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

May 12, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 12 May 2003 Lundi 12 mai 2003

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT /

OUTRAGE AU PARLEMENT

Monday 12 May 2003 Lundi 12 mai 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT /

OUTRAGE AU PARLEMENT

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2003, on the motion by Mr Conway arising from the Speaker's ruling of May 8, 2003.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would ask the leader of the official opposition just for a quick minute. There is a point of order from the

member for York West.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Since I won't have the occasion, once Mr McGuinty begins his delivery, we have the

pleasure today of having members from the wonderful family of Fossacesia. They came to their own place to see our own legislative building here and to see the House in action as well. So I want to

welcome members of the Fossacesia family and members of the York West riding association as well. Welcome.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I kind of have mixed feelings about participating in this debate. On the one hand, I welcome the

opportunity to talk about some of the aspects of the privilege connected with the work we do in this absolutely wonderful institution, and too often in the cut and thrust of daily politics we lose

sight of that. But on the other hand, I cannot help but express dismay about how we've come to this. How could it be that in a parliamentary democracy in the western world, at the beginning of the

21st century, we are actually entertaining a motion that talks about the primacy of Parliament as the initial recipient of the budget?

What happened here was that the government -- not to put too fine a point on it -- tried to circumvent democracy. I think we can all understand that democracy is

slow, it is messy, it is cumbersome, it is inefficient and it's wonderful. The government lost sight of the value of the democratic institution itself and the Parliament, of the importance that we

should always attach to conventions and rules and process. The government tried to pull a fast one on the people of Ontario.

One of our shared concerns -- and I know that I speak for all members of the House on this matter -- is the cynicism felt by so many voters, so many Ontarians,

so many Canadians for that matter, for politics, politicians and our political institutions. What the government did when they decided to present the budget outside the Legislature was to add to

that level of cynicism, and that affects all of us.

Neil Finkelstein, the constitutional expert, said that what the government did to the budget process was an affront to democracy. He's one of this country's

leading constitutional experts. What I thought was particularly offensive about the whole thing was that the government dressed it up as an exercise in bringing the budget closer to the people

when, in fact, they were doing exactly the opposite.

What I'm going to argue here today is that the events leading up to the so-called Magna budget were not a one-off aberration; they didn't happen in a vacuum.

Nobody who has followed politics in this province during the course of the past eight years, certainly nobody who has followed politics closely, would have been entirely surprised. The Harris-Eves

government has simply not been kind to democracy in Ontario. For example, they have severely limited debate in the Legislature. In their first term, they changed the rules 42 times to restrict

debate and limit the power of elected representatives. That's 42 times. They have forcibly closed debate on 60% of the bills presented at Queen's Park -- 60%. By way of comparison, in 1985, that

figure was 1%.

In a majority government situation there isn't much that opposition parties can do to prevent passage of bills, and that's as it should be. But what the

opposition can do and should be able to do and has a responsibility to do is debate those bills, hold them up to critical examination so that at the end of day the best possible bills are being

passed, with the public made aware of any flaws that might exist.

I just can't think of a more important bill, a bill which warrants as much scrutiny and debate, than the budget. The budget is the bill through which the

government levies billions of dollars in taxes and it's the bill through which the government breathes life into its priorities through its plan of expenditures. This kind of debate and scrutiny

and question period is supposed to be how the system works. That's democracy at work. As I said, it's slow, it's messy, it is cumbersome, it can be tiresome, it can be inefficient, but there is no

better system that has yet been devised by humanity. Ramming through bills without proper debate weakens our system of democracy. Reading the budget to a hand-picked audience at an auto parts plant

in Brampton was just an exotic manifestation of something that the Tories have been doing for quite some time now.

We have a problem in Canada, but I would argue it is more pronounced here in Ontario: people are losing confidence in their system of democracy, in their

politicians, their political representatives, and in their political institutions. The most obvious manifestation of this happens on election day when 50% of eligible voters stay home and sit on

their hands. This is a serious problem. It's even worse among young people, when up to 75% stay home on election day.

We're determined to do something about that. We believe that we have a shared objective -- all members of this Legislature -- a shared responsibility to inspire

greater confidence in politics, in our political institutions, and in our system of democracy. If we allow this erosion to continue, if we allow people's confidence to wane even further when it

comes to the work that we can do together in Parliament, then we are treading dangerously close to losing our ability to come together, because that's fundamentally what government and Parliament

are all about; it's how we come together to help one another overcome challenges that are simply too big for us to overcome on our own. If people lose confidence in our ability to come together and

do good things, we'll have a very, very serious problem on our hands. We intend to do something about that, and I'll tell you how, specifically.

We're going to start by scrapping the changes made by the Harris-Eves government that concentrated power in the Premier's office, thereby making the Legislature

almost irrelevant.

We're going to give legislative committees more clout, enhancing their powers to call ministers and question them in depth about the issues of the day.

We're going to give power to an all-party committee to initiate legislation. We saw something fabulous that took place in an all-party sense recently, when a

committee chaired by a member of the government dealt with the issue of energy. It's remarkable, the good work that was done through that process and it is remarkable -- Mr Gilchrist, I gather,

chaired this committee -- how much good work we can get done when nobody tries to take the credit. Some very substantive, positive recommendations came from that work, and we intend to follow on

that precedent and give the power to an all-party committee to initiate legislation.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Are you trying to muzzle me?

Mr McGuinty: If it works.

We're going to make sure that MPPs are free to do their jobs, which is to represent the views of their constituents. We have the best-informed citizenry in the

history of this country and we still treat them, by treating their representatives -- we treat both of them like children.

With certain exceptions, like specific campaign promises and non-confidence votes, MPPs outside of cabinet in our government will be free to vote against the

government.

We're also going to make sure that the government is accountable in question period. Cabinet ministers will be required to attend two thirds of question period

sessions and will be fined if they do not. Question period is where the government answers to the people. In a democracy, that shouldn't be an optional thing.

There's something else that will change. We don't believe in the Premier's divine right to call an election. Premiers, and I speak now of all Premiers of all

political stripes, don't call elections when they think it serves the public interest; Premiers call elections when they think they can win. We're going to set fixed dates for elections, every four

years, and we're going to put an end to all this pre-election guessing game nonsense, to say nothing of taxpayer-funded advertising propaganda.

So far, this government has spent over $250 million on partisan, political, self-promotional advertising. We've all seen those ads. They're appearing nightly on

television at very expensive time slots, whether for health care or for education. It seems to me that if we have any money for health care today we should be putting that money into health care

and not into health care ads, and if we have any money for education we should be putting it into our classrooms and not into education ads.

When a government uses the voters' own money to try to and spin them, it only creates further cynicism felt by the public for politics and our political

institutions.

Twice now, I'm proud to say, I've introduced a private member's bill and in government we will make that bill the law. That bill simply says that you cannot use

taxpayer dollars for partisan, political, self-promotional government advertising.

We also believe that the time is long past for a full public debate about voting reform. When 50% of eligible voters can't be bothered to cast a ballot,

something is clearly wrong. I believe that an important part of any plan to inspire greater confidence in our system of democracy is to give Ontarians the opportunity to choose the way they elect

their provincial representatives. After all, Ontarians never chose this first-past-the-post system. We inherited this system. I think it's time we made a conscious decision to either keep it or

trade it for another. There are a number of alternatives out there: proportional representation, preferential ballots, and there are different mixed models. If any of these make our citizens feel

more involved in the system, if any of these encourage more of our citizens to take

part in the system, then we should exchange a better system for the one we have now.

In government, we're going to engage the public in a broad conversation about the nature of our voting system, its strengths and weaknesses, and the nature of

the alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses. We're going to hold a referendum on whether we should keep or replace the current system and what we should replace it with.

But we won't stop there. Whatever system we end up with, people still have to vote, and we will encourage them to do that. Permanent voters' lists were used for

the first time last election, and there were just too many problems. We're going to use supplementary, targeted voter enumeration to ensure that every eligible Ontarian can cast a ballot. Our goal

is to increase voter turnout by at least 10%.

We're also going to begin to pave the way for Internet voting. We're going to ease it in, beginning with bank-machine-style kiosks at voting stations as an

option. Where they have had on-line voting, they've had a dramatic increase in voter turnout, especially among young people. I've seen increases to the tune of some 600% in some of the states where

they have employed on-line voting. Young people are spending much of their time there today, and we have a responsibility to make a real, concerted effort to reach out to them, especially given

that 75%, in some cases, are staying home on election day.

It was almost 30 years ago that I took some time off after high school and got a job as an orderly at a hospital in Ottawa called the National Defence Medical

Centre -- I know some members have heard me talk about this before, but it bears repetition. My job was to provide basic, hands-on care to World War I and World War II veterans who had come back

and were badly injured. They went over there as boys, in many senses, I believe. I know that there was a lot of propaganda, because I've heard about it from some of the men on the ward, but at the

end of the day, they went because they felt there was something worth fighting for, and they put it all on the line for us. Those men have all passed away -- that was 30 years ago, as I say -- but

they would be disheartened to learn that so many people don't vote.

We have a responsibility. I know, in some ways, it's probably easier for us to talk about the responsibilities of government and accountability to Parliament

when we sit on your left-hand side, Mr Speaker, because we feel especially attached to this whole responsibility, accountability and holding the government to task. But there is, I think, something

here that is bigger than all of us, and my colleague Sean Conway spoke to that in a very compelling and eloquent way. I want to emphasize once again our responsibility as legislators, each and

every one of us, to uphold time-honoured traditions which at first blush may seem cumbersome, inefficient and ineffective.

I think if there's a good lesson we can draw from what happened when the government decided to introduce its budget at an auto parts plant, it is that

notwithstanding that cynicism of which I spoke, felt by so many Ontarians for politicians and political institutions, they reacted in an almost visceral way. They said, "You know, you can pull a

lot of things over us, but we feel there's something fundamentally wrong with taking the budget and delivering it outside the Legislature. You are demeaning our institution. You're demeaning our

legislators, our elected representatives." Most importantly, the sense I got from listening to Ontarians who reacted to this so viscerally was that they felt the government was demeaning them. They

still attached a tremendous amount of importance to the work we do in here. That's the good news. They may have felt that cynicism, but what they conveyed to all of us was, "Don't go there. Don't

try to do those kinds of things. We still believe in our system of democracy. We still believe in the role of Parliament. We still believe in the role of our elected representatives."

Fundamentally, they were saying we can do great things when we work together. I think that's what the people of Ontario were saying.

