard and others within our community, and also within Cochrane North, as the member for Cochrane North knows, are not able to participate in those kinds of arrangements.
I would say to the members across the way, it's very good to bring a bill forward but if you don't put the dollars with it, it's not going to do a lot for the disabled community.
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to commend my colleagues for the good job they've done on this bill: First of all, Mr Klees, who has been involved in the hearings, and Mr Carroll, from Chatham-Kent, have worked relentlessly on this bill to move this process through.
As everyone is aware, there has been for 10 years in this Legislature a substantial lobby to somehow come to a point where we can regulate social workers within Ontario. I think we have to remember this as we listen to the comments tonight.
We're trying to protect in this bill the most vulnerable people in our society, so it's important that we recognize that for 10 years this was asked for and for 10 years it has not been forthcoming. We have moved on our commitment to ensure that there is a strengthened public accountability, that there are improved degrees of professionalism, if you will, within the social workers, and that all groups know exactly what they're getting as they go to a social worker and get services from them.
I think it's important also to recognize that in Canada there have been a number of other jurisdictions that have already regulated their social workers and that this is absolutely something that needs to be done as a result of that.
This benefit is going to be widespread, it's going to protect thousands of citizens of Ontario every year. I think it's a very good idea to move forward with this commitment and to ensure that these two groups of the social workers of Ontario are regulated and that there's a high degree of professionalism with them.
The Acting Speaker: Response, the member for Chatham-Kent.
Mr Carroll: Mr Speaker, maybe we need to get a ruling from you here about what will happen with the balance of our 20 minutes. I did not use it all up when we started.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): You can still use it.
Mr Carroll: Could you maybe rule on that?
The Acting Speaker: You did not make any mention before, therefore we will continue with the opposition side.
Mr Carroll: There was a little confusion surrounding that, but anyway, we'll abide by your ruling.
I want to thank the members who stood and offered some comments. We've heard about this whole process being rushed through. As the member for Huron made reference to, we heard last night about seven different ministers, three different governments, many years having gone by, everybody committing to bringing in this kind of legislation to control this particular profession, but in fact it never happened. So while the process at the end may have been a little quick, certainly the process leading up to it was very slow and very protracted. In actual fact, we got to a good place.
We heard a lot of evidence last night that this profession, a very important profession in our province, is one that can govern itself, as do many other professions. They want desperately to be in a position to do that. Sure, there were some people who disagreed with that. There are always people who disagree, and quite frankly that's healthy. But last night we heard from a majority of people that the profession of social worker and social service worker is one that deserves recognition as a profession, is capable of monitoring and governing itself, and with the passage of this bill we will have given them that right.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to split the remainder of the time. I'm going to share part of my 20 minutes with my colleague from Kenora.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: I don't want to give you difficulty this evening, but things seem a little confused. The agreement among the House leaders was that there would be a total of one hour of debate for this bill. What is being proposed now, I believe, is that the two opposition parties split the remainder of that one hour between the two.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As happened this afternoon.
Mr Wildman: As was done this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair was not here; the Speaker was. May we hear from the House leaders?
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): It's 20 minutes for each party and that's what should be used by each party.
The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Do I hear a no? Agreed.
Mrs Pupatello: Why don't you allow them to continue their 20 minutes then?
The Acting Speaker: We'll come back to them.
Mrs Pupatello: I am pleased to speak to this bill. As I understand, all parties will have an opportunity to finish their speech at some point in this next hour on the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.
What was very interesting about this bill is that from the time it was introduced in the House there was a good likelihood that all parties were supporting the bill. We still needed the opportunity to go through the process of hearings so that we could hear why it has taken 20 to 30 years to have discussion about the initiation of a college for social workers and social service workers in Ontario. In the end, what we come out with is Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, with a number of items in the bill that some people who work in the field of social work find contentious.
1850
In fact, when we looked at the agenda of who was going to speak with us in hearings, almost 50% of the people who did speak with us were very much opposed to the bill and the other half of the people were very much in favour of the bill. The split is about eight to 10 in favour of the bill, but for the most part a large group of social workers, whom all MPPs across Ontario heard from in their own ridings, were very much asking their MPPs to support this legislation that was mostly through the work of the Ontario Association of Social Workers who, as a group, have been advancing the cause to have a college for some time. As was mentioned, depending on the speaker at our public hearings last night, some said it was a process that took 10 years, some said 20 years, and I think the staff who work for the ministry say it likely felt like 50 years.
In any event, I wanted to spend a moment just to talk to the whole process and what did happen. From the very inception this was an idea that would have support in all parties. That doesn't happen very often in this House. What followed could be best described as just chaotic. For the first time the House had a bill that all parties probably would support, two opposition parties insisted on having some level of hearings, and then the bill sat on the shelf with the government for weeks. All of a sudden we get to the last week that the House is sitting before it rises tomorrow and the government is in a scramble to get this bill passed before the end of the session. Social workers who've been actively advancing the cause for this bill as well are now on pins and needles, thinking, "You mean we've come through this process again with another term of government and we might not have this bill passed?" There was quite a bit of angst in the room as we proceeded.
I just wanted to share with you some of the reasons for that angst. First of all, the social development committee was the committee that was to hear public hearings. We only found out as late as the end of last week that we might get hearings. The subcommittee of that committee had to sit on Monday afternoon - today is Wednesday. Late Monday afternoon the subcommittee sat and determined at that time, at about 4 o'clock, that in fact there would be hearings and the hearings would be the next day.
What that means, for people who actively follow this discussion and would like to participate in public hearings, is that we would have to somehow let everybody know that the government agreed to public hearings on a bill. We'd have to advise them of when and where the hearings would be. They would have to get there and they would have to have the time to make preparation to do a presentation to the committee on this bill.
Don't forget, they made that determination at the end of the business day on Monday, with hearings to begin the next afternoon at 3:30. By the time those arrangements were made, the Monday was done, so they couldn't start initiating contact to people until the Tuesday, only to find out that the government didn't go through even a basic database search to inform people who would be affected by this legislation of the hearings, which is why we ended up with a letter from Thomas Bressette, the Ontario regional chief. I will read his letter into the record because he wasn't able to make a presentation to the bill, again, a bill that likely would have the support of all parties.
The opposition party said: "We know there are people out there who are not in support of this bill. Those people have a right to be heard and there may be an opportunity while we have public hearings to then bring forward amendments that would make the bill better." But here we are in the last week of government, with this government so bent on ramrodding it through in a hurry that they completely forget about why.
What's interesting is that they choose to do this with this kind of bill for social service workers and social workers, people who work for social justice for a living. This is one group that could best appreciate why due process is critical. These are individuals who work on the front line of agencies, for governments, for social service agencies, who work with social justice issues every day. This group of social workers will understand better than probably any other group that people have a right to be heard, that they ought to be respected, that they ought to be notified, that due process is what they are owed as a member of Ontario.
Even the social workers could say, and I know they will agree with me wholeheartedly, that this is not the kind of process they wanted to see happen with a bill that they have worked this long for, to see the kind of antics performed at committee last night. So in the end we had -
Mr Wildman: It was bizarre.
Mrs Pupatello: As the House leader for the other party suggested, it really was bizarre.
We got to the point where we had some fairly basic questions that we chose to direct to the ministry staff. These are not political staff who work for the PC Party. These are ministry bureaucrats, civil servants who work for you and me, civil servants who work for all of the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Windsor-Sandwich. These are civil servants who work for all 11 million people in Ontario, and that means I have the right to request information of ministry staff.
The parliamentary assistant to this minister, though, sitting on committee, decides, "No, I'll answer all the questions, and in fact I'll decide, if I don't want to answer the question, whether I should let them answer the question." Keep in mind that these committee meetings were going on until midnight last night. So we have three senior civil servants, sitting with us at committee until midnight. They were sitting in the front row, not allowed to sit with us at the committee table to a microphone, and every time we had a question for them they'd have to come scurrying up to the table as though, what, they weren't good enough to come sit with us at the front of the table, as happens in every other committee in Ontario? For heaven's sake.
Here we are, saying, "For heaven's sake, we'd like to ask the ministry staff a question." I know my colleague from the other party will speak to this as well. Here we were at an impasse.
Interjection.
Mrs Pupatello: No, we have a right to ask ministry staff a question, and a parliamentary assistant, who's busy doing some kind of power-tripping, as though he has now reached the pinnacle of his career, is going to tell us we can't talk to ministry staff. It was ludicrous.
Mr Silipo: Maybe he has reached the pinnacle of his career.
Mrs Pupatello: We're hoping so.
It was absolutely ludicrous. It went to the point that we were laughing; if it wasn't so serious, we'd be laughing.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's only fair, because there are two parliamentary assistants in community and social services, that there not be any confusion about which one the honourable member is speaking.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, continue debate.
Mrs Pupatello: Frankly, I get the two of them confused as well, so I'm not certain which one was doing it. In any event, the point is that we were busy dealing with a bill that is not all that long. The bill is 33 pages long. It was a fairly straightforward bill. There were some issues around who would become members of that initial transition team, the council that would be the body or executive board that would oversee this council, seven members from social work groups, seven members from social service work groups, seven members to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.
It was when I chose to introduce the amendment at about 10 o'clock last night, when we moved as the Liberal Party that was supported by the NDP as well, that that council - and remember that the first year, that transition term of this council, when it strikes the college, will be the most significant year of the college. What happens in the first year of the college's life will determine for all of those who have been opposed to the development of the college that they either had a point or they didn't. That's why we wanted to focus so much attention on the makeup of the college, the first year of its existence, that it be fair, that it be reasonable in its determination, that it be reasonable in dealing with people regardless of education, the background they come from, but that they be dealt with in a fair manner.
The first year of existence of this college is going to tell the tale for all social workers, and the numbers still remain uncounted; there are thousands of people who work in a myriad of jobs, whether they're for children's aid societies, for cities and municipalities, whether they work for school boards or they work for the homeless coalitions out there right across the province. It is critical for them to know that there is a place for them in the college and that it will be an appropriate place for them and that it does right by the field of social work.
It was put to us best when it was explained what the act would do when it created a college: It would establish and enforce professional and ethical standards; it would receive and investigate complaints against members; address discipline, professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity; promote high standards and quality assurance in the profession; communicate with the public on behalf of members; establish and maintain membership qualifications; approve professional education programs for purposes of registration. The list goes on.
1900
In the field of social work, which is one of the most changing we have in academic schools across universities and colleges, what is critical is that social workers too always remain up to date in the latest technology and philosophy in the field of social work. We know that's what the college is intended to do, and we will be watching that it in fact does that, and we think it's an appropriate thing to do.
In any event, we had a Liberal motion that the first council that would oversee the social work school would include: "at least one person who is a member of the faculty of a social work program...at least one person who is a member of the faculty of a social service work program," thereby representing universities and colleges. It also called for:
"at least one person who is a social worker or a social service worker and,
"(i) is a member of a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), or
"(ii) has clients who are members of a band as defined in the Indian Act (Canada)"
And finally, "one person who is not a social worker, a social service worker or a person described" in the above, meaning literally a member of the general public, perhaps the client group. They too would be ably represented on that council.
This motion was turned down, an amendment which we thought would insist that at minimum - because everyone will be watching the college in its first year, the selection of the first council will be critical. In my view, the selection has to be appropriate to ensure the success of the college overall.
When this bill was introduced in the House just now, it was said by a member opposite, "What we are trying to do is do right by the most vulnerable people in Ontario and do that through the means of a college," meaning, give better protection for both social workers and the clients they serve. I agree with that statement. What I disagree with in that statement is that this is the same government that has brought to bear on these same social workers absolute havoc the likes of which they have never seen in the last three and a half years of this same government.
In fact, a majority of the people who spoke to us are people who are transfer agencies of this government, who have suffered through welfare cuts and what they've meant to families they serve, who work for agencies that don't have the staff and resources to do the kind of job they would like to do.
Some of the other amendments that came forward last night said very clearly that when a college is going to take disciplinary action against social workers, the college must be clear in its dealings with social workers that the social workers will not be punished because of an issue with the system specifically related to the funding of the system, potentially, or that the way an employer chooses to manage that system, the social worker is caught in the middle.
I mentioned some cases that have come forward in coroners' reports, for example, where today, in children's aid we have social workers who cannot manage their files and for one very good reason: They don't have the means or the resources to do their job properly. Their numbers of cases are astronomical. They have never had to carry so many files as they have in the last three and a half years.
I mention children's aid specifically because that's the one the government chooses to make announcement after announcement on. When you go on the front line in any community in Ontario and speak to people who work with children and their families, they will tell you that the system is severely broken - not just the children's protection system, but children's mental health agencies, which have seen cut after cut.
We have advanced stories in this House where the children's aid in my own hometown, as an example, could not remove a child from the home when that child was found to have a loaded gun under his bed, because there were no resources for that children's aid to take that child into care. How do the social workers who have to deal with that case file do their job?
It is one thing to have a college that metes out appropriate disciplinary action. It's appropriate to have a college that will set appropriate education standards, potentially retraining requirements. What will that do for the social worker in the field who doesn't have resources in the community to turn to to allow the social worker to do their job? Example after example that we bring forward in this House deal with those issues.
So to spend the number of hours we have in hearings that in the end were done so quickly that all those who would have liked to participate couldn't - and I must read into the record, for the sake of Thomas Bressette, the Ontario regional chief, who writes to the minister regarding this bill:
"I wish to express concern regarding the process your government has taken with the proposed legislation to regulate social workers....
"As First Nations in Ontario increasingly administer and deliver our own social services, this legislation could directly affect many agencies in our communities. As a coordinating body for 134 First Nations in Ontario, the Chiefs of Ontario (social services unit) would have appreciated direct notification of the proposed legislation.
"I must express dissatisfaction that we were not given notification, or approached in any way for consultation or feedback. Nor were we notified of the public hearings to be held today - as such, we were not able to prepare to have a representative attend the meeting.
"As we received no direct notification from your government, and were only made aware through other channels, we would appreciate being given a reasonable amount of time to review and comment on the proposed legislation before it is moved to third reading.
"I look forward to pursing due process and consultation with the ministry on this issue. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated."
It's signed, "Sincerely, Thomas Bressette" on behalf of Chiefs of Ontario.
This is the last thing you need to show to the Chiefs of Ontario. Once again, as in the Ipperwash inquiry, which has never been called, these are the kinds of things having to do with due process that - above all else, social workers, given the field they work in, understand better than most the concept of social justice and due process. This is not a group that is going to be as shallow as to think, "Well, the government, manna from heaven, gives us a bill to finally have the college we've been seeking year after year." They chose to bring it in at the 11th hour. They chose to display such incredible antics to try to muscle around the opposition, to deny us even the briefest of questions to ministry staff so that a senior minister of cabinet had to head down to the committee room at 11 o'clock in the evening and lean over the desk and say, "Let the staff speak."
Have you ever seen anything like this? Can you imagine? My colleague and I sat watching all of this. Given that in the last couple of hours we've had another country bombed, you start putting things in perspective. We want Bill 76 to pass. We know that in the bill itself there is a clause for review, that it must be reviewed. We know that the way the council must be struck and set up in the next year will be critical, and it will be watched. I know that we have here in the House representatives of the association of social workers. They know that we'll be watching.
We also know that in accordance with the way the bill is written, ultimately those appointments to the council, and the regulations and bylaws of the organization, will be reviewed by the minister, will be sanctioned by the Lieutenant Governor. So if there are concerns out there, as was expressed last night, for example, by the academics who came to speak with us like from York University and U of T who said, "We fear the approval clause to our academic curriculum," there are clauses in this bill that are a protection for them and we think they should know about that.
Had we had more time to even have a conversation between learning the details of the bill, we could have shared that with all the colleges and universities in Ontario that would have had those concerns; that there was an amendment introduced at the 11th hour that changes some of the wording that should make it easier for them.
I look forward to the passage, finally, of Bill 76 and I caution all the government members to try to improve on their process next time.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Cochrane North.
Mr Bisson: Cochrane South, Mr Speaker. It will be part of the new riding, but I wouldn't be as presumptuous to believe that I can decide what the voters are going to decide.
I have a very quick question having to do with this legislation. I have watched the debate with some interest. I have had a number of people in my community come to me and ask about that - not large numbers, but a couple of people have come to me. They're really interested in why it is that the perspective of a number of social workers has not been taken into context. I speak specifically of the members from CUPE and other members who are in the social work field - mostly CUPE, a few of them non-unionized. They want to know, and I want to ask the parliamentary assistant, when he has an opportunity to debate in this next rotation, why they tried to hurry this bill through and not listen to the very people this bill is going to affect?
1910
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm probably going to use up most of the time. If not, my parliamentary assistant, Frank Klees, will be providing the final, wrap-up comments on this.
I'm very pleased to welcome to the gallery Dan Andreae and a couple of his colleagues from the social work profession, who have come for the debate tonight, and who, I think, have done an absolutely wonderful job - and I think some of us want to give a round of applause - on bringing this issue to the fore. As has been mentioned here, they've lobbied long and hard for many years, and we are very pleased that we've been able to bring forward this bill, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.
It's important to note that the underlying rationale for introducing this legislation is public protection. Social workers and social service workers deliver a wide variety of human service programs that benefit literally thousands of Ontario citizens every year. Many of the children and families who receive services provided by social workers and social service workers are at risk and very highly vulnerable when they come to social workers for care, for counselling and for support.
The assistance and advice that is provided by these professions has very far-reaching consequences for the individuals and families and society. Despite the importance and the sensitivity of the work they do, these two professions do not currently enjoy any formal recognition in Ontario. Ontario was the only Canadian province that did not regulate social work. The proposed legislation we're debating tonight would rectify that absence of formal recognition. It would assure members of the public that the services provided by members of these professions would conform to the highest ethical and quality standards.
The absence of self-governing status in this area is not a new issue because, as I mentioned, for years social work practitioners have lobbied successive Ontario governments to introduce professional self-governance legislation. But for many reasons - and this is not a criticism of previous governments - those attempts by social workers were never successful.
We believed it was possible to overcome this impasse. Premier Harris committed the government to introduce legislation, and both I and my predecessor in this portfolio, Mr Tsubouchi, confirmed that intention on several occasions.
What followed the commitments we made was a consultation process with all the different groups within social work including educators, social service workers, the existing voluntary college, all the different groups involved in social work. I'd like to thank all those groups involved in this process over the last several months. Their assistance in drafting this legislation has been very helpful.
I think the reason there has been such agreement, such consensus, on the principles in the majority of this legislation is because of all the work those groups have done. They've certainly demonstrated their commitment to improving their profession and also their commitment to strengthening public accountability through this formal recognition. This bill, quite simply, would not have been possible without their hard work and help and all their support.
As I mentioned, the legislation we're discussing today includes both professional groups: social workers and social service workers. The inclusion of social service workers in this legislation actually places Ontario in the forefront of Canadian provinces. Social service workers are not currently regulated anywhere else in Canada. The inclusion of social service workers recognizes the growing importance of their profession in Ontario. It also will expand very significantly the number of practitioners who will be subject to the proposed college's ethics code and practice standards.
It's difficult to overestimate the importance of the social work and social service work professions in this province. They're among the professionals who deliver key services for Ontarians such as probation services, mental health services, services for people with developmental handicaps, children's aid societies, hospitals, the education system, nursing homes, home support programs, addiction treatment programs - the list goes on and on. Increasingly in recent years, many social workers and social service workers have been entering private practice by offering their services to members of the public on a fee-for-service basis.
All these examples illustrate the extent to which we depend on both these professions to deliver important services. But they do not communicate the complexity of their day-to-day activities and the expectations society places upon them.
Social workers and social service workers interpret complex legislation. They appear in court to give expert testimony, often involving very difficult and very emotional situations. I bring to mind the situation with child protection workers. Many social workers are involved in that field, and I can't think of a more difficult or more emotional situation than they have to deal with. They work in conjunction with many other professional groups such as the legal profession, teachers, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists. They're very much part of the continuum of services both in the social service and in the health service world.
One of the observations they make has been that many of the professions they work with already have credentials and practice standards that are recognized in legislation. The activities and conduct of many of these other groups are guided by self-governing colleges, with the result that they are professionally and publicly accountable for their actions.
Another important issue raised by the absence of formal recognition is public safety. It's currently possible for social workers and social service workers to set themselves up independently to assist members of the public. In the absence of a regulatory college, the public right now have no way of knowing whether these services are being provided in an ethical and professional manner and they can't check out someone, for example, they might wish to receive services from.
I'd like to turn to just a couple of the detailed provisions of Bill 76 and describe how we believe it will protect the public through formal recognition of this profession.
First of all, the bill creates a College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. This would be a self-financing and self-governing body. The proposed college would regulate the two professional groups and govern their members as provided for in the act. This creates a significant expansion of the number of social workers and social service workers subject to the college's code of ethics and standards of practice.
When it is up and operating, the college will have a potential membership of 10,000 social workers and a greater number of social service workers. By comparison, the existing voluntary Ontario College of Certified Social Workers has approximately 3,000 members.
The college will be governed by a 21-member council with equal representation from each of the two professions and the general public. I think it's a very important protection that members of the public would also be part of this council, as well as elected members of the professions.
Membership in the college would be required for anyone wishing to use the titles "social worker," "social service worker," "registered social worker," "registered social service worker" or their French-language equivalents.
Those eligible for membership in the new college would include three broad groups: people holding a degree from a social work program accredited by the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, a social work program or an equivalent program approved by a body prescribed in the regulations, or an equivalent program prescribed by the regulations. I think it's an important function for this new college the they will be helping to ensure that the educational qualifications for social workers are indeed the best we can achieve.
Second, people holding a diploma in social service work, or an equivalent program as prescribed in the regulations, would also be included; third, practitioners who lack these qualifications but instead possess a combination of related academic credentials and experience considered substantially equivalent by the college and prescribed in the regulations.
1920
The college would establish the requirements for certification and maintain a publicly accessible register of all members. This register would contain such information as the type of certification held by each member, the terms and conditions on their certification, if any, and the details of any suspension, cancellation or revocation of membership.
The public would be further protected through the creation and enforcement of ethical and professional standards. Employers would be required to report, for example, the termination of a member of the college for incompetence, incapacity or professional misconduct. Employers would be required to report the conviction of members of a Criminal Code offence that involved, for example, sexual misconduct. Members would be required to report their own conviction of a Criminal Code offence involving sexual misconduct. All of these are very important for public protection, to ensure that the services they receive from individuals are indeed from individuals who have the best credentials and the best track record.
