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

October 25, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L016 - Wed 25 Oct 1995 / Mer 25 Oct 1995

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL UNITY

FOOD SHOPPING LIST

NATIONAL UNITY

MAISON DE L'ÎLE DU CHENAIL

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

DISTRICT HEALTH UNIT

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

NATIONAL UNITY / UNITÉ NATIONALE

BREAST CANCER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ESTIMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY ADVISORS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

LABOUR LEGISLATION

RENT REGULATION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

VISITORS

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from the Administrator of the government, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): All rise, please. The Administrator of the government transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1996 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): At this very important time in our country's history, I would like to acknowledge the work of a great Canadian in my riding, Norm Lalonde, and his committee.

Around the Cornwall area, Mr Lalonde is known as "Mr Canada" since for many years he has coordinated the Canada Week celebrations. This past year he organized a Unity Scroll, a message from ordinary Canadians about the importance of a united Canada. So far, more than 9,000 people have signed the scroll, which will be presented to the Prime Minister later this week.

Next Monday's vote in Quebec has many of my constituents worried about the future of our country. Practically speaking, there are many residents in my riding who work in Quebec and there are many who reside in Quebec but work in the Cornwall area.

Many Canadians have been making their voices heard in these past weeks and will continue to do so through public demonstrations for a united Canada in this final week leading up to the referendum.

I've also received from Calvin Preddie his own design of a T-shirt that sums up the feeling of members in this House, myself, Norm Lalonde, Calvin Preddie, Kevin Bradshaw and many of my constituents. It reads, "We chose a united Canada, a cherished nation from sea to sea to sea." I would like to express my support for a united Canada and I encourage all to do the same.

FOOD SHOPPING LIST

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Last Friday, the Minister of Community and Social Services finally released his long-awaited shopping list. His list was supposed to be a commonsense shopping list, a lesson for single people on welfare, the assertion being that a person who lost his or her job somehow forgot how to shop and needed a reminder in commonsense shopping.

Myself and a number of people in my riding on Saturday decided it would be a good idea to see just how much common sense existed in the Tsubouchi shopping list. Guess what we found out after shopping à la Tsubouchi? The $90 list cost closer to $110 no matter where we went and shopped. The list, if followed, would not even meet the bare minimum standard for nutrition as set out in the Canada Food Guide.

The list even lacked some of the essentials we in the civilized world take for granted. The single on welfare could not wash, as no soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, shaving cream or any of the necessities needed to keep one clean was on the list. How would a prospective employer view an applicant for employment after just a few days on this stinky diet? I guess since the Harris government took power, employers in this province have lowered their standards. We certainly know that the Harris government is an anti-worker government, but I never thought they'd stoop to these lengths to prove it.

I believe that this government, like any good government, should lead by example. I challenge Mr Tsubouchi and the Premier to practise what they preach. Let them live on this diet of misery and see how they feel, or should I say how they smell after 30 days. After 30 days, I assure you that the hunger pangs would change their views on the world and, who knows, they might just call for a stop to this class war they're starting in this province.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): It is very timely for me to speak on the importance of national unity.

On Sunday, October 29, a unity rally will be held in the city of Barrie in my riding of Simcoe Centre. This non-partisan rally is organized by everyday citizens who have a deep sense of national pride. The rally will start at 2:30 in the afternoon at Barrie's Memorial Square.

This is a fitting location because it is the same place where we honour those brave Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice. It is also where a few people recently got together on their own initiative and built a beautiful flag display. This engineering wonder shows the maple leaf as a torch encircled by a ring of flags from each province and territory, all displayed at equal angles and height on a single pole, a symbol that Canadian strength comes from the sum of all of its parts.

We should not be silent about our commitment to this great country. I invite all members of this House to join the people of Simcoe Centre on October 29 to show our commitment to Canada and genuine affection for our good friends and neighbours in Quebec.

MAISON DE L'ÎLE DU CHENAIL

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Last Sunday, I had the honour and the privilege of participating in a ceremony officially inaugurating the town of Hawkesbury's Maison de l'île du Chenail as a heritage site.

En désignant la Maison de l'Île à

titre de bien culturel, architectural et historique, la ville de Hawkesbury assure la conservation et met en évidence un des rares trésors de son patrimoine municipal, tout en faisant une contribution importante au développement touristique de la région.

J'aimerais partager avec vous quelques faits saillants de la Maison de l'île :

Construite en 1810, la Maison de l'Île représente un des rares bâtiments du XIX e siècle encore en existence à Hawkesbury. Une des techniques de construction utilisée à l'époque de sa construction, soit celle des billots côte à côte, équarris et aplanis sur le dessus, est très rare et probablement unique dans la région.

In the early 19th century, the Maison de l'Île belonged to the Hamiltons, important businessmen in the area who ran the lumber mill renowned nationally and internationally for its forest products. The Maison de l'Île also once belonged to the Honourable John C. Abbott, Canada's second Prime Minister.

Monsieur le Président, je félicite le Comité du patrimoine de Hawkesbury ainsi que les membres du conseil municipal d'avoir eu la vision de conserver ce site historique pour l'appréciation des générations futures.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): For over a week now, members of this caucus have been talking about the various and assorted Mulroney hacks, flunkies, bagmen and toadies picked up off the junk heap by the Harris government to serve as their staff people.

The Harris government inherited the largest part of the Mulroney brain trust, and if that ain't an oxymoron, nothing is. You see, Speaker, there's one more, Jayne Sutherland, the executive assistant to the Tory-Harris House leader. Well, by God, if she wasn't one of the staffers for Mulroney's House leader, Harvie Andre.

Unlike some people, I'm not at all concerned about that, because these are the same people who made Brian Mulroney one of the most hated Premiers -- the most hated Prime Minister -- in all of Canada. These are the Tory-Mulroney hack staffers who reduced the federal Tory party to but two members. They hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth.

So I can but encourage Harris, if there are any more of these Mulroney hacks floating around whose unemployment insurance has long expired and who aren't prepared to live on the Tsubouchi $90-a-month food budget, well, by God, I'm encouraging Mike Harris and his gang to hire many more of them, because they'll end up in the same phone booth as Jean Charest and his sole cohort.

This Premier will end up being the most hated and despised Premier in Ontario as Brian Mulroney is the Prime Minister of Canada.

DISTRICT HEALTH UNIT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Tomorrow, we'll be celebrating the 50th anniversary of service by the Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge District Health Unit. We're delighted to have the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Health, Mrs Helen Johns, as the guest speaker.

Because of spadework carried out by the Durham Federation of Agriculture and the women's institutes, the Northumberland and Durham county councils appointed a board of health in 1945. From the beginning, the health unit conducted many activities throughout the area, including mass immunizations, provision of maternity care, monitoring of public water supplies and dealing with tuberculosis.

The health unit's geography and responsibilities have changed and grown dramatically since then. It now works to ensure conditions in which we can all live healthier lives.

The district health unit has offices in Port Hope, Brighton, Campbellford, Lindsay and Haliburton. Activities are carried out in cooperation with many community members, including nurses, physicians, dentists, nutritionists and many, many volunteers.

It is community-based approaches like this one that will allow us to continue to help people improve the quality of their health while controlling spending.

Congratulations to the leaders and staff of the Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge District Health Unit on achieving 50 successful years of working with and serving their public.

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I've just come back from a rally in support of Northwestern hospital in my riding attended by over 1,000 people. At that rally, it was made very clear that this hospital was built by the community. It was started by Canon Jackson, who raised money door to door in 1949 to serve the people of middle Metro, the city of York, and it has served the people with excellence over the last 40 years.

At that rally, it was made abundantly clear that a hospital that serves people and is part of the family of the city of York should be protected from closure, especially when it provides a completely integrated service. Hopefully, the Minister of Health will look at this hospital as a centre of excellence, protect it and ensure that it will go on serving the community of Metro and the city of York for the next 40 years.

I hope this ministry and this government tread very, very carefully before they start closing hospitals, especially a community hospital, a neighbourhood hospital, like Northwestern.

NATIONAL UNITY / UNITÉ NATIONALE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Today, I rise to talk about an issue of great importance to all Ontarians, indeed to all Canadians, and that is national unity.

As all in this chamber are aware, Quebeckers will be making a choice on Monday, a choice between continuing to work to improve Confederation and Quebec's place in our nation, or a path to separation.

Les Ontariens et les Ontariennes partagent avec les Québécois et les Québécoises depuis des siècles des liens de plus en plus serrés. Ces liens entre nos deux provinces sont assez forts pour survivre le débat actuel et s'épanouir pour les générations à venir.

It is my profound hope that Quebec votes no to separation from the rest of Canada. It is my profound belief that at heart Quebeckers share the same concerns and hopes that we do in Ontario, a concern about jobs and the economy and a hope for the future of our children. It is only within a federal framework that we can make the changes necessary to meet our economic and cultural aspirations.

Saying no really means saying yes to continuing the process of evolution of our federation. Voting yes is a vote for an uncertain future, for Quebec and for all of us.

By all accounts Canada is the best country in which to live. A united Canada provides the best foundation for all of us to achieve all of our goals.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Breast cancer is the most frequently occurring type of cancer among women. In 1995, almost 7,000 Ontario women will be diagnosed with cancer of the breast. That means that one in nine women will be diagnosed. In 1995, 2,000 women, or one in 23 women, will die of breast cancer.

Incidence of breast cancer starts to rise after the age of 25, although the majority of cases occur after the age of 55. It is a disease that often strikes women in the prime of their life, at the peak of their work and family responsibilities. This is not only a women's health issue; husbands, children and families of these women are affected as well.

It was my pleasure to attend the opening of the Marvelle Koffler breast cancer clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital Monday evening with the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jim Wilson.