The motion put forward by my friend Mr Conway is stunning in its simplicity. It simply reads, "That this House declares that it is the undisputed right of the

Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario." I don't think any of us could have ever predicted that we would be debating this kind of motion

on the floor of this Legislature -- ever. But we find ourselves here today doing that. I think it gives us all an opportunity to revisit the value of the work we do here, to revisit the value we

attach to this wonderful institution and to recommit ourselves to our system of democracy -- yes, Speaker, with all of its rules, all of its precedent, all of its traditions.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): First, I would like to say that on the weekend I had an opportunity to speak with my son, Erin, who has just finished

law school. He took great interest in your ruling, and I have to attribute much of the research -- between the two of us, we've looked at this from his informed academic perspective.

I thought I would offer thoughts on your ruling on prima facie contempt. As all of the honourable members assembled here today know quite well, I'm a frequent

speaker on issues of concern to my riding, as well as those to the province of Ontario. On all occasions, regardless of the issue, I premise my remarks through you, Mr Speaker, as your office

serves an important role in the governance of this province. The role of the Speaker in this province and this House of assembly or in the federal House of Commons is part of parliamentary

tradition and convention that serves our democracy very well.

I rise today in response to your decision to give the matter of the 2003 budget speech priority over all House business. I think it is important, however, to

review the concerns raised by the members from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and Niagara Centre. It is also very important, however, to review the role of the Speaker of this assembly in the

circumstances surrounding your prima facie contempt ruling.

The most important facet of the office of Speaker in this modern age is that of neutrality to perform his or her duties as the unbiased servant of the

Legislative Assembly. While serving the assembly, the Speaker has also become the de facto official or person in control of the debate. In this position of authority, all members can look to the

Speaker for guidance on parliamentary issues and for the resolution of disputes in a most expeditious and fair manner. It may surprise many in this House to learn that this was not always the case.

In fact, the origin of the Speaker of the British House of Commons was that the Speaker was an adviser or confidant of the reigning monarch. In this capacity, a motivated Speaker could control the

substance of debate in the House in accordance with specific objectives or personal motives. In fact, early Canadian colonies, including Upper Canada, inherited this activist notion of the role of

the Speaker in the early assemblies of the country. Far from independent, many Speakers in the assemblies that eventually formed the Dominion of Canada were the most political members of the

assembly. Many Speakers were actively involved in political organizations and movements that directly conflicted with the government of the day.

Slowly the role of the Speaker evolved into an office of non-partisanship. In fact it is this unbiased role of the Speaker and the removal of the cut and thrust

of partisan political debate that permits the Speaker to serve the assembly and provide for the effective governance of the province.

The office of Speaker, so to speak, evolved to become the unbiased servant of the House of assembly, which required the member selected as Speaker to leave

outward partisanship behind on elevation to that office. This requires the Speaker to withdraw from partisan activities, such as caucus meetings, and assume almost an aloof posture to ensure

impartiality. In this matter, the office of the Speaker, both in convention and even in ceremonial garb, is akin to a justice of the court of the province who must retreat from his normal

activities to ensure that justice is administered fairly and without bias.

I should note again that historically the Speaker, as you know, was not elected. There has been much discussion about tradition and parliamentary procedure and

convention leading up to this debate, so historical developments of the office of the Speaker should be considered in this debate. Historically, the government leader, with the advice of cabinet,

would select a Speaker from within the government benches and inform the opposition of that choice. On occasions when the government majority was tight, or when minority situations occurred, the

Premier might decide to accede to an opposition member being chosen for the role of Speaker, but this was certainly not the norm. It was the convention in the early years of our country to permit

that selection to advance to the Speaker's chair. In fact, the first business of the session following a general election has traditionally been the vote to ratify the Speaker. It has only been in

the last number of decades that assemblies across the country have permitted a full election of the Speaker by the House or assembly.

It should also be noted that the parliamentary conventions surrounding the election of the Speaker have evolved steadily over the decades. Rather than this

evolution being considered an affront to the tradition of the House, this gradual change was considered to be the maturation of the political process within our political heritage. In fact, the

election of the Speaker in the House of Commons was the result of parliamentary reform initiatives considered by the committees of that House.

Some commentators have observed that this new election process for the Speaker of the assembly will often permit opposition parties to select their choice of

Speaker based not on the most objective and unbiased of credentials but perhaps more on an individual who might be more troublesome for the government or more activist in his approach.

In this circumstance, a government member may be more attractive to the opposition members and their votes if they offer to serve as more of a thorn in the side

of government rather than in a more stoic and reserved role as Speaker. In other instances, all parties may decide to support the candidacy of a senior member of the assembly to assume the office

of Speaker. In these situations, the members are recognizing the experience of senior members as individuals who have witnessed many years of debate in the House and have become similar to the

corporate memory of the assembly.

I leave it to the members of the House today to decide whether that has been the case in Ontario since the convention was altered some time ago. Some might argue

that the active lobbying and candidacy of prospective Speakers actually detracts from the requirements and authority of the office. Nonetheless, this election process has been part of the evolution

of our assembly.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario is now served by an office of Speaker who is elected by all members of the House to serve the assembly. The Speaker's chair

remains in the House, but the member removes himself or herself from the regular role of a member of provincial Parliament and assumes a greater duty for the governance of the province. All other

members of the assembly will respect his role, knowing full well that the office of Speaker serves the House itself and not any partisan objectives/motives.

The office of Speaker of the House in the Westminster parliamentary tradition has three distinct roles. First, the Speaker is expected to perform a number of

ceremonial duties as part of the Legislative Assembly. Secondly, there is an administrative role to oversee the effective performance of the Legislature and the members of provincial Parliament. To

carry out this administrative role, the Speaker is provided with staff and resources to ensure that members are afforded the proper tools to represent their constituents in the assembly. Third, and

perhaps most important, there is a distinct quasi-judicial role of the Speaker. The Speaker presides over proceedings in the Legislative Assembly from the debate on the in the House to the conduct

and decorum of members participating. The Speaker is to interpret the standing orders of the assembly in accordance with precedence and makes decisions on points of order and matters of privilege.

It is this quasi-judicial role, in light of your recent ruling, Mr Speaker, that causes me some concern.

It is understood and recognized that it's left to the House to decide upon whether contempt of Parliament has occurred or not. The Speaker does, however, serve

an important gatekeeper function by determining whether a prima facie case of contempt does indeed exist. This is an important example of the intertwining of the quasi-judicial and administrative

role of the Speaker of this House. Due to the gravity of this subject and the possible implications flowing from a contempt ruling, it is absolutely paramount that the Speaker consider this issue

impartially and in full consideration of the rules of this House and of available precedents. In this manner, the Speaker is performing a quasi-judicial function by making a preliminary ruling on

the issue of contempt. While this step is not the final determination of the issue, it is nonetheless a decision that must be made in accordance with our legal and parliamentary traditions of this

province. With respect, Mr Speaker, I am concerned that your decision did not accord with the principles of administrative justice and fairness that should have characterized your decision.

While the prima facie consideration is not the final determination of the issue of contempt, it is certainly a preliminary determination that requires the

principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to be at the forefront of the decision-making and the role of the Speaker in this assembly.

I am sure that all members assembled here today would agree with the old legal adage that justice must not only be done, but justice must also be seen to be

done. Respectfully, Mr Speaker, prior to your consideration of issues of contempt of Parliament, your personal views on the Brampton budget were well known throughout this House and indeed

throughout the province. Your critical view of the process was most evident in several written media pieces and in your appearance on TVOntario.

This morning, Mr Speaker, I reread one of those interviews published in the Globe and Mail on March 15. Your views are startlingly clearly expressed and, I would

submit, in a fashion most uncharacteristic of the office of the Speaker. Regarding the off-site budget, you expressed great displeasure: "This is not the right thing to do."

Mr Speaker, you then went on in the interview in a manner that some might describe as attempting to incite a caucus revolt within the government, "What can

happen and what I believe should happen" -- and this is a quote -- "is the Conservative members, if they decide that five or six of them want to stand up and say this budget isn't the proper thing

to do, they could get the Premier to back down by saying they are not going to support" --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. Point of order, the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer you to the standing orders, in particular standing order 13(

a) and

standing order 13(b). Standing order 13(

b) indicates that there shall be no debate permitted on a decision of the Speaker, and I submit that what we are hearing is debate about the decision made by

the Speaker.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: All of standing orders 12 and 13 deal with order and decorum and

conduct of a member of this House, and it appears to this side of the House, in any event, that the government member is now actively challenging the Speaker, or attempting to challenge the

Speaker, for the ruling and to imply that the Speaker had somehow been biased.

I listened very carefully to the member's words -- and I will await Hansard -- but if my recollection and understanding of the words is reflected in Hansard,

this represents an unprecedented challenge to the Speaker of this Legislature and would represent a dramatic attack on what has been an impartial decision by the Speaker that, in our view, breaches

not only the standing orders but the precedents and conventions of this House.

We are increasingly concerned that the government is consciously attacking the Speaker at this point, and look to your direction and the direction of the table

with respect to what is and what is not in order in the standing orders with respect to a challenge or a potential challenge to the Speaker.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, I would simply draw the House's attention to the statement that was made by the Speaker: "As I

have said, only the House, not the Speaker, can make a finding that there has been a contempt of the House."

I've listened to the debate over the last few days, and quite clearly, with the greatest of the respect to the Opposition members, I sat here quietly and

listened to their point of order. There has been a wide latitude of debate on this subject. You have stated yourself, sir, that you cannot find the contempt; only the House can. That's what we're

here debating about. Now, although they may not like the position of the honourable member behind me, he's entitled to his position, and that's why we're debating it here today.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to remind the House that the item before the

House is my motion, which reads, "That this House declares that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario."

That is the motion currently before the House, and I would hope, in the interest of constructive action on a Monday afternoon, that we could all remember that.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am in agreement with the member

for Renfrew with respect to what is before the House. I'm also suggesting to you that you have given a very wide berth with respect to what is debatable, what is before the House and what isn't

before the House from the previous speeches that I've read and reviewed. I will ask you to look to Mr Kormos's comments with respect to this debate as the lead-off speaker for the NDP. It would

seem to me to be fair -- yes, that motion is before the House, but with your take on what was being put toward the House during Thursday's debate, the latitude I took was that you were allowing a

very wide berth. If we're going to focus this now, it becomes very difficult to determine when we have to focus the debate and when we don't have to focus the debate, and I ask for your indulgence

with respect to that.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): Mr Speaker, as one who commented on this very issue in favour of the validity of your ruling on Thursday I think I

should speak to this. The member, of course, is debating the motion before the House. But your office, sir, is not so fragile as not to be helped by comment both in favour of something you've done

or against something you've done. This member is not debating the ruling that you made on Thursday. This member is commenting on the ruling with a view to commenting on the motion, and I think it

would be a very, very serious error, sir, and not contemplated by the standing orders, to limit comment on what you may do. I think it's quite important that there be full debate, because out of

full debate will come a better result.

