role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

July 21, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, on July 16, 1992, the New Democratic Party government again demonstrated that the NDP's definition of consultation is to hear only that which it wishes to hear, rather than solicit opinion or actually listen. They prefer to inform those affected after a decision has already been made.

I am referring to the government's proposed changes to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. It was last year, June 1991, that the government began its so-called consultation process that was supposed to obtain opinions and comments from those who are affected by the proposed NDP legislation. It was not until July 16 of this year that public servants who will be affected by this new act were brought together to hear the government's plans with respect to their new status within Ontario's public service. Needless to say, these civil servants are angry at the way they have been treated. They don't want to be shoved into OPSEU; they want to be consulted.

It's clear that the NDP government is there not to inform, not to consult, but to tell them what's going to happen. The proposed changes to the legislation are just a sellout of the excluded employees to OPSEU in exchange for a 1% wage settlement last year. The government is selling out these excluded workers to OPSEU for political gain, not to improve things for the 25% not covered by the present act.

These proposed changes show that the government is not interested in consultation, and the minister, the Chairman of Management Board, is acting like a tinpot dictator.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by the owner of a restaurant in my riding who was very upset with what he considered government waste. He received in the mail a large, expensive folder from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with information from Foodland Ontario about Ontario fruits and vegetables. He explained that this information was of no use to him as, quite simply, he buys Ontario produce only when it is better priced and of a better quality.

He does not need Foodland Ontario to tell him, for instance, that Ontario apples are available every month except July and that Ontario asparagus is available in April, May and June. He buys what's fresh and what's good and, wonder of wonders, in April, May and June, he indeed buys Ontario asparagus. That's the best and that's why he buys it. He was angry that his hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on sending this unsolicited information to all restaurants in Ontario.

He was even angrier two weeks later when he received a card telling him there was a package at the post office. He took time from his busy day and picked up what was the second of the ministry's mailings. The elaborate book was equally useless to him. He was annoyed he had to go out of his way to pick it up.

I'm sure the ministry feels every restaurateur couldn't possibly run his business without information, but I would suggest that a much better method would be to produce a list of publications available and allow people to request only what they find useful.

Along with my restaurateur friend, I believe this program is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. As you can see, it must take a few bucks for every restaurant; a colossal waste.

APPRECIATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): It is with a heart full of feeling that I rise today to thank you, Mr Speaker, and my colleagues of the government side of this House, and to extend my gratitude to members of the parties opposite, my constituents of Lambton county and others from across the province for the expressions of sympathy, support and contributions shown and given to me and my family during our recent bereavement.

It has been said there is nothing worse than the death of one's child. I have to believe it is true. The kindness, love and understanding so freely given will assist us immensely to begin the healing process.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to say a very special thanks to my staff, Mrs Fran Portis and Mr Wayne Beaton, for their service above and beyond the call of duty. All members know how hard it can be to acquire good staff. I'm so fortunate because I have found the best.

Again, thank you to all for the assistance. I wish to assure the residents of Lambton county I am back, willing to take up the challenges that lie ahead. Thank you all very much from the bottom of my heart.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon to express my concern about this government and specifically the Minister of Correctional Services' unfair and ineffective actions on behalf of the women of this province. On at least two occasions this minister and this government have made it difficult for women to have their rights recognized.

First, this government has repeatedly denied the requests for access to personal files containing medical history and other information by the survivors of the Grandview Training School for Girls, even though very similar information has been released to male victims in previous Ontario and Canadian cases.

Then, in the latest controversy surrounding the Minister of Correctional Services, the female staff of his ministry have not felt they have the necessary support and security to bring serious complaints of sexual harassment and/or assault to the attention of this minister or those in authority within the Ministry of Correctional Services.

This developing pattern of ignoring the rights of women is seriously disturbing. NDP media events on sexual harassment and campaigns without implementation are not good enough for the women of Ontario.

MPP CHALLENGE RACE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to remind all members of this House of the Bill Murdoch MPP Challenge Race this Friday evening at the Varney Speedway near Durham.

Spectators can expect to be awed and impressed with the inspired driving of such well-known speedsters as the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Government Services. They will witness, and quite possibly be frightened by, the fearless driving of the members from Etobicoke West, Kitchener-Wilmot, Scarborough-Agincourt, Halton Centre and Durham-York. They will thrill to the antics of the members from Downsview, Yorkview, Kitchener, Huron, Brampton North and Brant-Haldimand.

They will hide their eyes after they see the members for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Northumberland, Scarborough North, Cambridge, Guelph and Norfolk perilously edging each other out of the way.

I am sure that those watching will enjoy seeing all participants driving six-cylinder WOW -- women on wheels -- class vehicles, which have been donated by the track's registered female members. They will also appreciate the efforts of Doreen Watson of the Varney Speedway, who organizes events and who has kindly agreed to let members showcase their talents.

I would personally like to thank all members for their interest and enthusiasm in what promises to be a very exciting evening. I wish them all success and I trust they will enjoy their time at the track as well as a visit to the scenic, friendly hospitality of the county of Grey.

ST PATRICK SCHOOL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): It gives me great pleasure today to acknowledge a precedent-setting achievement by a dedicated group of parents in my riding, a group of parents who banded together and fought against the closing of their children's school, this being St Patrick's on Totten Street in Windsor.

For well over one year, the parents of St Patrick's students tried in vain to get their school board to recognize it had made a mistake and that St Patrick's was a poor choice to close. The parents also felt the area was growing and enrolment would climb in the coming years, that this school should remain open and the decision to close St Patrick's without notification of the parents went against its own policy guidelines as well as the Education Act.

The court decision which was made in favour of the parents of St Patrick's pupils last Monday will be a landmark ruling for other communities to follow throughout the province of Ontario. Further, I would be remiss if I didn't point out some of the key players during the tiring years of meetings in kitchens and in church basements. I admire much the indefatigable work of Ermanna Felice, Paul Bezaire, Paul Maini and also Vito Campanaro.

But I must also congratulate the hard efforts of all the families in this neighbourhood for endless hours and dedication. Their energy and direction were the major reasons for the success of this court battle. I'm sure their example will encourage others who feel strongly about community issues to stand firmly for their rights.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As Liberal critic for women's issues I am disappointed and deeply dismayed by the way this NDP government has responded to the sexual assaults and harassment of women.

First we have the serious incidents at Bell Cairn. Marion Boyd, the minister responsible for women's issues, suggested that the victims of sexual assault had to come forward before these unsubstantiated rumours could be investigated. What a reaction: The minister responsible for women's issues blaming the victims. Strike one.

This was compounded when the Minister for Correctional Services stated he could understand why no one reported the allegations to him since the women were unwilling to come forward. Another NDP minister blaming the victims. Strike two.

This reaction is such an irony coming from the same NDP government which in its campaign against sexual assault constantly stressed that society has to stop blaming the victims. Then we have the case of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North, who when asked about sexual assaults at Ontario Place and Old Fort William, swore: "I wasn't aware. I am now. I hadn't heard of this, honest to God." You won't believe this, but this very morning I received a press release where the minister admits he was notified of the Old Fort William assault on May 11 and of the Ontario Place assault on July 15.

How can women trust this NDP minister who considers sexual assault to be so unimportant that he forgot he'd been told of these serious charges? Strike three, you're out.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Ontario citizens are alarmed at the ideological agenda underlying the June 9 Stephen Lewis race relations report, which they fear will create even more racial problems and could add significantly to existing community tensions.

Many have contacted me, partly in response to an

article by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun on July 14, to state their disgust with the Lewis report's implication that they are racist while the NDP seeks an exemption under the Ontario Human Rights Code for its Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

One person from Guelph wrote to me to say, "A piece of legislation that purports to grant legal sanction to government-mandated discrimination on the basis of race is outrageous and does not deserve to see the light of day."

A University of Toronto professor wrote, "Books could be written on why this de facto quota bill should not go forward."

My colleagues and I in the Ontario PC caucus oppose this socially divisive NDP scheme. As the party that brought in one of the most progressive human rights codes in North America, we cannot support any legislation that would selectively remove the protection under our Human Rights Code for any group of Ontarians.

The public would like politicians to stop being intimidated into politically correct positioning but rather to seek the courage to find answers to this problem that can lead to the path of societal healing that the people of Ontario have been capable of historically and are able to achieve today.

BILL POWELL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Hamiltonian and community leader. As members will know, former Hamilton mayor Bill Powell suffered a heart attack and passed away yesterday.

Bill Powell has been a leading political fixture on the Hamilton scene. Mr Powell served as an alderman from 1960 to 1970 and served as our mayor from 1980 to 1982. But his contributions to Hamilton didn't stop with politics. Mr Powell was cofounder of the Steelworkers union at Stelco and a strong environmentalist. He was chairman of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority in 1970, fighting for the environment long before it was fashionable.

To say that Mr Powell was an active member in our community is an understatement. I am sure there isn't a single Hamiltonian who has not been touched by the service and life of Bill Powell.

On behalf of my Hamilton colleagues and all members of the Legislature, I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Rose, and deepest sympathy to the entire Powell family. We share in their sadness today at the loss of Bill Powell but rejoice at the great contribution his remarkable life has made to our city.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, raised a point of order concerning government notice of motion 13, which seeks to invoke standing order 44a in order to allocate no time to third reading of Bill 150. The member for Parry Sound, Mr Eves, the member for Bruce, Mr Elston, the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, and the government House leader, Mr Cooke, also made submissions to the point of order.