Bill 76 requires the creation of an effective and transparent public complaints process. The procedures to govern investigations, hearings and sanctions are in line with similar legislation governing other professions, such as the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act.
A critical function of the proposed college will be to maintain quality assurance within the two professions. This would be accomplished in a couple of ways: through the college's registration and public complaints processes; through the establishment and enforcement of standards of practice and a code of ethics; and by setting expectations with respect to continuing education.
There will also be transitional arrangements, because under this legislation the minister will appoint a transitional council. Over the year following passage of this legislation, this council would establish the administrative processes, hire the first registrar and deal with the application process, begin registration and prepare for the first elections of the college council. They will indeed be extremely busy.
Before concluding my remarks, I'd like to note briefly the relevance of this act for the ongoing reforms to Ontario's child protection system. One of the key objectives of our step-by-step reform is to improve the tools and the resources available to front-line child protection workers and to upgrade their capabilities. In the past two years, we've invested significant funds in this area to establish a common risk assessment system, to develop a common database that will link all children's aid societies - and many are already linked up on that database - and on increased staff training. The creation of self-regulating status for the social work and social service work practitioners will very much support the direction of these improvements.
I've spoken earlier of the important and positive role played by the various groups involved in the consultation process that led to this legislation. Since the introduction of the bill, it has been particularly gratifying to see their support expressed so publicly. For example, earlier I mentioned Dan, who is actually the president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers. He said:
"The profession has been working for 15 years to see this day. It truly represents a win-win situation for both the profession and the public by strengthening professional standards and accountability that would benefit citizens across Ontario."
There is also strong support from the social service work profession for the decision to include their practitioners in this proposed college. As Kevin Kennedy, of the Ontario Social Service Workers' Association, said:
"For years, our association has been supportive of social work legislation that includes social service workers. We are extremely gratified with the solution this ministry has developed and look forward to participating in the process of creating the new College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers."
Consultation has continued during consideration of this bill. An amendment to the draft legislation was made last night which clarifies that the college would accept as approved social work programs credited by the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work. The college may also accept a list of other bodies which approve or accredit social work programs, such as the Canadian Association of Social Workers or similar American bodies.
This is the latest in a broader series of initiatives being taken by this government to protect and assist vulnerable people and to improve this province's social and community services system. The college will provide assurance to clients, employers and the general public that the services provided by social work and social service work practitioners are of the highest quality. It will ensure accountability for members of these professions and for the services they provide.
The college will support the pursuit of quality assurance and the ongoing training and education of college members.
Both the public and the social work and social service work professions will benefit from this legislation. I'm very pleased that this government has been able to bring this forward.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Welland-Thorold.
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want the House to know that I agree with everything the minister has said.
Mr Kormos: Now that the parliamentary assistant has stopped puckering, Ms Ecker can stand up.
I tell you that this has been a most interesting process. What's interesting about it has been some of the distortion and lack of candour during that brief period of time from when the bill was introduced on November 2 until a whole month and a week later, when it was finally presented for second reading, and then, but two days later, forced to a vote on second reading.
Mr Bradley: Are you going to read the phone book, too, Peter?
Mr Kormos: Mr Bradley is right: I brought a phone book, as I did to committee last night. What I find disturbing is that some of the premises that were advanced are downright erroneous and false. We heard from the minister today about the danger of people hanging their shingle and practising as social workers. I got the phone book to see how many of these people there were in the city of Toronto, how many people there are presenting themselves as social workers to the public such that this regulation is necessary to protect the public from them. Take a look, Minister, because you'll find that in all of the Toronto yellow pages there are three people under the listing of "social workers." Far be it from me to suggest that any one of the three aren't bona fide social workers.
Ms Johns and Ms Ecker talk about protecting the public from charlatans who would pose as social workers who don't otherwise meet the standard. It doesn't appear to be the case. You see, the real problem out there is when you turn to therapists and counsellors, where you find page after page after page of people identifying themselves as counsellors or therapists of one sort or another, who aren't included in this bill whatsoever and who run roughshod presenting themselves and holding themselves out as something that they may well not be, not being subject to regulation.
This party indicated from the day of first reading that it supported the principle of a regulatory board. On first reading and in response to the minister's address, we indicated that qualified support, but also indicated some real concern about the fact that here the minister was going to talk about regulating social workers but wasn't going to talk about the stripping of resources from any number of transfer payment agencies which employ social workers, which has left them underresourced, understaffed, struggling with higher and higher caseloads, incapable of doing the professional work that we call upon them to do. Indeed, that was the content of much of the frustrated participants at the hearings last night.
Understand what happened: You see, the government had written to the Ontario Association of Social Workers in the late fall of 1995 and again in the very early part of 1996 promising them this legislation. It took over two, two and a half years before the legislation sees the light of day, and then it's so rushed that huge chunks of the Ontario population are denied any right to participate in very important public hearings. Notwithstanding that the brief hearing process - you know how it happened. It started at 3:30 in the afternoon, carried on until 9 o'clock last evening and then broke for an hour for preparation of amendments.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): An hour?
Mr Kormos: It could have broken for an hour, but Ms Pupatello and I both agreed that at the end of the day there was so little time to do anything that you might as well make it 45 minutes. We struck a balance. That was after being denied access to the bureaucratic staff. That was after - notwithstanding some very short, 15-minute comments by any number of participants - witnessing some very interesting observations and drawing some very important conclusions.
1930
Let me say as well that our colleague Blain Morin spoke for us in the lead comments to second reading of this bill back on December 8. I endorse the position of Blain Morin, and I tell you every member of this caucus concurs with the position very skilfully and articulately presented by Blain Morin on December 8. Blain Morin, the member for Nickel Belt, outlined very clearly some of the very specific concerns that huge numbers of people in the social work profession out there, across Ontario, have about this bill. He expressed very specifically the shortcomings in this bill; shortcomings that we were prepared to work with the government to address; shortcomings that we were prepared, in a spirit of compromise, to work with and, by way of amendments to the bill, have addressed so the bill could become better than what it was.
We heard some outstanding people. I was pleased that the Ontario division of CUPE was able to be there last night. We also heard from people like Judy Tsao, Paul Agueci, Luisa Quarta and Patricia O'Connor. What was interesting about these people is that these people - let me tell you, they're darned good social workers. They're social workers out there in the fields, in the trenches, taking on issues and also taking on, in a very political way, the attack of this government on the most vulnerable people in our community. They're not part of any social worker establishment. They're not part of any old boys or old guys and gals club that has become tired and complacent. They're bright young people. They're people with social service diplomas and BSWs and MSWs. To the last of them, when they spoke to that committee, they spoke with great concerns about the nature of this bill, the nature of this particular legislation. They also spoke with some concern about the fact that the Ontario Association of Social Workers appeared to have some clear domination over the development of this legislation.
The Ontario Association of Social Workers is the organization that won't allow social service graduates to join, never has allowed them to join. We heard from them, as we should have. We also heard from the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers. This is the organization that if you join it - and some 3,000 social workers in the province have joined it - and you pay your dues and you meet the other requirements, you get to put CSW after your name. For the life of me - I guess I was fortunate, because I got to find out what "CSW" meant last night. It meant that you belonged to the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers and you paid your dues and you hadn't been expelled from that group and that you were one of 3,000 who did so.
After Blain Morin's comments in this Legislature on December 8 - appropriate comments, healthy comments, comments that were important to the democratic process, comments that indicated, as he ought to have, that we supported the concept in principle of a regulatory process but had great concerns about what was in the bill and that we spoke on behalf of thousands and thousands of people who shared that concern, who had prompted that concern - the reaction to Mr Morin's comments in this House were spectacular, to say the least. I suppose I'm proud of Mr Morin, among other things, for having generated such a spectacular response. Some people really had their noses put out of joint by what Mr Morin said, as was his responsibility as a good member of this Legislative Assembly to say.
Mr Bradley: Name names.
Mr Kormos: The Ontario Association of Social Workers. Somebody misled the Ontario Association of Social Workers. Somebody lied to them. Somebody went beyond merely misinterpreting what had happened in this Legislature on December 8 to outright lying.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Who lied to them?
Mr Kormos: I'm not suggesting any member of this assembly. But somebody lied to the association, because somebody left the association with the distinct impression that there had been a deal struck in this assembly to put Bill 76 to a vote on December 8. There never was any such deal. Whoever told the association that lied to them, and the association was gullible enough to believe it.
The suggestion was made not only that there was a deal but that the NDP was blocking the bill. Again that was a lie. Whoever made that suggestion is a liar. Whoever made that suggestion was a liar when they said it and is a liar now and would be lying again if they repeated it.
The fact is that Blain Morin utilized, as was his right and his obligation, the hour allotted to respective caucuses for lead statements, and he utilized that hour in a very effective and important contribution to the debate, a debate, quite frankly, that should have lasted longer than two mere days, a debate that should have been followed by committee hearings that lasted longer than a mere few hours into the evening last night.
Let me put this to you. I credit a couple of people with this bill having survived the committee process last night, because the government put this bill at risk. The government almost blew it. The government almost killed this bill. The government came this close to killing this bill, were it not for members of the opposition.
I'll tell you, Bill Lidkea, a social worker in Thorold who practises privately with the firm of Lidkea, Venema and Stob in St Catharines - I give Bill Lidkea credit. Bill Lidkea is a very competent profession social worker. Indeed, Bill Lidkea is a proponent of this legislation. I'll tell you right now that I give Bill Lidkea credit for this bill having survived the committee process last night, with some support, I tell you, from Drummond White from the Durham region association; Drummond White, who expressed concern on behalf of his colleagues in Durham about the Ontario Association of Social Workers and their presentation to this government's committee on Bill 142; Drummond White, who expressed the concern of the Durham branch of the association that the Ontario Association of Social Workers endorsed Bill 142, the province's workfare scheme, and suggested that components of it were consistent with social work values.
No wonder, no bloody wonder, that people like Judy Tsao, Paul Agueci, Luisa Quarta, Patricia O'Connor and Peter Paulekat wanted nothing to do with the Ontario Association of Social Workers. They weren't even interested in the proposition of themselves and others like them joining it, becoming members so they could throw out the executive and make that association a little more relevant and a little less staid and conservative, a little more leading-edge and a little more progressive and a little more out there and concerned about what's really happening to the most vulnerable people in this province, especially under the attacks of this ultra-right-wing government, which has no qualms about befriending and aiding the rich and similarly has no qualms about continuing its attack on the poorest in this province.
These are people who as well couldn't understand why social service graduates of community colleges - and look, one of the persuasive arguments on behalf of this bill that has been presented to me is that it finally gives some stature or status to social service graduates, a stature and a status that had been denied by the Ontario Association of Social Workers historically.
I read the letter Blain Morin received the day after his speech here in the House from the president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers that repeated the lies that had been presented to it; that went on to suggest that if the NDP didn't stop blocking this bill, which was a complete mistruth to begin with, the association was going to denounce the NDP and the association was going to present the NDP as being anti-public-protection and anti-children because the NDP wouldn't knuckle under and refuse to debate a very important piece of legislation that warranted debate.
1940
Last night wasn't a pleasant moment here at Queen's Park, because democracy suffered more than a little; it died a little last night at the hands of this government. When we saw committee hearings that couldn't have had any impact, because the government couldn't have had any time to respond to the concerns raised, we saw democracy die a little bit. We saw it being euthanized by a government that cares less for democracy than it does for the outright bold and bald exercise of power at any cost, and with one motive, to serve its rich friends at the expense of working people, the poor and seniors and other vulnerable people.
This bill is going to pass, and it's going to pass, from my point of view, in some large part because of Bill Lidkea and people like him, progressive social workers, people who understand that you can't be a social worker without having a level of political consciousness that allows you to understand that there's also a need to build and develop social justice. If that means fighting the Tory government, you're darned right that means fighting the Tory government. Being a social worker can't just mean acquiescing when people are under attack by a right-wing government that cares less about the most vulnerable and about kids and about seniors and about the sick. Being a social worker means helping people mobilize to fight that, to resist that, to change that and to build a different kind of society than the Conservative government at Queen's Park wants to build, a very different kind of society, certainly the kind of society that our parents and grandparents wanted to build, not the kind of society that Mike Harris and the Tories envision for Ontario's future.
So the bill is going to pass, and I express gratitude to Bill Lidkea. I express gratitude to people who appeared last night who weren't fans of the bill, to the sleeves-rolled-up, in-the-trenches social workers who said, "I don't need `CSW' after my name to go out there and do my job," who told us that they just needed a passion for social justice and a passion to help those who are the weakest and the most vulnerable and help those who are under attack in our society.
I suppose I give credit as well to the thousands and thousands of social service diploma graduates from community colleges, the people who increasingly find themselves working in the field of social work in this province but who will be denied - oh, I suppose it doesn't matter to most of them either whether they're called social service workers or social workers. It makes a whole lot of difference to the social workers, because these people are out there all too often at wages that are far less than adequate and doing work out there with people whose lives are being changed significantly because of the involvement of committed young trained people like the people graduating from our community colleges.
I regret that the government wouldn't consider one of the amendments presented to it by either of the two opposition parties. Mrs Pupatello had a significant amendment that would have paid some heed to the concerns expressed by the aboriginal community and the failure of this government to recognize that aboriginal community's role in developing its own social services programs.
This government refused to consider a number of amendments coming from the New Democratic Party that would have addressed the concerns expressed by unionized social service workers and social workers out there in the province who find themselves being defunded and understaffed and called upon to do more and more work and who don't consider themselves part of any social work establishment but consider themselves part of a set of social work troops out there engaged very much in what amounts to trench warfare.
The bill is going to pass, and there will be a college, but I give credit to the Bill Lidkeas and to those progressive social workers and social service workers who really do make a difference.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved third reading of Bill 76. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Mr Sterling: I seek unanimous consent to call the ninth order, third reading of Bill 74.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Mario Sergio): Further debate? There being no further debate, Mr Sterling has moved third reading of Bill 74. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
SUPPLY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1998
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 96, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1999 / Projet de loi 96, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1999.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to resume the adjourned debate on second reading of the supply bill, Bill 96. It is a right and proper thing that we do this tonight. To be fair and frank with my colleagues in the House tonight, I'd like to take the opportunity to follow on some of the remarks I was making in question period today, and I'm going to try to do so in a fairly even-handed way.
I want to begin the debate tonight by reminding everyone about what it is a supply bill means in our system of government. I want to talk, for part of my time tonight, about an item that is contained in this bill that is of particular interest to me, and it's the one that I was discussing this afternoon in question period, the so-called McLean bill. Where I take issue with Mr Johnson, the Acting Premier, who in a difficult circumstance I thought argued his case probably as well as it could be expected to be argued, is simply this: that regardless of what is done in various committees around this place, at the end of the day and at the end of the cycle, it is the responsibility of Parliament to vote supply, the appropriation bill. That's where we, as a collective, get to pass judgment on one of the most ancient and important of the prerogatives of the people's representative, the House of Commons, the Legislature. This is the one time, the end of the cycle, where we as individual members must give our approval or withhold our consent from the estimates and the expenditures that Her Majesty's government comes to Parliament, as it must, to seek that approval. That's a basic and powerful function. It has been obscured over the years for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that caused by the politics of the foregone conclusion, namely, the party whip, and other changes we have made.
Excuse me, but please, there's a debate going on over there that I'd like to quiet down.
1950
The role of Parliament in voting supply is as I have described. I'm not going to bore members of the House tonight with a lengthy recitation of Parliamentary Practice, Erskine May, 22nd edition, but suffice it for me to read the following from page 732 under the chapter "Financial Procedure," Parliament:
"It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons as representatives of the people) to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the state. But the role of Parliament," says May, 22nd edition, "in respect of state expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the sovereign to demand money and for the Commons to respond to the demand."
So it is we have the Minister of Finance, Mr Eves, rightly and properly coming to us as the session concludes with the appropriation bill, the bill now before us, Bill 96. This is a very straightforward yet very important, very powerful bill. Let me read what it says:
"Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
"1.(1) For the period from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999, amounts not exceeding a total of $52,386,596,000 may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to be applied to the operating and capital expenses of the public service, as set out in the [attached] schedule...."
The attached schedule is the back page of the bill, and if you haven't looked at it, you might want to look at it, because it is in this bill that are to be found all of the spending estimates that the various and several committees to which we individually belong have been approved.
So they come to us now for a final approval, and in the request is the tacit understanding that this Legislature has the right to grant full consent, to grant partial consent, or to theoretically deny total consent, although the third option seems almost inconceivable.
I don't mean to be precious or difficult when I say that there is never a supply bill that is going to be without contention, because of course it's got all the spending in the government. In this case, it's $52.386 billion worth of spending. There's not a member in this Legislature who would not have some ground on which to contest some expenditure. I know that when I was in government, I would have been more than willing to refight some of the battles cabinet lost from my point of view.
I also make the observation quite seriously that in the final days of this session, it is quite clear that there is one appropriation contained in this supply bill that is deeply troubling to a number of members on all sides. That is the appropriation that I will refer to as the McLean-Thompson matter, and it is contained in this bill. This spending bill asks our approval, in that $52.3-billion-odd worth of spending, for $103,996,200 for the Office of the Assembly for the year April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999.
It is against that $103-million appropriation that the legal fees of Mr Al McLean, the member of the Legislature for Simcoe East, agreed to be paid by the majority on the Board of Internal Economy a few days ago - it is against that appropriation that those particular monies will be charged. So it is rightly before us tonight. This is our only chance, as a Parliament, to pass judgment on that.
I respect entirely the right of honourable members to take a contrary position to the one I will take, but later in this debate I will move an amendment, and I want to read it again. My amendment will be placed in committee, preferably in committee of the whole, but that will be the government's call. I do not offer this amendment, I want to be clear, as any kind of delaying tactic. I'm quite prepared to say to the government House leader that there need be no debate, although I think we should have at least a 15- or 20-minute debate. But if you really want, just put the question. By the time we get to it, I think there will have been a reasonable debate. I want the question put, and I want all honourable members to have a chance to stand in their place and say, "Yes, I agree with that," or "No, I do not agree with it."
The amendment is very simply that the total appropriation of $52.386 billion be reduced by the amount, whatever it was, of the legal fees approved by the Board of Internal Economy for the member for Simcoe East in his litigation with Ms Sandi Thompson.
Let me just take a few moments to explain to the House my thinking on this. I know some will not believe me, but I don't offer this as a punitive measure against one of my colleagues. I sincerely and honestly do not. I've been around here long enough to know some very good friends who got themselves into difficulty where they had to retain legal counsel, and in one or two cases there was a very clear argument that all or part of the matter in which trouble arose had to do with the honourable member's public business. But in those cases, those members went out and either paid a very substantial legal bill themselves from their own resources or they organized their friends and their community into a legal defence fund and paid the account that way. So in that respect there is precedent, in my experience, for colleagues who have been sued or otherwise tangled up in litigation, where they were forced to pay significant legal bills, and they made no claim against the public treasury.
My concern about what the Board of Internal Economy did the other day is as follows: It is clear, to me at least, as one member, that in the opinion of a very good lawyer, Neil Finkelstein, a lawyer retained by the board - Mr Finkelstein looked at all of the various aspects of the McLean-Thompson matter and he concluded and so advised the people's representatives at the Board of Internal Economy that this was essentially a private matter between former Speaker McLean and Ms Sandi Thompson; that because in the considered opinion of a good lawyer, it was, he said, a private matter, there was no liability, responsibility or obligation on the part of the people's representatives, the members of the Board of Internal Economy, to expose the public treasury to any of the costs associated with the litigation.
That is a critical point. The people's representatives retained legal counsel. That legal counsel gave very clear advice. Unlike others who have been talked about in this matter, Mr Finkelstein was a lawyer who carefully reviewed all of the matters at dispute and it was the opinion of Mr Finkelstein, in his advice to the legislative committee, the Board of Internal Economy, that there should be no payment of public money in respect of the legal costs arising out of the McLean-Thompson matter.
There is a written letter from Mr Neil Finkelstein dated December 9, 1998, to Mr Speaker Stockwell in which letter Mr Finkelstein sets out that argument.
2000
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): After the settlement.
Mr Conway: The government House leader says, "After the settlement." The committee, I am told, was advised orally by Mr Finkelstein that this was his view and he made it very clear to the committee, apparently, along the way that that was the advice, and when he was asked to submit the opinion in writing, he did so.
I must say that Mr Sterling 15 years ago was extremely vigilant in his prosecutorial responsibilities in the René Fontaine matter; I will not say anything except that he was very vigilant, he was very aggressive in his prosecutorial duties in that respect. I can tell you, there were not inconsequential private legal bills to be paid by that honourable member as a result of the very tenacious work that Mr Sterling did in that matter -
Mr Bradley: Out of his own pocket.
Mr Conway: - out of his own pocket in very substantial measure.
I'm not quarrelling about that tonight, but I want to say, as someone who knows Mr Sterling, who has worked with him for almost 20 years, that I found it incredible to believe that someone of his experience and of his parliamentary and legal background, as a senior minister of the crown, would walk into that committee a few days ago and together with the Minister of Transportation head the campaign to vote the money, notwithstanding the legal advice that had been tendered to Mr Speaker and other members of the committee. That is a very material point, as far as I'm concerned, in this matter.
I repeat: It is absolutely clear to me, on the basis of what I have seen and read, that the issues at dispute between Mr McLean and Ms Thompson were of a private nature, of a private matter. It is not at all clear to me what possible aspects of that private conduct had to do with the public's business - a private matter between private individuals that may very well have ended up in court, as so many private matters do, to be decided in court or at mediation or at arbitration by the parties, with some kind of assignment of cost. That the people of Ontario are being asked in this case to pay nearly $600,000, approximately $130,000 of which represents the legal and related fees of the member for Simcoe East, is obviously a matter of deep and ongoing trouble and anxiety for honourable members on all sides of the House.
Now to another aspect of this. All of us talk to our electors, talk to our neighbours, and we hear from time to time, more recently perhaps - by "recently" I mean in the last five or 10 years - that the problem with the political class is that they don't seem to want, as individuals or as collectives, to accept responsibility. Therefore, we've seen in the last number of years a growing movement in the community for a variety of mechanisms to more clearly hold members of Parliament, members of the Legislature, to account for what it is we do in the name of the public.
