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

December 10, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L136 - Tue 10 Dec 1996 / Mar 10 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

THORNBRAE THUMPERS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WOMEN'S WORLD HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

HOMELESSNESS

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FRAUDULENT CHARITIES

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

VIOLENCE

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

EDUCATION FINANCING

NATIVE FISHING

SCHOOL BOARDS

ROAD SAFETY

EDUCATION FINANCING

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

FIRE SAFETY

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): As I scanned my copy of the Chatham Daily News on Saturday, I noticed the headline "Provincial Bullying Insults Local Leaders."

On December 5, Al Leach, through an area representative, announced that the municipalities in Kent county had until January 2 to come up with a restructuring agreement. If one was not in place by January 2, Leach was going to call in the restructuring commissioner.

This means that the local municipalities have 17 working days to come up with an agreement, 17 days to go over all the options and seek out new ones, 17 days to wade through the scores of figures and opinions. When does the minister choose to give his ultimatum? At the busiest time of year. Anyone who has ever spent time in a municipal office knows how busy it can be during this time of year.

When the minister set this artificial deadline, the Crombie report had not been released and the municipalities still had not had a chance to absorb the report. Time is running out for them. They better get busy. The minister is aching to use the power that he gave himself in Bill 26 last year. He has set an unwieldy deadline so that he would have the opportunity to make an example of these municipalities. He can bully them and he will. Municipalities beware. The minister will get his way.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, you will be aware that last Wednesday parents across the province joined together in community after community to visit the constituency offices of their members of provincial Parliament. The goal of this was to send a message to the government, in particular to the Minister of Education and Training. That message was that parents in fact are concerned.

Day after day when the minister stands and responds to questions of concern about what's happening in the school system that are raised by our critic, the member for Algoma, and Howard Hampton, the leader of our party, we hear the same response from the Minister of Education and Training, which is: "Everything's fine. We're going to do better for less. These changes that we're making, the cuts, are not affecting the classroom."

Hundreds of parents in the city of Toronto I know were involved and there were many who came to my constituency office. I have letters here they delivered to me, which I'm going to be sending over to the Minister of Education, from parents at Williamson Road Public School, at Earl Haig Public School, at Glen Ames, at Gledhill, at Bowmore, at Gabrielle-Roy -- many. I have quite powerful letters that parents have written with pictures of their children attached in which they talk about their concerns about what's happening in the classroom, the overcrowding, the lack of quality education that their kids are receiving as a result of the cuts of the Harris government.

THORNBRAE THUMPERS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to take the opportunity today to congratulate Thornbrae Elementary School, a school in my constituency high atop Hamilton Mountain, on the fantastic success of their swim team. The Thornbrae Thumpers swim team capped off a terrific season by winning the Hamilton elementary school A division girls' championship and the Alex McFarlane trophy for the overall A division championships. The team repeated last year's efforts and has now won three consecutive girls' championships and two overall championships. The team is coached by members of Thornbrae's teaching staff, Mr Doug Ho, Mrs Darlene Smith and Mrs Linda Kruttek.

With the support of generations of Hamilton teachers and physical education administrators within the board, the Hamilton meet is now into its 65th year and has the distinction of being the oldest swim meet for elementary schools in North America.

I would like to name the top three finishers in this year's meet: Billy Kwan, winner of the boy's 25-metre freestyle; Karley McInnis, winner of the girls' 25-metre freestyle; Jennifer Kennedy, girls' 25-metre freestyle; Jamie Smith, Stephanie McKay, Jennifer Kennedy and Courtney Smith, winners of the girls' 100-metre relay; Jamie Smith, once again, for coming in second in the girls' 25-metre freestyle; Courtney Smith, second in the girls' 25-metre freestyle; Stephanie McKay, second in the girls' 25-metre freestyle; Kelly Swan, Heather Gillem, Ashley Grodecki, Katie Pagett, second in the girls' 100-metre relay; Courtney Smith and Jamie Smith, second in the girls' 25-metre backstroke; and last but not least, Billy Kwan, Shawn Napper, Bobby Thompson and Josh Downer, third in the boys' 100-metre relay.

