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

June 17, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L206a - Tue 17 Jun 1997 / Mar 17 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT ANTI-RACISM PROGRAMS

JOHN SETTERFIELD AND ALLAN HEATLEY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SAWMILL IN COCHRANE

ARNPRIOR AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

SHEILA WILLIAMS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CHILD CARE

INJURED WORKERS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

CLEAN AIR COMMUTE

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

WATER CHLORINATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PHYSICIANS' FEES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On behalf of students, teachers and parents, I want to congratulate the Minister of Education for backing down and providing proper funding to the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board for special needs students at the McHugh schools. After continual questioning in the Legislature culminating with yesterday's question by our party leader, Dalton McGuinty, the Minister of Education admitted the error of his ways and ended his game of political brinkmanship in which the government chose to bargain hardball-style with some of the neediest in our society.

The students at the McHugh schools comprise students throughout eastern Ontario with one or more emotional or learning disorders. The program is both highly esteemed and deemed worthy by anyone familiar with it. It seems the legacy of this government will be one that to achieve their shortsighted goals, in the words of the Conservative member for Ottawa-Rideau, they will resort to, and I quote, "extortion and blackmail."

The member for Ottawa-Rideau also stated: "I don't think there's any possibility of the government getting any of this money. I don't think they're entitled to it. This money was taken from Ottawa taxpayers for Ottawa schools." I couldn't agree more.

Now that the minister has withdrawn his threat to the McHugh students, he should go one step further and end his attempt to try to extort $31 million, which is a tax grab from Ottawa Board of Education taxpayers.

GOVERNMENT ANTI-RACISM PROGRAMS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yesterday in this House the Minister of Education and Training made a shocking and disgusting statement. He said initially, "I don't believe we'll ever be done combating discrimination, combating racism." But rather than giving hope of continuing leadership, the minister then said that it was all right to disband his ministry's anti-discrimination and equal opportunity branch. Among the work produced by this branch was a guide on how to deal with hate groups to be used by principals and teachers in schools where these despicable groups are making their presence felt.

We have seen the effects most recently right here in Metro Toronto. High school students at Weston Collegiate Institute have been subjected to pamphleteering by a group called Christian Standard. Why? Because the school has allowed Muslim students to pray on Fridays in the school auditorium. Luckily the guidebook for dealing with hate groups has been made available to teachers, but not by the Minister of Education and Training. When his office refused to release this guidebook, it was produced by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

The minister and this government ought to hang their heads in shame. They have consistently denied the problems of racism and discrimination and prejudice that still exist in our society. They have abdicated their responsibility as an elected government to show leadership and meet these problems head-on so that the day will come when we are in fact done with combating racism in Ontario society.

JOHN SETTERFIELD AND ALLAN HEATLEY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): June is Seniors' Month in Ontario. Last week in Brampton I had the honour of attending the annual Brampton Arts Council Person of the Year reception. This year was a little different because we had two seniors who were co-winners of this award.

I am pleased to inform the Legislature that the Brampton musicians John Setterfield and Allan Heatley accepted the honour last Wednesday, exactly 65 years to the day after the pair first joined the Brampton Citizens' Band in 1932. They have now served Brampton's oldest musical organization for 65 years, quite an accomplishment indeed.

They still sit beside each other in the band today when they play at local events. They've been great solo clarinetists and both have been members of the executive committee and on many award-winning teams that the Brampton Citizens' Band has been involved in. It's very difficult to determine the number of hours these fine gentlemen volunteer collectively to the band, but it's estimated that they've put in as many as 20,000 hours over those years.

I want to congratulate John Setterfield and Allan Heatley, two exemplary Bramptonians, each of whom is now Brampton Arts Council Person of the Year.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My constituency office continues to be inundated by requests from frustrated single parents trying to contact the Family Responsibility Office.

One mother wrote: "My children last received support in June 1996. I have been faxing, phoning and leaving messages. You'd think someone could at least contact me."

However, the government claims that 50% of the calls are being returned by the Family Responsibility Office. Bravo. Indeed, we are all very proud of that. It is a step in the right direction. But what about the other half of the children who are left suffering? When is the rubber going to meet the road?

Your government claims that the Family Responsibility Office has virtually eliminated cheque processing problems. My constituents say, "Show us the money." We receive calls from mothers who have had to sell their property, keep their children home from school, or find two jobs.

One constituent has never received support payments since her court order over a year ago. Her ex's arrears are in excess of $17,000 and he is in the US. If he skips that country, her children may never receive the support they deserve. Another mother has not received money since August 1996, while her ex's employer continues to give the Family Responsibility Office the runaround about why the money has not been sent.

The calls just keep coming. We ask the minister to just do something.

SAWMILL IN COCHRANE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is about the sawmill in my riding of Cochrane and its ability to continue full operations during the year 1997-98. It employs approximately 150 people. We know, from the discussions I've had over last two weeks with MNR and the Malette-Tembec forestry people as well as the mayor of Cochrane and other delegations from Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls, that they are trying to resolve the issue. The fact remains that the economy of Cochrane very much depends on this sawmill continuing operations on a full-time basis rather than having it shut down for three, four, six months of the year as a result of cutbacks that have happened within MNR.

We've seen close to 2,000 employees being laid off within MNR throughout northeastern and northwestern Ontario, and now we're seeing that issues that should be resolved in six months or a year are taking two or three years in order to resolve them. We don't know when the end is going to be in sight.

As a result we have a mill where the morale of the people should be good; Spruce Falls, which is owned by Tembec, is one of the top 500 profit-making companies in Canada and they own this mill as well. But without the proper wood supply and arrangements to be able to exchange wood between the mills, that mill is in jeopardy. The Minister of Natural Resources should be looking into this as quickly as possible.

ARNPRIOR AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The Arnprior and District Memorial Hospital has been embracing this government's principles of integrated health services, including establishing the first hospital-owned and -operated nursing home in Ontario and operating a primary health care centre. More recently, the hospital became a founding member of the Ottawa Valley Hospital Alliance, which in two short years of cooperative effort among four hospitals has identified savings and revenue opportunities of nearly $2 million.

Arnprior is located in one of the fastest-growing population areas in Ontario and will experience a growth rate in excess of 30% over the next 10 years. The hospital has one of the busier emergency departments in eastern Ontario, being some 60 kilometres from the closest large urban centre.

It has been noted that, although Arnprior is in Renfrew county, for the purposes of regional planning it has a closer affinity with Ottawa-Carleton. Arnprior is developing a health care governance structure as part of the Ottawa-Carleton-Renfrew district.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to recognize the mayor of Arnprior, the chairman of the board and members of the board of Arnprior and Almonte present in the members' gallery.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The Harris government is at it again. With his iron fist, Mike Harris is once again attempting to sledgehammer the opposition by imposing anti-democratic rule changes that will severely restrict the ability of the opposition members to debate and make it possible for the public to understand what legislation they're about to propose.

Under the cover of the federal election, a press conference was held on Monday, June 2, at which time they snuck in this anti-democratic series of rule changes supposedly from the member for Nepean, rule changes hatched in the Office of the Premier and designed to enable the Harris government to ram through controversial and far-reaching rule changes that will gag the opposition and the people of Ontario who dare to question the revolutionary agenda.

The Harris government is once again confirming its reputation as a raging bull, impatient with any opposition and determined to run roughshod over anyone who would dare to slow down their schemes to force revolutionary change on the province. First there was Bill 26 with its extraordinary powers. Then there was the megacity bill where they refused to listen to 400,000 people who said no.

They already have a majority government. What else do they need to silence the opposition? What draconian anti-democratic legislation are they planning to introduce next? Universal fingerprinting? More tax cuts for their rich friends? It is clear that Mike Harris needs a sledgehammer to allow the plans of his whiz kids to become a law unto themselves. Stop the sledgehammer now. Wake up, Ontario.

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am delighted this afternoon to be able to bring some good news to the Legislature. This morning the Minister of Citizenship in Ottawa announced that the London Alliance has been chosen as the host for the Canada Summer Games in 2001.

The London Alliance is a very enthusiastic group of people from the city of London, the city of Woodstock, the city of St Thomas, the city of Grand Bend and the University of Western Ontario who joined together to absolutely, as we say, blow away the games selection committee. On a very rainy, very stormy day we still managed to show the enthusiasm that we have in all of those centres for hosting the games.

I am very pleased that the Minister of Citizenship and Culture today recognized the importance of provincial partnership in that alliance and has confirmed the provincial support for the games. That's an essential part.

These games are projected to generate about $61 million of business in the London, Woodstock, St Thomas and Grand Bend area and over 737 jobs during the next four years. So it is an economic as well as a recreational and community event and we should all be very proud of the alliance.

SHEILA WILLIAMS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I rise in the House today to honour a very special mother, wife, grandmother and generous contributor to her community. Sheila Williams, a community leader at Rama First Nations, died last week as a result of an unfortunate car accident.

Mrs Williams has spent her life helping others and was a positive guiding light for her 12 children. Rising each morning at 4 or 5, she and her lifelong husband would discuss the current issues of their children and community over a steaming cup of tea

For the past 20 years Mrs Williams worked in the administration building at the band office. Her husband, Leland, is a Rama First Nations councillor and elder and has sat on council since 1950.