When a point of order is raised in this chamber, the Chair is entitled to rule on it at that time or to reserve a ruling. In yesterday's case, the Chair reserved a ruling, and this has afforded me an opportunity to reflect on the submissions that were made. Having reviewed yesterday's Hansard together with House precedents and various parliamentary authorities, I'm now ready to make a ruling.

The member for York Centre referred to the practice in the House of Commons at Ottawa where standing order 78(3) states that a time allocation motion cannot specify less than one day's debate for the consideration of any one stage of a bill. The member also quoted citation 533 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne to the effect that "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion."

However, it is important for all members to know that Ottawa has had many years' experience with time allocation motions. In fact, such motions have been a part of Ottawa's standing orders in one form or another since 1965. By contrast, time allocation motions were first recognized in our chamber in 1982, and have been a part of our standing orders for less than three weeks. Moreover, the notice of motion that is the subject of this ruling is only the second one to have appeared on our Orders and Notices paper since standing order 44a came into force on July 3 of this year.

There are other distinctions between the practice in Ottawa and our own. Ottawa's standing order 78(3) does not require written notice; it does not require debate on the motion; it specifies that the question is put immediately after the motion is put, and it requires at least one day's debate on the stage of the bill that is under consideration. By contrast, our standing order requires written notice and a full day's debate on the motion, and it makes no mention of a minimum time requirement for third reading debate on a bill.

There was some mention yesterday about whether previous time allocation motions in this House have ever provided that the question on a certain stage of the legislative process be put forthwith without debate or amendment. I have reviewed the time allocation motions that have been moved in this chamber since 1982, and I have found that eight of them contained just such a provision with respect to the adoption of a report of a standing committee, the adoption of a report of the committee of the whole House, or both.

With respect to the comparisons that were made yesterday between standing order 44a and standing order 45, I must say that they are two very different standing orders and that they have different applications. A closure motion under standing order 45 can be moved without notice, it can be moved by any member of the House and it is non-debatable. By contrast, a time allocation motion under standing order 44a can be moved only by a government minister and upon written notice, and it is debated for one day.

I want to make some additional remarks about closure motions under standing order 45. Such motions are generally known as the "previous question" in many other parliamentary jurisdictions. Indeed, they used to be known by that name in this chamber until the 1986 standing orders changed the name to "closure" because members commonly referred to it by that name. But the change should not obscure the fact that if a motion under standing order 45 were successfully moved while an amendment was on the floor of the House, the result would be that the amendment would be lost and the question would be immediately put on the main question. That's the full nature of standing order 45.

Moreover, standing order 44a does provide a certain measure of balance when a time allocation motion is moved. For example, the standing order does not require that the motion provide for a minimum period of debate at third reading of a bill, but it does require that the motion cannot be moved at second reading until there's been at least three days' debate at that stage.

I can appreciate that yesterday's notice of motion may have surprised some members by virtue of the fact that it calls for no time to debate third reading of Bill 150. In this regard, I want to quote from the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which states the following at page 409:

Time allocation motions "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

In closing, then, government notice of motion 13, while it may appear drastic, does comply with standing order 44a as it presently stands and is therefore in order.

I thank all members for their submissions, and in particular the member for York Centre for his written submission.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the reasons you've given for your determination in this matter. I simply want to remind you that the effect of your decision on new standing order 44a is that after three days of debate on second reading of a bill or any other substantive matter in this House, the government now has vested within itself the power to take that substantive matter, whether a bill or a motion, through every other stage of consideration without any debate whatsoever.

I sincerely regret that in your view the standing order and the government notice of motion yesterday are valid. We will continue to fight this. We will consider motions of censure or whatever else we need to do in order to return to the opposition the right and the ability to substantively debate motions and bills in this House.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I realize I cannot challenge the Speaker's ruling, but I do want to get on the record that I think this is a sad day indeed for democracy in the province of Ontario. I can tell you that when a government House leader can now cut off debate in the middle of one member's speech and have a vote -- I don't care what you want to call it; I call it closure or guillotine -- it's a sad day indeed.

The Speaker: To both the member for York Centre and the member for Parry Sound, I indeed fully understand the concerns they've raised. As the members may have noticed, in succinct terms, it is a drastic measure but it is in order. There is nothing out of order.

Statements by ministers? It is time for oral questions.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have just said something which is very telling with respect to the manner in which you have just ruled. You said it's a very drastic measure. It indicates to me quite clearly that you don't fully believe there has been ample time in this chamber to do anything about the debate on this bill.

Mr Speaker, there is one overriding consideration that you always have, and as a result of your having been the first elected Speaker in this Parliament ever, it seems to me you have a duty to carry out your responsibility to all members to ensure that at each stage of debate there is ample time for them to put their information on the record. It seems to me that no matter what the standing orders say, you cannot be taken out of your chair, you cannot lose your discretion to safeguard the right of freedom of speech in this democracy.

I ask you again to look at what you have just brought into this House as a result of a literal reading of new standing order 44a and ask yourself and report to this House whether you now have been removed from your chair with respect to the discretion to protect the minority here in this Parliament.

The Speaker: Briefly, to the member for Bruce, the Speaker does not have the latitude to circumvent the standing orders. The standing orders were changed. This matter was thoroughly researched and indeed, as unhappy as some members may be, the motion put was entirely in order.

It is time for oral questions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last Thursday I had the opportunity to speak on Bill 150 for approximately 15 minutes. No other member of my party had an opportunity to speak on Bill 150. I believe my privileges as a member of this Legislature to speak on legislation have been abused by your ruling. Will I be able to complete my remarks on Bill 150?

The Speaker: We are not currently debating Bill 150. I can only tell the member that, whatever happened yesterday, there was a motion put and a ruling reserved. The matter has been thoroughly researched and I have delivered my ruling.

It is time to move on with oral questions. The official opposition, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Sterling: On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I asked you whether or not my privileges are being abridged by the fact that I am unable to speak in this Legislature on a piece of legislation for which I am the critic of this party.

The Speaker: No, the member does not have a point of privilege, not as a result of a ruling.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. The Premier yesterday said that the government will be judged on the basis of the action it took once it found out about the problem. I would say that you'll also be judged, Premier, on the competence of the ministers you've appointed and their ability, in our judgement, to have anticipated this problem and to have headed it off. The question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It's your competence, Minister, that's at stake here.

Yesterday you said in the Legislature, "My policy assistant attends management meetings and was not advised of the particular circumstances regarding Bell Cairn."

My question is a very clear one to you. Your policy assistant attends those management meetings. Those management meetings take place on a weekly basis involving the senior management at Bell Cairn. Can you tell the House, was your policy assistant present when the issue of Bell Cairn was raised at any time from September until July at those management meetings?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): My answer has been very clear with respect to the notification of myself or my staff, in that we were not informed.

Mr Phillips: Your policy assistant was at those management meetings, and I assume the minister said that the senior management -- the deputy, the assistant deputy ministers and the other staff at those meetings -- during the course of nine months never, ever discussed at their weekly management meetings the Bell Cairn incident. It was never, ever raised at the weekly management meetings.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'm indicating that neither I nor my staff were ever made aware of this particular problem, nor were we in the more recent senior management gathering held by the deputy with respect to this matter. At no time were we advised or seized with that information. The opposition knows what I have done since being made aware of the information, which I think is a very responsible action.

Mr Phillips: We're all aware of the action that's taken place since the incident. That's not the issue. The issue is your competence and why in the world you could possibly, when it's happening right under your nose for 10 months, a series of incidents involving your entire ministry -- you are telling us, and the work of the judge will indicate this, that the management committee never once during those nine months ever discussed the problem at Bell Cairn.

At your weekly management meeting, involving all of your senior staff, the record will show that they never, ever once during those nine months discussed the most significant, serious problem within their ministry. You're assuring the House today that that never took place at the weekly management meetings for nine months.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have indicated, I think very clearly, that this item was not discussed with my staff or in the presence of my staff at those meetings. I simply want to add that there were memos between staff, and I have released those today and I've released other covering letters. The members and those who care to review them will understand that the information I have been telling them now since last week is accurate. They were not funnelled up through the channels to the minister in this particular case.

I want to tell you that the matter is a very serious one. It is one I have acted on with great diligence. I have taken three particular actions, as the members know: first, to commence a police investigation into the matter so perpetrators of any alleged crimes can be dealt with; second, the closing of the centre; and third, the appointment of Judge Hansen. I believe, with the release of the documents today, it will now be up to Judge Hansen to shed additional light on this matter, which I think will be very clear and descriptive.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Premier that arises out of the same incident. I want to make clear the position of the opposition. We are not concerned with or objecting to the steps your minister has taken since this matter was brought to his attention, apparently, and the attention of the House by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville last week. We're not complaining about those steps.

What we're concerned about is that this facility opened in August of last year, and it is apparent from the material released today that within a month, and consistently for the succeeding 10 months, there was a pattern of harassment and sexual harassment that the Premier yesterday conceded raised concerns about systemic harassment in the correctional service.

