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

May 13, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Beer: One of Canada's most successful waste management programs is returning to York region and it promises to be bigger and better.

Building on the success of household hazardous waste days last October, York region will host similar events this May. Last year more than 3,500 vehicles came through the two depots. Thousands of gallons of hazardous waste, more than 1,200 car batteries and more than 500 propane cylinders were dropped off.

The first collection day took place this past Saturday at the Newmarket recreation complex and it was very successful.

On Saturday 25 May, collection depots will operate in both Richmond Hill and Georgina. These depots will be open from 9 am to 4 pm. In Richmond Hill, residents may drop off household hazardous waste at last year's collection site, the Richmond Green Sports Centre. In Georgina, materials will be accepted at the Sutton Arena on Cedar Street. Residents of York region may bring hazardous waste to any of the three sites at no charge.

Household hazardous wastes include cleaning agents, automotive fluids, pesticides, paints, medicines, solvents, batteries and a variety of other toxic, corrosive, flammable or irritating chemicals. Because of their impact on the environment, none of these materials should be disposed of in the garbage, poured down a drain or buried in the yard.

Details about the household hazardous waste program are being advertised throughout York region. Co-operating in these household hazardous waste days are the nine area municipalities in York region, as well as the Ministry of the Environment. Everyone involved is to be congratulated.

JURY DUTY

Mr Cousens: Nothing has changed with the new government's plans to choose juries a little bit better. A friend of mine whose mother was summoned for jury duty sent back a letter from the doctor, he sent the medications, and then they came back and said, "No, we want your mother for jury duty." His letter that went back to the Attorney General said:

She is another person who was almost being coerced into coming out to have attendance taken for jury duty. When you listen to that whole litany of problems that she has, it is no wonder that her son was concerned for her welfare and for the system's welfare that anyone should be asking her to sit on jury duty.

We have ended up seeing other situations arise where jurors are even questioning the Attorney General. He should do something about it. If we are going to have a selection of people from society, then let's think about who it is we are going to have. In the first summons for jury duty, a list is laid out. This woman did not pass that test and then has had to send this letter. Let's make sure that the Attorney General takes his job seriously.

ST CATHARINES FOLK ARTS FESTIVAL

Ms Haeck: I rise today to tell the people of the province about the two-week-long St Catharines Folk Arts Festival to begin this coming weekend.

The festival will include 45 different ethnic events spread over a 16-day period from 17 May through 2 June. Those events will be sponsored by more than 20 of the St Catharines ethnic organizations. Ethnic singing and dancing, ethnic foods -- you name it, the festival has got it. You can see why the festival slogan is, "See the world from your doorstep."

The events will kick off this Friday night, 17 May, with the Queen's Ball. The highlight of the second weekend will be the 25 May grand parade through the streets of downtown St Catharines. Each week night will have at least two events at various ethnic organizations around St Catharines. Each weekend will feature a variety of day-long festive events.

We urge Ontarians to come to St Catharines some time during the next two weeks. Drop by for an evening or, better yet, join us for an entire weekend. Not only can you enjoy the folk arts festival with us but you can also take in a play at the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, see the beauties of the fruit trees in bloom in rural Niagara or, on 18 May, celebrate with us the grand opening of the St Catharines museum. For a weekend with something for everyone, come to St Catharines.

I hope to see all the members at the folk arts festival.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Ramsay: I would like to bring to the attention of the House today a very wasteful procedure practised by this government, and in this case particularly by the Minister of Culture and Communications.

I, like all members of the House, am very grateful when we receive notification from the ministers about application grants or the granting of allocations to any of our constituents, and I am particularly grateful to the minister for doing this.

But in one day last week I received 26 individual notification letters, copies of which I am happy to receive, but 26 copies of them, each in their addressed envelopes. I think this is very wasteful. I appreciate the notification, but all I would need would be a listing of all the grants that my libraries received -- on a piece of paper would be fine -- and that could be mailed over in one envelope rather than on 26 pieces of paper and 26 envelopes.

I would ask the minister if he would practise one of the 3Rs that we all believe in, to reduce some of this waste. It would not only free up some of these resources but it would also maybe free up some of the time that his staff, I am sure, could use doing other, more useful things.

ROYAL WEEK

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to inform all members of the House that today marks the beginning of Royal Week 1991.

Royal Week is a time during which all Canadians celebrate Canada's heritage and life as a community under the crown. The varied programs and events which will be held throughout this week will serve to remind Canadians of the many benefits, political, social and cultural, that we share in and that constitute our heritage as a Commonwealth nation with the Queen as the head of state.

Royal Week festivities will end with the celebration of Victoria Day on 20 May, which commemorates Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time of Canadian Confederation, and the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, which is honoured on this day by the Dominion of Canada.

Many Ontario municipalities have also proclaimed the official observation of Royal Week in their communities this year, including Metropolitan Toronto, the cities of Toronto, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York, Burlington, Hamilton, Brantford, the borough of East York and the town of Dundas.

The message which these municipalities and the people of this province are sending to the Premier at the start of Royal Week is clear. Loyalty to and respect for the Queen is strong in Ontario. The Premier's modern Ontario in which the Queen plays a diminishing role or no role at all is in reality an NDP fiction with no basis in fact.

On behalf of these municipalities, I again call on the NDP to reinstate the Queen's name in the police oath of allegiance. During this year's Royal Week, the Premier would do well to recall the meaning and the significance of the motto on Ontario's provincial coat of arms: Loyal in the beginning, so remaining.

FUEL SPILL

Mr Waters: Early Friday morning, the Eastern Shell tanker ran aground outside Parry Sound, which caused a gasoline and diesel oil spill 1.6 kilometres long and 150 metres wide, containing 162,000 litres of fuel. Luckily, the Canadian Coast Guard was able to contain most of the spill. However, it has been reported in today's Toronto Star that diesel fuel has floated to the south and west sides of Franklin Island, contaminating what is mostly government-owned crown land.

Environmentalists have said that there is little environmental effect on the area and the fish and the bird populations. I am pleased to hear that today the Ministry of the Environment will be assessing this area for contaminants and environmental impact. The cleanup effort should be completed within a matter of days.

The situation is a source of great concern to me because of its potential environmental effects. The frequency of this type of environmental disaster must be addressed by all levels of government to ensure that precautions are taken to eliminate or minimize these types of spills and that measures are taken to help in the financial cleanup effort.

As reported in the Toronto Star Saturday, last year there had been a three-member panel on tanker safety which made recommendations to add a $2-per-tonne levy on all oil products transported through Canadian waters to improve safety measures and to help with the cleanup efforts of such disasters. This recommendation has not been implemented as yet.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr Curling: It appears that the Solicitor General is unconcerned with ensuring that his ministry complies with the requirements of the freedom of information and privacy legislation.

Five months ago, a request was made to the Solicitor General under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to information regarding the government's proposals regarding Sunday shopping. The request did not seek privileged cabinet information. It was a simple request for briefing notes and policy papers regarding the impact of the government's Sunday shopping proposals on the Ontario public.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the ministry has 30 days to comply with the request or provide written notice of its intention to extend the deadline for compliance. The compliance date for this request was 1 March 1991, yet to date we have not received the information requested -- more than two and a half months, and we have not heard anything.

The Solicitor General will undoubtedly be familiar with the sensitivity of freedom of information, given his involvement in the problems which emerged around the police and their

interpretation of the municipal freedom of information act earlier this year.

What happened to the commitment of the Premier and the NDP to open and accessible government?

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Carr: Police have been reporting a dangerous increase in the number of crimes involving firearms. During a recent seven-day period in Metropolitan Toronto, guns were prevalent in 30 crimes. The use of guns by criminals between 1986 and 1990 has increased by 149%. Just this past weekend, two OPP officers were shot as they attempted to apprehend a car thief. The members of Ontario's various police forces face these realities every day.

This week is Police Week. Police Week provides us with the opportunity to pay tribute to Ontario's law enforcement officers. Theirs is not an easy job, but a thankless job. Considering the above, it is important to demonstrate to members of our police forces that they have our unqualified support.

In order to learn more about our communities and to show support for our local police, members of the Progressive Conservative caucus will be visiting police stations and in many cases actually going out on police patrols.

The police forces of Ontario have implemented measures designed to ensure that the police and individual citizens work together in their pursuit of law and order in a manner that is effective, responsive and sensitive to the realities of our changing community.

The reality is that our police forces are among the most modern, effective law enforcement agencies in North America. Yet our police forces are under siege. The NDP, in order to cater to a few vocal minorities, has undermined the morale of the forces and brought their integrity into question.

Law and order must become a focal point of this government.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr O'Connor: On 7 June and 8 June, the South Lake Simcoe Naturalist Club will be holding a conference in an attempt to draw public attention to the deteriorating environmental quality of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The main focus of this conference will be how to change people's attitudes and actions within the watershed to ensure that the lake will be healthy for future generations.

The aim of the conference is to support prompt action by this province on the implementation of the Lake Simcoe environmental management strategy. The conference will also help to establish goals and firm timetables for action for the elimination of watershed erosion, runoff and phosphorous pollution within the lake.

To add a positive frame to tackling the enormous challenges faced in the conference, the South Lake Simcoe naturalists will be holding a festival throughout Environment Week from 2 June to 8 June. The festival will have such activities as hiking, biking, bird-watching, an art exhibit, tree planting and others.

The conference will take place in the town of Georgina at Lydia's Restaurant and Conference Centre at Lyndhurst Park in Baldwin, right on Highway 48, six miles south of Sutton.

Many important workshops have been scheduled covering such topics as fish and wildlife, water quality, environmental management and the environmental citizens' movement. I will be participating as a panellist giving the opening remarks and I invite all members of the House to join me at this important event.

In closing, although the event is an important part of Environment Week, we must all remember that Environment Week is every week.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to ask all member of the assembly to welcome this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Pompeo Tranquilli, the mayor of Pescina, Italy, and three of the city councillors from that city of Pescina.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Hon Mr Hampton: I am very pleased to be able to inform my colleagues in the House about a concentrated, province-wide, anti-drinking and driving campaign.

For the second year now, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving has designated this week as Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. The week starts today and runs until the end of the Victoria Day weekend on 20 May.

The Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, created in January 1990, is made up of volunteer representatives from some 40 different organizations throughout the province which are involved in activities to fight impaired driving.

