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

July 20, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My statement today refers to the NDP child care conversion package, a plan that falls far short of the recommendations of the all-party committee which studied this subject.

The business case approach which is advocated by this NDP government provides no compensation for intangible assets such as name recognition and reputation. It is in sharp contrast to what is generally accepted as the good business practice of paying fair market value when the owner of a business is bought out.

This compensation package is not fair and indeed it will not be seen to be fair by the independent operators or the public. We are now presented with a very complex and nebulous set of criteria that will determine eligibility for conversion: the social planning aspects of the local community; the length and stability of its waiting list; the size and stability of its revenue stream.

This so-called conversion plan presents a bureaucratic nightmare to independent day care operators. This government's child care conversion package lacks clarity, fairness and vision, not only for the operators but for the many children and families they have served, will serve and are serving.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): As many members of the assembly will be aware, the Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed Mr Graeme Kirby to consult with the people of Ottawa-Carleton about the future of their municipal government in May of this year. One of the possible changes Mr Kirby was to consult and advise on was moving to a single municipal government or one-tier government for the entire Ottawa-Carleton area.

Before that consultation is completed and before Mr Kirby has reported his recommendations, the ministry has now released a discussion paper that indicates there would not be any financial savings realized by a move to one-tier government, nor would such a move result in better efficiency.

With this in mind, I believe it makes sense to immediately call off Mr Kirby's $175,000 study. If it is apparent that money cannot be saved, then further study of a one-tier government becomes an exercise in futility and we should at the very least save any dollars yet to be spent on the study.

If this government is determined to study the streamlining of the functions of municipal government, then perhaps it might instead consider looking at the amalgamation of the five school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. There are five boards -- some say six when you consider that the French board has both a public and a Catholic component. It would be no surprise at all if such a study would reveal that the majority of the Ottawa-Carleton citizens would like to see less overlapping and duplication in their education system rather than in their municipal system.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise in the aftermath of the assassination of a top magistrate, Paolo Borsellino, to voice my outrage at this abhorrent act of violence. This brutal assassination which took place yesterday, a few short weeks on the heels of the Falcone assassination, claimed the lives of five other people and injured 20 innocent bystanders.

In the wake of this tragedy, I rise before this House today to express my deepest regrets that devastating acts of crime and violence such as these are becoming more prevalent in our societies and, as many newspaper reports indicate, are on the rise.

Whether it is organized crime which takes the lives of government officials and innocent bystanders or whether a violent act or violent crime takes place on the streets of Toronto, communities must pull together to resist these elements in our societies. These acts of brutality must be denounced.

In this regard, a meeting has been planned for this evening with members of the community for the purpose of organizing a rally in support of our brothers and sisters who have been victimized by such brutal displays of violence. I believe we need to assure our communities that such brutal acts will not be tolerated, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Over the past year and a half we've been bombarded by NDP rhetoric boasting that the NDP is the sole guardian of women's interests in this province. But recent events have shown that the NDP cabinet ministers are either too incompetent, too negligent or too uncaring to translate this rhetoric into action.

First we had the incredible case of the Minister of Correctional Services, who for the past year has remained unaware or perhaps uninterested in the sexual harassment taking place within his ministry. As incredible as it seems, even when it reached the stage of a gang rape in a ministry facility, this minister was still in the dark.

It now appears that there is an epidemic. We have learned that two more cabinet ministers, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Energy, were unaware of sexual harassment and assault occurring within their ministries. In response to two separate sexual assaults at Ontario Place and Old Fort William, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Peter North, said: "I wasn't aware. I am now. I hadn't heard of this, honest to God."

Later the minister admitted that he did have some information, but only the fact that there were some investigations and a problem involving sexual assaults. Isn't it absurd that the minister at first didn't know what he knew, and then when he finally figured out what he knew, it was obvious he hadn't cared enough to ask any questions about these serious charges?

The NDP has to cut its rhetoric, cut its incompetent cabinet ministers and get down to the job of protecting the women of this province.

RESIDENTS' PRIVACY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise today to once again plead the case of a group of Etobicoke West residents who live on Wareside Road. For 15 years these residents have been plagued by disturbances coming from a Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority building that backs on to their properties. For 15 years they have been pleading with municipal and provincial politicians and the MTHA itself for help. Promises have been made, and again promises have been broken. Their quality of life is still severely disrupted.

The most recent broken promise concerns the MTHA pledge that it would respond promptly to any call of complaint from the Wareside residents. Last weekend a group of MTHA residents were playing basketball while loud music was blaring until 4 o'clock in the morning. They were playing in the parking lot at the back of the building. Calls were made to both the MTHA security and to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. MTHA did not even respond, and the police said they were too busy to send a car over.

On April 30 of this year, I wrote to the Minister of Housing to formally request a meeting to discuss these matters. This request hasn't even been acknowledged. The minister seems to be under the impression that everything is in fact under control, but the problems are still occurring.

I urge the minister at least to respond to my letter and take some action now to end this 15-year dispute. I don't think it's asking very much to ask the Minister of Housing to at least respond to a letter and potentially arrange a meeting. They're not asking for much, and it's a reasonable request.

RIDING OF PRINCE EDWARD-LENNOX-SOUTH HASTINGS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): The summer is about one third over, but I'm sure in the province of Ontario there are many families that haven't yet decided exactly where they would like to take their vacations. As a representative for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I would like to suggest to them that they might come to that riding in eastern Ontario.

If you're heading to parts of eastern Ontario beyond my riding, I might suggest that you take a little detour off the 401 and travel the Loyalist Parkway. The Loyalist Parkway will take you through a very scenic part of my constituency. It has some very incredible museums. It has Sandbanks Provincial Park, which represents one of the finest representations of baymouth sand dunes in Ontario, if not North America, and it certainly would be a place that many people would enjoy visiting.

There are many opportunities in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings to visit museums and to visit many of the small towns. If you should happen to come, I would suggest that you might even want to bring a bicycle, because in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, in that particular part of Ontario, life goes considerably more slowly. You might want to take a bike and just bike around some of the bike tours that have been arranged in that area and visit some of the very fine and outstanding historical sites.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): In yet another example of this NDP government's stifling debate and democracy, we're seeing a continuance of the unholy alliance between New Democrats and Conservatives. The New Democrats, with the support of the Conservatives, rammed through rule changes in this House to stifle the opposition to the Labour Relations Act. Now the government continues to orchestrate and stage-manage the committee that will conduct the public hearings.

Last week the Conservatives, with the support of New Democrats, restricted public access to the hearings in the province at large to only two weeks. This means that the committee will only travel to six cities. The NDP majority decided not to go to Barrie, Peterborough, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, Sarnia, Hamilton or Kitchener. Unless people are willing to travel to Toronto or one of the six blessed cities, they will not have their say on changes to the Labour Relations Act. These hearings will be the most restricted on labour legislation in recent history.

The NDP member for Guelph voted not to hold hearings in Guelph; the NDP member for Cochrane North voted not to have hearings in Kapuskasing; the NDP member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay voted not to go to Gravenhurst. Perhaps most sadly, the Conservative member for Waterloo North and that party's Labour critic decided not to hold hearings in Kitchener.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today to bring the agency liquor store program to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. At present this program does not extend south of Highway 17, with the exception of a single pilot project in eastern Ontario.

As the minister is aware, I have had several inquiries from constituents who are interested in obtaining agency liquor stores in their communities. I have in turn discussed the matter with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. It is my understanding that the review of the agency liquor store program is still under way.

Minister, the review has been going on for one year now. I have yet to receive a concrete response from your ministry as to whether the expansion will ever take place. In fact, I have not received a response from your ministry to my letter dated February 5, 1992.

In keeping with this government's commitment to northern Ontario status for the entire district of Parry Sound and Nipissing, and, more important, as the public and the tourism industry in these more remote, smaller communities in Parry Sound could be more practically served by extending the agency store program, I would urge the minister to do so.

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's with pleasure I rise today to remind the members of this House and members of the public that back in 1792, Niagara-on-the-Lake, then called Newark, was the first capital of the province. To mark the first Parliament, the province, along with the town, will be hosting a special session of the Legislature in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Just to remind everyone, September 17 is the date and I invite all members and the public to attend. The Speaker and the Clerk, for the benefit of the members here, will be arranging our celebrations and I hope all members will be able to attend this historic event.

On behalf of the riding of St Catharines-Brock and the municipality of Niagara-on-the-Lake, I would like to take this time to invite the families of members to also participate because, as members probably realize, Niagara-on-the-Lake is the gem of the province of Ontario and has such wonderful amenities -- beautiful architecture, a wonderful park, beautiful landscape all around -- and obviously would love to host your families as well.

I do hope all members will take the time to celebrate our bit of history, our 200th anniversary, September 17 in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would ask the House to please recognize in the west gallery the former member for Kitchener, Mr David Cooke.

APOLOGY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In his first throne speech the Premier remarked, "We will make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, we'll acknowledge them." Mr Speaker, I've made a mistake and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge it and to issue an apology to the security guards of this building.

Back on June 29, the first day we were sitting after the regular session, I stood up and in a jocular way pointed out that I thought the Parliament could get along without security guards, members, the Sergeant at Arms, the table officers and indeed the Speaker himself, but we couldn't get along without pages. Unfortunately those remarks, although they were intended to be jocular, were I think taken seriously by the security guards who protect us in this place.

Subsequent to that, a brief, rather jocular column was written in the Toronto Sun by Anne Dawson, pointing out that there were no pages sitting in the extended version of this session, and that Sorbara had said that we could get along without security guards but we couldn't get along without pages, and I think that just compounded the problem.

I want to say in seriousness that the security guards in this building do an incredibly magnificent job in providing for the members. They, along with all of the other people who make this building work, work very, very hard, and what's interesting is that they provide a degree of security in a business that now and again has its own insecurities in a way that makes the public and the members feel perfectly comfortable in this building.