What is unique about this centre is that it resulted from the efforts of one individual who recognized a need and took action on her own. Mrs Koffler's incentives to improve the experience of women dealing with breast cancer sprang from her own personal experiences in the health system. Modelling the centre upon a clinic she visited in New York, Mrs Koffler has created a more sensitive and reassuring atmosphere for women.

It is a place that will cater to the sensitivities of women's health issues, something that this government is proud to be associated with.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The 1995-96 expenditure estimates I am tabling today were prepared by ministries in anticipation that they would have been presented to the Legislature this past spring. However, because the previous government decided not to recall the House in March, the estimates were never presented.

In these circumstances, we are tabling the estimates quickly to permit the standing committee on estimates to review the government's spending plan. The most practical and expedient way to do this is to table the estimates prepared by the ministries from the previous government.

As members are aware, the estimates are an integral component of the annual process for the government to obtain legal spending authority from the Legislature.

On July 21, my colleague the Minister of Finance gave a fiscal statement and outlined initial spending cuts directed towards returning the province to fiscal responsibility and accountability, and putting Ontario on the road to economic recovery.

I am also providing members with tables that outline, on a ministry-by-ministry basis, the changes to total spending plans made by this government. These tables show the expenditure cuts this government has already made to the programs included in the estimates I am tabling today. These changes form part of the overall spending adjustments announced by the Minister of Finance on July 21 and reported to this House by me on September 28.

Ministries will provide the standing committee with detailed briefing materials that more fully explain our government's spending plans for this fiscal year.

In addition, I am shortly to table supplementary estimates in the House to provide spending authority for capital grants. These supplementary estimates will reflect the conversion of the previous government's capital loans to grants. This is in keeping with the advice from the Provincial Auditor.

Since taking office in late June, this government has been working diligently to put Ontario's finances in order and will continue to do so. The Minister of Finance will present a fall economic and fiscal statement providing further details.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'd like to point out that it's about time that the estimates were tabled in this House by the minister so that we can finally begin to determine where -- the details of the pain that will be unleashed by all these expenditure cuts will become much more apparent at that time, and I think we've been asking for this for some time.

I think it becomes abundantly clear that this government intends to provide very little alternative to those people out there who will be most hurt by these cuts. That's really the defining moment in all this, that the government is saying -- we're all for efficiency on this side of the House, and I think everyone recognizes and agrees, every single member in this House agrees that there is a debt and deficit problem, and everyone agrees that that needs to be dealt with. But I think what has become very clear is that this government is to provide no alternative for people who are on social assistance.

There is nothing for them to do other than to witness this 21% cut, with no alternative coming forth from the Minister of Community and Social Services, from any other minister, any other member of the government.

I think it's very clear -- and in this I make reference to the election campaign -- when speaking to my constituents I told them, "Beware of what's being proposed by this party, this Conservative Party, because they're going to take us back to the Diefenbaker era," and that struck fear in the hearts of many of my constituents because they remember that as not a very nice time indeed in which to have lived. It was very difficult.

But it becomes clear to me, and I've come to understand this now, that this government not only wants to take us there, they want to take us further. They want to take us back to a Victorian era when you had to bleed patients in an effort to try and make them feel better, and that's what being done here. It was voodoo medicine and now we're getting voodoo economics. In a sense, I think it's very clear that this government is to provide no alternative for those people who are suffering out there as a result of their cuts.

We will indeed look forward to detailed estimates of what these expenditure cuts will mean for communities right across Ontario that have yet to find out the real consequences. The minister stands up each and every day, along with some of his colleagues, to announce with great fanfare all of these cuts, but what does it really mean to people out there in the communities?

I think we're beginning to see evidence of that each and every day, but in other communities where the cuts have not been dealt with, the cuts have not been felt, I think we'll begin to see the true response from the public out there as to what that means, and every single member of this government will be subject to those questions around what the details will mean for each of their communities. When that begins to happen, I think we're going to hear a different tune from members of the government.

These expenditure cuts are going to -- again going back to where the cuts are being made: education and training, $229 million; health care, a solid commitment of the government not to touch health care and they say they will put that money back into use in the health care budget. That remains to be seen. We will see through the expenditure process whether that is actually going to take place over the next year or two or three, and we'll see what impact that has on each and every one of your communities, because that's where the real pain will be felt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): As I think everyone in the House recognizes, we had requested that the government prepare a budget and present a budget. Every single year in the history of this province, every single year, we have had a budget. That's the document that the Legislature and the public can understand and debate the finances of the province. But for the first time in the history of the province, we will not have a budget.

What we've got today is, in my opinion, an attempt to sneak through the estimates. They'll want them dealt with over the next few weeks with as little debate as possible, and this has become the hallmark of this government: no debate, no illustration of what they're doing. Later today we're dealing with a motion that will cut off debate on the most significant piece of labour legislation in the history of this province, all dealt with in a matter of days.

What we see here today is typical: no budget; no opportunity for the people in this province to understand where this government is coming from on the finances; tabling of estimates that are now six months old; a very limited opportunity for debate on them; and a very limited opportunity for the people of this province to have their voices heard against this government.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): We know that the Minister of Finance is going to be bringing down some kind of a statement later on in the month, when he will indicate to all of the transfer partners how much pain they're going to have to bear as a result of this government's approach to economic life.

Hon David Johnson: Because of your deficit.

Mr Rae: I did not heckle the member for York East when he was making his points --

Hon David Johnson: Don Mills.

Mr Rae: -- and I would hope he wouldn't heckle me on a subject as fundamental to the province as the estimates, though if he chooses to do so, we will govern ourselves accordingly.

I think it's an interesting fact that in preparing the cuts within a couple of ministries -- I've learned, for example, that the accounting firm of Ernst and Young was hired by the government to provide advice to the government and indeed to plan for the government the nature of the cuts that are being made. In the Ministry of Community and Social Services, we understand from many of the agencies involved that the staff in the ministry say they have nothing to do with the decisions on cuts, that these have all been made by Ernst and Young in terms of the advice that's been provided. We haven't seen those reports. We would like to see those reports.

I've heard from the Sharbot Lake health centre that they're now engaged in a battle with the Ministry of Community and Social Services over whether in fact they own the health centre which has been in place since the early 1970s, which has now been shut down as a result of the unilateral decisions taken by this government.

These numbers simply tell a very small part of the story. We would have so many questions to raise about these if we were able to have a proper budget discussion, either now or we'll no doubt be able to raise them in the spring when we have the proper budget made available.

For example, we're now advised, and we now hear and learn, that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has plans to shift part of its budget over to the Ministry of Health.

I would raise the issue with my colleagues and ask, does that mean that the $17.4-billion envelope which is referred to in the Tory Common Sense Revolution as the envelope which will be maintained will then receive this additional, very significant Gains-D and they can turn around and, having cut all the institutional side and having cut the hospitals to smithereens, come back in five years and say, "Look, the health budget is still intact" because it's now had whole other areas added on which it previously did not have?

The story, which I still don't think enough has been said about -- and I know there are members of the press here, and I hope they're listening very carefully to the story that's yet to be told -- is that the real agenda of this government is to cut taxes for the wealthiest citizens of the province and to cut services in order to pay for that tax cut. Right through the piece --

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Propaganda.

Mr Rae: I'm glad I've got the attention of the minister responsible for women's issues, because we're going to have some very real questions for her. She is one of the executioners of programs and services which have been vital for the women of this province for a long time.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Name them, Bob.

Mr Rae: I will name them. You be patient. I'll name them. You hang on. Don't you worry.

We see, across the board, services which provide for the most vulnerable -- a service in Ottawa I heard about just yesterday, a farm where people who are severely disabled go to work and provide for themselves; the one bit of work they get to do, that farm for the physically and mentally disabled is being closed by the cuts that are being imposed by this government.

The Tories ran saying they could have cuts and it wouldn't hurt; they could have cuts and it would only be good for the economy. They are wrong. They are wrong, and we will show they are wrong, and the people who are vulnerable in this province know they are wrong. They know they're being asked to pay the price for the rich who are going to be the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut. That's what's wrong with Tory Ontario, that's what's wrong with the Tory vision and that's why we're going to continue to work so hard against it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY ADVISORS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who we are pleased to see has been allowed to return from exile. Minister, Friday, you'll remember, was the day you released your shopping list, but you refused to stay around and discuss it. There was a newspaper report, which the Premier has since essentially confirmed, that you have hired Jan Dymond, an image maker.

Now, as you know, Ms Dymond is not being paid out of Conservative Party funds, she is being paid out of public funds, and so I think the public deserves an accounting of how much money is being spent and how it is being spent. Minister, I ask if you would please tell the public the length of Ms Dymond's contract, the total amount she is being paid, how much she is being paid on a daily or an hourly rate, and was this contract put out to public tender or even the more limited RFP route before it was given to this well-known Mulroney adviser?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you for that kind welcome back; I appreciate it.

I think it's very important to understand here, first of all, that this company was not hired by myself as the minister, it was hired by the ministry, and it was hired specifically to assist us with our long-term programs.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Lake Nipigon is out of order, as are several others. Order. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: If it's time for the supplementary, I gather the answer was that the minister didn't hire Ms Dymond, the ministry did. Clearly, there is no one in charge of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and that's more and more apparent. But beyond that, Minister, I really do think that there is something rather rotten here, and it is not the 69-cent mythical tins of tuna that you keep talking about in this Legislature.

As you say, the ministry hired Ms Dymond. You have a large and, I'm sure, a very excellent communications staff within your ministry now. You have people who will write speeches for you and advise you how to deliver them. You have people who can advise you on how to deal with the media. You even have people, as we have seen, who will speak for you on those days when you decide, or the Premier decides, that it's time for you to disappear. You have all kinds of senior staff who could advise you on matters of policy and organizational structure.