Congratulations to you, your coaches, principal Dave Rogers and all your supporters at Thornbrae.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): In the last few days in this House we have witnessed some truly disturbing developments over the resignation of the Minister of Health. Even more disturbing are all of the unanswered questions surrounding this scandal.

I can only describe it as a scandal in the making because what we did not hear from the Deputy Premier the day he answered questions, yesterday, around this matter is that he did not answer who knew what when, and who got what information at what time and how far this extends. How many people have access to sensitive information that they should not have? What breach of confidentiality extends to them? How far does this reach into the Premier's office? Did the Premier and his staff know about this information having been leaked out to others who were not supposed to have this information?

These questions are serious. This matter is serious. This is a matter that every single backbencher on the government side should be keenly aware of. It's a matter that all your constituents will want to know, what in fact you've done to make certain that their sensitive health records were not in the hands of those they should not be in and what illegal acts have been performed --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lawrence, thank you very much.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): The Harris government is hurting the north yet again if the recommendations in the Crombie report are implemented. Northern unorganized communities will be consolidated into a large, district-wide, single-tier body which would ultimately create a monstrous government.

The Tories talk about creating smaller government; the Crombie report does the exact opposite. It would leave the north with a huge bureaucratic government servicing vast regions. For my riding, this would create a district stretching from the French River to beyond Chapleau. Harris is foisting big government on small towns and giving then neither option nor voice nor choice.

Constituents living in unorganized townships will experience an exorbitant increase in taxes if the districts are allowed to tax like municipalities. Crombie wants to move towards implementing a provincial land system to pay for these services, but what services are these largely remote and very small communities receiving?

The Crombie report will ultimately create an expensive, unworkable and bureaucratic north, this coming from a government that professes to want smaller and less bureaucratic government. Some advice to Mr Crombie: Go north, Mr Crombie. Go north and see for yourself.

WOMEN'S WORLD HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Yesterday, at the Hockey Hall of Fame, Don Cherry, Ron McLean, Mayor Hazel McCallion and Fran Rider of the Ontario Women's Hockey Association held a press conference to promote the Women's World Hockey Championship in Kitchener from March 31 to April 6, 1997.

Canada's national women's hockey team has won gold championships in 1990, 1992 and 1994. Women's hockey is now an Olympic sport and the world championship is a prelude to the 1998 Olympics in Japan where we'll go for the gold.

Women's hockey is the fastest-growing sport in Canada. Girls who could only watch their brothers play some 15 years ago now are often better than their brothers.

I urge all members to support women's hockey at the grass-roots or championship level. The 1997 women's world championships will be held in centres all over central and southern Ontario: Hamilton, Mississauga, London, Brampton, North York, and of course Kitchener.

Isn't it justice, finally, that 52% of our population, females, have an opportunity to play our national game, and isn't it great that Canada's women's hockey team continues to be the best in the world.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): In the wake of the so-called stepping aside of the former Minister of Health, let's be clear this doesn't end the matter. This government has shown itself over the last year and a half to be incredible bullies and not interested in the public interest.

May I remind you that the Legislature's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act specifically says that confidential information is not to be released unless there is a request by the individual who is affected, unless there are compelling circumstances affecting the health and safety of an individual and unless the specific information is collected for the purpose of creating a record available to the public. None of those circumstances existed here.

But the government decided that wasn't good enough, and so we have Bill 26, which circumvents the privacy act to give the Minister of Health incredible powers to do as he wishes, to require confidential records, to release them at will.

That isn't just a matter for the Ontario Medical Association and the individual doctor involved, and the fact that this government is trying to bully the doctors into a negotiation; it is a matter for every citizen of Ontario to be concerned about because, ladies and gentlemen, it could be your record, it could be my record, it could be our children's records that are used by this minister at will for whatever purpose he so chooses. The government must call an all-party inquiry immediately.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It has been approximately four months since the coroner's jury into three homeless deaths in Toronto released their recommendations. The members of the jury concluded that future homeless deaths can be prevented with concerted action by the government and the community in partnership.