Her community was important to Mrs Williams. She took great pride in being a native woman and loved speaking her language. In what little free time she had, she helped with the planning of the new seniors' complex at Rama.

Mrs Williams is the mother of Ted Williams, vice-president of corporate affairs for Casino Rama and past chair of the implementation team. He has served as manager of administration of Rama and was chief from 1986 to 1988, after serving four years on council.

A daughter paid Mrs Williams the highest possible tribute when she said, "All of the family has achieved a lot because of mother." She described her mother as a woman who encouraged her children and pushed them to educate and improve themselves. Mrs Williams's reward is a close-knit family helping with the growth and planning of their community while preserving their proud heritage. Mrs Williams is an honoured woman, and I offer my condolences to her family and community.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Ministry statements? Seeing none --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): "Seeing no ministers"; is that what you mean?

The Speaker: No, I don't see any ministry statements.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Clem Campbell, MLA, and Mr Lawrence Springborg, MLA, from the Queensland Parliament in Australia. Welcome. I don't think their winter is as harsh as ours, though.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. It is my understanding that he will be in attendance today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stand it down?

Mr McGuinty: I would stand it down.

The Speaker: Second question? Both of them for the Premier?

Mr McGuinty: Both to the Premier.

The Speaker: Third party?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We have questions for the Premier.

The Speaker: Stand down both of them? Third question for the Liberal Party? Who? Minister of Labour. Okay, let's go to the third --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, you're right. We can't stand down third questions; you can only stand down the leadoffs.

Apparently, just from hearing you, something's happening behind me. Leader of the official opposition.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I have a list of eight names which I'm going to read to you now: Jeff Slater, Louis Veilleux, Paul Sutherland, Lynn Beyak, Dan Callaghan, Richard Zanibbi, Blaine Tyndall and Evelyn Dodds. I was wondering if you could tell me: What two things do all of these people have in common?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know who's flipping the letters over as we play these games, but the names sound to me like very talented Ontarians, those that I recognize. They are in the very significant minority of the thousands of people we've appointed from all stripes and from all parties across the province, and I believe they were Common Sense candidates in the last election as well as the tremendous contribution they've made to their communities in a whole host of other areas. But if you have other information, I'd be happy to have it.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure if the Premier was answering the way I expected him to or not, but what these people have in common, of course, is that they all ran for the Premier in the last provincial election as members of the Conservative Party and, secondly, they were all beneficiaries of government appointments. Apparently over there, even if you lose, you still win: You get an appointment.

I was just wondering, is it purely coincidence that eight of your candidates happen to have received government appointments?

Hon Mr Harris: We've made about 3,000 appointments since we came to office. Of those, 1,250 or 41% were reappointments of people who were initially appointed by the NDP and the Liberals. I would think that, as did the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, we look for quality and we look for recommendations of particular ministries, or agencies, boards and commissions themselves. For example, in the case of university boards of governors, to date I think every single appointment has been recommended by the institutions themselves. If you have other names of people you think would be good, we welcome that input and follow that process.

Mr McGuinty: What the Premier is doing, of course, is not illegal, but it goes to values, it goes to ethics and it goes to standards. It's perfectly clear that this is how this government is doing business. I thought this was the politics of days long past. I don't believe people accept patronage any longer. I wish these names were the only ones. These, by the way, were the produce of a cursory examination of recent appointments.

We've also raised in this Legislature the issue of members of your staff leaving for lucrative government consulting contracts. We've raised with you issues connected with your privatization scheme and the fact that your employees are leaving to work for the company to which they ended up giving the contract.

Premier, tell me that all that is perfectly acceptable to you, that you see nothing whatsoever wrong with it and that as far as you're concerned, if you want to get a job in your job-creation scheme, you've got to be a Tory.

Hon Mr Harris: Of course nothing could be sillier, nor do I believe it was the case when your party was in power, nor when the New Democratic Party was in power. About 45% of Ontarians voted for our party in the last election. I am shocked you can only find eight out of 3,000 we appointed.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr McGuinty: Give us time, Premier, we'll get you some more.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, I want to raise with you something I am sure you are aware of that took place in your absence. The Minister of Health, a short while ago, indicated that the death of a man who died in the Civic Hospital in Peterborough on a stretcher while unattended was the subject of some kind of grand conspiracy in which the doctors, nurses, other staff, patients and even the family of this man were somehow involved in order to discredit this government. You should know that the people of Peterborough are outraged by this and that the family and the staff are hurt.

Your minister has refused to apologize for his statement. Do you support him in that matter?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am sure the Minister of Health can respond.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I say to the honourable member that I have made no comment with respect to the death of that patient. It's not my place to do so. What I did comment on was an entirely separate incident that appeared on all our media stations. I have subsequently made every attempt I can to clarify my intentions with the hospital. I have faxed a letter of apology to both hospital boards in Peterborough.

I want to make it clear that since that time -- this was back in February -- a lot has happened. There has been a change in some management. There has been an investigator who found the atmosphere at the Civic Hospital to be very cooperative with his efforts. Dr Smith, the investigator, the dean of medicine at Queen's, has made a report to this government, a report to the community and a report to the board about how services can improve. We are currently conducting an operational review and a clinical review of that hospital and it's a very cooperative atmosphere.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I want to raise with you another incident. This past Saturday a Sudbury man, Erkki Martikainen, 77, died while waiting for heart surgery. On Wednesday he was admitted with a heart rate down to 30 beats a minute, and he and his family were informed that he had two days to live unless he had surgery. That meant he had to have his surgery by Friday. He was twice scheduled for surgery, and twice that surgery was delayed. This gentleman died on Saturday. The family asked his doctor why it was that he couldn't have the surgery. The doctor replied to them that it was the result of cutbacks to the hospital budget.

I want you to tell me if this doctor and that family and that hospital are also part of some grand conspiracy to discredit you, or is there something else here at stake?

Hon Mr Wilson: I certainly don't appreciate, and the cardiac surgeons and nurses who have been working overtime every Saturday and Sunday for the last 14 weekends since we announced the $35 million, a record amount of money for cardiac care in this province, to get us the lowest waiting lists in the history of waiting lists in the province by this time next year, would not appreciate the implications in that question.

Second, I would say that cardiac surgeries, all cardiac programs, have been fully protected by this government. Not one penny has been cut by any hospital or any facility in this province since we've been in government. We put $8 million in last year, new dollars, a record $35 million this year. My condolences to the family, but it's exactly because of the status quo that we've been making an investment to try to get those waiting lists down, because it's immoral and unethical to have the length of waiting lists we have when we spend 20% more per patient in this province than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Instead of bringing her husband and their father home today, Mrs Martikainen and the Martikainen family buried her husband and their father. The doctor, the surgeon, said it was because there weren't enough resources. Minister, would you please commit to this House today that you will investigate the reasons for Mr Martikainen's death?

And will you further commit to this House that if you find that the surgeon was correct, that there aren't enough resources for heart surgery, will you ensure that there are enough resources in Sudbury and all over Ontario so that no one in this province has to experience the pain and sorrow needlessly that the Martikainen family is experiencing today?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again my condolences, on behalf of all members, to the family. I know it's not an easy situation. But the best I can say, for what comfort it brings, is that we are investing a record amount of money, unlike any previous government, in precisely the area that would concern this family, cardiac care, and that everybody is working very hard; 80% of that $35 million goes into overtime for nurses. We are pushing the capacity of the system to its utmost human limit. In fact, we have some complaints from cardiac surgeons saying they're going to experience burnout at the rate they're working.

All of us need to understand the pressures in the system and all of us need to work together. The commitment of this government is to get those waiting lists down to an all-time low and then to keep them down so that we don't have to keep giving condolences in this House.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, I want to read you a quote from today's Toronto Star. It says, "Nobody has complained in this province that this government is going too slowly." Think about it. People see the ugly mess your government has left behind at the family support plan because you tried to ram through your cuts. People see the clumsy cuts to hospitals and health care, and as a result we see people being left behind in the health care system. People remember your hasty Bill 26 omnibus legislation, when your own parliamentary assistants couldn't answer the questions: What is this amendment about?

What is this legislation about? What is it supposed to do? Then people saw you try to ram through your megacity legislation.

Premier, can you tell us who in Ontario, in your mind, is complaining that your government is moving too slowly in ramming through your controversial legislation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): There are an extraordinarily high number of people who are unemployed in this province. There are still far too many people who are dependent upon welfare in this province, able-bodied people who want to work.

Given that our program is one to improve the climate for private sector job creation, one that already is having some initial success rate of two thirds of all the jobs across Canada being created here in Ontario, 1,000 net new jobs a day, I want to say this: As good as the results are relative to all other provinces, and in fact leading North America right now, they're not good enough. One person who wants to work out of work, one person dependent upon welfare who wants to break the cycle of dependency: That is the reason why we are moving quickly to ensure they can have the opportunities they should have in this province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I think what I heard is the Premier wants to ram through his legislation so that he can lay off more staff at the family support plan, can lay off more than 11,000 nurses and health care workers a year, can lay off more people in the education sector, can put more people out of work in the municipal sector. I think that's what I heard the Premier say.