My colleagues have had some interest in debating - people like Mr Clement, the member for Brampton, for example, who has associated himself very clearly with the referenda mechanism. I understand that. I'm not a big fan of referenda, although I understand the impulse. People say, "How is it that certain measures, certain spending occurs, when most people I talk to tell me they don't agree, they don't approve?" We have heard, as I said earlier today, this very week the Premier of Ontario state clearly that he wants to legislate a more rigorous discipline around financial probity and the accountability of public officials as they spend the public's heard-earned money. I have to tell you I don't think there are very many reasonable people who in good conscience could argue against the hope and expectation the community would have that their trustees in Parliament, in the Legislature, at the school board, at the local council would to the greatest extent possible exercise the greatest and most careful diligence as they tax and spend the public's money.
Every so often there is an appropriation that comes along that just leaves people breathless, and we've got one. I want to say there have been others in other parliaments, so in this respect the government members probably shouldn't feel that there is anything unprecedented, although I can't think of an expenditure quite like this, one where against such clear advice from such strong a legal adviser as Mr Finkelstein, a legislative committee decided to spend over half a million dollars on a private matter where there appeared to be no public interest, no public liability, little or no public obligation.
We find ourselves, all of us, part of an institution that sees its currency just debased and debased, discounted ever more. One of the reasons that happens is that occasionally we do it to ourselves. To make this bipartisan, it's hard to have any sympathy for a Parliament of Canada which for over 10 years tolerated the outrageous, inexplicable, indefensible, impossible behaviour of one Senator Andy Thompson, a former leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. He's one of ours, a blight on my party.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You called it.
Mr Conway: The judge from Ottawa-Rideau says rightly, "You called it."
I say that as somebody who -
Mr Bradley: You can't be ecumenical with these people. They're totally partisan.
Mr Conway: I'm going to be ecumenical, because we are all tarred with the same brush. How many of you were home on the weekend and literally assaulted by your best friends, who wanted to know, "What possible rationale is there for paying these bills in the McLean-Thompson matter?" It is absolutely incredible. It offends common sense, to use that wonderful phrase. It just does not make any sense. At a time when we are talking about more financial accountability, more financial discipline, we do this?
I say to my colleagues, this is our chance. This is our chance to say, "No, I am not going to put my reputation on the line for this." There are lots of things that my government or my party does that I don't like very much but that I'll go home and sell because I think there is a broader picture, there is a greater interest than my personal or community or neighbourhood interest. But this? It is indefensible.
We can't, any of us, explain it, particularly at a time when we are saying to people - I was out the other day trying to explain it to a family who is putting a loved one in a health care facility where there was going to be a new copayment of something like $1,500 or $1,800 a month. I spent a fair bit of time explaining to people why that was so and how it was necessary, in at least the view of the department and of the government.
We tell students: "You've got to pay more. We want tuitions. We don't like it, perhaps, any of us, but we're going to raise your tuition from wherever it was to a new level because you've got to pay more. You can't expect the government to pay as it has paid in the past."
We tell farmers even with the aid package, "You're going to have to do more with less."
We've told municipalities, "It's tough, but there is simply going to be less money."
I won't even get into the question of people who depend on governments like the provincial government here in Ontario for income maintenance and other kinds of support because they simply do not have the financial wherewithal to provide for themselves and their families. Boy, we told those people that their entitlements were going to be reduced, and reduced sharply.
2010
Now, we do all of that and we say to one of our own: "There's a different rule for us. We're going to find over half a million dollars to settle a case that is a private matter, apparently, between two individuals and we're going to pay the money without any regard for the advice that our own lawyer has provided."
I just don't see where that takes us. Talk about credibility gap. Talk about hypocrisy. That's why this issue has caught fire a bit, because everybody can understand it. Everybody can read the paper and go: "What is this? Nobody pays my legal fees for my private business or other issues," and certainly no government has ever offered to pay over half a million dollars for this kind of settlement, on these kinds of allegations. The average citizen, the average taxpayer, hears the promise of greater accountability and more discipline and at almost the same time, in the same breath, at the same place, in the same week, sees this?
Colleagues, if we keep doing this, our reputation, our credibility for some admittedly difficult messages we have to carry to people will be discounted even further. I said at the outset and I will repeat now: I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone, whether they're in this Legislature or elsewhere, who find themselves with large and unexpected bills.
We had a colleague in the last Parliament, the former member for Wentworth North, Mr Abel, who took his son, I believe to a hockey tournament someplace in upstate New York -
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Skiing.
Mr Conway: - a skiing excursion to upstate New York. As I recall, perhaps not sufficient out-of-country insurance was taken, the young lad had an accident and young Mr Abel was left with medical bills of, what, $30,000? It was huge.
Mr Bisson: More than that.
Mr Conway: It was more than that, you're right.
A general subscription was taken in this place and elsewhere to assist a very fine member with a terrible tragedy, one he didn't plan for. In that case it was a young boy; it was a really compassionate argument. I don't remember anybody standing up and saying, "Here's the bill; it should be paid for entirely by the public." If anybody had done it, it would have taken a pretty doughty soul to say, "No, no, no." But nobody went to any legislative committee that I'm aware of and said, "Here's a bill for $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 worth of medical expenses." A lot of very good private fund-raising was undertaken both in the Legislature and back in Hamilton-Wentworth to assist the family with that terrible tragedy.
I don't like the fact that there are substantial bills and costs here for either party, but it is absolutely clear that it's not the business of this Legislature to be voting money to pay those bills, particularly when there was no public business at issue here. So I say to the House, as a collective, if someone wants to start a legal defence fund, so be it. There are a variety of mechanisms, we all know, to assist someone or some group that has sudden and substantial unexpected bills. But we cannot and we should not and we must not stick the taxpayer with this bill. That is simply not acceptable, and never less acceptable than at this time in the public life of this Parliament and province, especially when one thinks about the argument that is being advanced by the current government with respect to what it is the public should be paying for and not paying for.
I can't imagine that there are honourable members in this chamber who disagree with that argument. I don't want to dwell at too great a length on another aspect of this, but it is a fair point: This decision appears to have been made by, among others, two ministers of the crown, one very senior minister, the senior minister in the government, Mr Sterling, and the Minister of Transportation.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): And an aspiring minister.
Mr Conway: I don't want to deal at great length with the member for Nepean. I was probably a little uncharitable last night, and I apologize for being so caustic so late in the evening. But I want to make the point that in my experience, and I've spent some time on that Board of Internal Economy, it is absolutely inconceivable that any cabinet minister ever goes to a Board of Internal Economy with that kind of an issue not having previously discussed it with the Premier's office.
It may have happened here. I can't, obviously, prove it. All I know is that in my experience a decision of this kind would not for a moment be considered and made by a minister without someone discussing the matter with the Premier of the province or his political designate. It just offends everything I know about my experience around here to be.
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Especially this government.
Mr Conway: Well, I can't speak to what went on. All I know is, in my own time around that board it is just - I wouldn't easily offer such an opinion because I quite frankly would expect Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, with whom I served on the Board of Internal Economy, just to laugh me out of the place. On a case of this sensitivity, that I would come as the senior cabinet minister, the government House leader, and say, "Oh, I'm just here as a free agent; I have discussed this with no one at the cabinet," is laughable. I said last week, I repeat now: That is, in my experience, I respectfully submit, a laughable fiction.
But I come back to the main point. Honourable members on all sides, most of us private members, are being asked now to give our assent in the passage of Bill 96 to a decision that was largely authored by cabinet ministers. I just don't think we should do that. I think that is an unfair request of senior ministers like Mr Sterling to make of private members in the House.
It was said earlier this afternoon by my friend the Minister of Education that all sorts of opportunities were available to members to discuss and debate this elsewhere. I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Education, that in this case that is simply not true, because we learned just a few days ago that on the initiative of ministers Sterling and Clement, the board, on division, passed a motion to pay the accounts. I think that was done within the last seven days.
As honourable members who were not present at that legislative committee, we had no opportunity to debate that. We have an opportunity now, because of course that appropriation comes to us in the name of this supply bill. That's what a supply bill is. This is the freight train that carries all of the express in terms of spending across all programs in the government of Ontario, including the legal fees being paid to Mr McLean in the so-called McLean-Thompson affair.
I simply want to say that this is the first proper opportunity we've had as a Legislature to deal with this, to pass our judgment, to say whether we think, as the member for Oxford, or as the member for Brant-Haldimand, or as the member for Hastings-Peterborough, or as the member from Eglinton-Lawrence, or as the member from Renfrew or as the member from Ottawa Vanier - this is our chance to say to the people out there whether we approve or whether we disapprove. Make no mistake about it, that's what this debate and what my amendment intends to do.
2020
Let me say, having been in some very difficult, miserable corners myself as a government member and cabinet minister, that there is without a doubt a greater ease in talking theoretically about accountability and responsibility than there is in acting on the spot with a specific concrete example in that regard. By the way, I always think cabinet ministers have a tougher job, obviously, than honourable members in the opposition or on the back bench because they bear a significantly additional executive responsibility. But that doesn't excuse us from our responsibility.
As Erskine May reminds us, "It is fundamental to the duties of Parliament that we grant supply." Her Majesty's government only operates with our approval and nowhere is that approval more central than the spending of money. That is what the fight about responsible government that you learned about in public school was all about.
Those old cliques, the Château Clique in Lower Canada, the Family Compact in Upper Canada, operating as though they had no responsibility - and they didn't. They weren't responsible to anyone, least of all the people who paid the taxes. We changed all of that 150 years ago and wisely so. That's what we do when we vote supply.
I would not stand here tonight and offer a variety of amendments on various appropriations that have been well and truly debated in committee and elsewhere in the community, but my difficulty here with this appropriation is twofold: One, it is extraordinary and unusual in that it commits very substantial public monies to the settlement of a private matter against the express legal advice retained by the people's representatives.
Secondly, as I listen carefully to my friends around the chamber and outside, I can't find very many people who think this particular appropriation is a good idea. As a matter of fact - and I will be careful and prudent - I find a number of members on all sides who are increasingly incensed that they are being asked to vote this money. I think that's healthy.
I say, is there something we can do? We can't walk out of here and go home to Pembroke, Goderich, Madoc or St Catharines, and say, "You know, my hands were tied. I had no choice," to use John Turner's famous ill-fated phrase of 1984. We have a choice, we have a duty and, my friends, we have an opportunity, because the spending bill is before us this very day.
I said earlier today, and I repeat now, I would be very happy to have the government House leader or the Minister of Finance stand here and say, "You know, we've listened and we're not happy." Clearly, the government is not happy. Another sidebar for this is to hear the Premier say how upset and angry he was that this decision was taken and then to realize it was taken and driven by two of his own colleagues at council.
This wasn't Peter North coming in as the independent member from Elgin or it wasn't the ghost of some long-distant member from some far-flung part of the province. This was done in the main by two of the first minister's colleagues, and the most senior colleague of all, Mr Sterling. Again I say to myself if you're out there in the public you think: "What is going on there? I know there's an arcane world in Parliament, but surely somebody must be responsible for something."
The ministers are responsible for their duty, but I say to all members tonight, we too have our duty, and our duty in the matter of the second reading and the third reading of Bill 96 is to vote supply in the amount of $53.386 billion for the overall expenditures of the Ontario government for the fiscal year April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999, in which amount is contained approximately $130,000 already allocated by the Board of Internal Economy for the payment of the legal fees of Mr Al McLean, member of the Legislature for Simcoe East, but not yet approved in supply by this Parliament. That's the rub.
The committee made the allocation, but Parliament must decide the final question, and in that respect we are in this matter of supply a court of appeal and a court of final settlement. Make no mistake about it, my friends, we have an opportunity, but we also have a duty.
In framing this amendment, I've tried to be as specific as I can be. I would hope that honourable members on all sides will think seriously about dealing with this. I am quite prepared, as a reasonable person, to hear people get up and say there is the counter-argument, and I'm sure there is a counter-argument. I just can't imagine that people did what they did without some plausible rationale. I haven't really heard it yet to the best of my knowledge or to my satisfaction, but I want to use this debate to give particularly Mr Sterling and Mr Clement, perhaps most especially Mr Sterling, an opportunity to make the case. Then, my friends, as a jury we decide.
You don't have to agree with me. You can simply say, "All things considered, I, member of the Legislature for constituency X or constituency Y, vote in the affirmative for this appropriation and I'm quite prepared to so tell my electors back in the constituency." That's what this is all about.
But you see, my friends, accountability and responsibility mean something. Most of us like the sound of it, but oftentimes we don't like the feel of it. To govern is to decide and we cannot, as individual members, on this matter particularly, hide behind the skirt of party discipline. In my view, this is not a party matter. I'll tell you, I can imagine confidence matters where you would apply the whip. You cannot have in our modern society a group of lose fish swimming in whatever school happens to be their fancy at the moment. But I think by any objective standard this is not a party matter. This is a matter for the House as a collective.
I say again, this House, in recognition of its central responsibility on the voting of supply, should meet that challenge and accept its responsibility. That's why I want there to be a vote, so that people in Vaughan-Aurora or people in north Renfrew who have an interest will be able to say: "You know that Conway and Palladini, they took a stand. I mightn't like it, but they took a stand. They did not run from a matter that I care about."
Again, as I said earlier, people are going to care about this because they can understand it. This is so easy to understand: "The Parliament voted over half a million bucks of my public money to settle a private matter between two individuals who, according to the lawyers involved for the legislative committee, had no obligations and responsibilities and liabilities attached to the government." People just say, "That can't be so." They want some accountability, and they should have it.
2030
There are other things in this bill. I can tell you, my electors want me to talk, as I have to some degree earlier, about the fact that contained in the supply bill is an allocation of $11.657 billion for education and training, but there is no money in that allocation for a rural and remote grant to the Renfrew county public school board. They say to me: "How can that be possible? How is it possible that the public school boards in Kingston, in Belleville, in Lindsay and in North Bay get anywhere between $1.5 million and $3 million out of that appropriation for rural and remote purposes and the Renfrew county public school board gets nothing?"
The largest county in the entire province, running almost 200 kilometres northeasterly from the town of Arnprior to the hamlet of Deux Rivières, and almost 140 kilometres from the hamlet of La Passe on the Ottawa River, southwesterly to the Hastings line, west of Combermere, 95,000 people scattered across 8,000 square kilometres, and they're not rural and remote? The North Bay-Parry Sound school board gets nearly $3 million out of that appropriation for rural and remote purposes - and good for them, they say in Deux Rivières and Combermere and La Passe, in Braeside and McNab and Beachburg and Wilno and Palmer Rapids and Round Lake - and we get nothing? How is it possible we've got a formula that does that?
I received in the mail today a letter from the chairperson, Mr Dave Kaiser, of the parent council at the Champlain Discovery school in the city of Pembroke, where I live. That's Mr David F. Kaiser, chairperson, Champlain Discovery school council in the city of Pembroke. He writes to Mr Johnson, the minister, at great length about, "How is it possible that you've got a rural and remote grant that pays almost $1.5 million to public school boards in Belleville and Kingston and nothing to the public school board in Renfrew?"
What is more rural than Renfrew? What is it about North Bay, Belleville, Kingston and Lindsay that is evidently more rural than the largest county in the province? Mr Kaiser and many others that I represent, who send their children to the good schools of the Renfrew county public school board, ask me, "How is it, Mr Conway, as our MLA, that you will vote for this appropriation without redress of that transparently legitimate grievance?"
Not many weeks ago I was at a cancer care meeting in the village of Barry's Bay, where I grew up, and I listened to patients, caregivers and other volunteers telling me about the almost epidemic of cancer we seem to be having in the Ottawa Valley and the enormous challenges that are facing particularly rural families. My friend is here from north Hastings, and he'll know of what I speak. Our regional cancer centre is in Ottawa, and I spent the better part of a day at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre a few months ago, to hear the kinds of pressures they face and the problems they've been having getting the appropriations that have been announced.
I've got the greatest of respect for my friend from north Waterloo, the Minister of Health, but she has said things in this House about appropriations that we will vote on in this bill that have apparently not flowed to the caregivers or to the institutions. I'm not going to harangue the poor Minister of Health unduly about that, but let me tell you, my electors want me to stand here today, and they say: "Conway, you tell those people in that Legislature that cancer care is a very real concern of people in the Ottawa Valley. We're concerned, for example, that there doesn't seem to be enough money to help these clinics provide the new anti-cancer drugs that make the life of a cancer patient in rural eastern Ontario, in the rural upper Ottawa Valley, just that much more bearable."
This supply bill raises some very powerful issues, and I want to say in conclusion that it all turns on our willingness to be what the Americans would say the framers of this British parliamentary world of ours imagine we would be: vigilant, diligent, honourable members who would try, in a sympathetic and sensitive way, to grant to Her Majesty's government the monies necessary to do the difficult work that governments often have to do to and, where reasonable and where possible, to grant the benefit of the doubt to the treasury bench. But when presented with manifestly indefensible expenditures, transparently excessive actions - and that, I submit to the House tonight, is what the Board of Internal Economy did the other day - I repeat, my private canvass of members on all sides leads me to conclude that a clear majority of this House does not approve of what the board did in our name the other day.
I have a lot of respect for my colleagues in this place and I have heard some fiery protestations in quiet back corners in the last few days. I think it is incumbent on us, not just for the public interest, which has to be our primary concern, but for our own integrity, for our own credibility - I don't know about you, but I am tired of walking naked in the wind of public controversy -
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Perish the thought, Sean.
Mr Conway: I say to my friend the member for Durham West, that is where we are on this matter. We stand before our electors and the taxpayers of Ontario literally naked of credibility in asking the taxpayers to pay this bill. I just don't want to be there. I just don't want to stand, in the late days of 1998, having heard and having made my own speeches about financial rigour and financial discipline and parliamentary responsibility, and say to the good people of north Renfrew who have sent me here to be their trustee: "I know that you in the majority don't approve of this appropriation. I know that you know that I don't approve of this appropriation." You know, friends, I can tell you that a majority of honourable members on all sides agree with you that this is a wrong and improper thing to do.
As I resume my seat tonight, I submit for a final time a challenge that cuts to the quick of our duty and our responsibility. If we don't agree with what the Board of Internal Economy did the other day, let us stand in our places and reduce this appropriation of $52.385 billion contained in Bill 96 by the amount, at a minimum, of the legal fees that have apparently been paid in the name of the honourable member for Simcoe East. I say, in conclusion, that to do anything less is a transparent dereliction of our parliamentary duty.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Jack Carroll): Questions and comments?
Mr Bisson: I listened to the dissertation on the part of the member for Renfrew North, which went on for a while. I'm always impressed by the detail and the history that he's able to bring into these speeches, but I would have much preferred to see the member deal with what are in my mind the real political issues, and not only the political issues but the fact of what we have going on here right now.
The fact is very simple: We have a former Speaker of the House who has been accused by a former staff person of sexual harassment. That person has gone to the Human Rights Commission and filed a suit against Mr McLean. As a result of that, we are being asked as members of this assembly, because Mr McLean hired lawyers to defend himself and ended up not going to court to settle, to approve by way of this bill the expenditures of hiring Mr McLean's lawyer.
2040
I ask a very simple question to the members of the House: What private sector employer do you know who would take the time to pay the lawyer's fees and the lawyer's bill of a member on their staff who was accused of sexual harassment? I ask you the question. I don't know too many private sector employers who would do so. In fact, what I would expect most employers would say is: "That is an action that is not condoned by our corporation. That is something that we do not accept. You shall defend yourself in court. You will pay your own lawyer, and if at the end you're found to be innocent, then you can maybe come back to us and talk about legal fees." But while the case is still alive and still before the courts, no employer would pay these particular fees and I am asking, as a member of this assembly, why should we, the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, have to pay the legal bill of Mr McLean for something that he should not have done?
Mr Bradley: I'm going to ask the member to comment upon the difference between how the gardeners around here were treated by members of the Board of Internal Economy and how they wanted to treat the cleaners of this building and the members who are downstairs working in the restaurant as compared to how they want to treat one of their own government members.
I think I can recall the right-wing zealots on the Board of Internal Economy in that particular case, the same who are out in the hallway today to defend the indefensible, being happy to put the boots to the gardeners. These are people who are not going to easily get another job in our society. Some of the people who work in and around this building are disabled in some way or other, others do not have a command of the English language which would allow them to have the same opportunity as others to have employment, yet the YPCs, those right-wing zealots, were prepared to put the boots to those people: to the underprivileged, to those of very modest income, to those who aren't well connected to the powers of society. But when it comes to defending one of their own, they are large as life in the hallway to do the bidding of the Premier of this province to make sure that this matter is looked after before the election.
I find it very infuriating and totally unacceptable that we can treat the people at the lower echelon of our society in that way while the good old boys are treated in a different way.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for Renfrew North for his inspiring contribution to the debate this evening. For one full hour he talked about some of the important issues that we as a Legislature need to deal with. I believe one of the most important functions that we address here is the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. That was a great part of the platform of Mike Harris and his taxfighting Tories in the 1995 election. He said: "We are going to fight higher taxes. We're going to be a more responsible government. We are going to make sure that every dollar that gets spent by us, those hard-earned dollars, is going to be accounted for and is going to be well spent."
In fact, he made this pledge that he was going to come in with balanced budget legislation, which he did earlier this week. He came in and gave a speech on Monday and said this legislation "asks simply that governments of all stripes treat taxpayer dollars as carefully and as conscientiously as they would their own, and that they not be allowed to spend their way into debt" and increase taxes for their spendthrift ways.
It's interesting to note that the Mike Harris government would introduce legislation like this after they agreed to this outrageous settlement that is going to pay $130,000 of the legal costs of one of their good old boys, Al McLean. Far be it from me to not defend lawyers who are going to be able to bill outrageous amounts and expect to be paid, but they shouldn't be paid through taxpayers' dollars.
I am going to end my remarks at this point and give the member for Nepean, a member of the Board of Internal Economy, two minutes to respond.
Mr Cordiano: I wanted to comment on the very fine speech, in fact one of the finest speeches I've heard in quite some time in this House, from the member for Renfrew North. I say that because I think he spoke about what really matters in this House. What really matters is the integrity we should all bring to this place. I can't think of a more important matter that's ever been before this House than the matter that we're dealing with in the Al McLean case.
He spoke about how each and every one of us should remember that we are charged with a very important responsibility, and that is to remember that when we deal with matters that are as important and as serious as this, we should leave the partisanship aside. We should rise above that. Why is that important? Because, in all earnestness, this matter deals with fairness, the question of justice, and how we treat one of our members and how that's going to be viewed by Ontario citizens.