One key recommendation calls for more affordable housing that is desperately needed. The minister has provided no commitment that he will take up the jury's recommendations. Last Thursday coalition members again went to the minister's office to deliver the same recommendations. Security blocked this peaceful group of homeless people and their advocates.

In early October I asked the minister about his plans to implement the recommendations. He apparently believes that housing has nothing to do with homelessness and passed the question to his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The government has been cutting funding for housing and community supports from the moment that it came to office in 1995, abandoning homeless children, women and men. More homeless people are dying at an alarming rate.

The coroner's jury gave the government of Ontario and other authorities six months to implement their recommendations. Two thirds of that time has passed. Homeless people are continuing to die because the government refuses to take the practical and effective steps to end homelessness in our communities.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to rise today in honour of International Human Rights Day.

On this day 48 years ago, members of the fledgling United Nations joined together in the spirit of hope and goodwill, and with a belief in the rights of all people to dignity, respect and equality, to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As Ontarians mark the signing of this historic document, we can be proud that its fundamental principles are entrenched in our own Ontario Human Rights Code. Under the code, discrimination is unequivocally against the law of Ontario.

This government believes with deep conviction that discrimination should be addressed decisively and promptly. I'm pleased to report that last May the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the body responsible for enforcing the code, moved ahead to implement the last phase of a major restructuring to improve efficiency and increase front-line support to commission clients. The government points with satisfaction to the appointment of Keith Norton as chief commissioner.

Our commitment to human rights reform is but one component of Ontario's equal opportunity plan. This government's approach to equal opportunity encourages everyone to work as partners to remove barriers to advancement. The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation recently opened Ontario's new equal opportunity website, another key component to the plan. More than 125 businesses, associations and community groups have joined with us to tap the power of the information highway to support employers and employees in making equal opportunity a reality.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. On Friday a senior aide to your Minister of Health resigned in disgrace when he was caught releasing confidential information about a doctor. Yesterday, your minister resigned over the same issue. He left this House and his ministry before we could ask him some questions. He didn't give us an accounting, and I want to take advantage of your presence here today to ask you a few questions.

Why was the minister's spokesperson collecting confidential information on doctors' billings? Under whose direction did he take this? Did the minister order the collection? What did he do when he was told about the information? Who else in his office knew? Can you clear up these questions for us?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let's be clear that what we're talking about here are allegations. While I did get a brief report yesterday morning on the situation, anything that I received in that report does not indicate anything other than an allegation of confidential information. There is no evidence that any confidential information was in the minister's office, was in the hands of Mr James. There is no evidence that anybody requested such information. The minister indicated to me that he did not and is not aware of any of that evidence or any of that information.

What we do know is this: The staff member used whatever information he had very inappropriately and unacceptably, and the minister brought that to the attention of this House and he has resigned. The minister has stepped down so we --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier, thank you.

Mr McGuinty: There is no issue whatsoever about the inappropriateness of releasing that information. Our questions are related to how that information came into his hands in the first place, and the fact of the matter is Mr James worked in the minister's office. It could hardly be said that the minister's office had no involvement in connection with this.

With each passing day in this murky affair that people are starting to call "Bullygate," it comes more obvious why only a public, all-party inquiry can find out what really happened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you don't seem to know, or maybe you know only too well, how limited an investigated by the FOI commissioner will be. His investigation will be conducted entirely in secret, with no media or public scrutiny. A legislative inquiry would take place in public. The commissioner can't subpoena or compel witnesses to testify under oath; a legislative committee can do that. No one can cross-examine a witness behind the closed doors of an FOI investigation, but a legislative inquiry would allow for this. I ask you, will you give us an all-party legislative inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all state that the only person who has called this affair the word you used is you. What I have heard is "honourable," "unprecedented," "stepped aside." Here is a minister who has done the honourable thing, contrary to the previous two governments whenever any of these issues were raised, and I might add he did so and accepted responsibility, even though there was no allegation and not a shred of evidence anywhere that the minister has done anything himself inappropriate. So let's be clear about what people are saying. They are saying "honourable."