Community action is an extremely important element in confronting the problem of drinking and driving and this council ensures that there is co-operative government and community action.

During the past fiscal year, the drinking/driving countermeasures office of the Ministry of the Attorney General provided over $200,000 in support funding for 26 prominent anti-impaired driving groups which are active throughout the year. I am particularly pleased to note that the number of high schools in the province participating in the Arrive Alive school-year program has again increased from 117 schools last year to 134 schools promoting this important message among their peers in the 1990-91 school year.

This summer, the Ministry of the Attorney general will provide funding, in 30 to 35 locations across the province, to hire two high school students per community for the months of July and August. These students will continue the work started this week and will promote public awareness during the dangerous summer months.

Community groups and the provincial government will not be the only ones active during the Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. A request has been sent out by the Premier to all municipal and regional councils to declare their support by proclaiming Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week in their communities. Last year approximately 100 municipalities declared their support and we expect the number to increase during this year's campaign. Corporate sponsors are also playing a role promoting Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week by delivering anti-drinking-and-driving messages.

Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week is really the highlight of a larger year-round effort to reduce impaired driving. I am happy to report to the Legislature that our determination appears to be paying off. Recent statistics from the 1988-89 Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook, produced by the countermeasures office of the Ministry of the Attorney General, show that in 1980 police reported 30,101 drivers as "had been drinking" or "impaired." In 1989 police reported 42% fewer drinking drivers, that is, 17,488 fewer.

Many members in the Legislature have worked to help realize this reduction. The figures are even more significant when we consider that there has been a 26% increase in the number of people licensed to drive in Ontario from 1980 to 1989, from 4.99 million to 6.29 million. One of the most reliable indicators of alcohol involvement in traffic crashes is the percentage of automobile driver fatalities with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit of 0.08. Of those drivers tested in 1980, almost 50% were over the legal limit. In 1989, only 30% were over the limit, the lowest figure reported since these data became available in Ontario.

Finally, I am pleased to inform the House about our new anti-drinking-and-driving media campaign. In conjunction with Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week, two powerful 30-second television advertisements will be released this week. These ads are combined with exterior transit vehicle ads and some selected print media.

This year's theme is the same message as last year's, "You can lose a lot more than your licence drinking and driving." Based on research, we are still targeting young male drivers, who have always been the worst offenders. This year, however, we are aiming one of the ads more particularly at the older 25- to 34-year-old male. Our research shows that 25- to 34-year-olds accounted for the largest percentage of drivers impaired by alcohol -- 38% in 1988 and 1989, followed by 16- to 24-year-olds at 26%.

Since the early 1980s, peers at school, community groups and the government have been sending a message to the young men in the 16- to 24-year-old age group and we can now see that this message has registered. They have reduced their involvement in alcohol-related crashes at a rate faster than any other age group, but research also shows that we must continue to reinforce and remind them of this message. This will ensure that their resolve not to drink and drive continues.

It is our intention to continue to remain active in all efforts to reduce the death and destruction caused by impaired drivers on our roadways.

RESPONSES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Sorbara: I guess the best thing that could be said about the announcement of the Attorney General today is that in making this announcement he has carried on in a tradition that was established by the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, in maintaining the Arrive Alive program and the Driver Sober Week. But it is interesting because the government -- the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the government in general -- has come under some criticism, I think unfounded, suggesting that they have actually been destabilizing police forces in Ontario.

I reject that criticism, but I want to say to the Attorney General, the Premier and the government generally that choosing to make an announcement today about the Arrive Alive program and the Drive Sober Week, and not making an announcement about the fact that this is also Police Week, sends a certain signal to police officers around the province.

The other interesting thing is that the Attorney General could have made announcements on a number of things today and he did not. What is surprising is what the Attorney General is not doing. The Attorney General should know that the rate of homicide in Metropolitan Toronto this year is up fully 100% and that gun control in Ontario is an absolute shambles. I tell him that his newly appointed police commissioner of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, Susan Eng, stated on the radio this morning that it is so easy to buy a gun in Metropolitan Toronto that the criminals do not even bother to try to smuggle them in.

The government has ordered an RCMP investigation into the activities of the Solicitor General and presumably of the Attorney General and his ministry as well, and we have not heard about that.

There has been public criticism of the jury system and there is no announcement about what the Attorney General is doing about that.

The courts themselves are still so backlogged that the Attorney General should realize that he is running out of time in the very time frame he established for himself to deal with court backlog. Indeed, it is a great irony that today he would be celebrating Drive Sober Week and the majority of the cases that are getting thrown out of court, because of court backlog, are charges of impaired driving. What the Attorney General should be doing when he stands up today is telling us how he is going to make sure that the charges being laid by policemen are actually getting to the courts and being prosecuted.

It is a sham to think that we would invest so much money in videos and community discussions to promote the eradication of drinking and driving when, at the same time, when our police officers are pressing charges those cases are going to court and they are getting thrown out of court.

There are a number of other things the government should have been announcing today, and we have yet another announcement about another week that we are going to be celebrating in the province. For example, the Minister of Labour is apparently undertaking some discussions to bring about dramatic changes to the Ontario labour relations goal. The Minister of Labour was quoted this weekend as saying, in effect, when he brings forward his policies all hell is going to be breaking loose. Why do we not have a statement by the Minister of Labour in this House today about what it is he is proposing?

It seems to me that the only news is that private sector business has walked out of those consultations and yet we get these announcements in the paper. We have no idea what is going on, and community by community business leaders are taking a pass where it comes to investment because they do not know what the Minister of Labour is doing.

We do not even have an announcement today by the Premier about how he is going to get this Legislature back at work. My friends to the left, the Tory party, have destabilized this Legislature for the past three weeks, I think it is, and yet we have no program from the government to get us back down to business, no indication about how it is going to make this Legislature work again today. It may well be that we are going to have yet another day of the reading of lakes all over the province from the leader of the third party. And what do we get from the government?

We get an announcement about the continuation of the Arrive Alive -- Drive Sober Week. We support this. What we do not support is the fact that the government has now had several months in this Legislature to get us out of the recession. What we have is really nothing at all.

Mr Harnick: I have had personal contact with people involved in motor vehicle accidents as a result of drinking and driving. I have seen families that have been devastated when someone is killed by a drinking driver. I have seen devastating personal injuries inflicted as a result of people drinking and driving. I have seen the aftermath of collisions involving drinking and driving at first hand. The aftermath of such an event is not a pleasant thing to see.

The problem we have is that we have had too many exercises in public relations and not enough action. John Bates, president of PRIDE and whose face is probably well known to every member in this Legislature, has spoken to virtually everyone here to urge them to implement certain programs to reduce impaired driving everywhere. Most of his requests have fallen on deaf ears.

I urge the government to stop concentrating on public relations and start concentrating on definitive programs of education, enforcement, charges and conviction. Unless that is done, these public relations announcements will not help anyone in this province.

Mr Runciman: In response to the same statement from the Attorney General on the Arrive Alive program, we in the Conservative Party are very supportive of the program. At the same time, we are somewhat concerned about the government's lack of action with respect to innocent accident victims in this province and its failure to act on the Liberal no-fault plan brought in last June.

We had very serious expressions of concern by that party's member for Welland-Thorold as a backbencher and later on as a minister of the crown, but we have seen no commitment on the part of the Premier and no caring in respect to the views he expressed last August about innocent accident victims in this province. If the Attorney General and the current government of Ontario are genuinely concerned about innocent accident victims, I think they are going to act very quickly and they are going to act to restore the right to sue.

In jurisdictions that have brought in no-fault insurance -- and the Treasurer is a very strong supporter of pure no-fault -- we can take a look at Quebec where an analysis was done. Under pure no-fault insurance, accidents tend to increase, especially fatal accidents. If indeed there is genuine concern, let's see this government act quickly. If they care about innocent accident victims, it is long overdue now to restore the right to sue.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Hon Miss Martel: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is very substantial in nature and very lengthy, therefore I would like to distribute copies of my remarks to you, to the members of the table, to the opposition leaders and to the House leaders for both opposition parties.

Mr Scott: Think of your father when you read this and how he'd react to it.

Hon Miss Martel: The same way I intend to.

Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of order which I trust you will consider. My point of order is that the constant use of repetitive motions for adjournment of debate and adjournment of the House should be ruled out of order as an abuse of process and we should get on with the business before the Legislature.

My remarks focus on two points: first, that what has transpired in the House over the last number of days is an abuse of process and of democracy; and second, that you as Speaker have an inherent authority and duty to prevent such abuses of process from bringing the work of the House to a standstill.

For the last six days the business of this House has been held up by repetitive motions for adjournment of debate and adjournment of the House. It is our view that the third party is not willing to halt its hijacking of the Legislature. These tactics are an attempt by the third party to accomplish the goal articulated by the leader on 6 May 1991 in this House when the member for Nipissing clearly stated to this House, "People know where I stand on the budget; I am not going to let it pass." This statement and the ensuing procedural tactics show a total disrespect for the democratic process.

The House leader for the third party will undoubtedly argue that his party is merely exercising its legitimate right as opposition to stall debate until the government agrees to send the budget out to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for public hearings.

Yet on 8 May 1991 when the Premier suggested that the budget bills would be debated in committee, the leader of the third party, as well as calling the Premier a dictator, replied that it would serve no purpose at all because the NDP has a majority on the committee.

The leader of the third party knows that any matter related to the budget can be raised in committee in the debate on budget bills. What he opposes is that the NDP has a majority on those committees and that at the end of the day will vote in favour of the government, a practice that has gone on for years in our parliamentary tradition.

Further to our concern with the Tory tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade, not only of House work but of all committee work, with no prior notice to the government. Before coming into the House to pose the question, the leader of the third party did not ask the Premier whether he would consider public hearings on the budget. Their House leader never asked me, nor did the Treasury critic ever approach the Treasurer.

The Conservative tactics have had nothing to do with bringing out alternative points of view on the budget, often the goal of delaying tactics by the opposition. In fact, in the budget debate the leader of the third party has the floor. But he refuses to exercise his right to debate and orders his party to repeat dilatory motions for adjournment of debate and of the House. His actions mean that there has been very little debate on the budget in this House despite public interest in the NDP's first budget.

Both the government members and the members of the official opposition have had their right to debate in the House taken away by the repetitive use of dilatory adjournment motions by the minority third party.