Not only was this going on for virtually 10 months but there was a flood of memos, up to the deputy minister's level at least, from all kinds of supervisors and managers who were aware of it and who were discussing it. When it was brought to the attention of the House, with respect particularly to the culminating incident on June 15, the minister said neither he nor, he believed, his staff had any knowledge of it.

The question that is now presented arises out of the deputy minister's letter in which she says she had not yet advised the minister or his staff about the events of June 15. The Premier has conducted an investigation through Mr Barnes. Will he let us know what the deputy minister's position is on this question? Did she alert any of the political staff of the minister or the minister himself about the events that arose over the preceding 10 months at any time before July 1, or did she keep everything that happened for a year secret from the minister, the political staff and the Premier's office?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister's answers make that clear. The documents which have been released and the deputy minister's statements make things clear in that regard. Judge Hansen has now been appointed to do a job. There's a police investigation going on. All the documents have been released. We've released every piece of information we can with respect to the freedom of information and privacy matters.

With respect to the honourable member's comments, he knows as well as I do that if there is a systemic problem in corrections or in any part of the government or in any part of our society, it's hardly realistic to think it started on September 7, 1990. Let's get real here about what we're talking about. The information has been shared fully with the House. Every statement the minister has made has been entirely upfront. With respect to particular problems at Bell Cairn and the particular incidents in question, he was not advised and not informed, and that information has been confirmed by the deputy minister.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response to this problem, which we all agree is a serious one not only in terms of sexual harassment but in terms of the administration of the ministry, exhibits a real sensitivity about his minister and what's been going on here. It isn't often Bob Rae turns into an attack dog, but when he does you know he's worried about something, and so are we.

The reality here is we have had 10 months of problems which have now come to the surface. In his own defence the minister has said: "For that whole 10-month period I never heard about anything. I went to the opening at Bell Cairn and never heard it mentioned again." The deputy has said, "It is true I didn't tell him about June 15." The Premier has now directed an investigation conducted by Mr Barnes. He has told the press that the report is on his desk.

What we want to know is, first, can we see Mr Barnes's report? I know we won't see it because it would be incriminating. If not, why not? Second, will he tell the deputy's side of the story? Did she discuss with the minister or his staff, before the events of June 15, what had been happening at Bell Cairn for 10 months?

Hon Mr Rae: The answer to the second part of the question is, certainly not as far as I've been made aware by any document or any discussion that I've had.

The report that you have before you is the report that Mr Barnes presented to me. There is no written report by Mr Barnes. There is this report, which essentially is a compilation of documents which I asked him to provide. There is no written document from Mr Barnes in this regard.

As soon as I have these documents and as soon as they have been cleared through freedom of information and other areas, what we also have done is ask Judge Hansen to give us an independent review of what has taken place.

Those are the steps we've taken. They're very clear. The minister was not advised. Information was not provided to the minister that in my view should have been provided to him and that in my view should have been provided to others as well. That's the position of this government, that's the position of this minister, and that's where we are today.

Mr Scott: The Premier is dissembling, with the greatest respect. If that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

The deputy minister, an experienced bureaucrat of 20 years, has given a report to the principal secretary that answers one narrow question: "I did not tell the minister about the events of June 15 because I hadn't prepared the full dossier." She does not respond to the general question, which is, did she discuss with him or his staff any of the events of the intervening 10 months for which this was the culminating incident? It is critical that she has not fortified the minister's response on that question. When are you going to let her answer the question that this House and the public want to know?

I ask the question not merely out of curiosity. Yesterday, in answering a question of mine, the Premier was very clear and anxious to leave open this proposition: that politics may have played a part. He says this in answering my question: "I am not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware." Leaving the double negative aside for the moment, that suggests that the Premier is leaving open the prospect that there was political awareness of these issues over the previous 10 months.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's in Hansard.

Mr Scott: It's in Hansard. Mr Barnes not having made a written report, the only way this question can be resolved is if the Premier will ask the deputy minister whether she discussed with the minister or his aides the Bell Cairn problems over the previous 10 months, yes or no.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the member is, not for the first time, quite wrong. When I said that at the political level, what I meant was -- and everybody understands what I mean -- the members of this government, the members of this cabinet, were not informed either about the previous incidents at Bell Cairn or about the particular incidents which are now the subject of the police investigation. Those are the facts. They've been clear. No one has challenged those facts. Those facts are confirmed by the deputy minister.

With respect to the question of how we get to the bottom of this, we get to the bottom of this by appointing a judge, asking a judge who is independent of this government, independent of the opposition, independent of everyone, to get to the bottom of it. That's exactly what we're doing. I can't imagine a fairer or better way to treat this issue. We've released all the information. I think we've done everything that we possibly could to make sure all the facts will come out. That's exactly what will happen.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing -- and I have stopped the clock -- I invite all members to welcome to the gallery a former member of this assembly, the former member for London South, Mrs Joan Smith, seated in the members' gallery west.

The leader of the third party with his first question.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, you have a Minister of Correctional Services, who is also the chief law enforcement officer in this province, who has closed his eyes and ears to what is going on in his ministry. That in and of itself I believe is shameful, I believe is unacceptable, I believe transcends the standards you as Premier would want. It puts the safety and security of Ontarians at risk, and I don't believe it can be ignored by you.

By allowing this minister's laissez-faire attitude, you are sending out a very clear signal. You are saying: "What we don't know won't hurt us, so go ahead and do whatever you like. Just don't tell us about it." Premier, that is what you are condoning. I ask you to reflect on that. I ask you to reflect on the signal you are sending out to all your cabinet ministers, existing and former and future, to the Legislature, to the public and to women of this province.

If, as you have said in response to questions from the Liberal Party, you are hiding nothing, I ask you then to suggest that the Solicitor General must step down while we have a legislative committee investigate and ask the questions that need to be asked about who knew what, and when, and why this matter was covered up from the beginning.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think Judge Hansen is going to do a job in terms of -- this issue should be kept free of any kind of partisanship, any kind of accusations of political partisanship. This is a very difficult and sensitive issue which we have to look at in terms of the problem of sexual harassment in any ministry or in any service the government provides. I think it's important that it be done on an independent basis by Judge Hansen.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite says in his question that somehow what we don't know won't hurt us. I think the indications are very clear --

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that this government is doing everything possible to get at the facts. When information is not shared with cabinet members, when it's not made available to cabinet members, that is a serious problem we as a government will not accept. We want that information, we need that information, we want to share that information. When we have had that information, we have taken action. We will continue to take action. That's why we want all the information to come out. That's precisely why.

Mr Harris: Premier, you are sending out a signal that, "You can investigate everything except my cabinet ministers." He's not your cabinet minister. It's not your cabinet. It's not your government. This government belongs to the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario have a right to know as well.

What took place at Bell Cairn is something that no one should turn his back on. The minister failed in his responsibilities by doing just that, and you have given a silent acceptance or tacit approval of what went on by not asking for his resignation. You and your minister have told women of this province that the old boys' code of silence is still in place. You are sending out the signal that when women of this province face injustice, your government, either wilfully or through incompetence, will not be there to listen. That's the signal you are sending out. Either wilfully or by incompetence, they will not be there to listen.

Premier, I suggest to you that you of all people ought to know that is unacceptable. Will you ask your minister to step down now and allow a legislative committee of this Legislature to find out who knew what, when, and who's covering it up?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is saying that he doesn't have any confidence in Judge Hansen, then he should stand up and say so.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's not what he said.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the clear implication of what he's saying.

The second issue is the investigation that's ongoing by the OPP with respect to the particular allegations involving sexual assault.

With respect to the third point he's making in his rhetoric, to state and to ask that it be taken seriously that somehow the actions taken by this government and the steps we've taken systematically as we've learned of whatever information we've learned of, in terms of what we've done that there's any kind of tacit approval, there's no member, there's no person in this Legislature who would ever give tacit approval to that kind of thing. The member knows it. To make that kind of partisan, cheap political comment with regard to a serious problem like this is unworthy of the honourable member.

Mr Harris: What you will not allow us to do, Mr Premier, is find out why the minister didn't know, whether it was pure incompetence or he didn't want to know or he wouldn't have anything to do with that ministry.

We have no idea now what the standards are for your cabinet. You kept a liar in cabinet, but you turfed the Sunshine Boy. You defended a Solicitor General whose office interfered in the judiciary, but you tossed out a minister who made an honest mistake when she breached confidentiality. You promoted the member for Victoria-Haliburton when he broke the law in Temagami for a cause you agreed with, but you expelled the member for Oakwood for violating labour laws.

Premier, you yourself, with your inconsistencies, are sending out a signal where even your own ministers don't know what is acceptable, what level of competence is acceptable, and you are now becoming a big part of the problem. I tell you, the public is already cynical enough about politicians, about the whole lot of us --

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Harris: -- you know that, and when any one of us is involved in a scandal it affects us all. The electorate put its trust in you. It put its trust in all of us. In return it expects a higher degree of responsibility than it does from most other people.

Premier, by virtue of his ignorance, by virtue of his incompetence, this minister has not lived up to his ministerial responsibilities and therefore must resign. Since he will not do that, since he will not do the honourable thing, even while an investigation is under way by a judge or by a legislative committee, will you help restore the public's trust by asking for his resignation before the investigation proceeds further?