What we have done is we have asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct a thorough and complete investigation as quickly as possible. I know the OMA asked that I do it -- I don't think that was appropriate -- on the weekend. That report, as you are very well aware, will come we hope quickly. It will come to an all-party committee of the Legislature, the Legislature itself, and I might add, you are a member of this committee. You, sir, will get the report.

Mr McGuinty: If the Premier is convinced that the minister has nothing to hide, then why not agree to the all-party legislative inquiry? Do the minister a favour. He's going to be hanging under a cloud after the result of this commissioner's inquiry. There's always going to be a lingering doubt. Do the minister a favour. Give him the opportunity to come before a legislative committee.

Let's suppose for an instant that Brett James is asked about how he got the information on the doctor, on whose instructions he was acting or who else he might have passed the information on to. Mr James, as you well know, can say, "Sorry, I have no intention whatsoever of responding to those questions." And suppose the commissioner wants to ask the deputy minister what she and her staff knew. Since every information request from the minister goes to the deputy's office on the way down and again on the way up, the deputy can just refuse to meet with him. End of story.

Premier, you've got a chance to show some leadership here. You can refer this to a legislative inquiry and we'll get to the bottom of this affair once and for all, or you can stonewall and you can sweep things under the rug and you can hide --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: I have not received any indication from any in the media who observe these things, from any member of the public, to suggest that we are stonewalling. In fact, we have received a lot of compliments on moving quickly, on moving effectively and getting to the facts and that here we have a minister who is not under any cloud at all. In fact, he is receiving a lot of congratulations, calls coming in even from doctors saying, "We can't believe that this guy is that honourable that he would take this step."

You praised the Information and Privacy Commissioner up and down and left and right during Bill 26. I believe the privacy commissioner can quickly report back more effectively and independently than I could. I have no indication that any single person, staff, political or otherwise, will not cooperate. I have asked them all to do so, and so has Rita Burak, my deputy. That will allow us to get a report back from the privacy commissioner. When the all-party committee of this Legislature receives that report, then they can do what they think is appropriate at that time.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My second question is to the Premier as well. Premier, I will try to be more specific for you then in terms of some specific requests. I know you want to get to the bottom of this, and so do we. Ministers' offices, and the OHIP office for that matter, keep track of all the paper that comes in and out. Will you release today the minister's office log of their request for OHIP records and OHIP's corresponding logs?

Hon Mr Harris: I don't know whether those records are kept. I don't know what they are. I don't know if they can be released publicly. Maybe you are aware. But I'd be happy to talk to the privacy commissioner and talk to the deputy minister, and if that information can be released, that would be fine. I have no indication that there has been any request for any of that type of information, but the privacy commissioner can look into that, if you like, as well.

Mr McGuinty: I want to assure the Premier that those records are kept in great detail. I will take the Premier's answer as being a yes and look forward to receiving those at the earliest possible opportunity.

Something further: The former minister knew there was trouble on Thursday. He didn't resign until yesterday. That allows plenty of time for the minister's office to be searched and cleaned with a fine-tooth comb. Can you guarantee --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, government members. I'd like to hear the question.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, can you guarantee to this House that none of the evidence crucial to a thorough and meaningful investigation was destroyed or tampered with in any way?

Hon Mr Harris: To the best of my knowledge, it certainly was not. That was certainly not the intention. In fact, in the brief conversation I had with the minister there was a desire to make sure that all the information was accessed quickly, publicly, that the privacy commissioner be given every opportunity, because he's very confident that that's in the public interest and it is in his interest as well. So I would suggest quite the contrary is the only evidence that I have from all the parties involved.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, one more specific question for you: Can you assure that all of the information regarding Dr Hughes and any other additional information on doctors or patients that had been stored in the minister's office has been gathered and safely stored and is secure at this time?

Hon Mr Harris: I could refer, I suppose, to the new Minister of Health, but I'm not sure he's had time at this point in time. It would certainly be our intention. But let me be clear: I am not aware that there is anything in the minister's office that has to do with billings of doctors or that has to do with patient records.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): There was last week.