I say that as someone who thinks the ruling was sound from last Thursday and said so. If others take a different view, I think they're quite entitled to that,

and it does not in any way diminish the respect for your office or for the rules of this House.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would very quickly -- and most of it has been said -- go back to your

comments the other day when you said, "I have a lingering unease about the road we are going down, and my sense is that the House and the general public have the same unease." I'm feeling rather

uneasy because where the member is going, as I see it, is a move of non-confidence in the Speaker, which is to my view quite a different issue and I hope we're not going there. But it seems to me

that he's trying to open up a whole other issue by way of this debate that is really not before the House at this time.

The Speaker: I thank all the members. As the members will know, the ruling of the Speaker is not debatable. I'm put in a little bit of a

difficult position because I'm caught in the middle at this time, for obvious reasons. It is the motion that we are debating. I know we sometimes have some latitude on the debates, and have had in

this House over the last few years, where members tend to wander and Speakers who are in the chair tend to bring them back.

I will remind the member that the motion he is dealing with is the member for Renfrew's motion on the budget. I would ask him, as I would at all times, to stick

to the motion. I will be listening very careful as we move forward.

Hon Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I might add, considering it was a point of order brought forward by the opposition, that

there were nine minutes and 28 seconds left for the member's speech. He's now down to three minutes. I would request that we go back to nine minutes and 28 seconds.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. We'll put the clock back. The member for Durham.

Mr O'Toole: I would also like to put on the record very clearly that if there was anything that you found offensive in my remarks, it

certainly was not my intention whatsoever. I would argue, Mr Speaker, that any occasion when you are speaking outside of this Legislature, in fact, your duties are supposed to be implied as

impartial. I would put to you that the comments I was making of your comments on TVO just proved exactly that. I wondered if it prejudiced your decision. I'm not in any way challenging anything

you've said.

I also respect that the members on the other side in their remarks have also made reference to issues that are not specific --

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very quickly, once again the speaker returns to the very point: the member addressing the chamber

is painting the Speaker as not having been impartial. I put to you, Speaker, that it's important that you make, with respect, a firm ruling on that today so that we don't start expanding the

latitude around how one can, through the back door, debate the decision of a Speaker where one can't do it through the front door. I suggest to you the member has returned right back to the same

message.

The Speaker: I thank the member very much. Again, myself and the table will be listening very carefully.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, your views are important, and all members in the House have the greatest respect for those. The point I'm trying to

establish is that once you start to break from tradition -- and the tradition that has been established is that the Speaker does remain impartial. I leave it to you to decide the case. The

information that I'm putting forward is simply that it's a matter of information. And I say that there is a natural justice and a procedural fairness, as I have listened attentively to members on

the other side of the House speaking on issues of relative insignificance in terms of the importance of this issue.

I would encourage all members to approach this with an open mind, as opposed to a closed mind. It is up to this House to make and listen to the debates, and I

don't think the debate has been concluded. All I'm trying to point out is the Speaker, in your role as an impartial judge and in many respects a jury -- that's exactly the point that I've been

trying to establish.

There is a certain irony in this finding that there was perhaps an apprehension of bias surrounding your prima facie order. I would argue that the very reason

parliamentary tradition developed a requirement for the Speaker to be non-partisan and beyond reproach, as I said before, was to ensure that impartiality and fairness in their decision-making. In

fact, all of our parliamentary traditions surrounding the office of the Speaker attempt to foster the sense of independence and separation from the partisanship of issues before the House, from the

positioning of the Speaker's chair between both sides of the House, to the tradition of the mace and the separate office and practices of the Speaker for the purpose of maintaining separation from

the politics behind all of the issues before us.

It is this separation and impartiality that very much ensures and protects the integrity of the office. Traditionally, this office of Speaker has rarely

commented on political issues outside of the House and has normally taken great pains to avoid influencing the decision of members of the assembly or the impression of the public. Perhaps we should

all endeavour to forge a political convention that a Speaker, originally from any side of the House, should only make statements in the House, not in scrums or in TV studios. Maybe that will be an

unexpected benefit of this current debate. It will improve the debate and the role of the Speaker to be more highly respected, and to a higher standard. I would say any member sitting as Speaker

should maintain a higher standard.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is calling into question your ruling, your prima facie case. He is suggesting that

your are biased, he is suggesting that you conducted this before being in possession of the facts and implying that somehow you were not fair in the decision.

As he reflected in his own remarks, the decision of whether or not there has been a contempt of this House does not rest with you, it rests with the House

itself. You found a prima facie case based on evidence, presented that evidence to this House, backed up by the relevant authorities and made a final determination of a prima facie case. It will be

up to the House to determine if there was contempt. What the member is saying is that your conduct in the lead-up to that decision -- he is in effect, in our view on this side of the House, showing

contempt for the Speaker and attempting to intimidate the Chair.

Sir Thomas More, the first Speaker of the British House, had his head chopped off by a government that tried to muzzle the Speaker. The impartiality of the

Speaker is the essence of our Parliament, and I would suggest the member opposite is calling that into question. For our part on this side of the House, we don't believe the Speaker has not been

impartial at all on any occasion.

The Speaker: Fortunately, some of the traditions do change about the Speaker losing his head. The member for Durham may continue.

Hon Mr Stockwell: On the alleged point of order, Mr Speaker: The speaker had five minutes and 40 seconds on the clock. I would ask you if you

could put the five minutes and 40 seconds back. Otherwise, we're going to be in a game where every member stands up, and we're going to have points of order popping up. It's really just a

subversive way to get them to close down and not express their opinions.

The Speaker: Was the member asking for unanimous consent?

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker. I'm asking for you to make a ruling as to whether or not we can put it back to five minutes and 40

seconds.

The Speaker: We'll put the time back and try one more time. I want to say very clearly to the member that this is his last warning. We will

move on to the next person in the rotation if you continue to attack the Chair.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that the time allocated for debate and response was the same for all members here, and I

appreciate the fact that you're giving me the appropriate time which was allocated for each member. I also want to put it very clearly that these remarks are in fact my remarks and are --

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: This is one more example of how the fairness of the debate as I am approaching it is being challenged by those who would have no

other way to know.

In fact, I'd remind the NDP members of the announcements they made in the social contract several years ago. They contained many fiscal and social implications

beyond a budget statement. They were not made in the House. In fact, at that time, the challenge, as was cited in one of the precedents -- the Liberal government in their day in 1988. It is the

very substance that these members here are not prepared to listen to discussion of the fairness of the decision we're dealing with. Those are the arguments I'm putting forward. This was not seen to

be in contempt but was seen as an attempt by Premier Rae to speak to greater matters due to the radical measures contained in the decision he was making. That is, the implication was that he was

speaking to the people. You tried to reach consensus with the union leaders, as you would -- and I appreciate that -- but you were unable to reach a decision or gain consensus, so you tried to go

directly to the people of Ontario. In fact, I would put to you that was the motive of our Minister of Finance.

Each member here tries to represent, in fairness, their constituents but also the interests of Ontarians. We need this opportunity to make sure there is an

opportunity to speak directly to the people of Ontario. That, to me, is what this is about. In fact, if I look at many of the prebudget announcements that are made federally, provincially in all

provinces and in many jurisdictions, these announcements themselves are part of the budget. In many cases, they are the budget. In fact, I would put to you these trial balloons are often made and

in some respects tested prior to the budget itself.

Any outgoing decision from here to look at Mr Conway's resolution would be quite controversial with respect to what was appropriate in terms of public input.

So, as I see it, the motion is completely something that I have very grave difficulty trying to support.

I also think it's important for all members here to consider this as an opportunity to learn about the procedural role, not just of the Speaker, but of your

duty in the House to represent as faithfully as possible your views on an issue. I would say to you that my position on the rear bench of the House often leaves me very frustrated by advice given

to members on both sides of the House. But my respect for this assembly leads me to rise and speak on matters of importance to the citizens of Durham and to advance government and other public

policy discussion that I feel is important to not only my constituents but indeed the people of Ontario.

When a decision is made, there is generally a position of appeal in most court decisions. The case I've made here, or attempted to make despite the

unreasonableness on the other side, is to bring forward the fact that there is a process. This debate is not to challenge in a negative sense but to review all of the information we have before us

in the precedents that have taken place in this House before this decision more recently on this prima facie finding of contempt. I would put to you, that only permits this debate to take place.

The decision has not yet been made. I've tried to clarify where I stand, my position, and I'm prepared to listen to the speakers who will be following.

We heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I will cite that his speech made very little reference to the substance we are actually debating. He talked about

the number of times the House has or hasn't sat, how many times a speaker spoke, his political platform, what he would do if he were leader. He hasn't got a clue what he would do as leader. In

fact, this House is a good place to challenge his ability to lead whatsoever.

That is substantially the reason I believe the other side has gone completely off the rails. I'll be listening carefully, and what I'll be listening for is how

often they actually agree with the decision or are talking about their political propaganda. That's what I'll be listening for in the few minutes that are remaining.

In conclusion, I want to put on the record that the opposition, in my view, is trying to delay the procedures of this House by confronting me and trying to

disrupt the argument which I and my son, my oldest son Erin, who just finished law school --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Guy Giorno.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Bradley, you have no idea what you speak of, which is typical of your performance in this House.

The Speaker: Before we continue -- there is going to be some heated debate, I see -- I would ask all members to please, kindly reflect not

only on what they say regarding the Chair, which is a long-standing tradition, but also regarding other members.

Now in the rotation I believe it's the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: This is truly a very significant debate in this Legislature, and probably could be -- you can never tell these things -- a

defining moment in the history of this government. To see the government, upon hearing an independent ruling by the Speaker, take the tack, then, of attacking the Speaker is absolutely appalling to

watch. To hear a member of this Legislature -- and I ask the government House leader to have listened to all of the remarks of the member for Durham, all of the remarks he made, and if that is not

an attack on the Speaker of this Legislature, I don't know that you have heard everything he has said.

To watch this government try to circumvent the democratic processes in this Ontario of ours is appalling not just to the many editorialists, not just to, as

the Premier tried to say, the academics, the professors, the pundits, but also to many long-time Progressive Conservative members of your party and I suspect even some members of the Legislature

who will remain silent in this debate. This is appalling, to watch the party of Bob Welch, who was one of the predecessors in St Catharines, a genuine parliamentarian; the party of Tom Wells; the

party of Bette Stephenson; the party of Bob Elgie; of Larry Grossman; of Frank Drea; the party which defended the rights of this Legislature, including now a man who is a justice, Roy McMurtry. To

listen to arguments of this kind being put against the Speaker is absolutely unbelievable; to listen to a threat by the previous speaker from Durham that somehow we should bring back the appointed

Speaker, as though to have a government toady in the office of the Speaker is what the government will threaten if somehow a Speaker dares to impose a ruling on this House or give a ruling to this

House of the nature that we have heard from Speaker Carr.