Premier, we've looked at your new rules and what your new rules amount to is this --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: What your new rules amount to is this: You're attempting to shut the public out of the democratic process. You want to change the rules here so that you can introduce legislation and ram it through this House before the public even knows what it's about, never mind has a chance to respond to it. Can you tell us why it's so urgent for you to shut the public out of the democratic process? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Harris: Precisely because you don't listen very well is why you are now, as a result of the 1995 election -- you didn't hear what people had to say to you then and you do not listen very well today. What you think you are hearing is not at all what we are saying or what we are doing. In fact, the changes we are making are restoring hope and opportunity and prosperity to our most vulnerable. I might add that the changes we have proposed to make to those who are currently labelled disabled and put on the welfare system have been applauded by advocates of the disabled community as something that was long overdue. These are the kinds of changes we would like to be able to proceed with.

I want to say this: There is absolutely nothing in the rule changes that says anything other than we want the broadest consultation, we want the most public hearings, we want to carry out hearing from the public, but yes, we would like to bring our rules into line with, for example --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I'm doing my best to get some order. Thank you for your assistance. Final supplementary, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Despite the Premier's rhetoric, the fact is that as the rules are proposed in the motion introduced yesterday, it would have been possible for this government under those rules to have introduced the megacity legislation on a Monday and have had it passed before the end of the week -- controversial legislation like that.

Doesn't the Premier understand that if you ram through legislation in that kind of rush there can be serious flaws in it that could have been identified if the public had a chance to examine it properly and respond? But you want to shut the public out. Why is it you're trying to shut the public out of the legislative process? Why don't you want to have real, broad consultation around controversial pieces of legislation to ensure that the legislation does exactly what even you intend it to do, rather than bring about errors that can cause real problems for our society?

Hon Mr Harris: The record of this government will show vis-à-vis any other government we've had more hearings, more consultations on legislation than did the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. I would say to you, it is our intention to try and use the very valuable time of this Legislature and its committees to hear from people, to hear concerns, as opposed to 12,500 computer-generated amendments or the Alvin Curling fiasco in this Legislature. We want real, meaningful debate and consultations.

Interjections.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): They are out of order again.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Ottawa-Rideau to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, you have to withdraw that comment, by the way.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I withdraw it.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I have a question to the Premier. I would say to the Premier, you describe democratic accountability, when you're finally held accountable in this House, as a fiasco. I think that accurately reflects your view of democracy.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Last week the Minister of Community and Social Services said that for sole-support parents who require day care assistance in order to participate in Ontario Works, assistance will indeed be there for them, as it is currently. She tried to pass that off as somehow being hopeful. The reality is that right now, for example in Metro Toronto, on the waiting list for subsidized child care there are 8,500 children whose parents receive social assistance. Many of them would be forced to participate in Ontario Works. There are no child care spaces for them as the situation is currently.

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, how do you expect to meet the demand for subsidized child care when Ontario Works is mandatory for single parents, considering your government hasn't created a new space --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister would be pleased to respond.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): There's no question that there are waiting lists for subsidies in certain communities across this province. That's one of the reasons we made the regulation change in how we calculate the funding. It gave Metro Toronto a $14-million windfall, which they could have chosen to use to try and bring down that subsidy list.

We also know at the end of every year -- it was a problem the NDP experienced when they were in government -- unfortunately sometimes municipalities have not been able to pick up their 20 cents when we've had 80 cents on the table to help someone who needs child care. That's why we're changing the system to work with municipalities to make it a mandatory service for them, because we recognize that child care support for parents, especially a sole-support parent, can make the difference between getting them off welfare or having them stay in a job. It's a very important support.

Mr Hampton: We were part of a government that recognized that if you want to help people get off social assistance, you have to ensure that those child care spaces are there. Listen to what this government has said it has done, but in fact what it has done. The minister said last week that the government has set aside $30 million for Ontario Works child care. That works out to $191 a year for each child who will be affected by the mandatory workfare for single parents. That's about $3 a week.

There's one of two things going on here. Either you don't believe your own press, you realize what your critics are saying is true, that you won't be able to place all the people who are going to be required to participate in Ontario Works, or you are going to force parents to send their children to unregulated, bargain-basement child care. You aren't putting forward the money to do it, so what's it going to be, Minister? Either your own press is wrong or you're going to force people into unregulated child care. Which is it?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member would pay attention to what this government is saying, he would know that he is in error in what he is trying to claim. First of all, there are more licensed child care spaces today than there were in 1995. There is more spending available for child care today than there was in 1995. We spend more money on child care per capita in this province than any other province.

Finally, if the honourable member's government had been so concerned about increasing the number of child care spaces, perhaps they would not have wasted $52 million trying to convert private sector day care to non-profit day care. That was a wonderful expenditure for ideological purposes. It did not result in new spaces or new subsidies for parents that desperately need them.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Minister, in the answer you just gave there were some things that were not factual, and I would like to explore that with you at another time. What I want to talk to you about right now are the children who are going to be affected by your decision to force parents to participate in workfare and not provide the support for child care spaces.

There are now 128,000 licensed child care spaces in Ontario. To accommodate the children affected by your workfare announcement, the number of spaces would have to double. Municipalities don't have the money to do that. You're saying it's mandatory but they don't have the money. These children are already the children most at risk, living in poverty. Municipalities at best can only give them some minor help towards unregulated basement care, that kind of babysitting where you don't have the support and wellbeing and health and safety regulations in place to ensure that kids are secure.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Lankin: Minister, what I want from you today is a guarantee that every child of every parent whom you are forcing to participate in workfare will be guaranteed a --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, I think the honourable member would agree with me that most of the sole-support parents on welfare whom I've talked to don't want to be on welfare. They recognize that it is much better for themselves and their children if they're in a paid job. That's why we are putting in place the program, so those individuals will have the opportunity, as singles currently do now, to get off welfare, because they shouldn't be there; they don't want to be there; we know it's better for their families.

Second, we have been very clear that sole-support parents with school-age children will be under Ontario Works. For those with preschool children, it is not mandatory. Third, we have additional spending we are putting forward for child care support: an additional $30 million. Also, just to refresh the honourable member's memory, in 1995 there were approximately 128,000 spaces; there are now 137,000 spaces. The last time I checked, that is an increase.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday I'm sure you experienced a very uncomfortable time when hundreds of injured workers gathered outside the committee room when we started our hearings on Bill 99. We witnessed the frustration and the concerns of injured workers because of the proposals you have in your bill that affect them the most. They're angry, they're concerned because they feel this is an attack on the benefits they have at the moment.

They've asked for a meeting with you as a group. You have continually said that you would not meet with them as a group. I might remind you that you are the first Minister of Labour in over 30 years not to have met with them as a group. Would you do the right thing and meet with them?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I just remind the member that for many years injured workers, as well as employers, have been very concerned about the state of the WCB. In fact, yesterday we saw approximately 200 injured workers, and if we go back to when your government was in power, in 1989 when you introduced Bill 162, the injured workers stormed the Legislature to protest your bill.

This has been an ongoing concern. In fact, when I was in opposition I met with injured workers. I know how concerned they are. I have indicated to the injured workers that I would meet with them. I have said that at any time my door is open and I'm quite prepared to meet with those individuals.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): They have to kick in the door to open it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order. Supplementary.

Mr Patten: That's not what Mr Biggin was saying yesterday. He's the executive director of the Union of Injured Workers of Ontario, as the minister knows. He said, "Why people are so angry today is because you," referring to you, Minister, "have refused on numerous occasions -- on two different occasions in Toronto, we brought petitions to your office and requested meetings and we were told by your staff that only a majority of up to three people would be allowed to meet with you."

They're saying they don't want their representatives to meet with you, they want to meet with you themselves. These are the human beings who are most affected by this legislation. They want to tell you their stories. They want to tell you how they're doing. They want to tell you the benefits they receive and how they're trying to cope with that.

Sometimes it takes a strong character to say, "I'm going to back down on this and I'm going to meet with them." Will you do the human thing and will you meet with them? They also invited the committee to meet and I'd be very happy to join you, as I'm sure the other members would as well. They promised that they would have an orderly and disciplined meeting. Will you please meet with them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, I just would remind you one more time that for two years we have made opportunities available to injured workers. In fact, if they had met with us on a regular basis, by now we could have heard from a few hundred injured workers. On each and every instance that they were at the Ministry of Labour door we indicated we obviously couldn't meet with the entire mob gathered outside. Obviously we could only meet with three of them. We simply can't accommodate each and every individual, but we're certainly very happy to meet with them in groups of one, in groups of two, in groups of three, just as we meet with any other groups of individuals.

The Speaker: New question, third party, member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the same minister on exactly the same issue. Minister, don't you understand how insulting it is for you to refer to the injured workers who were here yesterday as a mob? They were in wheelchairs, on crutches, with neck braces. These are injured workers.

You talk about the fact there were 200 here. The fact is, we had to spread them out over three rooms because we couldn't fit them all into one small committee room. In fact, the only reason you stayed all the way through was you couldn't get out the door because there were so many injured workers.

You owe it to those injured workers to have a proper, open meeting. We just heard your Premier talk about the fact that he wants to have the public involved and he wants to let people talk to his government. If that's the case, you have an obligation today to say that you will hold a public meeting that allows all the injured workers to be there and talk to you face to face. Commit to that today, Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to remind the member that when your government was in office you had an opportunity to improve the lot of the injured workers. However, they were not happy with your reforms. I would just remind you this

article says, "WCB Error Rate Under Fire; Injured Workers Protest at Office of Christopherson."