I want to say to them that we do acknowledge the hard work they provide and the degree of security they provide. With respect to my comments made several days ago, I simply want to issue an apology to them and say that all the members of this House appreciate their work and have a high degree of respect for the work they do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I fail to recognize this as a point of privilege, but I will certainly pass on your remarks to the security guards.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have a statement. I'm announcing today that I have appointed Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct an independent review of my ministry's Bell Cairn Staff Development Centre in Hamilton. This review will focus on allegations of sexual harassment and assault occurring at the centre and the ministry's response to these allegations. I have also asked Justice Hansen to make recommendations about working conditions within the ministry based on her review of Bell Cairn.

I want to reassure this House that this review will in no way interfere with the criminal investigation already under way into the sexual assault allegations.

Subject to the constraints imposed by the ongoing criminal investigation and freedom of information and privacy considerations, I will shortly be tabling all ministry communication materials relating to Bell Cairn.

These events are deeply troubling and I profoundly regret that the women in this ministry may be subjected to sexual harassment, abuse or assault. This minister and this government will not allow this situation to continue.

RESPONSES

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Everybody in the House who knows her has confidence in the Honourable Madam Justice Inger Hansen, who we are sure will conduct a significant investigation.

The important matters to be investigated are of course not the matters that are the subject of the criminal process, which is ongoing, but have to do with the conduct of the minister and his relationship with his ministerial staff and with his bureaucratic staff, because without complete ignorance on the part of the minister, culpable or not, the events with which we are concerned -- which, according to one reporter, amount to acts of gang rape against public servants -- simply would not have happened.

The minister is naïve to say today that he's releasing the correspondence. The correspondence was all released by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on Friday. To say that he's releasing the correspondence as if something new were happening is just to play loose with the press and the public. He's trying to close the door long after the horse has escaped.

One columnist highly touted by the Premier only last week had this to say about this minister and these incredible events:

"Yet still, we are told by Pilkey that neither he nor his aides knew anything. He claims he was in the dark until last Tuesday, when Tory MPP Bob Runciman first raised the matter in the Legislature.

"Assuming the fantastic to be true, that every top official in the corrections ministry knew of trouble at Bell Cairn" -- which has been documented for almost a year -- "except the minister, (and given this government the fantastic probably is true) a rational observer is left with only one conclusion -- the minister was grossly incompetent.

"Ministers have to know what is going on in their ministries. They have to know to be able to manage their portfolios....

"A minister who cannot keep on top of his department has no business being in cabinet."

What needs to be investigated and probably cannot be investigated properly under the new rules that have now been passed, because the matter may not get to a committee, is whether the minister is incompetent or whether he has achieved for himself what President Reagan and Colonel North called absolute deniability. Absolute deniability is achieved in the United States, under a practice that may have been adopted by this government, when a minister says to his staff, "Don't tell me the bad news so when it comes up in the Congress or the House I can deny that I know anything about it."

The minister -- his colleagues laugh; they may have perfected the same system -- if he is not incompetent, is advancing the American theory of deniability. The fact is, the minister has to go. No responsible government in Canada can tolerate a minister who is unable, after a year of scuttlebutt and conversation in his department, to manage it effectively.

We've had a number of cases in this House, all of which have been serious, but few of which have been as serious of this. The fact of the matter is the Premier probably isn't going to fire the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services for the same reason he didn't fire the Minister of Northern Development, who passed a lie detector test. The reason he's not going to fire them is the political downside is too great: He knows both their dads.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I too want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Correctional Services today. I want to comment at the outset with respect to his comments at the end of his statement about profoundly regretting that women in the ministry may be subjected to sexual harassment, abuse or assault. I suggested last week that in some respects those words are empty, hollow words, as indicated pretty strongly by the fact that memos were circulating within the ministry for, I guess it was, up to nine months with respect to concerns at the Bell Cairn training institute.

This minister has indicated that neither he nor any member of his staff was aware that those memos were circulating among senior members of ministry staff. Up to this point, I have not joined in the chorus calling for the minister's head but, based on the revelations that have been made public and another matter that I'm going to be raising in question period later today, I think there's no question that the incompetence shown by the minister -- I regret to say this -- cannot be described as other than staggering.

I think that's unfortunate because I know the member for Oshawa knows that I like him personally. I've been very reluctant to take a stand with respect to seeing him resign from this position, wanting to give him an opportunity for a full explanation, but we have not been receiving that, certainly not an explanation that stands up under scrutiny.

There are a couple of tragedies in this. One is with respect to the women who were assaulted and the way they were so concerned about not revealing it because of peer pressure and because of lack of confidence with respect to the superiors in their ministry and the way it would be handled. That is indeed a tragedy.

There's another tragedy and that is with respect to the deputy minister, Ms Palozzi, who is a 20-year career civil servant. I was advised today by someone who worked with her in the Ministry of Education, where she was an assistant deputy minister and was responsible for dealing with sexual harassment cases, that this was an individual who got very actively involved in these kinds of issues, who was very concerned. It raises the whole spectre of whether or not we can believe what the government is telling us about this woman and whether indeed she did refuse to take this to her superiors.

I think when we look at her 20-year career and the job she did in the Ministry of Education, it raises real concerns about the credibility of what we're hearing from the other side of this House with respect to Ms Palozzi. I want to say it appears that the minister and the government have hung this lady out to dry. Her professional credibility is now in tatters.

To compound this even further, they've circled the wagons. They've moved her into the secretary of cabinet's office where they can keep a close eye on her, make sure she talks to no one and we do not hear her side of this story. They've also placed a gag order on all ministry staff, telling them they cannot talk about this issue to anyone in the media or anyone in the public. What are they hiding?

I expressed concerns -- I don't know if this is a response to the question I asked the Premier last week -- about the appropriateness of the cabinet secretary carrying out an investigation. We need some further expansion on the terms of reference of this investigation. But I thought it was totally inappropriate for the cabinet secretary to be carrying out this kind of investigation into what happened within the bureaucracy. This is a man who's in charge of a system that failed and the Premier is asking him to investigate why it failed. I said it was putting a fox in the hen-house, and that's exactly what it is.

We need some further explanations about Ms Palozzi's role in this: if indeed she communicated with the cabinet secretary or anyone in his office, and if indeed they communicated with anyone in the Premier's office. I think these are very important issues. We need to get to the bottom of it. We won't when the Premier is hiding the deputy in his cabinet secretary's office and he's put a gag order on all members of the ministerial staff. There's much more to this.

We need a full and open hearing in this matter. We're not getting it from this government yet. We need a further explanation with respect to the terms of reference. There's an awful lot of this that has to come to light. I want to assure the Premier and his government that we're going to continue to press him on this issue.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It's quite clear that today's announcement of the appointment of an independent investigator at the Bell Cairn facility is not in any way a response to the issue of ministerial responsibility. Last week, my colleagues revealed a series of Ministry of Correctional Services memos detailing the disciplinary problems at Bell Cairn. Those memos date back to September 1991. I ask the minister, given the blizzard of memos throughout his ministry, which we now know extended over a period of almost a year, how is it possible that he had no knowledge whatsoever of these concerns?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The simple answer to that question is that I was not advised, nor was my staff, of this matter as it was being handled within the ministry. I've indicated today in the statement that there will be additional materials released as soon as possible, which I expect may well be tomorrow, that in part will bear rather directly on the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and from that she will clearly understand the answer to her own question.

Mrs McLeod: That was indeed much too simple an answer. I find it extraordinary that this minister can rise in this House and attempt to convince the people of Ontario that he knew absolutely nothing about the problems at Bell Cairn. The Bell Cairn opening a year ago was obviously a major undertaking for his ministry. The minister's own press release at the time highlights the fact that the additions cost $5 million and added 42 permanent jobs to his ministry's payroll.

Is this minister really trying to tell us that after the grand opening of this facility, the words "Bell Cairn" were never uttered again in his presence? Is he really trying to tell us that he didn't bother to ask for an update on what was happening at this facility, the facility that costs his ministry literally millions of dollars each year to support? Are the concerns about harassment and assault on the part of his own ministry staff considered not serious enough to bring to this minister's attention? If these issues aren't serious enough to make the minister aware of them, what issues are?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The matters are indeed quite serious and of absolute interest to this minister. I want to say, however, that I cannot act if I am not made aware of the problem or am denied the information. I would like to share with you, Mr Speaker, the leader of the official opposition and all members of the House this information. Once I was made aware of this situation, I took immediate and direct action. Let's just review quickly what they were.

First, I called a police investigation into this matter for the express purpose of having any perpetrators brought to justice if any criminal acts have been created.

Second, I shut down the Bell Cairn centre and I have suggested to everyone that it will not reopen until I am personally satisfied that it has been returned to the kind of safe, harassment-free workplace it was intended to be and that none of our employees, female or male, will be subjected to any kind of circumstances alleged there previously.

Third, I announced the appointment of -- and I've identified that person today -- an independent investigator to review all these matters with respect to Bell Cairn, who will generate for us additional information, additional findings and, perhaps most important, recommendations to ensure that this kind of matter does not happen in the future.

Mrs McLeod: I simply cannot believe that any minister would be kept in the dark about something as significant as ongoing disorder in his training facility or systematic sexual harassment and assault in his ministry itself. There are only two possible explanations I find credible. Either this minister is so peripheral to the work of his ministry that no one bothers to inform him, or it is a conscious direction of the ministry to protect this minister from controversy by trying to sweep problems under the rug in the hopes no one will notice and in this way the minister is protected by his ability to deny any knowledge when the problem does suddenly erupt in the public light.

Either way, this gross mismanagement reflects either negligence or sheer incompetence on the part of the minister. Will this minister not acknowledge that his behaviour has indeed been negligent and that his management of his ministry is tragically incompetent, and will he not give the Premier his resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can answer that question quite simply. I have no intention of resigning this portfolio or any other. I have, on an immediate and action-oriented basis, on a problem-solving basis, acted on the basis I've outlined. I think that's totally credible, totally appropriate. I can't act on information that's been denied me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question.

Mrs McLeod: My second question is also for the Minister of Correctional Services. I want in this question to address the very serious consequences of the mismanagement that we're attempting to ask this minister to address.

The memos we released last week indicated that there have been escalating incidents of violence and abusive behaviour at Bell Cairn since last September, yet nothing was done. There was then a report that two women had been sexually assaulted, and still nothing was done. In fact, nothing was done until this situation was made public. That the incidents at Bell Cairn were allowed to escalate into sexual assault is completely and solely the responsibility of the Minister of Correctional Services.