The present delaying tactics are unprecedented in that they are preventing debate on the government's budget. They also follow on the heels of attempts to block previous government legislation. For instance, the third party attempted a filibuster on our rent review moratorium legislation. A time allocation motion had to be moved to end this debate. The Tories appear determined to ensure that none of the government's programs will get through.

While the leader of the third party may dislike the results of 6 September 1990, the New Democrats did win a majority of seats. In our parliamentary democracy, that gives the New Democrats a right and a responsibility to govern.

The Tories have not only stopped debate on Ontario's budget; they are also preventing any government legislation from being passed including the wage protection fund, which will provide moneys to deserving workers, and Bill 17, support and custody orders enforcement, which will ensure that payments owing to single mothers are received.

Furthermore, the Tory tactics have meant that little committee work is taking place. The Tories will not even allow the select committee on Ontario in Confederation to meet at night to consider its work. This committee and others have had to turn away witnesses who have travelled great distances to come and speak. The Tories are preventing the public and the government from developing a consensus on Ontario's role in Confederation at a critical point in this country's history.

Mr Speaker, as you are well aware, the New Democratic Party has spent considerable time in opposition. The NDP is sensitive to the position of the opposition and is aware of the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. In order to carry out its function, the opposition must have the tools it can use to allow time for other voices to be heard on issues. However, this does not mean that these tactics can or should be used without limit. The government must also be assured that it can get its program through in a reasonable length of time.

As the Liberal interim leader said in the House on 7 May 1991, when he was disassociating himself from the Conservative call for public hearings on the budget,

"In government and in opposition, we have felt that the government of the day should be able to put forward its plans, have them debated and have them settled democratically."

Ultimately, we are all here to govern and to take care of the needs of the province. People did not elect any of us to ring the bells interminably, to waste time or to waste their tax dollars. Common sense tells us that the kinds of procedural tactics that have been used in the past weeks are not appropriate.

Procedure does not exist only to protect the rights of the minority. It exists to balance those rights with the rights of the majority to govern. Balance is the key, and balance and reasonableness are what has been missing in the past two weeks. Professor C. E. S. Franks has written in his book, The Parliament of Canada:

"The purpose of parliamentary procedure is not to ensure that every member can say as much as he wants on every topic, or that groups or individuals can prevent decisions which they do not support from being taken, but to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on the one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration and change, while on the other hand a minority cannot immobilize the whole system."

That a minority in the Ontario Legislature has immobilized the whole system is a statement of fact. That this immobilization of the Ontario Legislature by the third party is an abuse of process and an abuse of democracy is, in my submission to you, Mr Speaker, very clear for all of the reasons I have just outlined.

The question that remains is whether you as Speaker can and should take action to prevent this hijacking of the Legislature when the standing orders do not explicitly support or condemn the procedures being utilized by the third party. In my submission, Mr Speaker, you do have the authority to end this procedural impasse and you should use your authority to restore the integrity of the processes used in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, the repeated use of dilatory motions for adjournment of debate and the House is a very old tactic. Its use in fact brought about the first closure motion by a Speaker in the chair. The ruling by the Speaker on this occasion, on 2 February 1881 in the House of Commons in London, dealt with the same situation that you are faced with here. In this case the Speaker used his discretion to end what he considered an abuse of process. The ruling is so apt that I would like to read it you:

"The motion for leave to bring in the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill has now been under discussion for about five days. The present sitting, having commenced on Monday last, at four o'clock, has continued until this Wednesday, a period of 41 hours, the House having been occupied with discussions upon repeated dilatory motions for adjournment. However prolonged and tedious these discussions, the motions have been supported by small minorities, in opposition to the general sense of the House.

"A crisis has thus arisen which demands the prompt interposition of the Chair and of the House. The usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effective debate. An important measure recommended in Her Majesty's speech nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent, in the interests of the state, by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the action of an inconsiderable minority, the members of which have resorted to those modes of 'obstruction' which have been recognized by the House as a parliamentary offence.

"The dignity, the credit and the authority of this House are seriously threatened and it is necessary that they should be vindicated. Under the operation of the accustomed rules and methods of procedure, the legislative powers of the House are paralysed.

"A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded, and I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely upon its support, if I decline to call upon any more members to speak, and at once proceed to put the questions from the Chair. I feel assured that the House will be prepared to exercise all its powers in giving effect to these proceedings.

"Future measures for ensuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment of the House. But I may add that it will be necessary either for the House itself to assume more effectual control over its debates, or to entrust greater authority to the Chair."

Mr Speaker, the issue of the House assuming more effective control over its debates we will leave for another day. It is unfortunate that the rules that govern debate in the Ontario Legislature, the standing orders, can be manipulated to delay proceedings to the point of blocking all government business, as has been occurring over the last few weeks. The ability to deny the right of the majority to govern does not exist either in the federal or British parliaments.

However, today we are asking that you as the Speaker use your discretion to rule in the interests of the House and all its members.

On 14 April 1987, the Speaker in Canada's House of Commons spoke at length about a Speaker's discretionary power. He made reference to the above-mentioned ruling of 1881, which ended the paralysis of the British House, as part of the centuries-old tradition that supports the use of discretion by the Speaker. He succinctly summarized his position in this way:

"There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its members."

Today we are asking that you, as the Speaker of this House, use your discretion to rule in a way that will end the present impasse in this House in much the same manner as the Speaker of the British House did on 2 February 1881 and the Speaker of the Canadian House did on 14 April 1987. We are specifically asking you for two rulings that would bring the practice of the Ontario House more closely in line with practices of other Houses of Parliament. These are as follows:

First, we respectfully request your ruling that the mover of an unsuccessful dilatory motion to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House loses the floor for the remainder of the debate on the matter under discussion, as is the case in both the Canadian and British House of Commons.

Second, we respectfully request your ruling that you as Chair have an inherent discretionary authority to refuse to put the question on a dilatory motion where in your opinion such motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House.

Alternatively, should you find for any reason that the specific rulings we have requested are not appropriate, we would ask that you use your judgement in formulating a response to the present impasse in the Legislature that is duly respectful of both the rights of the majority to govern and the rights of the minority to oppose.

Mr Elston: While I recognize that we have been struggling for some time with the issue of getting on with the debate around the budget and the paper and there is a disagreement between my friend the member for Nipissing and my friend the member for York South which has really fallen into one of those childhood-like tantrums which has brought this place to a standstill, I think it is a little outrageous that the House leader for the government party today stands and places the burden of solving that particular childhood-like dispute on your shoulders.

I very much find it offensive that they are looking to you, as the elected and the seen-to-be-evenhanded administrator of all of the rules, to remind you of your responsibilities and the requirement that you have to maintain order in the House. If this is the type of activity the government House leader has in mind in trying to resolve what has become a very difficult situation for all of us, because we would prefer to get on with business, I would suggest that she should probably consult other authorities with respect to what can be done to resolve the impasse of the day.

It is not difficult to come to some sort of conclusion that would lead to successful discussions, even if it has to be face-to-face between the leader of the third party and the leader of Her Majesty's government. It cannot for me, Mr Speaker, be seen to be even and fair and just in the people's assembly to ask you to drop the closure on all those of us who have not yet had a chance to speak at all on some of the very important issues.

I remind you, Mr Speaker, that we spent some days wrestling with Bill 4, which was a very difficult bill to deal with in this House, and at the time the closure motion fell at the behest of the member for Windsor-Riverside, we in this party had been unable to effectively allow as many of our speakers to perform as is necessary.

While you, Mr Speaker, are being asked, again on your own notion, to prevent certain of the members of the third party from speaking too long or putting too many motions in front of you, I would assure you that it would be a matter of course that if you felt, or if it was felt by the government party, whose numbers speak for themselves, that we were taking too long in expressing our opinion, they would likewise weigh upon your courage and ask you to cut us off and prevent us from putting our piece as effectively as we should.

There is no question that the remarks of the House leader of the government party have been directed more specifically towards the third party -- I understand that the difficulty is between the government and the third party -- and in fact have even resorted to the highest authority and quoted our interim leader, the member for Brant-Haldimand, and effectively have seen the tradition of parliamentary government here rest with the Liberal Party at a very high level indeed.

One of the primary difficulties with this point of order, if you find it to be such, is that they are asking you, on your initiative, to become something less than impartial. In fact, you are asked to intervene on the side of the government to help force through its business on a day-by-day basis while the rest of us, whose duty it is to oppose, constructively or otherwise as the times may necessitate, are left as a minority without any authority on whom we can rely.

I find, Mr Speaker, when the lecture has been given to you and your Chair, and when they remind you of the weight of the office which you bear, that this is just a first step in a minority's very dismal future prospects at the hands of a very pushy and arrogant majority. This is but a first step in ensuring that Her Majesty's loyal opposition will not be able to effectively put pressure on Her Majesty's government because we have a different point of view. Are there substantial differences of point of view? Mr Speaker, I will advise you that there are indeed substantial points of view, differences between and among the parties.

We believe in an economic system that has done well by all of us, and there are substantial steps being taken by the government to impose a new order which throws away the economic vitality that has been Ontario up to this present time. There will be an extended debate required to talk about that. But with this sort of instruction falling on your shoulders, given by the majority House leader, it will be a very precarious position you will find yourself in if you allow the debate to go too long.

They elected you, Mr Speaker; they may determine to unelect you. I do not think this sort of instruction from the House leader of Her Majesty's government party is therefore sufficient to cause you to even consider it as a real point of order. It may in fact be a point of view. They may in fact be looking to the Chair to bail them out of the difficulties which an assertive and very proud government party wishes to avoid: some kind of compromise with the meagre remnants of the Conservative Party now in third position in this House.

But the rules of this House prescribe that there shall be ample time for the voice of the smallest minority elected here in this Legislative Assembly to be heard on the floor. Yes, indeed, if the member who is an independent at this point stands in his place to speak, he ought to be able to speak. It is your duty during the debate on bills and during debate on other matters to recognize that member if he stands, although he represents but one of 130.

It seems to me, therefore, that you should throw out this material, but if you should decide this is a valid point of order that you wish to consider, could you please allow those of us in Her Majesty's official, loyal opposition to submit written reasons and remarks about why we think that you should not make a positive decision on the request by the government House leader.

It is fairly clear that this material was well researched. Although the heat of a very beautiful May weekend perhaps pushed them quickly through some of their authorities, because we find them relatively weak, I think it is none the less imperative that you allow Her Majesty's official opposition to reply effectively to this written material.