I am surprised. I have to tell you that I thought you people -- some of you not believing in democratic institutions -- were at least politically wise enough

to understand. Had the Premier stood in this House and said, "We thought we were doing the right thing, and maybe I still think it's the right thing today, but we've had a ruling from the Speaker

and we've heard from the people of Ontario, and we were wrong and we won't do it again," think of the credit the Premier of this province would get by saying that. He would have been the lead, if

you will, in all the stories, saying, "You know, maybe we made a mistake, and we're not going to do that again." People would have admired that. That would have been a wonderful opportunity for the

government, and quite frankly it would have been good for the House.

Instead we get an attack on the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature and on the impartiality of that Speaker. Instead we get the story that everybody else but

the government is wrong, including some very senior members of the Progressive Conservative Party at the local level, people who have come up to me and said, "I'm not necessarily going to vote for

you people or anything of that nature, but I'll tell you that I thought the government was wrong in what it did." Those are the people you've turned off with this. You're turning off the democratic

process, and for no good reason but simply because some whiz kids in the Premier's office said, "We've got a good idea. We can circumvent the House. We can go directly, so-called, to the people of

this province instead of coming to the Legislature." Even people who really don't know about the rules of the Legislature and may not care much about them have come up to me in the street or at

public meetings and said, "I think the government was wrong in what they did."

The government has suffered a major blow with this. It had a chance to recover. It had a chance to come back and say, "We were wrong, and we're not going to do

it again." Some people, even on the front benches, kind of hinted that might be the case. I heard one member, for whom I have some considerable respect in terms of his observations of this House,

speak about the ruling in a somewhat favourable way. Members have to do that independently. This is a ruling that affects all the House; this affects every member. To defend what some people in the

Premier's office did as though you have to wear it is unbelievable. You don't have to wear it. I tell you that you don't have to wear it.

Tell the people from the Premier's office they were wrong. Get up in the House and say, "You know, maybe the Speaker has a point or maybe all those

editorialists have a point or maybe those professors or those average individuals in our society have a point and we shouldn't do it and we won't do it again." But instead, you get up and try to

defend the indefensible, and today you try to defend it with an attack on the Speaker himself. That's most unfortunate.

I must say that this is perhaps a defining moment for the government. What it tells people in the province, unfortunately for you, perhaps -- because I'm not a

prognosticator who can tell you the future -- it will tell the people of this province that you can't be trusted with our democratic institutions.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): No, no.

Mr Bradley: That's what it will tell them. My friend from London-Fanshawe may not agree with that, but I'm telling you that's what happens.

That's exactly what I think it is. And the abuse of our system continues. It's a pattern. They look at it as a pattern. They say, "The power is being concentrated in the Office of the Premier of

the province."

We have the House, this Legislature to which all of us belong, not in session from December 12; we had a question period on December 12, 2002; the next

question period was May 1, 2003 -- almost five months that this Legislature was not in session and not many committees of the Legislature in session. It might have been an excuse for not having the

House in session if we had committees working all the time, carrying out its business. In the minds of many people in this province, the real reason for not delivering the speech in the Legislature

was that the government simply didn't want the House to come back, didn't want to face question period on a daily basis, it didn't want to face the media scrum, as we call it here, on a daily

basis. I understand that. I understand governments don't want to do that, but that is part of the accountability for which people fought in years gone by.

I want to quote from the Speaker's ruling, because I think his words are words to which all of us and all the people of Ontario should listen. In his ruling,

he said the following: "Having reflected on these authorities, I will apply them to the case before me now. It is hard to recall a time in recent memory when a matter of parliamentary process has

so incensed people inside and outside this province. Many Ontarians from all walks of life have complained in an overwhelmingly negative way -- to my office, to members directly, through various

media, and to the government itself -- that the government's approach to communicating the 2003 budget to Ontarians has undermined parliamentary institutions and processes.

"As I've already indicated, there have been occasions in the past when a Minister of Finance or a Treasurer has neither personally presented the budget in the

House nor read the budget speech in the House. In the case at hand, however, the government indicated that the events of March 27 were motivated by a desire -- in the March 27 press release issued

by the Ministry of Finance -- to have `a direct conversation with the people of Ontario.'" That's a quote from the press release.

"To the extent that they imply that parliamentary institutions and processes in Ontario tend to interfere with the government's message to the public, such

statements tend to reflect adversely on those institutions and processes. If the government has a problem with those institutions and processes, or if it wants to improve them, why did it not ask

the House sometime during the last session to reflect on the problem and to consider appropriate changes? Traditional ways to do just that would be to introduce a bill, table a notice of motion,

enter into discussions at the level of the House leaders, or ask the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to study and report on the problem. Given the public's reaction to the

government's decision to stage a budget presentation outside the House, I think Ontarians are rather fond of their traditional parliamentary institutions and parliamentary processes, and they want

greater deference to be shown towards the traditional parliamentary forum in which public policies are proposed, debated and voted on.

"When the government or any member claims that a budget presentation is needed outside the House well before it happens inside the House in order to

communicate directly with the people or because of a perceived flaw in the parliamentary institution, there is a danger that the representative role of each and every member of this House is

undermined, that respect for the institution is diminished, and that Parliament is rendered irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy is not vindicated by the government conducting a generally one-sided

public relations event on the budget well in advance of members having an opportunity to hold the government to account for the budget in this chamber.

"I can well appreciate that parliamentary proceedings can be animated and often emotional, and they can be cumbersome. It may not be the most efficient of

political systems, but it is a process that reflects the reality that members, like the people of Ontario, may not be of one mind on matters of public policy. A mature parliamentary democracy is

not a docile ... or one-way communications vehicle; it is a dynamic, interactive and representative institution that allows the government of the day to propose and defend its policies -- financial

and otherwise. It also allows the opposition to scrutinize and hold the government to account for those policies. It is an open, working and relevant system of scrutiny and accountability. If any

members of this House have a problem with the concept of parliamentary democracy, then they have some serious explaining to do."

The Speaker went on to ask several questions which prompted him to permit this debate to take place in the House today. This is part of a pattern, I say to

members of the government, a pattern that government members themselves should be trying to arrest, whether they be in cabinet or whether they be members of the so-called backbench. In my view,

there is no such thing as a backbench. All members should not look forward to their time in cabinet and place themselves in favour with the Premier by making speeches which are defending the

indefensible, but rather they should be defending this particular institution.

Let me say what is happening out there to ignore this institution, to ignore the democratic processes. We have an unprecedented orgy, is the word we have to

use, of government advertising.

My friend the opposition House leader, Mr Duncan, handed me this week's Maclean's magazine: a 30-page, expensive, glossy supplement extolling the virtues of

the policies of the government of Ontario. I've never seen anything like it. What is going on right now is unacceptable. I will not say, as many in this House have said, that other governments have

not advertised; they have. But I have not seen it to this degree, and that is an abuse of the public process.

Coming in this morning, I was listening to my local radio station. They were advertising upcoming advertising, if you can believe that. It was advertising for

SuperBuild that said: "Open the St Catharines Standard on Wednesday and there will be an advertisement on SuperBuild." This is out of control, I say to government members. Go to the Premier, go to

the whiz kids, put a stop to this nonsense that every time you turn on the television set you have yet another taxpayer-paid, blatantly partisan government commercial.

If the Progressive Conservative Party wishes to pay for them, I have no objection, because that is their message to put out. But when the taxpayers of this

province are asked to pay for clearly partisan advertising on radio, on television, in newspapers and magazines, in pamphlets, on huge signs on the side of the highway with the Premier's name on

them where there's not even construction taking place, that is unacceptable to the majority of the people in this province, including many of the people who support this government who I know have

mentioned this to me, and they support this. The degree of abuse of office by your government is unprecedented. I've never seen anything like it.

What have you done for this parliamentary institution? You've changed the rules; you've gutted the rules of this House so that the scrutiny of the opposition

is not as strong as it used to be. The opposition cannot force the government now to have hearings around the province on its bills. I remember my good friend the Attorney General of this province

making an impassioned speech in this House, with which I was in agreement, about the role the opposition has to play in holding the government to account. He was right then, and his words are right

today. But what have you done? You have changed the rules of this Legislature to grease the skids for this government to push its legislation through. Often, when you shove it through too quickly

and without the proper debate, that's when mistakes are made.

I note as well some of the other things you have done. You have changed the Election Finances Act to allow political parties to spend more money, to exempt

certain expenses during the campaign, such as the leader's tour and polling. You've allowed people to donate more money to political parties, moving in a direction that has money playing a greater,

instead of a lesser, influence. I know there are some members on the government side who aren't happy with that as well, who don't rely, and don't want to rely, on those kinds of donations and to

have very expensive campaigns, but that's what you have done. You have changed the Election Act to make it a shorter period of time, so that money and advertising play an even greater role, and

those who are in the field, the door-to-door people who conduct the traditional campaigns, are placed at a disadvantage. You have a voters' list that leaves many people out of the process. You

have, in addition to this --

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Certainly there were many points of order while our member, Mr O'Toole, was speaking. When I

look at this debate, it's a significant debate, because what we have here is a situation where there is, quite frankly, no precedent. What was put before you, sir, was a situation where the

institution was being challenged and --

The Speaker: If the member can't get to the point of order, which he can't -- the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: The picture I'm painting for the member is all the abuses of the democratic process that I see taking place in this province.

I know that's not something most people other than political scientists normally worry about; I understand that. But one of the judgments you make on a

government is what they do when they think nobody is watching. You have been able to get away, to this point in time -- you raised the issue of government advertising -- because there hasn't been

much coverage of it. There really hasn't been. You would've gotten away with the budget outside of the House if the news media hadn't decided that this was an affront to democracy.

You have to judge governments on that basis, because sometimes the media, the public, or even political observers aren't watching. You have to do what's right

when that happens, not simply when you think you're under scrutiny or under pressure.

This is an important debate in this House. The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke did not present a motion which was inflammatory. He did not present a

motion which was highly condemning of the government. He put forward a very clear motion which simply asked that this Legislature receive the budget of the province of Ontario before it goes out

into an auto plant training centre.