Hon Mr Harris: And there is no evidence to suggest that it was there last week, either. I have no evidence of that. We will ask the privacy commissioner, who has indicated, and I think you have a copy of the letter, that he intends to go in there quickly. I would hope that he is in there today; if not today, as soon as possible, to ensure that. But I have no indication of that. I would hope that is not the case. Certainly given, if you like, the publicity around the inappropriate use of information by this member, I would be very shocked if that is not the case, but we will do everything we can to ensure that it is.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier and it concerns the legal authority of the privacy commissioner. We are told that the following laws may have been breached, and as far as we know, they are not at all within the ambit or within the legal authority of the privacy commissioner to investigate. We have been told that the Independent Health Facilities Act may have been breached, that the Public Hospitals Act may have been breached, that the Ontario health insurance plan act may have been breached. None of these are within the legal authority of the privacy commissioner to investigate.

The privacy commissioner may be a nice guy, he may be a very honourable person in terms of working under the access to information act and the privacy act, but he has no legal authority to look at whether or not these laws have been breached, to what extent they have been breached etc. That is the --

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, come to order, please. Premier

Hon Mr Harris: To the best of my knowledge, there have been no breaches of these statutes. However, if the investigation shows that there is anything more than your allegations or allegations that are out there, unfounded, unproven -- it may prove to be entirely untrue, but if there is any hint and if the privacy commissioner needs any help, I'm sure he will ask me, and we'll give him all the resources, all the help that he needs.

Mr Hampton: This goes to the core of what's going on here. We've already seen in the past few weeks that this government is quite prepared to call the police if someone raises their head in opposition to the government. If someone points out that the government has been less than forthcoming about the family support plan, it's quite prepared to call in the police.

Here, at first blush, we have the Independent Health Facilities Act, which pertains to the confidentiality of individuals' health records, not doctors' billing records; the Public Hospitals Act; the Ontario health insurance plan act. These are all very serious pieces of legislation that affect potentially every person in this province. It's quite clear, all you have to do is read the privacy commissioner's own legislation; he doesn't have legal authority to do anything. Premier, why won't you call an inquiry that would have the legal authority to look at these pieces of legislation and possible breaches of these pieces of legislation?

Hon Mr Harris: As soon as I receive a shred of evidence of any breach of any of those pieces of legislation, then we'll be happy to deal with those appropriately.

Mr Hampton: When it looks as if legislation or laws have been broken, you don't then sit down and say, "Well, we don't have evidence of this at first blush, so we're not going to go and turn our eye to see if there is evidence." If there is a prima facie possibility that these acts, these important laws, have been breached, you put in place the kind of inquiry, you put in place the kind of legal process that will get to the bottom of it. The government hasn't done that. The government has deliberately chosen the privacy commissioner, knowing that he doesn't have the authority to examine and see if any of these acts have been breached.

The whole government process here is designed not to get to the bottom of it. I put my question to the Premier again. These are very important pieces of legislation that pertain to the health records of virtually every person in this province. It seems to me we want and need and must have a process which can examine this. We're asking you for that now.

Hon Mr Harris: Our first priority is the confidentiality of health records, it's the confidentiality of medical records. We have brought in the privacy commissioner to deal with those and to deal with those quickly and to deal with those effectively.

If the privacy commissioner, who will report to this -- I mean, he can report to me tomorrow and suggest that he may need help or the police should be called in. There are all vehicles there. But I would say to you, in this game of what if, to date there's not any evidence to suggest that anybody else needs to be called in. I would ask you, if you have any evidence other than allegations, go ahead, bring it to me. We'll deal with it.

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

Mr Hampton: What we have is this: We do not have random information; we have very selective information.

The Speaker: Who are you going to?

Mr Hampton: To the Premier. The Ontario Medical Association was very clear yesterday that someone would have to go through medical files with a motive, with a purpose in mind, to select the top one, two, three, four or five billers, that that information is not available on a random basis.

