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

December 11, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L137 - Wed 11 Dec 1996 / Mer 11 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

WORKFARE

HURON COUNTY AGRICULTURE

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

NATIVE SELF-POLICING

SMALL BUSINESS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HOLIDAY MESSAGES

BRAMPTON ECONOMY

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

GAMING INITIATIVES

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

RENT REGULATION

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

EDUCATION FINANCING

RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

ABORTION

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TVONTARIO

FIREARMS CONTROL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

HANSARD REPORTING SERVICE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

MOTION

HOUSE SITTINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Day after day for the last several months we have been hearing horror stories about how the Tory government has mishandled the family support plan. We continue to be shocked by the seriousness of these stories and by the sheer numbers of women and children whose lives are being seriously affected by the Attorney General's mismanagement of this very important program.

Today I bring to the Attorney General's attention the terrible plight of Jacynthe Leroux, a woman who has had custody of her son for the last six months but cannot get the family support plan to stop deducting half her paycheque every week to pay child support that she no longer owes. To add insult to injury, the court-approved order to stop garnishment of her paycheque has been lost three times by the family support plan office. In the meantime, her salary continues to be garnished, and Christmas is only days away. This woman is trying to support herself and her child on half her normal paycheque because of this government's continued mismanagement of the family support plan.

Rest assured that we will be pursuing this issue in the House next week and that questions to the minister will be forthcoming if this terrible mess is not cleared up immediately.

WORKFARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): This Conservative government's workfare program is a disaster, and the sooner the Minister of Community and Social Services admits that, the better off we'll all be.

Let's take a look at a workfare project in the Premier's own riding of Nipissing. The North Bay office for workfare is apparently a new resource centre designed to help people look for work. Six positions for resource centre assistants were posted. These placements involve 17 hours of work weekly. The problem is, however, that there's nothing new about this resource centre. It was already operating in that community under the sponsorship of a non-profit organization called Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing.

That organization administered a pilot project called Windows of Opportunity and that program and the staff involved assisted people trying to get off social assistance and back to work.

The Conservatives issued layoff notices to the 11 unionized staff in the Windows project in August. Then the postings for replacement staff occurred. Then the staff being laid off were asked to train the six new workfare participants. That's absolutely contrary to workfare criteria, which state that placements are not allowed for two years in a position where a unionized worker had done the job. Worse than that, 12 people who had full-time work are now being relieved and the government is using exactly the same project as a workfare tool.

The new centre is using all the equipment that used to be used under the Windows project, and even the job bank. The only difference is that the lack of experienced people will mean that people will not get the help they need to get back to work.

HURON COUNTY AGRICULTURE

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): At a recent Huron County Federation of Agriculture meeting I was presented with a report on the impact of agriculture on the economy of Huron county.

Production by Huron county is very significant to the nation's agricultural sector. Huron county produces more farm-gate receipts than five provinces. This is very significant considering that the population of the county is only 55,000 people: $436 million in farm-gate sales, of which it is estimated $318 million is captured by the local economy. It is estimated that in 1996, 4,600 jobs existed in the agriculture sector and a further estimated 6,300 were tied indirectly to the agriculture sector in Huron county through expenditures by agriculture-related businesses.

The total impact of agriculture on the labour force in Huron county is estimated to be between 10,000 and 13,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs.

Further, the value of agriculture for Huron county in terms of sales generated is estimated at between $1 billion and $1.5 billion for sales generated within the county alone. Adding in the sales generated outside Huron county, we can add another $2 billion to $3 billion in sales. Clearly there is a significant impact on the Huron county economy.

I would like to commend the hardworking agricultural community in my riding for their dedication to the industry and their tremendous accomplishments.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): The member for St Catharines and I have risen many times on questions and statements in our opposition to the government's ill-conceived idea of the privatization of the LCBO.

I rise today to commend the Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union on a report they released to the public this morning entitled Home Grown Solutions. Accompanying this report were 69,000 petitions from Ontarians opposed to privatization of the LCBO. This report marks a major step forward by the employees of the LCBO as they seek to improve the current system in order to achieve a modern, efficient and entrepreneurial alcohol distribution system for Ontario.

Briefly, the report outlines four steps for modernization and evolution of the LCBO in regard to hours of operation, Sunday service, mini-stores and kiosks. The employees put together this report by listening to the people who really matter: the customers of the LCBO. I believe we are seeing a great transformation at all levels of the LCBO and I strongly believe it is the consumer who will be the clear winner.

I encourage the minister to once and for all rule out privatization of the LCBO and to act on these initiatives in order to create an even better LCBO and relieve the anxiety of some 5,000 employees.

NATIVE SELF-POLICING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to direct my statement today to the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for native affairs.

Last week I met with Deputy Grand Chief Stan Louttit and chief negotiator Bill Nothing of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, who are very concerned about the suspension of the Canada-Ontario-NAN negotiations on policing. The primary goal of the agreement, which was signed in 1994 under the previous NDP government, was the establishment of an aboriginal police service to provide effective, efficient and culturally appropriate policing to the people in the Nishnawbe-Aski area. This process is an important step towards self-government. The first phase of the agreement expired last September and the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation wishes to proceed with the negotiation of phase 2.

This government has suspended the negotiations. The Nishnawbe-Aski Nation is writing to you and you are not responding. They made an appointment with the Deputy Solicitor General and she cancelled. I'm urging this government to take its responsibilities and to meet and negotiate in good faith with the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation to find a solution to this crucial issue before it gets way out of hand and we end up seeing the clock turned back 10 or 15 years. It's important they get to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith for a policing agreement for the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to inform the members of a small business breakfast held this past Monday morning in my riding. This small business breakfast hosted by LeisureWorld brought together some 50 members of the small business community who came to hear the Honourable William Saunderson, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and Joe Spina, parliamentary assistant for small business, deliver the message on the success of small business in Ontario.

I'd also like the rest of my colleagues to know that these entrepreneurs have a definite connection to my riding of Scarborough Centre. Some live in the riding, some travel to work in the riding, some live and work in the riding, but the bottom line is that each and every one of their cash registers resides in my riding and that is why I felt it so necessary that these small business owners have the opportunity to hear the good news that Minister Saunderson had to deliver about the thousands of new jobs coming to our province.

These are the people who take the risks to open their stores and businesses each and every morning, who put in the long hours, who pay taxes, who create jobs and are truly the engine of Ontario's economy.

After the meeting, one of the small business owners came up to me and said, "I knew your government was doing the right things, but I didn't know the news was this good." It is reaction and comments like this that make me proud to be part of a government that keeps its word, not just for the sake of keeping its word but because it's the right thing to do for Ontario.

Many thanks to Sharon Steele and the staff at LeisureWorld, Scarborough who made the small business breakfast such a great success.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Attorney General and it concerns the family support plan.

Minister, last week your colleague the minister responsible for women's issues made a visit to the Kenora area. During a press interview with the Kenora Daily Miner and News, the minister was asked about the closing of the family support plan regional offices in favour of a 1-800 telephone number out of Toronto. Let me quote from the article. This is what the minister had to say:

"`I'm absolutely appalled about the way that was handled,' minister in charge of women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, said during a luncheon in Kenora. `No one expected we'd have these transition period difficulties.'"

Now that we have your colleague the minister responsible for women's issues apologizing for your incompetence, women and children throughout the province want to know, will you finally do the same?

Let me continue to quote the minister responsible for women's issues, who had a lot to say about the Attorney General's incompetence. "`There are absolutely no excuses for it,' the minister said, referring to the Attorney General's bungling of the family support plan. The minister continued by stating that `the government is embarrassed about it and we should be.'" Again, "the government is embarrassed about it and we should be."

Attorney General, members on this side of the House agree with your colleague the minister responsible for women's issues that the mess you created is an embarrassment to your government. We call upon you to apologize to the women and children of this province.

HOLIDAY MESSAGES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to take a moment today, since it may be my last chance before the holidays in this forum, to wish all of my constituents in Sault Ste Marie a happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas and healthy and prosperous new year.

Sault Ste Marie is a wonderful community of people who care and share. The many efforts being made right now to make sure people have a holiday time with food and presents and as much good cheer and happiness as is possible is evident through the efforts of the Christmas Cheer, the Salvation Army, the soup kitchen and church groups and other community groups. We have a very healthy history of responding to major challenges in an honest and forthright and courageous way. Evidence of that is the presence of the Group Health Centre and the continued viability and successful existence of Algoma Steel, St Marys Paper and the Algoma Central Railway.

We are under stress at the moment from both outside and within, but we will rise to the occasion with courage and compassion, and together, as we have in the past, be better and stronger because we have done it together.

On behalf of my community, I wish all of you, and all who call Ontario home, the blessings of this season of light and birth and renewal.

BRAMPTON ECONOMY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It gives me pleasure today to inform the House on how our government's economic agenda has helped the city of Brampton.

Since taking office last year our government has taken numerous steps to turn this province around and provide hope and jobs and opportunity. From the reduction of personal income taxes to the implementation of Bill 7, to eliminating the employer health tax for small business and the elimination of over 1,000 needless regulations, all our efforts have proved fruitful for the city of Brampton.

The proof is in the numbers. In 1996 alone, our city has seen a total plant expansion of over a million square feet, an increase in total employment of 6.9%, a rise in residential construction values by 78.3%, a rise in commercial and industrial construction values by 32.9% and 35.3% respectively, an increase in housing resale activity by 31.5% and a 71.1% increase in our housing starts from just one year ago.

Our government's actions over the past year have helped complement the great work that our city is doing, so much so that in 1997 our city is expecting another 235 businesses to start, the creation of 2,500 more housing units and the unemployment rate dropping from 9.2% to 8.4%.