So I ask you, Minister, to tell me, at a time when you're telling poor people in this province that they can get by on two pieces of bread without even so much as a pat of butter to help them go down, at a time when you're asking poor people to live on a $91-a-month food diet, why are you living off a $1,200-a-day image diet?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, I think what is rotten here is your ability to listen. In fact, that wasn't the end of the answer. You failed to hear the rest of it, as I had continued. I had said that this company is here specifically to assist with the long-term projects and programs of this government such as our commitment to workfare.

I ought to tell you this right now: We consider it very important for us to have a two-way dialogue with people out there who are going to be affected by the workfare program, and this means people who are on social assistance, it means our front-line workers, it means anyone who is going to have to implement this program.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm going to tell you something right now. This is all part of our dialogue right now and I'll tell you something: We are taking the lead, unlike prior governments, in terms of consultation. Right now, I'll tell you, it's very easy to stand up and be self-righteous.

However, we have already met with several groups in the disabled community, such as Christian Horizons, Ontario Association for Community Living, People First of Ontario, Special Services at Home Family Alliance, Great Lakes Society for Development Services of Ontario, Federation of Ontario Facility Liaison Groups, and they have agreed to work with us to help formulate policies and directions for the disabled community. This is part of our program to consult people --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- the families and the caregivers of this province who unfortunately --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- the other parties have disregarded.

Mrs McLeod: The minister was so determined to finish his scripted answer that he failed to hear the supplementary question. The supplementary question was indeed related to the fact that you have an excellent ministry staff who are able to provide you with the communications assistance that you so clearly need, as well as with the policy and organization advice that I'm sure people in the communities that are being affected by the daily decisions that you're making without consultation would be delighted to help you with.

Minister, I suggest that you do indeed have a communications problem and, more than that, I truly suggest that you have a comprehension problem, because I don't believe you understand what it is that you're doing and the effect it has on those people you're talking to. More than that, you consistently tell us one thing in the House and then we find out that the reality is quite a different thing, so let me give you one more example.

Over a month ago you told us that you were going to hire in your constituency office a financial planner and the role of that financial planner would be to give advice to those people who were affected by the welfare cuts.

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: We called the office this week, Mr Speaker, and guess what? There is no financial planner. In fact, your office gave us a number to call at your ministry and the person who answered the phone there said they don't give advice, they just explain the system, if they can keep up with it.

Minister, how is it that when you promise a financial adviser to poor people, the adviser fails to materialize, but when you need a personal adviser, they're right there on the spot?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has not got access to exactly what our plan is. I spoke late last week to the local newspaper and indicated to them that this program will be starting in November and, in fact, I have an opportunity now to mention the gentleman's name. His name is Harry James -- he is with Ross Dixon Financial -- who is not being paid, incidentally. He is donating his time to assist people on social assistance.

This is an example of the type of volunteerism and community spirit that the Premier and I were speaking of before, of how communities have a responsibility to assist their own community.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question was going to be to the Premier, but in his absence, to the Minister of Finance. I would say first, on behalf of everyone, we're very pleased to see you back, all of us.

I did want to follow up on your government's plans for the finances of the province. Many times in the House your government has said the deficit is the single biggest financial problem facing the province and, frankly, I think we all agree with that. You're asking people like the children's aid societies and people on social assistance, children on social assistance and seniors to fight that deficit problem.

The problem we have with the message is that at the same time as you're asking all of those people to fight the deficit, you're also planning a very major tax cut. In fact, in your own documents, on the direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution, it says here you're going to cut $6 billion and then you're going to give a $5-billion tax break and you're going to reduce the deficit by $1 billion. In other words, all of the people in the province are being asked to cut expenditures by $6 billion, but for every $6 saving, $1 goes to reduce the deficit and $5 goes for the tax cut.

Can you explain to people like the children's aid society and mothers on social assistance the logic of them fighting the deficit problem saving $6 when only $1 will go to fight the deficit and $5 goes into a tax break? It is not unlike your old six-and-five program, but a very different six and five: six expenditure cut, five tax break. Can you explain the logic of that to those people?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): To the honourable member: I think that he misrepresents the financial and fiscal policies of this government. As he well knows, when we assumed office if we had not taken any action the actual deficit figure for this fiscal year 1995-96 would have been in the neighbourhood of $10.6 billion for this year alone. We immediately took steps to reduce that by almost $2 billion of expenditure reductions in-year, and we are on target to meet that target for this fiscal year of $8.7 billion.

He is correct that had the fiscal situation been what it was projected to be by the previous government in its April 27 statement, and other statements by the previous government, we would have only had to cut $6 billion in expenditures. But that wasn't reality, that didn't turn out to be reality, and in fact we will have to cut even more to get a handle on expenditure reduction levels for this fiscal year.

I might also point out to the honourable member that the tax reduction of which he speaks he knows full well will not be felt in one fiscal year alone.

Mr Phillips: I'm using your direct fiscal impact of the Common Sense Revolution. It says program spending cuts $6 billion, tax cut $5 billion, reduce deficit by $1 billion. That's in one year -- one year. You are cutting --

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Well, then you don't understand your own program, because you are cutting. You're asking everyone to join the fight on the deficit.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mr Phillips: You're asking everyone to join the fight on the deficit -- people on welfare with two children cut by $3,000 -- and at the same time you are going to give -- there are 50,000 people in this province making over $150,000. You are going to give them a $5,000-a-year tax break. Two hundred and fifty million dollars will be going to people making over $150,000. Can you explain to all of those people who are working for children's aid organizations, mothers on welfare, the logic of giving a $250-million tax break to people making over $150,000 while you're asking them to cut, cut, cut, and if they cut $6, $5 of that cut goes to a tax break? Can you explain the logic of that?

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member: He knows full well that it was never intended and does not say in the Common Sense document that this full impact of the tax reduction will happen in one year. He knows that in our first three full budgets we will achieve the personal income tax reduction that we had projected to achieve in the Common Sense Revolution document.

He also fails to recognize that those tax cuts will leave money in the hands of taxpayers across the province of Ontario, not just those who make $150,000 a year or more. And he also does not point out, I say to him, the effect of the employer health tax, which his government introduced, which we are going to take away and replace with a much more progressive system that will tax those very people who make $150,000 a year that he's complaining about.

Mr Phillips: This becomes more troubling, because the minister doesn't understand his own plan. The $5,000 tax break to those people includes them paying that tax levy. You don't understand your own plan, Minister. The government doesn't understand its own plan.

I'll follow up, and again I say to the people of this province -- it's not me speaking. This is straight out of what they call the Common Sense Revolution, where it says very clearly, "We're going to cut $6 billion, and $5 billion of that $6 billion will go to a tax break."

I want to continue on the tax break, because in the next four years, by your own estimates, Minister, you will lose $15 billion of revenue to this tax break. That's not me speaking; that's from your own document: $15 billion. Every penny of that $15 billion you have to borrow. We continue to run deficits to the year 2001. Every penny, you have to borrow. The interest payments alone for the next four years on that tax break are $2.6 billion.

Can you explain to the people of Ontario the logic of borrowing $15 billion to give a tax break when you say the deficit is your single biggest financial problem to solve?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that it will not cost us $15 billion over the next four years. He knows that in the third full budget year of implementation, we will then get up to the neighbourhood of $5 billion a year, in the third full year of the tax cut. There's 15% in the first full budget year: 7.5% followed by 7.5%. So he doesn't take that into account in his calculations.

We will not have to borrow, as he puts it, $15 billion to meet that commitment, and he doesn't take into account the stimulation of the economy by leaving money in the hands of taxpayers. Now, I understand that he doesn't understand that philosophy, because the previous two governments increased taxes 65 times over the past 10 years.

I know they don't understand that if you leave money in the hands of hardworking, honest, taxpaying Ontarians it will actually stimulate the economy. If the solution was simply to tax more and spend more, we wouldn't be in a recession right now, because those two parties are living proof that that has not worked over the last 10 years.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I have a question for the minister of women's issues, since she was so quick to ask me to name examples of where cuts were being made.

Minister, I'm sending you over a copy of a letter that the member for Riverdale has received from Julie Lee, who is the executive director of the London Battered Women's Advocacy Centre.

I'm very troubled by the contents of this letter because in it Ms Lee says that on Friday last, a meeting was held in the minister's constituency office with respect to funding for services to women in need in the London area. She says that in addition to being advised that not only was there no money for this year, there was going to be even less for next year, and that more serious cuts could be expected in the near future.

She goes on to say this, and I have to quote it: "Very quickly after this meeting, I took note of what she said to us. Ms Cunningham" -- referring to the minister -- "said, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice [at this point she made reference to Harmony House, an Ottawa second-stage housing project which has been strongly voicing opposition to the cuts] will be audited and their funding eliminated.'"

There were others at this meeting who were also present who, I am reliably informed, are prepared to indicate that this is in fact what the minister said. I would like to ask the minister how she can possibly justify taking this kind of position in discussions which she is having with people who are providing such necessary services in the province.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I just received the letter. I haven't read it. I'm trying to listen to the leader of the third party, and I will respond in this regard.

Those words are not my words. I never made that statement. My staff was there making notes. I should tell you also that this was tried on the London Free Press, who checked around to see if I did make these statements. As a matter of fact, obviously I didn't, because she wouldn't even print it. The

article that was in the London Free Press on Saturday did not obtain these words because this was not printed.

Mr Rae: Obviously these are words which are not lightly used by the author of this letter. Again, if you look at the bottom of the letter, you'll see that "Mary Ellen Mellanson, the executive director of London Second Stage Housing, has been supported by her board of directors (who were also in attendance at this meeting), to come forward and confirm Dianne Cunningham's statement as noted above."

Now we have clearly here a minister who denies making such a statement, and we have people in the community who insist that this statement was made -- who insist that it was made -- and who are not afraid to come forward and who are very clear in their assertion that these words were used.