Do you not recognize that this behaviour is not just inappropriate and unacceptable but that this behaviour lies at the root of pervasive, devastating problems of sexual harassment and abuse, and that refusal to take immediate action is a major part of the problem? How can you possibly excuse your behaviour, and how can you expect the Premier to excuse it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Absolutely, the conduct that was contained in those memorandums is inappropriate and unacceptable. There isn't a question about it. There's not a question in the Leader of the Opposition's mind about that; there's not a question in my mind about that, and I'm sure there's not a question in anybody's mind about that.

The fact of the matter is that when advised, all of the appropriate and direct actions have been taken to stamp out this kind of circumstance so that it will not be present in our ministry or any ministry within the entire Ontario public service. That's what's been done and that's what going to be accomplished before this is all over.

Mrs McLeod: My question is in fact whether or not this minister understands how far beyond simply inappropriate and unacceptable this behaviour is.

I have here a letter dated September 26, 1991, from a Ministry of Correctional Services area manager who's complaining about an incident involving one of her staff. The letter reads in part, "I am very disturbed that Miss X was subjected to this kind of inconsiderate behaviour and harassment by correctional officers." The letter goes on to say: "What alarms me most about this incident is the fact that Miss X did not feel safe in a ministry facility where the individuals responsible for this behaviour were ministry personnel being trained in the areas of safety and security."

This minister is responsible for a ministry of 8,600 employees. This minister is responsible for their safety and security. I would ask the minister, does he not yet realize that he has completely failed in this most fundamental of undertakings?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not accept that I have failed. I do accept that the system to some extent, in this particular area, has failed. That's why I have commissioned this independent individual, this investigator, who will bring to light all of this information, and that's why I have said that once seized of the information, I have acted immediately and promptly and I think very decisively.

Mrs McLeod: Let me try once more to describe how serious I feel the consequences of this lack of acceptable behaviour on the part of the ministry are. The minister's failure to deal with the issues at Bell Cairn have ramifications that to me seem truly frightening. The people who were involved in this behaviour at Bell Cairn left Bell Cairn to work in facilities across this province. They are in positions of authority.

If there is sexual harassment and assault among the staff, what are we likely to expect is occurring in settings where these people are in a position of power? This minister's refusal to accept responsibility for what has occurred is the reason no one in his ministry has accepted responsibility for what was occurring and why no action was taken. This minister must understand how serious this issue is. He must understand how serious the consequences are of his ministry officials' refusal to act when they became aware of the situation.

Will you not understand that your ministry's refusal to act is your failure, and will you not now accept that responsibility and offer your resignation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The only responsibility I will respect in terms of the questioning is to fix and eradicate this problem, and that in fact I will do and have put in motion the variety of mechanisms that will achieve that. I wish to reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition that you can't act on information that has not been provided to you, but that once seized of it, you do have a responsibility. I have met that responsibility and I will solve this particular problem.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to suggest, with a question to the Minister of Correctional Services, that the minister has not met his responsibilities. Earlier this year, the minister made a decision and personally attended a meeting announcing his decision to disband the Minister's Advisory Committee on Corrections, the committee that was responsible for investigating concerns of ministry officials and providing reports directly to the minister's office. The 10 members of this committee had access to all provincial correctional facilities and institutions.

The committee was charged with a mandate of providing advice and feedback on issues of concern in the ministry. The committee was a third-party body which had input to the minister. In the spring of this year, Mr Pilkey, the Minister of Correctional Services, met personally with the committee and told it, "Thank you, but no thanks, your services are no longer required." Will the minister indicate to the House today why he made that decision?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member is right in his factual account, but I can't speak to the spin he places on the matter. In order to completely fill out the information he's brought forward, it's not to say that the minister's committee will not be reconstituted, for in fact I may, and I will make the appointments deemed appropriate to that committee if it is.

Second, what is not pointed out is that what we have added is a very broad-based, community-representative, ministry-stakeholder group, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, OPSEU and a wide variety of people who either work with or are in and around the corrections ministry. This large group will finally be given an opportunity to have input on future Ministry of Correctional Services policy. It will not only be policy that is generated out of head office, but has a broad community base. These people finally have that grass-roots opportunity for input.

That is a group I've also constituted and met with and that is very familiar with matters with respect to the ministry.

Mr Runciman: What the minister conveniently forgot to mention was that a deputy minister chairs that committee that he appointed to replace a third-party committee. That's like the board of directors of a corporation appointing a president to handle a complaints committee -- simply ludicrous.

The minister conveniently omitted mentioning some advice he received at that meeting when he met this committee and told it, "Your services are no longer required." I've had a call on this from someone sitting in and attending that meeting. The committee members warned Mr Pilkey that he was setting himself up because ministry personnel would not be providing him with accurate information. He was warned in February of this year that if he disbanded this committee, he was setting himself up, yet he said, "Goodbye, get out of here." He gave them the royal kiss-off and now he's paying the price.

The minister has not provided an adequate justification for that. I want him to stand up and say why he ignored that advice and that very clear warning.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This is a political spin at best. I have met with the committee that is referenced by the honourable member opposite.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, the committee in question may be reconstituted at the minister's wish; it is a committee that is under the purview of the minister. The other committees that were established were broad-based, community-oriented stakeholders, and the basic purpose was to provide input into future policy directions of the ministry so that the grass-roots organizations had a very ample opportunity to have that kind of involvement and not be separated from the bureaucracy, which I think is a totally appropriate way for a consultative government to proceed.

Mr Runciman: When we talk about spins, this minister is really trying to put a spin on this. This committee has been part of this ministry for many years, going back to the Conservative government. It served well under the Conservatives and under the Liberals. The NDP government made a decision to disband this very helpful committee, and it simply didn't deal with policy issues. The ministry staff were very familiar with the existence of this committee, and it made them aware of many things going on within institutions and facilities under the responsibility of this minister.

The minister's response when the committee warned him was, "I have an excellent ministry, and there are all sorts of ways to get information." We now know that this minister has completely bungled his job. He did not know about serious problems in his ministry that he should have known about. He was warned not to abolish an independent complaint system, but he did it anyway. He had no effective system for dealing with the complaints he did hear about. He doesn't even have a clear idea of how these complaints were dealt with.

It's now clear that the fear of complainants that they will not be dealt with fairly by this system is totally justified. As I said earlier, I refrained from calling on the minister to resign because he deserved a full chance to tell his side of the story. He has now done so, and it's clear that he is the one responsible for the mess in his ministry. Will he avoid prolonging the inevitable, do the honourable thing and resign now?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First, I want to ensure that any reference to the committee mentioned by the member opposite was not negative in any particular way. They did serve, they did have a mandate, they completed a report, and I don't want any of my comments to be taken in a negative way with respect to that particular committee.

In terms of the final assertion by the member opposite, it appears to me that the responsible thing to do was to act to correct this problem when the matter was brought to my attention. It is regrettable that it was latterly that it was brought to my attention, but there you have it. That is the fact of the matter; it is the truth of the matter. I will now proceed with the knowledge to resolve the issue in respect to Bell Cairn in the ways I have alluded to, namely, the police investigation, the closure of the centre and the independent investigator who will bring forward recommendations to ensure that this kind of matter is not present in the future.

Mr Runciman: I have a question to the Premier, and later today I will ask him how he can justify keeping this minister in his responsibilities. What I want to talk to him about briefly today is the question I raised in the House last week about a third-party investigation of what I've described as a passive coverup within the ministry.

He initially indicated that they had taken a look at proceeding under the Public Inquiries Act but decided not to because of an ongoing police investigation. I raised concerns about where the police investigation was in respect to the apparent coverup that occurred within the ministry, who was involved and who knew what when. He obfuscated, as he is prone to do, and did not answer the specific question.

Again I ask him about the appropriateness. I'm not sure where this investigation by the cabinet secretary stands in light of the announcement today. Has he reviewed the appropriateness of having the head of a failed system investigate why it failed?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think it was appropriate for me to ask Mr Barnes to compile some information for me, which has been done. I also think it's appropriate, and the minister has announced today, that Judge Hansen will conduct an entirely independent review of these issues and of this problem. I think that requires an independent review, and if the member wants me to repeat the problem we have with respect to conducting a police investigation and a public inquiry at the same time, I'll go over that ground with him, but --

Mr Runciman: They're two different issues.

Hon Mr Rae: He says it's two different issues. I can tell him the advice we're getting from all the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: All right. I've given my answer.

Mr Runciman: Without further elaboration from the Premier, we have to assume that advice is coming from John Piper.

I want to talk about another element of this with you, and that has to do with Ms Palozzi and the fact that this woman, as I indicated earlier, has her professional reputation now in tatters because of your actions, the comments you've made in this House, the comments you've made in scrums, without any explanation in respect to the role she played, no public explanation. You've circled the wagons around this woman, putting her into the cabinet secretary's office. You've effectively silenced her. You've also put a gag order on ministry staff in respect to talking to members of the opposition or talking to the media.

Will you direct Ms Palozzi to come forward, speak to the members of the media, speak to the public? Let's hear her side of the story. What difficulty do you have with that?

Hon Mr Rae: There are some decisions a Premier has to take with respect to dealing with issues, and I want to say to the honourable member as directly as I can that Ms Palozzi remains a member of the public service of the province of Ontario. That's where the matter stands, and she will serve the public in many different ways in years to come. That's certainly our intention.

Mr Runciman: It's another non-answer from the Premier. I want to give him quite a significant parallel, really -- and he will recall; I think he was a member then. I'm not sure; I think he was. Certainly some of his colleagues were when there were difficulties -- and this was in a Conservative majority government -- when there were questions raised about Alan Gordon, the Deputy Minister of Government Services, about the appropriateness of awarding government contracts and whether or not Mr Gordon, as deputy, had violated the Manual of Administration.