How we dealt with the workers around this place is that this government just let them go out the door without any questions asked: the restaurant workers, who were sacrificed by this government, the gardeners. This government has not dealt with those people in the same fashion, with the same degree of fairness as you would like us to believe you're dealing with one of your own colleagues.
Nothing in this matter can be said to be equal to what you've done in terms of other matters. There's no justice in this whatsoever.
The Acting Speaker: Final comments, member for Renfrew North.
Mr Conway: I simply want to conclude the remarks by thanking my colleagues for their observations. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of balance. It's a matter of integrity in the sense that we've got to be seen to be applying to ourselves the same standards that we're applying to the community, most especially that we're applying with rigour and regularity to some of the most defenceless people in the province of Ontario.
Leslie Frost, who was probably one of the most successful and certainly one of the most esteemed politicians in 20th-century Ontario, used to say with great conviction and great wisdom that he tried to see the public issues that confronted his world as you'd see them from a barber's chair in Lindsay.
Can you imagine, I say to my friend from Belleville or the judge from Ottawa-Rideau, what this issue looks like to someone sitting in a barber's chair in Westboro or in Lindsay? Can you imagine? And you can, because you walk the walk like the all the rest of us and you hear what people are saying.
The difference today over 10 and 20 years ago is that there is a new standard of accountability. We are judged, all of us today, whether in the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of Ontario, by a different and I believe a tougher standard, especially around the accountability for the way in which we spend public money.
Someone also said that politics is at once the most noble of the arts and the most soiled of professions. We have soiled our reputation with that appropriation. I want to correct that by virtue of the motion that I will table in the committee later this evening.
2050
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to say at the outset, for those who are listening, that we are debating an interim supply bill, Bill 96. An interim supply bill, just so people know, is a bill by which we authorize the expenditures for all the actions and activities of the province of Ontario, everything from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Natural Resources, along with the Board of Internal Economy, which is the board that is charged with overseeing the expenditures of the Legislature of Ontario.
Some of you would know in this Legislature, I would hope, that the budget of this Legislature, by way of the Board of Internal Economy, is some $103 million, to pay everything from the salaries of the members, the staff, the building, all the upkeep needed to keep this Legislature going.
What people need to understand is that those dollars and how we spend those dollars are arrived at by way of decisions made at the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy is made up in the following way: There is the Speaker, who chairs the board, then there are four government members and two opposition members.
You don't have to be very good in math to figure out that all the votes at the Board of Internal Economy are carried by the government. Why? They've got four members on that side and we have two members on this side. As many times as I do the math, four votes against two means I'm going to lose.
What happened in this particular case is that the Board of Internal Economy - not the members on the opposition side, neither Marion Boyd, the representative for the NDP caucus, nor Mr Gerretsen, the representative for the opposition caucus, and not the Speaker of the House, the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, but the four government members across the aisle - decided they were going to pay hush money to make sure that Mr McLean didn't speak out of turn, I think. I don't know that for sure, but I presume. Second, as Marion Boyd, the member for London Centre, has raised, they wanted to make sure that they took care of one of their good old boys.
I think it is really telling of what this government's all about, what the mettle of this government is all about, when four good old boys walk into the Board of Internal Economy and say: "Al, don't worry, we're with you. We will use our majority to make sure that nothing happens to you and we'll pick up the cost of your lawyers for what was a sexual harassment case against your actions when you were Speaker of this House."
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): And the private detectives.
Mr Bisson: Well, we're going to get into that.
I think we need to point out who the members on the Board of Internal Economy are. There are four government members, starting with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, Mr Baird, from the riding of Nepean. The others are the government House leader, Mr Sterling; the member who is the head of Management Board, Mr Hodgson; and the third cabinet minister on that board is the Minister of Transportation, Mr Clement.
It's interesting that these four good old boys went into the Board of Internal Economy and voted against the wishes and against the advice of the Speaker and the two opposition members to pay the lawyers' fees of Mr McLean in the lawsuit by Ms Thompson against him in regards to the sexual harassment charges.
Not only did the government members - Mr Baird, the government House leader, the Minister of Transportation and the Chair of Management Board - not listen to the two opposition members and the chair of the committee, who is the Speaker, Mr Stockwell; they didn't listen to the lawyer who wrote a brief to the committee that said the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has no liability in this matter and does not have to pay.
So you have to ask yourself the question, why in heck do these four government members, members of the cabinet of Mike Harris - these are not just a couple of flunkies from the backbench of the Conservative government.
Mr Lessard: They're hand-picked.
Mr Bisson: They're hand-picked members of Mr Harris's cabinet and one parliamentary assistant, Mr Baird, from Nepean. Why did they go to that committee and decide they're going to pay these particular lawyers' fees?
I think it speaks volumes. I think it says to what extent this government does not take seriously women's issues in this province and how they view matters of sexual harassment.
Most private sector employers out there and I would argue most public sector employers in this day and age, in the 1990s, have adopted fairly progressive policies when it comes to sexual harassment, and it's very simple: that that kind of activity and that kind of behaviour are not accepted behaviour or activity within the employment of the private sector employer or the public sector employer. In cases where sexual harassment has taken place, most private sector employers and, I would say, public sector employers have policies in place that deal with how you deal with such an issue when a complaint is raised.
I have not seen one of these policies yet that says the company, the private sector employer, will pick up the legal fees of the complainant or the defendant. I have not seen one, and I challenge any member of this assembly to come back and show me any employer that does that. I would guess that there would probably be no employers or very few employers that would be involved in any way, shape or form when it comes to paying the legal fees of somebody involved in a sexual harassment case.
The employer will say, "We take this matter seriously." If there are facts that are investigated and found to be true, there probably would be dismissal of the perpetrator. There would probably be counselling offered to the victim. Then the individual who committed the aggression would be responsible for defending themselves in either a criminal or civil court case, whatever happens to take place after.
Mr Len Wood: That's why they call this hush money.
Mr Bisson: This is exactly where I'm coming from. The member for Cochrane North says this is why we call this hush money. That's exactly the point. Most private sector employers wouldn't touch this with a 10-foot pole, as far as paying legal fees is concerned, because they want to do the right thing. They want to make sure that at the end of the day they send a couple of very clear messages to their employees, the first message being, "This kind of action is not tolerated," and if this action is reported within the employment of this particular employer, "It will be dealt with forthwith and we do not stand for this kind of behaviour."
What does it say about a government which happens to be one of the largest employers in the province, if not the largest, when members of the cabinet, members of Mike Harris's cabinet, hand-picked by him to sit at the cabinet table with him, who are charged by Mike Harris to go sit at the Board of Internal Economy, make a decision to pay the legal fees of one of their good old boys?
It tells me that this government does not take the issue of sexual harassment seriously. That's part of what really bothers me here, because most - I would say all; I'm not even going to say most any more - all private sector employers would never put themselves in this position. So you have to conclude one of three things: (a) this government is totally incompetent and, quite frankly, stupid in paying these fees, (b) they don't take the issue of sexual harassment seriously, or (c) a combination of (b) and that they want to stick up for one of their good old boys.
Or there might be a (d), and that brings me to the point the member for Cochrane North has raised. That is, does Mr McLean have something over the government? I don't know. I raise the question. I'm not saying it's the case. But I have to ask myself, why would a government, which supposedly says they are the common sense government of Ontario - they ran under that label in 1995 - put themselves in the stupid position they are in and then stand there with the cabinet defending what their good old boy has gone and done?
It's either that they're totally incompetent or some of the other issues I've raised, or quite frankly, maybe Mr McLean has something over somebody else. Is this hush money? Is this an attempt on the part of the government of Ontario, by way of its majority on the Board of Internal Economy, to say, "We don't want Al McLean to spill the beans on somebody else, so therefore we'll pay his legal fees and everything will just go away"?
I'm telling you, you cannot deal with issues of sexual harassment in that way. In a modern society such as we have today, issues of sexual harassment have to be dealt with seriously, openly and expeditiously. That is not what this government is doing.
2100
I've watched with interest this last week or so, when this issue has been raised in the House on a number of occasions, the answers on the part of the government. Question after question has been placed by members of this assembly on the opposition side, by our leader, Howard Hampton, and others about why the government is doing what they are. It's really interesting to watch the responses of some very capable ministers. I personally don't agree with the philosophical leanings of people like Mr Johnson, the Minister of Education, but I believe him to be an honourable man and I believe him to be a fairly competent individual. I look at people like Mr Eves, who has been in this Legislature for a number of years, more than 20. Again I don't agree with his politics - I've never agreed with the politics of Ernie Eves - but I think he is an honourable man, I know he's an honourable man, and I know he's a very capable individual, maybe one of the more capable ones we have in this House. I see them twisting in the wind trying to do as best they can in defence of their friend Mr Al McLean, and it's got to be a pretty uncomfortable position to be put in.
I'm asking myself the question: Why would rational human beings, members of this assembly, who know their job and understand how this place works and understand the roles and who are, quite frankly, good politicians, put themselves in the position of having to defend something that's so indefensible? I can only come to the conclusion that either Mike Harris has said, "We're sticking up for these good old boys and I'm not hearing anything of this any more," or it comes back to that this is all about hush money.
I've listened to some of the answers. The one that really gets me is Mr Johnson, the Minister of Education, who today on a number of occasions was asked the question by our leader and also by our critic Mrs Boyd from London Centre, "Why is it that your members on the Board of Internal Economy have done what they've done?" He gets up and responds: "You have to understand that the Board of Internal Economy has a history and it's been there for a number of years. It's a matter they deal with and I don't know anything about it."
Well, excuse me. First of all, it doesn't respect the intelligence of the opposition and the media and the public, who know that the Board of Internal Economy is controlled by the government majority. You can try to spin that any way you want, Minister of Education, but at the end of the day it's your majority on the committee that made the decision.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a very important presentation and I don't believe there's a quorum present. Could you check?
The Acting Speaker: Could you check for a quorum, please?
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaking ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South.
Mr Bisson: I say again, I've listened to the responses by the ministers to questions put forward by our caucus and the opposition caucus in regard to this matter and I find totally inadequate the responses we've gotten from the cabinet of Ontario on this matter.
For example, at one point the question was asked - I believe it was by the member for London Centre, Marion Boyd from our caucus, who said she wanted to have the matter taxed. In other words, when you get a legal bill and you as a citizen feel that the charges on that bill are higher than you think they should be, you have an ability to get the bill assessed - in other words, we call it an ability to tax the bill - so you can look at the bill in detail, determine what the lawyer charged for what and what the rate was, what they charged for, how long they worked and to satisfy yourself whether the lawyer charged adequately: Did the lawyer overcharge? Were there things charged that shouldn't have been charged? You're able to look at this in some detail.
I listened today to questions put forward by Marion Boyd, and the response from the Minister of Education on that particular matter was very, to be kind, bizarre, because he was trying to make us believe that his government would have liked to have seen it taxed but somehow or other the board wouldn't make the decision to tax it, that it was a decision of the board and there's nothing he can do about it.
Excuse me. You've got a majority on the other side of the House. You also have a majority on the Board of Internal Economy. If your government wanted to have the bill taxed, why didn't the Conservative members who were on that committee, like Mr Baird, say, "Yes, we will have the bill taxed" when Marion Boyd put forward that suggestion at the Board of Internal Economy? The response we get from the Minister of Education is, "If you wanted the bill taxed, why didn't you ask?" The response that we get from Marion Boyd is, "I asked, and it was your four members on the committee - Mr Baird, Mr Hodgson, Mr Clement and the government House leader - who said, `No, I don't want to have the bill taxed.'"
Do you know what was really bizarre? I was listening to the scrum outside here after question period. Mr Sterling, the government House leader, was in a fairly large scrum, the way I would describe it, and somebody asked him a question - I don't know what journalist it was - around the issue of the taxing of the bill. He said, "I would have liked to have seen the bill taxed." If you wanted it taxed, why didn't you agree with Marion Boyd when she suggested that way before this matter became public in this House?
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: The member for Nepean says, "Marion Boyd never asked for this bill to be taxed." Is that what you're saying? I dare you to stand in this Legislature and debate the point, because I trust what Marion Boyd has said, because she had reported that to our caucus some time ago, way before this issue ever came to this House. It was you, Mr Baird, and the Management Board Chair and the Minister of Transportation and the government House leader who said the bill should not be taxed. Why? Because you wanted to make sure that -
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, there are a couple of issues. I'd appreciate it if you'd address your comments through the Chair and I'd also appreciate it if you would do what we normally do in the House, and that is refer to people by their riding rather than by their name.
Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I listen to your sage advice but, as you know, the rules also allow me to address a member by their cabinet position as well, and that's exactly what I will do.
The point I make is that when Marion Boyd asked to have the bill taxed it was the four members on the government side of the Board of Internal Economy who refused to have the bill taxed. Why? I only have to assume it was either (a) they were trying to hide something, (b) they were trying to protect one of the good old boys, (c) it was hush money or (d) they're totally incompetent. None of the above is acceptable in the province of Ontario. It is not acceptable in the private sector; it's not acceptable in the public sector.
I find myself in a very awkward position, as a member of this assembly, having to deal with this particular matter. You would hope they would have dealt with this at the Board of Internal Economy - that's where it should have been dealt with - but the board, because of the government majority, failed to deal with this. So here we are.
We are now asking, by way of this particular debate, through this interim supply bill, that if the government is saying on the one hand here in the House and outside the House in scrums that they would like to see the bill taxed, that they think this issue has not been properly dealt with - I'll get to that a little bit later, the comments from Mr Harris, the Premier, who says he thought this thing wasn't dealt with very well - you will have an opportunity to vote on that when we get into committee of the whole when it comes to this particular bill.
Why don't we pass a motion in this House that says we will reduce by an amount of money equal to Mr McLean's bill the total expenditures that we find within the interim supply bill? That way, the Legislature will be able to deal with the matter the four government members were not able to deal with for whatever reason. We'll have that opportunity when we get into committee of the whole. That's one thing. I think that's probably not the way I'd like to deal with it. The easiest thing to do would have been for Mr McLean himself to say: "Hang on, boys. I've messed up big time. I did the wrong thing. I'm going to do what's right and I'm going to pay for my own legal bills." If he wants to go out after and raise dollars through the Conservative Party to have his bill paid, let him live with that. But why should the taxpayers of Ontario deal with having to pay his legal bills?
If Mr McLean is not prepared to do that, then I would at least hope that the Premier of Ontario could come into this House tomorrow and say, "I said that I was going to be a government that listens," something this government hasn't done in three and a half years. "I'm going to listen for a change. We messed up. We made the wrong decision at the Board of Internal Economy. I apologize to the members of this assembly for having put people in this position. I also apologize to the fair-minded men and women of this province who take the issue of sexual harassment seriously. I will make sure that the government of Ontario does not, by way of the Board of Internal Economy, pay for the legal costs incurred in this bill."
If he's not prepared to do that because he feels his position is defensible, then I would ask that another suggestion be taken, one of the suggestions put forward by our leader, Mr Hampton, which is to refer this matter to a committee. You can do it in a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, probably the best place to do it, I would think. Allow the committee to do the work of looking at the bill, of dealing with the issues and calling whatever witnesses they think they need to call to get to the bottom of this. I'll say, like our leader, Mr Hampton, has said, if you've got nothing to hide, why would you be worried about going before the committee?
2110
The point is, if the government is saying this is defensible - and that's what we seem to be hearing; the government ministers and some backbenchers of the government are saying their action to pay Mr McLean's legal bill is defensible - then go and defend it in a committee. Allow the matters to be raised within the committee in a public fashion, allow the bill to be looked at in some detail, allow the questions to be asked that need to be asked, defend your position and then be judged by the committee and by the people of Ontario.
When I think back, Mr Speaker, there have been precedents for that. I was a member of this assembly - you were not - back in 1990 to 1995. When there were allegations around one of our ministers having to do with the comments she had made at a cocktail party in Thunder Bay, members in the opposition then, the Harris opposition and the McLeod opposition, came into this House week after week and day after day and pressured the Bob Rae government to look into the matter of what she said or didn't say. I'll tell you what our government decided to do. We said, "OK, we will refer the matter to a committee." A committee of this Legislature was convened and it dealt with the matter in an open fashion. It wasn't easy for us as a government to go through, but we felt strongly that what she had done was not what she was being accused of having done, and we were giving her an opportunity to defend herself. We understand that as members of this assembly at times you can be accused of something that may not be based on actual fact. If that's the case, let's refer this matter to a committee.
If the government is not prepared to send this to a committee, I have to ask myself why. Are they trying to hide something, are they just stupid or incompetent, or does it come down to that they really believe in sexism, they really believe that those kinds of actions are acceptable in a modern society, and are prepared to protect one of the good old boys? That's certainly not where I want to go.
Mr Wildman: Or all of the above.
Mr Bisson: It's probably all of the above.
I don't think this government is doing anybody any favours, either in this Legislature or in the greater public outside, by taking the position it is. The precedent you're setting - I wouldn't say "precedent." The example you're setting by way of your decision is very dangerous. I think it sends some very bad messages.
I come back to a point I made earlier in response to the member for Renfrew North. I want to come back to this because I believe it's important. I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who's in the House today, how many private sector employers do you know who, if they had an employee who was accused of having sexually harassed another member of the staff, would pay the legal fees of either party? I don't know of any. What would happen is that the private sector employer probably has a sexual harassment policy. They would say: "I take this matter seriously. Sexual harassment is not something that's condoned by our firm. We will therefore make sure a proper investigation is made."
Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): What do you take seriously? You take nothing seriously. You were a joke when you were in government.
Mr Bisson: Minister, are you trying to tell me that private sector employers would support the position of allowing sexual harassment to happen in the workplace? If that's what you're saying, you should not be the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, because the companies that I know, that I deal with, take this responsibility seriously. I think of companies like Falconbridge in my riding, Abitibi, Tembec. Never in a million years would they allow this to happen. They're corporate citizens who understand there's a responsibility not only to the shareholders but to the greater community in which they do business.
In the case of both of those employers, they're unionized and the unions themselves would have a say in this when it comes to the issue. I remember having to deal with such an issue when I was a member of the United Steelworkers. One of our members in one of our workplaces had sexually harassed a fellow employee. The person who was the aggressor, the person who had done the sexual harassment, had come to the union asking for support in representing him in order to defend himself against what he said were trumped-up charges. We brought that matter before the committee, before the general membership of our local union. I'll tell you what we did; I was there.
We said: "Brother, go to court and defend yourself. If at the end of the day you're found to be innocent, you have recourse, and that recourse is that, because it's a civil suit, you ask to have your legal fees reimbursed as part of the settlement. That's how you deal with this. You don't go to the local union and the employer asking to have your legal fees paid." I remember at the time he didn't like that particular answer, but it's the position our union took. In the case of the company in question, they certainly were not going to put themselves in the position of having to pay the legal fees of either.
I'm saying to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, if you understand anything about business - and I know you understand, because you ran a business for years -
Hon Mr Palladini: You don't understand anything. Did you ever run a business? You're making somebody guilty. You don't know whether he's guilty.
Mr Bisson: You're saying I don't know. Is the Minister of Economic Development and Trade saying that companies in this province would allow sexual harassment to happen within their employ? Come on, I don't believe that for a second. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has been in business for years. We all know him; he's our pal Al. He's a very nice man, he's an honourable member. Mr Palladini ran a business for years. I don't believe for one second, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade in his own business -
The Acting Speaker: First of all, I'd like this little meeting to break up here so I can see the member as he's addressing the Chair.
Member for Cochrane South, I've asked you once before to not refer to people by their surnames. I'd appreciate if you'd use their position or their riding.
Minister, I'd appreciate it if you'd allow the member to have his say.
Mr Bisson: I'd just say that I know the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to be an honourable member. I also know that the minister ran a business for years within his own community, and did so successfully. I know him to be a competent business manager. I also know him to be a responsible individual. I don't believe for one second that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, in his own private business, would pay the legal fees of any employee involved in a sexual harassment case while working for him. He nods his head no; that makes my point. I don't know too many business owners who would put themselves in that position. If it's good enough for the private sector not to do that, why should we in the public sector do differently and why should the taxpayers of Ontario be caught paying this bill, very simply put?
Mr Bradley: How about the gardeners?
Mr Bisson: The member for St Catharines raises a point that I think is interesting; a bit of a side issue, but I think it needs to be addressed. This government has taken zeal in attacking those people in our community of Ontario who are the most vulnerable. This government, with zeal, went out in its first month of being in government and reduced by over 20% the social assistance cheques for people on GWA and FBA. As a result, we are seeing now - my good friend Mr Cullen, the member for Ottawa West, came to the House today and raised two particular instances where people in his riding are suffering and their families are suffering as a result of the action of this government changing the social assistance rules.
I was at one particular meeting of the Board of Internal Economy where the government - I remember the member for Nepean was there pounding his fists on the table, saying: "Let's privatize the whole place. Let's get rid of all these high-paid employees we have at the Legislature and go out and hire a contractor, so he can stuff some money in his pocket and underpay the workers to do jobs that used to be done by well-paid people." If the member for Nepean, the Chair of Management Board, the Minister of Transportation and the government House leader had the zeal to attack the workers of this assembly - the people who work on the cleaning staff, the people who are gardeners on the grounds, the people who are in the dining room and foodservices - if they had the ability to attack those people, I find it passing strange that the member for Nepean and others would see fit to support one of the good old boys. I find this whole matter extremely strange.
I'm going to leave some time, as I said at the beginning, for the member for Ottawa Centre - Ottawa West, excuse me; Ottawa Centre used to be one of our ridings.
2120
Interjection: We will again.
Mr Bisson: And we will again.
I'm going to leave some time in my comments for the member for Ottawa West, but I just want to say this in summing up: I want members of the government to understand where we in the opposition are coming from. We understand that being in public life is a difficult business. We're all members of this assembly, but we do ourselves no good as members of this assembly, in the greatest tradition of what this assembly is all about, to be put in a position of having to engage in such a debate.
I am proud to say that I am a politician, but you make it pretty difficult for "politician" to be a good word when you have this kind of stuff going on in the Legislature, where the government all of a sudden decides that it's going to pay hush money to protect one of the good old boys when it comes to a matter of sexual harassment.