Don't let the opposition critics, negative economic doomsayers, tell you a different story. This government's initiative --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. It's time for oral questions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, it would be nice to have oral question period, but we don't have any ministers.

The Speaker: Order, member for St Catharines. It's not often I agree with that point, but there is only one minister here.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I think we should have a recess if the government is not here to answer questions.

The Speaker: I understand what you're saying. Quite possibly they were caught with how rapidly we got through routine proceedings.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The clock hasn't started. Member for St Catharines, you have a point of order?

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have the Premier's itinerary here today. It shows him at question period at 1:30, Wednesday, December 11. Unless some unfortunate accident has happened to him, I'm wondering why he wouldn't be here on a very important day to answer questions in this House.

The Speaker: They are all important days, to the member for St Catharines. I have no control over the Premier's schedule, nor anyone else's in this Legislature. I think we can now begin question period.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We've just been informed the Premier is not going to be here.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Deputy Premier in the Premier's absence. I want to return to a matter of the utmost gravity relating to a senior staffer in the Ministry of Health releasing highly confidential information in an effort to discredit a private citizen.

Deputy Premier, yesterday when I expressed concern that there was lots of time for the minister's office to be searched and cleaned so damaging evidence could be removed or destroyed, the Premier said, and he offered us assurance, that the offices had been sealed. Keeping in mind that the former minister and his staff first knew there was trouble on Thursday, can you tell me when those offices were sealed and by whom?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, I believe that the acting Minister of Health has that information.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): The security provisions of the Ministry of Health call for all confidential information to be secured, and that's precisely what has happened over the weekend. In the case of the office of the individual in question, over the weekend information in his office was boxed and secured.

Mr McGuinty: Let's look at it this way: They knew there was trouble on Thursday, the minister didn't resign until Monday afternoon, the privacy commissioner wasn't called until Monday afternoon, so that leaves plenty of time, plenty of time, for damaging evidence to be tampered with.

What we did is, we checked the security records. We checked the logs. They show that at least 10 people attended in the executive offices of the Ministry of Health on Saturday. Included at that time were the minister's executive assistant, the deputy minister, image consultant Jan Dymond and at least three outsiders who needed special letters to access the building. Can you tell me, Minister, exactly what those people were doing in the ministry's executive offices on Saturday?

Hon David Johnson: It's not unusual for staff to be working on the weekend. Indeed, I suspect that just about every ministry would have staff working on the weekend.

Secondly, I'd like to say that there is no hint here that any information, any confidential information pertaining to this situation, was shredded or destroyed or otherwise disposed of. What I will reiterate is that the information from the office of the individual in question was boxed and secured on the weekend and remains secured.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure what kind of a securing process took place, but we have at least 10 people going into and out of those offices during the course of the weekend. Yesterday the Premier told us those offices had been sealed. We now know plenty of people had access to them before they were sealed. The minister's executive assistant, the deputy minister, a Tory image consultant and three outsiders, at the very least, were in those offices.

In fairness, we don't know if evidence was tampered with, but that's not the issue. The issue is: Can you provide us with every assurance -- I'm not sure how you can do that now that we know 10 people have been there -- but how can you tell us, how can you assure us unequivocally that no evidence was ever tampered with?

Hon David Johnson: I will simply reiterate to the leader of the official opposition that I have been assured that the information in the office of the individual in question was boxed on the weekend and was secured.

Again, if there are any allegations, if anybody has any evidence of any wrongdoing in the sense of shredding of information, I for one would like to hear it, and I'm sure that the privacy commissioner would like to hear it. This government, I believe at a very early opportunity, has called in the privacy commissioner, an individual who has great experience in terms of dealing with information, confidential information, private information, and has background and experience in this regard. Frankly, I'm most anxious that he get on with his investigation. I understand that he's begun that now, and we're looking to get to the bottom of this matter.

Mr McGuinty: The way to get to the bottom of this is through an all-party legislative committee.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My second question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday I asked the Premier very directly to release the minister's office log of all requests they'd made for OHIP information and all of OHIP's corresponding documentation. He indicated to me that would be fine. That information can be accessed and Xeroxed in a matter of minutes. Do you have that information for us now?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the official opposition, I don't have details concerning that but I believe that the acting Minister of Health may.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You said yes yesterday.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, in the hurly-burly here I didn't quite catch the initial part of the question.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Again I would say that is why the privacy commissioner was asked to come in and to deal with this as soon as possible. I will say that yesterday, in the absence of the privacy commissioner, I discussed this matter with the assistant privacy commissioner. I assured her that this government would give the utmost and fullest cooperation in this matter. I would say to the member opposite that any log or any information that the privacy commissioner thinks is important, we'd be happy, to the degree that it's available --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Yesterday the Premier assured me of his cooperation and provided me with that information. It's unfortunate that we're not receiving the same kind of cooperation today. We kind of expected this, as you might expect.

We called OHIP to find out how they deal with requests from the minister's office for confidential information. We were told that this information was available and that the appropriate person would call us back promptly. We received no such call.

Your government has had nearly a week to look into this very serious matter, so I ask you, Minister: Why don't you tell us what the process is with respect to requests for confidential information in your office?

Hon David Johnson: I'm sure the Ministry of Health is more than cooperative in terms of information that it has a request for. My understanding is that if the privacy commissioner is desirous of any information, we'll be more than happy to provide whatever we have in that regard. But in terms of providing information beyond that, there has to be a request, and the request has to meet the parameters of the freedom of information act. This ministry is not able to give out information that it's restricted from giving because of the freedom of information act.

Mr McGuinty: Either the minister doesn't know the answer, which I find astonishing, because I think one of the first things you'd want to do when you get this job is find out what the heck went wrong and what's in place to ensure that it doesn't happen again -- all I'm asking about is the protocol. What rules are in place governing the request of confidential information from OHIP? You should know that answer, Minister. Rules are surely in place. I'm only asking you to tell us about those rules, not whether they were broken.

The problem we face is that there are only three people who directly have knowledge of this: Brett James, and we can't ask him questions; Jim Wilson, and he's resigned, so we can't ask questions of him; and the Premier, and he's not here, so we can't ask questions of him.

Minister, once again, what rules are in place right now governing the disclosure of confidential OHIP information?

Hon David Johnson: I have to refer back to the fact that the privacy commissioner is there to do a job. We've asked him to come in and look at this whole matter. I think this item will be dealt with in the fullness of his study. He will look at this matter to see what rules, if any, have been bent and he will get to the bottom of this. I have assured his office of every cooperation from this government.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. We spoke to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Tom Wright. He confirmed the issues we have raised. He said he does not have the authority to go beyond the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that he cannot subpoena witnesses, that he cannot order people to give evidence under oath and that he cannot subpoena records, logs or notebooks. He said that in order to go beyond his own act and have the investigative powers he needs, you would have to pass an order in council appointing him as head of a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.

To the Deputy Premier, you can remedy the problem you've got here. The privacy commissioner acknowledges that he does not have the authority he needs, the legal tools he needs. But he has pointed out that if you will appoint him under an order in council, under the Public Inquiries Act, he will have those powers of subpoena. Will you do that, Deputy Premier?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd be more than happy to take the matter up with the privacy commissioner. You are telling me second hand, if you will, of a conversation that you had with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I can tell you that his response to the secretary of cabinet on December 10 was:

"I wish to advise that we will be commencing such an investigation immediately. We will proceed as expeditiously as possible to provide recommendations to the Ministry of Health in accordance with their mandate and the provisions of the freedom of information and privacy act. In my role as an officer of the assembly, I wish to advise you that my report will be tabled in the Legislature and thereby made available to all members of the Legislative Assembly and to any interested members of the public."

I can further go on to say, to the leader of the third party, as I indicated in this House two days ago, that if in fact the Information and Privacy Commissioner feels that he does not have the tools or powers necessary to conduct what he thinks is a proper investigation, then he will so advise the government, and we will take the appropriate steps then.

Mr Hampton: I want to quote from

section 38 of the Health Insurance Act. It says, "The general manager and each person engaged in the administration of this act and the regulations shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her employment or duties pertaining to insured persons and any insured services rendered and the payments made therefor, and shall not communicate any such matters to any other person except as otherwise provided in this act," and there is no proviso in the act for an exception based on political expediency.

I would put it to you that just reading this

section of the act it's clear there has been a breach of this

section of the act, the Health Insurance Act, by Mr James. All I'm saying is, it's clear we're not dealing with the privacy act; we're dealing with the Health Insurance Act,

section 38. All we're asking you is, if the privacy commissioner acknowledges this, will you give him the powers to subpoena, the powers to subpoena records, logbooks, notebooks? Will you give him the power to examine --

The Speaker: Thank you. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the third party goes pretty far with a lot of conjecture, assumption of fact and speculation as to what Mr James knew or didn't know and what he said or didn't say. This is purely conjecture and speculation on his part. I have every confidence that if the Information and Privacy Commissioner thinks that he is in any way hindered from his duties in conducting a proper investigation and getting to the bottom of this matter, he will so notify the government and apprise it of that, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that he has that authority.

Mr Hampton: Here's the conundrum we have: Two members of the opposition go to a government office and they take a video camera with them so that the public can see what is going on. Right away this government calls the police. They call the police in because they say they want to protect the security of records.

Here we have a case where, on the face of it, the Health Insurance Act has been breached. The confidentiality provisions of the Health Insurance Act have been breached, and this government doesn't want to give the privacy commissioner the authority to subpoena. They don't want to give the privacy commissioner the authority to examine under oath. They don't want to give the privacy commissioner the power to subpoena records, notebooks, logbooks. What a contrast. What an incredible contrast.