We could have received notice of this. We could have been able to respond much better. I, being very short of words and unable to respond fully to all the material here, would wish to respond much more fully to protect the rights and the privileges of the members who are represented here in the Legislative Assembly under the Liberal Party banner. I would even speak to assist my friends here to my left, philosophically to my far right, but they likewise can speak for themselves. But I do wish to point out the danger this entails for the Speaker, who is needed here in the people's assembly.

It is but a first step. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that this will be the first shot and then we will see several motions which will prevent us from fully examining the legislation which is about to be brought before this House. They will tell us how long we can speak and how many of us can speak, and they will be asking you and the Chair and those people who are assisting you in the Chair to shut us up. Mr Speaker, that is not proper.

That party has a history even longer than ours of doing funny things to the procedures of this House in holding up the business of the day. At one time, the member for Nickel Belt prevented the reading of the budget. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold is known for his long, long speech in the Legislative Assembly wherein he read nothing but telephone numbers and messages being called in to him so he could keep on his feet. But not once did we stand and say to the Speaker during our trials, "Mr Speaker, it is your duty to take us out of this." We acted with resolve.

We had to take the action as the government party, and we took that as a responsible party and said, "The business must proceed."

If there were no other way out of this dilemma, perhaps, by stretching the imagination, it could be said that the Speaker owes a duty to the people of the province to take them out of it. Well, there is a way out of this dilemma. The member for York South and the member for Nipissing could come together and they could resolve to allow this matter to go out even briefly, or even to craft a press release -- because I know the government has legions of craftspeople who are able to make nice press releases -- which would make them both look good and they could send it out to their party faithful and whomever they want.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think they can do that.

Mr Christopherson: Didn't work for you.

Mr Elston: Listen, we won a great battle. But whatever it is, I will in fact even help them put it together if they would just get their heads together. Why in the world, when they cannot be bothered talking to each other face to face, would they visit this on your shoulders and ask you to lose the station and the position of Chair? Because when you make the first move, I suggest it will be then taken a second step and a third step as the leader of the government party stands in her place and provides you with marching orders in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Cousens: This is the most serious moment of the 35th Parliament. There is no doubt that there is no more serious a moment than this, when a majority is about to try to take away the rights of the minority in a Parliament. In this, the 35th Parliament, I see this as a major opportunity by the government to bring its power into focus, using the Chair against the opposition to achieve the government's ends.

There is nothing light about this presentation that has been made by the government House leader. It is in breach of the basic rules that have been agreed to by all parties in the development of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly.

Our party has expressed, as the government has rightly said, extreme outrage at the budget that has been tabled by the Treasurer and Minister of Economics for the province of Ontario. We have no desire to break any rules that are established by the Legislature. The rules of the Legislature are of long standing, they have been agreed to by all parties, and they make it very clear what we can do. I believe that up to this point the Chair and the deputies who have been in the Chair have recognized that we on this side of the House are taking very seriously our responsibility.

There is no doubt, if you look at what the conduct of business is as defined here, that it is exactly what we have been doing.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you look at the statement that has been presented by the government House leader, the government House leader is trying to make a case when there is no case. The case is the fact that we are living within the rules of this House, which are well agreed to, and the government is about to try to force upon the House another set of rules that have not been considered before.

It would be absolutely hilarious if it were not necessarily so sad, the fact that the government, when it was in opposition, used every device and technique possible to try to draw attention to the issues and in so doing was able to articulate a concern that otherwise it felt could not be expressed.

In our position as the Progressive Conservative caucus in Ontario, under the leadership of the member for Nipissing, we have decided that there is a major need for public hearings on this budget. There needs to be the openness that was declared by the Premier and his government when they took power. We are not seeing that consultation now. We want to make sure that the public has a chance to consider the ramifications of this budget. It is beginning to be felt.

The whole process of this House is one in which the government decides the agenda. The agenda is such that there will be a budget and six days for a debate. Then following that we get on to the rest of the agenda of the government. When in fact there are other bills that come out of that budget, this House does not normally start to debate them until December, at which time the public at large is thinking of Christmas and other things. They have already started to pay the new billion dollars in taxes. So at that time it is a non-issue by virtue of the public. They have grown to accept the recommendations of the budget.

The government is able to use its majority and the time allocation that we have in December because everyone is ready to leave this place. So the debate on the budget virtually ends after the six days that are allocated to it in this House.

The fact of the matter is that it is far too important an issue for us to think that we can deal with the budget just in a few hours in this House. There needs to be the opportunity for our caucus to express that concern in a reasonable way and within the guidelines that are defined by the standing orders of this House.

The fact is that this government House leader has come forward today without giving any notice of what she is doing. I think that our leader gave very immediate notice of his unhappiness with the smiling budget that the Premier and the Treasurer presented. To them it was a laughing affair. To us it is something to lament and to cry about, because indeed there is something happening in this province, and if we do not stand up to it, the Liberals will not stand up to it and neither will they.

Who else can stand up for the rights of the people of Ontario? We are standing up right now. The government is not standing up for anything. They are standing up there and shoving it right down the throats of the people of Ontario. If we as Conservatives who believe in a social conscience and a strong economy do not make that statement, if we do not stand up, who can stand up for what we believe in? The government will not do it; the Liberals will not do it.

Mr Speaker, I apologize for the emotion that comes from my heart, because I did not have all weekend to prepare one of the longest points of order that we have ever seen in this House. I have not had the time to go back and dig into the history of the British House of Commons, into 2 February 1881, well over 110 years ago. If you talk about digging, that is what the government has had to do in this case, and what it has dug out is something that is not related to this House.

If we are going to deal with the history of this Legislature, we have reached a point where we have together developed standing orders that have a history of their own for this Legislature. You as Speaker have been selected by this House to interpret those orders. We on our side of the House beg of you an indulgence that is the test of your seat as the Speaker in this House, that should you in your position give credence to the points that have been presented by the New Democratic House leader, you will indeed be moving towards a decision that takes away -- and this is the fundamental point.

Mr Drainville: Unprincipled.

Mr Cousens: You cannot stand to hear it, can you? You cannot stand to let someone else speak. People are elected in this province to make a presentation and you --

Mr Drainville: Unprincipled.

Mr Cousens: I think it is absolutely intolerable that a person is elected to represent a riding in the province of Ontario, wants to make some points on what I believe is one of the most important issues in this House, in the 35th Parliament, and the rump of the New Democratic Party will not allow me to continue. Are the socialists not about to let me --

The Speaker: First of all, it is most helpful for the Speaker if indeed he is able to receive advice from different members. It would probably assist the member for Markham if he would direct his remarks to the Chair and if others on the government side would do him the courtesy to allow him to present his remarks.

Mr Cousens: It was the warmest weekend, but it is the coldest day for democracy that I have seen in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Cooke: Boy, with one-liners like that, you are going to go a long way.

Mr Cousens: I think you are just showing abuse of the House, not only with the House leader's point of order but with the interruptions you are making when I am trying to address this concern. I would say it is arrogance, and the New Democratic Party will stand judged for trying to take away the democratic right of the people who are duly elected in Ontario.

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham address his remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, as you review the recommendation made by the government House leader I trust you will also look back into the history of this House when in fact it was the New Democratic Party at that time, when it was in opposition, that was trying to make its own statement and refused to allow the government the right to read the budget.

When it talks about things that were not precedented, it is in my mind a hypocritical type of act for a government that wanted to have public hearings in 1982 when the present Premier was then leader of the third party. He was calling for public hearings on the budget at that time. Now when someone else is in a similar position and is asking for a similar kind of hearing, we are being stonewalled by the government for such a simple approach to openness and public discussion.

The fact of the matter is that in 1990 the New Democratic Party refused the right of the government to read the budget. Now we are seeing a government that is going into the largest deficit ever in the history of Ontario. Are we in opposition are to allow it to slip by? That will not be the case.

By using the standing orders of this House, we are anxious to make sure that this government understands our request and our desire. There is no doubt that the New Democratic Party has not had the mandate for this kind of action. Three people in eight have given them that power, yet now the people of Ontario may as well just go and put a bushel over their heads because for the next four years the government is going to do everything it can to stifle the opposition, refuse the opportunity for us to deal with it and then just go and do what it wants willy-nilly.

I have to say, Mr Speaker, in reviewing this pointless point of order, that if you decide in favour of the government on this issue, you will be casting a very heavy stone against democracy and against our opportunity to present fair and honest and open debate on something that is fundamentally important to the long-term benefit of Ontario. I beseech you not to make a speedy decision. In fact, I beseech you to consider very seriously the rights of opposition in your consideration of this very important matter.

Mr Sorbara: On the same point of order raised by the government House leader, Mr Speaker: I anticipate that in conjunction with the request of our House leader, you are going to be deferring your decision on these very extraordinary requests that are being made by the government House leader and that you are going to be providing some time for opposition members to be heard on these motions and at the same time allow for written submissions, certainly from our party and, I presume, from the third party as well.

If it turns out that you are prepared to reject this point of order entirely at this point, then obviously there would be no need for my comments, and if I see you rising and about to do that, I certainly will yield the floor to your judgement if you are about to make a ruling of that sort.

In the absence of that, I do have some comments to make about the substance of the requests made by the government House leader and the authority upon which the government House leader is basing these points of order.

Might I begin by pointing to the first paragraph of the statement by my friend the government House leader, where she suggests that you should take the rather unusual step of ruling "out of order as an abuse of process" the various tactics undertaken by the third party and that we should, under those circumstances, get on with the business of the House. If I might just quote the government House leaders, she has said:

"First, that what has transpired in the House over the last number of days is an abuse of process and an abuse of democracy; and second, that you as Speaker have an inherent authority and duty to prevent such abuses of process from bringing the work of the House to a standstill."

First of all, I do not think it is necessary for me to remind you, but I will remind you, that these very rules require you as Speaker to govern your governance of this House based on these rules. You would know the rules very well, but if any other member checked the rules no member would find in the rules, an inherent authority on your part to intervene in the debate and the dilemma that presently grips this House. So my first submission to you is that the idea of asking you to intervene based on some sort of inherent authority not founded in the rules is in itself an abusive suggestion made to this House.