I want to ask the minister, how can you explain how people who were present at the meeting are now clearly indicating that in fact this is what was said, that people were told that if they expressed opposition their organizations would be audited and they would be shut down, and that this gives rise to an atmosphere of genuine and deep fear among groups that are working in the community? How could she explain how such a comment would come to be made?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think that these kinds of letters -- and I've met with literally hundreds of people in the last few weeks, and I've never, ever had anybody write a letter like this. I have to tell you that this is the kind of letter that does instil fear in our communities. This is not representative of the conversation. For those of you who know me in this House, I encourage people to speak in opposition to this government and give us good ideas about what they're concerned about and how we can find solutions to the problems.

For you to pursue this argument right now is not in the best interests of anyone. If someone wants to make those statements, it's up to them to prove them. I would suggest that my staff was in the room and I didn't make it, and I want everybody in this House to know that if we're going to solve the problems facing Ontario today, we're not going to make any excuses for creating an environment where people can work, go to school, have hope for the future, and, yes, the decisions right now will be tough ones, but I can assure you that in the future, if we don't make these decisions, there will be no second-stage housing or any supports for women who have been victims of sexual assault.

Mr Rae: Having been a first minister, I can tell you there are many occasions when allegations are made against ministers. Indeed, they've been made by various opposition members. But here we have a statement that's attributed to the minister in a private meeting and which the press was not permitted to attend, in which we have several people who apparently are prepared to indicate that --

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Well, they weren't with the Free Press, were they?

Mr Rae: The minister's shouting out and I was talking -- because obviously in a climate which this government has established that intimidation is now the order of the day --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Rae: I don't know. There is a very specific set of statements that the minister makes about organizations being audited and their funding eliminated. Now, can the minister explain how somebody would come away from a meeting, not simply with an impression --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Not just one person.

Mr Rae: And not just one person come away with an impression of the fact that funding was going to be difficult, which everybody in the province understands, but how it would possibly be that people who operate one way, that is to say by talking publicly in opposition to the government, how it is that their organizations would be subject to an audit and how their funding would be eliminated? How would somebody come away with that kind of an impression unless something to that effect was said? How could they possibly come away with it?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Well, I don't know how they could come away with that kind of thinking. I clearly left the meeting with two thoughts: First of all, I have been in touch with the Minister of Community and Social Services around all of the second-stage housing projects, because we are looking to solutions and we do intend to keep the core program there. That's the first message that I left with this particular group.

The second message I left to the group was that we are looking for solutions to the tremendous challenges that we face in Ontario today. I can tell you that I have been in touch with five of the women who attended that meeting who did not raise this issue with me at all, nor would they support the author of this letter.

In closing, I would like to say, if in fact the leader of the third party is trying to intimidate me in the work that I'm doing on behalf of the women in this province, it won't work, because we intend to provide the programs that are necessary and the core programs that we promised during the campaign and for which we have a very strong mandate on behalf of the citizens of this province.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I have a question, in the absence of the Premier, to the Deputy Premier. I understand that the argument the government is making for its decision to proceed so quickly with the labour relations changes, and to move the closure motion which we all know is being moved today, is because the consultation over labour relations took place in the Common Sense Revolution during the election.

I want to ask the Deputy Premier and House leader, in whose name the motion on closure will stand, where in the Common Sense Revolution it talks about stripping union rights from public servants in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, where it talks about gutting and reducing the employee wage protection program and where it talks about making it easier for employers to instigate drives to decertify unions. Where exactly was this discussed during the election campaign in the Common Sense Revolution?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The bill that is standing in the name of the Minister of Labour, Bill 7, is an effort on behalf of the government to re-establish some sort of semblance of business and fairness in the province of Ontario. I understand that the leader of the third party and his party would not agree with the contents of Bill 7.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): That's not the issue.

Hon Mr Eves: The issue, to the former Finance minister, is quite frankly that the pendulum in this province has swung too far the other way and that you have discouraged investment and people from investing in the province of Ontario.

That's what the issue is.

Mr Rae: I don't mind having a difference of opinion with the member for Parry Sound over the question of labour relations in the province. That's a healthy and normal thing to happen. In fact, I suspect we've had that discussion over many days and nights in the last 15 years. The issue is, this plan that you've brought in goes well beyond simply reversing Bill 40. It provides for changes in decertification of unions which are, if I may say so, seen by a great many employers as destabilizing. The Minister of Labour will know the number of representations she's heard in that regard.

It guts the wage protection program, which was never discussed by the Conservatives when they were in opposition, it was never referred to in the Common Sense Revolution and it impacts not on unions but on employees, including employees, for the most part, who have nothing to do with unions. It takes money directly out of their pockets. It also changes all of the rights with respect to crown employees and their rights in the future in the event of privatization.

These are very significant issues. They go well beyond the subject of Bill 40. I can't understand why someone who has always been so reasonable with respect to a process of listening to the public and giving people a chance to influence the government would be opposed to widespread public hearings across the province and why they would be so determined to simply shut debate down in the province, which is what they're doing with their bill today.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party knows full well that one of the cornerstones of Bill 7, of course, is to provide for secret ballots and democratization of certification and decertification processes in the province of Ontario. I don't understand what anybody in an elected Parliament could have against that, but apparently his government did when they were in power, and they still object to it.

With respect to wage protection, he will know that the province of Ontario will still have the best wage protection program and legislation in this country of Canada.

With respect to crown employees, the honourable member will know that we are in a very difficult deficit situation in the province of Ontario. To enable the province of Ontario to restructure government and do the essential things that government should be doing and free up government from doing things it should not be doing, these changes are necessary.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): So you're going to take it out on public sector workers.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member will also know that an offer was made to his House leader in the form of government notice of motion number 1 on the order paper which would have provided for in excess of 40 hours of public hearings --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Four days.

Hon Mr Eves: -- 40 hours, 9 am to 10 pm, so in excess of 40 hours of public hearings, which would be the equivalent of eight weeks, of sending this bill to the resources development committee, an offer that his government House leader rejected this afternoon.

Mr Rae: Let's compare the record. Since you objected to Bill 40, and we know you did, what did we do on Bill 40? We had five weeks of public hearings in Toronto and six other cities -- Kingston, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Windsor -- we had eight days in committee for clause-by-clause, we had two days in committee of the whole, and we had two days for third reading debate. Prior to that we had a very long and extensive consultation and the bill was significantly amended.

Interjection.

Mr Rae: The Minister of Health is reverting to type now; it doesn't take long.

Interjections.

Mr Rae: Oh, now here we go.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West is out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London Centre is continuously being out of order.

Mr Rae: That's the record. What I do not understand, and I say this quite sincerely to the member for Parry Sound, is how it is that you insisted on this kind of process -- quite rightly, and we readily agreed to it -- with respect to Bill 40, but when it comes to your own legislation, which moves far more significantly the other way in terms of where the rights are going -- rights are being taken away which were there under Bill Davis, which were there under David Peterson, were there under Frank Miller, for goodness' sake, and they're not good enough for this government -- those rights can be taken away and you shut down debate in less than a week.

I think we're entitled to ask, if the hearings across the province were good enough for Bill 40, why aren't they good enough for Bill 7?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party knows that his party has prevented this Legislature, for about the last week and a half, from dealing with Bill 7. They've prevented a routine motion being introduced to establish committees.

They don't even want to establish the committee to send Bill 7 to, let alone have any time. How can you have time in a committee when they won't even permit us to move a motion and pass it -- which is a routine thing -- to have committees of the Legislature up and running?

He will also know that when Bill 40 was passed by the previous Minister of Labour, those hearings were held during a time when the House was not in session. He will also know that his Minister of Labour did not make one single change as a result of those hearings to that bill. You may have made changes that were conducive to labour, but you didn't listen to anything that was said.

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He's lying, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Premier is lying.

Hon Mr Eves: I ask the leader of the third party --

The Speaker: Would the member resume his seat, please. The member for Cochrane South, I heard a word that I don't think is parliamentary. Will he withdraw it.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, how could I be accused of doing -- I rephrase. I apologize.

Hon Mr Eves: Perhaps the leader of the third party can answer why his House leader turned down the offer for the equivalent of eight weeks of public hearings in the resources development committee, over 40 hours of public hearings.

Ms Lankin: Four days.

Hon Mr Eves: Forty hours.

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

I think it's in order that I correct my own record. I had earlier indicated the member for London Centre. I meant the member for London North.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Fifty per cent of my constituents are renters, and I'm hoping he will clear the air on the issue of his government's policy on rent controls.

In today's paper, it's reported that last night the member for Eglinton, your colleague, who is the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, told a meeting of his constituents, "I can tell you very sincerely that there has been no discussion of rent control in the cabinet."

However, here in this House on October 3 when you were asked by my colleague, the member for Scarborough North, Mr Curling, "Yes or no, will you be abolishing rent control?" you replied, "Yes."

Minister, can you please tell me and the people of this province, is it the policy of your government to abolish, to scrap rent controls?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member knows, the current system is not working. It's not fair for tenants, it's not fair for landlords. What we have said and what we've been very consistent in saying all along is that we intend to bring in tenants' protection, something that will provide protection to tenants that they don't have now.

I concur with my colleague, and at his meeting last night he said exactly the same thing: that the current system doesn't work and it has to be fixed. We intend to fix it, and we're going to ensure that tenants are protected.

Mrs Caplan: I have the copy of Hansard. I have your reply to my colleague, and I'm asking you today, in light of your own comments, is it the policy of your government, yes or no, to scrap rent control?