I say to you again, Deputy Premier, all you have to do is to pass an order in council giving the privacy commissioner the authority of an inquiry. Then he will have the subpoena powers and he will have the powers to examine under oath. If you want to get to the bottom of this, that's all you have to do. Why won't you do it?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, first of all, I think you should stick to fact, not speculation on what you wish the facts were or hope they will be or might be. Second of all, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing to indicate that anyone in the former minister's office requested any confidential information, including the minister.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): How did he get it then?

Hon Mr Eves: We don't know that he had it, I say to the member for Algoma. That's exactly the point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): The minister's out of control back there.

The Speaker: If that's out of control, this place would be empty.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Deputy Premier.

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the third party, the circumstances in this case are quite similar to a former Minister of Health in your government. On that particular occasion she chose to resign, and I think she did so very appropriately, for remarks that she, not a staff member, had made. In that particular case your government felt it was quite appropriate and quite proper to refer that matter to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and he subsequently reported back to the Legislative Assembly. You were quite happy with that when you were a member of that cabinet that made that decision.

The fact that he is an expert in these matters --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I'd just say this is incredible. The government says it wants to have an investigation but it won't give the investigatory powers that are needed in order to hold the investigation.

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Labour: My question concerns the allegations of cabinet involvement in a political purge of vice-chairs of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. As the minister knows, these allegations form part of the contempt case against Management Board Chair Dave Johnson.

The board recently ruled that none of its members can hear the case because all of the vice-chairs have their own personal knowledge of whether these allegations against the Chair of Management Board are true. To let matters stand, there would amount to a coverup of this whole matter in which the Chair of Management Board was quoted threatening the labour board with retaliation if the government doesn't like the rulings.

I want to ask the minister, what steps will you take to allow a full hearing of these allegations that have been brought against the Chair of Management Board?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the leader opposite: Obviously, I'm not able to speak to that situation at the present time.

Mr Hampton: Let me proceed, Speaker, because that was essentially a non-answer.

The situation is serious, Minister. The vice-chair of the labour board who was originally going to hear the Dave Johnson case said in his ruling that he and all other vice-chairs were provided with information about how the decision was made about which four vice-chairs at the labour board would be fired. As it happens, we know from other sources that the labour board sent to the Premier's office and the labour minister's office a list of vice-chairs who might be fired. In return, the chair of the labour board was given political input, telling him which vice-chairs must be kept and which could be axed.

This led to unprecedented orders in council from cabinet in October of this year firing four labour board vice-chairs whose three-year appointments had not expired.

Minister, only a fully independent investigation could get to the bottom of this political involvement in the labour board purge. What steps will you take to make sure there is an independent investigation of the Chair of Management Board and his bullying of the labour board?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I tried to indicate in my response to your first question, as this is still a matter which is under litigation, I am not in a position to make any further comment at the present time.

Mr Hampton: That's precisely the issue. The labour board has said they can't rule because they know about the shenanigans involving the Chair of Management Board. So they've asked you to name a respected labour board chair or vice-chair from outside Ontario to hear the contempt case against Dave Johnson. The labour board is paralysed by this scandal. You have to do something.

Let me read from an affidavit of Roman Stoykewych. He says that the labour board chair, Rick MacDowell, had identified a group of vice-chairs substantially larger than four in number and that a list of such vice-chairs was forwarded to the Premier's office and to the minister's office for review. Mr MacDowell said that he subsequently received instructions that one of the named persons should not be removed from the board and that the chair was otherwise free to choose from the list which four vice-chairs would be removed.

This is very clearly a case of involvement by the labour minister's office and the Premier's office in a political purge of the labour board. We have seen in the health minister's office what this government is capable of. Will you support an independent inquiry into this case, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I am aware of the ruling. I am aware of the situation. However, I would indicate to you again that since this is the subject of litigation, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment at this time.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. A few moments ago, I asked the minister if he had some understanding, if he could tell us what the rules are governing the request for and release of confidential OHIP information. It became perfectly clear that he does not have any understanding of what those rules might be. This, of course, is incredible, given the Martel affair and now the Wilson affair, the fact that two short days ago the Minister of Health stood up in this House and indicated that he was resigning because there had been a release of confidential OHIP information.

I want to give the Minister of Health another opportunity now to tell us what those rules are governing the release of and the obtaining of confidential OHIP information.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I think it's well known that if any member of a minister's staff requests the information, they must go through the deputy minister, and the deputy minister must ascertain if the request is in the public interest before it's released. I think that's well known by --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The minister has to be informed. Add that.

Hon David Johnson: The minister has to be informed. The deputy minister has to indicate whether it's in the public interest. I have been assured by the deputy that there has been no such request made in this regard.

Mr McGuinty: As I understand it then, the only way that Brett James could have got this information was to have made a request -- someone would have had to make a request through the deputy minister. Furthermore, that request would have to have been characterized as being in the public interest.

Are you telling me now that the reason Brett James had that information was because he followed those channels, since that's the only way we can get hold of that, that somehow a request had been through the deputy minister and this had been characterized as being in the greater public interest?

Hon David Johnson: I'm saying no such thing to the Leader of the Opposition. The request was with regard to the policy. I think it's a policy that's fairly well known, and the policy simply states that if confidential billing information is to be released, the deputy minister has to have the request and the deputy minister has to determine whether it's in the public interest or not to release this information, and the deputy minister has indicated that no such request has been made.

We don't know in this case. If the member opposite has some specific information or is making a specific allegation about specific information, then that would be helpful rather than just fishing, I guess. That would be helpful. I'm sure that the privacy commissioner would love to know that information. We'd be very happy to obtain that information, and I would say to the member opposite, please reveal his information.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Minister, I think in regard to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has just asked, we could all be helped if you would in fact give us a document called the security policy manual.

Yesterday our staff phoned the Ministry of Health and asked for a copy of that particular document, because it's obviously clear that something hasn't been followed in government policy. My staff requested the manual. Interestingly enough, the ministry officials in Mowat Block knew nothing about the manual. The ministry officials then contacted people in Kingston so that they could, as they said, track it down. Then the staff indicated to our staff that they had faxed to them the 80-page manual, to the Mowat Block, and then they told us we couldn't have access to it unless we filed a freedom of information request.

Minister, if the public is to believe that this is going to be a clear investigation and that the public is going to have access to information, why are your ministry officials putting roadblocks in front of members --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon David Johnson: To the member opposite, this request is being reviewed. However, bear in mind that we're talking about a security manual with a limited audience. There are only certain people who have access to this document, to this security manual, because the security manual controls the computer system, controls the data files. It is very relevant and is a secure document with regard to all of these features. I think you would feel it would be very unwise of the staff to release this to a broader audience when the contents of the security manual may be used to breach security procedures, to put in jeopardy the very information we're so concerned about, and legitimately so.

Mr Cooke: When I spoke to the deputy minister a couple of hours ago, we had a discussion about those particular concerns. The suggestion I made, which I think is -- dare I use the phrase -- a fairly commonsense suggestion, would be that those particular sections be blacked out and the relevant sections of the manual be released to members of the opposition.

Is the minister telling us today that he will in fact make that document available and release it publicly so that people can begin to understand what went wrong and why confidential information was used politically to try to smear a doctor?

Hon David Johnson: Again, there is a situation here of a judge and jury etc. Bear in mind we have a process in place. We have a privacy commissioner who is looking into all aspects of this, and I would suggest that all members of this House may want to see what the results of his investigation are.

Directly to the question the member is interested in, the member's request is being reviewed with an eye to the suggestion he's put forward, and I will endeavour to contact the member opposite to see whether or not that's possible. That may be a possibility. We may be able to black out certain sections that would breach security, and propel the member's request. I'll get back to him on that.

GAMING INITIATIVES

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. First, I'd like to congratulate the minister on a very successful grand opening of Casino Niagara this past weekend. Many of my own constituents were in attendance. I'm very pleased to say that over 3,000 jobs have been created in the area, throughout the peninsula, not only in Niagara Falls but Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Wainfleet as well.

My question pertains to a question a number of my constituents have asked me, namely, Mike Sansano and Les Tapolczai who have written to me. The question to the minister is, can he tell the House what is behind the thinking on banning the games of dice in casinos?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): In response to the question from the member for Niagara South, I would just like to say that what is behind the thinking is a little bit of a history lesson. If I might indulge the House for just a minute to tell you that King Richard II banned dice games back in about 1380 in England. He ruled that it was bad form for his archers to be gambling with dice rather than practising archery.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, order. Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Mr Speaker, I'll just go on with this. Last week it was a suggested lesson in political democracy of Buzz Hargrove. I'd like to complete the history lesson if I could. In 1553 King Henry VIII gave the law his royal proclamation. In the 1920s the federal government in Ottawa outlawed all dice games. Now Canada remains the only industrialized country that does not allow dice games, because of federal government legislation.

Mr Hudak: In addition to Casino Niagara, Casino Windsor is on the border of the United States. I understand that Michigan is moving in the direction of --

Interjections.

Mr Hudak: Thank you. I appreciate that. I understand that Michigan is moving towards casinos in Detroit and New York state as well. They've been looking in that direction. My question as a supplementary to the minister is: What effect does a ban, a prohibition, on dice games have on the success of casinos on the border in Ontario?

Hon Mr Saunderson: In regard to the supplementary question from the member for Niagara South, first of all we have found, and been told, that when US gamblers are considering where to go in the future, they will go where dice games are allowed, and that will hurt the revenue for Ontario's taxpayers and would reduce the economic benefit we're obtaining from the casinos. We feel that dice gambling is necessary to help our border cities compete with future casinos that will be built in those areas.

Therefore I intend to pursue correcting this situation by working with the Attorney General, Mr Harnick, and the federal justice minister, Mr Rock, to amend the relevant federal government legislation.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. We are all concerned about the possible destruction of evidence. We know that Mr Brett James had access to confidential information. We know that the files of this former staff member of Premier Harris, now working for the Minister of Health, you've indicated, have been secured and sealed. We're also worried about other files in the Ministry of Health offices. Can you assure the House that the minister's office has been similarly secured and that there's no access to that office?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): The former Minister of Health was here yesterday. I can assure the member opposite that since his departure that office has been locked.