You may recall that Mr Gordon was called before the standing committee on public accounts of this House so that there was a full airing of Mr Gordon's viewpoint in this matter. I'm asking you, given the comparable situations in many respects, why you're not prepared to have the deputy come forward and perhaps appear before the standing committee on administration of justice and answer some very important questions about how this government operates at the highest reaches of its civil service.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the honourable member that there's no issue of fact with regard to whether or not the minister was informed by the deputy minister. That is a matter of --

Mr Runciman: Who else did she talk to? You're just furthering the coverup.

Hon Mr Rae: All the facts are coming out, as they should and as they must and as they will, in every way possible. The information is all there.

Let me also say to the honourable member that this is not the first time this kind of problem has taken place within the public service or the public sector. There have been other investigations. There have been other ministers involved at different times with respect to matters. Most of that information never came out until long after it took place. There was an incident even in the ministry of corrections when the member for Timiskaming was the minister of corrections, an investigation that took about a year from the initial complaint with respect to an issue involving sexual harassment.

The person who had information and has information in my view has a responsibility to share that information fully with the minister who is responsible, and I'm satisfied that that in fact did not take place and that this information needed to be shared and it was not.

The second problem, as I said in my answers on Thursday, to be fair, was an overall systemic problem that needed to be dealt with and certainly needed to be more widely shared with the political level. That's the action I've taken.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. I hope the minister will appreciate that the issue right now is about competence in his capacity to be a minister.

I think everyone in the House realizes how difficult it is for people to come forward and raise these cases that have been raised here. Yet we find now that it went on for virtually a whole year in your ministry. I think it's fair to say that if it wasn't the number one issue within the Ministry of Correctional Services, it had to be among the one or two major issues. It was an issue that was widely circulated within your ministry. Virtually every senior civil servant in your ministry had copies of memos.

It was one that people were just crying out needed to be tackled, and you went a whole year without tackling it. It was only when the opposition raised it that you took action. That's why people question your competence in being able to manage the ministry and, frankly, question your competence about being able to solve the problem.

But I'm trying to get at how it could possibly be, unless it's gross incompetence, that you never found out about it. I'll ask you a series of questions. First, did the deputy minister or any other senior staff on your ministry over that period from September 30 until before the member raised it ever raise with you or anyone on your political staff the fact that there was a problem at Bell Cairn?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Quite frankly, I'm offended by many of the comments that are emanating from across this House. I indicated in the House last week that I had not been made aware of that issue, and there were many members opposite who questioned that I was telling them the truth. In fact I was, and now many of them are acknowledging that.

Second, in terms of management of the particular ministry, the ministry has been administratively and legislatively well managed with respect even to attendance at special events or awards ceremonies. I have done all of that. There are weekly meetings, daily meetings. My availability and the availability of my staff is ever-present. All of these circumstances are in fact the case.

To reiterate, the response to the honourable member opposite to his first question is no.

Mr Phillips: The very point that you're out cutting ribbons when something this significant is going on explains everything. I think he answered my question about the --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Oakville South to take his seat. Please repeat your question.

Mr Phillips: I'm not sure I heard the full answer to my first question, but the supplementary is still trying to get at how anyone could miss something that was literally crying out for help and people trying to get their political body to respond. My supplementary is this: Did your ministry hold a weekly management meeting that the deputy and senior people attended? Was this issue ever on that agenda? Were you made aware of the agenda for the weekly management meetings and did you receive minutes of those management meetings? Did you or anyone on your political staff receive those minutes?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Again the member opposite asked me a very direct question. I gave him a detailed answer in terms of administrative-legislative, attending special events or awards presentations for individuals who merited special attention. I find it interesting, and perhaps it's telling, that of that explanation, the member opposite chooses to characterize all of that as "ribbon-cutting."

With respect to his second question, the availability of myself and that of my political staff who are onsite at the particular location, my policy assistant who attends management meetings etc, none of them were advised of this particular circumstance. As I indicated, once we were seized of it, direct and immediate action was taken in terms of the police investigation, the closure of the centre and the appointment today of Madam Justice Inger Hansen, who will bring forward an independent view and recommendation with respect to the matter.

Mr Runciman: I want to get back to the unfathomable decision of the Minister of Correctional Services to disband the Minister's Advisory Committee on Corrections, a committee that was designed to provide him with an independent assessment of complaints and concerns of ministry employees. The minister indicated during that meeting that they weren't serving a useful purpose. He gave the impression he was knowledgeable about the activities of the ministry and its past activities and contributions.

Can the minister tell us today what proportion of complaints dealt with by this committee were dealt with to the satisfaction of the complainants, what proportion were determined to be unfounded and what proportion remain unresolved?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There was a report generated by the ministry and there was a response by the committee. Many of the matters crossed over in terms of the involvement by both particular parties, and I think that is the circumstance. Matters of concern within the ministry are reviewed on an ongoing basis, and there are always opportunities which we seek for improvement or changes in policy direction within the field of corrections.

Mr Runciman: The sunset review of this committee was conducted by an official within the Ministry of Correctional Services and the minister apparently made the decision based on the recommendations of a bureaucrat within the ministry. He cut a crucial line of communications: third-party, independent observation of what was going on within his ministry. He made a decision and delivered that decision in person. He sat down and said: "You're no longer required. You're not performing a useful service.

I'm going to talk to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and a few other folks and have the deputy minister chair the meeting. That'll be good enough for me." Obviously he made a very dumb decision and one which had tragic consequences for employees within his ministry. As I said earlier -- this is paraphrasing the minister -- he said, "I have an excellent ministry and I have all sorts of ways of getting information."

Now I don't suggest that the people at that meeting were misinforming me, Mr Minister. Can you explain why you made that response to those members when they warned you about what was going to happen? Where are these magic sources of information that you were supposed to have? Justify your response to them.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly I don't have a verbatim account of the meeting, but it certainly does not sound like the choice of words or the comments that I made to that particular group. With respect to the group, it was an end of a situation. There was in fact a sunset review, and I wanted the input of that particular group on that issue and did meet with the group on certainly more than one occasion.

As I indicated, the more recent initiative was the external consultative committee, which is well attended, very large and comprised of those kinds of exterior contacts that have an absolute interest with respect to the issues of corrections and those around them. For the member opposite to suggest that those representatives from those organizations in some way are in league with the ministry -- let me tell him that is far from the case.

Those people have an interest in the future direction of corrections, they have an interest in resolving matters within the corrections ministry, and they certainly have an interest in and were overjoyed at the opportunity of finally somebody asking the grass roots for its view on policy decisions that will affect the future direction and operation of the entire Ministry of Correctional Services.

COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Attorney General, not the Solicitor General. Before I was elected to the Legislature, I practised criminal law in the city of Windsor. I recall that provincial court judges imposed a surcharge on persons who were convicted of Criminal Code offences and narcotics offences, on top of fines that they may have levied. Those surcharges were as high as 15%, or $35 where no fine had been imposed.

Recently I received a letter from Windsor Police Chief James Adkin on behalf of the victim services unit, asking about those surcharge funds. He said that about $850,000 has been collected so far. My question is quite simple: What has happened to this money? The chief tells me that it's not going to assist victims of crime.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I thank the member for the question, because it is an important one. Essentially he is correct in indicating that the province has received about $800,000 from the victim surcharge scheme. That money has gone into the general revenue fund of the province. That's essentially correct.

I would like to point out something, however. In fact, the province's funding to victim services far exceeds the $800,000 which has come from the victim surcharge scheme. In fact, if I may, the province contributes funding to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to the victim/witness assistance program, through the sexual assault and wife assault initiatives and funding to crisis centres and sexual assault centres across the province. The province's contribution to victim services and increased funding to victim services by far exceeds the $800,000 that was mentioned by the Windsor chief of police.

So yes, the money has been collected, not as much as the federal government at first indicated to us has been collected, but far in excess of the amount that has been collected has indeed been expended on victim services.

Mr Lessard: I just wanted to tell you a little bit about the victim services unit at the Windsor Police Service. They deal with victims of break and enter and sexual assault and the families of murder victims. They provide psychological help and referral services as well. They operate from a cramped little space at Windsor police headquarters. They rely on a coordinator and a clerk and basically no budget.

They do a lot of this with volunteer help, but they know they can do more. They could do more with more volunteers, but they need some extra funding to expand. I wonder whether the Attorney General can provide some assurances that steps are being taken to ensure that the victim services unit at the Windsor police department will receive part of these surcharge funds that I referred to to provide services to the victims of crime and their families.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm very much aware of the excellent work that is done by the Windsor Police Service in terms of providing support to victims. I should say to the member that there are organizations around the province, some community-based, some funded by municipalities, some funded by the province, that provide these services. There is a great competition for the funding that is available.

We recognize that more needs to be done in terms of the provision of financial support to victims of crime, and we have put together an advisory committee to determine how best to utilize the victim surcharge fund and also how best to organize funding for victims generally. I should say, however, that the work of that committee has been made more difficult, first of all, because there is such a competition for funding. All governments face that, but it's been made specifically more difficult by the decision of the federal government to withdraw $3 million of funding from the support of victims generally.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a question for the Premier. The Premier has made plain many times in this House his adherence to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which, as he has said, is designed to assure that a minister, whether he knows the events or not, is held responsible for what occurs in his department so that the chance of recurrence of those events will be reduced; in other words, ministers resigning when there are allegations of this type is designed precisely to assure that it will not happen again.

The Premier said in 1983 and on other occasions that it's a tough doctrine. It's a tough doctrine, as he pointed out, because sometimes you have to apply it to people who are nice people. It's a tough doctrine. In some respects, it can be a rough master. The Premier went on, "But it is nevertheless the principle of our political and constitutional life which must be respected." He then went on to quote examples of ministers, both in this Legislature and elsewhere, who had taken personal responsibility for mistakes, often unknown to them, made in their ministries.

My question for the Premier is: What has changed? The public wants to know. The former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was fired immediately for appearing fully clothed as the Sunshine Boy. The former Minister of Community and Social Services stepped aside pending a rent review investigation. The former Solicitor General was eventually fired for his constituency office's attempt to fix parking tickets. Yet the current minister, in a serious case like this, is allowed to blame the civil service and carry on as before.

Given his previous support for the principle of ministerial accountability, will the Premier please tell the House and the people of Ontario what his standards really are?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Much of the rhetoric in the question is exaggerated.