During the election the Conservative candidate sent around a pamphlet in my riding saying, "Mike Harris will not scrap rent control." What we've heard from you and your colleague the minister is that you will not scrap rent control. Are you standing by your statement to my colleague today? Are you going to scrap rent control? Yes or no.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would be interested to know if the members would like to hear the answer. I would.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the members please come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: I can only assume that the member across has a hearing difficulty. What I said was that we intend to fix a system that is broken, that rent controls as they exist right now do not work. It's our intention to work to bring in

an act that will provide tenants with protection, and when we have that ready, yes, we will remove a system that doesn't work.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Deputy Premier and the government House leader. The government House leader knows that if this party or that party ever brought in the draconian time allocation motion that he has suggested and that he's going to be calling today -- there has never been a time allocation motion like the one being presented by this government. If we'd ever brought anything like that in --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I would like to hear the question.

Mr Cooke: If we ever brought a motion like that in, the government House leader, who was in the opposition then, would have been absolutely outraged.

On July 14, 1992, Mr Eves said during the debate on Bill 40: "The whole process is about having the public have its say, coming to committee for as long a period as possible -- that's always negotiated," he said, "and hopefully the government of the day, with the persuasion of the public and the opposition members of the Legislature, will be able to persuade the government of the day to make some significant improvements to the piece of legislation."

That's the process as he saw it when he was over here. Why now has your government brought in a time allocation motion, without any negotiations, any discussion at all, that'll amount to four days, just to give a front for the government, no real public hearings in the province? What you told me today was, "You accept that or you get nothing."

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Perhaps the honourable member could explain why on Monday, October 16, Mr Christopherson moved first reading of a bill with a very lengthy title from 4:20 to 4:25; Mr Cooke -- being himself -- then moved for an adjournment of the House from 4:30 to 5; and why we have day after day of this going on for a week and a half, preventing the government from even moving a motion to establish committees. He says he wants this bill out to committee, but he won't even approve the routine motion to establish the committee to send it to.

Mr Cooke: There have been five days of discussion on Bill 7, a bill that has the most significant changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in the history of this province. That's a fact.

Yes, we engaged in some procedural wrangling, because we were asking your government for discussions about public hearings on Bill 7. If you had had those discussions, we could have come to some agreement about public hearings here and public hearings across the province.

And it's not just the opposition parties; it's some of your own members, like the member for Etobicoke West, who has publicly expressed concerns about the way your government is operating and the cutting off of any public participation.

I'm asking the government House leader whether he will agree right now to stand down the motion this afternoon, sit down with the opposition House leaders and negotiate public hearings across the province on Bill 7.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows that we have offered over 40 hours of public hearings on this bill.

Mr Cooke: Four days.

Hon Mr Eves: He can call it four days if he wants. It's 9 am to 10 pm for those four days. Count the hours up. There's at least 40 hours in there --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order.

Hon Mr Eves: We've had five days of second reading debate on Bill 7 --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South, you're continuously out of order.

Hon Mr Eves: He has been offered 40 hours. I might say that if he hadn't wasted the House's time for a week and a half, he may have got more than 40 hours, but he chose to waste his time with procedural wrangling. That's how he chose to spend the time, and when offered 40 hours today, he said, "I'd rather have nothing." He may get his wish. He may get nothing.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, in my riding of Lambton, in the town of Petrolia, we have a small local hospital serving a large rural area, and according to the district health council study, this hospital will not be closed.

However, we have an aging medical practitioner population, and we also have lost two doctors in the past two years who have moved on to other areas. This, Mr Minister, makes it very difficult to provide 24-hour emergency service and to meet the needs of the constituents, yet it is impossible for this area to obtain underserviced designation. Why is it impossible to obtain underserviced designation?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, I can honestly tell you that's not the question that was planned.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Seriously, my colleague the member for Lambton asked a very serious question on behalf of his constituents in Sarnia-Lambton. It's a question that many members of this House have asked me, both in the House in the last couple of weeks and in private conversations.

I reiterate and assure all members and the people of Ontario that we are currently in discussions with the Ontario Medical Association. Some members will be aware of the content of those discussions because the OMA has put out a newsletter to its members indicating some of the very serious points we're going over with them.

I can assure members that this government is ready to move with this issue. Right now in the city of Toronto we have some 40 communities from northern Ontario who have their annual fair which shows what a great place it is to be a physician in northern Ontario. The recruitment fair is on right now, and I'll be visiting that this afternoon. My parliamentary assistant visited it this afternoon already, as has the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

We will be assuring those communities again today that we will be moving very, very soon to bring solutions to this problem. We committed in the throne speech to moving on the Scott report. That commitment is firm, and I'm finding those reinvestment dollars so we can get ahead with that announcement in the near future.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Now you need to get some for us too.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr Beaubien: I'm glad to see that our Minister of Health is very well versed in what he talks about.

My supplementary is to the Minister of Health again. Will this be addressed in the new report?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Yes.

Hon Mr Wilson: "Yes" is easiest, I suppose. I always take advice from the people of Ontario, including the opposition in this House.

As I said, we're moving very quickly. I've had members from the Liberal Party, from the NDP send me notes, send me letters, have personal conversations in this House. What would be very helpful, to push along the Ontario Medical Association, to stress the urgency of this issue with them so they can do that with their membership, would be if members would write the Ontario Medical Association; also explain to them, as you're explaining to me, how serious this matter is for areas like Sarnia-Lambton, for areas like the North Shore, for areas throughout Ontario, including my own, which is only an hour north of Toronto.

It's a serious matter. This government is committing to moving. We want to move in partnership with the physicians in this province, and members should direct their concerns also to the Ontario Medical Association so they know we mean business on behalf of the people of this province.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. Minister, as I'm sure you're aware, this morning at a press conference the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital announced that it is no longer able to guarantee trauma services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, due to a lack of needed specialists, specifically the departure of a third orthopaedic surgeon this past week.

This is the only trauma centre serving northwestern Ontario, the only one between Winnipeg and Sault Ste Marie. There are over 200,000 people who count on this service. Minister, such a situation causes great anxiety and fear for those of us who live in northwestern Ontario.

You have just now acknowledged responsibility for manpower planning and access to services in this province, so I have to ask you, what will you, as Minister of Health, do today to reassure the people in northwestern Ontario and the members of this House that this situation is being treated as the highest priority by your ministry?

Hon Mr Wilson: It's an important question. I'm aware of the press conference they had this morning, and I'm aware of the shortage and have been for a number of weeks now, particularly of orthopaedic surgeons, in Thunder Bay.

Thunder Bay is currently designated as an underserviced program area for two orthopaedic surgeons. If that community is able to find orthopaedic surgeons on a worldwide search I will not hesitate, under Bill 50 and the tools I have available today, to sign a Bill 50 exemption, provided that physician coming into that community qualifies as a physician in the province of Ontario from the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

I signed a whole pile more of Bill 50s this week and I'm doing it every week that I'm in office. With the discussions we're having with the OMA right now and the urgency of the situation, it has become clear to me that the government of Ontario, like many other provinces, needs more tools than simply Bill 50 and underserviced area programs to address this problem.

We are having those discussions with our partners, the physicians of this province, and I know we'll come to a solution in the very near future.

Mr Gravelle: I think we all acknowledge there's no service more important than trauma care. Simply put, people can die without trauma care. Again, this is the only trauma care service for a vast part of our province. As you acknowledge, you knew about this crisis for some time, so I just simply have to ask you once again, will you guarantee, Minister, that the people served by the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital will have access to trauma care?

Hon Mr Wilson: So that we don't unnecessarily upset people any more than they already are, I'm sure, over this situation, it is a situation this government inherited. Some member heckled, "It's been going on for a number of years," and it's true. I think this government is close to finding a solution in partnership with the physicians of this province, and I'll know that in the next very short period of time, whether we can find a mutual, agreeable solution to this.

There are tools available to governments in other provinces that this province does not have right now, and we're discussing that with the people at the Ontario Medical Association, whom we have to discuss with because the previous government made them the union for the doctors. I'm obligated under the law of two agreements signed by this government to have those discussions, and that's why I'm doing that.

But I'm also going beyond that and talking to front-line physicians and getting their ideas on how this can be solved. We know the Scott report is an important component, and we've committed fully to moving on that, along with some other measures that we're talking about with the Ontario Medical Association.

The Speaker: Would you wrap up your answer.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, to ensure that the anxiety levels in Thunder Bay don't go through the roof, the hospital is providing trauma services and does have a plan in place if they hit overload and will be able to handle the patients in Thunder Bay. However, they do need our help. I'll expect the cooperation of all parties when we, together with the Ontario Medical Association, move forward to bring solutions to this very serious problem.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you will know that in your anti-worker Bill 7 one of the worker's rights that you are retracting is the employee wage protection program. You will also know that it was reported in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record that you had sent a letter to employees of the bankrupt Epton Industries Inc in your home area that they would have the benefit of the full coverage as provided under the existing legislation up to the $5,000.

I would expect, Minister, that you were rather pleased and relieved that you could let people in your own community know that they would benefit to the full amount that's currently in the law. My question to you is, if it's good enough for the employees in your own home area, why is it not good enough for all the workers of the province of Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As the member knows, the changes that were made to the employee wage protection program are such that the cap was lowered from $5,000 to $2,000. Those employees who qualified prior to the change will get the $5,000, and those after will get, obviously, the $2,000. You also know that there are only two provinces in all of Canada that have anything similar, and that's in Manitoba, where the cap is $1,200, and the other one is in Quebec, where it's paid for by the employers. So employees in this province are still very, very fortunate. They are still entitled to $2,000.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, it is so difficult for people to accept the fact that, instead of being proud of the fact that we have some of the best protection for workers in Ontario, you're proud that you're taking them away and gutting provisions that workers have earned and deserved for decades in this province.

In light of this particular program, the implication for more strikes than necessary as a result of changes you're making, the fact that you're taking away rights that have been in law for decades under all governments, the fact that you did not talk about the vast majority of the issues that you're dealing with in this bill during the election should tell you that people are entitled to an opportunity to have input into this -- and the fact that I suspect you know you're going to have to make changes.