Hon Mr Rae: If ever there was an example of rhetoric that might give rise to political cynicism, it's the kind of rhetoric which precedes the question offered by the leader of the third party.

The steps that this government has taken have been taken in good faith. I want to suggest to the honourable member that if he was the Premier and he was faced with the situation he would be doing the same thing, asking a judge, not a legislative committee, to deal with an issue of this kind, but a judge who is quite independent of the political process. No, I think if you want to look at --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: -- dealing with this question fairly, that's the way it would proceed and this is the way we're going to proceed.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): At the outset I want to send over a copy of a page of Hansard which confirms what the member for St George-St David said: "I am not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware." I'll send that over to the Premier. I want to talk about this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I want to talk to the Premier and ask him some questions related to the plight of Dina Palozzi. The Premier, by the documents he's tabled with the public today, or his minister has, and by his actions in respect to pulling her out of her responsibilities as deputy minister, has, as I said the other day, left her professional reputation in tatters. He's put her in the cabinet secretary's office where she cannot be accessed by members of the opposition, the public or the media. He's issued a gag order. We called today.

We called 28 people who were listed on the memos circulated in the last number of months. We got the same response from every one of those people, Mr Premier: "Call Cim Nunn in the minister's office" A very effective gag order.

I want to once again ask you what is going on. Why will you not let the deputy minister give us her side of the story, meet with the media, meet with the opposition, tell her side of the story to the public, other officials within the ministry? What are you hiding?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that if the government was hiding anything, surely it wouldn't be asking a judge to look into something.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): Or the OPP.

Hon Mr Rae: There is an OPP investigation going on. So all these things are under way, all this information will come out. The memos have been released, the information is being shared. These are clear steps that are being taken by this government. I think they're a very clear signal to the public and to everyone that when this government has the information that was shared with us last week, we take action. That's what we've done. You may not approve of all the action we've taken, but you can't say that we have not taken the action and that there's every determination on our part to let all the facts come out.

Mr Runciman: I think there's no question they've taken action but it's late in the day, there's no question about that, and it's inadequate. This government and the Premier have hung this around Ms Palozzi's neck completely. You haven't given any explanation as to the move. Every indication is that she was totally, completely responsible for this whole matter, for sweeping a gang rape under the rug, a gang rape on the grounds of a provincial institution by provincial employees who were then allowed to continue to serve as peace offices with vulnerable people.

She's completely responsible for that, that's what you're saying, to all of us, to the public at large. Yet at the same time, yesterday you say she's going to stay on, presumably at her $100,000-plus salary.

You accused my leader just a few moments ago of engaging in cheap political comment because he suggested that was what you're doing and your lack of action was tacit approval. Premier, I'm asking you today, how do you justify what's happening with respect to this deputy minister, your commitment to keeping her on, with your commitment to fight against violence against women, to sexual harassment in the workplace? How do those two things jibe? You can't have it both ways.

Hon Mr Rae: The steps I've taken have been taken based on the information that I had. There was no question that the information had not been shared with the minister or with his staff, and my view is that required some action to be taken by me. That's what I've done.

I also think it's important for us to look at Judge Hansen's work and to give her a clear opportunity to do her work and for us to make it clear that we don't regard this, no matter what the opposition may try to say, as anything other than a human tragedy which has to be dealt with by a government on the basis of clear action and signals being taken. We expect --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): You're the world's biggest wimp.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David obviously doesn't want me to continue. He'd rather engage in personal insults and I don't intend to --

Mr Scott: I'd like you to leave office for incompetency.

The Speaker: I ask the member for St George-St David to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the member for St George-St David can come to order, then we can continue. Had the Premier completed his response? Final supplementary.

Mr Runciman: We know that this Premier has over many years expressed eloquent concern about violence against women. We've seen this government announce with great fanfare a new policy with respect to sexual harassment in the workplace and getting tough in respect to sexual harassment in the workplace in the private sector.

Yet now we have Ms Palozzi whom you have hung out to dry. You've laid all of the responsibility on her doorstep -- don't shake your head, you have -- but you won't fire her. On one side you're saying, "We care about these kinds of issues," and here's a woman who apparently, according to you and your government, allowed a gang rape to go unreported, no police investigation, sweep it under the rug and perhaps even most important, allow these people to continue in the system who allegedly conducted this assault. They're still out there, Premier. You're saying that this person allowed that, yet on the other hand you have great concern about these issues.

From our side of the House, this looks like a payoff. You've paid for her silence. Regardless of what she's done, she's going to continue in her $100,000-plus job.

Well, that's the message that's being sent out. We can hear moans and groans.

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Runciman: I want to ask the Premier, in terms of the Barnes report, which he has on his desk, will he release that? I'm prepared to accept it if he deletes the names, if that's his concern, or if he will let one member of each opposition party sit down in the privacy of the Cabinet Office to review this report to see if we concur with his conclusions.

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that the preface to his question and all the harangue that was contained therein, the assumptions behind it and the statements it contains I think are first of all totally self-contradictory and are without any foundation at all.

Mr Runciman: You're self-contradictory.

Hon Mr Rae: If he will now just allow me to answer his question --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Hon Mr Rae: I already indicated, but perhaps he wasn't listening to my answer to the question from the member for St George-St David, when I asked Mr Barnes for a report, what he presented me with was the documents that have now been released today, that is to say, a

summary of memoranda and other documents. There is no written document from Mr Barnes.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I would like to return to the Minister of Correctional Services, because it seems to me that for the House and for the public beyond, the fundamental question we must concern ourselves with is the administration of that department from September 1991 through to the statements and questions put to the House a week ago today by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville. It is that nine-month period I am most concerned about.

I have listened today to Anthony Eden, the leader of this government, give a fantastic explanation and give a perfectly twisted notion of ministerial responsibility, so I want to go to the captain of the HMS Pinafore. I want to ask Mr Pilkey some questions about the way in which he led the Ministry of Correctional Services from September 1991 through to July 1992, that is, July 14, 1992.

Specifically, can you tell this House how many times a week in that period of nine months you would have had or taken briefings from senior officials in the department of correctional services, and how many times a week during that nine-month period, September 1991 through to July 14, 1992, your senior political staff would have taken briefings from senior officials or others within the Ministry of Correctional Services?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and I want to tell this House that these ministries have been administered, they have been dealt with legislatively, they have been dealt with in terms of special events, awards presentations, the whole gamut of ministerial responsibility.

That includes my political staff being present on the site daily, that includes briefings, that includes daily contentious issues, that includes the adoption and the starting of new consultative committees with respect to our ministry from a wide variety of groups and organizations, spreading all the way from the native community to the Elizabeth Fry Society to the John Howard Society to the Ontario Association of Community Correctional Residences, the Ontario public service -- I know you want to cut me off because the list is too long.

I'm getting rather incensed. I've tried to remain controlled with respect to this matter, but this continual kind of political wrangling in the face of the facts which I advised this House of all along, which have now been proven by the facts in writing, and the continual denial by these people in the face of the facts, I find totally objectionable. The appropriate steps have been taken --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The absolutely responsible actions have been taken. They will come out as a result of the police and the investigation by the judge. You'll have to pardon me for getting incensed at this kind of political partisanship that this has now devolved into.

Mr Conway: That answer tells a great deal, and it tells fundamentally this: that the honourable member from Oshawa does not understand what being a minister of the crown is. He doesn't understand what being the boss entails. He truly gives effect to the story that he polished the handles so very carefully that "now he is ruler of the Queen's navy," that his only claim to fame is that in fact he is Cliff Pilkey's son.

The word we have heard, and what we're not going to get from Judge Hansen, is that the minister, however nice he may be, rarely went to the department. He went for months without taking briefings. He was surrounded by junior, neophyte staff who didn't know what was going on. I say again rhetorically --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Conway: -- by any standard, the minister clearly does not understand the difference between cutting a ribbon in Timmins and being back at the departmental headquarters doing something about a crisis that was developing over eight or nine months.

The Speaker: Could the member place his question.

Mr Conway: Does he not understand that there is a difference, and that by any standard, his only excuse being he didn't know, he didn't care, he didn't go to the department, he wouldn't talk to the deputy, he wouldn't talk to the directors, that is the greatest sin of omission and by the basic conventions of British cabinet government he is duty-bound to offer his resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe my earlier response fits that dissertation perfectly.

Mr Runciman: I want to go back to the Premier on this matter and I want to talk about his whole idea of who should be in cabinet and who should not be in cabinet, specifically related to the memos that were tabled with the public and the opposition parties today, what I would call a litany of shame and injustice if we take a look at all this going on over a significant period of time while this minister was responsible for this facility, with virtually nothing happening to respond in a positive way to all the concerns, especially the concerns of women who felt extremely vulnerable in this environment.

I said that earlier today we tried to contact 28 people within the ministry who are part of the circulation of the memo. We've indicated clearly that at least 28 people, many of them at senior management levels, were very much aware of the concerns related to Bell Cairn and to the assault that took place. How can the Premier justify continuing to support in this House on a daily basis a minister who apparently was totally unaware of the circumstances when at least 28 people within his ministry were aware? How can he continue to justify continuing to support that minister?

Hon Mr Rae: If the minister wasn't informed, if the minister wasn't given information, if he wasn't told of an issue, if he wasn't provided with that information, if that information was not shared with him -- and as soon as that information was provided this government has taken action.