Mr Scott: It is not rhetoric. I was quoting you.

Hon Mr Rae: No, this rhetoric about fixing parking tickets and other stuff --

Mr Scott: That is what they attempted to do.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's really excessive. The member for St George-St David knows better. He has this tendency to descend to this rhetoric every time he gets to his feet and even when he isn't on his feet.

Let me say directly to him with respect to the issue that when a minister has not been informed, the test surely is, what does he do as soon as he is informed, as soon as he's made aware, as soon as it's brought to public attention, as soon as it's brought to his attention? If I may say so, that test has been applied in just about every instance.

I referred earlier to the member for Timiskaming, who was the Minister of Correctional Services. Nobody in this House stood up and said, "You should resign because of something that took place before you were aware of it." The question is, what do you do as soon as you're aware of it? As soon as you're aware of it, you close the facility, which is what the member has done. You bring in Judge Hansen to make sure that steps are being taken and you set out a very clear rule to say that the minister must be kept fully informed of these kinds of events and this sort of an incident.

I'm not satisfied that at the political level this government was not made aware. To follow the logic of the doctrine which the member for St George-St David is now espousing --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It is your doctrine.

Hon Mr Rae: -- not my doctrine -- which he never espoused while he was in government, the basic argument should be, if an incident of this kind takes place in any ministry, we should all resign. I know one thing very clearly: That member will never be happy until everybody else except for him resigns. That's the kind of level to which he has now fallen. That's the level he's fallen to.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response in confronting a problem of his own, in his own ministry, of a very severe potential coverup of a gang rape at a public institution is to malign me. His minister's attempt is to malign the honourable member for Leeds who brought it to the minister's attention. The reality is that the issue is not mine; the issue is the Premier's.

The public wants to know. The people of the province are now aware, notwithstanding the speech from the throne and the guidelines, that if you smear a physician and lie about him, you can stay in the cabinet, but if you reveal a patient's name in the Legislature, you have to go. If you breach the rent review act, you go, yet if you break the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines, you stay. If your constituency staff try to fix a parking ticket -- and that's what they did -- you go, but if your staff ignores a sexual assault scandal, you stay.

If you appear as a sex object in a newspaper, you go, but if you were unaware of a serious problem of sexual assault which was for almost a year the subject of rumours in the ministry, you stay.

Premier, will you make some sense of it, not for me but because it is your responsibility to tell the public where you stand at the end?

Hon Mr Rae: Where I stand at the end and where I think this government stands at the end is trying to deal with a very difficult situation as soon as we heard of it. As soon as we were made aware of it, we took steps which we hope very much will begin to address what is clearly a systemic problem in the corrections system. There must be a systemic problem in the corrections system or this kind of problem wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

I say to the honourable member, that's the issue. The issue isn't someone resigning every day for this or that. That's not the issue in the public's mind. The issue is how is this government going to handle a case of sexual harassment, and possibly if sexual assault, occurring on government property. That's the issue, the allegation occurring against government employees potentially by other government employees. That's the test. That's the difficult issue we've had to address.

We've had to address it quickly, we've had to address it sensitively, and if you choose to turn this into some kind of political circus in question period, that's your choice, not ours on this side. It's your choice, the way you're choosing to proceed with this.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I don't think the issue is whether or not the Premier decides if someone is turning this into a political circus. The question is gross incompetence and ignorance. That's the problem we're faced with here, Mr Premier. If you're choosing to see this as a political circus, that's your choice.

What the public is seeing is a minister who is so incompetent -- this is to the Premier -- he literally did not know what was going on in his own ministry. Dozens of senior officials knew. It was the word on the street in this ministry. Everybody knew but the minister, and your defence is, "He didn't know, and when he found out, he acted."

Do you not understand, Mr Premier, that the criterion you're setting up to maintain your position in your cabinet is to lock yourself in the office, disconnect the phones and claim to know nothing? Further, Mr Premier, you've set up a cabinet system based on, "The less you know, the better off you are." That's what you're trying to achieve? Is that the goal this government has been reduced to, "Don't tell me I'll have to take some responsibility"? Answer that.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not sure if that was a question or an order coming from the member.

Mr Scott: You would do well to answer it none the less.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the member for St George-St David, if he'll stop heckling for a moment, I'll try to respond as clearly as I can.

I say to the honourable member, the test surely is, what did the minister do as soon as he was informed and as soon as he was made aware? If the member says --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Premier, do you wish to continue your answer?

Hon Mr Rae: The second thing I would say is about the word you have that this was all out on the street. If it was out on the street, I would have thought there would have been a lot of honourable members who would have known before last Tuesday when this was put forward. The fact that members opposite raise questions as soon as they hear of them is exactly what I would expect. There is this notion somehow that absolutely everybody in the world knew about this and nobody was asking about.

I would say to the honourable member that this minister has responded as effectively as he could as soon as he got the information, as soon as the information was made available to him. This government has responded as soon as the information was made available to us.

I think this is an extraordinarily difficult circumstance. Politics aside, there clearly is a human dimension and a human problem here that we all have to deal with. We all understand that -- the political partisanship aside -- and that's what we're trying to do. But I would say to the honourable member that surely he would recognize that with respect to dealing with the problem as soon as it became publicly known to us through question period and through our then going back and asking every question we possibly can of the public service, we have attempted to respond.

If I may say so, that is a test that has been applied by governments for a long, long time with respect to trying to get information and as soon as you get that information, to respond as best you possibly can.

Mr Stockwell: It seems to be a test that you've adopted since you have come into power, Mr Premier. It was not a test or practice you operated with when you were in opposition. It was a very different Mr Bob Rae when it came to information to ministers and ministerial responsibilities.

The test the Premier suggests is what he did when he found out. I take exception to that. I don't agree with him. The test that should have taken place is, when this happened once, if it should happen at all, what happened? That's the test. The test is that this shouldn't have happened on a weekly basis, which apparently it did. It should never have happened without this minister knowing. It shouldn't have taken place without this minister being fully informed. I don't think anyone would argue that point, least of all the minister.

Now, if there is ministerial responsibility, Mr Premier, and if you honestly believe the buck stops in the Cabinet Office and the buck stops at the ministerial desk, how can you defend this minister when he suggests, "Nobody told me, and since nobody told me this could be going on for months, I have no responsibility"? He washes his hands of the issue. He says, "When I found out, I acted," and you accept it. My question is, when is the minister going to accept responsibility for the actions in his ministry, whether it's two weeks old, three months old -- alleged gang rapes, sexual harassment, wild parties? If this minister is not responsible, who is?

Hon Mr Rae: We are taking responsibility for acting as a government and for taking the steps that need to be taken in responding to a problem. If the member is suggesting that it's now the new rule of the member for Etobicoke West that every time anything happens within a ministry, the minister must immediately resign, and that's the only test of responsibility --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: We're accepting responsibility for taking the action. We're accepting the responsibility for responding as best we can to a very difficult human problem. That's what we're doing. The test the member for Etobicoke West is now establishing is that as soon as anything goes wrong, the entire government must resign. That's the new test he's putting forward. Every problem becomes a resignation problem. I must say that's not a perspective I share in instances and it's not a perspective I share in our trying to deal with a very difficult human issue, which we're trying to respond to.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. From time to time in the local media, some reporters make comments and statements that lead to some consternation on the part of my constituents. I can recall a couple of weeks ago when the critic from the opposition asked you a question about the bill of rights.

My question today has to do with an

article written by Peter Gorrie on July 15 in The Toronto Star about the landfill situation. You were quoted in there as saying, and I will read the quote, "And, she said, she still believes that incineration and shipping garbage to other regions are environmentally sound solutions to Metropolitan Toronto's looming garbage crisis."

I think perhaps the reporter should have taken a look at Wayne's World and added "not" to the end of that.

Could you perhaps clarify this for my constituents who are a little concerned about the ambiguity of this report.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Yes, I'm very glad to clarify that. The story the member refers to did indeed leave out the word "not." I'm glad the paper the next day corrected that impression as well.

Let me also use the opportunity to remind the member, who, having served on the committee that looked at Bill 143, is probably aware of this -- other members may not be -- that the arrangement with Metropolitan Toronto and the region of York to ship their waste to Kirkland Lake dealt with only 1.5 million tonnes of waste of year, so that even if the shipping of waste to northern Ontario were accepted, if it were going to that particular site, there would still be a need for extensive landfilling in the greater Toronto area.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with the whole issue of

part IV of that act, which has to do with waste reduction. We heard a number of very forceful presentations during those committee hearings from the public, which I think is well in advance of the politicians, especially on the local level, given that the town of Ajax has just curbed its recycling in four apartment buildings. They seem to be farther ahead in terms of their demands on the politicians to have recycling and reduction. I'd like some indication from you. Perhaps you could give us some information about how well this whole process of waste reduction is going, given the part of Bill 143 that deals with that, and that's the fourth part.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to respond to that and tell the member that in fact the progress with respect to waste reduction is quite significant. Just this week I was able to say to the region of Halton that we would facilitate with money its search for a centralized composting facility. We're very optimistic that Metropolitan Toronto will get its waste reduction action plan back on track and begin to seek approval within Metropolitan Toronto for both MRFs, which are material recovery facilities, that will separate waste, as well as centralized composting.

The region of Durham is also looking at putting in place a waste reduction action plan. The targets that have been accepted by my ministry for a 50% reduction by the year 2000 are targets I believe we can reach within the greater Toronto area.

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. We have heard from various locations that the Ministry of Correctional Services has had various difficulties with respect to sexual harassment and other difficulties. In fact, one of your own colleagues in cabinet clearly has information about that in terms of the system at corrections. I want to know from the corrections minister if he was ever briefed in relation to his new responsibilities as the corrections minister and if his political staff were ever briefed in relation to the problems that have been ongoing in the corrections ministry over several years.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm not sure I understood the first question.