I'm asking you again, on behalf of our party, why will you not provide Ontarians with the same opportunity they had under Bill 40 to have input into this draconian law before you change the fundamental rules of labour relations in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, I think we need to make it abundantly clear that our Bill 7 does enhance the rights of the individual workers, rights that you took away with Bill 40, and we are putting into the workplace democracy measures.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, can you update the House on the government's plans for privatization and contracting out?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from the member for Mississauga South because the member for Mississauga South has worked with public servants over many years, as I have, through the municipal sector and through the provincial sector, and I'm sure she shares my view that public servants are hardworking and provide a great deal of services to the people of the province of Ontario.

The member for Mississauga South is also aware, as are all the members of this House, that we are spending $10 billion more than we have.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Every year.

Hon David Johnson: Every year; each and every year. Clearly, government is too big.

This government has committed to looking to ways to restructure government, to reduce expenditures, to do business differently within the government, because to have the ability to provide the services for the people in the future, we must restructure government. Privatization is a part of that overall plan.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I hope that when this process begins, you will guarantee to this House that it will be a fair process and that there will be no fire sale. We want to be assured that there will be no fire sale that will take place for the friends of the government.

Hon David Johnson: I can assure the member for Mississauga South that we are looking very carefully and very thoroughly at a process that will be fair. Certainly we do not intend to have a fire sale. Specifically, we're looking at either a system that might be centralized -- and the Ministry of Finance and Management Board Secretariat are jointly studying a process for privatization, for contracting out -- or possibly the process could be decentralized, relying on the various ministries to come forward.

Whatever procedure we choose is being thoroughly studied over the next few months. I would expect in the new year there would be a process that would be announced in this House involving contracting out, privatization, procurement procedures and all other facets to bring the spending of this government in line with revenues.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. There were reports this morning, which you have denied, that suggest that a review is taking place within your ministry that would in effect mean the dismantlement of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the shifting of those services to other ministries or to the municipalities across this province.

Mr Minister, there is a memo from your deputy minister that goes on to blame the media for this report, but also goes on to say, "I want to assure you that the questions of delivery and staffing have not been decided." There was absolutely no reference to denying the fact that this review is taking place, that Mr Rabeau has been moved from Consumer and Commercial Relations to Comsoc to undertake this.

Mr Minister, a simple question for you: Can you tell the House what Mr Rabeau's job entails and promise and guarantee the House today that you have no plans to dismantle or shift any aspect of your ministry and that there's no ongoing review as to the shifting and dealing with the services you currently provide? Can you give us that ironclad guarantee today?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I suppose for a change I'd like to thank the member for the question. First of all, Mr Rabeau is purely in a policy area. That's question number one of your first series of questions.

Secondly, I think what we have to look at here, frankly -- and I appreciate this. The real issue here is that we are in the middle of creating a new model of welfare here. We're not tinkering or monkeying around with the system, as has been done over the last 10 years. What we're doing right now is we're creating --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We've gone through two phases. The first phase obviously is we're creating the foundation for the transformation of this system from self-dependency, and we've done this through the reduction of rates to 10% above the average of the other provinces and through the fraud and the eligibility provisions.

The next phase will be to build in the incentives to get people fully back in the workplace. This speaks to mandatory workfare and our learnfare programs. Really, I'm shocked that the member can stand up with such self-righteousness when he forgets that in the combination of the last 10 years we have spent $40 billion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question has been answered. Just take your seat for a minute, please.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We have a former member in the west gallery by the name of Margaret Harrington, from Niagara Falls. Welcome.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We also have a former member by the name of Ross McClellan.

The Speaker: I believe he's on the payroll.

I would like to inform the members of this Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Samarasundara, official languages commissioner for Sri Lanka. Welcome to our guests.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Briefly, on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: At noon today I had the opportunity to walk from the west door of this building over to and through the University of Toronto. This concerns --

Mr Bob Rae (York South): You're not going to get my job, Sean.

Mr Conway: No. I must say, I heard the salary that was being paid to the former Premier, and I could get interested if such were offered to me.

But seriously, on the matter of security, and this is a follow-up to several concerns that have been raised by members on all sides, today at approximately 12:15, I left the west door of the Legislative Building and walked on a western diagonal through the University of Toronto and I was really struck by what I encountered.

Like many members, I was aware that there was a demonstration planned for the front lawns of the building today, I think at some point late this morning, at the noonhour. But at about 12:15 or 12:30, I was struck when I entered the grounds of the University of Toronto to encounter as much of a police presence as I met. On Hart House Circle I counted eight --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): These guys have a bunker mentality.

Mr Conway: Well, I think it's a matter -- and I have a question that I want to direct at the end of this. I've been here over 20 years and I'm seeing things I have never seen before. I appreciate the concern that all members have about valid and legitimate security pressures and problems. Let me be clear about that. But when I walked over through Hart House Circle and saw, I think I counted, eight or 10 mounted police, police vehicles, ambulance vehicles lining very substantial parts of the university grounds, I made some inquiries and I was told what I was told, that this was in anticipation of some difficulty perhaps at the Legislative Building.

Then I walked further and I got up on to Harbord Street between Avenue Road and St George and I encountered yet more -- several motorized police vehicles, quite a number of ambulances -- and I wondered, and I ask this question: What is going on? For example, have we got an agreement with the University of Toronto to use its grounds as a staging area for days on which there are demonstrations? I'd like to know the answer to that.

Is anybody calculating the cost? I counted a half --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Well, I'm asking the Speaker, because I have asked these public servants today what they were doing and they said they were on standby for potential problems down at the legislative grounds.

I just want to know, not necessarily today but through your direction at the Legislative Assembly committee, have we got an arrangement now with the University of Toronto to use its grounds as a staging area on any occasion when there is likely to be a demonstration here at Queen's Park? Is anybody calculating the ongoing costs of the kind of ambulance and police presence that I saw?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would the member take his seat, please. That is why I'm interested in having the committees meet and the legislative committee meet. I want to get some input into the security and the whole aspect of what's happening around here, and in order to do that, I would like to have these presented to the committee. But I'm glad to hear your views and I'll report back.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): It's Windsor-Walkerville -- you've got me confused now -- Windsor-Riverside, Mr Speaker.

I want, on behalf of my caucus, to share similar concerns. Every day now that there is talk that there's going to be a demonstration -- it doesn't matter the size of the demonstration. Today I went out for lunch and I came back and all the doors to the assembly were locked. You can't get in the building. They did let me in today, and that's an improvement. But the first thing that happens, doesn't matter what the demonstration is, "There's a demonstration here so lock the building," whether it provides inconvenience for staff or inconvenience for other people who have business in this place. There's an immediate reaction.

I understand the process that you put in place, Mr Speaker, but there is something that can be done immediately. You don't need to wait only for the Legislative Assembly committee. I think you should convene a meeting of the three House leaders with yourself so that we can get an explanation from you as to what is going on and what the rules are. I think that needs to happen as quickly as possible.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Routine motions.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would like to request permission for unanimous consent to move to motions to strike the committees for this session of the Legislative Assembly for the province of Ontario. These committee memberships were submitted by all three parties and agreed to, as was the committee schedule. I understand that in my absence in the last week and a half this has been tried on a couple of occasions but not been successful.

I do want to impress upon the honourable members that if this request for unanimous consent is not granted, there will not be opportunity to send Bill 7 to committee. Now, do I have unanimous consent?

The Speaker: We have had a request for unanimous --

Interjections.

Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If, on every motion that's made by the government on a routine basis, the ministers are allowed to make partisan speeches on behalf of their own motions, then I say to you, sir, if you're prepared to let him have it, then if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the rest of us. I expect you to enforce the rules.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): There being no unanimous consent, I move that the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Mr Eves moves that the House proceed to orders of the day.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. It will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1510 to 1540.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of Mr Eve's motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62, the nays 31.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move government notice of motion number 2:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 7,

An Act to restore balance and stability to labour relations and to promote economic prosperity and to make consequential changes to statutes concerning labour relations, when Bill 7 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and at such time, the bill shall be referred to committee of the whole House;

That two hours shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Ernie, you would never have accepted this, ever. It's shameful, absolutely shameful.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Put the jackboots on, Ernie.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Eves: All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Minister. Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please, order.

Mr Bisson: I remember your speeches in opposition.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You would have been yelling and screaming in this place, Ernie. All you have to do is try negotiation.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, the member for Windsor-Riverside. Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 2 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendments and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That consideration of the third reading stage of the bill be completed on the same day that it is reported from committee of the whole House and that notwithstanding standing order 9(

a) the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the third reading stage of Bill 7;

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment --

Interjections: Shame, shame, shame.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Minister. Order. Sergeant at Arms, would you please remove that person.

Interjections: Shame, shame, shame.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please remove this man. Please remove the stranger.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. I'd like to remind the people in the gallery that you are prevented from making any sounds --

Mr Bisson: Remind the House leader there is a democracy in this province.

The Acting Speaker: -- and if you do so I'll have to ask you to leave the House.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): These are the people they won't listen to. These are the people they are afraid of.

Mr Bisson: They are not listening to the people. This is not a democracy.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, I would ask you please to refrain from heckling. The member for --

Mr Kormos: They will not listen to the members of this province.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We are losing our rights, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold, that's sufficient. That's enough. The member for Nipigon, that's enough. Please. Order, please.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Point of order? Do you have a point of order?

Mr Eves.

Hon Mr Eves: That in the case of any divisions relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Eves has moved government notice of motion number 2. Mr Eves.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: Blue suits are all that counts.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. We just can't proceed that way.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: This is terrible.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Nipigon, I would ask you please to refrain.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Everybody has a right to --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: This is the last time that I advise you to --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please. Order. Order. I have all the patience in the world.

Mr Bisson: It is shameful.

The Acting Speaker: Please. The member for Cochrane South, please.

Minister?