Interjection: Monday.

Hon David Johnson: Monday. Since Monday that office has been locked.

Again there are a certain number of assumptions the member is speculating on with regard to confidential information. To the degree that the opposition indicates this is a fact when they don't know that as a fact, when they don't know what sort of confidential information was available, I think we should reiterate that the privacy commissioner will do a thorough study, a thorough investigation into that matter. We have assured, I have assured personally, the utmost cooperation of this government to get to the bottom of it. We want to get to the bottom of this situation. We want to make sure that confidential information is treated with the utmost respect.

Mr Phillips: Let's be very clear. Mr Brett James could not have been clearer in reporting to the Globe and Mail reporter. When asked where he got the information, "Was it from the OHIP files?" he said yes. We now know this: For him to get access to those OHIP files, the minister had to have known that he was applying for it. We now know he had that information, according to Mr Brett James and the reporter.

So there is only one conclusion you can reach if you follow that to its logical conclusion: Mr Brett James, a trusted adviser who formerly worked for Premier Harris himself, obviously with a good deal of confidence from the Premier, the only way he could have got that information was by applying to OHIP, and OHIP can only provide that if the minister agreed to it. What other conclusion can we reach then, but that the Minister of Health had to have known that the information was provided to Mr Brett James? What other possible explanation is there for that?

Hon David Johnson: I think there's a due process. This is the country that we live in, a democratic country with due process. We do not play judge and jury and executioner at the same time.

If the member opposite has information which he would like to divulge, specific information, I'm sure the privacy commissioner would be happy to have it. If the member opposite wants to play judge, jury and executioner, that's his right, I suppose. But I think most people in the province of Ontario would say, "Get on with the investigation," and that's exactly what we're calling for. We've called the privacy commissioner to do the investigation. I personally have talked to the assistant privacy commissioner in the absence of the privacy commissioner and I'm assured utmost support, utmost cooperation. I would hope we would allow that process to take place and get to the bottom of this matter.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Public confidence in our health care system depends on the public being assured that their health care records are secure and indeed are confidential. Would the minister agree that it was reported in the press that the assistant to the former minister telephoned a reporter, indicated information about Dr Hughes's billings, and indicated that that information would have to come from OHIP records?

Since the minister has said he wants to get on with the investigation, if he agrees with that, does he also agree that medical information is protected under a number of statutes: the Health Insurance Act, the Public Hospitals Act, the Independent Health Facilities Act and the Ontario Drug Benefit Act? If he agrees with that, why is the government attempting to limit the investigation of Mr James's actions to a contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon David Johnson: This government, by contrast to some previous governments, has taken immediate action. I think it's to the credit of the former Minister of Health that he took immediate action. The individual involved took immediate action. The government has called in the privacy commissioner for immediate action. We have expressed our fullest cooperation to the privacy commissioner.

I believe, frankly, that everyone in this House -- and I haven't heard anything to the contrary -- has confidence in the privacy commissioner. I would hope we'd have the confidence to the level that if the privacy commissioner felt in any regard that the powers which he has limited his ability, that there were any impediments to his investigation, he would step forward and he would tell the members of this House: "I have done what I can do. Now I recommend that further actions be taken." I can tell you that if he does that, this government will respond accordingly.

Mr Wildman: We have every confidence in Mr Wright's integrity and ability as well. We also have every confidence in what he told us this morning, that he does not have the mandate to investigate these other statutes and any contravention of those statutes.

Keeping that in mind, why is this government, whose minister says they want to have an investigation, they want to get to the bottom of this, not prepared to give an order in council expanding the mandate of the privacy commissioner so that there is a public inquiry held by the privacy commissioner to find out how it was that billings information could be obtained by the minister's office staff, and this information would have to be collated with other billings to determine if Dr Hughes was the top biller --

The Speaker: Put the question.

Mr Wildman: Why is it that the minister is not prepared to approve, to recommend to his cabinet, an OIC to expand Mr Wright's mandate so that he can properly investigate all of these acts?

Hon David Johnson: The importance of the confidentiality of billing information, the importance of the protection of confidential information of our citizens in general, whether it's medical information or whatever type of information, is of utmost importance to this government, and this government has initiated studies and steps to ensure, particularly in the health area, that this information be protected.

Having said that, if the privacy commissioner comes forward and officially says to us, through the proper channels, either that he needs more authority or that there should be some other kind of investigation or that he's impeded in any way in terms of his investigation, then I can tell you that this government is most anxious to hear that message and to act accordingly. But in the first instance, we the government feel, and I think the members of the House should feel, that the privacy commissioner, with his experience in this field, would be the right individual to start the study.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Like he, I campaigned on the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development, and I'm proud to say that we as a government can take credit for a long list of accomplishments which will benefit rural Ontario.

But there's one commitment that we have not yet kept, and that is the one on page 10 of the task force report, which reads as follows:

"A Mike Harris government will introduce amendments to the Farm Practices Protection Act" -- more commonly known as the right-to-farm bill -- "to ensure that farmers retain the ability to operate without fear of nuisance lawsuits. We will work with all major farm organizations to produce amendments which will be fair and reasonable."

Could the minister tell me when he intends to keep that commitment?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank the honourable member for Oxford for his question. It's a very important item and one that is going to come before this House in the near future. Having been involved in the agrifood industry for as long as I have, I know that it's important for farmers to be able to produce food without being challenged in some nuisance court cases. We have to protect farmers and their ability to do what they do best, which is producing food to satisfy the needs of 11 million Ontarians and indeed to feed the world. This will be coming forth in the near future.

Mr Hardeman: As the minister is probably well aware, the agrifood industry has been asking for such changes to the act for some time. Specifically, they would like to see the act broadened beyond noise, odour and dust to include, among other things, smoke, light and vibrations. They'd like to see an appeal mechanism for restrictive bylaws and guidelines or standards on what constitutes a normal farm practice. Could the minister tell us how he intends to ensure that these concerns are addressed?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We intend to consult extensively the agrifood industry, the food producers of the province. Over the next two months, the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the member for Lambton and the member for Hastings-Peterborough, will be travelling the province listening to the concerns of the food producers and what sort of legislation they want to see in place.

We also invite all of the different commodity groups, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian farmers, the l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association. We want to receive all of the information that they have in order to make sure that this new legislation will protect farming and food production.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. I have been listening very carefully this afternoon to your several answers and those of the Deputy Premier on the Brett James-Jim Wilson affair. I want to come back to the basic issue. We have last Saturday's Globe and Mail, in which a senior political aide to the then Minister of Health, Mr Brett James, tells the Globe and Mail two things.

On his own volition, Brett James late last week phoned the Globe and Mail reporter and said, first, "I want to tell you that Dr Hughes, the Peterborough cardiologist, is the number one OHIP biller in the province," and second, "I, Brett James, senior political aide to the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, believe that information to have come from OHIP files."

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health tell the House today, "We have no reason to believe there was any sensitive or confidential information out there." Well, if Brett James didn't get that information where he said he got it and it wasn't of the kind he said it was, where in hell did he get it?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): That's precisely why we stepped in at the first opportunity and asked the privacy commissioner to come forward and look at this matter. I guess the government could have undertaken its own internal reviews, could have stalled, but this government decided to take action.

This government said, "What we need is to look into this matter to determine what confidential information that shouldn't have been available was available, if any, and how it was used," etc, all of these questions; to appoint a third party, a third party who's respected, a third party who has experience in dealing with information: the privacy commissioner. That's precisely what the government did at the first opportunity. I, for one, hope, and this government hopes, that the privacy commissioner is able to get on with it, get to the bottom of this and answer all the questions.

Mr Conway: I am more interested in what your government did last week, and what your government did last week is the following: A senior political aide to the Minister of Health picked up the phone, called the Globe and Mail and said: "I've got news for you. I can tell you that Dr Hughes is the number one biller to OHIP in the province, and I believe that information came from OHIP files."

Have you any reason to believe, Minister of Health, that last week Brett James was lying, that Jane Coutts got it all wrong in the Saturday paper, that Jim Wilson was hallucinating, that these protocols you brag about this week were nowhere in place or in force? Where did Brett James get that information, which information he set out to use in a premeditated way, in a prejudicial and smear-like way against an innocent Ontario doctor?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, was information used entirely inappropriately? According to the press reports, no question about it, and the Premier stood in his place yesterday and said precisely that. As a result, the individual involved resigned immediately, the Minister of Health has taken the honourable route and has resigned, and as a result, this government has asked the privacy commissioner to stand in.

We can play judge, jury, executioner, we can make up the facts, we can speculate, we can look into the crystal ball, we can say how did this happen or how did that happen. Why don't we let the privacy commissioner, an individual who is experienced in these matters, do his job? Why don't we let him investigate? Why don't we let him report back to us and get to the bottom of this situation?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Brett James told you one minute after you asked him, and you won't tell the truth.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you have to withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: I withdraw.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister of Health, in our conversations with the privacy commissioner, he has acknowledged to us that he has only limited powers under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He has acknowledged that he does not have the power to subpoena witnesses, he does not have the power to order evidence under oath, he does not have the power to subpoena records, logs or notebooks.

He also acknowledges he has no powers under the Health Insurance Act, the Public Hospitals Act, the Independent Health Facilities Act, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and we believe these pieces of legislation were in fact the laws that were breached.