I think the evidence is very clear; what is there is very clear. We are determined to take action as soon as we are made aware of a problem. I can assure you the message is very clear. We want to get to the bottom of this. We want to deal with other issues. We want to do the very best job we can. That's what every member of this cabinet is trying to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: We want to get as much information shared with us and the public as is humanly possible in the circumstances.

Mr Runciman: That's a response that just won't wash. What's happened here is that the minister has effectively pulled out the phone and now he's complaining that he never received any calls. This is the same government that wants to bring in legislation to charge, in the criminal justice system, chief executive officers for responsibility for spills in respect of pollution. This is the same government, but this Premier stands in the House and says, "The minister has no responsibility," even though who knows how many people in his ministry were aware of this and he cut off a committee that was supposed to inform him of ministry complaints, yet he has no responsibility, no accountability.

You owe the people of this province a much more lucid explanation and a higher standard in respect to the people who are serving in your cabinet. Let's have it right now, today.

Hon Mr Rae: The steps this government has taken send, I think, the clearest possible message that we want all the facts to come out. We clearly want it to be understood that we expect and want information to be shared with members of cabinet. We want information to be shared so that steps can be taken and decisions can be taken. That's exactly what we want to do, that's exactly what we've done, and that's exactly the message that we're sending to this House and to the public of Ontario.

TOURISM

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As you know, tourism hasn't been doing the best this year. It's partly because of the weather, but, as a couple of taxi drivers I've surveyed on this issue suggest, I think it's also the GST. That was the first thing they commented on as far as what tourists are telling them this year. Though you have no control over either the weather or things like the GST, I would like to know what your ministry is doing to promote tourism in my riding and across the province.

One thing that has come to my attention through a couple of constituents is a concept called ecotourism, which is something that gives tourists a firsthand experience of the culture and the environment of an area in a very rewarding way for both the tourists and the guides. This is a concept that has been promoted in both Costa Rica and the Brazilian rain forest, for instance. I was wondering whether your ministry has done any work on this concept or others.

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has recognized, first of all, that ecotourism is a growing and important part of tourism in general. We've had an opportunity to be involved with a number of different groups, and presently we're in sort of a coordinated study on this particular subject. We should be able to have more information on the value of it, certainly the interest in it and the opportunities for the product in the province, in the coming year.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm just wondering what comparative studies you might be doing in this area to see that the value of something like ecotourism, which in our area, for instance, offers not only aspects of historical value but the whole environment of the area, is there to be enjoyed by tourists in this very rewarding way for both the tourists and the operators. I was thinking that if there were programs to train people with this aspect in mind, that would be a very rewarding part of your ministry's activities.

Hon Mr North: Presently there are opportunities that we have in working with native tourism that involve what we would call ecotourism. As I said earlier, we are also working on the study that we're putting together so that we can better understand what the product is and what the opportunities are.

There's a strong interest in the European Community involving ecotourism, and the European Community is also very interested in the native tourism opportunities that exist. So we're working with groups ourselves and in Tourism Canada, Resorts Ontario and a number of other groups to try to put together a good outline of ecotourism and what opportunities there will be in that particular segment of the tourism industry.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It is the common practice in departments of the Ontario government that at least once a week the minister meets with senior departmental staff to review issues of interest and concern within the department. My question to the Minister of Correctional Services is, will he tell me and the House that between September 1991 and July 14, 1992, he had, and could show a log to confirm this, the regular practice of meeting at least once a week with the senior departmental staff at the Ministry of Correctional Services?

Can he indicate to this House that this in fact was his practice in the period from whenever he became minister in 1991 through July 14, 1992?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have had formal meetings, informal meetings and private meetings, with the deputy and senior members of staff on a wide variety of topics, with a wide variety of people in and around the corrections ministry, those associated with and agencies surrounding the ministry and a wide variety of other tasks.

I am available to that ministry any day of the week. My staff who are on site are available to the ministry any day of the week. We have a very clear understanding with the deputy that I am to be advised on contentious issues. Those are well above and over the regular type of meetings we have on any issues surrounding the ministry, either administratively or legislatively.

Mr Conway: Those of us who have served in government know well the practices of the Ontario government.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Anthony Eden? The leading bumbler, Mr Rae, is prepared to tolerate this.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Speaking of which, Sean, we remember your record as a minister.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): How often did you speak to your senior staff?

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I will say this to my friends opposite, if anything of this kind happened in my term as a minister, I would feel honour-bound to my Premier and the people of Ontario to resign forthwith.

Hon Mr Laughren: Why didn't you then?

Mr Conway: Lord Carrington did so in 1982 in the Thatcher government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I ask the members to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order. I ask the cooperation of members on both sides of the House to allow the member for Renfrew North to complete his supplementary. The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order. The member for Renfrew North, please place your supplementary.

Mr Conway: We have today the letter of Ms Palozzi to the secretary of cabinet dated July 15, 1992, outlining, in part, her story. In order to believe this, we then have to ask the question, what kind of relationship must have existed between this minister and that department, a small department within the Ontario government? There is around Queen's Park a story that runs like this: Allan Pilkey is a nice fellow but he's not very industrious and he never goes to his department.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary please.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: My question, to the howling mob opposite, is this: Will the Minister of Correctional Services table in this Legislature a log of his activities as Minister of Correctional Services from September 1, 1991, through to July 14, 1992, so we can see just how many times he made himself available to senior officials who are now taking the fall --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Conway: -- for what in fact may be a case of gross incompetence and maladministration on the minister's part?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe I have responded very adequately to that question. I also believe the member for Renfrew North now strays a long way indeed from the issue and the concerns at hand and the very responsible and immediate actions that I, as the minister of corrections, took in commencing a police investigation, closing the Bell Cairn centre and appointing a judge with respect to investigation of this particular matter. Those are the issues. Those are the major concerns. Those are the matters I am dealing with. I have dealt with them as soon as I was made aware of the information.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question had been for the Premier, because he's placed such great faith in what this judge is going to be doing, but the Premier isn't available any more. He had to leave, with 11 minutes to go. I have no choice but to ask the embattled Minister of Correctional Services this question.

Yesterday you made a statement in this Legislature appointing Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct an independent review. You've never told us what that review will entail. Can you please stand and tell us exactly what Madam Justice Hansen will be investigating and how she will be performing the investigation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Her Honour has been obtained to review and examine the operations of the Bell Cairn staff training centre in Hamilton. We have concerns about ongoing sexual harassment and assault that may have occurred at the centre. We want to have that done, however, without interfering in any way with the police investigation.

We want to have her review the ministry responses with respect to those allegations. We want to have her provide for us certain conclusions with respect to the way the matter was handled in respect to the ministry. We are going to ask her to do a document review with respect to policies, memoranda etc.

We are also going to have her interview staff: Bell Cairn staff, course participants, external trainers and ministry employees. We are also going to have her develop a collection of information with respect to the operation of other training facilities in our purview. All of these people are going to be involved and I believe will be involved and brought to a successful conclusion.

Mr Harnick: I find that answer to be totally unacceptable. I would like to know if this investigation is going to take place in public. Is the public going to get to hear these mystery witnesses? Will there be transcripts of the examinations of these witnesses? Why can't the minister, if the minister really has nothing to hide, hold this inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act where everyone would be able to see?

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Housing keeps yapping away at me. If you have nothing to hide, why don't you have a real investigation where the public can see what's going on and we don't have to listen to you yapping and hiding what the real truth is.

We could accomplish a whole lot here and probably put this issue behind us. Now, I'm asking the minister: Will you allow this judge to perform an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act with proper terms of reference that will be made public and will you allow the public to see the investigation before their very eyes? Will you further indicate specifically in the terms of reference that this judge will have the opportunity to examine your ministry, your office and your political staff?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It has been responded to earlier. There is a police investigation under way. I have initiated as well --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- an investigation by Her Honour with respect to this matter.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pilkey: There was an inference there that somehow there's a questioning of Her Honour with respect to this particular matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have every confidence and belief, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded his response?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I'm not sure there are any answers, including factual ones, that are acceptable to some members opposite. I think as to the background of Her Honour, Judge Inger Hansen, I would love to share it with you. She's a former information commissioner of Canada, Canada's first correctional investigator for Correctional Service Canada and the first privacy commissioner of federal legislation. She is a former penitentiary ombudsman and legal counsel for the federal Department of Justice. If that isn't an exemplary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the member for Willowdale was putting his question, and the Solicitor General was responding, it seems to me that the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Lake Nipigon continued to respond to the question. Is that in order? The point is that they could not hear the question being responded to, and I just wondered why they weren't called upon.

The Speaker: The only thing that should ever be in order is to hear one voice at a time. Unhappily, we have heard a multitude of voices.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last year, as one component of this government's long-term care system reform, you and the Minister of Community and Social Services announced that you would honour the previous government's commitment to introducing a new "needs-based funding formula for nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged by early 1993." In the meantime, however, you made a further commitment to attempt to address the incredible financial pressures faced by many nursing homes by providing interim bridge funding.