I think there are people in the Conservative benches who agree with the ruling of the Speaker. I think there are people on the government benches who agree

with what some of us have said, but more importantly, people like Michael Bliss. Michael Bliss has real Conservative credentials. He doesn't often say critical things about this government. When he

came to the conclusion that he had been insulted by what the government had done, it was exceedingly important in that particular stage.

I have his comments, and he concluded by saying this: "Well, perhaps we old fogies, like the Legislature itself, just don't matter any more. Go ahead and

ignore us, Messrs Runciman and Eves. We'll ignore you too. After that Sunday morning phone call, your party is not going to get any of my money. And after you pull your tawdry little budget stunt,

don't bother sending anyone around to my door asking for my vote.

"So long as the Progressive Conservative government continues to be an insult to the intelligence of Ontarians, my election day plan is to sit on my patio,

read a book, and eat an orange."

That's Michael Bliss, who has not been a person who has been critical of Conservatives over the years.

I want to conclude with an observation about the Speaker by Jim Coyle. It ends as follows: "As Carr knows, those who don't play the game pay a price. The same

`they' now have him in their crosshairs. But happily for the Speaker, for MPPs, and for the public they serve, he's got nothing to lose.

"In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that some years ago, while toiling in the vineyard of the Queen's Park press gallery, I played a little

shinny against Gary Carr. As I recall, I couldn't put anything past him. But no worries. Neither, it seems, can the Premier."

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A little incident occurred that you may not be aware of. Our phones began ringing during the

Conservative member for Durham's speech. People called to report that an obscene gesture was given by the member that was caught on camera and seen throughout the province. I rise to inform you

that at 4:30, when the master tape is available, we will have a look at that. Two of our members observed it. We will have a look at that tape. We can't determine who it was directed at, whether it

was directed at yourself, the opposition or another member, but there could be, in our view, a grave disorder if in fact that has been captured on tape.

The Speaker: Before we continue, if any member has inadvertently done something, at any time they can stand and apologize. I'm sure we are all

honourable members in this House and would do so if in fact we did. Obviously if an occurrence happens like that, our table staff and our friends who actually run the TV will be able to provide

that.

Mr Kormos: I observed the gesture. I presumed it was directed to me. I believe that, notwithstanding my criticism of him, the member thought I

was still number one. I have no concerns whatsoever. I expect no more and, quite frankly, no less from that member.

Mr O'Toole: I sincerely withdraw any offence I gave to any member. It will not happen again.

The Speaker: I thank the member for that. Now in the rotation, the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: Before I begin, I'd just like to make an amendment to the original motion --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: I notice you're conferring.

The Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay may continue. Sorry for the interruption.

Mr Bisson: I would like to move an amendment to the motion. That's why I was trying to -- I noticed you were conferring with someone.

I have an amendment to the original motion, that the motion be amended by adding the following thereto: "and not to present the budget in this way constitutes

a clear contempt of the House."

I want to start my 20-minute rotation as the whip for the New Democratic Party with the comments that you made in regard to your decision of last Thursday. I

take these comments quite seriously, because I see what happened in this House last Thursday as being one of the only times that I can recall in the 13 years that I've been here that a government

has been found to be totally not respectful of the institution that we have here.

Mind you, this government has had contempt motions against it before, and we can go to that, but I took your comments very seriously. You started off by

saying, on page 234 of the Hansard of last Thursday, May 8th, "I have a lingering unease about the road we are going down, and my sense is that the House and the general public have the same

unease." Then you go on to say that, if left unchallenged, this "incident will embolden future governments to create parallel, extra-parliamentary processes."

That's really what this is all about, Mr Speaker. I agree with you, as a member of this Legislature now for my third term, some 13 years. I believe the path we

are taking now by way of the actions of this government and what we're dealing with in the House today is most serious because it speaks to the most basic, fundamental rights that we have as

legislators here at Queen's Park and as we do across the Commonwealth in any parliamentary democracy. That is that this House is charged with the ability not only to conduct and make decisions by

way of votes that government may bring before us by way of bills or motions, of private members or opposition parties -- but one of the most fundamental things that we deal with is the budget: how

we spend money in the province in Ontario. That's one of the most basic, fundamental rights I believe that we have as legislators. When it comes to making the province work, how we collect taxes

and how we spend those tax dollars are among the most basic, fundamental responsibilities we have as legislators.

When this government chose -- not because the opposition was blocking them from being able to bring a budget forward, as happened when the David Peterson

government was in place -- to go outside of Parliament in order to sell their budget because, in their own words, they find that Parliament is a hindrance to them getting their message out, so

therefore they're going to circumnavigate the Parliament and take the budget outside of the sight of Parliament to do it against some stage-managed backdrop, I think that is really taking a step

down a road that this current and future legislatures don't want to go down. It really says that this Parliament is brought down to mere irrelevance when it comes to what we do as our work.

As you went through your ruling, Mr Speaker, I thought as I listened to it that it was quite balanced. You went through the various stages, and said at the end

that in fact you thought this was one of the most basic issues that we had to deal with. I couldn't agree with you more.

The handlers came to Ernie Eves and said, "Listen, we've got this great idea. We're going to take the budget outside the House. We're going to put it out with

Magna International as the backdrop. We're going to have our own invited guests come in. We're going to have infomercials in the middle of it. We're going to sell this budget, wham, bam, thank you,

Sam. No opposition there to pester us with any negative comment." I have to ask myself a question: where was Ernie Eves when that was being thought of as a strategy? Either it was a strategy that

was made by Ernie Eves and then delivered by his campaign team or it was his campaign team and the people in the Premier's office who came up with the idea and brought it to the Premier. In either

event, where was Ernie Eves, the Premier of Ontario, in that decision?

I know where I would have been if I had been Premier of Ontario and my handlers came to me and said, "Gilles, you're 20 points back in the polls." I remember

that. We were in government in 1995. We were about 20 points back. I remember it well. If all of a sudden they came to me and said, "I've got a surefire idea to boost you up in the polls; we're

going to do the budget outside the House," not in a million years would I have accepted that advice. I can't believe that any members of the House who have been here for any time would have been

able to accept that argument. Quite frankly, they would have said, "Hey, go away with that. We'll have some stage-managed events after we read the budget in the House. Let's do things to promote it

once we've read the budget in the House, but at no time should we try to circumvent Parliament in bringing the budget forward."

It brings into question, in my view, the leadership of Ernie Eves. I hate to say that because quite frankly -- and I want to put it on the record -- I have

respect for Ernie Eves, both as our Premier and as a person. I've served in this Legislature with him dating back to 1990. I know that when Ernie was in opposition, he was a decent person to deal

with, as he is a decent person to deal with now as Premier of Ontario. But I have to ask myself this question: where was his judgment in allowing this decision to go forward?

One of the issues here that I think we have to reflect on is not only the larger issue that we're going to have to vote on this motion by the end of the

debate, probably tomorrow some time, to decide where we go as a House, because you have charged us with that decision, but I have to ask myself, where was Ernie Eves in regard to his leadership on

this issue? I'm hoping Mr Eves comes into the House today and tells us what his views are on this now that he's had a chance to see this unfold Thursday and over the weekend.

I am imploring Mr Eves to do something that's very simple: to come into the House and say, "You know what? We tried to do something we thought was smart. We

tried to do something we thought was right. We didn't feel we did anything wrong, but I'm sorry." If the Premier of Ontario were to have come into the House on Thursday or over the weekend -- even

today might not be too late -- and finally said, "We did wrong and we're sorry," and move on, I think a lot of Ontarians would have understood it. They would have said, "Yeah, they messed up, but

at least they're willing to fess up to the mistake they've made."

I'm looking forward to seeing if the Premier is actually going to come into the House -- because I noticed he was here earlier -- to say exactly that, because

for him not to do so really goes to the root of what the issue is here, and that is that this government, in my view, is not only in contempt of this House but, quite frankly, is in contempt of the

population of Ontario when it comes to the democracy they are charged with as a majority government to uphold. We can't forget this government got elected by more people than individually the

Liberals or the New Democrats, and they were given a majority. It's a wonderful thing for a government to be able to say they got a majority in this House, but I believe with that comes a

responsibility, and that responsibility is to govern in a way that respects the people of Ontario through their institutions.

I think this government has demonstrated on too many occasions that when it comes to respect for the institution of democracy we have in this Parliament,

they've tried to thumb their nose at it to a certain extent. I look back to the debates we've had in this House in regard to rule changes. We have got to the point where the opposition parties have

been stripped of many of the tools we had to hold the government accountable. Why did the government do that? Because the government said, "Oh, the opposition is always holding up the government.

Whenever the government wants to do something, the opposition goes into filibusters and stops everything." No, that wasn't the case. We used the rules on the change of the megacity. Yes, our

caucus, the NDP caucus under the leadership of Howard Hampton, decided that we were going to use the rules to their fullest to try to stop the merger of the city of Toronto and others into what is

now called the big megacity because the government never ran on that as a platform item -- it was not inside their Common Sense Revolution -- and we thought it was wrong that people had not been

consulted, and there was a referendum in Toronto by which a majority of Torontonians across this great city said they didn't want to be amalgamated. So yes, we used the full extent of the rules to

be able to slow you down.

But the government, when they felt frustrated by the process, came back with the biggest hammer they could find and they basically knocked the opposition down

below the floor, to the point that we have very little in the way of rules to be able to hold this government accountable. I put to you that yes, at the end of the day, a government has to have the

right to pass its legislation. I won't argue that for one second on either side of the House. I may not like a law that you want to bring forward, but the opposition has a role and a responsibility

to scrutinize that legislation and yes, where the legislation is controversial, to slow debate down in order to be able to have a fuller debate about what the issues are. If that's messy for the

government, too bad; that's democracy.

Do we want to be ruled in a land where a government decides by way of who sits in the corner office at the Premier's office that you can do what you want, when

you want, without scrutiny? I thought we fought wars against that. Thousands and thousands of people died to give us the right to participate in this democracy. That just doesn't mean at the ballot

box to exercise my democratic franchise to vote, but when elected, to be able to utilize the rules of the House to hold the government to account and to be able to scrutinize them.

At the end of the day, I accept as an opposition member that the government will do what it has to do because the people have given them a majority. I can go

into a whole debate about how we elect governments and that we should move to proportional representation -- in fact, it's inside our Public Power book, and I ask people to take a look at

publicpower.ca -- but this is not what I want to talk about today.

I just want to try to get the government to understand that you're going to have one heck of a serious decision to make tomorrow or the day after, when we

bring this to a vote, and that is, do you want to be seen as a government that yet again, by your majority, is going to vote in opposition to this motion to give you even more rights than you have

already; to be able to move outside of this Legislature with whatever communication exercise you may have because you find the Legislature to be cumbersome, you find it to be a debating place, you

find it to be a place where you may get some criticism?