Mr Elston: Were you ever briefed on sexual harassment?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There have been a wide number of initiatives taken within the ministry with respect to sexual harassment. They include, as I say, a wide variety of matters: memos issued to all staff, poster campaigns, insertions of information on the new Ontario public service harassment policy in the pay packets of individuals. We have staff training seminars on a face-to-face basis with members of the ministry, and they are ongoing. There are additional initiatives. There are, I think, somewhere around eight specific initiatives that this ministry has provided with respect to that particular topic. They're all there.

Mr Elston: Someone who knows about all these initiatives either has just found them out or was well briefed on the difficulties in his ministry. I want to know whether the inquiry which has been announced today will have the mandate to proceed to inquire into the ministry procedures and in fact will be able to inquire into the activities carried on by the minister, his parliamentary assistant and his political staff, and whether this inquiry will have the ability to call and swear in witnesses so that it can get the full story.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Madam Justice Inger Hansen will be reviewing this particular matter with respect to Bell Cairn. It indeed does require looking into. She will bring forward a very complete report and recommendations. I'm not aware of whether it would be necessary to call witnesses to this. That perhaps is something that Madam Justice Hansen will consider as to its necessity.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to file notice with you at this time that I am dissatisfied with the answer to my question and request further opportunity to join the issue later in the day.

The Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to advise the table accordingly.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You may not uphold this point, but I want to express concern about a delaying tactic the government entered into this afternoon when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Correctional Services got up with a very lengthy question to ensure that the members of the third party did not have an opportunity for another question to the minister, his minister. I think that's totally inappropriate, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair always tries to be as fair as possible, and I think that we've achieved that, to give a chance to everyone to pose his or her questions. The member for York Centre.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Mr Speaker, I am rising on a very important point of order. I have with me some notes. Regrettably we don't have any pages, but perhaps one of the other officials could distribute copies of these: one to you, sir, one to the table officer, one to the government House leader and one to the House leader for the third party.

I'm going to be speaking today on government notice of motion 13. The gist of my submissions, which will probably, with your indulgence, take about 15 minutes, is to the effect that government notice of motion 13 is out of order and is not properly a time allocation motion. I'm going to be arguing from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as well as the precedents that have been set forward in this House, and I'm going to be raising a number of specific questions.

The relief that I'm asking from you, sir, is set out on the final two pages of my document. That is, first of all, a request that you rule government notice of motion 13 -- I'm sorry; this document says "15" but it should read "13" -- out of order; second, that you, in your discretion, suspend consideration of government notice of motion 13 until the issues raised in my submissions to you today have been ruled upon by you.

I would point out to you the first submission that I make in this document, which is as follows. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms submits as follows, in

section 533: "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion." This is described by Beauchesne as a well-established principle of parliamentary procedure. I am asking you, sir, what provision of our standing orders has the effect of varying this procedure in Ontario, and are there specific decisions of Speakers of this Legislature that have varied that principle?

That is the seminal question, if I might, in the matter I am raising. If I could just direct your attention to government notice of motion 13, it reads that upon the next calling of Bill 150, which is the bill that we were considering on Thursday night, rather than allowing the debate to continue, the Speaker would be required to -- and I'm quoting now -- "put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate."

Let me just clarify again that government notice of motion 13, while appearing to be a time allocation motion, is in substance a motion that prohibits any further debate whatever on Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments.

In accordance with new standing order 44a, that is, the new time allocation provisions, the notice of motion says that when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 150, all debate comes to an end. If this motion were to be considered by this House and passed by this House, you would be required then to prohibit any further debate whatever on third reading and immediately put the question.

I submit to you, sir, that Beauchesne himself has stated that to do that would be in violation of what a time allocation motion is designed to do. I'm suggesting to you, sir, that there are no precedents in this Parliament for a time allocation motion which allocates no time. The motion we are about to consider in this House or that stands on the Orders and Notices would not provide for the allocation of any time whatever. In that respect, it is not a time allocation motion but rather a closure motion.

The second point I would wish you to consider is set out in number 2 of my submissions, and the question is framed as follows: Is a time allocation motion which provides for no further debate at any stage of a bill's consideration an indirect method of achieving closure of the debate for a particular state of consideration of a bill? I would submit to you, sir, that this motion in fact represents a closure motion in a different guise.

I then point out to you, sir, and raise the question in 3 as follows: What is the relationship between a time allocation motion which fails to allocate any further debate and a closure motion under

section 45 of the standing orders? You're familiar with

section 45 and you realize that under

section 45 a member of the government has the ability, when he or she validly has the floor, to put the question, that is, to use the words of the motion, that this question be now put, which brings the debate at least temporarily to a close, and at that point the Speaker has to make a determination as to whether or not there has been sufficient debate. You are required to rule on that and if your ruling is in the positive, then there can be no further debate.

My fourth question, sir, is as follows: Are there any instances under our standing orders where a time allocation motion has been placed before the assembly in which it is provided that no further time be allocated for the consideration of the bill at any particular stage of the legislative process? In other words, have we ever seen a time allocation motion of this sort before? My submission to you, sir, and I've done the research back to 1982, is that in every single instance we have not had a time allocation motion which allocates no further time.

Fifth, my question is as follows, and this is important given this debate was interrupted on Thursday at 6 o'clock when the House was adjourned for the weekend: Where a member has the floor speaking to a bill at any stage of consideration of that bill, can a time allocation motion intervene to prohibit that member from completing his or her remarks?

Frankly, sir, I would like your attention on this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have my attention. Please, go ahead.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to you, sir, if you're talking with the Clerk, it's difficult to believe that I have your attention, but I'll take you at your word.

When we recessed this Parliament on Thursday, we were considering Bill 150 and one of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party had the floor. Under our standing orders, that member was allotted 90 minutes in order to deliver his remarks. Obviously the House adjourned at 6 o'clock and the remarks of that member were not completed. I believe it's inappropriate to have a time allocation motion which would intervene to prohibit that member from completing his or her remarks.

I have done research in our standing orders and in the precedents of this House and have found no instance where a time allocation motion interrupted a member in the midst of his or her remarks and would have the effect of prohibiting that member from completing his or her remarks. That's one of the matters I raise in number 6 of my questions: Can a time allocation motion validly abridge the the right of a member to speak for the full time permitted him or her under the new standing order once that member has commenced speaking and has not utilized the time permitted him or her to make his or her remarks?

We have standing orders that provide specifically the length of time that a member will speak. If you allow this standing order to stand and be debated and passed in this House, the effect will be to abridge the rights of a member, which rights are already in the process of being acted upon by virtue of the effect the motion will have, and that is, cutting off the member in midspeech, as it were.

Number 7 is as follows:

Section 45, that is, the motion for closure, vests in a Speaker a discretion whether or not to require that a question be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. This arises where a member validly moves, "That this question be now put." The Speaker is required to consider whether such a motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority. A time allocation motion, which provides no further amendment or debate, has the force and effect of

section 45. The question I raise with you, sir, is as follows: Does the Speaker acquire a discretion to reject a time allocation motion that would give rise to the same result as a closure motion under

section 45?

Number 8: The time allocation provisions of the standing orders of the House of Commons are similar in substance to the new standing orders respecting time allocation recently adopted by this Legislature. Evidence from the House of Commons staff indicates that a time allocation motion allocating no further time would be out of order in the House of Commons. I ask you, sir: What distinguishes the substance of our time allocation motion from that applying to the House of Commons?

If I might just take you to the precedents that apply to time allocation motions in this House, I go back to December 8, 1982, where the Conservative government put a time allocation motion under Bill 179. That time allocation motion, as in every other motion ever put before this House, allocated some additional time for the consideration of Bill 179. The motion was debated vigorously, and in the end the Speaker ruled that it was valid because it did allocate time.

Then again, sir, on February 15, 1983, a time allocation motion was presented by I believe the Honourable Bette Stephenson for consideration of Bill 127. There again the time allocation motion allocated some time for the consideration of Bill 127, I believe both at further consideration in second reading and through further consideration in the House.

I want to make special reference to the time allocation motion which was presented to this House in respect to the bill on Sunday shopping, Bills 113 and 114, in the month of January 1989. On January 19, 1989, some issues were raised -- and this is a very important point, sir -- in respect to the time allocation motion to bring to a conclusion the debate on Bills 113 and 114. The questions raised by Mr Rae and other members of the opposition were of such significant significance to the Speaker that he reserved his judgement on those questions for the subsequent day.

Then he replied to the House subsequently and made a ruling on the time allocation motion, supporting the time allocation motion but offering authority for his position in the ruling he made.

Similarly, in the time allocation motion affecting Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, when issues were raised about the validity of the time allocation motion, the Speaker, rather than simply ruling on that motion, reserved his judgement and reviewed the authorities and the questions raised by the members in response to the time allocation motion and then reported back to the House.

I submit to you, sir, that this ruling will be very important in the way in which this House conducts its business from now on. If you were to rule today without considering the authorities, let me point out to you the effect your ruling would have.

As you know, the new rules provide that after three days of second reading debate a minister or the government House leader may put a time allocation motion before the House for debate for one full day. That's the substance of the new rule.

If you rule in favour of this motion today, you create the possibility that in future, after three days of second reading debate, a time allocation motion could be put in the name of the government House leader which allowed for no further debate at second reading, no consideration in a standing committee of the Legislature, no consideration by committee of the whole and no debate at all on third reading.

Yes, the bill would have to go through those various stages, but if you permit the government House leader the luxury of putting forward a time allocation motion that provides for no further debate on third reading, then you give him the power and the authority to put forward a time allocation motion in future which provides for no further debate at any of the stages that a bill will go through subsequent to the passage of the time allocation motion.

If you were to do that, sir, without reflecting on the authorities and consulting broadly about the precedents of time allocation motions in this House and in the Parliament in Ottawa and in other legislatures, then I say to you that you are not fulfilling your responsibility as Speaker. This is an incredibly serious motion, not because the government does not have the theoretical right, as it did, to put forward a time allocation motion, but this motion is in effect a closure motion because it prohibits any further debate.

You might think it's all right because we have had a great deal of debate on first reading and during previous stages of the bill, second reading and committee consideration. But if you allow that to happen here, you are by implication allowing for debate to be completely terminated on any bill or substantive motion after it has had three days of debate in second reading.