Second, the government House leader has, I think, the audacity to suggest that there is in what has been going on here over the past few days an abuse of democracy. To me democracy is rooted in my right to stand up in this House as the representative of some 200,000 constituents in my riding and express my opinion freely. If my opinion happens to be the opinion of the member for Nipissing, that the House should now adjourn, I can express that opinion and this House can express its opinion by way of a vote. That is not my view.

My view is that this House should get on with its work, but certainly it should not get on with its work by the intervention of the sort that is being proposed today by the government House leader.

Before I take us and the members of the House to a substantive analysis of the three requests being made, I think it only appropriate to review some of the history of the very party that is now asking for an intervention of the sort that is unprecedented, at least in my time in this House, and based on most substantive authorities, in this House in the history of our province.

Let's look at what the New Democratic Party did in opposition. Mr Speaker, at that time, during certain of those debates, you were a member, but you were defeated in 1987 and so you were not here for some of the most outrageous tactics that this House has ever seen. We were involved in a very difficult debate in this House over the question of what rules should apply to Sunday shopping in the province of Ontario. The member for York South, now the Premier of Ontario, said that he would oppose this motion with every legitimate means. I want to remind you what those legitimate means were.

Not just for six days, but for days and days and days in this House we were unable even to get to the orders of the day because those members chose to stand up and for some four hours every day in this House read petitions. Those petitions could have been read in a matter of five minutes. They could have been collected together and they could have made the point that some 10,000 people had petitioned. But did they do that? No. What they did was divide them one by one, for hours and hours and hours each day.

There were countless interventions by the Speaker to the effect that it was unnecessary for the individual members to read the whole body of the petition. Nevertheless, notwithstanding those interventions by a very competent Speaker requesting that the members of the New Democratic Party not read the body of the petition, they went on and did that for days and days.

Why did they do that? Because they thought that by doing that they could somehow prevent the government from considering the legislation. The legislation was considered. It was finally debated after all of those tactics, far worse than the tactics we see now from the member for Nipissing, yet we went on and on to listen to those petitions.

What happened with those bills, Bill 113 and Bill 114? They were considered by the House. The government of the day, our government, had a majority and the bills were passed over the objections and the votes of the now government party. Those bills were reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Ontario Court of Appeal and were found a few months ago to be constitutional in their nature.

The very government that read petitions day after day to block their inclusion, the very minister, the Solicitor General, who is now under investigation, stood up in this House and celebrated the fact that those bills were held to be constitutional. That is the kind of hypocrisy that characterizes the notice that is being presented by the government House leader today.

In 1988 I presented a bill in this House, Bill 162, dealing with the reform to the workers' compensation system. Once again the member for York South stood up in this House and all around the province and promised that he would intervene and block the passage of Bill 162 with every legitimate means at his disposal.

What did we see in that debate? Not two or three or six days of tactics, but tactics that brought this House into the unusual circumstance of sitting right through the month of July, based on a campaign led by the very person, the member for Sudbury East, who is now the government House leader. She was the champion of that endeavour. Now what do we see? We see her standing up and asking you, sir, to take steps that have never before been taken by any Speaker in the history of this Legislature. They now ask you to intervene to allow them an easier time in passing their legislation, notwithstanding the fact that when they speak in public places, they champion principles of democracy.

I do not need to go over the details involving the blocking of the reading of the budget by the member for Brant-Haldimand a couple of years ago in this House, but talk about arbitrary activities. What the member for Nipissing is asking for is rather simple, and I believe it could be negotiated if the Premier would just pick up the phone and call the member for Nipissing and try to negotiate a settlement of this business. Two egos the size of this very room are having a dispute, so what do we have? We have the government House leader intervening on behalf of the Premier so she can get on and present a legislative package to the province of Ontario.

I say to the government House leader, I say to the Premier, they should pick up the phone. Politics is the art of the possible. Politics is about negotiation. She said in her statement in the Legislature that this intervention was taken up without any notice, without any advance call to the government House leader. She makes that part of her statement.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to wonder collectively with the rest of us whether the member for York South, the Premier of this province, has bothered to pick up the phone and call the leader of Her Majesty's third party, the member for Nipissing, and say to him: "Would you come to my office, Mike? Can we talk about this? I don't want to send the budget to a committee, but can we discuss it?"

Let the press ask the Premier whether he has done that, whether he has tried to negotiate. He is the great champion of negotiation. He talks about a new partnership in the province of Ontario. Has he done that? Has the government House leader picked up the phone and said, "Can we negotiate our way out of this?" I believe it has not happened.

Now, Mr Speaker, let's get to the substantive parts of the point of order that my friend the member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Northern Development and the government House leader has made in her submissions to you. These requests are contained in the last three pages of the written document that has been distributed to us.

"First," she says, "we respectfully request your ruling that the mover of an unsuccessful dilatory motion to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House loses the floor for the remainder of the debate on the matter under discussion as is the case in both the Canadian and British House of Commons."

Hon Miss Martel: Right, right, so that means they can't continue to hijack.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I hear the government House leader interjecting saying, "Right, right, right." Well, I say to her and say to you, wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason you can do that in the House of Commons and the British House of Commons is that it is in the rules. That is why the Speaker can stand up and do that. It is not in our rules. These are the rules that govern how we proceed here.

If my friend the government House leader wants to change the rules, she has the majority. We changed the rules. We eliminated the ability to read petitions. We said you can only do that for 15 minutes, and it was a violent debate when we debated the rule changes. The Premier was involved in that debate and he condemned us for modernizing the rules of this Parliament.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that this is not the substance of a point of order. If the government House leader wants that rule, let her introduce it and we will debate it, but let her not stand up in this House and suggest to you that you have some superauthority.

"Second," she says, "we respectfully request your ruling that you, as Chair, have an inherent discretionary authority to refuse to put the question on a dilatory motion where in your opinion such motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House."

Again, if you look at the index, if you read the rules, there is nothing about a Speaker's inherent authority. There is nothing that suggests in these rules that somehow you can overcome the dilemma of a few days' delay in this House. You have no inherent authority to do such a thing, Mr Speaker.

Hon Miss Martel: Well, you don't know the rules.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the government House leader continues to interject and says I do not know the rules. I just want to say to her that if I do not know the rules, then her suggestion that somehow her requests are valid really strain credibility.

But before we get to the third request, which I believe to be the most outrageous, let's examine for a minute what awaits us in this abuse of democracy, as the government House leader has suggested. Let's look at the bills that are awaiting our consideration.

The first is a wage protection package that the Premier would like debated in this House. I would like it debated too. I think it is a very interesting bill, but if you pick up the bill and read it --

Mr Bisson: What about SCOE?

Mr Sorbara: We will get to support and custody orders enforcement in a second.

If you examine that bill, you will find that the bill is retroactive. The Premier himself said he intends to make sure that every worker is the beneficiary of the bill back to the day when he and the government were sworn in, so the fact that we cannot debate it today because the member for Nipissing is using these rather ridiculous tactics is neither here nor there.

It is like a budget bill. The taxes are being collected, the charges are being made, and the fact that we have not had an opportunity because the member for Nipissing, as leader of the third party, chooses to use tactics is neither here nor there. We are not abusing democracy. This notice to us that the House shall now operate at the command of the government House leader is the true abuse of democracy.

Then, let us get to the support and custody order enforcement bill, Bill 17. We are anxious to get to that bill in this House. The government is anxious and we are anxious. I am not sure what the view of the third party is. But I want to say that once again Bill 17 is a bill that is not urgent in the sense that anything turns with the general public on whether or not it gets passed today or tomorrow. The government has already said publicly that it does not actually plan to enforce the bill, make it part of the law of the land, for several months.

In fact, in committee I was told that it would not be until 1 January of next year. So if we do not debate it today or if we do not debate it tomorrow or if we do not debate it until next September, nothing turns on it. There is no abuse. There is no citizen who is denied a right or an opportunity. There is no individual who is going to be denied a payment under the program because we have not been able to get to that bill today.

Finally, let us turn to the final request, and I believe the most outrageous request, of the government House leader. She says:

"Mr Speaker, should you find for any reason that the specific rulings we have requested are not appropriate, we would ask that you use your judgement in formulating a response to the present impasse in the Legislature that is duly respectful of both the right of the majority to govern" -- that is really what they are interested in -- "and the right of the minority to oppose."

Mr Speaker, that request I think should be taken by you as, if not an insult to your responsibilities, then the most outrageous request that could be made by a government to an impartial Speaker, because when you look at it, it says, "We're having trouble. We don't know if the requests that we've made under our point of order are legal and legitimate. We have no real authority," except some case in 1881 in the British House of Commons, when they still had poorhouses and they were hanging people. That is the authority they turn to.

She says: "We don't even have sufficient confidence in the requests that we have made to believe that you'll pass them, so" -- she says to you, Mr Speaker -- "would you help us out of this dilemma? Would you figure out something? Would you speak to the Clerk, would you speak to the table officers? Would you call other parliaments? Would you consult with other speakers? Help us out of this dilemma."

There is really no dilemma, but that is outrageous and an insult to your impartiality, that somehow you should take it upon yourself to go beyond the rules that we have, that you have been enforcing with great dignity during this difficult time, that you should set the rules aside, that you should undertake independent research, that you should ignore the traditions that have been established through 125 years of speakers in this House and go out and find them a solution.

I guess there was a time in this House when speakers did sort of bow to the government's needs. There are stories about some activities between speakers and clerks and governments and premiers that really shocked those of us who respect the modern traditions of democracy. But surely one of the great things that we did during the last Parliament was to change the rules that govern us in this House so that we could, for the first time, elect a Speaker to regulate the affairs in this House and do so under these orders.

It was only a few short months ago that you were elected and you agreed to stand for election and you were voted the confidence of this House. When you took the chair, you took on very significant responsibilities.

This place is the heart of democracy. This is the place that 10 million people turn to in the province of Ontario to assure themselves that their rights and freedoms as individual citizens are guaranteed. The fact that an arbitrary and capricious government would say to you, notwithstanding your independence and the fact that you rule in this House in a non-partisan, independent way, that you should take it upon yourself to formulate a response to its problems is, I think, the most outrageous request and submission that I have ever heard made to the way in which we practise democracy in this great Legislature.

I ask you, not on behalf of our party and not on behalf of this Parliament even, but on behalf of the greatest traditions of our democracy and our Parliament in its 125 years, to reject this request; to listen to our submissions carefully and await our written submissions, but to reject this request and not allow this government to intervene in the ongoing development of this Parliament and its issues in a way that is contrary to the standing orders that all of us agree to abide by when we sign the oath that makes us members of this Parliament.