With current levels of government funding the Caressant Care Woodstock Nursing Home and Woodingford Lodge in my riding find it difficult to continue to provide the same service to their residents they have always provided. It's been over six months since you announced the interim bridge funding. When can the nursing homes and homes for the aged in my riding and other nursing home facilities in the province expect to see this funding?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm not quite sure, in the last part of the question, if the member was referring to when the nursing homes would receive the previously announced interim funding. They have in fact received that. If I can point out to the member, in the last fiscal year there was a 6% global increase, plus we were able to make two adjustments of interim financing to try to close the gap, which is a real discrepancy in funding, between nursing homes and municipal homes for the aged.

The member speaks about long-term care reform and the move to levels-of-care-requirement funding. We've indicated that we intend to move towards that for January 1993, but he's quite right that I have continued to acknowledge that there has been a long-standing historical problem with respect to the inadequacy of the funding of nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged in comparison to the municipal homes for the aged when many of the clients that they are serving require similar kinds of care and similar levels of funding.

I'm pleased to let the member know that we have in fact made the announcement with respect to the global increase for this year. In addition to that, we've provided an additional $8.1 million of interim funding to nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged that will cover the period of July through to December of this year, at which time we hope to be able to move to levels-of-care funding.

Again, this doesn't completely close the gap, but it is a continued expression of our commitment to try to close the gap between the levels of funding in those two areas.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Bruce has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Correctional Services concerning the Bell Cairn matter. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Motions?

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 150

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On July 16, last Thursday, at about five to 6, the acting Speaker at that time, Mr Drainville, said, referring to me:

"My apologies to the honourable member. The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton."

I would like to know when I'm going to get the floor on Bill 150. Am I to believe the Chair?

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton: He may recall the unusual circumstance of that particular time of the afternoon. There was a power failure and the House had determined that the appropriate thing to do under the circumstance was rise. It was approximately five minutes to 6, if I recall correctly.

The time allocation motion has not yet been moved. Therefore, it's very difficult to anticipate what might or what might not happen when Bill 150 should be called forward, if indeed it is called forward. I suppose it's only at that point in time that the Chair has any opportunity to try to fulfil the obligation that was made by the acting Speaker.

I must say to the member that all chair occupants try very diligently to ensure there's a continuum of decision-making. The undertaking that was given to the member, the Chair will do his utmost to try to comply with that opportunity. I must say to the member that at this point it is a hypothetical matter he raises.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Hypothetical? It's a real matter. He's been cut off. He was promised the floor and you've taken it away from him. What's hypothetical about that?

The Speaker: A time allocation motion has not been moved and Bill 150 has not been called forward, and at this point in our proceedings we are at motions. Are there motions?

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, on the same point of privilege: I can only say that during the 15 minutes I was given so graciously by the government to speak on third reading as the only member of my party, I mentioned that the motion to cut us off had already been tabled by the Chair. So the acting Speaker at that time was aware of the government motion to cut me off, yet he still maintained in his statement to me that I would have another opportunity to speak. What am I to believe from the Chair? If I yielded the floor before 6 o'clock I would have had at least 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes to speak on this very important bill.

The Speaker: I fully understand the member's predicament. What I would tell the member is that we have some routine business to conduct, and that should allow the Chair the opportunity to try to be of assistance to the member. I can assure the member that if there's anything at all which can be done to fulfil the promise that was made to him, it will be done. Obviously I need a bit of time to try to figure out how to accommodate the member within the rules. There should be some time to do that while we go through the routine proceedings -- petitions and so on.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On the matter that was raised by the honourable member, I was in the House at that time sitting in my place, and as I recall it, the comment made by the Speaker was in reference to the fact that the member was seeking, I believe, whether or not there needed to be a motion to adjourn the debate and whether or not that would have led to the member losing his place.

The Speaker at that time, in my opinion, was answering and making those comments to the request as to whether or not the lack of a motion to adjourn the debate would lose the honourable member's place in the position for debate. The motion that's being placed by the government House leader would have been applicable regardless of that statement and regardless of whether the motion to adjourn the debate had actually taken place, which was being delayed as a result of questions over whether Hansard was actually on because of the power failure.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: To the matter which is under discussion -- I'm trying to be helpful for you, Mr Speaker -- I was in the House at the time the member for Carleton asked the question of you, Mr Speaker. He was concerned that at the time of the adjournment he would be assured that he would have an opportunity to have the floor and continue his debate at the next opportunity when this piece of legislation was called.

I was pleased when I heard you, Mr Speaker, tell the member that he would indeed have the floor. I hope you will, in your capacity as the person who guards the rights of members of this Legislature in this precinct and who has it in your power to ensure that particularly the rights of the members of the official opposition are not tampered with in any way so that members of the opposition can fully represent their individuals -- and the request of the member for Carleton was reasonable at the time. You gave him your word, and we are looking to you to ensure that --

The Speaker: If the member for Oriole was here, indeed she will know that I wasn't. What I did ask of the House is that, with some patience and a bit of time, I can do my best to try and assist the member for Carleton.

Petitions?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to speak very briefly to the point made by the member for Hamilton Centre. I was in the chamber as well at the time. I want to point out that the member for Carleton was, first, objecting to being cut off, period. There was some discussion about a motion for adjournment; I will grant the member for Hamilton Centre that. I want to say that the Speaker of the day said, "My apologies to the honourable member."

This is a direct quote from Hansard:

"The honourable member will still have the floor; there's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton."

That is pretty clear. If I'm going to come into this House on one day when there's a different person in the chair and the next day the person who happens to occupy the chair says, "I don't care what the person said the last day you were here; I'm going to make my own rules today," what are we to believe?

The member for Carleton either has the floor or he doesn't have the floor. Are you going to stand up for the Speaker on July 16 and live up to his commitment or not? Yes or no?

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound, there is very little that I can add to what I've already said. I understand the member for Carleton's concern. I have told you that I will do my utmost to find a way to fulfil the promise that was made by the Chair. At this point in our proceedings we are dealing with petitions; we are not dealing with the debate on Bill 150. With a bit of time and the members' patience, I will have an opportunity to review this as quickly as possible and will try my best to accommodate a very reasonable request and the statement which was made by the acting Speaker at the time.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to make no comment on the ruling, but I'm going to ask, is it in order to ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the honourable member for Carleton to finish his important remarks?

The Speaker: To the member for Victoria-Haliburton, to his point of order: Indeed, that is perfectly in order when Bill 150 is called. At this point I have called petitions, and the patient member for Brampton South has a petition.

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 37 residents of Ontario, many of them from my riding. It's addressed "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Callahan: There seems to be some disruption in the House. May I continue?

The Speaker: Would the member read his petition. Other members, allow him to do so.

Mr Callahan: The House leader looks a bit irate. I don't know why.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its intention to use $400,000 of taxpayers' money to increase the security at the private abortion clinic of Dr Henry Morgentaler and an additional $200,000 of taxpayers' money to help rebuild this for-profit clinic;

"Whereas the Ontario deficit has risen to astronomical proportions, creating serious hardship for Ontario taxpayers, at the same time that programs and services are being withdrawn including crucial health care and social service programs;

"Whereas all other private Ontario businesses are expected to provide their own security and obtain business insurance to cover fire, vandalism and other such calamities;

"We, the undersigned, while abhorring the violent act which destroyed Dr Morgentaler's clinic, do petition the Legislature of Ontario to immediately recant its intention to inappropriately utilize Ontario tax dollars on this private clinic."

It's signed by myself pursuant to the rules, and I'd like to file that.

FRUIT GROWERS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 12 members from the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada:

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are in financial crisis,

"Therefore, we, the members of the Niagara presbytery of the United Church of Canada, petition the Ontario government to act immediately to find a solution to the economic viability of tender-fruit farms.

"Whereas the Ontario tender-fruit growers are in financial crisis; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is undertaking an agricultural land protection program,

"Therefore, we, the members of the United Church of Canada, strongly oppose restrictions on tender-fruit land until economic viability of the tender-fruit growers is restored."

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have two petitions numbering over 5,000 signatures. The first reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that 'the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York,' and that 'the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture,' and

"Whereas this document also states that 'agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township,'

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

The second petition, which is signed by over 3,000 people, reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agriculture and residential land. Both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and

"Whereas the historical significance of our area is typified by Sharon Temple, its many patrons and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump on the water supply of this area would be catastrophic. The township of East Gwillimbury supplies water to the Newmarket and Aurora area,

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."

I have signed both petitions in support.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC;

"And

whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment;

"And

whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal educational tax systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 47 residents of the county of Middlesex, specifically people from Ilderton, Denfield, Lambeth and Lobo township. They request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report, because they believe it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings, it awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and will ultimately jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC;

"And

whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and

whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment;

"And

whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

GAMBLING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition regarding increased legalized gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas increased legalized gambling threatens to harm individuals and families and might well expand the presence of organized crime in our province;

"And

whereas the eventual costs to taxpayers to counter the resulting crime and social problems for individuals and families may well be higher than the anticipated revenue,

"We, the undersigned members and friends of DaySpring Presbyterian Church, London, Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to increase legalized gambling in our province, whether through casinos, electronic video machines or by any other means."

I've signed my name to this petition and enter it therefore to the Clerk and to yourself, Mr Speaker.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Enclosed herein is a petition with 45 signatures requesting the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass legislation giving to the people of Ontario a referendum on all constitutional changes.