I say to the government, be careful. If I believe the polls, those of you whom are coming back are going to be sitting on this side of the House. There's a

very good chance of that.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Don't believe it.

Mr Bisson: You see, there's the problem. The Conservative member says, "Don't believe it. We'll be back as government." Well, I say to you

across the way, you still don't get it. You're not only holding this House in contempt by saying that; you're holding in contempt the people of Ontario. Let them decide if they want to give you a

majority or if they want to throw you out of office. I'm just saying -- I don't have a crystal ball to read what's going to happen in the next election -- if I'm to believe the polls, there's a

very strong likelihood that you will be sitting on this side of the House if you're re-elected. My point is, you're going to have to live with the rules that you have made -- unless we form the

government, because we're going to change some rules to try to bring some democracy back. I don't believe that a Liberal majority would actually change rules, which is a whole other debate -- but

you're going to have to live with not only that, but the decision that you make here tomorrow vis-à-vis this particular contempt, the vote that we'll have in regard to your contempt against

the House.

So I say to the government members, be wary. This is a very serious thing that the Speaker is asking us to debate today and to be able to decide how we want to

proceed. I believe all of us want to proceed in a way that's best for Ontarians, and that is to make sure that at the end of the day, yes, a government has the right to do what it has to do by

right of its majority, but it cannot use that majority to the point of being seen as tyrannical.

There's the old saying that the parliamentary democracy that we have today in the British Commonwealth is really a tyranny of the majority, and I don't believe

that you want to be seen that way. I have to believe that as human beings you're no different than me. You may have a different philosophical view on things and a different ideology in politics as

a political view, but I believe that we're all honourable members and we're all here for the same reason: to serve our constituents and the people of Ontario to the best of our ability. I don't

believe we can really accomplish that by diminishing how this House works. So that's the point I wanted to make.

The other thing that really surprised me on Thursday was, not only did the government decide not to say that they were sorry, but that they were actually bold

in their defence of why they did nothing wrong. I find that quite worrisome. I listened to the comments of the Solicitor General, who's the top cop in Ontario, I listened to the comments of the

government House leader and I listened to the comments of various backbenchers as they ran out of the House and were scrummed. They were pointing the finger at the Speaker being wrong and were not

willing to accept that they did wrong themselves. The biggest mark of an individual's maturity, in my view, is to admit if you've done something wrong and move on. I hearken back to President

Kennedy, when he came to office in 1961. He went ahead with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which was started under the Eisenhower administration. He finally gave the go-ahead, as President of the day, to

carry on with the plans that President Eisenhower had put in place to invade Cuba by way of the Bay of Pigs. At the end of the day we all know it was a real fiasco, but what was remarkable about

that process was that President Kennedy came back and said, "I accept responsibility. Never mind that it was Eisenhower who started it; I gave the final go-ahead and I accept the responsibility. I

was wrong." The people of the United States, and I would argue most of the free world, looked at President Kennedy and said, "Well, there's a different politician. There's somebody who's willing to

admit that they're wrong. What a fresh idea." I put forward to members of the Tory government, why not try to do something a little bit bold here? Admit that you were wrong and be able to get

away.

The other argument the government House leader puts forward is that if we accept the argument of the motion before us, that the government would be handcuffed

and would never be able to go forward and make such announcements -- I'm just going back to Hansard. For example, he says that if the ruling were in place, the government would be paralyzed. The

government would not be able to do such a thing as to announce the building of a $200-million hospital somewhere in Ontario; if the government tried to respond to something like the SARS epidemic,

they would not be able to do anything because they'd have to come back to the House first. Poppycock. Don't be silly. People understand that governments have the power to announce expenditures,

that governments have the right to enact policy, that governments have the right to respond to emergencies by way of legislation that they have as a cabinet. The issue is that we as a Parliament

have the ultimate right to be given that budget first so that at the end of the day, when we make our decisions of how to get taxpayers' money and spend it, it is a function that is done here by

Parliament itself.

Je dis dans les deux minutes qui me restent que le gouvernement a eu une chance : ils ont essayé de faire quelque chose qui est vu, à la fin de

la journée, comme mépris contre la Chambre, et ce gouvernement, par ses actions jusqu'à date, démontre qu'ils ne sont pas préparés à dire : « On

prend un pas en arrière, on réfléchit et on admet qu'on a fait quelque chose de mal », ni à dire à la population ontarienne, « Excusez-nous »,

et puis d'aller en avant avec ce qui est le plus important à cette Assemblée : le restant des débats dont on a besoin d'avoir ici, et d'être vraiment capable de traiter les

questions d'importance pour cette Assemblée. Si un gouvernement dit qu'ils veulent avoir l'autorité de sortir de l'Assemblée pour être capables de faire un débat aussi

important et aussi central au rôle des parlementaires dans un parlement comme le nôtre, d'amener un budget hors de l'Assemblée parce qu'ils n'aiment pas que l'opposition va s'opposer

possiblement à ce qui est contenu dans le budget, cela me dit qu'il leur manque le respect non seulement pour les députés de cette Chambre, pour l'institution législative et

pour le Président, mais pour la population ontarienne en général.

Je prends très au sérieux la tâche que vous nous avez donnée. Vous nous avez demandé de réfléchir, d'avoir un débat sur

où on va aller avec cette question-là, et je demande au gouvernement de finalement réaliser qu'ils ont mal fait quelque chose et de le dire : « On a mal

fait », et d'aller en avant et ne pas voter contre cette motion.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Hon Mr Clark: I spent the better part of the weekend reflecting on what I was going to talk about when I had an opportunity today. I want to

say from the get-go, sir, that I actually was asked by the media whether your decision was the right decision. I said, "Only the Speaker can answer that question." Quite literally, if he believes

in his heart that it was the right decision, then it was the right decision, and it's not for me or any member of this House to judge that decision. As a matter of fact, the standing orders

probably state that more eloquently than I can. The standing orders very clearly state that when the Speaker makes a decision, the decision is not debatable, and that is what has occurred here. The

Speaker made a decision, and then he asked for a motion to be debated. That's where we are today. But with respect to my colleagues in the House, I think it would be incumbent upon me to perhaps

explain what I was reflecting on on the weekend and how we came to be where we are in this particular debate.

When it was first considered and brought to my attention that we were talking about doing this innovative process, I asked about the standing orders, I asked

about privileges and I asked whether anything we were about to contemplate would be in breach of the privileges or the standing orders. These standing orders are like the Bible here. They are like

the law. This is what we have to go by.

We looked into it, and as a matter of fact the Speaker actually used one of the precedents in his own decision, where Speaker Turner stated: "Budget secrecy is

a political convention as is the practice that the Treasurer presents his budget in the House before discussing it in any other public forum. It has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege.

"As I stated in my ruling of February 1, 1983, `although it is a courtesy to the assembly for a minister to release information in the assembly before

releasing it ... to the public, it is not a breach of the privileges or rules of the assembly if this does not happen.'"

We found ourselves in a perplexing situation shortly after we announced this and heard the comments from the Speaker and the opposition. We had rules that

stated there was no reason why we couldn't do what we had decided to do, but we find ourselves in a situation where the Speaker has made his decision and as a result we are now here.

The standing orders themselves are filled with rules of decorum. At one point today, sir, I was laughing and, ironically, at the same time saddened. We're

talking about contempt of the House, and as members opposite were talking about contempt of members, we saw decorum sink, once again, to one of the low points in this place. We saw members heckling

-- and let those without sin cast the first stone. I'm not without sin; I have heckled. My colleagues across the way, just before Christmas -- we actually had an interesting round when the Speaker

had left. Even the Speaker can recall that. We talked about it afterwards and we're still friends. That's what this place is about, though. We're supposed to debate policies and issues, not

personalities.

I went through the standing orders over the weekend, and I was really quite taken that there are a number of issues in here that state we are not to make

allegations against another member; we're not to impute false or unavowed motives to another member; we're not to make charges against a member of uttering a deliberate falsehood; we're not to use

abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder, and I would argue that sign language would probably be in there too, Speaker. I'm not sure whether sign language was there when

this was originally written, but clearly it would be today. These rules are about trying to maintain decorum, and the Speaker's role is maintaining decorum and being the referee for the standing

orders. That's what it's about.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Sign language? We call it giving somebody the finger.

Hon Mr Clark: Well, you just did that, and I'm sure you just did it as an example. I just point out that's not what we should be doing in this

place.

As I was listening to the debate here, I was listening to comments -- and the worst thing that happens in this place is that every so often we take ourselves

up to the pedestal where we rise above our colleagues on the opposite side. Probably the opposition do it to this side more often than on the other side. Once the government is here, they don't do

it on the other side. But this morning when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he talked about cynicism. We've heard the member from St Catharines use the term "abuse of power." The

cynicism and abuses of power of which they speak, if they're true, come from how we all act here in this building.

Let me make a point. On December 5, I believe, the House leader for the opposition rose on a point of privilege, and your decision was made, Mr Speaker, on

December 5, 2000, so I'm assuming this was probably done on the Thursday previous to that. He stated, "Instead of reliable account information, I found partisan political propaganda, propaganda

which should not be funded by my constituents or other taxpayers." Then he went on, "Each of them contained blatant partisan attacks on my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and Liberal colleagues." One

government Web page highlights that. So he lays out his point of privilege before the House and then the Speaker rules. One of the Speaker's statements is, "A line is crossed when a government uses

a Web site or, for that matter, any publicly funded mechanism as a vehicle to launch a provocative attack on any member of this House."

When you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

I have here in my hand three letters from the leader of the loyal opposition. These are letters on Legislative Assembly letterhead. One is dated June 12, 2001;

one is dated January 8, 2002; one is dated January 22, 2003. It has Legislative Assembly phone numbers to room 381. These are clearly on Legislative Assembly letterhead. On the bottom of the page

it says www.Ontarioliberal.com. These letterheads were paid for by taxpayers. On the bottom of the page it has www.Ontarioliberal.com.

If one goes to that Web page, one will find rather provocative statements --

Interjection: Partisan?

Hon Mr Clark: -- partisan -- of the government.

The fascinating thing is that the opposition rose in this place on a point of privilege.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Clark: We have their attention now because this is where the decorum is lost. They don't like what I'm saying so they begin to heckle.

I'm used to it. That's what tends to happen around here.

But, Mr Speaker, the statement in here says, and it was from you, sir, "A line is crossed when a government uses a Web site or, for that matter, any publicly

funded mechanism as a vehicle to launch a provocative attack on any member of this House." That is the line from the Speaker. Yet for three years the leader of the loyal opposition has been using

letterhead paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, clearly on the bottom indicating www.Ontarioliberal.com, clearly partisan, clearly political, with very clear, provocative messaging in it.