The Speaker: To the government House leader with respect to an alleged point of order: Because it was lengthy, I appreciate receiving it in writing. I take it as a serious matter and I will be most pleased to spend some time considering it. I very much appreciate the contributions by the member for Bruce, the member for Markham and the member for York Centre. As was mentioned, I certainly would be delighted to receive written submissions from any member of the assembly. I would appreciate receiving those submissions at your earliest convenience and certainly, if at all possible, within the next day or two.

I also appreciate the sensitivity that is shown to the responsibility and role that the Speaker has to play. No one told me the job would be easy. I am not anticipating that it will be, but I appreciate your advice. I will take this under advisement. If members have other submissions, by all means please try to get them to me as quickly as possible and I will rule on the alleged point of order.

Mr Harris: I have a few preliminary comments I would like to make today, Mr Speaker, on two matters that I believe have been raised by this point of order and that you must decide on.

The first is: Is it a point of order? I suggest to you that it is not a point of order. Any time any member of this Legislature, let alone the House leader for any party, the House leader for the governing party or the House leader for a majority governing party, comes to you as my Speaker, as Speaker of all of us, and directs you as to how you should rule, I take that as an affront. I take it as an affront to my rights as an individual member. I take it as an affront to the rights of the opposition. Surely, were I a backbench member of this government, I would take it as an affront as well.

For that reason alone, Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that this point of order is not worth considering as a point of order and should be filed in file 13 as an affront to parliamentary democracy, as an affront to the impartiality of the Speaker. That is what I take from the first two requests that have been made by the government House leader today.

I find the third request just as offensive. The third request asks you to try and come up with some other tactic, I suppose. You should spend your time as the impartial Speaker of all of us, as the first elected Speaker under our new standing orders, where we accept you unanimously as our choice, accept your rulings and give up the right to challenge your rulings. It is an important change that we made in the standing orders and, Mr Speaker, it is one that you know I am very supportive of. I really find those three requests offensive. They should be thrown out as a point of order.

Second, I would like to make a few preliminary comments while we have time to analyse this document, but I would like to make a few preliminary comments on the point of order, or alleged point of order, itself.

Mr Elston: It's a point of view.

Mr Harris: I agree with the House leader for the Liberal Party that it is a point of view, and until such time as it is ruled otherwise, I do have a few things to say about it.

When it comes to taking away the rights of members, I would like to quote from Erskine May, 21st edition, page 125, "Obstructing Members of Either House in the Discharge of Their Duty." It says, "The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings." Those proceedings are introduction of bills and the right to petition Parliament.

If there has been any abuse in taking away the members' rights, it has been by the government House leader and supported, I presume, by the Premier in saying: "We will take away the rights of opposition parties to introduce bills. We will take away the rights of citizens of this province to petition the Legislature. We will bypass that in the orders of the day and we will proceed directly to whatever it is we want to do."

Second, in this same copy of Erskine May, page 132, "Protection of Petitioners and Others":

"Petitioners and other persons soliciting business before either House or its committees, eg, counsel, agents and solicitors, are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament, and obstruction of, or interference with such persons in the exercise of their rights or the discharge of their duties, or conduct calculated to deter them or other persons from preferring or prosecuting petitions or bills or from discharging their duties may be treated as a breach of privilege."

If ever there has been a breach of privilege, again under the protection of petitioners, it has been by this government House leader in taking away the rights of the people to be heard by way of petitions in this chamber for some four days now.

There were a few things in the statement that was read today I would like to comment on as well in a preliminary way. The first is on page 2:

"Further to our concern with the Tory tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade, not only of House work but all committee work, with no prior notice to the government. Before coming into the House to pose the question, the leader of the third party did not ask the Premier whether he would consider public hearings on the budget. Their House leader never asked me, nor did their Treasury critic ever approach the Treasurer."

Mr Speaker, you will find that I raised this matter in the House on 1 May. I asked the question about sending the budget to the committee on Wednesday 1 May. I do not think there is a person in this House, including the Premier, the House leader or any observers of the Legislature, who has not been very clear on what concern I was raising: that of taking away the right of the people to be heard.

Second, in the next paragraph, the House leader for the New Democratic Party says: "The Conservative tactics have had nothing to do with bringing out alternative points of view on the budget." My tactics have everything to do with bringing out alternative viewpoints on the budget, including that of Bob White and 9.5 million Ontarians. What I have stood up for is the principle of the right of the public to be heard, to bring forward alternative views. I believe that has been very clear, and that statement by the House leader for the New Democratic Party is absolutely 100% false.

The third point, on the same page 2, the next paragraph: "The present delaying tactics are unprecedented in that they are preventing debate on the government's budget." The present delaying tactics are not at all unprecedented.

In fact, if I can quote from the former NDP House leader when dealing with a specific piece of legislation that his party was determined to stop, was determined would never pass -- not just allowing the public to be heard -- at that point, the former House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, said, "If the member thinks five days is a filibuster, than he has got something to learn about the proper procedures and the role of the opposition parties in dealing with controversial items like this."

Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that this budget, which is not only 180 degrees in the wrong direction, but in a different direction than the public was led to believe the Premier would come forward with, is surely controversial. It is controversial enough that now Bob White has changed his mind on this budget, and obviously this motion today has more to do with the plummeting polls than it does with the concern about how this House operates.

On page 3, the House leader makes mention of this fact: "As the Liberal interim leader said in the House on 7 May 1991, when he was dissociating himself from the Conservative call for public hearings on the budget...." There is no doubt that the Liberal Party wants to dissociate itself from my opposition to this budget. This deficit is as much their fault as it is the NDP's fault. So do not bring in the Liberal concern. They are as much big spenders as the government, which causes high taxes and high deficits. Do not bring them into this.

We clearly understand that the Liberals think massive spending two or three times the rate of inflation is okay. So we understand why they do not want to join in this call for opposition to this budget.

Also, on page 3 -- and I think this is a key point -- the House leader for the New Democratic Party says this: "The purpose of parliamentary procedure is not to ensure that every member can say as much as he wants on every topic, or that groups or individuals can prevent decisions which they do not support from being taken, but to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration and change, while on the other hand a minority cannot immobilize the whole system."

This is the crux of what we are after and I thank the government House leader for bringing this forward because this is what we are dealing with. We must balance the rights of the majority to govern, as she says in her quote, "to ensure that there is a balance in discussion between the holders of power and citizens, that on one hand the majority does not have the power to prevent discussion, reconsideration, and change..."

I am fighting and will continue to fight for the right of the public of this province to be heard, to come before the parliamentary committee to pass their comments on this budget exactly as the parliamentary guide of Canada says I should do.

I want to comment briefly on the quotes on pages 4 and 5 as well. This was the ruling of 1881; 110 years ago we had a ruling in England. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the New Democratic Party's thinking on how legislatures and the House of Commons should operate is about the same as its misguided, outdated, economic thinking evident in the budget it brought forward.

Many changes have occurred in the last 110 years. Many rule changes have occurred here in Ontario. We are dealing with a set of procedures right here in the Legislature of Ontario that are dramatically different even from 1982 when the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, insisted along with the Liberal Party that hearings be held on a budget. If they have to go back 110 years to some outdated ruling, as I say, perhaps as old as their own philosophy, then I suggest they have not been paying attention to history for the last 110 years and how legislatures and parliaments operate.

I said I would make my remarks preliminary. I would like some time to review this, but there are a few thoughts I wanted to put on the record. Mr Speaker, I remind you that the last time the Premier did not like a budget he would not even let it be read in this House and presented to the people of this province. The second-last time he did not like a budget, he brought down a government and forced an election. Remember that one?

The circumstances were different then in that there was a minority Parliament. Were we in a minority Parliament situation, I have no doubt either that this budget would be withdrawn or that we would be into an election. But one has to recognize the realities of a majority government, and I recognize those realities.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: If the Premier and the opposition members who are interjecting want an election, I say we are ready to have an election today, tomorrow, next month or any time on this budget. Never --

The Speaker: Before everyone rushes to get their lawn signs, perhaps we could hear the remainder of the remarks by the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Last summer we saw the fastest free-fall in the polls, surpassed only in the last week by public opposition in outrage over this budget. If it is an election he wants, fine, I say to the Premier; we are ready.

Recognizing the reality of the majority government and recognizing the reality of this budget, I have simply asked that when a Premier brings forward a fiscal plan that will destroy this province, that is 180 degrees against the wishes of the people and that is 180 degrees different from what they were led to believe they could expect when this Premier was elected, then I have simply fought for the right of the people to be heard.

Before we embark upon this four-year, $35-billion mistake, this $35-billion doubling of the deficit, before we saddle the public and their children with this massive debt, I am representing the right to be heard of the people who utterly reject this budget.

Mr Speaker, I know that you, as one who has to uphold the rules of this Legislature, as one who understands the rights of members, as an elected member who understands the rights of the people as they are expressed in standing orders and in ruling after ruling, understand that the people have a right to be heard.

Hon Miss Martel: There are a couple of comments I would like to make to reiterate the position we have taken and to support our case.

First, the point was raised by members of both opposition parties, who are questioning the inherent authority of the Speaker to deal with this House, that nowhere in our standing orders does it say that at the end of the day you have an inherent responsibility to deal with matters and how this House proceeds. In particular to the member for York Centre, who is just arriving and who does not know the rules, let me point out to him standing order 1, which says very clearly, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders."

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it your intention that every member of this Legislature is going to be able to speak twice on this point of order? That is what is happening now.

The Speaker: The normal procedure is that the member who raised the point would wrap it up if there were additional information to present. I did not realize the member for Parry Sound wished to have a contribution. If other members have information that is not repetitious that they wish to bring to the Speaker's attention, I would be most delighted to hear that information.

Earlier, I had an indication from the member for Ottawa West that he had some information for the Speaker. Perhaps the best way to proceed is to hear from him and then from the government House leader. As I mentioned earlier, if it is of any help to members, if you have additional information you would like to present to me in written form, I would be most pleased to receive it. Perhaps by moving along we can actually get to question period.

Mr Chiarelli: I wanted to refer to a precedent that is less than one year old which was handed down in this Legislature towards the end of May of last year. It concerns a question of privilege or a point of order I raised well into the filibuster that was being conducted by the member for Welland-Thorold. At that point I stood in the House and cited a number of precedents suggesting that the then Speaker should perhaps intervene and permit other members to participate in the debate and other proceedings to take place.