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, the members of the Legislature will be fully aware, in both opposition parties, that an offer was made to both opposition House leaders earlier today --

Interjections.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I plead with you to start naming the members who are causing the disruption in this place.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. Please. The member for Nipigon, the member for Welland-Thorold, I ask for your cooperation, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order? Is it a point of order? Take your seat. I have all the patience in the world and I know that you will leave the floor to the minister. These are the procedures --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Nipigon.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Nipigon. I understand it is a difficult issue. At the same time we have to debate it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. Order.

I'll make you smile. I heard once a story that when you are about to lose your patience you say, "God, grant me patience immediately." So I ask you please, please, please, just keep quiet.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please. I ask for your cooperation and I know you'll give me your cooperation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, as I started to indicate, both opposition House leaders were advised earlier today that sending the bill to committee, which the NDP refused to permit to be done by refusing to approve a motion to even establish any committees, let alone this committee, to hold public hearings, they, in effect, have left the government with absolutely no alternative. They would have had 11 hours a day, 44 hours of debate of public hearings. The time allocated for the resources development committee would be the equivalent to almost nine weeks.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The House will recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed from 1554 to 1604.

The Acting Speaker: Minister?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Ernie, haven't you had enough to say already?

Hon Mr Eves: As I was -- no, I haven't made any remarks at all with respect to the motion. It's important to note that the Liberal Party of Ontario was quite willing to accept an offer that would have sent this bill out for public hearings. However, the New Democratic Party was not. As a matter of fact, the NDP was not even willing to allow the routine motion to establish committees for this session of the Legislature to be formed.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. Order.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The House leader is asserting that this party does not want to allow this bill to go out to the public. That is not the truth. We want this bill to go out to the people of Ontario --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order. You're wasting your time. You're wasting the time of the House. Minister.

Mr Laughren: Who is wasting the time? The House leader is --

Mr Cooke: We're not going to listen to this.

Hon Mr Eves: The very people who are objecting introduced similar time allocation motions no less than 20 times between April 1, 1991, and November 29, 1994 --

Interjections: Sit down. Sit down. Sit down.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections: Sit down. Sit down. Sit down.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Cooke: You wouldn't have done it when you were on this side -- no negotiations -- you'd refuse.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, the member for Windsor-Riverside, order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane North. Minister.

Interjections: Sit down. Sit down. Sit down.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Lake Nipigon, take your seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I will now recognize the official opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish I did not have the opportunity to speak on this motion this afternoon by the government. I want to indicate that my colleagues and I in the Liberal caucus will be opposing this motion when it comes to a vote later in this day.

The motion which has been presented by the government House leader is one which severely restricts, in I think an unprecedented way, the amount of meaningful time that will be available for debate of a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation does not simply tinker with previous legislation which was passed by the government of Mr Rae but, rather, makes some significant and substantial changes, not only to the legislation, by revoking it, but also by making further changes to the Labour Relations Act, which we believe do not provide the kind of balance that the people in this province are looking for.

One of the speeches in which I became most impassioned in this House, and it may sound odd to say so, was one over the change to the rules of the House. I'm not going to revisit that in any significant way this afternoon, as some might wish me to do, but only to say that each one of us in this House has our role diminished whenever closure is applied to the House, regardless of whether it's applied by a Conservative, a Liberal or an NDP government.

Second, when rules are changed and threatened further rule changes are made, as I understand may be the case, what happens is that elected members have a less significant role to play. In fact, you will find out that if the people in the Premier's office had their way, you simply would have nothing to do. When I say "the Premier's office," I say that with a small-case p, not a capital-case P, in this case; not a particular Premier.

What you find in an elected democracy is that those who have most access to the government are those who are the unelected people, usually within the Prime Minister's office in a federal government situation and within a Premier's office in a provincial government situation.

This is why all members of the Legislature have a vested interest in the rules under which we govern this province. This is why some of your own members perhaps privately within the confines of your caucus have expressed some concern about the kind of motions coming forward.

Many of the newly elected members of the Legislature would find some of the tactics that have been employed by the New Democratic Party to be unacceptable tactics, except their members would tell you that on occasions when members of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party felt concerned about the actions of the previous government, the NDP government, many of the same actions were taken by those of us in opposition. There is a reason for that. The opposition already is severely restricted in the way it can influence legislation. The way we can, in opposition, influence it is by slowing it down and allowing for maximum debate.

Governments are always eager to move forward. The Premier's office, the Premier, the cabinet are anxious, as I know the minister will be, to see this legislation implemented as quickly as possible. It means there's less fuss out there. It means there's less concern about demonstrations in front of your constituency offices. It means that perhaps the number of days when there will be demonstrations at this House would be rather limited. So there is that vested interest.

But I say to all members of this House, within the confines of your own caucus -- because I do not expect members of the government to rise in this House to oppose this motion or to express publicly in any significant way opposition to this motion -- I hope within the confines of your caucus you will look carefully at the rules that govern this House.

One thing I can say to the government members is that you will find there is not much interest in terms of the general public or in terms of the news media in the rules of the House or in motions of this kind. The only way there will be some interest is the fact that there was a demonstration today outside of the House, and inside the House by members of the New Democratic Party shouting down or attempting to shout down the government House leader. That will make news. That will be significant because it's, as we refer to it, a dust-up in this House.

But surely that shouldn't be necessary. What would be much better is a debate on the substance of the bill that is before us. What would be useful is to have hearings across the province.

Many of you, I know, many of us in this House who live outside the Metropolitan Toronto area have expressed the view that very often we feel left out. One of the reasons the previous government moved to have some of the government ministries move to various communities across the province was because of that feeling, that many municipalities felt they were disconnected from Toronto, from the huge complex called Queen's Park, from the apparatus that is here, governing the provincial government and ultimately the province of Ontario.

That's why on various occasions we have asked in opposition, or have acceded to in government, when I had the opportunity to be in government, to the request to have hearings across the province, so that the people of Niagara Falls or the people of Timmins or the people of Sault Ste Marie or Ottawa have the same opportunity to make representations to the government which was elected and to all members of the Legislature that those who reside in Toronto do. By having the hearings only in Toronto, that incurs considerable expense and inconvenience for those, and doesn't allow for the kind of regional publicity that's necessary.

When you have these hearings, the government I'm sure will ensure that there are people who are supportive of this legislation who will appear. The representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, I assure you, will be prepared to appear in all of the communities, and other organizations that government members will organize. That's the way the system works. The opposition will ensure that there are others who will express a point of view, and there are those who of their own volition want to come before a committee of the Legislature to make their view known. This particular motion restricts that severely.

I understand the concern and the annoyance of the government at some of the tactics it has seen over the last few days on the part of the third party. The third party I'm sure felt that same annoyance when members of the Conservative Party -- the leader, I recall very well, in this House read a bill which contained every lake in the province of Ontario. Some of the bills that were introduced by the New Democratic Party were in fact, I understand, exactly the bills which were introduced by the Conservative Party.

This is a matter of great concern to the opposition, and the New Democratic Party, as the government that brought in the previous legislation that the governing side is going to remove, is going to have a special concern about the fact that you're going to dismantle and disregard that legislation that they implemented with a good deal of discussion, with the many hearings they allowed across the province. I know there were many who were concerned that despite all the hearings, there weren't the kind of changes made to the legislation that some felt there should have been. Nevertheless, there was that opportunity right across Ontario to have that kind of input.

I think that's healthy for democracy, and I think you will find that allows people to believe, with justification, that they have at least had their day in court, that at least the members of the Legislature and, through the members of the Legislature and the committee process, the news media have had the opportunity to hear the arguments made on both sides. And they're always hopeful -- and where there is life there is hope -- that somehow governments might just change their mind, accept some of the amendments the opposition might propose or some of the suggestions that might come from the public.

This may be hard for some of you to believe, but not all the wisdom in this province resides in this Legislature, and it doesn't reside in Metropolitan Toronto. It actually resides in the people of this province. They come to all of us as individual members and suggest changes to legislation or new policies that might be valuable. Some of them can't be implemented. They may be impractical. There may be very good reasons why they can't be implemented. But they wish you to at least listen to their ideas, discount them if you will, after due consideration, but at least they have been heard, and once in a while we may see some changes.

That's why it's important that we have these kinds of hearings. That's why we've had this disruption in the House of the regular proceedings over the last several days, because there's a very strong feeling that this is necessary.

We in the Liberal Party will be opposing the legislation which deals with getting rid of all of the aspects of Bill 40. We had suggested that there may be a need for amendments, particularly to sections that may have some detrimental effect on business operations of this province. The New Democratic Party has a different view. They think that virtually everything you have done in this legislation is detrimental. We believe a lot of it is not going to be helpful to labour peace and fairness and balance in this province.

Mr Laughren: Tories don't want labour peace. You guys don't want labour peace.

Mr Bradley: That's why we oppose this legislation, because we happen to believe --

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): You people are over there for a good reason. We won the election.

Mr Laughren: Oh, that's so arrogant, Wilson. You won the election, so you can do whatever you want. That's your view. It's arrogance.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Laughren: Right. Because they won the election, they can do whatever they want to the electorate. That's the arrogance of the Tories.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Laughren: You didn't win every seat, Jim. I know that would make you happy.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt, order, please.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's the Minister of Health who keeps interrupting everybody.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, order.

Mr Bradley: The intervention by the Health minister does remind me of a problem that happens with governments; again, it happens with all governments, some worse than others. There's an inclination to say in these circumstances -- and I've heard it many times, and I must confess probably somebody in the Liberal Party said it at one time or other; the old idea that, "That's why we're here and that's why you're there."

Sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not. But when you lecture the opposition and say, "You people are over there for a good reason; it's because the people agree with everything we're going to do," I don't think that's necessarily true. They may have agreed with the general thrust of your party; I think 45% of the people voted for the Progressive Conservative Party. You are entitled to the right to govern this province, and you will do so. That is the way the system works.