Interjections.

The Speaker: You clearly caught a lot of people by surprise on that one.

Mr Christopherson: If that's your answer, my response to you is: I met with them. I met with them, and so did my Premier and my Minister of Labour and every other caucus member they wanted to talk to. In fact, we improved the lot of 45,000 injured workers by up to $200 a month. You're taking $6 billion out of their pockets and giving it to your corporate pals, and you won't meet with them. It's a disgrace that you would ram that bill through: four days in Toronto, four afternoons, six days out in the province. That's not sufficient, Minister.

When we asked for unanimous consent to extend the hearings and to hold a large public meeting to allow the injured workers to be there, your backbenchers killed it. Your government backbenchers, under your direction, killed that request.

Minister, you owe it to those injured workers to meet with them. They're not asking for the world. They just want to tell you face to face what they're going through. Show us that you care. Show us that you'll listen. Commit today to meet with them.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just like to remind the member opposite that you had five years to correct the WCB. I also want to remind you that in 1994, injured workers in this province stormed the Legislature, reaching the doors of the chamber, to protest the NDP's Bill 165. Why didn't you get the system right?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton Centre, I appreciate it's a very emotional issue. Sudbury East, would you come to order, please.

Mr Pouliot: The paper says it's repugnant and --

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, please come to order. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: For five years, you had the opportunity to make changes. Unfortunately, you did not give them a seat at the table of the board of directors, as they asked for five years. You took $18 billion out of the pensions of injured workers.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This is what the injured workers say: "Injured workers do not have the opportunity to negotiate. We have to take what we get, and what we get out of these amendments does not help us." Vince Bellerba.

Injured workers did not like your changes, and we're going to make the system better. We're going to focus on prevention.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Labour. Hamilton Centre, I warn you to come to order. Beaches-Woodbine as well.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Solicitor General. We currently have about 12 sites for the victim crisis assistance and referral service program in Ontario, sometimes referred to as VCARS. This program is being expanded and I am pleased to say that the district of Muskoka has been named as one of the eight new locations.

Can you comment on how this program will lead to better coordinated victims' services in the district of Muskoka?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Last June our government made a commitment to rebalance the justice system in favour of victims rather than criminals. Expanding the victim crisis assistance and referral service program from 12 sites to 20 sites, including the new site in Muskoka, reflects our commitment to enhancing the role of victims in the justice system.

This announcement will mean, for example, that victims of sexual assault, domestic assault, accidents or property crimes in Muskoka will have access to immediate, short-term crisis services and can be referred directly to other local services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Because this program uses volunteers, it will free up police officers to continue to focus on front-line policing.

Mr Grimmett: That certainly will be welcome news in the district of Muskoka. I'd like to ask you how soon a system will be up and running in the district of Muskoka and what steps will occur between now and then.

Hon Mr Runciman: We announced the funding of the eight new VCARS sites last week on June 11. I understand the Muskoka site will receive over $100,000 in annual funding from the victims' justice fund, and I want to stress that this money will be used to support immediate assistance to victims of crime in the Muskoka area. I'm informed that in the near future the local board of directors will be hiring staff, recruiting volunteers and making sure these volunteers are trained in accordance with ministry standards.

It's our hope that the Muskoka VCARS site will be open and serving victims of crime within the next six months.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the leader of the government, the Premier. At a time when even the people who agree with your policies believe you are moving too quickly and far too recklessly and not looking at the consequences of your action, when those who have been victims of the bullying and mean-spirited policies of your government believe that your radical revolution is causing irreparable damage to the social fabric of our province, you are attempting to impose drastic procedural changes that will allow you to impose your personal will and that of the backroom boys who advise you, unelected people, I might add, in your office, on this assembly.

Premier, you have an overwhelming majority in this House. You can pass any bill or any motion you wish with that overwhelming majority. Why are you trying to impose undemocratic rules that will amount to a virtual dictatorship in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the House leader can respond.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, in terms of the doom-and-gloom introduction from the House leader for the opposition, indeed the economic forecast for Ontario is excellent. There have been over 1,000 jobs a day created in Ontario over the last three months. There are many good things happening in the province, and I would encourage the opposition to share my trust in its future.

The House leader for the Liberal Party will remember in 1989 that party brought forward changes to the House procedures; in 1992 the NDP brought forward House changes. We are bringing forward House changes to assist the members of this House in being involved in this process to make the process run more effectively and efficiently and to better serve the people of Ontario.

Mr Bradley: Let me share with the Premier, the person who is really responsible for these rule changes, the person who wants to impose his will on this province and to just shove aside any opposition to him, the words of Ernie Eves in opposition. Here are his words:

"I think one has to understand that the only way opposition -- not just opposition members but any public opposition to any proposed piece of legislation -- can be effectively dealt with or talked about under our system of government, under the parliamentary system of government, is through the opposition parties' ability to debate, and yes, on occasion even stall or slow down progress of a particular bill, and that has worked very effectively over the years against governments of all political stripes."

Norm Sterling said: "Over the past six years in opposition I have been successful in forcing the government of the day to accept some amendments to their legislation. My only tool was to delay or to threaten to delay. What sense is there for me to bother to debate if I have no means to make them listen?"

Why don't you listen to Ernie Eves, why don't you listen to Norm Sterling, and why don't you abandon the draconian rule changes that are only to be imposed to crush the opposition in this House?

Hon David Johnson: I believe these changes actually accomplish what Ernie Eves has indicated. The first point I'd like to make is that I have made it clear I would like to get together with the House leaders from the other two parties and negotiate. If there are aspects --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for St Catharines, come to order. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The second point I'd like to make is that many of these rules have been taken from the federal Legislature. They encourage the members --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I believe that these rules, which are negotiable, will allow more members of this House to be involved in the debate, will allow for the House to have extended hours for more debating time -- yes, in the evening.

Finally, I believe these changes will allow this House to run more effectively, in a more efficient fashion and to serve the people of Ontario better. My plea to the opposition parties, if there are some aspects they don't like --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon David Johnson: Just to wrap up, finally, let's sit down and talk about this if there are some problems you have. I'm confident all three parties can get together and resolve this and come forward with a package we would all be proud of.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the firefighting that's going on in northeastern Ontario. The firefighters are doing their best but they are actually being hindered by some of the policies of his government, and I'd like to use a specific example.

Last year you closed the Gogama fire base to save money, but basically you closed it in name only because both last year and this year, for the entire fire season, there has been a helicopter stationed in Gogama, MNR has brought back all the equipment, and there's a trailer onsite with personnel. Many times this year, the permanent Gogama firefighting crew, which is now stationed near Timmins, has driven to Timmins in the morning to pick up their MNR vehicles and equipment, driven them back to Gogama to remain on standby, and then in the evening they take the equipment back to Timmins and the whole thing is repeated the next day. This is a waste of time, resources and money.

Will you now admit that closing the Gogama fire base was a mistake and that you will reopen it?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I guess the member of the third party would recall when we announced that we were closing 17 of 45 bases it was to rationalize the fire operations so they wouldn't have to have equipment and people stationed in outposts and get food to them when there might not be a fire. At that time, I also assured the members that a lot of these bases would still be there. If we needed them, we'd use them; if there was a high risk, some of those bases would become operational. In other places we would set up initial attack bases that are close to the fire.

Today's technologies allow us to predict a lot better than we used to. In the old days that maybe the member of the third party wants to go back to, you had members of the fire team sitting in a tower all day. Those days are long gone. The efficiencies overall allow us to use those bases like Gogama. That's proof that it's working.

Mr Laughren: The people who fight fires in the Gogama area and all of northeastern Ontario know a lot more about it than you do. I can tell you that your ministry is a laughingstock in that part of the province because of the way you're dealing with it. It really has become a joke. Gogama is part of a very valuable timber base and they are very vulnerable if there's no fire base there. There's no guarantee that there will be a crew in that area if there's firefighting going on elsewhere. This really is ridiculous.

Will you at least make a commitment, since you seem so committed to what you've done, to come to Gogama, have a public meeting and explain to the people in that area exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: To answer your question, we can have someone from MNR go up and explain it to the people in Gogama, if you'd like. What the member of the third party is forgetting, and he seems to think it's not working, is that our firefighters are the best in the world. They're recognized as having the best program in the world.

The changes we've made in the last two years to restore that department to the world prominence it had before are remarkable. The conversion of our air fleet is recognized as a great achievement; the reorganization of our crews and the use of high technology to predict and fight initial attack are laudable. We've also taken advantage of private trainers to get more mop-up crews to free up initial attack crews so they can do what they're best at: initial attack and saving lives and saving property values.

Any time I go up to northern Ontario, people commend us on the valiant work the MNR is doing today, unlike the changes that took place in 1992 that just decimated the morale of the squad.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is to the Minister of Labour and it concerns Bill 99, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Many of my constituents would like to know why the government is taking action in this bill to clarify that workplace mental stress is not a compensable claim in the workers' compensation system. Could the minister explain to my constituents in Oshawa why this action is being taken?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would just like to indicate that we are not making any changes to current WCB practice or policy as far as compensation for workplace mental stress is concerned. What we are attempting to do in the legislation is to clarify exactly what stress will be compensated. There actually was a study conducted in 1992 by the NDP, but they were unable to arrive at a definition, so what we have attempted to do in our legislation is to ensure that all individuals know when they will or will not be compensated for stress in the workplace. We have clearly defined it and clarified it for each and every person.