Remember that this motion says that once it is passed and Bill 150 is called again, there shall be no further debate. I remind you once again of what Beauchesne said about time allocation motions. He said, "Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing a debate to an immediate conclusion." Those are the words that govern the way in which our Parliament and parliaments in Canada are required to conduct their business.

In fact, this is such a broad and well-established principle that Beauchesne doesn't even refer to a specific ruling but establishes that this is a well-established principle of parliamentary democracy both in Canada and elsewhere in parliaments that are similar to our own.

I want to speak for a moment about the submissions I make to you. First of all, I think it's absolutely essential that you consider this matter rather than rule on the matter. I grant that you may have advice from the Clerk that this answer is easily questioned, but the Clerk is not the Speaker of the House. You are the Speaker of the House, and this is an extremely serious issue. I am not asking you to defer your judgement for weeks and months; I am asking you to defer your decision until you have had time to reflect on the submissions we make. I'm perfectly agreeable to submitting to you, sir, the judgements of previous Speakers on time allocation motions for your consideration.

The damage that will be done if you rule immediately and in favour of the motion is long-term and will apply to every single bill subsequently considered by this House, so I'm asking you, at the very minimum, to consider the arguments I've made here today, to consider the arguments that will be made by the House leader for the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and obviously to consider the arguments that will be made by the government House leader.

I know the government House leader urgently wants to call this motion today and have it debated for the balance of the day in this Parliament. Nothing will be lost if you prohibit him from doing that for one day so that you can reflect on the matters being raised before you.

Once again, I appreciate that the Clerk may have a view, but we have views as well, sir, and I remind you that if you, in your role as Deputy Speaker, simply make a ruling on this, you are going to give the government the authority, by the implication of your ruling, to cut off debate, finally and completely, on every single bill that comes before this House after it has had three days of second reading debate.

The implication of putting forward a time allocation motion that says, "There shall be no further time allocated," if approved here on a bill for third reading, is that it is available on second reading, is available when a bill goes to committee of the whole and is available on every other stage of a bill. There is nothing in our standing orders that says there has to be a reasonable amount of debate at a particular stage before the time allocation motion is brought forward. The only thing our standing orders say is that there has to be three days of second reading debate.

This is the most serious assault on our right to debate legislation ever presented in this House, and I urge you, sir, I plead with you, to reflect on this issue, to sleep on this issue, to read the precedents of the House, to examine those cases, all of them, available to you from your research staff or research that we can provide you; and that research indicates there has never been a time allocation motion presented in this House which allocated no further time.

I believe that if the government House leader had allowed the member of the third party who had the floor when this debate was adjourned on Thursday to complete that speech and allocate perhaps one more speaker, then he would have complied with the technical requirements for a time allocation motion. I believe that if he had allowed for 15 minutes or a half-hour or one more sessional day, he would have complied with the technicalities of a time allocation motion.

But having gone the full length and placed in his time allocation motion a provision that there will be no further debate, is in substance a closure motion. I submit to you that he does not have the power to bring forward closure under the time allocation provisions where there is a specific motion for closure in our standing orders, namely,

section 45.

In every instance where a member has set forward a series of questions to be answered by the Speaker, the Speaker has reflected on those questions and ruled on those questions before making a judgement. It's incumbent upon you, sir, to suspend and postpone any consideration of government notice of motion 13 until you have answered the questions that I have raised here with you today.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the same point of order raised by the member for York Centre. Quite frankly, as you know, I'd given you advance notice that I'd be making a similar point myself if he or somebody else did not.

I think, first of all, that the point the member for York Centre makes with respect to your ruling is most appropriate. This will be a landmark ruling, if you don't mind my saying so, Mr Speaker, with respect to the new rules that the government has brought in, and I think it's very appropriate that you take the time to make sure in your own mind that you are absolutely certain that this government notice of motion 13 is in fact in order before you allow the notice of motion to be called and proceeded with.

I couldn't agree more with the member for York Centre that in effect what the government House leader is trying to do is that he's trying to do indirectly what he can't do directly. Under standing order 45, he can very directly move closure if that's what he wants to do, and in fact that's exactly what this motion does. This is not, I submit to you, a time allocation at all, because -- very simply put, without any great, reasoned argument -- it provides for no allocation of time; there is no time provided for in the time allocation motion.

What he's trying to do is cut off debate at this point, end it and have a vote immediately. There's a procedure for that in this place. It's called a closure motion. It is under standing order 45, and that's what the government House leader should be using. The reason he isn't using it, very bluntly, is that there's only been one speaker for the official opposition on this third reading debate -- not even a full speaker on our party's behalf.

The member for Carleton I believe had the floor and still had time left, as the member for York Centre has pointed out, and the government House leader knows very well that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, would not permit closure to be invoked after one and a half or one and three quarters speakers. Therefore, he's trying to do indirectly what he knows he cannot achieve directly. I think it's very important that you take that into account with respect to your ruling here today on government notice of motion 13.

I'd also like to point out standing order 1(

a) in our rules, which says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders." I firmly believe that government notice of motion 13 does not conform to our standing orders as recently amended. I believe it is a breach of the standing orders, which are for all members of this place and not just for the government.

Erskine May says on page 1, "The purpose of many of the rules is to safeguard the rights of a minority of the House: to guard against the development of an 'elective dictatorship' which some have predicted.... Above all, the balance between the right of governments to obtain their business and the right of the House as a whole to examine it...is maintained through the discretionary powers given to the Speaker."

I can presume why the government House leader has introduced this motion with respect to cutting off debate, because as I've said: (

a) he knows he can't get closure under standing order 45 at this particular point in time; (

b) he knows he's getting some political heat and the Premier and his government want to get out of this place as quickly as they can because they don't like question periods such as the one that prevailed this afternoon and in the latter stages of last week. I think it's important that the people out there know the lay of the land and know what's going on behind this government notice of motion 13. That, in fact, is the political reality as to what is happening and why the government House leader is now introducing this motion.

This is a bill that the government says is very important, that it says it has to have: Bill 150. Let me tell you a little bit about the legislative history of Bill 150 in this place, because I think it's always interesting that we understand the sense of urgency that governments place on such things.

"When did this bill first receive first reading?" I asked myself. It first received first reading on November 6, 1991. Here we are on July 20, 1992. Second reading debate was for two days, December 16 and 17, 1991. The bill was passed on second reading on December 18, 1991, and it went to committee for five days. Now we have a bill that the government says is so significant that it can't leave this place this summer, some four and a half or five weeks later than we're normally here, saying, "The bill is so important; I introduced it about nine months ago; I have to have this bill before I leave."

There was only two days of second reading debate on this piece of legislation, and now, after not even two speakers on third reading debate, we have the government House leader saying: "I need this bill and I need it right now, and there can't be any further debate. I know I'd never get a closure motion through, so under the guise of a time allocation motion I'm going to provide a motion that provides for no allocation of time whatsoever. I'm going to get this thing passed and out of here so I can go home, like my Premier wants me to, so Mr Pilkey doesn't have to come to question period every day." That's what this is all about, just so there's no mistake by the public at large out there.

Also, just so there's no mistake, in my humble opinion and that of the member for York Centre -- and I presume several other members and perhaps even the government House leader himself if he was brutally honest about this -- this is not a time allocation motion at all because it provides for no allocation of time, not one single minute, not one second. How can a time allocation motion be for allocation of time when none is provided? You can call an elephant an orange, but that doesn't make it one. An orange is an orange, and an elephant is an elephant, regardless of what you call them.

This is a closure motion as sure as I'm standing here. The government House leader knows he can't get a closure motion through at this point in time, and he's been ordered to get this business of the House done so he can leave.

I also think it's very important, Mr Speaker, that in your deliberations you take into account not a particular standing order, in this case 44a, all by itself but that you take into account the other rules of the Legislature that go with it, like standing order 45 that I've already alluded to, because in fact you know and I know that what the government House leader is trying to do here is to cut off debate abruptly at this point in time and have an immediate vote on the matter.

That is called a guillotine or a closure motion, and there's provision to do it, but he knows he can't get it, so he's not doing it that way. He's going to try to come in through the back door and do it by another means, hoping you buy his argument.

This is very important with respect to the other rule changes that have just been adopted in this place. It's very important to the intent and the spirit in which these negotiations and discussions with respect to rule changes went on, because when we were talking about these new rule changes, the House leader for the Liberal Party and myself asked the government House leader why he wanted these rule changes and what he intended to do with them. In the debate with respect to the rule changes, he said: "Oh, I would hardly ever introduce this. I'd only introduce it maybe two or three times a session at most, and I'd only do it for really significant pieces of legislation."

There have only been two bills called, and he has introduced it on both of them. I wouldn't consider this to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that a government will ever pass. They introduced it on November 6, 1991, and now they're getting around to talking about it on July 20, 1992. that's how significant it is in their minds, which I would suggest is not too significant at all.

If this place is going to work, there has to be some respect and agreement among all three parties. To cut off the member for Carleton when his time wasn't even finished and introduce such a closure motion is absolutely ludicrous. It is very important that you consider all this in its proper context before ruling on whether government notice of motion 13 is in order or isn't in order.

I couldn't agree with the member for York Centre more. I don't believe there's a precedent in this Legislature that provides for a time allocation motion that has no provision of time in it whatsoever. The House of Commons in Ottawa has three ways it can introduce time allocation motions, and they're outlined in standing order 78. It's very interesting to note that in standing order 78(1) and (2) in Ottawa both of the first two ways provide for cooperation and consent and agreement among the parties sitting in the House of Commons.

Only under 78(3) can the government in Ottawa proceed unilaterally with respect to a time allocation motion -- which is what is happening here; the government is trying to proceed unilaterally -- and then there has to be at least one day on any stage of a bill before our government can proceed unilaterally.

When you are talking about this very significant

interpretation of the standing orders as recently amended in this place, I want you to take into account how the rights of the minority in this place may be usurped by this government, or future governments for that matter, by really invoking closure under the guise of a time allocation motion that provides for no time whatsoever.