I sympathize with Mr McLean, but if Mr McLean feels he is innocent, he has a recourse: He hires a lawyer. He gets the best that money can buy according to his own means, because I know Mr McLean is not exactly broke. He gets that lawyer to represent him to the best of his or her ability and then from there bring the matter to court. Defend yourself in a court of law. At the end, when found innocent, if he is innocent, at that point Mr McLean could ask that his court costs be paid as part of the settlement in the matter between him and Ms Thompson. Mr McLean chose not to do that. Instead, he ran to the taxpayer. He went to the Board of Internal Economy and said: "I want my bill paid. I want it settled."
It's a sad business we find ourselves in, and I only wish that the government of Ontario would get a bit of common sense and do what it is the taxpayers of Ontario want us to do and have charged us to do, and that is to be - I'm not crying; I've just got something stuck in my throat, believe me - serious about our business, to be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and to make sure we do the right thing. In this particular case, it's to make sure that Mr McLean pays his own legal bills and, if he finds himself to be innocent, to defend that in a court of law and to ask for damages for his legal fees if this matter goes to court and he wins it.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): We are debating tonight Bill 96, which is a supply bill. It's An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1999. It was a bill that was introduced just a week ago and here we are, in the second-last night of this particular session, about to be prorogued in two days' time, and we're dealing with a bill that covers some $52,386,596,000.
As we go through this, we notice that we're involved with a government that is still running a deficit this year of some $4.2 billion and that over the course of its three-and-a-half-year mandate has added $22 billion to the provincial debt, increasing it from $88 billion to $110 billion. We look at the various expenditures that we find here under each of the ministries and we certainly find some things we could criticize this government about.
As a result of my by-election just a year ago, as a matter of fact, we know that taxpayers in Ottawa-West at least, to whom I'm responsible, to whom I'm supposed to be holding this government accountable for the expenditure of their tax dollars, have a very strong opinion in terms of this income tax cut which has cost the treasury so much money. They are saying to me that the price of the income tax cut, the Harris income tax reduction scheme, is not worth the closing of hospitals and the closing of schools.
Mr Guzzo: You're smarter than that, Alex. Come on.
Mr Cullen: The member for Ottawa-Rideau I think wants to defend the closure of the Grace Hospital, wants to defend the closure of the Riverside Hospital, wants to defend the closure of - is it Confederation High School, is it Merivale High School? - whatever high school the board is going to have to close because of this school closure formula.
I, on behalf of my residents, find it absolutely objectionable that we are here today debating a bill that would find us yet with more funding going towards financing an income tax cut rather than dealing with the needs of the community we have today.
I know that buried in these amounts is the $47 million of taxpayers' money that this government is spending to put out propaganda to sell people on the rightness of their agenda, when people in fact find it extremely objectionable. I know that buried in this bill are the expenditures for Andersen Consulting, an American company which was given a bounty; it's a bounty hunter. You know how bounty hunters work. They're paid on commission. Bring in the fur, bring in the scalp, bring in the offender, and then they get paid. For Andersen Consulting, it's however many bodies they can cut off the welfare system, then they get their pay.
Here I am faced, here we are all faced, with those people in our communities - I just want to read the letter that went out to recipients on social assistance, who want to get off social assistance, who would love to have the jobs to get off social assistance, if they could only get the training, if they could only get the community support. It says here if you pay utilities, either hydro or gas, you no longer receive an automatic minimum amount. As a matter of fact, you'll have to pay the full amount.
That may make some sense, except that we know all of these people, if they're in private rentals, are paying more than their shelter allowance covers for their shelter, which means this money has to be made up through their food money, through their utility money, through everything else, and this is being taken away from them.
If you live with parents, no matter how old you are, your eligibility and the amount you receive may change. If you want to read that, that means you get cut off. There was a case introduced this afternoon where a woman with a 10-year-old daughter moves in with her 80-year-old mother, who the doctor said needs care, and this woman is finding her benefits being cut in half to $446 a month.
What will happen when these cuts come into effect? This lady will move out with her daughter in order to get the full entitlement, because there's no other way she can live, and her 80-year-old mother will be forced into a nursing home, which will cost the taxpayers even more. Both ends of the problem, which the minister has put into place, will end up costing the taxpayers more: more for social assistance, more on the nursing home side. Does this make sense from a government that's supposed to be based on family values, which seeks to break up values?
Then there was the case that I gave today about the constituent of mine who is on social assistance who has to look after his children. He has a joint custody arrangement. It says even here: "Cuts Hit Shared Custody Payments; New Welfare Regulation Reduces Benefits." This is not an isolated case. I myself am a person paying child support, and I do so gladly. My daughter is living in a loving family miles away from here. It's been going on for some 15 years, an excellent arrangement that's benefited her family, my family, my child. I have the wherewithal to do this. I have the ability when my daughter comes to visit me to put her up and to look after her, and her parents have the same thing.
But not if you're on assistance. Oh no, if you're on assistance and you're in a basement apartment and you've got three kids and you're trying to make ends meet, you're trying to get that job out there, and every second weekend your three kids come to visit you, oh no, the minister says you can't have that second bedroom, not at all. You have to go right down to the basic rock-bottom position. You can't look after those kids when it's your turn, only the custodial parent has that right.
Here we are trying to more effectively allow both parents to discharge their obligations. This was a system in place that there was no trouble with before, but the ministry ups and cuts it off. It is offensive. What we have here instead is another attempt to break up families and it's wrong.
We're dealing with a bill here, Bill 96, the supply bill, that seeks to authorize the expenditure of $52.386 billion for all the ministries that we have here, including, of course, the Legislative Assembly.
I've been in elected politics for some 12 years. I spent six years on the school board where my ratepayers expected me to be accountable for over $200 million worth of expenditures dealing with the education of their children and they would challenge me, "Why are you spending money on superintendents when we need special education?" If they didn't like my answer, they had a recourse. They could look at the books, they had open access to the books. They could question me, we'd have public meetings. They could come to the budget meetings and they could challenge me, and we were challenged and we worked very hard to get the biggest bang for the taxpayers' buck possible.
I was elected to city hall, Mr Speaker, as were you; not the same city, I have to say. My city was the city of Ottawa, your city was the city of Vanier. But in my situation, as in your situation, we were responsible to the taxpayers for the expenditure of their dollars and the taxpayers could come and see our books, could come and challenge each and every expenditure that we made, whether it was for roads, for sewers, for parks, for whatever. The coffee account in the councillors' lounge, as a matter of fact, was a budget item, the mayor's car and chauffeur was a budget item, and we would debate these things in front of the public. We were responsible for over $300 million worth of expenditures. That's the proper public process. That's making sure that the taxpayer's dollar is properly spent.
2130
When I got elected to the region, where I stayed for six years, we had $1-billion budget. Again, each and every taxpayer could come forward and challenge us on our expenditures. I have to say to the members assembled here that the bulk of those expenditures were mandated by law through provincial legislation. We had to expend when there were social assistance cases, we had to make those expenditures and they took up the bulk, but the point of it is, we were responsible and every three years we went before the public and had to justify why we put the money towards public transit, why it went to the sewer account, why we didn't replace the water pipes that kept on freezing every year, as we tried to do, to replace them, etc.
We've heard a lot around this chamber about accountability dealing with an $800,000 item. We stand here, we're debating the public's money. This is Bill 96, a government bill. One would think in the process of the debate that we would hear from the government side about the justification for these expenditures. Tonight we seem to be focused on one particular expenditure, although I've accounted for others - $47 million for the government advertising, the $180 million that's going to Andersen Consulting, and the list goes on and on.
We're focused on one particular point, which is the payment of not just the legal bills of a member of this House on the basis of a private matter between that member and that member's former employee, but also a settlement on top of that and legal fees on top of that, on all of which a committee of this House, dominated by members of the government, was given very clear, succinct legal opinions that the taxpayers of Ontario were not obligated to pay any of this, simply were not obligated to pay any of this amount of money, that it was a private matter between the member for Simcoe East and his former employee.
If we are to follow the procedure of accountability - we ask trustees to be accountable. The government on the other side has in this legislation that those books be open and that any budget debate has to be done in public. There's no in camera session. Everyone can see and hold accountable those trustees for all those boards across Ontario who have that responsibility of spending the taxpayers' money. I agree with that test.
I lived those years, I did that job and I have to say that the ratepayers in Ottawa West saw fit to re-elect me; similarly at the municipal level. We have over 600 municipalities across the province here that have responsibility for the taxpayers' dollars and this Legislature mandates that they must conduct their business in an open manner, that they must be held accountable for the taxpayers' dollars, public votes, and that there's an ability to scrutinize those books.
Why on this matter are we not able to find out the details of this particular expenditure? Quite frankly, when the member for Renfrew North comes here and says that there should be an ability to hold people accountable, that there should be a vote, I should hope so. The government requires it of each and every trustee in this province. The government requires it of each and every municipal councillor, regional councillor, county councillor in this province. Then why can it not be done here for the members of this provincial Parliament who are elected to represent the interests of their constituents and to be held accountable for the expenditure of their tax dollars?
This is taxation with representation. This is accountable government. It confounds the principle of responsible government when we have members of a committee, the Board of Internal Economy, of which there is one member from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Liberal Party and four members from the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the government party -
Mr Bradley: Name names.
Mr Cullen: I am challenged to name names, and I'm more than happy to do so, of course. They are the House leader, who we know as the Honourable Norm Sterling; the Chair of Management Board, who we know as the Honourable Chris Hodgson; the Minister of Transportation, who we know as the Honourable Tony Clement; and the member for Nepean, who we know as John Baird. These are the members. The other members of the Board of Internal Economy, I hasten to add, are the member for Kingston and The Islands, Mr John Gerretsen, and the member for London Centre, Marion Boyd. At least two of those six members asked for an accounting of this expenditure.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Wrong. I have the minutes right here.
Mr Cullen: I'm sorry. The member for London Centre has placed it on Hansard that she has asked for that accounting. The member for Nepean says it's otherwise. I hope the member for Nepean will enter into this debate. The government will have time to speak to this matter. The bill is before us here; the expenditure is before us here. We want to hear a clear accounting, because every time we ask the government side, we get stonewalled; the public gets stonewalled. As a matter of fact, we hear charges of mishandling of this file by the member for North Bay. "Who's the member for North Bay?" you ask. The member for St Catharines is a little slow on this. The member for North Bay is the Right Honourable Premier of Ontario, Michael Harris.
He said, both in this House and outside of this House, that this matter has been mishandled. So why didn't the government representatives on the Board of Internal Economy agree to that accounting of this case? Even one of the parties to this action, the member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean, has said it has been mishandled. If this is so, we are talking about $800,000 of taxpayers' money, for which the Board of Internal Economy got a legal opinion - more than once, mind you; more than one legal opinion - that said there was no responsibility on the taxpayers' part to pay for these amounts, none whatsoever.
One has to ask oneself why, then, we are debating this matter. Because we cannot get a clear accounting. Why is it that we can't get a clear accounting for the taxpayers' money, $800,000? For heaven's sake, at the municipal level, at the school board or regional level, every other level of government in this province, for any kind of expenditure of this amount of money, the taxpayer would be saying: "Why did you spend this money? Justify it." That is our responsibility that we as elected representatives of our constituents hold. We are to be held accountable for their dollars. That's why we have these bills; that's why we have a process; that's why we have debate; that's why we have question period: to challenge the expenditures of these taxpayer dollars.
The government cannot run and hide, and say, "We are responsible for government expenditures, but these are not government expenditures, these are Legislature expenditures." Yet when we look at who controls the Board of Internal Economy, the four members who dominate, who moved the motion to say we should pay $800,000 of taxpayers' money, it is the four members of the government. It is indeed the House leader, the Chair of Management Board, the Minister of Transportation and the member for Nepean, all of whom ran on more accountability for taxpayers.
I can remember well reading the material that came. As you know, I would not see so much of the House leader, because his riding is outside, near an area of Ottawa-Carleton; I certainly would not be seeing very much of the Chair of Management Board, because his riding is in northern central Ontario; nor the Minister of Transportation, because his riding is in Toronto. But I certainly read avidly the material that was published by the Conservative candidate in Nepean, who now sits here as the member for Nepean. That is Mr Baird. What did he say in his material? That he would ensure that every tax dollar would be spent on proper programs that the taxpayer wanted and would not be spent on inefficiency and waste.
2140
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): What does he say today?
Mr Cullen: I'm being asked, "What is he saying today on this particular expenditure of $800,000 of the taxpayers' money?" We hear nothing. We do not hear him speak to this matter.
Mr Baird: $800,000? Going up. It's inflation.
Mr Cullen: We hear him heckling on the other side, but if the member for Nepean has so much to say, heckling from the other side, let him use his right when the rotation goes around, to stand up and speak clearly and give an accounting on this.
Our party came forward and placed a motion. We asked if the government would support a motion here in the Legislature asking Mr McLean to reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario for the full $130,000 of his so-called legal expenses that the public had no business paying in the first place. We asked the government if they would support that motion. They said no.
Earlier, the member for London Centre also asked for unanimous consent to move a motion. I'm searching for it. Here it is. The member for London Centre stood up in this House and sought unanimous consent for a motion:
"Whereas all three political parties represented in this House have acknowledged that the settlement in the McLean-Thompson affair has been badly mismanaged; and
"Whereas all legislators are collectively responsible to the people of Ontario for matters relating to the Legislative Assembly; and
"Whereas the final settlement of this private dispute is being paid by the taxpayers of Ontario; and
"Whereas the taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent;
"Therefore, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario requests the lawyers in the McLean-Thompson dispute to provide a full report to this Legislative Assembly with respect to all of the legal fees paid under this settlement, including an itemization of all disbursements."
If I was a school board trustee asking for that, I would have it. That would be given to me and that would be a public matter. If I was a member of any city or municipal council and I asked for that, I would receive that and it would be a matter of public record. If I was a member of a regional government or a county government and I asked for that, I would receive that. Why would all these levels of government acknowledge that I as their elected representative had a right to that? Because it is the taxpayers' money. Why we're not seeing it today is not because it is a matter of cabinet confidentiality; not at all. It's because four members of the government on the Board of Internal Economy said no to this kind of disclosure of information that we have asked for.
The member for London Centre has made it clear both inside and outside the House that she asked for this. I myself am standing here asking for this. Is this a wrong thing to ask for? Are we wrong, on our side of the House, to ask for this? We're not wrong on this side of the House to ask for this, because it is our job. It is our duty to ask for this. I don't think the members on the other side understand this particular notion or concept of duty, that it is a duty to the taxpayer. Sometimes it's not pleasant, but it is a duty to the taxpayer.
When the government side on the Board of Internal Economy said that despite the lawyers' legal opinion this expenditure of taxpayers' dollars should be made, they took it upon themselves to be held accountable for their decision. It certainly was not the decision or the recommendation by the member for Kingston and The Islands, the Liberal member on that Board of Internal Economy. It certainly was not the recommendation by the member for London Centre, the New Democratic member on the Board of Internal Economy. But it certainly was the united recommendation of those four members of the government side. When they chose to make that recommendation, they took it upon themselves to be held accountable for that decision. That is what we're asking for, that they be held accountable, that the whole public can see each and every item. It is only through this House that we held the government accountable for the expenditure for private investigators who were hired to snoop in the private life of the person who actually brought this sexual harassment case against her employer.
Because it was raised in this House, the member who was responsible for authorizing that payment, the member for Simcoe East, has now volunteered to pay that amount of money instead of the taxpayers. I would say that that's an appropriate response, and I would say in terms of taxpayers' dollars that we're glad to see some $8,000 that now will not have to be paid by taxpayers.
It only came about because members on this side of the House were trying to hold the government side accountable for their decision on the Board of Internal Economy for this expenditure. So here we save the taxpayers already 10% of that amount.
We want to look at it further, because what confounds us all on this side of the House - we don't understand why it doesn't confound other members of the House but we know it confounds members of the public - was that the taxpayer had no business forking out $800,000 on this sorry, sad scandal; none whatsoever. We had no obligation to go to the taxpayer whatsoever. We had legal opinions coming to us, telling us that we have no liability, the taxpayer has no liability whatsoever.
The government, in coming forward with this - one can speculate as to their motives. Clearly it was a benefit to one of their members. Clearly it was a means of ending a story that only could get worse. We found out it was not just one situation of sexual harassment but indeed that there were three sets of allegations about sexual harassment dealing with a member of the government.
Maybe the government thinks that in dealing with a bill that seeks to expend $52,386,596,000 of the taxpayers' money, perhaps $800,000 really doesn't matter very much. After all, they can spend $47 million of the taxpayers' money on propaganda on television and radio, so what's another $800,000?
The public understands the principle here. They expect us to manage their affairs to the best ability that we can do. Was not this government elected on precisely that platform? They may point fingers at other parties for previous behaviour. It took 120-something years for the government side to ratchet up a deficit of some $60 billion before they lost power in 1987. That's what happened. Then we go through, of course, the economies of the day. We end up here with a debt, at the start of this government's mandate, of $88 billion. We sit here today with a provincial debt of $110 billion - $22 billion worse off, $10 billion of which can be laid directly at the feet of this income tax scheme that they campaigned on, that they're cutting and closing hospitals, cutting and closing schools on.
But for some reason, $800,000 that they had no obligation to pay whatsoever - the government side can just walk into that committee and just simply put forward that recommendation and use their votes over the protestations of the other two members of that committee. Then we find that the leader of the government side, the Premier of Ontario, the leader of this government, is saying: "No, this was badly handled." I'm sorry, this just does not fly. This dog won't run, not at all.
I am looking forward to the amendment that's going to be offered by the member for Renfrew North. I'm looking forward to the vote. The vote is important. It's a means of accountability. Stand up and be counted. I am willing to stand up and be counted on the matter. I think it was a wrong expenditure and the public should know that. The public should know what the members opposite think as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Questions and comments? The member for Northumberland.
2150
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly entertaining to listen to the members debating on this particular bill.
Listening to the member for Ottawa West, he brought to mind the campaign we ran on, so I've just pulled out the Common Sense Revolution here. The key points in the platform, and I'm sure he'd just love to hear them again: cut provincial income taxes; cut non-priority government spending - done - cut government barriers to job creation, investment and economic growth; cut the size of government - that's certainly been done, another policy carried out by this government - and balance the budget. Certainly we're on track, there's no question, by 2001 to balance that budget.
It's interesting that the member for Ottawa West, just being in this House a few months, has become an instant expert on debt and deficit. He's been with three different parties already. He started out with the Liberal Party, he then became an independent and now he's NDP. He must really understand the House now, having been in three different positions while he's been here. I congratulate him on being able to move around quite that much.
He talks about coming from a party that doubled its spending - that was the Liberal Party. He's certainly picked up from them while he was there on how to go about spending. Then he moves to the party that borrowed the most that they could ever possibly borrow. They doubled the deficit, doubled the debt while the NDP was there. Possibly, he did pick up something while he was an independent. He didn't serve too long there, because the leader of the NDP came to his rescue and very graciously took him in. We're very pleased that he now has a home.
Mr Bradley: I didn't hear the member for Northumberland say how he was going to vote on the amendment which is being placed by the member for Renfrew North. The speakers from the New Democratic Party were wondering if he would, when he stood in the House, declare where he stands in this. We know those who want to ingratiate themselves to the Premier will go to virtually any end to defend something that is totally indefensible.
I ask the members from the New Democratic Party, who touched on this issue, how they would compare the treatment of the people who are gardeners, the people who do the cleaning in this building, the people who provided food services in the building, how they would contrast the extreme right-wing YPCs and their attitude towards that group of people in society as compared to the good old boys of their own party, those who have the connections, those who are in tight with the powerful, those who have the wherewithal to bring their friends to bear on their behalf even before a matter is decided before the courts. Surely that is the issue. This matter was not decided before the courts. There's been no determination as to guilt or no guilt, but apparently the Assembly has to pay at this point in time the expenses of an individual who has incurred those expenses in a private case.
I really wonder if my friends from the third party who made a speech on this and brought out many of the issues were satisfied with what they've heard so far in contrasting that treatment of those who are not born into privilege, those who don't have a position of privilege. You see, it's easy to kick the small people around, because they have a hard time kicking you back. The real test is when it comes to one of your own. Will you treat them the same way as you treated the people at the lower echelons? I'm sure you'll have comments on that.
Mr Len Wood: I want to commend the member for Cochrane South and the member for Ottawa West on the excellent presentations they made, pointing out the fact, why is this government paying hush money to cover up the Al McLean sex scandal? As we're dealing with Bill 96 here, there's money that's going to have to be approved.
Sean Conway has brought forward an amendment and it's going to be interesting to see how the Conservatives are going to vote, whether they approve paying the Harris hush money out to cover up the Al McLean sex scandal.
When we walk down the streets of Toronto we see people sleeping on the streets, with nothing to eat, no roof over their head. In every community, whether you go to Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls or Kirkland Lake, there are food banks all over the place, there are soup kitchens, because this government has cut the payments going to people on social assistance and welfare. Yet they're willing to allow three of their cabinet ministers and a parliamentary assistant to stack the vote in favour of paying out what I call the Harris hush money to cover up a sex scandal that has happened within the Conservative Party.
Some say it's the old boys' club. The old boys get together and protect one of their own, rather than paying this money out of the Conservative Party funds. We all know that they have millions and millions of dollars that they've brought in, yet they're going to use taxpayers' money to pay out this kind of money. They have all kinds of money that they're paying for advertising and yet they're going to pay out this money, and we have people who are going hungry a week before Christmas. Here we are at 10 o'clock at night a week before Christmas, debating hush money being paid out by Mike Harris to cover up a sex scandal.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Lest we allow the people watching tonight to get the wrong impression about what exactly is happening in Ontario, I thought it might be timely to speak in terms of the fact that we have 357,000 fewer people in Ontario dependent on welfare than we had back in 1995, and well over 100,000 of those are children. There's no question that there still are many people trapped in the welfare system. I think it's fair to assume that the only possible way to exit the welfare system is to find a good-paying job.
The Minister of Economic Development is working hard to make sure that Ontario has a climate that attracts jobs. Our best bet for those folks who find themselves trapped on welfare is to be able to say, "The private sector, because of the policies of the Harris government, has created these jobs, and here are some opportunities for you."