Mr Ouellette: Given what the minister has just said, could she please outline for my constituents what type of stress claims will continue to be compensable under Ontario's workers' compensation system as a result of the changes contained in Bill 99.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just want to indicate that we are doing what has been done in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We are emphasizing that any traumatic event that occurs in the workplace will continue to be compensable.

Also, I've had several questions asked about sexual harassment. Again, there is absolutely no change in that policy. That will continue to be compensable in the future as it has been in the past.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last week during questioning on the Hydro coverup that has occurred over a number of years, you continued to hide under the Environmental Bill of Rights and state that you're following the process outlined in the Environmental Bill of Rights in regard to an investigation. Subsection 27(4) of the Environmental Bill of Rights states that the Minister of Environment "shall include a regulatory impact statement" when a new regulation is posted on the environmental registry.

Minister, can you explain to the House why on 28 occasions this has not occurred and on those 28 occasions your ministry, or you as minister, has breached the Environmental Bill of Rights?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Actually it's not a breach, it's an optional thing. The Minister of Environment has the right to include with a posting a compendium or additional information. Often with regard to the postings we include additional information which in a lot of ways takes the same function as a compendium or an additional piece of information might.

In fact, since the EBR was first instituted by the last government, there hasn't been a record of two separate documents. I'm told by my ministry officials that what has happened is that the postings include not only what is required as to the change in regulations per se, but often explanation around it, which in our view gives the same kind of credence as was required in terms of what the formal

section says.

Mr Agostino: We were informed by the office of the Environmental Commissioner that as of May 28, with regulations brought in by your ministry, there was not one regulatory impact statement submitted, and we're not talking about minor changes. You have an out in this: It says "if the minister considers that it is necessary...to permit more informed public consultation on the proposal."

The proposals we're talking about were not minor: removal of the ban on municipal waste incinerators; changes to waste management planning; expansion of waste disposal sites; changes to the development of the Niagara Escarpment; changes to mining, chemical and paper effluent levels. Those are the regulations you brought in and you failed on every single occasion to follow the Environmental Bill of Rights that you are responsible for.

It's one of two things: Either you have breached the bill as minister or you do not believe there should be further public consultation and discussion. Which is it, Minister? Have you broken the bill or do you not believe the public should have input into these massive changes you're making?

Hon Mr Sterling: The truth is that we are following the law. We are filing information. We are sometimes criticized, quite frankly, for filing too much information for the public to be able to read all the information and follow it.

We are following, in effect, an impact statement within the body and the context of what we are filing. We believe we are following the laws as they are put. We have in fact been congratulated by the Environmental Commissioner for our use of the registry. If you want to read the last environmental report, she was very complimentary to my ministry in terms of the use of the registry.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development. In the last two years, your government has shut down all the fire attack bases in northern Ontario and has eliminated more than 2,000 jobs within the Ministry of Natural Resources. One of the consequences of these drastic cuts is that firefighters who used to take the mandatory pre-fit course previously offered by MNR now have to turn to the private sector to get it, which means that if the private sector provider decides it is not economically feasible to give the test, they just cancel it.

This is exactly what has been happening over the last couple of months. In the last two months, the one-day pre-fit course has been cancelled three times in my particular area.

Minister, when are you going to make sure that the course is offered locally within a reasonable distance to provide local jobs, but also to protect and fight the fires in these communities?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. I just want to correct him. In his

preamble he talked about attack bases. As he's fully well aware, 17 out of 45 attack bases were closed, not all the ones in northern Ontario that they like to repeat ad nauseam.

There are 166 initial attack crews in Ontario. What we've done is to allow more people, particularly in northern Ontario, the opportunity to earn employment by fighting fires. We've asked them to pay for training to be involved in sustained attack and mop-up. The initial attack crews are still 166 and they're freed up to do what they're best at doing -- initial attack.

Mr Len Wood: You're eliminating more jobs all the time within MNR. As I've said before, you've cancelled the courses three times in the last couple of months. You're asking people to travel 400 or 500 miles at their own expense to get this one-day course and the examination. As a result, during the recent forest fires that have been raging throughout Timmins and the Cochrane area, a lot of people are unemployed as you're bringing in people from British Columbia, Manitoba, all over the place, to fight the fires. Our people are unemployed, waiting for you to make that test available in the area. When are you going to do your job and make this test available in the area?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll look into the details on why the course hasn't been offered in your area. We contracted out the training to a number of private sector people who bid on it, among them first nations, local deliverers, people who were qualified to give the training. This was done in an effort to try to hire more people from Ontario. If you check your facts, you'll see that the opportunity for northern Ontario people to be involved in sustained attack and mop-up in firefighting has increased this year. That's an opportunity for employment in northern Ontario.

That's an improvement over the way the MNR used to work. I would like to thank the member for the question. I'll look into the training in his area.

CLEAN AIR COMMUTE

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Environment. I just received word that you were seen this morning on Yonge Street. You were riding in a rickshaw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I know we all want to hear the end of this question. I just need some order so I can hear it.

Mr Barrett: I understand this rickshaw was pedalled by a very tall blond. Could you please tell the House just what was going on this morning?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the member was referring to the fact that this morning I was involved with a celebration dealing with Clean Air Commute. It's a program put on by Pollution Probe to try to encourage people to take alternative transportation to work in order to keep our air clean.

The person driving the rickshaw was Curt Harnett, who happens to be the Canadian cycling superstar.

We were celebrating with Sunoco Inc some of the pollution prevention efforts they have undertaken in the last five years. We gave them a pollution prevention award. They were very interested in what the ministry is doing with regard to air quality control.

As you know, we are doing many things in this province, including revising our air quality standards. We are bringing forward PM10 standards. We are doing a number of things.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order in reaction to the statement made earlier in question period by the government House leader. If the government House leader is serious about wanting to have true discussions and negotiations around standing order changes, will the House agree to unanimous consent to have the motion removed from the order paper for today in advance of such discussion?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, I just need to be clear on what you're seeking unanimous consent for.

Mr Wildman: To have the motion that is on the order paper removed from the order paper for today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have the motion appearing on the order paper today --

Interjections.

The Speaker: You've got to wait, please -- to be removed until a later date? Agreed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I did hear a no.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to stop the Harris government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and retain rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I agree with this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by workers from various communities across the province:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

I add my name to theirs in support.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have further petitions from my riding concerning health care as well as additional signatures from Dunnville, Cayuga, Caledonia and Lowbanks. It is entitled "Stand Up for Rural Health Care."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I signed these petitions.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

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

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas the lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa and Kingston several times a week, even during dangerous weather driving conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families and friends travelling to Ottawa and Kingston several times a week during the abovenoted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly and the Minister of Health to follow through on their commitment made last April to set up the long-awaited and much-needed health services for Cornwall area residents."

I also signed that petition.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This petition reads:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas sexual assault is a crime and the effects of abuse last a lifetime for the survivors of these crimes;

"Whereas sexual assault crisis centres provide community-based, women-positive, cost-effective services which recognize and respond to both recent, historical and childhood sexual assaults, offering short-term crisis intervention, longer-term therapy, public education, prevention, court and police support;

"Whereas hospital-based treatment centres are mandated primarily to work with survivors of recent sexual assaults with a medical forensic approach, offering only short-term counselling and referrals, while adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse or historical assaults need longer-term services to recover from the horrendous crimes they have suffered;

"Whereas if Parliament decides to close sexual assault crisis centres and redistribute drastically reduced funds to treatment centres, most adult survivors of sexual assault will not have the services they need to heal and will be further victimized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to maintain community-based sexual assault crisis centres."

I affix my signature to this petition.

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supply in 1995;

"Whereas the Halton region water delivery system in the town of Milton has received the regular maintenance and standard upgrade requirements outlined by the province and is supported by a standby chlorination unit sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly supported the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

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

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well waters supplying Milton's water delivery system."

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton Est) : «À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de la restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance de toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord de l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

«Attendu que la fermeture de Montfort éloigne et diminue grandement l'accessibilité à une salle d'urgences pour plus de 150 000 personnes ;

«Attendu que l'on fait disparaître l'hôpital qui a un des meilleurs rendements de la province et qui, pour fins de comparaison, constitue l'exemple de choix du ministère de la Santé ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

J'affirme avec ma signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition regarding the changes the government is making to workers' compensation -- the attack on workers' compensation, actually.

"To the Premier and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits; excluding claims for back injuries, carpal tunnel, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress and most occupational disease; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; eliminating worker representation; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits and union pensions dollar for dollar from WCB benefits.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand fair compensation if we are injured, a safe workplace, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, that WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

PHYSICIANS' FEES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition concerning physicians' services signed by a number of people in the towns of St Williams, Port Rowan, La Salette, Vanessa, Port Dover.

"We, the people, have decided it's time to help our doctors because in helping them we are helping ourselves, you and your family included. Our doctors have dedicated their lives to helping, healing and saving our lives. At this time it is critical to help them and there may be a time when they are unable to help us.