Some of the same precedents I was quoting then are now being quoted by the House leader for the government. I do not want to go into a quotation of my full argument of that date. For your information, Mr Speaker, if any research is going to be done, my point of order was raised on 23 April 1990. The then Speaker issued his ruling on Monday 28 May 1990. A fairly extensive ruling was issued at that time, but I just want to quote a very small portion of it for your information and for members of the House, because I think it is very relevant, right on point.

It is important to keep in mind also that this point of order was raised when the member for Welland-Thorold was somewhere into his fifth week of conducting debate on a motion that was taking place at that time. The Speaker is referring to several of my precedents, one from Beauchesne and the other one from the Parliament of England that was referred to. If I can, I would like to quote what the Deputy Speaker said on 28 May 1990.

"The statement in Beauchesne cited by the honourable member is accurate as far as it concerns the House of Commons of Canada. The rules of that Legislature specifically provide for time limits on most speeches in the House and its committees and, therefore, do not permit 'an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak.' The situation is different in Ontario. Except in very limited circumstances, our standing orders do not impose time limits on speeches. I remind the House that our rules were only very recently extensively amended, and there was a conscious decision by the House not to impose general time limits on members, speeches.

"In such circumstances, the Speaker is not in a position to impose time limits on members' speeches or otherwise restrain or prevent members from speaking to a matter at length, provided that there is otherwise no breach of the rules or practices of the House.

"The member for Ottawa West also cited a case at the House of Commons at Westminster. On 2 February 1881, Speaker Brand terminated a debate on his own responsibility....

In this instance, Speaker Brand declined to call upon any more members to speak, even though Irish members still wished to continue the debate and proceeded to put the question after saying that the 'dignity, the credibility and the authority of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they should be vindicated.' It is important to note, however, that his action was supported by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and that the following day a resolution was adopted augmenting the Speaker's powers."

Mr Speaker, the point I am making is this: The ruling of last year in this House, which I believe you must take as a precedent, indicated that there is no authority in the Speaker to restrain any speeches or any procedures unless it can be shown clearly that there is a breach of the rules. Additionally, the Speaker said clearly that the precedent referred to by the House leader at that point was not relevant to the Legislature of Ontario.

I would refer these precedents to you, Mr Speaker, and ask you to take them into account.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I would like you to consider several things. At the outset I would like you to consider that in reality the government House leader is asking you as Speaker to change the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature. That is exactly the reality and the result of what she is asking you to do here this afternoon. I would like you to take that into consideration.

I would also like you to take into consideration the words of the most vocal opposite interjector, the Minister of Housing. I think we should feed him some of his own advice. On 3 April 1990, in the debate on auto insurance, Bill 68, just a little over one year ago today the then House leader for the New Democratic Party, who is now the Minister of Housing, had these words of advice and wisdom for the Speaker of the day:

"We would argue that time allocation, generally speaking, is not provided for in our rules, and since the Bill 94 debate and time allocation we have rewritten the rules of this House twice. The last time they were completed was last year. Not under any of those circumstances did the government raise the issue of building in time allocation provisions in the standing orders of this House. Therefore, the government had the opportunity to negotiate it and deal with the changes in the rules, as the process normally calls for and has been the precedent in this Legislature."

He goes on to say, "That demonstrates very clearly that this government, the majority party in here, is prepared to do anything to the standing orders in order to get its legislation through, even if it means changing the routine proceedings that we normally go through."

In the very same debate he goes on to say:

"The rules in this place are here to protect the integrity of this institution, the rules are written and changed by consensus and the rules are here to protect debate and free debate from all members of the Legislature. The government is rewriting the rules and imposing them by motion and by the use of its majority. It is clear that the government will go to whatever extent is necessary to impose its will."

He goes on to say that this is incredibly unfair. I concur; it is incredibly unfair. I would suggest that the only way that in effect the standing orders can be changed is for all three parties of the Ontario Legislature to do so by consensus, as has always been done in the history of this place.

I would also like to add some comments made by the now Premier on 29 March 1990, during that same debate:

"The reality is that this government believes it has the right to do whatever the hell it wants to do, regardless of the views of the public and regardless of the views of those of us who oppose. They are not even prepared to give us the time. I want to ask the minister, why are the opinions of the insurance industry, the

schedule of the insurance industry, the money demands of the insurance industry and the financial demands of the insurance industry more important to him than the opinion of the public of Ontario?"

I would ask the Premier the very same question. Why is the opinion of the public of Ontario, which could be very easily heard on this budget through reference to a committee, with open public hearings, not important to the Premier of Ontario? It was obviously very important just a little over a year ago. It is not important to him any more.

I want to refer very specifically to a few of the points that the government House leader has made in her written submission, which obviously she has taken some days to deliberate over. Before I go on, Mr Speaker, I might add that I think it would be most appropriate if you would wait until you receive written submissions from the other two House leaders or leaders as well before you rule on this very substantial point of order, if indeed it is a point of order at all.

I refer to page 2 of her written submission, where she says that what the leader of the third party opposes is that the NDP has a majority on those committees and at the end of the day will vote in favour of the government. That is not true at all; that is not what the leader of the third party is saying. He does not question the NDP's right to have the number of seats it has in here. He has never questioned their right to have the number of members they have in standing committees.

What he has questioned is the fact that this party and this Premier went around the province last August and early last September with a document called An Agenda for People which did not show anywhere near a $10-billion surplus, and now he has gone 180 degrees in the other direction. All we are asking for and all my leader is asking for is that the people of Ontario, who are going to have to pick up this $10-billion tab this year and $9 billion next year and $8.5 billion the year after that and $7.8 billion the year after that, have an opportunity to come and be heard. That is all he has ever asked for. I do not think it is an unreasonable demand.

The government House leader goes on to say, near the bottom of page 2 in her written submission, that these delaying tactics are unprecedented. These delaying tactics are not unprecedented at all, not at all. I can recall a leader of a party in this place in 1988, who is now the Premier of the province, stopping a budget from even being read on the floor of the Ontario Legislature. There is no comparison between the two. Talk about hijacking Parliament; that is taking it to a ridiculous extreme because he did not happen to agree with a piece of legislation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget.

It was Sunday shopping, I believe, that was the issue of that day. To say that this is unprecedented -- this is extremely mild in comparison to the politics and the delaying tactics that the present Premier of the province of Ontario has practised in the past.

I would also like to give members some evolution of the budgetary process with respect to bills and budget bills going out to committees and budget deliberation by committees, because that is the gist of what the government House leader is talking about.

Mr Elston: Keep talking, Ernie. They are all leaving.

Mr Eves: I must be doing a good job.

In 1982 there was a request by the official opposition of the day, the Liberal Party of Ontario, that Bill 115, being a sales tax amendment bill, a bill arising out of the budget in May 1982, go out to committee for public deliberation and hearings. Up until that point that was totally unheard of in the province of Ontario. That had never been done before in this place.

The government of the day and the Treasurer of the day, Mr Miller, agreed to send that bill out. It had never been done before. It was a request of the official opposition. The Treasurer of the day, the government of the day, acquiesced to that request, and for the first time in the history of the province a budget bill went out to committee for public deliberation and debate.

I would also like to tell members that with respect to that same request that was made by the official opposition in May 1982, the New Democratic Party leader, the member for York South, as he then was, told reporters, "The budget should be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings." Not just the bill, not just bills arising out of the budget, but the entire budget should go to a committee of the Legislature for public hearings and debate. That was the member for York South, who was then the leader of the New Democratic Party, which was then, I might add ironically, the third party in the province.

The member for York South appointed the NDP finance critic, the member for Windsor-Riverside, to head a party task force to travel across the province hearing public submissions. That is when the bells rang, I believe, for some four or five days. That is what the Premier of the province thinks you should do with budgets and budget bills that you do not agree with when you are the third party. You should send them out to committee for public hearings and debate. He said so in May 1982. I think he should take his own advice. I think that is exactly what should happen in May 1991.

The government House leader goes on, near the bottom of page 2, to talk about her party having a right and responsibility to govern. I think truer words were never spoken, but they are not exercising that responsibility and they are not doing a very good job of either running the government or this place, I would suggest, or they would not find themselves in the mess they find themselves in here today.

She goes on to talk about what, in her considered opinion, the leader of the third party, our party, is stopping the government from doing. Our leader and our party are not stopping the government from doing anything. They are stopping themselves. All they simply have to do is agree to send the entire budget, as a package, out to a standing committee of this Legislature for full and open public hearings and then get on with whatever piece of legislation they want here in the House this afternoon. They are the only people who are stopping anything from happening around here.

On page 3 she talks about, "Balance is the key, and balance and reasonableness are what have been missing...." I could not agree more. They are totally missing from the government benches and the government House leader.

Talk about treading on the rights of various people in this place and talk about treading on the rights of individual Ontarians: for the last four days the government House leader has spent her time during motions moving motions that we skip over petitions, that we skip over introduction of bills, that we skip over reports by standing committees of the Legislature and go directly to orders of the day. I would think that is perhaps a far more significant and valid point of order than the one she has raised here this afternoon.

She has prevented individual members of the Legislature every day for four consecutive days from introducing petitions that people all over the province want introduced in this place. She is also preventing individual members from introducing private bills. She is preventing her own government from introducing government bills. Why? As a procedural tactic, as a game of procedural one-upmanship.

I do not think that sits very well and I do not think she should be coming into this place with a point of order asking you, Mr Speaker, in effect to change the standing orders because she cannot figure out a way out of her dilemma over there.

Hon Mr Cooke: You know that's wrong.

Mr Eves: The Minister of Housing is saying, "You know that's wrong." I suppose he was totally wrong in 1982.

I have made the points that I want to make with respect to this point of order. I seriously would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider whether it is even a point of order at all, because I think there is a very large question mark there as to whether or not this is even a valid point of order.

Mr Elston: It is a point of view.

Mr Eves: A point of view, the House leader for the Liberal Party says. It certainly is a point of view; not a very valid one, in my considered judgement. However, I do not think it is a point of order to start with. If, on the other hand, you should consider that it is a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think you should very seriously consider what the government House leader is asking you to do. She is in effect asking you to change the standing orders unilaterally because she does not like them or agree with them.