Of course, the work-for-welfare program that has been introduced by the Minister of Community and Social Services is designed to take those people who have been trapped in the system for so long and say, "We're going to give you an opportunity to help yourself." You know, Mr Speaker, as all of us know, that if we condemn people to a life on welfare, what we have said to them is, "You'll never be anything other than poor." But if we give them an opportunity to get reconnected, to get out, to gain some experience, to do some networking, to get some things on their resumé so they can help themselves to a better way of life, a better quality of life through a good-paying job, that is the best thing that we as the government of Ontario can do on behalf of those people.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's very clear what's happened in Ontario. No price is too great to assure Mike Harris's re-election: whether it's $600,000 for hush money; whether it's $50 million for advertising; whether it is $200 million to avert the closure of schools; whether it's any of those things, this government will go to any lengths, any lengths at all to assure the re-election of Mike Harris. But the people of Ontario -
Mr Galt: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe there have already been four responses for two minutes. This is the fifth one. I think it's out of order.
The Acting Speaker: I think you're right on. You're wide awake. Thank you very much. The member for Cochrane South has two minutes to wrap up.
2200
Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I would like to split the response with my friend here. Am I allowed to do that, with unanimous consent? No. Well, we tried.
I find it very interesting that the government members stand on points of order to say they don't want to hear members of the opposition speak on the presentation, what both myself and the member for Ottawa West had to say. I find it passing strange that the two government members who spoke in response to our speeches decided to speak about nothing having to do with what we had to say, which is that your government is paying taxpayers' dollars to give hush money to Al McLean to not spill the beans about what he knows or doesn't know about other members of your caucus. That's what's going on.
The other fact is, why did the members of the government not stand up and defend their cabinet ministers for the decisions they have taken in supporting the members of the Board of Internal Economy who are Conservative members: the member for Nepean, the Minister of Transportation, the Chair of Management Board and the House leader? Why is it they didn't stand up and defend them? You cannot defend what your members have done on the Board of Internal Economy, because you guys have decided to pay the legal fees of Al McLean in order to hush him up and to play the good old boys' game with one of your old friends.
I say again what I said in my speech. When it comes to a modern society such as we find ourselves in in Ontario, issues of sexual harassment have to be taken seriously, especially by employers. Your actions as a government when it comes to how you're dealing with it sends a very bad message to the people of Ontario in saying, "This government does not take seriously its responsibility when it comes to the question of sexual harassment." If that's where this province of Ontario is going, it's a sad day for the citizens of this province.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'll be sharing my time with the member for Wentworth North.
The Acting Speaker: You need to have consent to share your time. Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much. That's very kind of you.
We are debating the supply bill, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1999, Bill 96; a very significant bill, spending some $52,386,596,000 in some very significant ministries. The Ministry of Health, for example, over $20 billion. If we look at education and training, over $11.5 billion. Pretty big figures. If we look at community and social services, almost $8 billion. Those are the kinds of dollars and the kind of money that's being approved with this particular bill.
I don't think there is any question that the government we have in Ontario right now is the most compassionate government this province has ever seen. We've seen governments in the past that were prepared to spend money, spend the future and our grandchildren will have to pay the interest and try and pay back that debt. It only took 15 or 16 years to pay off the war debt, and back in the 1960s we were in the black, both provincially and federally. Then what happened? The father of all deficits, Mr Trudeau, came to office as the Prime Minister of this country and we've been going downhill ever since with spending, living with deficits, living in tomorrow's world. Here we are, over $100 billion in debt in Ontario, almost $600 billion in debt in the nation, across Canada. It's a most unfortunate circumstance.
This province has been leading by cutting spending. We've been reducing the deficit significantly and we've been cutting taxes and, by cutting taxes, stimulating the economy of Ontario. Prior to the election many economists, many people said you couldn't cut spending and taxes at the same time. But we have stimulated the economy so much that there are more revenues coming in and we are able to balance the budget in another year or two.
I don't think there's any question that the economic programs we've brought in in Ontario have not only helped but have given the federal Liberals the opportunity to end up balancing their budget. I think it's interesting to see in today's paper, just looking at the National Post at some of the comments that are being made about the federal government - some of the quotes I have come from Saskatchewan and I'm sure the NDP would be very interested in the Premier's comments from there. He's issuing a challenge: "Canada's premiers have challenged Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, to stand by his offer to restore $6 billion in federal cuts if the provinces replenish the money that they chopped from the social programs. We're taking him at his word." He goes on to say, "I think the Prime Minister making a statement of this gravity should be taken at his word."
There's no question, as you look around, that almost all the provinces, if not all the provinces, have increased their spending on health care. Mr Romanow was quick to point out that Saskatchewan and most of the provinces actually increased spending in health care despite steep cuts in transfer payments from the federal government since 1995.
This goes on to point out the specific drop that has occurred, from $18.5 billion in 1994 to $12.5 billion now. That's a $6-billion drop on an annual basis across Canada and well over $2 billion here in Ontario. The only ones that have cut health care are the federal Liberals. The provinces in general, particularly the province of Ontario, have increased health care spending. We have increased it by $1.5 billion, in spite of the $2 billion cut by the feds. That means the taxpayers of Ontario really have increased spending by more than $3.5 billion.
It started out originally in health care where it was a 50-50 proposition: The federal government was putting in 50 cents on the dollar and the province put in 50 cents. What are they putting in today? Some 7.6 cents on the health care dollar. The government that has cut health care has indeed been the federal government. Now, if they do return some of this $6 billion to the provinces, they want credit. They also asked if there would be strings attached, and Mr Chrétien replied, "We'll see," and later on, "But Ottawa is also ready to put new money on the table for health care, providing the provinces match those funds." Here we go. They're going to put in new money and demand the provinces match those dollars.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker: Madam Clerk, do we have 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: The member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: Waiting during that quorum call, I was just checking in the National Post. There was another interesting quote from the Prime Minister, "If they want to talk restoration...I will tell the premiers the same thing: Restore all your cuts and we will restore all the transfers." I think it's very clear-cut, very straightforward, that the cheque should be in the mail from the federal government.
I also think it's interesting that recently they made a great cut in our unemployment insurance. They cut that by some 15 cents while at the same time they increased the CPP by 30 cents, and they were looking for a credit from that. We all know that payroll taxes really are job-killers, and something our government has been doing in reducing taxes is that we've been getting rid of not only income taxes and corporate taxes but also payroll taxes such as the employer health tax.
I mentioned earlier that it's certainly a very compassionate government we have in Ontario, one that hasn't been seen in this province for a very long time, in the fact that we're reducing the deficit and getting the debt under control. As we bring that debt under control, it means there's going to be less interest paid into the future. High-interest payments and high debt mean we drive away jobs.
2210
There is no question that this government is on track as we move down the road into the year 1999 and look at the year 2000 and move into the new millennium.
We're on track with welfare and what we've been doing there. I think it's interesting that in my own riding of Northumberland there's a saving, since 1995-96 to this year, of $10.5 million, and the county itself will reap 20% of that, over $2 million alone. When it comes to the Who Does What, they've also saved on the library. We returned the funding for library grants that were there before, and now there's this $2 billion coming in savings on social assistance. Over a third, some 357,000 fewer people are now on welfare in the province, and also in my own riding of Northumberland it's almost a third, at a 32.87% reduction in the welfare rolls.
We've made great moves, great strides, in being on track with education, with a reduction in the number of school boards, with bringing in standardized report cards that parents can understand, with bringing in a standard curriculum across the province so that when families move they will know where their children are at, whether in grade 3 or grade 5 or grade 8. We brought in testing in grade 3 and now in grade 6. It's not just testing the students, but testing the boards and testing the schools. We brought in a new funding formula that is fair and gives equal opportunity to children whether they be in the far north or in downtown Toronto.
We brought in health restructuring, tremendous moves, with reinvestment in many areas such as long-term care, cardiac bypass surgery, MRIs, kidney dialysis and so on.
We've also made some very significant changes in the environment with regulation reform that's improved the opportunity to look after those who are polluting. We just recently brought in Bill 82 on enhanced environmental protection.
These are some of the things that a compassionate government such as we have in Ontario today is doing for the taxpayers, hard-working Ontarians.
I'll now relinquish the rest of my 20 minutes to the member for Wentworth North.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I would like to address my remarks with reference to the comments that the member for Renfrew North made.
He mentioned the $130,000, and basically the entire hour was spent on that. He said that it was a matter of conscience, a matter of principle. The challenge was that this was an opportunity for members of the House to be noble, or ignoble if we didn't vote his way. Then he went on to attack two ministers relentlessly for that one-hour period.
In my years as a crown attorney, I found that often to get to the truth you don't listen to what someone says, you listen to what they don't talk about. I noticed there were two major areas that the member for Renfrew North never talked about. One of them was the member for Nepean. He never talked about the member for Nepean, who is one of the members who has been criticized by other members tonight. I think the reason for that, and I got the transcript for last night, is that the member for Renfrew North, who I might say I have a lot of respect for and who I think cares for the process and has a lot of respect for the Legislature and for the members in the House - because I think we all know when we're here that this is a tough job and you have to work hard if you're going to be good at it. You have to make tough decisions. You have to be criticized, sometimes unfairly.
Last night the member for Renfrew North said something that I think is not typical of him and that I'm sure he regrets now. He indicated near midnight as follows: "The member for Nepean is such a wonderful representative of the new religion of modern politics. He is like one of these little Mattel dolls: You insert the program and wind it up and away it goes. It is quite wonderful." This is the same member who is asking us to be noble. I would say these are most ignoble remarks and not worthy of the member for Renfrew North.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Ottawa West.
Mr Skarica: Obviously the member for Ottawa West is quite disturbed, because he is not allowing me the chance to finish my speech. In any event, not only is that very nasty and nothing noble from a member who wants us to take a noble stance, but it's just not true. Everyone here knows, both in the opposition and all the members of this House on the government side, that on government restructuring, on municipal restructuring in Ottawa, the member for Nepean has taken a very principled stand against an amalgamation, to have Ottawa as one principality, and has taken a very -
Mr Cullen: What about the member for Ottawa-Rideau? Where is the member for Ottawa-Rideau's bill that was supported by the Minister of Municipal Affairs?
Mr Skarica: It's virtually impossible to talk, as the member for Ottawa West has no sense of dignity and he does not want to give the opportunity to other members to express their opinions. But be that as it may, the member for Nepean has taken a very principled stand on behalf of his constituents and has made it very clear that regardless of government policy, regardless of what the government has to say, he will represent the constituents of Nepean who are opposed to an Ottawa supercity type of amalgamation. He's made that very clear.
That's completely contradictory to the fact that he is a Mattel doll, that you can insert a program in him and he will walk away as some type of brainless robot, as has been intimated by the member for Renfrew North. To give the member for Renfrew North credit, I think he regrets saying that now because he knows that was not a noble thing to do and in fact it was not a true thing to say. I think that's why he did not say anything about the member for Nepean tonight.
The other thing that the member for Renfrew North never talked about was the rest of the supply bill. He talked about $130,000. The other members have talked about the total being discussed here, $52 billion, yet the member for Renfrew North spent an hour talking about $130,000. My calculation is that's 0.0002% of the budget. The member for Renfrew North did not discuss anything about the 99.9998% of the other expenditures in the supply bill.
Interjections.
Mr Skarica: I have to say to the members of the public watching, it's hard to give a speech in the House, because when you try to do it and you try to do it in a fair way, it's tough to do. It's not like a courtroom, because in a courtroom my experience was that you could give your opinion and you would be allowed to do it. But here, the moment you raise any concerns or matters that seem to have an impact, other people in the House start screaming and shouting in a most undignified manner.
In any event, the other matter that the member for Renfrew North did not talk about, but he did allude to it last night, is the Ministry of Health budget, which is $20 billion, according to the supply bill. The members of the opposition are always talking about health care cuts and how this government has cut health care -
Mr Bisson: You have.
Mr Skarica: There you have it: "You have." They said that in 1995. Let's go to the Ontario budget, which is audited. In 1995, what was the budget for health care? The budget for health care in 1995-96, when this government took over, was $17.6 billion. In the supply budget, it's $20 billion, as Mr Conway alluded to last night, and it's alluded to here. That's an incredible increase. Where's this $1 billion or so that's been cut out of health care that we've heard time and time again from the opposition, particularly from the member -
Mr Cullen: Because it's less per person, Toni. It's called per capita expenditures.
2220
Mr Skarica: Oh, now it's less per person. For three years all we've heard in this House is: "You guys have cut health care. You've taken $1 billion out of health care." That's been their story and they're sticking with it.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Skarica: Speaking of stories and sticking with it, the member for St Catharines wrote a speech in 1995. Basically, it is the same speech he's given in this House time and time again. That was, "You guys have to borrow money for your tax cuts." That's been his speech. He's said it over and over again. As the facts have come out in the budgets, that doesn't seem to deter the member for St Catharines.
What are the revenues even after the tax cuts, the actual revenues that the province of Ontario has gotten after the tax cut? When this government took over in 1995-96, the revenues were $36 billion. Then the tax cuts started. In 1996, the revenues were $38.4 billion. In 1997-98, the revenues are $41 billion, which is a full $5 billion more than the revenues we had in 1995.
Unfortunately for the member for St Catharines, he wrote a speech in 1995 that said about this tax cut, "You're going to have to borrow; it's going to cost you $5 billion a year." But the fact of the matter is, the revenues have gone up. The member for St Catharines ignored that because he wrote that speech in 1995, and that's his story and he's going to stick with it. That's partly the reason the deficit has gone down from $11 billion to $4 billion: Our revenues have gone up substantially. We've created 460,000 jobs in the process. We've managed to increase health care spending at the same time.
But the opposition continues - well, they wrote a speech in 1995: "You guys have cut health care." Of course, spending has gone up; it's right in here as part of the 99.998% that nobody's talking about here except for the government members. Health care spending has gone up dramatically despite the federal government cutting their transfers to Ontario.
The member for St Catharines, every time he speaks, talks about, "You guys have to borrow money for the tax cut." We've had the tax cuts and the figures are in. We're getting more money than ever before; we're getting $41 billion, an increase of $5 billion.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mr Bradley: What a metamorphosis a commissionership makes in an individual. I can remember when my friend from Wentworth North was an independent-minded individual who spoke his mind on all the issues.
Mr Caplan: He sold out.
Mr Bradley: I didn't say that. He just appears to have had a commissionership bestowed upon him now that my good friend Downtown Jim Brown, the member for Scarborough West, who no longer has the position.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): He's gone underground.
Mr Bradley: The member for Northumberland says he's gone underground. I think it was him. Someone over there said that.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The Minister of Agriculture said it.
I'm telling you, it has made a major difference in my friend for Wentworth North. I used to enjoy his speeches. He was independent; he took an independent point of view. He didn't let the Premier push him around. Now he sounds like a good team player out there. I don't know. Maybe that's the solution: Make everybody on the other side a commissioner.
But what I didn't hear from either of the members who spoke was how they were going to vote, if the government of course will ever let a vote take place, on the money to be paid for the legal fees for the former Speaker of the Legislature. I didn't hear either one of the members say that.
Probably, as they divided the time, they didn't have the time. I know that in their two-minute response, whoever chooses to give that response will tell us how they're going to vote on that motion, because we know they supported to put the boots to the cleaners around here and to the gardeners around here, the people who couldn't defend themselves, the people who didn't make very much money, but here they are, large as life now, backing one of their own in the old boys' network. I wonder how they're going to vote.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to comment on the remarks of my colleague from Wentworth North. It's surprising that I would hear him, or any Tory for that matter, saying almost as C.D. Howe did, "What's a million?" Basically, he was saying, "What's $600,000?" in suggesting that looking at this is to ignore some larger picture. Of course, our point is that the hypocrisy of this government talking about caring about every penny and then throwing away $600,000, $130,000 of which is going for one of their buddies, leaves us all in quite a quandary.
There are two more points I'd like to raise. One is that the member is one of those who likes to talk about the Harris economic miracle, and he talks about revenues and pulls out figures from the budget, but the reality is that the credit rating for the government of Mike Harris is exactly the same credit rating we had as the NDP government under Bob Rae. If what you're saying about some economic miracle is true, then why hasn't our credit rating gone right up there to the top? Why? Because every financial analyst knows that the whole concept of saying you have to fight the deficit and at the same time give away $5 billion to $6 billion of your revenue to the wealthiest people in the province makes no economic sense.
He talks about hospitals. I want to talk about Hamilton in the 20 seconds that are left. The Hamilton Spectator editorially supports the Harris government. What are the headlines lately? "McLean Lawsuit Settlement Smells"; "Hospital Funding Falls Short by $20 Million"; "Tax Bill Crisis Demands Action"; "Region Wants Answers About the Future of St Peter's Hospital"; "Hospitals Crippled by Huge Deficits"; "Major Hospital Layoffs Ahead." So much for the Harris miracle.
Mr Carroll: I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on the dissertations of my colleagues the member for Northumberland and the member for Wentworth North.
It's interesting, when the facts are spoken in this House, how the opposition has no interest in listening to them. The member for Wentworth North about talked absolute numbers in the supply bill and in the 1995 budget of the increase in health care spending, absolute facts -
Interjections.
Mr Carroll: No, you cannot dispute those facts. Yet the opposition members continue to rail on about the provincial government cutting health care. Mr Speaker, you and I know, and every member opposite knows, that the only government that is cutting health care spending is the federal Liberal government. They continue to reduce transfer payments to the provinces for health care.
Unlike the provincial government that has raised health care spending by approximately $2 billion, the federal government has reduced health care spending in Ontario by approximately $2 billion; so as long as we assign the proper blame, and that of course lies with the federal Liberals.
It's interesting that the member for Wentworth North also spoke about revenues being up. It's unconscionable to me that especially the Liberals could sit across where they sit in this House and talk about how bad tax decreases are. This government on this side, as the member for Wentworth North has shown, has decreased personal income taxes. That has given people more of their money to keep and spend, and that has driven our economy, and our good friends in the opposition benches, the Liberals especially, say tax cuts are bad. I don't understand it.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and commentsd?
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Come on, let Spanky go.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I too enjoyed the comments of the members for Northumberland and Wentworth North. What I really want to know is how they will vote on this, because that vote more than all the discourses you can deliver, more than all the cover-ups and hush-ups you can attempt to foist tonight, will speak volumes: simple, plain, honest truth of a vote - yes or no.
Mr Bradley: Will they allow a vote?
Mr Duncan: Will they allow a vote? That will speak volumes -
Hon Mr Villeneuve: Spanky, there's a federal seat available.
Mr Duncan: - about their integrity, that will speak volumes about their honesty.
Interjections.
2230
Mr Duncan: The Minister of Agriculture lacks all integrity and all class and all dignity. You're a disgrace to your office and your government for that comment. You should apologize to the people of my community. But I shouldn't be surprised because it demonstrates a sick attitude towards women, and a total lack of respect, something you ought to be ashamed of. If you mean anything about what you say in this House, you'll stand up and allow a vote here and allow a vote about the integrity of women and sexual harassment and not put partisan blatant politics ahead of your own prejudices and misguided notions.
It's an absolute scandal that this government will try to hush this up. I'll be most interested in hearing and seeing how the Minister of Agriculture, who is so sick and disgusting for bringing up the death of a federal colleague in that manner in this House - you should be ashamed of yourself. All of you should be ashamed for hushing up this debate. Show some respect.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland, you have two minutes to wrap up.
Mr Galt: I was interested in the comments made by the member for Hamilton Centre -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): On a point of order, Speaker: When my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville was doing his two-minute response, I heard the Minister of Agriculture make a reference, and especially with my colleague coming from Windsor, that there was a federal vacancy and why didn't he run federally. I just have to wonder what he meant by that, but we know there was a vacancy last week because of the death of an MP in Ottawa. I would ask that the minister, who hopefully was not referring to that, but if he was, that he apologize to this House.
Hon Mr Villeneuve: If I've offended anyone, Mr Speaker, I very much withdraw.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the last few seconds here.
What I wanted to point out to the member for Hamilton Centre was that our credit rating has not gone down. We've at least held our own. But what happened during your term? Yours went down nine times: Moody's, May 16, 1991 and May 27, 1994; Dominion Bond Rating Service, May 18, 1991 and November 24, 1993; Standard and Poor's, May 28, 1991, May 5, 1992 and November 24, 1993; the Canadian Bond Rating Service, May 17, 1991 and May 12, 1992. Nine times your credit rating went down during your five-year term.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You can see that this kind of debate gets everyone on the government side of the House very nervous. We start talking about the details about what the government is doing with the public's money and the government continues to try gloss over with fancy statistics as though everything were OK. I marvelled at the parliamentary assistant bringing up the community and social services ministry as an example in this House today, of all the wonders of the Mike Harris government.
Today I have less than 20 minutes to discuss two things. One is that what resulted in an amendment that was put forward will be brought to a vote hopefully tonight, perhaps in the morning or in the afternoon, and that is an amendment that will remove $133,000 at a minimum from that supply bill, which is what we're discussing tonight; the other is the Andersen contract. Those two things are probably the premier examples of bungling and mismanagement on the part of this government.
Let me start with this afternoon when our colleague from Renfrew brought forward a discussion in the House during question period and said, "How will the members vote?" It is the responsibility of every MPP in this House to vote on that supply bill, but we've put another window on that vote. It would have been just another supply bill, and we've had many in the House over three and a half years, but this one is going to be different because the public, wherever you go, is saying to every member in this House on both sides, "I don't like the looks of what just happened over there."
If we go to Midland or if we go to other places in Ontario, the comments that the government members have heard are simple. There are voters angry over scandal costs and what they're saying very clearly is: "I think it's a crying shame. It's taxpayers' money. If we had committed a crime we would have to hire our own lawyer and pay for it out of our own pocket." That speaks to the people on Oak Avenue in Windsor, the people in Wawa, the people in Renfrew and certainly the people in Northumberland are saying the same thing.
To hear the members stand up and not even address that issue tonight in the supply bill, it's a shame that you didn't take the opportunity to talk about that, so your residents will know how you will vote on that bill.
That issue goes further. My question for the Premier of this province is how he could have selected three ministers of the cabinet to sit on that Board of Internal Economy along with a parliamentary assistant, the member for Nepean, and how those four members of that board made that decision to pay those costs when they had the opportunity to see the list of what those costs included. When they went down the list, expense by expense, they had a look and saw that it included the cost of a private investigator that would be tracking the alleged victim in this case. Did it not occur to any of those three powerful cabinet ministers, those men who sit around the cabinet table, what kind of message it was sending to most people who are in this situation?
In trying to bring claims against an employer in a case of sexual harassment, what usually happens to one who is usually female in gender is that those alleged victims become revictimized when they come forward with their complaint. That is known in the industry to happen, mostly to women. Did it occur to those cabinet ministers who sat at that table that that was the message you were sending to women across this province, that this government not only condoned it, supported it, but you used taxpayers' money to do it, and you knew it was being done when you made the decision to pay that expense?