"The government dictates how many patients our doctors may see in a day. Then after the quota is fulfilled they must close their doors. What if we or someone in our precious family have an emergency -- life or death -- and are unable to see our doctor or any other doctor in this case? Are they going to suffer unnecessarily or even die? The emergency room will be so packed.

"This is the opinion of not only a select few but most of the general population. We are getting scared and desperate. We, the people, need your help. So do our doctors with their knowledge, schooling and money used to get them where they are today. In all honesty, we believe the government does not have the right to dictate to the doctors how many patients they can have and the money they can make while everyone else can make whatever they can.

"We are always so proud to be Canadians but when the government starts playing Monopoly with our health, it's time to take a stand. We are counting on you. Please help our well-educated doctors."

I sign this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My petition reads like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, with which I agree.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of CEP.

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced legislation to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and distributed a discussion paper about changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas the changes include erosion of the right to refuse unsafe work; workers will be forced to apply to their employer for WCB benefits; employers will decide if the claim is valid; reduction in power of the joint health and safety committees; and elimination of compensation for certain injuries and diseases; and

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Act is a vital protection for all workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act has prevented untold numbers of accidents and saved thousands from illness and diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand full public hearings throughout the province of Ontario on the Workers' Compensation Act proposed changes" -- not just the measly six days they've thrown out -- "no changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workers' right to refuse or joint health and safety committees."

I add my name to theirs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I think when we left off we were with the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yesterday, as I began my remarks, I referred to some remarks made by the member for Parry Sound in the debate in June 1992. I would just like to remind the House of the sentiments expressed by the then third party House leader, now Minister of Finance in the Conservative government. At that time, Mr Eves said:

"I believe it is essential that we change the rules only by consensus of all three parties. Sure, any government, I suppose, that has a majority can change them unilaterally; none ever has in the province of Ontario and now none will up to this date."

Then he further said, "If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rules changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed."

Mr Eves further said, "If that spirit and that element of trust is not there, I don't think it matters what the rules are, quite frankly; this place is not going to operate."

Those were comments made by a very experienced member of the Conservative caucus talking about the possibility of procedural changes, changes to the standing orders and what effects they might have if a government were to move unilaterally.

Today in the question period the government House leader made an argument that, sure, he's called the motion that will change the rules of this House, change them dramatically, make it impossible for the public to be involved in controversial issues that are brought before the House if the government wishes to ram them through, but he said these were negotiable. He indicated he would like to meet this afternoon to talk about this. However, when given the opportunity to have the matter removed from the order paper, to show the sincerity of his offer, members of the government caucus said no. They said, "No, this matter should be debated this afternoon."

As I said yesterday, this government is following the policy of Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." So the minister is at one point saying, "Yes, we want to talk, we want to negotiate," but he's got the big stick of this motion hanging over the heads of the members of this Legislature.

I suppose there's an attempt to ensure that members of the Legislature will be cooperative with the government's agenda and will get it through quickly for fear that the government will lower that big stick and bring in changes unilaterally to the rules of this House, which won't just affect this government, won't just affect the agenda that is before us in June 1997, but will affect the way this assembly works for the future.

As Mr Eves, the member for Parry Sound, indicated, if this were to happen unilaterally, this "would become a very acrimonious place." We saw a little of that this afternoon in question period. We saw how people react, how members of this assembly react when they are being told it will be very, very difficult, if the government gets its way, for the opposition to do its job and for the public in this democracy to be involved in changes that will affect them and their communities.

The government has said that these are just changes that would bring us in line with the House of Commons rules. Yesterday I made the point that the House of Commons is a very different place from this assembly. The House of Commons, for one thing, has three times as many members as this assembly does. There is a need to ensure that members in that House have the opportunity to speak in debates. I suppose you can make the argument that there should be time allocation limitations put on to ensure that 300 members have an opportunity. But here we will only have after the next election 103 members, so we don't have the same pressures.

The other difference in Ottawa is that the House of Commons is only one of two Houses in Parliament. Here we are unicameral; we only have one House; in Parliament there are two. Every matter that is brought before the Parliament in Ottawa has to go through three readings not only in the House of Commons, but also three readings in the Senate.

I am not in favour of a bicameral system; I don't think we need a second House. But if you're going to pass rules that bring us in line with the House of Commons that make it possible for this House and this government to move legislation through as quickly as you're proposing, you're ignoring the fact that in Ottawa, after the House of Commons has passed a bill at third reading, it still has to go through the whole process again and there is indeed sober second thought. We cannot give the executive of government the kind of power that is being proposed in these procedural changes because we do not have the opportunity of sober second thought that they do in the Parliament of Canada.

The other interesting thing the government House leader and members of the government caucus refuse to acknowledge, when they say these are just rules from the House of Commons we're bringing into the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, is that they have not taken all the rules from the House of Commons. There are many rules that apply in the House of Commons that are not included in these proposed changes.

Just one, for example, is that there are 20 opposition days per session in the House of Commons. No one has suggested we should have 20 opposition days. If you're going to bring in the kind of rules that make it possible for the government to move legislation through as quickly as is being proposed in these procedural changes, why is it that the kind of procedures that enable the opposition to bring forward their views in the House of Commons are not also being proposed for this assembly?

That betrays the fact very clearly that these changes are proposed, not to improve the workings of this House, not to ensure that individual members are able to participate, but simply to make it possible for the government to get its agenda through as quickly as possible, hopefully without too much notice from the public when they're dealing with controversial matters. That's what this is about.

This is not about enhancing democracy in Ontario. It is indeed about efficiency, as is said over and over by the government, but the kind of efficiency that makes it possible for the government to deal with issues quickly without proper debate. That is the kind of efficiency that only talks about time and how long it takes, and doesn't talk about whether or not we are making certain the legislation is going to work well for the people of Ontario.

In the past two weeks the government has brought in legislation which our caucus believes is quite destructive in Ontario. We've seen legislation introduced that will take away the right of workers to strike. The government says, "Well, public sector workers will only temporarily lose this right," but they are losing their rights to free collective bargaining in this province. We've seen legislation that will significantly change the rights of injured workers. We've seen the rights of tenants to protection being threatened.

We've seen many changes like this, and there are more changes coming which will change the education system in this province in a way that will not benefit students and will certainly take away the rights of teachers.

All these things have been brought in by this government. The government would like the public to understand that it's having trouble getting its legislation through, yet as was quoted in the House today I have yet to find anyone in this province who thinks this government is going too slowly. I have never heard that complaint, that the government isn't getting its agenda through quickly enough. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. People are saying, "Wait." Even people who support the agenda are saying: "Wait a minute. Maybe they better slow down a bit and make sure they get it right." What is the rush?

The government even broke a 122-year tradition of not having this assembly meet on the federal election day, on June 2. For 122 years it's been understood that members of this assembly should be able to be in their own constituencies to participate in the federal election by voting for the candidate of their choice, just like the rest of the people who live in their constituencies. But this government said no.

Probably because this government couldn't determine which federal party they were supporting, they decided they were going to have this assembly meet on election day so that members had to choose whether to be in their own ridings to cast their ballots or here to do the business of the province.

What did they do the day they met, June 2, on federal election day? One thing they did was the chief government whip called for a recorded vote without notice. It's interesting that the chief government whip did this, because I know if he had been in opposition, as he was for many years, he would have exploded with indignation if a government whip had pulled that on him, because you do not have a recorded vote without notice.

The way it works in this assembly is that the whips talk to one another and say: "Look, what do you want? Do you want a recorded vote? Do you want a division on this, or are we going to have just a voice vote?" The government whip didn't do that on election day. Why? He wanted to embarrass the opposition because a number of opposition members were away. They were in their constituencies to participate in the federal election.

That's the kind of cooperation this government shows members of the opposition. This is a government that complains there isn't enough cooperation in this assembly, yet it treats members of the opposition in that manner. As I said, the chief government whip just would not have stood for that when he was acting as a whip for the third party. That kind of action doesn't bode well for cooperation among the parties in this assembly.

We should also look at what has been happening over the last number of weeks in this House. In the last two weeks there have been 17 procedures in this House that have gone forward that required unanimous consent of the members. Every single member of the assembly had to agree for each of those procedures to go ahead. Also, this House has dealt with two bills in the last two weeks that were only able to be dealt with because the members gave unanimous consent.

How can the government accuse the members of the opposition of not being cooperative when 17 procedures went ahead and two bills were dealt with that required unanimous consent, in only two weeks? I know this doesn't fit with the rhetoric the government has put forward, that somehow there isn't proper cooperation in this assembly. But frankly, from my standpoint, it seems to me the lack of cooperation is mainly centred on that side of the aisle, not on this one. I can tell you now, with the introduction of this motion for procedural changes, there won't be many unanimous consents in future.

The purpose of this assembly is to work for the people of Ontario, not just to let the government agenda go through but to hold the government accountable, to scrutinize what the government is doing and to criticize -- yes, criticize -- what the government is doing. That is the job of the assembly. It is the particular role of the opposition, but it isn't the role of just the opposition; it is the role of all the members of the House.

The fact is, though, as Mr Eves said in 1992, it doesn't really matter what the rules are for this assembly. It doesn't matter what kind of rule changes the government devises. The assembly only works when the members of the assembly can work together on issues. We have to, as an assembly, find civil ways in which to disagree, because we have genuine disagreements. There are issues we have diametrically opposed views about in this assembly. That's the strength of our system, that we do not prevent different views from being heard. As a matter of fact, our system encourages different views being put forward.