In my humble opinion, and hindsight's always great, what the government House leader should have done if he wanted to proceed by way of a time allocation motion was to introduce a motion that provided for one further sessional day of debate on third reading of Bill 150. That would have been very much in order. But he didn't do that because he didn't want any further debate, not one second more. He even wants to cut off the member for Carleton from concluding his remarks. That is most inappropriate. I suggest to you it's not in order.

I suggest to you that government notice of motion 13 is not a proper time allocation motion at all. It's operating under the guise of time allocation when in effect it is in reality a closure motion.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to be absolutely certain in your own mind that it is in order, and if there is one scintilla of doubt in your mind, I request of you very respectfully that you postpone the consideration of government notice of motion 13 here this afternoon and that you take all these circumstances into account before arriving at your decision.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will be very brief. The

section of the new rules that provides for time allocation clearly provides for the ability for the Legislature to put time allocation at any stage of the bill. The fact of the matter is that we've had second reading debate on this legislation, we've had committee hearings on this legislation and we've had clause-by-clause on this legislation. Then we started third reading of the legislation last Thursday and had a whole day on third reading of this bill. Time allocation clearly would apply to only the final stage of the legislation because that's the only stage that is left.

The reason, Mr Speaker, that time allocation is clearly necessary in this case is that -- you have been here long enough to know -- the tradition in this place, if one wants to raise a valid point of order, has clearly been for many years that third reading is a very short debate, a very focused debate. What has happened is that now it has become the norm in this place for the opposition to debate at length on third reading as well.

We had a 90-minute speech by one of the members of the opposition on Friday. If they wanted to get their final words in on third reading, as has been the tradition around this place, instead of delaying -- and that's obviously the goal around here -- then there would have been a more fair way of dealing with third reading of the bill, but the goal around here is to delay, delay, delay, delay.

I didn't want to bring in time allocation on this piece of legislation. It would have been preferable to sit down at a House leaders' meeting and be able to discuss how this bill should be handled, but that seemed to be quite impossible. So the time allocation motion is there. It provides for bringing in the allocation of time at any stage of the bill. This is third reading, and that's exactly what this motion deals with.

Mr Speaker, I don't believe it would be appropriate for you to delay your decision on this matter, because that, again, would do exactly what the official opposition in particular wants you to do: to delay and delay further. It's clear that this motion is in order. It was tabled on time last Thursday before 5 o'clock. It was circulated to the opposition parties. It is now here to be debated and decided upon by the members of the Legislature. That's what this is all about: the members of the Legislature deciding.

The rules and procedures in this place should respect the opposition and its ability to oppose and should also respect the ability of the government to govern. It's a balancing act that you have to play, but not allowing this decision to be decided today by the members, which is entirely what the rule calls for, I think would be an abuse of the government. It's in order; it was tabled on time; it was circulated. It's now up to the members to debate and decide, and that's what the government's prepared to do.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I wish first, in making comments on this point of order, to thank my colleague the member for York Centre, who has done an extremely good job of laying out the series of issues to be discussed but, Mr Speaker, I might draw your attention as well at this time to some other aspects of this particular motion.

If this were a time allocation motion, and you understand standing order 44a as having been one of the new rules to come in, you would also understand that it was accompanied by several other pieces of new legislation for standing orders around here, which included the fact that the beginning speakers from each of the parties under time allocation, in fact under each of the stages of the bills, were allotted a full 90 minutes to make their remarks, which, when you come to consider this issue, means there is an anticipation that the very maximum for the opening speeches would be 90 minutes and that there would be an expectation that each leadoff speaker would go for as long as he or she determined to go.

After that, the rules of this House prescribe that a member may have up to 30 minutes to speak. If there was to be any justice in putting that provision in the standing orders, then it would mean that more than just the leadoff speakers would be contemplated to be able to speak at each stage.

Mr Speaker, when you look at this rule 44a, as well, you will see that it contemplates, as my colleague the member for York Centre and my friend the member for Parry Sound have indicated well, that there is a sense that there would be an allocation of time after the motion is determined. In this situation, there is no such time. If 44a were to be used to bring a vote to the House immediately, then we would not have allowed any other rules to have been brought forward which had indicated clearly that there cannot be a 44a motion unless there are three days of debate on second reading and unless there have been other provisions for members to speak.

I agree fully with what the member for Parry Sound has clearly indicated, and that is that the member for Windsor-Riverside has determined that he will go about his business by excluding not only the opposition from making their points, but in fact excluding the Chair from exercising the age-old authority of the Chair, which is to protect the minority in this House and rule upon when the use of the closure motion, which would have come under standing order 45, is an abuse of process.

Mr Speaker, you cannot in my view allow this 44a motion to stand as being in order at this time. If you conclude that, it is my view that this is a standing order motion that is not perfectible merely by moving an amendment to it, that the order has to be withdrawn or withdrawn at your instigation and that any other standing order motion under 44a would be a new one that would have to be duly tabled and, as a result, the opposition would have to receive notice of it.

In its place, the member for Windsor-Riverside, as government House leader, can have access to standing order 45. If it is his will that he wishes the vote to be taken immediately, if he wants closure, which is what the motion currently in front of us speaks to, then he can use standing order 45. But in that instance, he will then have to rely upon the fact that the Chair would rule that there has been enough debate. It is my view and the view of a lot of people here that there has been hardly any debate.

I thank my friend from Parry Sound for bringing forward to us the fact that there were only two days of second reading debate on Bill 150, five days of committee and now but one day of third reading. That is not very much time.

It is and has always been the role of the Speaker to protect the minority and to allow the minority to speak out. It is now, Mr Speaker, your unenviable position to have to make a determination on 44a, but if it is your determination that it does not stand, then the motion must fall altogether. Then we in the opposition will have to be aware that the member for Windsor-Riverside, on the instructions from his Premier, Bob Rae, will cut all of the debate off. That's what all the issue around this place has been over the last several weeks, about Bob Rae and David Cooke cutting off all debate at all times so they don't have to put up with the irritation of somebody who disagrees with them.

Seeing that this now is fully brought into focus by this very precipitous motion delivered by the member for Windsor-Riverside, I think it is incumbent upon you to make an acknowledgement of that set of factual information and read into this motion 13 exactly what is at play in the government's mind.

Mr Speaker, with that I thank you and my other colleagues for intervening on this very important issue, but I leave with just one word: If it looks like closure, if it reads like closure, then it is closure, and it must as a result be brought under standing order 45, not under new standing order 44a.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to try to be as brief as possible, but I was the member who was cut off in midsentence. Actually I guess literally the government pulled the plug on me with regard to my remarks last Thursday afternoon.

The fact of the matter is, the critic for the Ministry of Revenue for the Liberal opposition party had an hour and a half to speak and he took that time up, which he was entitled to. As a result, after question and answer provided in our standing orders, it left me with approximately 15 minutes before I was required to sit down because we had run out of time on Thursday afternoon.

I want to say that under a lot of circumstances, third reading wouldn't require a great deal of debate in this Legislature, but two things make it very, very important that members in this Legislature be given an ample opportunity to express their opinion on third reading.

The first one is that I hold in my hand the amendments to Bill 150 during the committee process. This bill, Bill 150, contains 51 sections. I hold in my hand 49 amendments to 51 sections. If one can argue that Bill 150 is the very same bill or principally the same bill as it was when it left this House on second reading, then you might have some substance behind the argument that members in this Legislature do not need a great deal of time on third reading. My argument is that as a result of these amendments, we do require time to talk about those changes in the legislative chamber.

Interestingly enough as well, during the committee hearings there was only one day of hearings on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and I think you should know that, Mr Speaker.

I think as well those who had attended the public hearings, the other four or five days which we spent in committee, will attest to the fact that very few members of the public were in favour of this bill, and surprisingly enough, that not only included those who might represent the business or the investment side but it also represented the labour union side, which this bill was intended to enhance or benefit.

Therefore, on third reading, Mr Phillips, who represents the Liberals with regard to the Ministry of Revenue, has already expressed some dismay with regard to that input. But I think it's only fair to members of that committee and members of this Legislative Assembly that they talk in some detail about the submissions that were made in a negative sense about Bill 150, even as it is amended.

Last, I would like to talk about urgency, the urgency of this government to have this legislation passed. As my House leader indicated, on December 18 this bill received second reading and was sent out for committee hearings during the winter break. The committee on which I sit, the committee dealing with this matter, was to hear these hearings beginning on February 23 or February 24, in and about that time.

Three or four days before the committee was ready to hear input from the public, and the witnesses had been lined up, the Minister of Revenue called off the hearings unilaterally, a procedure which I objected to at the time, but basically said that the ministry was not ready to go ahead with hearings at that time because it had significant amendments to the bill. Their argument at that time was that they didn't want the public to come forward to talk about Bill 150 as it had been passed on December 18 in this Legislature but they wanted the public to react to a different document after the 49 amendments had been introduced.

The opposition was ready to go ahead in the latter part of February to consider Bill 150. The government wasn't ready to go ahead with Bill 150 in February in terms of the hearings. We could have had this bill back in the Legislature in the first week this Legislature began sitting in April. We could have been considering this in April. We could have been considering this in May. We could have been considering this in June. But because the government wasn't ready with its amendments till the latter part of April, and we had public hearings during the month of May, it is the government which has stalled the progress of this bill; it is not the opposition.

Now the government wants to close off the opposition with its one chance to remark on the significant changes which it has made to the bill and to stop our response and our reaction to this bill. Mr Speaker, if there is any opportunity for you to strike down this motion and give myself, along with other members, an opportunity to comment and respond to the government's tardiness with regard to Bill 150, I think we deserve it. I believe my privileges and responsibilities are being usurped by this motion. I am the Treasury critic, I am the Revenue critic for this party.

I believe, quite frankly, that Bill 150 should not be passed and I demand the time to make that case before this Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this on the same point of order, the member for St Catharines? I believe I've heard enough.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought when I got up you'd probably say that.

The Deputy Speaker: I've heard enough evidence. It is the role of the Speaker to be fair, to be just and to make sure all points of view are listened to. You're asking me in reality to give you a ruling on 44a. I cannot do this immediately. I have to reflect on the whole issue. I would ask your indulgence. I would ask you to give me time so that I can come back tomorrow and give you a full ruling so that there is no longer

interpretation on that section.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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