One would think that if one was to go after the government on a provocative, allegedly partisan basis, one would make sure -- as my grandfather used to teach

me, "Make sure your backyard is clean before you look at others."

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): That is so rich.

Hon Mr Clark: The member opposite says, "That is so rich." I would ask the member opposite, if this was my letterhead as Minister of Labour

and on the bottom it had www.pcontario, what would be the outcry in this place? I ask the members of the third party, what would you say if we had that on our government letterhead?

Ms Churley: I wouldn't give you the finger.

Hon Mr Clark: I appreciate that. The member says she wouldn't give me the finger. But you would raise the concern, because we all would

recognize that it's a point of privilege. We would all recognize that, lo and behold, ladies and gentlemen, for people to stand on a pedestal and point fingers about partisan advertising, and yet

three years they continue using the leader of the loyal opposition and publicly advertise a partisan Web page on his letterhead -- if that is not an abuse of power, I don't know what is. If a

government member was to do that, there would be an apocalyptic cloud that would rush across Toronto and all of Ontario would come to a grinding halt, with people screaming and yelling,

"Cynicism."

I have found it --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Clark: Well, I may have to raise this as a point of privilege, but I know, as the Speaker knows, that we are sitting in an interesting

opportunity right now in that we're debating a motion that came about from a contempt ruling by the Speaker. So I can't bring forth this point of privilege at this time, but we may work on it and

bring it out further. We may have that debate in here yet.

But do you know what? I think it's important for honourable members of this House to be asking, is this an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Did the Leader of

the Opposition use taxpayer money appropriately? No. I would argue that he has not. Some of the people in my riding would be using terminology right now that would probably begin with an "H" and

end with a "Y," but I won't do that because I'm an honourable member and it is unparliamentary for me to use that terminology in this place. But it is something we will have ample time to debate. I

would ask members to check around their offices in their constituencies and see how many of these letters have gone out. How many times has the leader advertised his Web page for his party at

taxpayer expense?

Ms Churley: Do you mean "hypocrisy"?

Hon Mr Clark: I heard the word, but I'm not going to use it.

Mr Speaker, we're here today, as I stated earlier, and you have made a decision, a prima facie case in terms of contempt. But we're actually here today

debating a motion. We can't really talk about the Speaker's decision, but we can talk about the motion. That's what we're here for.

The motion reads that this Legislative Assembly has the undisputed right, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario. This is

fascinating. How could anyone in this House oppose this? It is a clear motherhood statement. How could anyone in this House, as a parliamentarian, oppose this? But I think it's important for the

audience at home to know that we understand the strategy which is before us. We're not naive. You see, if the government members stand and oppose this, there will be a hue and cry from the

opposition: "How can they possibly do it?" We have already heard the House leader over there say, "How could they oppose this motion? It's a simple motion. It's an easy motion."

We raised points about the validity of the motion and issues in terms of lock-up for the press. They don't want to hear about that. It's a simple motherhood

statement. I know the third party has offered an amendment to it, which will also be considered now. So if we don't support this, there will be hue and cry. But if we support this and it passes

unanimously in this place, then I would dare say you will have Liberal members rising in the House and saying, "But this motion came from a prima facie case of contempt. Therefore, this was a

motion of non-confidence." "They've lost confidence in their own government," they will say. They will stand up with headlines and say, "See? They agree with us. They've lost the confidence of

their own government." "The government must fall," Mr Smitherman will squeal in delight. So we are now caught in this interesting box.

Only Mr Conway could come up with such an interesting strategy, because he has been there before. I dare say that when he leaves, that caucus will have a huge

vacuum to fill, a huge void, because he has a great deal of history.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Clark: Again we have the partisan heckling. You just kind of put it in one ear and out the other.

Here is the conundrum: if the government supports the motion, they will allege that there has been a loss of confidence in the government, so they should be

dissolving the House. They will make that statement loud; I will prophesy that's what they will do. If we defeat it, then they'll attack us, saying we're not parliamentary. "How dare you defeat

it?"

Ms Churley: You're not listening to the people.

Hon Mr Clark: "You're not listening to the people," they'll say. So the government members find themselves in an awkward box because of the

motion --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Clark: I'm admitting it. I looked at this motion all weekend long and I looked at the precedents.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Clark: You may find this fascinatingly funny, but I don't. This is a parliamentary House, and I happen to respect it. And that's why,

when we respect it, we actually look to the rulings -- these things. It's interesting to note that we did not breach these things. We did not breach the standing orders. We did not breach members'

privileges. So we find ourselves in this interesting box now.

Here we are, debating a motion. The member has put forth this motion in a very clear way, trying to make it very simple. But we are caught. What is the

expression? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." There you go. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As I was reflecting on the weekend and as I pulled through all my files in my office at home, I came across these fascinating letters from the leader of the

loyal opposition. I couldn't but remark and comment on the irony of it all, that here we are, while they stand here yelling, "Contempt," "Abuse of power," "Abuse of privilege," "Arrogance," "Abuse

of the taxpayer," while they raise points of partisan advertising, at the same time they knowingly, deliberately printed letterhead for three years promoting their political party on Legislative

Assembly letterhead for the leader of the loyal opposition. For three years -- how many letters could have gone out?

Interjection: Thousands.

Hon Mr Clark: Thousands.

Mr Bisson: Just like Jean Chrétien.

Hon Mr Clark: Jean Chrétien -- I don't want to go there. We're dealing with this House here. Amazing.

I was out canvassing and talking to my neighbours, and I asked them what they would think of the leader of the loyal opposition if they found out that he was

using taxpayer money to promote his own partisan party on Legislative Assembly letterhead. They said, "Obscene." They also stated, "Isn't it ironic that if it was the Premier's letterhead, there

would be an explosion in this House like no one has ever seen before? They would be out there in the scrum, yelling, screaming, stamping their feet, calling for their Premier to resign. They would

be saying, `How dare he use taxpayer money in this manner?'"

But, lo and behold, it is OK for the leader of the loyal opposition for three years to be using taxpayer money to promote his own partisan party at the expense

of the taxpayer.

So the diplomatic terminology, Mr Speaker, would be "irony." You and I both know the terminology that would be unparliamentary. I won't go there, because this

place is a parliamentary House and we're supposed to be above that.

As I was preparing for this, I could not think back about anything but the statement, "Don't criticize other people's backyards until you've checked out your

own." What is it in the Bible? "Don't go plucking the log out of someone's eye until you take the splinter out of your own." Fascinating. Fascinating that as we here today debate an issue which is

very clearly a vitally important issue for this Parliament in terms of how we proceed -- and I don't know what the outcome will be because of the way the motion was drafted. There may be amendments

to it. I don't know. We may need to make clarifications so that we understand very clearly whether or not this is a vote of confidence or not for this House. I don't know. Those things are yet to

be determined, but I do say I find it rich, I find it somewhat less than humorous that these members have risen in their place in a very dignified way, thumped their chests, screaming at the

government side, while willingly and knowingly committing very similar acts that they allege the government to have committed. It is shameful, it is reprehensible, it is appalling that the leader

of the loyal opposition would use taxpayer money to promote a partisan Web page with very clear, provocative messaging that is anti-government and pro his own organization.

We wouldn't mind so much if they actually had dollar figures in their economic statement, but they're lacking too.

So therein is where we sit, Mr Speaker. I can't tell you how I'll vote on the motion. We'll have to wait and see how it's amended, any number of ways. But I've

raised my concerns for this House. I thank you for your consideration today.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Let me commence by commending you, Mr Speaker, on the manner in which you have carried out your

duties. There's no doubt that your decision took a lot of thought and reflection, one of the most important decisions made by the Speaker of this House since my time here, 18 years now, since

Your decision comes at a time when many people in our society are questioning the process, that it's not perfect, but a process that we have had great respect

for. That process is democracy. It's not a perfect tool for governing, but we don't know any other way. But, again, we have all come over the years, hundreds of years, to respect that process. What

that process has done is to allow participation, engagement, involvement and a kind of ownership of one's life, an ownership of one's destiny. We came to respect that. Your decision, I'm sure, as

you reflected on it, must have got you going back very, very deep into your thoughts to say in what direction you must go. But I know the kind of individual that you are, that as an honourable man,

you made the right decision.

Your ruling was not only significant, it was very sage. It was sage because it reminds us that Ontario is a parliamentary democracy, based on the idea that

Parliament is supreme and sovereign.

Let me also, at this time, commend my colleague, the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, for his excellent presentation and his motion, which we are

addressing today. Mr Conway reminded us of the importance of this place, the importance of Parliament. The motion reads as though somehow we have listened to many other members of this House speak

on different issues. Let us focus ourselves on what the motion states. The motion reads like this: "That this House declares that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in

Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario."

My colleague, the previous speaker, just mentioned that he's caught. He's damned if he does, he's damned if he doesn't. He said, "How could one not vote for

this? It is the right thing to do because of the respect for Parliament and the respect for the process. It's the democratic thing to do."

I want to say to my colleague -- who, of course, will leave this place physically, but his spirit and his work that he has done here will remind us. I've

actually asked my staff to get a copy of his presentation -- Mr Conway's, that is -- to send it to all the schools, because it will remind us of what the historic nature of Parliament is about and

what the historic nature of democracy is about. I think that they will then say to themselves, "If this could proceed like that, we do live in a wonderful country. We do live in a wonderful

world."

Let me talk also and make comment about my colleagues whom I've met over 18 years here, the kinds of individuals they are. They are all honourable people. I've

never worked with such wonderful people in my career. They're dedicated, hard-working, opinionated, and they bring their issues here. But they represent the most important thing in our country and

our province: they represent millions of people out in Ontario who have sent them here to speak on their behalf, on the people's behalf, to express their concerns, frustrations and joy, in this one

arena called Parliament.

They ask also that when you do collect their money, their taxes, you spend it wisely and debate to make sure it is examined in a way that we make sure each

individual in our society is looked after, especially the most vulnerable. If it's not done in that manner, there may be some concern: "How was that debated? How was that presented? Was my case

heard? Are those who are homeless looked after? Are those who are sick and lame looked after? Are those who are now seniors looked after?"

We like to make sure that is done, and the only way we can sanely do that is to make a representative of all of us come here and present that issue, the

collection of that money called the budget: "Here is what we collected. Here is how we're going to spend it. Is it OK? What have we omitted?" In other words, we examine that process.

I have great faith in my colleagues here, who will do that. Of course we have guidance from the table. There is a structure to follow, because sometimes we do

get off on tangents. There's a procedure to follow, and you are there, sir, to follow that and to make sure it's followed. When that is violated, or when we get too creative, in a way that avoids

the procedure, you remind us.