I want to confirm with you: Did I hear you say earlier today that if the Information and Privacy Commissioner asks you for an order in council appointing him to a public inquiry, with the power to subpoena evidence, with the power to subpoena the presence of people, with the power to take evidence under oath and with the power to subpoena logbooks, notebooks etc, did I hear you say that if he asks for those things you will in fact ask for such an order in council to be granted?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, the leader of the third party indicates, "We have evidence of this, we have evidence of that" etc. I'm not so sure what evidence we have. That's what this whole investigation is about. Has the privacy commissioner indicated that he's unable to do this investigation? Has the privacy commissioner said he's unwilling, that he's impeded in any way? I think we should let the privacy commissioner do his job.

What I've indicated is, if the privacy commissioner comes forward and indicates that, for whatever reason, he is unable or impeded in doing his job, then I can assure you this government will take whatever steps are possible and necessary to get to the bottom of this situation.

Mr Hampton: I heard a lot of mumbo-jumbo but I didn't hear the key words.

If the privacy commissioner comes forward and asks you for an appointment under the Public Inquiries Act, asks you for the power to subpoena the presence of people, the power to subpoena notebooks, logbooks and records, asks you for the power to take evidence under oath and asks you for the power to conduct his work not only under the privacy act but also with respect to the Health Insurance Act, the Public Hospitals Act, the Independent Health Facilities Act, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, if he asks you for those powers, yes or no, will you immediately grant him those powers under the Public Inquiries Act so that he can do his job?

Hon David Johnson: Again, to put this in context, there has been no such request or communication from the privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner has certainly not expressed any impediment to his job, any restriction on his job --

Mr Hampton: Coverup, coverup, coverup. That's exactly what it is, a coverup.

Hon David Johnson: Over the shouting and the bullying from the leader of the opposition party --

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I said something that offends the Minister of Health, I'll say it again: coverup.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for London North, it's not unparliamentary to say "coverup."

Hon David Johnson: It may not be unparliamentary but it shows an extreme lack of confidence in the privacy commissioner. I will say that I do not share that lack of confidence.

Mr Hampton: No, we want him to do his job.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's not the privacy commissioner who is covering anything up.

The Speaker: Order. We're going to get to the answer on this one.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: I'll reiterate what I said previously. There may be different ways of dealing with this if the privacy commissioner feels that he is unable to deal with it, and that's a big if, because I think he will be able to deal with it. There may be the legislative committee route, for example. I assure you that this government wishes to have all of the questions answered on this issue and we will take the appropriate steps if the commissioner comes forward and suggests that he is unable to complete the investigation.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to ask him, since he has been minister for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Just a minute. Members on the government side, I called twice. The member didn't stand. The member for Timiskaming was up, and I called on the member for Timiskaming.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't want to hear any more. He wasn't up. You can continue to point all you want, Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I looked twice, because he was up previously and I knew it was that member, and he didn't get up. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Health. You've been Minister of Health now, along with your other --

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's extremely difficult to hear in the back row here of the rump of the PC Party with the noise and the yelling and the caterwauling that's going on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You know, there are some people who may applaud the fact that it's noisy in here but, to the member for London North, it's difficult sometimes to hear the questions from both sides of the House heckling. I appreciate the fact you're a great distance away. I called it twice as loudly as I could and I knew you were next up because you stood earlier. I understood you couldn't hear me. I could only call it as loudly as I did twice. I'm trying to maintain order. Today was particularly difficult. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Health. You have been the acting Minister of Health now for about 48 hours, and I would take it in the normal course of events you would meet with your new staff. I was wondering if you could assure us today in the House that you have asked and have assurances from your new staff, or any existing political staff that you may have inherited from the previous minister, that they have never been in possession of similar confidential OHIP information last week or have that information with them this week.

Hon David Johnson: I have discussed this matter in general with the staff. There are policies and procedures with regard to confidential information. I have been assured that all of the staff are aware of the rules and procedures and requirements of ministry staff procedures and they have obeyed those procedures.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(a), the House will meet in the morning of Thursday, December 12, 1996, from 10 am till 12 noon for the consideration of government business with routine proceedings to commence at 1:30 pm.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Our concern with this motion is that subsequent to discussions about this motion being dealt with, we have had another motion that has been forthcoming from the government, and that motion indeed has dealt with the sitting of the House next week and the sitting of the House in January.

While this, without that motion, would seem to be a very sensible motion because this has happened in previous years and I think we in opposition and in government have seen this motion and there seems to have been a consensus developed on this motion, what has happened subsequent to this motion being considered by the three House leaders has been a new motion from the government, one that would indeed call upon members of this Legislature to deal with government legislation next week, which is something that we in the opposition have been prepared to do.

It has been the position of the opposition as well that we are prepared to sit in January. In fact, we anticipated this. I remember the Minister of Labour and I had a brief discussion about the fact that we anticipated the House would be sitting in January.

So what's happened subsequent to this particular motion, and I find that most unfortunate, is that the government seems to have changed its position from wanting to extend this session of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario into 1997 -- this being the fall session of 1996 -- to a new position which is commencing the new session, or the spring session, of the Legislature on January 13. This makes us apprehensive then to proceed with a motion of this kind.

We were hoping that upon reflection and upon seeing the amendment that the official opposition has submitted on a previous motion, the motion we dealt with last night, the government would be saying they would agree with that particular amendment and we could proceed expeditiously with a number of pieces of legislation. What's happened instead is that the government has now said it intends to continue on in January, but with a new session.

As we've expressed on many occasions, we think it's a good idea to deal with matters left over from the fall session in January and in February, but what we are concerned about is that it be the start of a new spring session. So all of the consensus that develops around this kind of legislation begins to evaporate, as you would understand -- I know you have been in this position in opposition -- when we see the government moving in another direction.

I was hoping today and I still hope today that we would see the government in a position to indicate to the opposition that they are prepared to accept an amendment, an amendment which says we shall continue the fall session, or perhaps another amendment that might be presented by the New Democratic Party, because they have given an indication that they would be presenting an amendment as well. So the business of this House tends to be somewhat chaotic when we get into these circumstances.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the members who are involved in meetings and discussions to take them to the west and east lobbies. It's very difficult to hear these points that are being made by the member for St Catharines. That includes this crowd back here as well, if you could also take this meeting outside, please. Thank you very much.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's important that members of the House hear the points of view that are being expressed on this motion that Mr Johnson, the government House leader, has moved.

As I say, I think the problem is that this looked like a good idea earlier in the week. Earlier this week this looked like a very good idea, and perhaps it will be a good idea, but what we are concerned about is that subsequent to this happening, and the minister smiles over there, we have seen a motion come in from the government which says the government wants to start a spring session on January 13 and that the House is going to sit next week.

So we begin to wonder why it would be necessary then to do this, if that's the case, if the House is going to sit next week in any event, and we're delighted to see that happen. If the House is coming back on January 13 to deal with legislation which we would hope would be from the fall session, then one has to wonder why we are in a position of forgoing the private members' hour on Thursday morning.

I'm not ruling this out, however, because I know at this time of year the House leaders and whips are able to come to some agreements. The member who is the chief government whip smiles. He knows this to be the case. He knows how reasonable people can be in circumstances of this kind, and I know that the government wishes to expedite its legislation. I understand that.

We have some important legislation at present on the docket to be dealt with by this House and on a Thursday morning this would have provided for an additional two hours to deal with legislation. I think, for instance, of the Boxing Day legislation, which I personally am opposed to but it has already passed second reading and simply requires third reading. I think of Bill 84, in which we are engaging in a full and frank debate. I think of Bill 57, which is reaching its somewhat final stages. I think of Bill 52, which has to be dealt with appropriately.

There are a number of pieces of legislation that I understand the government wishes to proceed with, and I certainly am not one who wants to see important legislation that has developed somewhat of a consensus not proceeding.

I'm concerned now that the government has a new agenda, an agenda which it hasn't really announced, and that agenda is an agenda which wants the government to introduce new legislation. It wants the government to get around the rule, that rule being that in the final eight sitting days of the Ontario Legislature, the government cannot introduce new bills to be discussed for second and third reading. It can introduce those bills to put them on the docket; it cannot proceed with those bills for second and third reading.

I see that the government will now be bringing in further legislation. It probably wants to have what they would call a prolonged spring session so that there will be an intersession that is relatively brief and the government can wrap up all of its controversial legislation before the summer, instead of having it go through the proper stages of this House whereby we would likely see the final stages of major, comprehensive bills which might be contentious in this House in the fall of 1997.

I know what the government's agenda is. I know why the government wishes to proceed in this direction. I shouldn't say I know; I speculate that is the government's intention. That is why I'm looking for some guidance from the government in this case on why it would be that this is a relevant resolution now. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is.

I'm prepared to be somewhat flexible on this; I'm hoping we would see some flexibility on the part of the government. My friend from St Catharines-Brock would know that indeed the opposition is prepared to be cooperative when there's legislation before the House that has developed a consensus. The member for Lanark-Renfrew is here and he has some considerable experience. He's watched this evolve. He would know, as I know, that when the government brings in a bit of surprise -- baseball would call it a sweeping curve ball coming in -- that makes us think a little bit that perhaps what we tried to agree to last week is coming unravelled.

I will be interested in what the government House leader has to say, because I know he's a fairminded individual to deal with on these matters, and I'll be interested in hearing what the third party has to say on this resolution so that we can determine whether this motion should be dealt with this afternoon.

As I say, a lot of good can come of an additional session. I am delighted to be here in the Legislature next week. Most of my constituents would expect that we would be here dealing in some detail with important legislation.

I know that government members would want the opposition to carefully scrutinize the legislation and perhaps bring to the attention of the Premier and members of the cabinet some of the concerns that even backbenchers or those outside the cabinet have about legislation, just as we were able to do with video lottery terminals, which the government intends to put in every bar and every restaurant on every street in every neighbourhood in Ontario. Today, of course, we heard a member floating the idea of crap games being held in casinos, where they're throwing the dice down.

That's where you really see the hard-core gambling taking place.