The signers of this petition request you to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the prescribed rules of the Ontario Legislature.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the Constitution belongs to the people, not to governments. A referendum is the only means whereby the will of the people of Ontario can be determined, and is thanking me for my cooperation in presenting this petition, one signed by 45 people, another signed by 14 people. I'll enter that for your perusal.

Mr Speaker, I didn't read that correctly, if you don't mind.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the Constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final say by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

I've signed my name to both of these petitions.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition here from the pupils of Whitchurch Highlands public school in the region of York and in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. It reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"We're against plowing down houses and replacing them with garbage dumps, and so are all of these people."

Mr Speaker, it is signed by some 50 to 60 students and attached to the petition are a number of notes for the minister. I have signed that in support.

I have, as well, another petition signed by over 2,000 people, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land. Both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture,

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land with historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn into Metro and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew their efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill."

I have signed that in support.

I have a final petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by some 400 persons, which states,

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety, and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a 'willing host' community exists that is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have signed that in support as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition signed by some 683 citizens of the province of Ontario from Timmins, La Salle, Burlington, St Catharines, Willowdale, North York, North Bay, Prescott, Chatham, Dresden, Shakespeare and Sturgeon Falls. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

I have signed my name to these petitions and will put them in your hands for your perusal.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It's signed by a number of interested citizens and includes my own signature.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am not sure exactly how to state this, but I believe that my privileges as a member, and indeed the privileges of all members, have been affected by what took place in this House just a few minutes ago. What I'm referring to is that, following the very generous offer by the member for Victoria-Haliburton in full view of all members who are in this House, both the government House leader and the Minister of Energy, who is not here right now, chastised and upbraided the member for Victoria-Haliburton for making the suggestion that upon unanimous consent of the House the member for Carleton would be able to speak.

The reason I raise that on a point of privilege is it seems to me that the government House leader has thoroughly abused his power, has demonstrated in front of the members of the House who were here that he believes he controls the Speaker, whoever may be in that chair, and that he may do that in public and show to everyone here that he was upset with what happened.

I recognize that this is a difficult point of privilege because there is nothing in Hansard, but it was witnessed, I say to the government House leader, by everyone here. For those of us who are feeling terribly concerned at the abuse of power this government House leader has tried to decree by his new rules and by his actions in this House, I would ask, Mr Speaker, that you consider that and see whether my privileges and those of other members of this House have not in fact been abused by the open and public condemnation the government House leader showed to the Deputy Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for York North, I certainly appreciate his concern. I will say that the member for Victoria-Haliburton raised what he believed to be a point of order; indeed, I told him he was correct that at the time when -- whenever, if ever -- Bill 150 is called, it would be in order for any member of the House to ask for unanimous consent for a particular member to be heard; it's not an unusual practice, and I simply responded to him.

Those are the events as they unfolded. While I understand the concern which he raises, it is not a point of privilege, but I appreciate what the member has raised.

Reports by committees?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise a point of order with respect to the Minister of Health's response to proceedings in the standing committee on estimates.

The estimates committee met to review the estimates of the Ministry of Health and to hear the Minister of Health defend those estimates close to a month ago. It was difficult for members of the committee because the Minister of Health was herself absent a substantial portion of the time and the parliamentary assistant was unable to respond for her. In that instance, both the opposition parties stood down their questions so they could speak directly to the Minister of Health and place their questions directly to her.

As a consequence of that, however, the agreed-upon time for Health estimates was substantially decreased. As a consequence of that, written questions were prepared and the minister indicated that the responses to those questions would be available to members of the opposition and to the critics within an immediate period of time.

As I've indicated, those Health estimates concluded close to a month ago. We have not received one response to one of those written questions. The questions themselves were relatively simple and it should have been a fairly straightforward matter for ministry officials to have gathered the information that would be useful to members of the opposition as they proceeded with work in the House.

I am asking you to investigate that entire question. It's a matter of some importance to members of the opposition and to the public.

The Speaker: First of all, I know by the member's experience and activity in this chamber how interested she is in pursuing matters that pertain to the assembly, so I understand the frustration which she explains. She should know that whatever happens in a committee, it is up to the committee to deal with the problem or problems which are brought to the attention of the Chair of the committee. I would imagine that by having raised it here in the House, she has of course also managed to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Health, and presumably by that vehicle will get the kind of response she's looking for. But I appreciate the fact that she raised it here in the chamber.

Reports by committees? Introduction of bills? Orders of the day, the government House leader.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Just before we in the chamber get to orders of the day, I rise because I suspect that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is also the government House leader, anticipates calling government notice of motion 13. That presents you, sir, and this House with a very difficult proposition.

You just undertook to resolve the problem of the member for Carleton, who had the undertaking of the Speaker when last he spoke on Bill 50, to ensure somehow or other, or attempt to ensure somehow or other, that he would have an opportunity to complete his remarks in accordance with the undertaking of the Speaker at that time. However -- and this is the crux of the matter -- if the government House leader now stands in his place and calls government notice of motion 13, that will set in motion a process which will prohibit you from resolving the dilemma of the member for Carleton.

Let me just explain. You know the terms of government notice of motion 13. It provides that there be no further debate on Bill 150. It provides for one day of debate on the time allocation motion. If we enter into that debate and you allow the government House leader to call government notice of motion 13, that requires us, for the balance of this afternoon, to debate exclusively government notice of motion 13 and to vote on it at 5:45.

The results of that vote are obvious. The government has a majority, and that vote will carry. Then, under our standing orders, the next time the government calls Bill 150, rather than give the member for Carleton an opportunity to complete his remarks, the debate in this Legislature and the carrying of that motion will ensure that the member for Carleton does not have an opportunity to speak.

There are a number of other weaknesses that relate to government notice of motion 13, and those could be debated. I'm asking you now to consider the opinion of certain members of this House and not now, before you've heard the implications of what you do from a variety of members, to allow that motion to be called.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre has quite clearly identified the conundrum. The member raised a question, and I'm pleased to respond.

It is not possible to comply with the request of the member for Carleton to a matter which is not on the floor of the House. Once the matter to which he was speaking is called, the member for York Centre is correct, with the exception that with unanimous consent of the House any member could be allowed to continue.

It is, I guess, in the vernacular, a catch-22. But there is no way to deal with the request from the member for Carleton until the bill is called forward, and at this point the bill has not been called forward. The member is correct that if indeed -- I don't know what the government House leader is going to call, but if he calls the order you referred to, there may be a debate and of course a vote. We will find out.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion number 13:

That in accordance with new standing order 44a, when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate. If a recorded vote is requested on the motion for third reading, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Cooke calls government notice of motion 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No? Does the government House leader have any opening remarks?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: At this moment, with the calling of this motion which deals with Bill 150, which is the matter on which I was speaking last week, it leaves me in the unenviable position of not knowing what my rights are with regard to this particular matter.

As I indicated, when I not voluntarily yielded the floor but was cut off by the Speaker before 6 of the clock, I was promised another opportunity to speak on this matter.

With this motion being called at this time, what I'm being told effectively now is that Bill 150 will never be called again for third reading debate. Therefore, I would ask you to deal with my problem at this juncture.

The Speaker: I understand the difficulty, and I trust the member for Carleton will also realize that what has been called is government notice of motion 13 and not Bill 150. I fully understand the implications, but there is no way in which I could entertain a debate on something which is not on the floor of the House, as much as I may wish to be able to accommodate the member for Carleton's very legitimate request.

At this point, what's been called is notice of motion 13. I suspect there will be a debate for the balance of the afternoon on this particular motion. Following that, if the government calls forward Bill 150, then I understand the implications.

However, at this moment all I can determine to be of help to the member is the practice of unanimous consent. The member will know there is some time between now and tomorrow for me to attempt to explore other options, and all I can do is assure the member that if there is anything at all which I can do to fulfil the promise that was made by the chair occupant of the time, I will do it.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Government notice of motion 13 reads as follows: "That in accordance with new standing order 44a" -- for the people who are watching on television, those are the new rules that Bob Rae and David Cooke have brought to us -- "when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150," several things shall occur.

Can you tell me and advise me whether or not this motion is speaking in relation to Bill 150, the same bill on which the member just rose on a point of privilege, and can you tell me whether or not the subject matter of this government notice of motion is Bill 150? If in fact that is the case, is it then not clear that the topic for discussion today is really Bill 150 and, as a result, we know that if you allow this debate to go on you will be precluded from living up to your undertaking to the member for Carleton?

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce: The strict

interpretation --

Mr Elston: It's 150, right?

The Speaker: The strict

interpretation is that by the orders of the House we are debating the government notice of motion --

Mr Elston: About 150.

The Speaker: Which relates to Bill 150, but it is a motion to deal with time allocation and it is not, by the strictest sense of the words, dealing with third reading of Bill 150. The undertaking I have given the member for Carleton is that within the rules I will do my best to accommodate the member. I understand there was a commitment. I may or may not be able to assist the member, but I will make every effort to do so.

Debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is quite simply based upon the remarks of Acting Speaker Drainville, where he said: "There's no question about that at this point. I'd like to say that, first of all, to the member for Carleton." He says he will have the opportunity to speak; he says there's no question about that.