I want to know why those ministers are still sitting at the cabinet table. Why are those ministers still cabinet ministers? They made a decision, having the information in front of them, to go forward to the public and say that we could use taxpayers' money to pay for a private investigator to revictimize the alleged victim in this case and that's OK. When that bill comes into the House tonight, that is what you're voting on in this supply bill. That amendment was put forward, which you're going to vote on. The amendment is that all of you guys sitting across the way think it's OK that in this case the government of Ontario can stand up and actually condone that a victim could be revictimized through paying for a private investigator.
Never mind that the member has agreed today to repay those costs. The decision was made before to do that. Where were the other ministers at that table? Was there any discussion after that? If the Minister of Culture had been at the table, would it have been different? If the minister for women's issues had been at the table, would that have been different? If the Minister of Community and Social Services had been there, would it have been different? That is my question.
Instead those cabinet ministers, three of them - these are not just three new people to government. You have the Chair of Management Board, the individual who decides the timely flow of monies to every ministry in the Ontario government, a significant cabinet position. You have the Minister of Transportation, who is purported to have written the Common Sense Revolution, your party platform, no newcomer to the PC Party. You have the minister who is the House leader, probably one of your most experienced cabinet ministers at that table. You are talking about three heavyweights at the cabinet table who consciously made a decision to condone the revictimizing of that alleged victim and it's OK, even though you knew the message it would send. In these kinds of cases it is so typical: When women try to come forward with complaints, they usually don't because they see the kind of treatment that will be waiting for them, namely, that the other party will have the power or the money to bring, in this case, private investigators to bear. That's the message you're sending out.
2240
When you go home to your ridings after the end of this week, and when you meet the people in your ridings who may well have been in the same position, I ask you: How are you representing them? What kind of message are you sending to women in particular who mostly are involved in these kinds of cases, who mostly don't come forward even though they should because they know the kind of haranguing that waits?
I want to know specifically why those individuals are still at the cabinet table knowing they had done that. For the parliamentary assistant, who may well be a newcomer to this House, did it not occur to him in representing his own constituents that that was an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money?
The parliamentary assistant earlier wanted to address the Ministry of Community and Social Services for great expenses of taxpayers' dollars. In this House, over the last couple of weeks, we've brought out the case of the Andersen contract, the signing of a $180 million contract by the Ontario government with a private company, with very little information available, apparently, to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
As we went forward in the committee on public accounts to review the Provincial Auditor's remarks - the Provincial Auditor spent many pages addressing one simple fact: the Andersen contract. What he said was, "This stinks." He spent much time and many pages discussing what the government missed, or if you didn't miss it, agreed to, unwittingly or not.
The most historic size of a contract in the Ontario government, $180 million, and the minister had the nerve to say, "I didn't hear anything about, I didn't see anything about it and I didn't say anything about it." Who is going to believe that this government could have a $180 million contract and there was no discussion in advance about that? And we find out from the Provincial Auditor that that isn't even the end of it; that you have excluded costs that can be reimbursed for all manner of things.
That's what your government agreed to do. That is what is in this supply bill. The supply bill that we are debating tonight includes -
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): The director told you they don't check them.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Quinte, order, please.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The right-wing from somewhere should withdraw that statement of his. He suggested the member for Windsor-Sandwich twisted a statement. That's simply not accurate.
Mr Preston: I didn't say she lied, I said she twisted it and that's the point.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Can you straighten out your comment?
Mr Preston: Yes, it was a terminological inexactitude. I can say that.
The Acting Speaker: Point of order, the member for Quinte?
Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Speaker knows from whence I come. I am not the right member from nowhere.
The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order. Order, please. Member for Windsor-Sandwich.
Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I be referred to as the right-wing from somewhere?
The Acting Speaker: The member is absolutely right. I'll ask the member for Windsor-Walkerville to please withdraw his comments and address the member by his riding.
Mr Duncan: I apologize, Mr Speaker. He wasn't in his right seat. He's right something, but not in his right seat.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, please. Can you straighten this out?
Mr Duncan: The member for Brant-Haldimand.
The Acting Speaker: I thank you very much.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Speaker: Since the member for Nepean is in the House now, I ask for unanimous consent to allow him to make a statement as to why he moved this motion at the Board of Internal Economy.
The Acting Speaker: Unanimous consent? No.
Further debate?
Mrs Pupatello: I'm quite interested to hear the member for York Mills. If you choose to speak about broomsticks, speak about your own. I don't appreciate those kinds of comments, member. I think it's probably a sexist comment and you should know better.
The point of this discussion is that you and the rest of your colleagues spent $180 million of taxpayers' money on a contract that the Provincial Auditor said smells. That is the point. I will tell you that after much time with the Provincial Auditor in detail, he found reason after reason to question the minister.
How dare the minister come into this House and say, "I didn't know anything about it." Do you expect anyone out there to believe that a minister of the crown would be in any way involved, that if her deputy signed a $180 million contract, which is unprecedented in that ministry, she didn't ask any questions, she didn't want to know any details, she didn't know what it involved, she didn't know what kind of extras were involved? And she purports to come from the business community. Has she ever signed a contract without knowing what the caps might be on extras?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs Pupatello: Every time we get close to the truth, the members over there get a little upset. I think the whips should come back in this House and sit down and listen to the truth of this matter. This Andersen contract smells, and the Provincial Auditor is dead on when he says so. It is completely unreasonable for the minister to try to put it over on the public that she would not have asked any questions and not investigated what the extras might have been.
Are you aware that there is no cap on extras that that company can charge back to the Ontario government, that it doesn't include a cap? It is completely open-ended. Do you realize that in a very limited amount of time, these individuals have racked up expenses for accommodation, meals and travel that equal more than the housekeeping staff make on an annual basis in this House?
This Board of Internal Economy wanted to privatize everything that moves in this building. These people make less than $26,000 a year, and yet you're prepared to sign Andersen Consulting and give them cheques worth more than they'd make downstairs in this very building. That is the kind of priority that this government is on track for and this is what the public will know.
When you come to vote on your supply bill, you should note that you had better vote in favour of that amendment.
2250
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? Would the parliamentary assistant wrap up?
Mr Baird has moved second reading of Bill 96.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those against, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members; there will be a 30-minute bell.
I have received a request from the chief government whip:
"Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I would like to request that the vote on Bill 96, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1999, be deferred until December 17, 1998."
The vote has been deferred.
Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, till when?
The Acting Speaker: December 17, which is tomorrow.
INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES
Mr Grimmett, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to commence debate on third reading of Bill 69 and make a few comments before the floor is turned over to the opposition parties.
If approved, Ontario will become the first Canadian province to enact a lobbyists' registration law. Since we introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act on October 6, we have held public hearings and listened to feedback from the opposition, the Speaker and the lobbyist community. As a result of that information, the bill you have before you today has been revised in some areas to make it stronger, more comprehensive and more easily understood.
The key amendments to Bill 69 include the appointment of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario as the lobbyists' registrar - this ensures an arm's-length approach to administration of the Lobbyists Registration Act - and also the requirement that lobbyists report the sources of non-government funding above $750 which their clients receive for specifically identified lobbying activities. This requirement applies to contributions from organizations and entities, not private donations from individuals. It ensures greater transparency related to the funding of lobbying activities.
In response to the lobbyist community, the government is defining more clearly what constitutes an offence. We heard concerns that failing to deregister is not as serious as other contraventions of the legislation such as failure to register. As a result, the failure to deregister is now not an offence, and the lobbyists' registrar has the authority to remove registrations when lobbyists have not confirmed or terminated their registrations. This ensures that the lobbyists' registry is kept current.
We're making it clear that officers of the Legislative Assembly, public servants and, where needed, crown employees are not considered to be lobbyists when communicating with the government in their official capacity.
The opposition raised concerns at the government having the regulation-making authority to exempt from the definition of "public office holder" any person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor or a minister of the crown and any officer, director or employee of any agency, board or commission of the crown. We have addressed those concerns. I believe we are taking a step in the right direction in terms of maintaining public confidence in government decision-making without unduly restricting access to public office holders.
The proposed registration system is very similar to the one used by the government of Canada. The registry will be posted on an Internet Web site that is accessible to the public. All information on the registry will be part of the public record.
If this bill is approved during this session, the registry system would become operational early in 1999. The mandatory registration of lobbyists will support the government's commitment to managing its business processes openly and fairly and will protect the integrity of government from undue influence, and I urge all members to support Bill 69 when the opportunity arises.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Questions and comments?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It is deliciously ironical that we should conclude the debate of earlier this evening, much of which focused on the McLean-Thompson matter, and then move on now to an amendment to the integrity act to clean up the lobbyists situation in the province. Any step in a forward direction on this matter is one that should be supported because it is my impression that we have around and about us now the grandest barbecue of all for lobbyists.
I spent some time in the last year dealing with Bill 35, an act to restructure the electricity sector. I can say honestly, in all of my time around here I have never seen a pool in which there were so many lobbyists: big lobbyists, small lobbyists, fat lobbyists, lobbyists who were thin but hoping to get fat on buttermilk quick.
I understand that Leslie Noble hasn't enough hours in the day to meet her various and several clients. There was a time when we had a national press based in Toronto that cared about what people like Leslie Noble were doing in the public interest. I remember a day when the Globe and Mail would really be out looking very carefully. I don't expect the National Post to be looking, but there was a time when the Globe and Mail looked with great interest and some considerable regularity.
I simply want to say that I will certainly support a forward movement on the lobbyists business because, quite frankly, while we have reduced the members of Parliament, while we have downsized the politicians, we have certainly in Mike Harris's Ontario created a glorious opportunity to expand and upsize the lobbyists. Let me tell you, Leslie Noble is the queen of all she surveys.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Following the very short presentation from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, this is an important bill. I think it's a bill that deserves support. But, quite frankly, as the members of this House know, this is a bill that was announced four times before we finally got to see the legislation. Here we are today, the second-last evening before the House will prorogue. We're dealing now with third reading. Hopefully we will get this bill passed; it is needed. But if ever there was a situation where we're closing the barn door after the horses have left, this is one.
I want to inform the House that despite the blandishments of the members opposite, what this government is doing today is not the cutting edge of lobbyists registration. The government members have acknowledged that this bill simply mirrors the federal legislation that was introduced some 10 years ago. They talk about being the first province, but the model for the legislation has been in existence for over 10 years.
You must look at the context within North America. Not only have there been laws in the United States Congress since World War II, but every state in the United States has lobbyists registration legislation. As a matter of fact, over a third of the states have updated their lobbyists registration legislation to require even more disclosure than what we're seeing here today. It is fine for the government to say that they're the first one there. But we know that, indeed, it is closing the barn door after the horses have gone. I'll come back to that later on in the process.
The fact is that we have to deal with the whole issue of how to ensure transparency in the process, how to assure the taxpayer that there is integrity to the process. The member for Renfrew North alluded to another issue that requires transparency and accountability, and of course that's the Al McLean affair. But I will restrict my comments to later on when I get to speak to this bill.
2300
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to say, first off, that I was on the committee that looked at this issue. I was pleased to be on it because I learned a great deal about the lobby bill as a result of it. The first thing I learned was that the committee was very well run under the leadership of the parliamentary assistant, Mr Grimmett. He did an excellent job. Even the opposition talked about the great job he did. The opposition members talked about how many amendments there were as a result of him listening so carefully to the people who came before us, and I think that says a lot about this bill.
One of the people who came before the committee, of course, was the Speaker. I admit he didn't have the same shoes on that he has on today, but he did come and he made a number of recommendations to the bill which were accepted by the members of the House in an effort to make this bill a very important bill.
One of the things that we have to recognize as we listen to the members opposite is that they talk about whether we should have done this earlier in the term. It's always easier to say someone should do something earlier. Should it not have been done when the NDP were in power for four years?
Mr Cullen: You said you were going to do it four times.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): What about your four times?
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Ottawa West and Northumberland, come to order. Stop the clock. This is debate.
Mr Galt: You had your chat.
The Speaker: No, that wasn't a chat.
Mrs Johns: The question I was discussing was whether this bill should have been done earlier. Of course, this bill should have been done in the four years that the NDP were in power. Should the bill have been done when the Liberals were elected? Absolutely. This bill should have been done years and years ago. But we need to take credit in this Legislature because we moved to bring this bill forward, and I think it's a very important bill.
The member for Renfrew North talks about lobbyists and he talks about Leslie Noble. I want to say when we sat on a committee recently he listened to a lobbyist who wanted the Toronto District Heating Corp to have their way. He listened to them and he said that it was a very persuasive argument. That's why we need to have a lobbyists bill.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Here we are, the second-last day before the break, and there are a whole series of bills. I know the public is certainly going to have a challenge in keeping up with what's on these bills. I guess this bill here, being done at this late hour, is typical of the way this government works in that the public has seen so many changes and by the time they find out how the changes are going to affect them, who knows how long it'll be down the road?
This is a bill which this government announced four different times. In the first couple of months they were elected, they promised this bill; they kept on promising. They're just waiting till the very end. Now they have introduced it.
A small business person said to me the other day: "If you want to see this new government, if you want to make contact with the Conservative government, you either have to have a limo, a lawyer or a lobbyist. That's what you need. You can't get hold of or talk to ministers. They're too busy talking to big business. They have no time for ordinary people."
Mrs Johns: When was the last time -
Mr Colle: The member for Huron is very upset because I'm attacking her big business friends. I'm not sure why you're upset.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Huron, come to order.
Mr Colle: It's very difficult to talk. But anyway, a lot of small business people in this province are complaining that this government didn't listen to them. It was just like when they introduced that massive tax hike on small business where they were going to increase taxes by 100% and the banks were going to save $300 million. The small mom-and-pop stores were going to have their taxes increased by 100%, 200%. They never even asked the ordinary small business person about taxes. They just talked to the banks.
This is why people better understand that these bills -
The Speaker: Response, member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
Mr Grimmett: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the members who spoke. I'm pleased to hear that the members for Renfrew North and Oakwood will be supporting the legislation. I just want to point out to the member for Huron that the NDP were, in fact, not in power for four years. They were in power from September 6, 1990, to June 8, 1995. Anybody who was out there trying to make a living during that time certainly knows those dates very well. I remember them very well.
The member for Ottawa West has indicated that he thinks we've taken too long to implement the legislation, and I want to compliment the member for Ottawa West because he has been on this bill as the critic for both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party and he has done a good job on this bill. He is very thorough in his examination of the legislation. He knows the legislation inside out, and he has been very helpful in offering his comments, both from the benches in the Liberal Party and from the benches in the New Democratic Party. I don't think he provided any comments when he was sitting in the independent section, but maybe he didn't have enough time there to get warmed up.
I certainly look forward to his comments later, and I want to assure the members that contrary to what the member for Ottawa West might say, this is the toughest lobbyist legislation in Canada. All you have to do is ask the lobbyists, because the lobbyists do not like the section in this bill that deals with conflict of interest. They think it's too tough. We have left it in and I'm glad we've left it in, and probably the opposition members will recognize that this is tougher legislation than you have in Ottawa.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): There is agreement that we will split the remaining time with the third party and that I will split some of my time with the member for Kingston and The Islands and also the member for St Catharines.
The Speaker: Agreed that the NDP and the Liberals may split the remaining time? Agreed.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the members of the House for that agreement.
As my colleague from Oakwood has pointed out in his response, we are supporting this piece of legislation. What's kind of sad is that this legislation, that's really very necessary to act as a watchdog over how government conducts its business over its term, comes close to the very end of the term of this government before the next election. As has been said by other members in this House, this government announced four times that this piece of legislation was going to be introduced and finally introduced it, I believe, on October 6 of this year. So it comes basically in the last six months of this mandate.
You'd only have to conclude from this that the only reason for this delay is that this government has desired to do business as usual, and that is behind closed doors, without the scrutiny of this type of legislation that would alert the public to exactly what lobbying efforts have been going on. Like a lot that goes on in government, it's late, but it's good enough that it's worth supporting and it should be in place to act as a watchdog on all governments, whoever comes next.
This legislation, for people who maybe want to get a better understanding of it, is there to protect the public interest. It's there to ensure the integrity of the government process. It's to avoid the culture of preferential treatment on the basis of whom you know and how much you're willing to contribute to the governing party, which unfortunately has been the case in the past.
The Harris government's biggest job creation plan has been, unfortunately, the proliferation of lobbyists. From Bill King and Leslie Noble to George Boddington to Mitch Patten, the Harris government record has set a new standard for mixing government business with controlled access and preferential treatment.
This legislation should have been introduced at the very beginning of this government's term and not now, near its end. This legislation should have been in place when Mike Harris's government was privatizing road maintenance contracts, privatizing jails, holding bids for casinos and contracting out office management, closing hospitals etc. There has been a lot of privatization and contracting out, and to ensure the integrity of those processes it would be very important that a piece of legislation such as this be in place. But unfortunately it'll only take effect probably in the last few months of this government.
If we had had this legislation in place we could have avoided the impropriety that clouded the Niagara casino contract. I remember a few months ago a lot of questions in this House being raised by that. From that we would have known that Michael French, who was under contract with the government to advise on how the lucrative casino deals were going to be awarded, was at the same time on a $100,000 casino contract with one of the bidders that was rated third but ultimately won the Niagara casino contract.
2310
It's interesting that all the scrutiny over the last few years has been on politicians, that somehow politicians are there to take advantage for personal gain. We have certainly agreed, and when we were in government in the late 1980s brought in the integrity act, I think at that time called the conflict-of-interest act, that all of us, of all parties in this House, have to have total disclosure of our assets, our liabilities, so that the public would know what we own, what we have an interest in, whom we might owe money to, and that's all for the good.
Where we've really slipped up is with consultants and, quite frankly, with senior bureaucrats. We've seen far too many cases where senior bureaucrats have been working on a file such as a casino contract and then, lo and behold, quit the government and wind up working with a successful bidder in a very lucrative contract such as a casino or a privatized highway project. This really has got to have public scrutiny and this legislation doesn't even go far enough to correct that sort of potential corruption that could exist there. We have to be careful and watch this. We have to make sure that the public is assured that not only the political side of government life, but lobbying and the bureaucratic side are all here for public service and are not able to take personal advantage of their special knowledge or their special positions or situations within government. This is very important and why this legislation is certainly needed.
Had this legislation been in place, as was promised over two and a half years ago, this clear and blatant conflict of interest would have been avoided by a responsible government.
The Tories say that this legislation mirrors the federal standard, but it falls short in three key areas. Unlike the federal legislation, there's no code of conduct to cover lobbyist activities. Unlike the federal legislation, there are exemptions that can be granted by order in council. By a simple cabinet decision, the entire Premier's office, ministers' offices and other sensitive departments can be exempted from the terms and conditions of the legislation, creating a loophole big enough to steer the Titanic through. Unlike the federal legislation, there are no specific duties for the Integrity Commissioner to be responsible for. The role of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and review complaints under this new lobbyist registration legislation is totally subject to the direction of cabinet. That part of it should be taken out.
In the spring of 1997, the government indicated it would start a new initiate to introduce lobbyist legislation in Ontario. Since that time, the government hedged on the promise of legislation and ignored calls for investigations into backroom lobbying deals on charity casinos, the Niagara casino project and other allegations. Now, as a high-profile Tory lobbyist, Leslie Noble, begins her new career as the Tory campaign chair, the government has finally introduced this legislation.
To simplify the initiative, the government says it copied the current federal legislation, requiring registration and disclosure of lobbyists dealing with government offices and employees. The legislation defines the activities of lobbying in terms of contacting any public office-holder - civil servant or politician - on any legislative issue under a paid contract.
All lobbyists must register their names and business addresses, business information, client details, the issue that is being lobbied, and the ministries, agencies, boards and political offices that are being contacted with a provincially designated registrar. The registrar must keep this information open to public access.
There's a distinguishing feature in the bill between the various types of lobbyists. Lobbyists are distinguished between consultant lobbyists, paid directly, and in-house lobbyists who are paid staff, or for companies. Consultant lobbyists are required to register all their activities, while in-house lobbyists are only required to register if a significant part of their duties involves lobbying activities. A government relations firm staff person, for example, who has a contract to lobby on behalf of agencies, firms or groups would be a consultant lobbyist. A staff person in a public agency who, as part of their broader work responsibilities only has occasional contact with the government representatives, would be an in-house lobbyist and may not be required to register.
However, this legislation differs from the federal statute in three key areas. Under the federal Liberals, a code of conduct was established to measure the activities of all lobbyists. The code was drafted in a public process and provides a mechanism to monitor specific allegations of lobbying improprieties. The provincial legislation has no such code.
The provincial legislation contains exemptions which are not included in the federal legislation. Section 18 allows for regulations "exempting any person who is appointed to any office or body" and "exempting any officer, director or employee of any agency, board or commission of the crown." This exemption is broad enough to allow the government to exempt any contacts with political offices such as the minister's staff, Premier's staff, Ontario Hydro directors etc.
The federal bill also specifically included a role for a commissioner to review allegations of improprieties under the legislation. In our Bill 69, there are references to expanded powers for the existing Integrity Commissioner in regard to the lobbyist provisions, but the specific duties are left to be requested by the Chair of Management Board and are precluded from being mentioned in the commissioner's annual report.
I know there are some concerns about that particular aspect of the bill, which potentially places the Chair of the Management Board, who is a minister of the crown and a member of the executive branch of the provincial government, in a position to direct the Integrity Commissioner to make an investigation. While we were in committee a few months back, the Speaker came and made a presentation to us, asking the committee to consider a change in that aspect of the bill. I think he's right, that that should really be in place because that is not the type of conflict we should have there.
I say to members and to my colleagues that this bill is long overdue. While it will be in place for the last few months of this government, it is good that it will be in place in perpetuity. Hopefully, future governments will improve upon this so that there will be a growing confidence in how government works among the population, that nobody can take advantage of their special position in government, cannot take advantage of the special information they are privy to in their work in the public sector. Voters need that assurance, that nobody can take advantage of that and that their tax dollars are safe and everybody is working with integrity.
I would like to yield my time to the member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to make some further comments with respect to this bill.