Anyway, I see the government moving in that direction. So you know why we're apprehensive. The government House leader knows why we're apprehensive when we see this kind of agenda unfolding. Far be it for me to look at motives that the government might have, but I suspect what the government is all about today is wanting to deal with its resolution, wanting to sweep it through the House even though it's had so little debate, so little consideration. No doubt the government would like to ram that resolution through the House.

We in the opposition know how little debate it has had and how little real consideration, and we are therefore concerned that the government will simply stampede everything. Even members of the government caucus are concerned, and I know there are some who are concerned, about the pace at which the government is moving, how drastically the government is moving, how it's not consulting appropriately with individuals, how it's not looking at the impact of its legislation. I know there are people on the government benches, because I know there are some good folks on those benches, who have those concerns. We in the opposition want to help you out.

We are very pleased to try to help out members on the government benches who I know, particularly when there's a vacancy in the cabinet, will not want to dissent too much from what the Premier wants, because what you find is a number of rather interesting speeches that are forthcoming from members when they think there is going to be a cabinet shuffle, as apparently there must be as a result of the resignation of the Minister of Health as a result of what we in the opposition perceive to be a smear campaign being conducted.

All of this is relevant to this motion -- all of this. The Speaker knows it. I see the Speaker nodding. He knows that this is the case. I know some of the members of the opposition agree with this.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I didn't see him nod.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): He was nodding off, Jim.

Mr Bradley: The member for Nepean is nodding off, he says, at this time. I know the hours have been late, but I can't believe that the member for Nepean would be nodding off at this time of day. I assure his constituents that he is not. I want to assure them of that in case some of them happen to be watching.

Mr Baird: Correct the record, Jim. I am not. Be honourable, Jim.

Mr Bradley: I did. Naturally I said the member is not nodding off. I said that for your constituents. That's twice I've said it now, so he can send both Hansards back to anyone who phones his office or writes a letter to him.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): They will never get Hansard.

Mr Bradley: That's another question we have to look at, the fact that they can't get Hansard any more, so that is a problem. As of January 1, the average ordinary person out there who had a subscription to Hansard can no longer get that. They must now own -- and perhaps you do, Mr Speaker; I don't -- a sophisticated computer that's on the Internet if they are to get Hansard.

Mr Froese: They will never get Hansard; 200 people --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for St Catharines-Brock, would you please refrain from heckling. It's a bit too much noise. I can't hear.

Mr Bradley: I'm trying to speak as loudly as I can because there has been a din on the other side while I've been speaking. The member for St Catharines-Brock, however, was not rudely interrupting at all. He was merely trying to call to my attention some important items.

We have to know how bills go through this House, I think, if we are to know whether this resolution is applicable.

First of all we have a bill that is introduced for first reading. There isn't a debate in first reading; it's just introduced. Normally there's not a vote, although on certain contentious issues you have seen a vote on first reading.

Then we have second reading, which is a pretty comprehensive debate. A second reading debate takes a little longer because we debate the bill in principle, and the Speaker on that occasion, whoever happens to be in the chair, exercises good judgement to allow latitude at that time for the purpose of canvassing all the issues related to that bill. That's an important part because that's where the public begins to see what is happening, begins to understand the implications of a bill, particularly a bill the government is trying to rush through, such as the bill on video lottery terminals, which they finally passed.

Then we have, ordinarily, committee of the whole House. That's where amendments can be made, often brought by the government itself. That is followed, subsequently, by public hearings or perhaps they take place before that. There were people, for instance, who had something to say about a number of issues. I think of Bill 26, last year at this time. We forced the government to have hearings in January, where we went around the province with committees and heard from people. As a result the government brought forward a large number -- over 100, I think -- of amendments to that piece of legislation.

That's why we need that significant intersession: to have those hearings, to have the ideas come forward for the government and for the opposition and perhaps incorporate them into legislation.

Then we have third reading. Sometimes third reading is very quick. Sometimes we proceed in a very rapid fashion because it's a non-contentious bill, it has a consensus developed around it, it's one the opposition parties agree with and that the public would find beneficial. That is third reading.

Sometimes that doesn't happen because the opposition feels, on third reading, that there are compelling reasons why the government should not proceed with that bill. That's usually when the government has ignored many thoughts, good ideas, that have been forthcoming from the general public. As all of us know, not all good ideas in Ontario originate or reside in the provincial Parliament -- that will not surprise the people in St Catharines or other communities -- so we have those hearings and hope those ideas are ultimately reflected in the legislation the government finally brings forward. When it doesn't reflect them, we find a more significant third reading debate.

Members must know, and this is again related to this, that in the last eight days of a session in June or December, that is, at the end of the fall or spring session, the government is not entitled to introduce new legislation to be debated for second and third reading. They can introduce it but they can't have second and third reading.

My good friend who is now the Minister of Finance, the former government House leader, former House leader of the Conservative Party in opposition, made a compelling argument. Just as I was persuaded by his arguments on video lottery terminals and how they were bad for the province and by his speeches on other forms of gambling, I was persuaded when he said, "Listen, if there's one problem we encounter in this House we have to deal with, it is the problem of government bringing in major legislation right at the end of a session and wanting to deal with it rapidly and not have the kinds of hearings and debate that we deem to be appropriate," and that is where our concern arises.

The motion itself is rather innocuous. This is not a tricky motion. The government is not trying to trick anybody with this. The government is not trying to fool anybody with this. This is a very innocuous motion and ordinarily wouldn't even be debated. At this time of year you find there are debates that arise on motions of this kind.

Mr Baird: Why?

Mr Bradley: The member for Nepean asks why, and there is a reason why. It's because the government brought in a motion subsequent to this. I know the House leader and whip for the New Democratic Party and for the Liberal Party are both perturbed by one word in that motion and that is the word "spring," "new spring session." If you take out the word "new" and take out the word "spring," that would be fine, or if the government wished to prorogue, it could do that. If the government wishes to prorogue, that is, end a session, have a new speech from the throne and away it goes, we could understand that.

They're entitled to do that, and we'd be prepared to debate the legislation that comes forward.

My friend the member for Wellington, who has been in this House a long time, I know would probably -- I shouldn't say, "I know" -- I speculate would probably, were he sitting on this side, express the same concerns that I am expressing about a spring session that would commence on January 13. He'd be wondering what would be the hurry with legislation that requires a lot of thought.

The member for Grey-Owen Sound, who is here this afternoon -- he wants me to say that so he can send the Hansard back to his constituents -- and he is here this afternoon, and that member would know --

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): He is here every day. He is dedicated.

Mr Bradley: Well, he might well be that, and now Mr Beaubien will get in Hansard as well; he's here this afternoon. They are many times.

What I am saying is, I think the member for Lambton and the member for Grey-Owen Sound are the kind of members who must be worried at the pace at which this government is moving.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Not fast enough.

Mr Bradley: The former judge of the Ontario Court says in fact --

Mr Baird: Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Bradley: The member for Ottawa-Rideau says that it's not moving fast enough. Well, I think he should go down to Sarnia and Lambton and tell the people who are having their hospitals closed whether the government's moving quickly enough or not. I suspect in St Catharines, as in Sarnia and Lambton, those members might not agree with the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the former judge, who says the government isn't moving quickly enough, because we believe that the government is moving too quickly, and I suspect many members of the government believe that too.

The member for Ottawa-Rideau will wonder if the government is moving too quickly when they close the Ottawa Civic Hospital or other hospitals in his community. Then perhaps he will say the government should be pausing a little, taking a little more time to assess the implications of its legislation.

Mr Guzzo: Which ones does Mr McGuinty want closed? They are all in his riding.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau, order, please.

Mr Bradley: He's interjecting. I don't know what the interjection is about other than to say he seems to now be worried about the hospitals in Ottawa, and I don't blame him. I worry about them too. That's why I'm trying to ensure that all of the legislation gets a proper hearing, that we don't move too quickly with these drastic programs that are changing the face of Ontario, an Ontario that Conservative governments in years gone by have built, and Liberal and NDP governments and people with no affiliation have built upon, something we can be proud of.

Remember Premier Davis used to stand in this House and say Ontario was the best province in which to live. He always said, and his ministers always said, we have the best health care system anywhere in the world here in Ontario. We used to have that, and we want to maintain that, but unfortunately the government is swinging the axe. They've taken $38 million away from hospitals in the Niagara region.

People I hear from in the Niagara region say, "How could you allow the government to pass this other resolution it has to start the spring session in January?" when we know that it really wants to proceed with a lot of very radical, rash and revolutionary changes that are changing the world of Ted Arnott or Eleanor Caplan or Ben Grandmaître or anybody else in this House. I say that as individuals rather than as politicians, because otherwise I would have to name their ridings of Wellington and Oriole and Ottawa East, and I did not want to get into that.

My friend the Minister of Agriculture is here this afternoon.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): What's his riding?

Mr Bradley: His riding is a long riding, so in the interest of time I will not list all of the parts of his riding. But I want to tell you, he is concerned in his heart of hearts, I'm sure, about how quickly the government is moving in some areas. In some areas he probably agrees the government should be moving quickly, and the opposition may agree. But he's a cautious person. He was part of the Davis government and he knew how Premier Davis thought about these matters. His predecessor, Osie Villeneuve, was also a very cautious individual and, I might add, a Montreal Expos fan at the same time.

He was a very, very cautious individual. I'm sure that both of these people, in their heart of hearts, believe the government should take the two words "new" and "spring" out of its other resolution. So a resolution like this would go through quickly: With the nod of a head, with the wink of an eye, a resolution such as this would go through if that were indeed the case.