There may be some who say, "Isn't it awful; 55% didn't like them," but I don't remember saying before the election that if I didn't get 51% as a Liberal I would not be prepared to accept my seat in the Legislative Assembly or that we wouldn't be the government. I didn't want to see that happen. But I think it's important to know that in a democracy the opposition has its point of view to put forward.

This is not tinkering with legislation. When I think of the days of William Davis and the kind of legislation that was brought forward -- and I know today in the Conservative Party, particularly among the YPCs in this province, Mr Davis isn't always held in as high regard as he might be with many of the long-time Conservatives in this province who remember that he did bring forward some progressive legislation.

You will remember, for instance, that Mr Davis's government -- I stand to be corrected, but I'm quite certain this is the case -- brought forward legislation which prevented what we called professional strikebreaking firms from operating in this province. There were actually firms that had, for want of a better word, some thugs or pretty strong people who really helped people to cross picket lines where there was a legitimate strike taking place in the province.

If you know people who work in an industrialized setting or any other setting where it is unionized or perhaps even where it's not unionized but they have decided to go on strike, what you will understand is that one of the things they resent the most is someone else coming in and taking their job away.

I come from, I guess you'd call it, a working class background, for want of a better description. My father, for instance, worked in industry all the time. He was not a foreman or anything of that nature but worked in industry all the time. I wouldn't call him a militant union person, but he was involved in strikes because these happen from time to time, and I'm sure his greatest resentment would be somebody crossing the picket line where there was a legitimate strike taking place, crossing the picket line and taking that job away. You have to understand, that's something people feel strongly about in this province.

I can understand, from your point of view and with the mandate you have, that the Minister of Labour wants to change things from what she perceives to be a balance in the opposite direction. I may not agree with that entirely, but I understand that she wishes to do that. But I think you have to understand as well that this bill goes far beyond what many people anticipated. Perhaps many of the people who voted for you in this election, for other reasons, may not have anticipated that you were going to go this far with this legislation, beyond renouncing and getting rid of Bill 40, but making other changes.

They may agree with some of the changes that you have out there, but they disagree with others.

Mr Laughren: You didn't tell them you were going this far. You didn't say you were going beyond Bill 40. You misled the public. You misled people deliberately.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Bradley: This is why, when they see this motion, if they knew the consequences of this motion I think they would be, as I am, adamantly opposed to it.

I understand that there are not committees to sit at this time. I'm sure that matter could be resolved with appropriate negotiations between the various parties represented in this House. Nevertheless, the government has decided to proceed with this particular choice.

There were in fact three motions provided. If I had been given the choice of which of the pills I had to take, hemlock, arsenic or -- what is a third one we could say that isn't good for us?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Strychnine.

Mr Bradley: Strychnine. If I could choose one of those three -- and I appreciate the member for London Centre suggesting the third that I might take -- if I had to choose from one of the three, I would not have chosen the particular motion that came forward. This was the choice of the government House leader as opposed to the choice I might have made in this case -- not that I like seeing it at any time.

The House leader mentioned, as he must, that the former government had used closure on 20 different occasions. I'm sure the government of Mr Peterson, I recall, used closure on a few occasions as well. None of the motions, I should say to members of the House, was as drastic as this motion; none was as restrictive as this motion in the amount of debate that would be allowed for a major piece of legislation.

If you're wondering why you saw the demonstration you did from the members of the New Democratic Party today, as vociferous as they were, it would be first of all the legislation which you are trying to get through, and second, this particularly drastic method you are using.

It's difficult on the government side to be patient. I understand that. I watched some of the tactics. I saw members roll their eyes on the other side and so on. You notice often, though, that the members who have been here the longest and have watched this process several times are the ones who are usually the least exercised when they see the opposition utilizing the only tools they have at hand.

It's not because we in the opposition wish to be disruptive or cantankerous at all times, though you may gain that impression; we don't really wish to be that way at all. We wish to simply have our day in court and a day in court for the people who are represented by various parties in this Legislature today.

As I say, I can't recall a time when I was much more angry than I was when the changes were made by the previous government to the rules of the House. As I indicated, I don't want to get into that at any great length, because that's not the topic we're dealing with today. I only say that because I think it's important for those of us who are elected to have the most power. I'm not speaking of ego and I'm not speaking of power for power's sake. I simply think it's important that elected representatives, and not appointed people, have the most sway.

After all, we are the only people the electorate can get at. They can't get at the advisers to the Premier, they can't get at the advisers to the ministers, they can't get at the civil service easily, cannot get at anyone else who is not elected. But they are our employers, if you will. We are the ones they can come to and we are the ones they can potentially influence, because they're the ones who will decide whether we are re-elected to this House or whether we are rejected by the electorate. That's why it's important that we not give up that power and that responsibility to others.

The ramming through of the legislation in this way, as I would define it, tends to take away from that democracy for which so many people fought. We will have Remembrance Day ceremonies on November 11, and again I don't want to stretch the point to a great extent, but a lot of people out there did serve in the armed forces to preserve the democracy in which we all believe. Some people in this House may believe that democracy is abused by some of the tactics that you see the opposition employ from time to time, and we may feel of course that it is abused by the tactics that the government uses.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that, as much as possible, the parliamentary system works as the people out there would like it to work. What has happened today with this motion, the most draconian of the three motions that I see, is that in fact we're not going to do this. We're simply going to anger people even more.

There are people who are in the gallery today who are quite angry. We have people who are representatives of organizations, particularly the trade union movement, who are present in the gallery today who are obviously adamantly opposed. They are going to, I think with justification, feel that they have not been heard.

They're going to, with justification, be able to go to their membership and say that the present administration wasn't prepared to entertain the briefs that they have to bring forward, the ideas, the opposition, if you will, that they have to bring forward, and many of their membership are going to agree with them. Perhaps not all but most of their membership is going to agree that there's just not a sense of fairness there with this particular motion.

One of the things that I mentioned in a previous debate about the rules of the House is that nobody is really interested in them except the members of the House and, even then, members of the House aren't absorbed in them. You can see by the press gallery today, there is no one sitting in the press gallery, although the members --

Mr Cooke: They're all watching on TV.

Mr Bradley: The members of the press gallery are watching on TV, on their television monitors, I'm assured by the House leader for the New Democratic Party.

But when you talk to those people individually about rules of the House and matters of that kind, they will tell you that their editors are simply not interested in those stories. So, though they're very important, the way the process of government works is exceedingly important to democracy, their editors aren't going to care. It's not a story that's going to have people who have television flickers riveted to the story for very long, except of course when there is a disruption in the House, as we saw this afternoon. There were cameras that came back to record it.

If a member is ejected from the Legislature, you will see the camera will follow the person out, because that is something that's different. If there's a different tactic used, a disruptive tactic of any kind used, you will see the news media are interested. Because good news is not news. Only something out of the ordinary, only bad news is news. We may not like that, but that is a fact of life.

Another way we make judgements, I think, on governments is, and it ties in with this point, what will the government do when nobody is watching? Essentially, you're going to find that on rules themselves and on motions of this kind, in and of themselves, nobody in terms of the popular news media out there is going to listen very much unless there's a disruption. Yet I wish they would. I wish the public out there had an idea of how this House actually works and how it should work.

They, I think, would call upon those of us in the opposition to be responsible in the way we oppose legislation or deal with legislation in the House and committee and elsewhere, and they would hold accountable the government for the manner in which it deals with the legislation that it proposes.

You will find in this House when the legislation is not a significant change or not of great importance -- we often call it routine legislation or housekeeping legislation -- that there is cooperation all round. The bill goes through the House; there may even be special consideration given to three readings in one day. I have seen that kind of cooperation take place in the House, but it doesn't happen when motions of this kind come forward and it doesn't happen when those of us in opposition are extremely disruptive to proceedings in the House.

The best way to solve this is to have the leaders of the party and the House leaders and what we call the whips, who are people who are responsible for ensuring that all our members are here to vote -- it's best when we can sit down and come to an accommodation or an agreement. The government may not like it, the opposition may not be entirely satisfied, but at least democracy works as it should. I think the people have much more respect for that than they do for the continuous wrangling that comes about in legislatures of this kind across the country and really around the world.

You'll notice out there that the public doesn't exactly rate political representatives at a very high level, and one of the reasons is that the only time they seem to see us is when there is a dust-up, as we refer to it, in this House, that much of the cooperation that takes place or can take place and much of the good debate that takes place is simply not news. It's simply not very riveting for either the representatives of the news media here or the public at large.

I am certain that if one were to do a Nielsen rating on what is happening in the House this afternoon, I would be the victim of many a television channel-changer at this time, because what I am talking about to most people is not exactly what you would call exciting, but it is extremely important.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): We're enthralled here.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): We're enthralled.

Mr Bradley: Some of my colleagues are enthralled. Not everyone would be.

I always ask the question, so where are the editorials, where are the columns, where's the coverage when we talk of rules of this House and procedures in this House? I've had the chance to serve on both sides, and even when I was in government, I thought the opposition had a very significant role to play. In fact I saw a positive role that the opposition could play, and I see some of the members in this House today who have played that role in opposition as well as in government. I think that can happen, but it can only happen when there is cooperation between the parties who are represented in this House and among the parties, because there are in fact three parties.

"We had a mandate," the members of the government will say, "to implement this legislation." It was in what you refer to as the Common Sense Revolution. I have another name for it but I don't want to be provocative this afternoon. But you call it the Common Sense Revolution. It's a document that you were elected on. Well, if you think that all of the people in the province of Ontario read that document from cover to cover, they did not, and they did not read the Liberal or NDP literature from cover to cover either, and they would not be familiar with it. But I think most would want you to be fair with the opponents of this legislation.

The business community, by and large -- not entirely, but by and large -- will be supportive of this legislation, perhaps