But we have to be able to deal with that in a civil manner. The introduction of these rule changes will have the exact opposite effect, which Mr Eves indicated in 1992 when he said, "If any government ever did proceed unilaterally with rule changes, it would become a very acrimonious place indeed."

That statement by the member for Parry Sound was indeed prophetic. We will find this place very acrimonious if this government proceeds along the track it's headed on now.

How do we find a way to be civil about our disagreements? The only way that can happen is if all members of the House hold each other in respect, if we respect the fact that we have significant differences of opinion but that we are all here as individuals dedicated to the life of this province and to working for the people of Ontario. It doesn't really matter what rules we devise. If that respect does not exist, this place will not work.

What else happened on June 2, the day of the federal election, when this House sat instead of being recessed, as has always been the case, for 122 years? At a time when the interest of the gallery was directed elsewhere -- obviously, the press was interested in the federal election; they weren't interested in what was going on around here -- what did this government do? On that very day, this government demonstrated its profound lack of respect for the members of this assembly by announcing the very package of rule changes that we're debating right now.

The member for Nepean held a press conference in the media studio in this building, with no notice to the opposition, no notice at all, on a day when our attention and the attention of the press was directed elsewhere. The member for Nepean had the gall to put before the members of the press who did come these rule changes and to say that they were his idea, that they were his proposals and that he was putting them forward only to assist the members of the assembly to have a greater say, a greater role in this House.

When one analyses these rule changes, there are a few which will help the independent member, but the vast majority, the most significant of these rule changes, exist only to enable the government to get its agenda through more quickly, without notice to the public. No individual member, the member for Nepean or anyone else, can argue that it enhances the role of the individual members of this House, because it doesn't. What it does is make it easier for the executive, for the cabinet, to run roughshod over this place to get things through as quickly as possible with as little debate as possible. That's not what this system of government is about.

I like to read the speeches of the member for Parry Sound because he knows a lot about the procedure in this place. On June 22, 1992, he said a couple of other things. In referring to the government he said, "You can't always have everything your own way." He said to the government: "When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be too petulant about it, don't be too autocratic about it and don't be too dictatorial about it. Try to approach it with a sense and a spirit of generosity and compromise and you will find that you will get a lot more things done than you're getting done this way. Just some free advice for the government House leader."

Would that the member for Parry Sound had given this advice to his House leader over the last couple of weeks. You can't get everything your own way. When you don't get something you think you should have, don't be petulant, don't be autocratic and don't be dictatorial. Try a sense of generosity and compromise and you'll get more things done. Just some free advice for the government House leader.

Why is it that this government doesn't listen to the words of the member for Parry Sound, one of its most experienced members? He said further: "I don't know why the government thinks that every time it gets into a difficulty it has to change a rule or pass a motion or introduce closure or introduce time allocations to get the job done that it wants done. Why does the government approach the business of the House with that mentality?"

Well, exactly. I don't know why this government thinks that every time it gets itself into some difficulty, it has to change a rule or pass a motion or introduce closure or introduce time allocations. Why does the government approach the business of the House with that mentality? What is it? Has the Premier pressured the government House leader and, through him, the member for Nepean for these changes? I think that's what has happened.

We all know that the people in the Premier's office think this place is a nuisance, that it gets in the way, doesn't move things forward quickly enough. Debate is a nuisance. Democracy is a mess. Democracy isn't easy. It isn't efficient. Things don't get done as quickly as they might, because sometimes people have differences of opinion and they want to express them, they want to put them forward on behalf of the people of Ontario. It appears to me that this government is indeed acting petulantly, and of course they brought in a motion to change the rules.

The member for Parry Sound went on further. He said: "Unilateral actions by governments, which can be done if you have a majority, eventually will pass" -- that's how you've decided to proceed -- "but this will result in nothing but chaos and acrimony around here for the next two or three years. Whenever it is that the Premier decides to call the next election, we will see the results."

Again the member for Parry Sound was very prophetic. I tell you sincerely, if this government insists on proceeding with these rule changes as they are now doing, if they insist that this motion must be passed, there will indeed be chaos and acrimony around here for the next two or three years.

The irony of this situation is that government apparently thinks that by doing this they can move things forward more quickly. But if we have the kind of acrimony the member for Parry Sound predicted, it's going to take longer for them to get these things through; it's going to have the opposite result of the one they desire.

What is it? Is it that the government backbenchers, the members of the Conservative Party who support the government, are angry about the way things work in this place and want to change things? Why? Do they think it's a nuisance to have debate? Do they think it's a nuisance to have to sit here and listen to members of the opposition express views with which they don't agree? Do they think it's inappropriate that the public be notified and understand what's going on and have an opportunity to organize to put forward their views?

I see a member across the way shaking his head no. If that is the case, then why did you bring in rule changes that will make it possible for this government to introduce controversial legislation on Monday and get it through by Thursday? Why? That's not appropriate, but that's what these rule changes mean. If you don't know that, you'd better read them, because that's what they mean.

If that happens, it is possible for any government, this government or any future government, to bring in the most controversial legislation and have it passed before the public even knows about it. That's not democratic. You might as well just rule by decree.

Last week the government House leader gave us the impression that he was prepared to negotiate. He repeated that again today. It didn't take the government House leader long to get away from the fiction that these were ideas of the member for Nepean. He admitted they were government proposals. He said that yes, he did consult with the Premier's office; yes, the Premier's office did have suggestions about what kinds of changes the government wanted; yes, indeed that did happen; and yes, you're going to have to deal with the government House leader, not the member for Nepean. It didn't take us long to get through that little charade.

But he gave us the impression he wanted to negotiate. The government House leader, as he repeated today, said: "Look, these are not hard and fast. I'm interested in hearing what the opposition House leaders have to say. We're interested in talking." That was Tuesday. The three House leaders had a special meeting on Tuesday.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I called you Tuesday. I called your office three times and you never returned my calls.

Mr Wildman: I'm not even going to respond to that.

If we're going to deal with changes in this House, we're going to deal with them the way they have always been dealt with: among the House leaders. That's our job. That's part of the role of House leaders.

The government House leader said, "We're prepared to negotiate and discuss." That was Tuesday in a special meeting. But what happened? We dealt with the Waterloo bill, we dealt with other pieces of legislation the government wanted through, we got them passed, and then on Thursday at five to 5 the government introduced this motion and indicated we would be debating it this week. So much for negotiation. Then the government House leader says he wants to debate it again this afternoon. When we give him the opportunity to remove it from the order paper and to sit down as House leaders and say, "Okay, how are we going to deal with this?" he said, "Oh, no, no, we have to debate it."

We know what this is about. This is about getting time in for debate so that at some future date, if the government wishes, the government can bring in time allocation on this motion and force these changes through on the assembly. The government is smart enough, intelligent enough to know that these changes are not going to go through easily.

As I indicated earlier, one of the reasons I'm opposed to this whole process and this motion is that I don't think changing the rules will work even from the government's point of view. Rule changes, and I say this from some experience, do not work.

I want to refer again to the experienced member for Parry Sound and his comments on June 22, 1992:

"The rules can say whatever you want them to say; you can try to tighten them up as much as you want. I've been here, I've seen them changed many times over the last 11-plus years I've been here and it really doesn't make any difference what they say, because there will always be a way to wiggle around one rule or another and the only way this place works is if the three parties can work in some sort of cooperation and concert.

"It means not only the opposition parties giving something up; it means sometimes the government has to compromise." It means sometimes the government has to compromise.

"The only way this place works is if the government compromises and gives, and all majority governments have to compromise or give. It seems as if this government hasn't learned that yet. It still thinks that because it has 74 or 75 members" -- in this case 82 members -- "it can pass anything it wants and should be able to pass it on the nod in a skinny minute because it has that many members."

That's a voice of experience. That's an individual who had served at that time in the House for 11 years and had seen rule changes come and go.

The member for Nepean and his colleagues across the way should think about this seriously. This is what the member for Parry Sound said: "It really doesn't make any difference what they say" -- what the rules say, in other words -- "because there will always be a way to wiggle around one rule or another and the only way this place works is if the three parties can work in some sort of cooperation and concert."

Rule changes do not force people to cooperate. Rule changes do not make people respect one another. Rule changes do not ensure that people work in a way that is cooperative. Moving unilaterally on rule changes, as I've said, has exactly the opposite effect, and it will in this case.

These rule changes are clearly designed to allow the government to implement its agenda more quickly. I think it's important to look at the effects of rule changes that have occurred in the past since I've been here, in the last 22 years or so. I think a number of the government party members believe that if we bring in rule changes, they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through.

I see the former member for Oshawa in the gallery, who is very familiar with rule changes and what effects rules can or cannot have in the assembly. He will know, as Mr Eves indicated, once you bring in a rule change, the opposition immediately starts figuring out how to get around it. That's the way it works.

Let's look at the effects. The government members think they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through if they have these rule changes. Every government that has brought in rule changes has thought they're going to be able to get more pieces of legislation through. In fact, if you look at the number of pieces of legislation passed per session over the last number of years, the number hasn't changed; it hasn't changed from before rule changes when rule changes have occurred.