I know my friends in the New Democratic Party would agree with that if indeed they accepted the amendment, which I think is a reasonable one. There are two amendments to choose from. If they were to accept one of them, I think the House would proceed and you'd see a lot of cooperation. You would see a lot of progress next week as we sit next week in this Legislature. When we got into the new session, we'd see an invigorated Legislature, members from all sides back and ready to tackle the major issues of the day and ensure that there's appropriate debate.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We endorse that, Jim.

Mr Bradley: I know the New Democratic Party is onside on that, and I suspect many of the non-cabinet people in the government, maybe even some in the cabinet, would agree with that as well.

We in the opposition are trying to do you a favour. I know you think we're not. We're trying to do you a favour. We're trying to help out the government House leader. We're trying to help out government backbenchers, who don't always get a chance to publicly air their concerns. They get a chance behind the closed doors of caucus, and I'm sure they are putting forward their views vociferously in those circumstances, but they don't get a chance to do it in this House.

My friend from Dufferin-Peel, for instance, who is a parliamentary assistant and may not want to stand in this House to express disagreement with his government, is going to be looking to those of us in the opposition to express those views.

I think many of the people sitting on the other side are probably saying, "Why doesn't the Premier simply give instruction to the government House leader to remove the word "new" and the word "spring" and simply have an extension or accept one of the amendments? I think we'd move forward in an expeditious manner with a lot of legislation, because I'm eager to get at that legislation. But what was happening was we saw that the government was going to be doing an end run around established practice, around a practice that the member for Parry Sound thought was an important practice.

I want to say to the government House leader, to the government, we might well be prepared to move forward with this particular resolution. We might well be able to accept this resolution. We simply wanted to let you know how we felt about things in general before we got to that particular resolution.

I appreciate that the government members have listened and perhaps had a chance to think about the amendments that have been proposed by the two opposition parties that would allow us to move in an expeditious manner and a comprehensive manner dealing with the legislation that I know the government House leader is eager to have pass this House. I think if he saw those words removed, he saw a change and there wasn't a new spring session, it would be like a lifting of a burden on his back as he would see cooperation of a kind he dreams about in his most wonderful dreams. I look forward to that kind of cooperation and consensus-building in this House.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to enter this debate because I think it's important that we clarify the situation as it stands in this House at this time, coming close to the December break for Christmas and the new year.

The Speaker will know that I spoke on another motion last night in this House, which dealt with the ordering of the government's business, and I made it very clear that this caucus, as members of the Legislature, is prepared to sit next week and even to return in the winter, to come back in January, to deal with a very long list of government legislation that the government House leader, a chap who is a hardworking and amiable person to deal with, has said the government must have before it finishes the session. That is a very long list.

I won't reiterate what I said yesterday, last evening, on this motion, but I will say this: We are prepared to deal with the government's business. We are prepared to debate at third reading a long list of legislation that the government has said must be passed for third reading and to deal with other matters which are already on the order paper for second reading and have not yet been called by the government for debate.

As I said yesterday, the government finds itself in a position very similar to many other governments, where we're reaching the end of the session and there is still a large list of bills that have not been dealt with and that the government wishes to have dealt with. We have a situation where the government is talking about extending the hours of debate, and that's what this motion is about. This motion basically says that notwithstanding standing order 96(a), the House will meet this Thursday morning, tomorrow morning, for two hours to consider government business rather than dealing with private members' business, which is what we would normally be dealing with on a Thursday morning.

In the discussions among House leaders, we made it clear that we were prepared to consider this kind of suggestion in the context of the government looking for more time to deal with the long list of bills that are before the House that have not yet been passed.

However, the discussion was in context, and the context of that was how the government could expand the hours in order to deal with the legislation that's currently on the order paper, recognizing that the rules clearly state that the government cannot introduce new legislation for debate at second and third reading in the last eight session days and that that rule also applies to any extension of the hours beyond the normal adjournment date. That was the context of the discussion.

We understood that the government had a long list of legislation that needed to be dealt with and that the government wanted to extend the hours and to find more time to deal with that legislation. We were prepared to accommodate that on the understanding that the government was going to be adhering to the rules of the House. So we made it clear that we were prepared to sit next week and we were prepared to sit in January and February. The member for Grey-Owen Sound is nodding over there. I know he is prepared to serve his constituents in this place over the winter, and we are prepared to do that as well.

But then, when we saw the motion that was moved by the government, there was a kicker in the motion. The motion didn't do what we understood the government intended to do; that was, to extend the hours of debate, to give more days for the government to deal with the matters that are on the order paper. Rather, it stated that we would be doing that next week, up to December 19, but then when we meet in January we were all going to be under the collective illusion that spring had arrived and that we would be commencing a spring session.

Now I'm not sure what the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs would have to say about this. I don't know how this will affect spring planting for the farm community in this province, but I think he would find very few farmers who are going to be out on the land in the late part of January in Ontario, no matter if we're even dealing with the very southern parts of the province like Essex county. I doubt very much that we would see farmers out on the land at that time of year.

So we had some difficulty with defining January 13 as the beginning of spring. Some people out there who might be watching this debate might wonder why it is that we're concerned about the word "spring." Well, I think I should explain that and why I think it's a kicker in the motion.

If the government can in fact designate it as a new session, that is the spring session, then the government gets around the rule that prevents them from debating new legislation at second and third reading. The government really isn't looking at extending the hours so that it can deal with the list of legislation that is already on the order paper. In fact, the government wants carte blanche to come back and introduce all sorts of new legislation that we might deal with.

Now we're prepared to come back, and frankly we might even consider coming back to deal with the two initiatives the Premier stated last week must be dealt with, even though they haven't been introduced, as the rules require them to be introduced, prior to the last eight session days, if the motion clearly stated that. But it doesn't.

My colleague the member for Fort York might have something to suggest on that when we get to that part of the debate, whenever we might get to that; however, I can't see how we would be willing to accommodate the government when they've got this little twist in their motion. We came out of our discussions saying, "Okay, we're prepared to extend debate. We're prepared to extend the sittings for another week prior to Christmas and we're prepared to come back in the winter," knowing that it's winter, not pretending that it's spring, and actually continuing the work of the fall session.

That's why I said I thought we should accept the amendment proposed by the official opposition, which would say that this would be an extension of the fall session. There is a very long list of legislation that the government has said they want passed. If they really want to pass that and they want to come back in the winter to do it, fine.

As I've said, we might even be prepared to introduce another amendment that might make it possible for other matters, specific matters, to be dealt with in the winter.

But we are not prepared to cooperate if the government is determined to circumvent a very clear rule, because I, like the member for St Catharines, was very persuaded by the arguments made in 1992 by the now finance minister, the then House leader for the third party, the member for Parry Sound, when he said very clearly that the rules needed to be tightened up, that it was unfair to the members of the assembly, and particularly the members of the official opposition and the third party, for the government to stockpile legislation to the last part of the session -- that was the term the member for Parry Sound used -- stockpile controversial legislation until the last part of the session, to be introduced at that time without proper notice to the official opposition and to the third party, without proper consultation and without proper time for consideration and debate.

The member for Parry Sound has been in this House about the same length of time as the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Four years less.

Mr Wildman: He has been here a long time. He hasn't been here as long as I have, but I think he knows as much or more about the rules of the House than I might and he knows what he's talking about when he says that it's not fair and not a proper approach to introduce new legislation in the last eight sessional days for debate and passage. He's quite right. He was also right when he said there was a loophole in the rules that needed to be closed and in 1992 he was in favour of the closure of that loophole.

I can only conclude that the government House leader wasn't able to talk to the member for Parry Sound about this motion, because if he talked to the member for Parry Sound about this motion, I'm sure the finance minister would have said to him: "Look, wait a minute here. You're doing exactly what I argued against in 1992. We shouldn't be doing that. That's not a proper way to do things.

We are bringing in controversial new pieces of legislation at the very end of the session and you're calling the session in January the spring session so you can avoid the rule that prevents us from debating that at second and third readings," the very rule that the table officers came to call "the Ernie Eves rule" in this House.

I'm sure that the table officers don't mind me pointing out that that was the term they used for that rule, because everyone knew that that rule was brought in at the behest of the member for Parry Sound, that the member for Parry Sound was the person who designed the rule. He said there was a loophole that needed to be closed, and he believed that by changing the rule the way we now have it he had closed the loophole. So it came to be called, for those who are interested in the arcane rules of this place, who get into lively discussions about whether you can do this or that or the other in this House, as "the Ernie Eves rule."

I can't believe that the member for Parry Sound, if he'd been consulted on this, would agree to a stratagem by the government to circumvent the very rule that is called "the Ernie Eves rule." I know that the member for Kingston and The Islands has as much regard as I do for the Minister of Finance. We may have political differences, but we know that he would not allow his colleague knowingly to circumvent a rule that he had proposed for this House.

The private members of this Legislature, the members of the opposition, are quite prepared to accommodate the government if the government finds itself in a difficulty because it can't manage the order of the House particularly well. We are prepared to accommodate and we would even be prepared to accept this motion that has been proposed for tomorrow morning. But we would only be prepared to accept it if we understood that the government was adhering to the rule that has the appellation "the Ernie Eves rule" in this House.

I know that some members of the governing party, the members of the back bench, must get very frustrated in dealing with the way things work around here. The Legislature, as long as I've been here, for over 20 years, has always worked on the basis of some kinds of give and take. The government wants something, it has an agenda it feels it has been elected to carry out, it has a mandate to implement. Some of their agenda may in fact raise concerns among members of the opposition; they have different views. Some of the pieces of legislation that are going to be introduced will generate considerable and perhaps sometimes vehement disagreements and lengthy debate.

Essentially what happens is the government House leader meets with the House leaders for the opposition and says: "Okay, which pieces of legislation are going to be controversial? How much time are you going to need? How long is it going to take to debate it?" The opposition House leaders usually say: "What's your agenda? What do you need? What do you want? How many bills? Which bills do you need passed? If you need us to accommodate you in that area, are you prepared to accommodate us in other areas?"