The Speaker: New information?

Mr Harnick: Yes. This alleged point of order is apropos of nothing that went on in this Legislature today. It is not supported by or in response to anything that happened in this Legislature today. If this point of order is directed to what went on here for the last six days, what it is is an indirect challenge to the Chair. What the government is doing by bringing this point of order now is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.

Last week, when things happened that the government House leader did not like, there was no order by the Chair that what was happening was out of order. Everything that was done was sanctioned by the Speaker. To bring this point of order now is a challenge to the Chair. It is a challenge to the Speaker, and that is contrary to the rules.

What they are doing, and I say it again, is trying to do indirectly what they are not allowed by the rules to do directly. There must be some foundation upon which this point of order could be brought. There is none before the Legislature at this particular time. What went on here last week was something the Speaker ruled on each time an incident occurred, and each time an incident occurred the Speaker ruled that what was being done was in order. The government House leader is challenging the Speaker. This cannot be done according to the rules.

The rules were amended, and this present government was part of that amending of the rules process. In fact, this government knows what it gave up and what it received in return for the amendments that were brought in. One of those things was to give up the right to challenge the Chair.

In addition, if I might point to a few items -- I appreciate that you are getting anxious, Mr Speaker, but I believe I am within my rights to be doing this.

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, I appreciate his approach, if it is not repetitious, if it is indeed new information for me to consider. I did mention to all members that you could present something in writing. Yes, I am a little anxious to get on with question period, but if you have new information, by all means tell me.

Mr Harnick: I do not believe that anything I have said right up to now has been mentioned by any other speaker. That being the case, I think I am entitled to carry on. Further, I might say I have very little confidence in supplying a written argument.

I know you will be inundated with written arguments, Mr Speaker, and it is going to be difficult for the Speaker to digest all of those written arguments when 130 members -- I notice my friends across the way have constant comments, so I would expect that every one of them, particularly someone who is as familiar with the rules as the former House leader across the way, will just inundate you with written submissions, because they have so much to say about this.

The fact that there is an attempt to abuse the process of this Legislature would, I know, prompt them more than anyone else, because of their past record of self-righteousness, to supply you with written submissions. I quite frankly relish the opportunity to stand here now and speak to you directly.

I take some umbrage at the statement the House leader has made on page 1, referring to the statement of my leader in which he said, "People know where I stand on the budget; I am not going to let it pass." She says, "Mr Speaker, this statement and the ensuing procedural tactics show a total disrespect for the democratic process." She goes on to say, "The House leader for the third party will undoubtedly argue that his party is merely exercising its legitimate right as opposition to stall debate until the government agrees to send the budget out to the finance and economics committee for public hearings."

What she is essentially saying is that she doubts the sincerity of my leader. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that that position, to doubt the sincerity of what a member says here, is unparliamentary. It is not right. It is getting to the point where members are on the dividing line between the words they can say and the words they cannot say in this place.

That statement made on page 1 of this document premises the whole attitude of this government and the whole attitude it brings to this chamber when it brings this argument in support of a point of order. That is why I think the whole document they laid before you should be suspect. They base the whole argument they make upon saying my leader is not being sincere when he brings to this House the procedures he has brought in order to fight a bad budget. I think everything in here has to be viewed in the light of that attitude.

My colleague the member for Parry Sound has stated, quite eloquently, that this government believed that budgets should be sent out so the public can comment on them. All we are saying is to let this budget go out and let people have a say.

What the government has said -- and this is new; it has not been discussed -- is go ahead and send it to a committee in pieces. Well, sending it to a committee in pieces where the public is not invited, where they cannot comment on the budget as a whole, where they have no input, is not satisfactory to our party.

The third paragraph on page 2 states, "Further to our concern with the Tories' tactics is the fact that the third party began this blockade -- of not just House work but all committee work" --

Let me just stop for a second. Committee work and the

schedule for committee work are dictated by the rules of this place, and when the bells are ringing in this place, committees do not sit. When routine proceedings are not completed, committees do not sit.

Again, what they say in this document is absolutely wrong. It is a complete ignoring of the standing rules of this Legislature. Again I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the tenor of this document is mean-spirited. It is almost, if you will, an attempted vengeance. It is an attempt to abuse the rules of this place.

I would like to comment on the idea that the government says the Tory party is doing what it is doing without consulting with the government first. They almost make it sound as though, had we consulted with the government in advance and had we said, "Look, we want public hearings and we want you to give public hearings to this budget process; we want the public to come," they would have said, "Well, because you came to us at the beginning, we're going to allow those public hearings." But now, by saying what they are saying, what they are indicating is, "Well, you didn't come to us at the beginning, so you can't have those public hearings."

I would say, to use a phrase, "You can't suck and blow at the same time." That is what the government is attempting to do here. They are attempting to have it both ways. Again, they are impugning the integrity of the opposition, not just my party but all opposition, and that is improper.

When we get to the second-last paragraph on page 2, they say, "In our parliamentary democracy that gives New Democrats a right and responsibility to govern." Mr Speaker, I put it to you that when the government talks about democracy and in the same breath talks only about how New Democrats have a right, New Democrats have a responsibility, I submit to you again that this is a mean- spirited and improper point of order. No one has said this so far, Mr Speaker -- I notice you are getting restless in your chair again and I apologize, but this is important to me.

No one has said, and let me be the first to say, that New Democrats do not have an exclusive right to govern and New Democrats do not have an exclusive responsibility to this Legislature or to this province. If that is the foundation upon which they bring this point of order, I submit that it has to be dismissed, because those reasons are élitist and improper.

If I might carry on --

The Speaker: Will the member for Willowdale take his seat for a moment? I am still waiting for something substantive which is new. I am asking members' co-operation. If you have additional information which is of a substantive nature, which has to do with the rules and procedures, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, I would appreciate if we can move on and begin the business of the day.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, unless you can tell me where I have been repetitive, I believe that everything I have said has been new. My

interpretation of this document has not been discussed. I do not know why you are looking to me as if I am not saying anything new. I can appreciate that you are restless, but I believe the points I am making are important points, and I believe I am entitled to make these points.

On page 3 -- and appreciate, Mr Speaker, that I have to pause momentarily because I did not receive this document days ago when it was prepared. I am sure it was being prepared over the weekend. I have only seen this document for the first time this afternoon and that makes it a little more difficult to respond. They state on page 3, "However, this does not mean that these tactics can or should be used without limits." Mr Speaker, what I put to you is, who should be setting the limits? Are they limits that are to be set by the government because it has a majority?

Are they limits to be set because the government forces the Speaker into an awkward position? Are they limits to be set by this Legislature because we have rules? Those are where the limits are set, and those limits are limits that were concurred in by the New Democratic Party when those standing orders were amended.

The government also states, "In government and in opposition, we have felt that the government of the day should be able to put forward its plans, have them debated and have them settled democratically."

Mr Speaker, if this is their idea of settling something democratically, abrogating from the standing orders that we operate under, again I will point out to you that their definition of "democratic" is not such as to permit you on the basis of what they have set out here to find in favour of this point of order.

If I can go on to page 4, there is some idea that my party disrupted this Legislature when it argued about the efficacy of Bill 4. The government at that time proceeded by the rules. This time they are not proceeding by the rules. But let me say that the comparison being made and the idea that my party attempted to hijack the Legislature when all it was fighting for was the opportunity to have more witnesses who were excluded from the process come before the committee and give evidence -- that is hardly what I call something that is improper.

The idea of letting all speakers from all parties speak on Bill 4 is not something we here should be limiting; we should be expanding those opportunities. If anything, this government is not expanding those opportunities in this case.

On page 4, the government House leader states, "That a minority in the Ontario Legislature has immobilized the whole system is a statement of fact." That is not a statement of fact. It is a statement taken out of context as to what all the facts are. All the facts are that we have a budget that now has presented the people of Ontario with a deficit of $9.7 billion. What this party is doing is trying to get an opportunity for all members of the public to comment on that budget. It is trying to do nothing more than invite the public to a forum that the now Premier sanctioned in the past.

Again, I say the idea of immobilizing the whole system is not a statement of fact. It is a statement in support of muzzling the opposition so the public does not get the right to speak. The document goes on to say, "That this immobilization of the Ontario Legislature by the third party is an abuse of process...." The third party has done nothing more than follow the rules. If that is an abuse of process, I say to the House leader, amend the rules. Bring in new rules that suit the 74 people who sit on that side of the House, but do not accuse this party of abusing the process by following the standing orders.

In this document they talk about what this party is doing as being an abuse of democracy. The idea of muzzling the opposition and the idea of putting the Speaker in a position where he is being asked to rule outside of the standing orders -- I do not say that is an abuse of democracy in terms of what this party is doing; it is an abuse of democracy in terms of what the government is doing, and it is highly improper.

The government even admits on page 4 that the standing orders do not explicitly support or condemn the procedures being utilized by the third party. The fact of the matter is that if the government wants to proceed the way it is proceeding, it had better have standing order authority to do it. Everything we have done on this side of the House to provoke this government to send this budget to a standing committee so the public can come and speak to it has been done within the standing orders. It has not been done outside of the standing orders. They have no respect for the opposition or for the standing orders.

When the government talks about the need for a new and exceptional course being demanded, I put it to you respectfully, Mr Speaker, that a new and exceptional course would be the wrong thing to do in these circumstances. The course that we follow is the course set by our rules. We on this side of the House, and certainly in my party, respect those rules and we follow those rules. If the government, out of frustration, decides that it has to take exceptional measures, that shows you the desperation of the people on that side of the House.

I urge you, Mr Speaker, not to stray from the standing orders because they want an exceptional course to be taken and they are demanding it in an imperative way. I think the language in this document is despicable and the government should be ashamed.

The Speaker: Is there more helpful advice?

Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Speaker. I apologize for taking up the time of the Legislature, but this is important to me. For the people on the other side of the House, this is a joke. It is their imperative that they force you to take extraordinary action. I do not think this is a case for extraordinary action. The idea of having a budget debated by the public before the government is not extraordinary action. That is decency. That is honesty. That is what this government used to advocate when it sat on this side of the House.

On page 6 of this ill-conceived, inconsiderate document it states --

Mr Perruzza: Throw it away.

Mr Harnick: I would like to throw it away. I am responding now to the member for Downsview, who agrees that this document should be thrown away. I am glad to see that som