What has changed is that controversial pieces of legislation, ones that result in a tremendous amount of opposition, can indeed be passed more quickly in the House, because the government can use the rules, they can bring in time allocation or whatever, to get those particular pieces of legislation through more quickly. But what happens is that the opposition then slows up all the non-controversial pieces of legislation, and that is indeed what has happened. We're finding ourselves in this assembly spending time debating pieces of legislation about which there isn't a great deal of controversy over a long period of time

whereas in the past they might have passed more quickly.

Why? It started and was exacerbated after the rule changes by the Liberal Party in 1989, and then it went even further after our government brought in rule changes in 1992. It got to the point that while we were government, particularly the third party, the Conservative Party at that time, debated every piece of legislation as if it was the most momentous piece ever to be introduced, no matter how innocuous members of the general public would consider it, to the point where the government was tempted to bring in time allocation on almost everything.

The kind of cooperation that is necessary for this place to operate well did not exist and the rules did not require or make that kind of cooperation exist. In fact, they had the exact opposite effect.

In the late 1970s, controversial pieces of government legislation were often debated for weeks and weeks. As a result of rule changes over the last number of years, the time allocation motion means that governments can, without unanimous consent, pass every controversial bill in six days. Under these rules they want to make it three days. The government House leader wants to get these bills through in three days.

We'll see what effect this has, but I suspect that if the government is determined to move forward on these kinds of changes, the government will be able to get its controversial legislation through more quickly. I don't think that will be good for Ontario, I don't think it will be good for the people in communities across this province, and ironically, I don't think it's going to be good for the government of Ontario either. They will be able to get their controversial legislation through more quickly, but overall they're going to have a harder time getting other things through.

I suppose this government feels, "That's okay because we only have controversial matters to bring forward." I don't know, that may be the case, but I don't think it's going to serve the people of the province well.

Under the last Parliament, opposition parties began to construe time limits to be time minimums. Legislation which had previously passed without extensive debate received considerable attention by the opposition parties, both Liberal and Tory. When I first came to this place, a bill that might be passed in one afternoon would go on for days, the same kind of legislation.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That was before television.

Mr Wildman: The member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville said, "That was before television." Television may have had some effect. I don't think it has a major effect. We all thought it was going to have a tremendous effect in this House. In fact, I'm not sure it did. I don't think television makes people speak for the full time they have available to them.

Mr Baird: Prove it.

Mr Wildman: No, it doesn't. What produces that is when there's controversial legislation that people want to get a number of points in about. I think that's what produces that kind of result.

What else produces it is when the government is introducing a bill that isn't controversial, when the specific legislation being debated isn't controversial but there isn't the spirit of cooperation in the House that makes it possible to get it through.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Please have that man removed.

The House recessed from 1545 to 1557.

The Acting Speaker: Would you restore the time owed to the member for Algoma, please.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your taking that action. All of us who are in this assembly understand that this is a people place. All of us are elected to represent the people and the people will be heard. If people feel that they are being shut out, if the government is bringing in rule changes that will make it possible to bring in legislation and have it passed within three days instead of the current six days, people will not be able to be heard.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that a quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker: Would you check if there is a quorum present, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: As I said, this is a people place and the people will be heard. If the government is determined to bring in rule changes and make it possible to pass legislation in a total of three days, when the current minimum is six, the people will be shut out. When the people are shut out of our system, then they will find extraparliamentary measures for expressing their views. That is not healthy for our system.

This is a place where views are to be expressed, sometimes vehemently, where people are able to be assured that their views will be presented on their behalf, and if that is not possible because of rule changes brought in by a government determined to force things through as quickly as possible, then they will find other ways, and that will not be good for our system.

This is not a debate about the right of members -- it is, but that's just part of it -- this is a debate about democracy. This is a debate about the rights of the citizens of this province to ensure that they can be involved, that they are informed, that they know what's going on and that they can influence what happens. Speed and expediency are not the most important elements in a democracy. What is important is to ensure that people are heard, that people's views are expressed and that they are responded to; that there is a serious scrutiny of government legislation, that where changes are needed, they are made, and that the time is available to make that possible.

I'd like to deal specifically with some of the rules in the last few minutes remaining.

The government is proposing changes to standing order 9, which regulates House sitting times. This is perhaps the most dangerous of the changes that are being proposed by this government. This change would allow the House to sit from 6:30 to 9:30 at night. A motion to extend the sitting beyond 6 o'clock could be brought forward by the government at any time without notice. But what is really significant is that under these proposed rule changes, this kind of extension would not just be an extension of the day, it would be a separate sessional day. So with one half-hour recess, we would then be into a new day for debate in the evening.

The rules would also allow the government to move, again without notice, a motion to sit beyond 9:30 in the evening. What does this mean? Some people would say: "If you have an important issue before the House, why not extend the time? What's the problem?" What it means is that by calling it a separate sessional day, it makes it possible for this government to count a few hours as a different day and justify in their own minds, if not in anyone else's, bringing in time allocation but not having to wait for the number of days actually to have passed.

It means that controversial government legislation could be passed much more quickly, before there is time for the media to report on the bill, before there is time for the public to become informed about the bill and before opponents of the bill could organize any opposition.

The government argues, "Well, the MPPs would still have the same amount of time to debate." That's true, they would, but that debating time would be crammed into three days, and the public wouldn't hear about it, wouldn't know about it. That's what this is about. This is about a cloak-and-dagger approach to government. That's what this is about. This is about sneaking things through, getting things through so the public won't be able to react and respond if they're opposed.

What this means is that if this government had moved in this manner under these rules on the megacity legislation, they could have introduced it on the Monday for first reading, extended the session, had the first day of debate on second reading in the evening, come back the next afternoon and had another day of debate on second reading, extended the debate into that evening, counted it as another day -- that would be three days -- and then they could have brought in time allocation. That's what it means.

What does it mean in terms of the working around here? This is a minor matter, but it's important to making sure that this place works in a cooperative way. What it would mean is that because the government could do this without notice, the opposition wouldn't know what's coming. They wouldn't have any idea. The government members might know, if the government House leader deigned to tell them. They might know what's coming, but the members of the opposition wouldn't and certainly members of the public wouldn't know.

It shows no respect to the operation of this place as a Legislature representing the people. You can't run a Legislature the way you run a railroad. You can't say, "It's only important to have the trains get through on time."

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Who said that? Who was it?

Mr Wildman: That's what this is about. That was a phrase that was used in the 1930s in Italy, and we know who was in charge. That's what it was. Oh, the trains ran on time. Sure, there was no democracy, but the trains ran on time.

Standing order 11: When a quorum call is lost at private members' hour, only the morning sitting is lost, not the whole day. I wonder why this has been proposed. In the 22 years that I've served in this chamber, this trick, because that's what it is, has only been used once. Do you know who used it? The person who is now the chief government whip. Mr Turnbull used that when we were in government. He called a quorum during private members' hour. A quorum wasn't present, so the House was recessed for the rest of the day and in the afternoon government legislation could not be proceeded with.

That is the only time it has ever been done and now this government wants to bring in a rule to prevent it. I suspect it's because they might think that somebody on this side might be tempted to a little bit of payback.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Madam Speaker --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not required to stop the clock. Can you give me your point of order, please?

Mr Baird: Yesterday the Chair, on a good number of occasions, called to order members of the opposition when they repeatedly used the words "Fascist" and "Fascism." I think it belittles the very serious atrocities committed in this --

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Go and bully the poor; bully the weak.

Mr Baird: We listened to you --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, come to order. Everybody come to order. I was not in the House yesterday when that happened. I didn't hear it today. I would ask all members to please come to order. Member for Algoma, continue.

Mr Wildman: I just wish the chief government whip had been as concerned in 1992 when he pulled this trick about ensuring that government business could proceed as he apparently is now. It's only been used once, yet this government thinks we need a rule change to deal with it, perhaps because this government judges everybody by their own behaviour.

Changes to standing order 24: This restricts the leadoff speeches to 40 minutes and regular speeches to 20 minutes, and after five hours' debate, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes. This is from a member who claimed he was trying to protect the rights of individual members. To protect the rights of individual members by limiting the time they have to debate? What a farce. This is clearly an attempt by the government to limit debate.

If the government were really serious about giving their backbenchers time to speak, they wouldn't try to get bills through as quickly as they're trying to. Just give a couple more days of debate, and then any government backbencher who wants to participate in the debate would be able to. The only reason they don't have a chance to is that this government is determined to have bills passed more quickly than they should. If the government wants government backbenchers to be able to participate in debate, they should

schedule time for debate that allows them to do that rather than changing the rules to limit the time that individual members can participate.

We've already talked about this argument about these rules being just a copy of the House of Commons. You don't see people reacting in the House of Commons this way, because there are a number of differences, which I've talked about. There are three times as many members trying to get on the debate. We don't have that problem. As a matter of fact, we're going to have fewer members.

Changes to standing order 28: Allowing for abstentions but not allowing them to be entered into the record of Parliament. How is it that you're going to allow for abstentions but you're not going to allow them to be recorded? If somebody wants to abstain under a rule change like this, they should at least have the opportunity to have it recorded. If somebody doesn't have the guts to stand up and vote yes or no, they should at least have it noted in the record, because they can in fact stay out if they don't want to vote. But what does this mean? This means that government backbenchers who don't want to vote for something can be here and not vote, and it's not recorded. Th