The problem we've had this fall session -- it is the fall session -- has been that for the last two or three months we've been asking the government House leader: "What's the agenda? What do you need? What bills do you want to proceed with, which bills are not high priority?" In that process, only one government bill in the whole long list has been dropped as a priority -- only one. Essentially what the government has been saying is, "We want it all." Well, the government has a mandate, I recognize that, but it doesn't have a mandate to get all of the legislation through when there's enough legislation to cover two sessions, not one.

I've heard some members of the government back bench say, "The opposition debated Bill 75 at great length." That was the bill dealing with video display lottery terminals, VLTs. That's true. There was considerable lengthy debate in this House about that because it's a very controversial proposal. There are people on all sides of the House who have very strong views for and against the approval of these machines in our communities.

I remember when I was serving as a member of government when there was discussion in our caucus and in cabinet about whether we should move to approve casinos in this province, and that was very controversial. There were some members of caucus who said, "No, we just can't support this."

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: No, a couple of them voted against casinos, but interestingly enough, at the time we had that debate, one of the proposals that was brought to us as a government was that we have VLTs as well as casinos in Ontario. The cabinet had considerable debate about this because the same arguments were brought to our government as the same officials have brought to your government. They were saying, "There are all these illegal ones." One way to deal with that, if you can't beat the mob by stopping them from having these illegal operations, is to replace them and just operate them yourself, as a government.

We talked about the problems of addiction and the numbers of people who seem to be attracted to these kinds of machines and the allure of instant gratification, of instant wins, and we decided not to have VLTs in communities across the province. We said no.

So it was hardly surprising that when your government decided to bring this matter before the House it would generate considerable controversy and debate, recognizing that it might have been smart on the part of the government not to call the legislation and to call other pieces of legislation for debate if they wanted them passed, to get that other work done. But the government chose to say, "We're not going to deal with other pieces of legislation till we get this one through and you guys shouldn't be prolonging the debate on VLTs." In my view that was a mistake on the part of the government.

So the government now finds itself in a fix, and that fix is that it's got a long list of legislation it wants to deal with. It wants to deal with it tomorrow morning instead of private members' legislation and it wants to deal with it next week and in January. If that was all it wanted, the opposition would accommodate the government. We like to have the House sit. It's in our interests as representatives of the people of Ontario to have the House sitting. We like question period. We like to have question period. So it's certainly in our interest to have more question periods.

Mr Baird: If we have good questions.

Mr Wildman: Well, the quality of questions is judged by the public.

Mr Bradley: The Premier obviously doesn't like it. He wasn't here today.

Mr Wildman: One wag has suggested the Premier doesn't like questions and that's why he wasn't present, but I know it's against the rules to refer to the presence or absence of a member, so I won't repeat that.

The point is there is very little time in the

schedule of the House that is set aside to deal with private members' business, both backbench government members and backbench members of the opposition. Most of the time is taken up by question period, routine proceedings and debates on government legislation. There is very little time. The only time that is specifically set aside for private members' legislation, when private members can bring forward proposals that are important to them and to their constituents, is on Thursday morning, for two hours, between 10 and noon.

So it is quite a thing for private members to say, "Okay, we'll give up that very small amount for one week to accommodate the government, which has a long list of government legislation to get through."

We were prepared to do that, but we were prepared to do it in the context that the government was going to be sitting next week, which we agreed with, and in January, to deal with the order paper matters that are already there. When we suddenly saw the motion as presented that said it was spring in January, that we wouldn't just be dealing with the order paper materials now, we would be dealing not only with legislation that has just been introduced in the last eight days but hasn't even been introduced yet -- we haven't seen it yet.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Dictatorship.

Mr Wildman: Exactly.

The problem the government has is that it should have had this material, this legislation ready for first reading a couple of weeks ago.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): We just got Crombie's report last week.

Mr Wildman: It wasn't the opposition that set the

schedule for Mr Crombie.

Mr Pouliot: Get your ducks in order.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The ducks are over there.

Mr Wildman: Well, if it walks like a duck --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma, just direct your remarks to the Speaker.

Mr Wildman: Speaker, I would never suggest that anyone who is a member of this House is a duck, but if it walks like -- all I'm trying to say is that we are prepared to accommodate the government. The government's got itself into a fix. The government's in a mess in terms of its schedule, its order of business. We understand this. It happens to lots of governments. I've seen it happen to Conservative governments, I've seen it happen to the Liberal government, I've seen it happen with the NDP government, and now it's happening again. It happens quite often.

In the time that I've been here I think there have only been a couple of years I can recall where we actually finished early before Christmas. I remember one year when the Liberals were in government we sat between Christmas and New Year. I remember sitting here on December 27 debating the public business. I suppose now that we've brought in the St Stephen's Day bill, the Boxing Day bill, if the government wished to bring forward a motion, we could sit on December 26. But of course under that legislation only the members of the staff who would want to come would have to come.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Address your remarks to the Chair. It would be easier.

Mr Wildman: I was just trying to provoke some discussion and some consideration of other options the government might have for dealing with -- I want to make clear, Speaker, that I am not suggesting the government bring in a motion that we sit between Christmas and New Year, I'm not suggesting that, but we will accommodate the government. We will even consider giving up private members' hour. Even though there's very little time for private members' business in this place, very little time for private members to bring forward issues that are of concern to them and their constituents, we'd be prepared to do that.

We'd be prepared to sit next week. We're going to, and we're quite happy to do that. We'd be prepared to sit in January and February. We'd be happy to do that.

Standing here, looking across the way and seeing the member for S-D-G & East Grenville -- you've reminded me -- I can tell you I'd be happy to sit here on Groundhog Day.

Mrs Boyd: It's a Sunday.

Mr Wildman: It's a Sunday. Then I won't be willing to sit on Groundhog Day, I'm sorry.

I think we should order the business. The government must adhere to the rules of the House. The government cannot pretend that spring starts in January. The government cannot bring in new legislation in the last eight session days and expect it to be debated during the extension. We are prepared to deal with the long list of matters that are up for third reading and the few that are there for second reading on the order paper -- some of them are very controversial, some of them are less so -- but we are not prepared to countenance a situation where the government intentionally circumvents the rules. We are not prepared to cooperate in that kind of process.

The rules are there, as the member for Parry Sound has said, for a very good reason: to properly serve the public and protect the rights of the opposition and the rights of each member of the House. The member for Parry Sound is quite correct. He thought we had plugged the loophole. The government apparently thinks it's found another one.

I think that's unfortunate, because it then calls into question the sincerity of the member for Parry Sound in 1992, and I think he's a very sincere person. I think he was stating clearly that it is inappropriate to be introducing new pieces of legislation in the last eight session days without proper notice for the opposition, without proper public input, so they can be debated for second and third reading. That's what the member for Parry Sound said in 1992. I'm persuaded he was accurate and correct. I believe that remains to be the case.

The government can resolve this very simply: Accept the opposition amendment or the amendment we are going to put forth. The government doesn't even have to do that. The government can simply take out the reference to "spring" in the motion. If the government removes the reference to "spring in January," we can order the business to deal with what's on the order paper.

The choices are fair and clear, and I've tried to make them as clear as possible. Private members have certain rights here, but private members are prepared to accommodate the government if the government adheres to the rules.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I wish to move adjournment of this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wellington has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1550 to 1620.

The Speaker: The member for Wellington has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please stand and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56, the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in governance of schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas the government has consulted with special interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants in Ontario;

"Whereas although all renters will suffer, seniors and others on fixed incomes will suffer particular hardship if rent controls are abolished; and

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton West.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I wasn't sure you could see me over that.

I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas the parents of the Corpus Christi school community in the Hamilton-Wentworth separate school board have signed this petition in order that we may impress upon you how desperately we are in need of our previously approved addition; and

"Whereas the conditions that our children are having to endure are deplorable and are not conducive to a positive learning environment;

"We implore you to expedite the funding for our addition in a responsible and timely manner."

I'd like to give this to Matthew Campbell, the page from Hamilton West, to take to the Clerk. Thank you.

RESTRUCTURATION DES HÔPITAUX

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition qui me revient du village de Curran.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que l'hôpital Montfort offre des services essentiels dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton et Prescott et Russell ;

«Attendu que la population francophone et anglophone a besoin de soins de qualité ;

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

«Que la Commission sur la restructuration des services hospitaliers prenne en considération le caractère unique de l'hôpital Montfort dans la région d'Ottawa et des services particuliers qu'il offre la communauté francophone.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a petition here from 69,000 Ontario citizens, and it's in the proper form, so I do not expect to get it sent back to me by the table. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario" -- the Tories -- "is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario;

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

"That the Liquor Control Board of Ontario remain a crown corporation because we fear that the privatization of that organization will lead to increases in crime, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and its health costs as well as loss of control over availability to minors and quality of product."

I've signed my name to this petition along with the other 69,000 Ontario citizens, and I'm proud to do so.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the administration of Families Against Deadbeats, Renate Diorio, Heinz Paul and Danielle McIsaac, are in total support of Bill 82, presented by the Honourable Charles Harnick to the Legislative Assembly on October 2, 1996, outlining the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, to replace the Family Support Plan Act, 1992;

"Whereas the changes will relieve the taxpayers of Ontario and provide proper enforcement required to collect and administer child support payments and orders;

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

"We support and agree with all of the changes outlined in the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, as set forth by the Honourable Charles Harnick as Bill 82, and urge the Legislature to pass this bill into law as soon as possible."

I support this petition and have signed it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm forwarding the enclosed petition on behalf of the students and families of St Timothy school.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Education promised that cuts to education would not hurt the classroom;

"Whereas the cuts to eduction have resulted in many of our very young