That is why my colleague Mr Conway brought this forward: to say that we have violated that right. It goes to the core of what we all are about, of what we

believe in. Wars have been fought, people killed over this: because we want a democratic state.

Who are we, the citizens of Ontario? Where are we coming from? It is said that Ontarians are one of the most diverse cultures in the world. From all parts of

this world, with different languages and different governments, people come from oppressed places and wonderful places, wanting to make a life here. The most important thing for us to do is to

encourage them to participate and build confidence in our populace by saying to them, "We will do what you ask us to do, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. We'll do it in an

honourable way." So then we are all honourable men and women who are here today. When we see violation of that, we cringe. That is what's happening. That is what has happened.

Many times when I come into this place as a member of Parliament, I don't forget why I was sent here. I'm sent by the people of Scarborough-Rouge River, to

represent them in their wide diversity, those who are sometimes in pain and suffering and sometimes celebrating the joy of what they're doing. Many times one is denied the right to do that; unable

to speak in Parliament, unable to even meet in Parliament. It is a long stretch of time from Christmas in December to April, when we can assemble to tell the good news or about the suffering of our

people. The denial of meeting -- this government has done that.

When we bring that forward, they feel that it's quite all right, it's OK. I felt we were on the wrong road when Mike Harris was elected and stated this. He

said, "We are not the government. We are here to fix government."

I was confused about that. You're not the government? He ran to be the government. He got to be the government and said, "I'm not the government; I'm here to

fix it. As a matter of fact, I'm not even here to listen."

We saw a lot of confusion, a lot of animosity that went on in our society. Teachers were fighting against the government. The government was fighting against

teachers. We saw a lot of unsettled things.

Members of Parliament arrive here and are not able to speak on issues. Debates and closures are done in a draconian manner. Closure is put on the highest

percentage of votes and motions in this House. The frustration builds on the representative. It is felt by the populace who elected us, who say, "How did you present yourself?"

"I was unable to do so, because the debates were closed; the House is not meeting."

The government of the day, my honourable friends, sits there and says, "It's not necessary." As a matter of fact, the behaviour is such that it would be much

more convenient if there were no people. The government seems to be saying, "We can do a wonderful job without the people. We don't have to ask you anything. We don't have to ask the opposition

anything. You are irrelevant."

So the time came for the presentation of the budget, and they said, "If Parliament is irrelevant, if members are irrelevant, we then can make a selection of

friends we have in a place to present all the money we're collecting and make an announcement in a shop," an institution that is outside this place and outside the ears and the comments of those

who were elected legally by the people. They said, "That's the way to go."

What really drives me almost to insanity is that they believe they were doing the right thing. When they are told it was the wrong thing to do, they think we

have infringed upon their rights as government. But maybe they're right if they think that way, they're right in their own self. They're right because they feel we are irrelevant here, the place is

irrelevant, so why not? That's what has happened. Where we've reached today is a very sad time in our democracy.

It's a government that felt that those on welfare could live on less in a tough time, a government that felt that the homeless should be imprisoned -- it's a

crime to be homeless; that was touted here -- a party that felt the institution of Speaker that we set up could be insulted and challenged although it is written that what the Speaker has ruled --

as the member for Durham said, challenging the chair, not respecting the authority of Parliament. It is consistent from the beginning when they had no respect for that.

As you may recall, Mr Speaker, I personally was brought to the edge when I was denied even to debate Bill 26, one of the largest omnibus bills this government

has brought in. You may recall that I sat in the House and refused to move until we debated that, fighting for the rights of a democratic process that people died for.

This government felt, "No way. We will do what we want." As a matter of fact, I was a bit relieved when they decided to split that omnibus bill in a way that

we could debate, and we were fighting to do that. That was no different than the budget now. We have to fight and make sure the budget is read in this House and to make it the regulation of this

House that it must not be read anywhere else. The first place it should be done is in this House. The member said, "How simple that is." The previous speaker said, "There's no way I can vote

against this, because it makes sense." It doesn't challenge anything. It says, "If you are proud of your budget, bring it forward. Bring it forward here so we can talk about it."

Some wise men said certain things that still stay with us. Aristotle said, "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in

democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." So you become a better government, my friends, if you share your thoughts, because it is

government by the people and it must be for the people. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

What has happened, then? This party, this government, has become irrelevant. They refuse to inform the populace. They refuse to meet. They have run out of

ideas, so maybe they get ideas from some other individuals whom they are paying big bucks to say, "This is the way to go," ignoring all of the democratic process.

It's a sad day when we have to debate that, but it may be a good day to remind us of the importance of what democracy is all about; the importance of the

thousands and millions of people from different walks of life who make up Ontario; to encourage them to participate in this process.

If there is any party that tries to do otherwise, then the ultimate price they will pay is when they go to the polls and the people will then make that choice.

I hope they don't try, before their time runs out, to maybe change and postpone and cancel elections, because the manner in which they are going, they have cancelled many things: they have

cancelled Parliament, they have cancelled debates and maybe they will try to cancel the election. They know that we know the time has come. Time is running out on when the election will be called.

I hope the leader of the government --

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to follow you.

Mr Curling: He says he's trying to follow me. Follow me carefully.

In the next election, which will be very soon, the people will look straight at you, and at every one of us, and ask, "Do you deserve the right to my vote so

that you can represent me in Parliament, represent my concerns? Will you consult and inform me?" I hope that when they go to the polls they will make that very intelligent decision and make sure

they put someone there who will not try to undermine democracy and insult Parliament in a way that we have no voice here.

I want to say that Ontario, this wonderful province of ours, and Canada, this wonderful country of ours, will only be better off as we weed out those who feel

that the almighty power lies within them -- no consultation, no information shared -- and maybe they can find a place to which they can go to present the budget, somewhere else.

This motion, as we come forward -- and in winding up, I would like to just read that motion again, because I want us to know exactly what we are debating:

"That this House declares that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget." An important document, an important

direction.

The fact is that the billions of dollars we are spending, collected from the people to be spent on the people, are to be debated by their representatives. They

will then feel confident that they can engage themselves in this democracy. They've got to feel a part of it and not feel so excluded, as this government has done over the last eight or nine years

by making people feel that they are not in any way Canadians or Ontarians.

I want to say, Mr Speaker, that I have the ultimate respect for your position and your ruling. I think this ruling comes at a time when we can all examine

ourselves: what is our purpose here and do we want to continue in this job? I want to. I'd like to come here, to continue to represent the people of Scarborough-Rouge River, every single one,

regardless of colour, class, creed, party stripe or religion. Because the fact is, that is what this is all about, and when we make this place irrelevant, those people have lost the right of what

we all have fought for. Thank you very much.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to talk about

the matter that is before the House.

I might add that the debate that is going on in the House today is the same debate that went on the House beginning on Thursday. I can tell you it's not the

debate that's happening today in Scarborough Southwest or indeed across Ontario. This is not what the people of Ontario are talking about today. I can tell you that they're talking about what was

in the budget -- all of the good news of continued economic prosperity and jobs.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, the opposition laughs. I know that they seem to be against jobs. We saw what the record of the NDP was in office: a loss

of 10,000 jobs to this province. They're obviously a party that does not care about jobs and economic prosperity in our province.

I can tell you that the people of Scarborough Southwest are talking about having a safe and secure community. Last Thursday evening I attended a public meeting

over at R.H. King Academy, where almost 200 residents from the area of St Clair Avenue and Danforth Road got together with representatives from the city to talk about a shelter in the area that is

currently not operating within the proper zoning that is there and to talk about the ramifications that were happening as a result of that facility being in their community. That's what people are

talking about. They're talking about having a safe and secure community.

This past weekend I also had the opportunity to participate in the annual M&M barbecue that took place right across our province. I know many members from

all parties would have participated in those barbecues across the province. The one that I attended was in the Kingston Road and Ridgemoor area in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. Hundreds of

individuals came out to support that cause. They were not talking about where the budget was held; they were talking more about what was actually in the budget, when would they get that much-needed

tax relief.

I can also tell you that last week I had the opportunity to attend the second annual Don Mills Foundation for Seniors Seniors Health Fair at E.P. Taylor Place

and Overland Club. When I finished addressing this group of seniors on the issue of health and long-term care in our province, a gentleman came up to me after I spoke and talked about the $1

million contribution that our government had made to the Juno Beach memorial in France. He was there on D-Day and he wanted to express to me his great satisfaction with the fact that the government

had made such a contribution to acknowledge the role that the veterans and seniors had played.

To get directly to the point, to accept the notion that the budget announcement was out of order would set a dangerous precedent here in Ontario. It would

quite frankly throw into question any announcement that a government might make, and, I might add, that any government might make. It's a very dangerous road to go down. For example, if a

government wanted to make an announcement of, say, $80 million for a health facility or a new educational facility in our province, the Speaker would ultimately be asked to rule if this was out of

order or not. It would also happen with an announcement of $1 million or even an announcement of a smaller amount: the Speaker would be asked to make a ruling whether or not that was in

order.

So I guess the real question is, where will the line be drawn? At what level can a government make an announcement outside of the House, or can they at all?

That's the real question that's being asked of all members here today.

I only have to go back to last July, when I had the privilege of announcing $100 million in new funding to provide even better nursing and personal care to

residents in Ontario's long-term-care facilities. Last July 31, as you'll recall, the House was not sitting, the money was needed and the announcement was made. We had a situation that had to be

dealt with. The House was not sitting, the money was needed and the announcement was made. This was, I might add, an unprecedented commitment to long-term care in our province and to the services

provided in our long-term-care facilities. I can tell you today that the announcement has gone a long way to improving the level of care that our seniors receive and it has made a real difference

right across our great province of Ontario. Now, what if we accepted the opposition motion today? Would this important announcement have been ruled out of order? Could the funding have been flowed

to Ontario's long-term-care facilities? Would we have been able to flow those dollars beginning the very next day, on August 1, 2002? That's the very important issue that we're grappling with today

with this motion that's been put before the House.

Now, if announcements like this cannot be made, this would have a negative effect on the way that the business of government is done on behalf of the people of

Ontario. When you think about it, what if there was an emergency in the province? What if there was a disaster? How would governments deal with it if they had to come back to the House to debate

whether or not an announcement could be made? How would the very important issue of SARS -- which has been so ably dealt with by our government, our Premier and our Minister of Health, Tony Clement

-- have been dealt with? Governments of all political stripes, whoever they are, must have the ability to deal with the concerns of the day on behalf of the people of Ontario, because, after all,

that is what they are elected to do.

I say today that this flies in the face of repeated