One of the more interesting amendments that was made to this bill in the committee process was that the original bill contemplated the commissioner acting as well on the advice and on such activities as Management Board might give to the commissioner. The problem with that, and I think the people of Ontario should understand it, is that the commissioner who deals with the Members' Integrity Act reports directly to this Legislative Assembly in much the same way that the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner and the Provincial Auditor do. They are not, strictly speaking, government employees. They work for us, the 130 members of the Legislative Assembly.
The notion that an Integrity Commissioner could also do work on behalf of Management Board: A lot of us felt uncomfortable about that, because who would really be calling the shots when it came to the Integrity Commissioner? Would it be the Management Board in some of the additional duties that would be requested of the individual through cabinet, or would that individual owe its first allegiance to the Legislative Assembly which had appointed that person in the first place? It's my understanding that an amendment was made at the committee hearings that took place after second reading and I think that's a good overall step.
If I could just talk about that issue a little bit more and the whole McLean controversy, the people of Ontario must find it interesting, to say the least, that although the Board of Internal Economy on our behalf operates the various functions under the Legislative Assembly, really no one from the Board of Internal Economy, or at least this is the position the government has taken, offers any explanations in this House as to -
Mrs Johns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I don't see anything at all out of order.
Mrs Johns: - I'm sure the Board of Internal Economy is not a lobbyist group.
The Speaker: Member for Huron, I heard your point of order and I think the member will speak to the bill as he usually does.
2320
Mr Gerretsen: The bill specifically deals with the Members' Integrity Act, and the person who's responsible for that act is the person who's responsible directly to the Legislative Assembly in no different a way than the Board of Internal Economy. I was not going to discuss the whole McLean matter because that ahs been discussed tonight at quite some length.
I was simply going to say this: The people of Ontario who are watching this, and there are some who watch it on a regular basis, must find it strange that we can talk about all sorts of matters in this House relating to government policy, and yet on the issues as they relate to this Legislative Assembly, for which we have set up a board to manage the Legislative Assembly affairs, there is really no one directly responsible to answer any public questions in this particular forum. That's the only point I was trying to make.
There is some incongruity in that position, to say the least. The people of Ontario have a right to know what happened in there. I don't think the decisions just ought to speak for themselves. It is no different from any other ministry making a policy and having that policy endorsed here through legislation and quite often a minister then will make public statements about whatever has been decided within that ministry, and I don't see why this isn't happening with respect to any decision that has taken place by the Board of Internal Economy.
Many members of the Board of Internal Economy, including myself, have spoken to the media and to the press when we're asked about these issues outside of this House, yet the government members on the board for some reason have refused to talk about any of these issues in this House. What's interesting about that is that we enjoy parliamentary privilege in this House. We can say anything we want, no matter how outrageous or non-outrageous, and somehow nobody can take us to task on that by way of a legal matter. If we say some things outside of the House, somebody could take a legal action, yet here we have the exact reverse: The members of the Board of Internal Economy are talking about this matter outside of the House and nobody can be questioned about what happened on the board specifically inside the House.
It is just something to think about. I'm bringing this up not in an argumentative manner but to really think about it, that there's something lacking there. The Board of Internal Economy spends somewhere around $100 million per year. It's public money in no different a way than the money that's spent by any government agency and committee, and there ought to be a mechanism whereby decisions of that board can be questioned in the House.
Mrs Johns: Lobby it.
Mr Gerretsen: Having said that, it's interesting how the government members feel very touchy about this -
Mr Conway: Only one, apparently.
Mr Gerretsen: Only one, and she is somewhat excited this evening for whatever reason.
Let me turn back to this particular act. It is interesting that the lobbyist -
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, order. Member for Huron, you must withdraw that comment.
Mrs Johns: And I do, Speaker.
Mr Gerretsen: Speaker, I didn't even hear that. Sometimes it is better not to hear something in this House. I really believe that we should not be involved in personal insults in this House. It really doesn't do anybody any good and it certainly doesn't raise the level of debate.
Let's talk about the lobbyists' code of conduct that has been adopted within the federal system. I heard earlier that our new proposed act is much stronger than the federal act. I wonder if the member for Huron, who seems to have an awful lot to say tonight, will, during the two-minute response she will undoubtedly take at the end of my little speech, which will come in six minutes or so, tell us why the committee felt it was not necessary to include a code of conduct similar to the code of conduct that's included in the federal act.
Let me very quickly touch on that code of conduct. What does it say? It talks about a transparency under the section of the code of conduct labelled as "Rules." It states, "Lobbyists shall, when making a representation to a public officeholder, disclose the identity of the person or organization on whose behalf the representation is made, as well as the reasons for the approach." I think that's a reasonable request. There's no reason why a lobbyist, when they're approaching a particular government department, whether it's a political individual or whether it's a staff person, shouldn't tell them whom they're representing and what the purpose of their meeting or their representation to that particular department is.
Second, it says, "Lobbyists shall provide information that is accurate and factual to public officeholders." Surely to goodness, that's not a very onerous kind of provision. You would hope that lobbyists or anybody would present a particular government department with accurate and factual information.
The next item is, "Lobbyists shall indicate to their client, employer or organization their obligations under the...act." That's reasonable. It's important that whoever their client is should know the main parts of the act and should know the main restrictions or the parameters under which the lobbyist can operate.
Number 4 says, "Lobbyists shall not divulge confidential information unless they have obtained the informed consent of their client, employer or organization, or disclosure is required by law" - a very reasonable provision. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.
Number 5 says, "Lobbyists shall not use any confidential or other insider information obtained in the course of their lobbying activities to the disadvantage of their client, employer or organization." Basically, it's saying that if somebody hires you to lobby on their behalf and put out a particular position, you adhere to that position and you don't undermine or undercut their position. That's reasonable.
The sixth rule of the code of conduct is, "Lobbyists shall not represent conflicting or competing interests without the informed consent of those whose interests are involved." That's reasonable. You cannot represent two sides of an issue at the same time is what this is saying. The clients ought to know that. We're also talking about the protection of the client they represent as well as the protection of the general public.
Number 7 goes on to say, "Consultant lobbyists shall advise public officeholders that they have informed their clients of any actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest, and obtained the informed consent of each client concerned before proceeding or continuing with the undertaking." That's reasonable.
The final rule of the code of conduct states, "Lobbyists shall not place public officeholders in a conflict of interest by proposing or undertaking any action that would constitute an improper influence on a public officeholder."
These eight rules of conduct, which are contained in the federal piece of legislation, should be included in the lobbyist act. If you read the entire act, all it talks about is the fact that a lobbyist ought to be registered; it talks about the number of exemptions, how cabinet under certain circumstances can grant exemptions to a whole group of individuals; and it talks about basically the registration requirements. But it really doesn't talk at all about what the code of conduct of that lobbying should be, and that is probably the most important aspect. It is not the registration that is the important thing. The important thing is that a code of conduct is adhered to by the person doing the lobbying.
I would like the member for Huron, who's got such a tremendous interest in this bill -
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: There are no questions and comments? Maybe she could get it in some other way then, or maybe she can write me a note on this as to why exactly the code of conduct was not included in our act. As well, maybe by a point of order or by point of information or by slipping me a note she can advise me how she intends to vote on the supply act relating to the McLean matter, because I think we're interested in that; the public is interested in that.
2330
This was announced earlier tonight on three or four occasions. At about 5:30, a quarter to 6, somebody else announced that we would be debating this and that this matter would come to a vote at 10:30. For some reason we had the most unusual situation here where the government did not want to vote on its own bill tonight. That is unusual; that is strange. The government introduces a bill, everyone is finished with debate, and then the government says, "Well, we don't want to vote on this."
Were there really not 45 members of the government within the precinct tonight? Is that what it was? Were they afraid that bill was not going to pass? Anyway, I hope the member for Huron will do whatever it takes to get this code of conduct -
The Speaker: Thank you, member for Kingston and The Islands. Further debate.
Mr Cullen: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate. We are dealing with Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998. I have to commend the government for much improving the bill compared to its initial edition when we got it at first reading.
I think it's important that the issues raised by the Ontario Liberal Party during second reading that dealt with the role of the Integrity Commissioner, that dealt with the apparent power given to cabinet to exempt whole portions of the civil service, these were issues that I raised as the leadoff speaker for the Liberal caucus. I'm glad to see that the bill did go to committee, that there was consideration of these points and that these matters were taken into account. We have a much improved bill.
It's important to understand why this legislation is being introduced. It is being introduced to protect the public interest, to ensure the integrity of the government process, to avoid the culture of preferential treatment based on who you know and how much you're willing to contribute to the governing party. In this particular instance, we have lobbyists who have left the government and who are selling their expertise, their knowledge of who's in power to make what decision. Of course, I'm talking about such graduates from the Premier's office as Bill King, Leslie Noble, George Boddington and Mitch Patten.
Quite frankly, this government has set a record, a new standard of mixing government business with controlled access and preferential treatment. Indeed, this legislation should have been introduced at the beginning of this government's mandate, not now, close to the end of it. This legislation should have been in place when the Mike Harris government was privatizing road maintenance contracts, when it was privatizing jails, when it was holding bids for casinos, when it was contracting out office management, when it was closing hospitals. It would have been important to know then who was lobbying the government to gain from these kinds of policies.
We have to understand that lobbying is going on all around us. It's a multi-million dollar business. The purview of government touches automobile manufacturers, the forestry industry - in fact, we just had a demonstration today from the forestry industry about a government program - the trucking industry, pharmaceuticals, the insurance industry, developers, brewers and wineries, oil, tobacco, and the list simply goes on. This is good business for the likes of lobbyists companies such as SAMCI, Murray Research, Policy Perspective, Hill and Knowlton, Government Policy Consultants, Strategy Corp and others. No wonder Tory hacks from the Premier's office have ended up with these companies.
Yet when we look at who is being serviced by this industry, we will find those companies that are greatly interested in government policy, ranging from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, the Brewers of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, the Fair Rental Policy Organization- an oxymoron, by the way, if I've ever heard one - the Ontario Mining Association and the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. Even a little hospital out in Carleton Place has bought the services of lobbyists to protect itself. It's a big business. No wonder those who have set up the policies of this government have moved out now to interpret these polices, if that's the right word to use.
Why do we need this legislation? We have heard from members opposite a good number of reasons: integrity of government, transparency of process. It's important for the public to know not only that lobbying is going on but lobbying for whom, by whom, with whom, and why, so that the public can participate in a level playing field with respect to how government makes its decisions. Obviously, lobbyists who have connections to the political party that forms the government can potentially have more influence than others. Yet we need legislation to ensure that government decisions can never be, or appear to be, purchased by the lobbying process.
We already know that the public has a very low opinion not only of the politicians but of the process of government and its lobbyists. For some members of the public the suspicion is that lobbyists use personal connections with officeholders to obtain special favours from government. That lies at the heart of the cynicism that's around the government process and lobbying.
We had the example of what happened with the Niagara casino. Had this bill been in place, we would have known that Michael French, who was under contract with this government to advise on the lucrative casino contracts that were going to be awarded, was at the same time on a $100,000 retainer for one of the bidders that was rated third and ultimately won that contract. Had this legislation been in place as the government promised two and a half years ago, then this clear, blatant conflict of interest would have been avoided by a responsible government.
All of us are concerned about the kind of lobbying that goes on. We know it well. There is the lobbyist who peddles access. We have laws dealing with influence peddling. There are the lobbyists who obtain, on behalf of a client, insider information on pending government policy decisions or regulatory decisions that aren't available to the public at large. This clearly creates an unfair advantage. Such action creates an unlevel playing field. That's part of the purpose of ensuring that there is regulation for the industry. Then there are lobbyists who have expertise in the area and can provide advice to clients. These are the majority of the lobbyists who are out there.
We have an obligation to make sure that the whole process is above-board. We have an obligation to ensure that our policies are in place so that we do not perpetuate the perception of cronyism and backdoor access to government insiders. Unfortunately, the lay of this legislation leads one to the conclusion that there has been the perception of cronyism and backdoor access to government insiders with this government.
The members of the government opposite state with great pleasure that they're copying the federal legislation, yet they don't have in this particular piece of legislation the code of conduct that would help measure lobbyist activity. The federal bill does, and for good reason. The federal bill has it because of the lobbyists code of conduct which the ethics commissioner has in the federal legislation. That is a public process that the ethics commissioner has in place to develop a lobbyist code of conduct through full public participation involving the lobbyist industry.
The lobbyist code of conduct that the feds have includes the requirement for accurate information; the requirement for the disclosure of obligations; the requirement not to divulge confidential information; the requirement not to divulge insider information; the requirement to divulge when there are competing interests; the prohibition against conflict of interest, which I will acknowledge is now part of this particular bill; the requirement to disclose the possibility of conflict of interest, which again I see in this bill, and I'm glad the government picked up on it; and the requirement not to engage in improper influence.
The government has captured some elements but it hasn't captured all of the kinds of things that are covered in the federal bill with respect to the code of conduct. Perhaps we might see this come about as this bill goes into place and we see how it fits.
These are the things that are important to safeguard for the public process. These are the things that are important to ensure integrity of government. No matter which party forms the government, there is the importance to ensure the integrity of the government process. If the federal bill, which is not the cutting edge of legislation in North America, is so good, then why does the government not embrace this important part of protecting the public interest? The object of the exercise is to ensure that not only the public's interest is being protected here but that ordinary citizens have the equal opportunity to approach their government as the private interests, the moneyed interests, whose own concerns they are presenting with their own ability to do research, provide documentation, in essence to provide a comprehensive approach to whatever viewpoint the government would want to listen to.
That's why we need transparency, not only to see who's talking to government, for what reason and on behalf of whom, but also to allow a level playing field so that all citizens can see that this particular industry is taking this particular tack with this particular government department, and to be able to provide a balance to the system that they have come forward - they can't come forward and say yes. When the automobile industry tells you not to reduce those emissions because it'll affect the cost to their industry, there is indeed an ability for the ordinary citizen to come forward and say: "But we need to reduce these toxic emissions that are coming out of the automobile industry; we need to protect the environment, the health of our families." There is a need to have appropriate legislation in place to protect the environment.
2340
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm quite impressed with the speech we're being entertained with tonight. I'd like to know what page the member is on in the Hansard record so I can follow it.
The Speaker: It's not a point of order. Member for Ottawa West.
Mr Cullen: It is important to cover these points because the government simply glosses over them, says it's a good-news piece of legislation. The government side only took five minutes to begin this debate and is not talking about why this is here. It's important to go over these principles because these are very important: principles of accountability, transparency, principles we would love to have seen in place, and just to take a small segue here with the previous item we were discussing under Bill 96, matters of supply. If we had transparency and accountability in dealing with the expenditure of $800,000 of hush money, then perhaps we would have a better understanding of why the government side chose to make that expenditure despite the protestations of the other members of the Board of Internal Economy.
It's important that we discuss these principles. If these principles are so important today, why were they not in place two and a half years ago when the government first announced it was going to do this? The government announced four times that it was going to do this, yet we have it today - yes, better late than never, this is true, but it could have been done earlier. We could have avoided the other conflicts of interest that I've already enunciated.
We have to understand what we're doing here. I mentioned earlier that this is not the cutting edge. All it does is replicate what the federal legislation has. The federal legislation itself only mirrors the bottom common denominator that's in place in the United States. We have to understand that this legislation only deals with one shoe of the issue of lobbying. I have to ask my colleagues to turn their attention to what is going on in the United States. This legislation only looks at registering who lobbies and their clients and lists only the government agencies.
Do you know what? For the lobbyist industry this is just great stuff. The lobbyist industry thinks: "That's fantastic, because now I can go over and look at what my competition is doing. They've got this trucking company or that trucking company which is interested perhaps in speed limits or weight limits. Perhaps I can go to them and talk to some other organizations and perhaps get them involved in this issue. Or maybe I can go and put together a partnership and maybe come in and compete with individual companies that are involved or interested in this particular issue: to lobby about the speed limits or the weight limits."
That's nice; that's up to them. Maybe it's fine for them to go and raid each other's clients, but that's not the point. What's missing here in protecting the public's interest is who in government is being lobbied. Are we talking about the director of policy in the Ministry of Transportation, are we talking about the assistant deputy minister responsible for trucking policy in the Ministry of Transportation or are we talking about a ministerial aide to the Minister of Transportation?
All these things have different implications. If the lobbying activity is directed towards a ministerial aide, then there's clearly competition for the ear of the minister as he makes his determination of what should proceed to this House. If it is indeed at the working level of the public servant, then of course it's important to hear from the industry with respect to this. But it's also important to make sure the civil servant is hearing from all the players, not necessarily just from the interested players such as the trucking industry but from all people who are concerned, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the taxpayer; other people who might have different views about what is being transported in our communities; what are the speed limits; what are the implications of these particular policies.
What we're dealing with is really only half of the lobbyist's activity, because when lobbyists lobby somebody, they are lobbying someone in government, whether it's at the political level or the staff level. That is what's missing from this legislation.
This is an important bill. Our party will be glad to support it. It's an important first step, as was alluded to earlier. I know that the government says it is the cutting edge. I think it's an improved bill from the previous version that was put forward. I have to compliment the government for, at least in this instance, listening to the comments made by the opposition side, taking it to committee, holding the hearings and going through the proper process that would, in effect, perfect legislation.
Too many times have we seen the government come forward with other pieces of legislation and not go through that process. You use time allocation, cut out the due deliberative process that is there to perfect bills, and ram bills through without the opportunity for full public hearings, without the opportunity to hear from the opposition to present amendments and make a bill that's better for the public interest. At least in this context, we have it.
As the member for Algoma said last night when we were spending time on another time allocation motion, we found ourselves in the unique situation of dealing with a government that over the course of presenting some 100 bills has brought in time allocation 37 times, a record. Even the previous government that dealt with 163 bills came in with far less in terms of time allocation. The member for Algoma was giving us an excellent civics lesson in terms of the government process and the purpose of deliberative, democratic government: why we have first reading, second reading, third reading; why we go to committee; why we have debate; why we go through this, the whole purpose of the exercise. The government proposes but we in the opposition have the duty to offer constructive amendments, constructive comments, and hopefully, if we are offering something worthwhile, the government does pick up on it.
I have to say to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay that indeed from first reading to now third reading, we have seen improvements to the bill which I think will do a better job in protecting the interests of the taxpayer in Ontario and making sure that there is indeed integrity to the government process.
I have to say, though, that people who look at the federal legislation that this government has attempted to mirror - one aspect I have to bring to the attention of the members of this House is that, even though there is a process here to allow for complaints about the lobbying process to be dealt with by an independent third party, and in this instance here in Ontario it will be the Integrity Commissioner, in the federal side, although the legislation has been there 10 or 11 years and there is an independent ethics commissioner, not one violation or complaint has been brought forward. Will the members opposite say that over 10 or 11 years there hasn't been some impropriety somewhere along the line that might deserve some kind of investigation? The reason why we don't hear this is because the public doesn't know who is being lobbied.
When this bill is put into place, yes, the lobbyists will have to register: "I am a policy consultant and I have these clients." They'll have to mention which ministry they are interested in. Certainly a notable member of the previous government, the Honourable Bob Rae, has registered. He has registered his client, Disneyland, and he has registered that he is going to talk to this ministry, that ministry and the other ministry. What is missing from this is who he talks to -
Mr Gerretsen: Bob Rae has registered Disneyland?
Mr Cullen: Yes, indeed - so that we don't know if it is at the minister's office or at the assistant deputy minister or at the working stiff who has to put together the recommendations that go up through the process. I've been there.
Mr Gerretsen: Don't call Bob Rae a working stiff.
2350
Mr Cullen: No, I'm talking about the lowly civil servant who puts this material together. I've been there. I have been in government as a civil servant reporting to a director. I've had to put together recommendations that go through the filter of my director, my director general, my assistant deputy minister, the deputy minister and on to the minister's level. What has happened? Every now and again I get that red ink piece of paper back: "Make these changes." I get it possibly from the director; I get it possibly from the director general. I get it possibly from the assistant deputy minister, the deputy minister, but I also get it from the minister's office. Some ministerial aide will red-circle the section that I've written that "in our best opinion, working in the public interest" - because that's what I am. As a public servant, my mandate is to provide the best advice I can to the government of the day, and I'll get this red circle coming back from the minister's office saying, "Change this." Of course, as a good civil servant, I will make that change. But where did the origin of this change come from? Was it because there was competing advice elsewhere in the civil service, or was it because some lobbyist got the ear of that particular ministerial aide? Yes, we know what lobbyists are out there, but who are they talking to? This is only part of the process.
I am hopeful that when this bill passes - as our party will support and we hear that the official opposition will support, and yes, it is an advance - that we will at least pay some attention to this, because as I said earlier, this bill only covers one half of the lobbying process.
When we literally go through what lobbyists might be interested in dealing with a piece of legislation - I picked on earlier the initiative that we were longing for from the Ministry of the Environment to deal with toxic emissions. Just think: we have the oil industry and we have the automotive parts industry that have a direct concern. We also have the cancer society and the lung society equally with strong concerns. What could happen? We could find that the civil servant would canvass all those groups - that's an important part of the process - and make a recommendation that goes up the ladder and goes all through the process because the government committed itself to cleaner air. But when it gets to some particular sticking point, yes, we know that some lobbyists may have lobbied, but who? Who did they take out for lunch and say, "By the way, do you know that this is going to cost in your minister's riding so many hundreds or thousands of jobs because we're going to have to retool and quite frankly this is going to cost money"? There we have the decision-maker, because to govern is to choose, and it's important that we have the right choices before government.
The Speaker: Further debate? Would the parliamentary assistant like to sum up?
Mr Grimmett: Very briefly, I would like just like to comment that the first speaker for the Liberal Party, the member for Timiskaming, mentioned a number of items that have in fact been addressed in the amendments to the bill. He may have had the disadvantage of reading from an earlier version of the bill, and if he were to look at the bill as amended, I think almost or perhaps all of the concerns that he raised about particular details in the bill have been addressed.
The one item I wanted to bring to the attention of the member for Ottawa West is the code of conduct. We have chosen deliberately to not have that, as we discussed earlier, because we feel that the legislation should be focused on registering and dealing with the relationship between the lobbyist and the public officeholder and not between the lobbyist and the client. In fact, we didn't get an amendment brought forward by either party on that issue and that's one of the reasons perhaps why it wasn't changed.
I am pleased that it appears we will be able to bring in the toughest lobbyists' bill in Canada and we will be the first province on record that will have a lobbyist registration act.
The Speaker: Mr Grimmett moves third reading of Bill 69.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
It now being very close to 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2355.