By carrying on with this motion, what is being called into question is a challenge to a ruling the Speaker made. The Speaker made a ruling, and the effect of this motion proceeding before debate is complete is that the government House leader is challenging an order that the Speaker made. I appreciate, sir, that you were not in the chair, but Mr Drainville, in effect, was your alter-ego; he was, in effect, the person who had control of the chair at that time. For you to turn around and not respect the order that the Speaker made and to permit the government House leader to challenge the order of the Speaker made on July 16 is totally and completely improper. With respect --

The Speaker: Would the member for Willowdale take his seat.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, I'm not finished. I think it's incumbent on you to hear the rest of it.

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Willowdale take his seat. I've tried to explain. Let me approach it from a different angle. The only time you can have debate on Bill 150 is when Bill 150 is called. I have said several times that I --

Mr Elston: Whatever the exigency of the circumstance is.

Mr Harnick: You don't understand what I'm saying.

Mr Elston: Some of the standing orders are to be interpreted literally and some are not, depending on what the situation warrants.

The Speaker: I have said very clearly to the member for Carleton that I will be pleased to take a look to see if there is some way in which we can fulfil the promise that was made. It would be totally improper to entertain debate on any bill which had not been called before the House, and that's where we're at at this stage. Bill 150 has not been called. What has been called is a time allocation or closure motion and the debate is on closure.

Mr Elston: On Bill 150.

The Speaker: The closure applies to Bill 150 but I do not have the latitude to allow the member to be engaged in a debate on Bill 150. Should the member for Carleton wish to participate in the debate on closure, perhaps his skilled ways as an orator will allow him the opportunity to make the points he wished to make earlier. There is nothing out of order --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I may be able to provide you with a solution to the dilemma and the conundrum that you find yourself in. Let's just review the circumstances of the problem that we're all confronting under this matter.

On the last day on which Bill 150 was being debated, the member for Carleton had the floor. Just before 6 of the clock there was a power interruption and we brought the House to an early conclusion and at that time the Speaker gave an undertaking from the chair that when Bill 150 was next called the member would have the floor in order to complete his remarks.

What intervened was a time allocation motion, the order that is about to be debated in this House, if you allow it to be debated, a time allocation motion that said in substance that when Bill 150 is next called there shall be no more debate and the matter shall be immediately put to a vote.

That time allocation motion was raised by me and a number of other people in the House yesterday and the Speaker reserved his ruling on whether or not the time allocation motion would be in order. I recall, sir, just parenthetically, that in the arguments I made I presented eight questions to you and two of them related to whether or not a time allocation motion could have the effect of interrupting a member in the middle of his speech.

I listened very carefully to the reasons you gave today in your response but you did not, with the greatest deal of respect, answer that question, whether or not a time allocation motion could have the effect of cutting a member off. Obviously, if someone were engaged in a speech outside on the lawn at Queen's Park and someone else came and arrested that person and said, "You'll have to stop speaking right now," the question of freedom of speech would be at issue. Apparently that's not the case here.

I think probably, sir, in considering your judgement and reviewing the matter you were not aware of the undertaking given from the Chair to the member for Carleton that he would have the floor. That's a ruling of the Chair and the ruling of the Chair has to be abided by and you would have constructive notice of the fact that ruling was already made.

I think perhaps the way in which we could get out of this terrible dilemma, where the ruling that the time allocation motion, government notice of motion 13, is valid is in direct conflict with the ruling made last Thursday, could be resolved in the following way: You could, sir, do one of two things.

You could ask for a 10-minute adjournment of the House in order to try to seek unanimous consent that government notice of motion 13 be amended so that it is deemed to read that when Bill 150 is called once again the member for Carleton is allowed to complete his remarks and thereafter the matter shall be put to a vote. If we could reach that agreement, then we could solve the problem of two conflicting rulings. I'm just trying to be helpful and provide possible solutions. As one member of this House, I would be agreeable both to that adjournment and to unanimous consent to amend the motion to read like that, so that the motion would always have read like that and we would forgo notice.

The second possibility is that you could, given the conflicting rulings, that is, the one to the member for Carleton and the other that this time allocation motion is valid, simply rule now to suspend consideration of this motion until you have had time to reflect on the implications of the conflict between the Speaker ruling one thing and then ruling another.

I prefer the first solution because I think a time allocation motion that at least allows a speaker who has the floor to complete his or her remarks technically comes within these draconian new standing orders the government House leader has imposed upon this House. I ask you to simply go beyond the normal course of business here and look for an immediate solution, including an amendment to the --

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, first, I very much appreciate his quite helpful and useful suggestion. The member will know that the Speaker does not have the opportunity to amend motions. However, the normal way in which this place functions in a successful manner is when the House leaders are able to reach agreement on matters, and this suggestion that the member for York Centre has indeed strikes me as being a very useful and helpful way for us to proceed.

Perhaps the three House leaders could reach an agreement to accommodate the very thing that the member for York Centre has raised, so that indeed if and when Bill 150 is called forward, the promise of the Chair can be fulfilled and the member for Carleton would have an opportunity to complete his remarks. To me that seems to be a useful suggestion, but it's out of my hands.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I stood a few moments ago on a point of order and unfortunately, for whatever reason, you didn't want to let me finish nor did you want to rule on my point of order. With respect, I didn't think that was quite proper and it affected my rights as a member. I wonder if I might complete the point of order I was making before you consider the suggestion made by the member for York Centre.

What I was saying, and I don't know if you understood the point that I was trying to make, was that if the Speaker on July 16 made an order and this particular motion that is now before the Legislature challenges the order that Speaker made, it would be improper to proceed with that motion at this time.

That is in effect what this motion does. Government motion number 13 challenges the order that Acting Speaker Drainville made on July 16. Because of that, if you proceed with the motion at this time, and the government House leader has called that motion, you are challenging the order of the Speaker. Therefore, I put it to you, Speaker, with the greatest respect, that this motion is out of order until the member for Carleton has the opportunity to complete his 90-minute speech.

Interjection.

Mr Harnick: May I finish?

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, is there something new to add? If the member has something new to add, please go ahead.

Mr Harnick: I really would like the opportunity to finish. I appreciate that you may not like what I'm saying or that what I'm saying may be difficult, and I say that with the greatest respect, but I do think that I am afforded the opportunity to complete my remarks before you twitch to the front of your chair.

The Speaker: I will offer the member for Willowdale an opportunity to succinctly place his comments now.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that you don't like that, but the fact is that the net effect of this motion is that it challenges the order of the Speaker, and you are the Speaker. If you are prepared to let the government House leader indirectly challenge an order that you in effect have made, then you have lost control of this chamber; you are not able to keep control of this chamber and permit government business to proceed according to the rules. I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent if you proceed and allow this motion that is clearly out of order, because it challenges your order. You're creating a very dangerous precedent.

Before you agree to perhaps adjourn this place for 10 minutes to see if the member for York Centre's suggestion could bear fruit, I think it is incumbent upon you to rule on whether this government motion 13 is in order. If you rule it is in order, I remind you that what you are in effect doing is belittling your own office as the elected Speaker of this House.

The Speaker: It's an interesting point that the member for Willowdale raises with respect to an undertaking by the Chair in a previous sitting. I must tell the member that the ruling made earlier today said that the closure motion was in order. Indeed, that's the point of the program that we're at, having recognized the government House leader.

I omitted to tell the member for York Centre that because it's a motion on the floor, it is amendable. The member for York Centre, or indeed his House leader or any other member of the assembly, may wish to propose the very motion which he has brought to my attention and which may indeed allow this House to steer a clear path through the waters.

Government House leader, continue.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The motion has already been called, so I'm being asked to speak on it. I'll be very brief, because I have to attend a meeting with representatives from --

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I recall about 30 seconds ago standing and putting something to you, asking a question very distinctly, a very different question than what was raised yesterday, and I don't recall having an answer with any reasons provided, as I think I'm entitled to as a member of this House.

I would request from the Speaker an answer to my question as to how this government motion is not challenging the order that Acting Speaker Drainville made. It's not a question that was put before you yesterday. I think it's a question that at least deserves an answer. You may not like the question, you may not want to rule in favour of it, but for the purposes of parliamentary precedent I think I deserve at least a somewhat reasoned response.

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, I regret he somehow missed my ruling. I indicated earlier that the government notice of motion 13 was in order. I recognized the difficulty the member for Carleton was placed in and the undertaking by the acting Chair of the time. I further indicated that the only way in which that particular point could be addressed was when Bill 150 was called. That, of course, presents a conundrum with respect to the essence of notice of motion 13; hence the very useful suggestion by the member for York Centre.

As the debate proceeds, that member, or indeed yourself or any other member, may wish to propose such a motion as a way to resolve some of the difficulties we now find ourselves in. But I had addressed your point and hopefully with the further explanation the understanding is now there.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr Harnick: Yes. Pursuant to your instructions, I move that we amend Mr Cooke's resolution to allow for --

The Speaker: Would the member for Willowdale take his seat. You do not yet have the floor. When you are recognized, indeed you may wish to propose such an amendment.

Hon Mr Cooke: Before I get started, I believe there's an agreement between the three parties that the remaining time be divided three ways and that questions and comments be suspended for the balance of the afternoon.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, on this motion, people have to be reminded that we're talking about a piece of legislation that is before the Legislature for third reading. Third reading in this place has traditionally --

Mr Elston: No, the Speaker said that is not what we are talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: We're talking about a time allocation motion dea