I would say to the Premier that in itself is a very suspicious piece of prima facie evidence and that should tell you it is not good enough just to have a privacy commissioner who doesn't have the authority to order people to appear by means of subpoena, who doesn't have the authority to require evidence under oath, who can't investigate whether the Independent Health Facilities Act has been breached, the Public Hospitals Act has been breached, the Ontario health insurance plan has been breached.

It's obvious, Premier, that the review you've put in place here is completely inadequate. It doesn't have the legal tools. It doesn't have the legislative jurisdiction. What you're trying to do is that you're trying to limit this review. You're not interested in getting at the truth. If you were, you'd have a much broader --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the privacy commissioner will move quickly and I think when we get those facts we'll be dealing with facts instead of innuendo. Now, what I have determined so far, and has been passed on to me, does not support any of the innuendo that anybody sought any information concerning top billers, that any of that information was provided, that anybody had it. However, I think the privacy commissioner will be able to determine that very quickly and very effectively.

Secondly, you're right: He does not have the power to subpoena. What he has is his authority and has been invited in to investigate, and my word that everybody politically will comply and the secretary of cabinet's word that everybody will comply. Now, if there is any problem with any of that, I am sure I will hear about that and we'll deal with it at that time.

Mr Hampton: Let's take the Premier up on his offer here. I want to ask the Premier what steps have been taken in the past five days to ensure that documents have not been destroyed and that information pertaining to this investigation has not been altered. I want to ask the Premier, what did the Minister of Health tell you? Did he offer you any explanation how the information found its way into his office? That's what Mr James said, it's in his office, meaning the Minister of Health's office. What assurances did the former minister give you that his office and the information contained within it are secure and remain secure?

I believe you have to give us answers to those questions, Premier. Otherwise, if you can't answer those questions, what assurance do we have that any of this is going to be handled appropriately? You need to answer those questions now.

Hon Mr Harris: The person most appropriate to give those assurances is the Minister of Health. He has given those to me and I accept that.

Secondly, we have a new Minister of Health who will have to give those assurances from this day forward, and I accept that he will do that, as does the Deputy Minister of Health accept that responsibility, and I give you assurance that is the case. So everything I've heard from those responsible is that is the case. All those steps have been taken and I am satisfied from the minister and the deputy minister and everything I have heard to date that that is the case.

Mr Hampton: I did not hear in that answer at all that, first of all, the Minister of Health's office has been secured. I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that it was secured as of when this information became public last week. I didn't hear that precautions have been taken to ensure that nothing has been destroyed or nothing has been removed. I didn't hear any of that.

We're told here that we're going to have the privacy commissioner who doesn't have the legal tools to ensure that all of these things happen. We're going to have the privacy commissioner who doesn't have any capacity under the Independent Health Facilities Act, the Public Hospitals Act or the Ontario health insurance plan act. This is entirely inadequate. The Premier can't give us any assurances that the office has been secured and the privacy commissioner has no authority himself --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: I say to the Premier again, if you are really interested in getting to the bottom of this, if you are really interested in ensuring that the truth emerges, then you should have a public inquiry --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I have no evidence of any wrongdoing by any member of the political staff or the ministry staff, other than one who inappropriately used information with a reporter for which that staff member has been dismissed. So I have no evidence of that.

I have asked that question and I have been assured that in fact, from the minister's point of view and the minister's office point of view, that is the case.

If you have evidence other than that I'd be happy to consider it but there is not in the public domain today, to the best of my knowledge, any evidence of any of that. In spite of that, here is a minister who did the honourable thing, something unprecedented in this Legislature in a long time, to allow the investigation to proceed. That, I think, should be applauded.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is also to the Premier. Let us be clear. What we have here is the following: a senior political aide who had information that he ought not to have had, that quite frankly, in the post-Martel world, none of us ought ever to have had, and this senior political aide set out to attack and smear an innocent Ontario citizen who just happened to be taking issue, on policy grounds, with the government of Ontario.

My question to the Premier is this: Can you tell the House today whether or not any of your Premier's office staff had any knowledge of the information that Mr Brett James had and the purposes to which Mr Brett James intended to use that information, namely, calling Jane Coutts at the Globe and Mail? Do you or did any of your Premier's office staff have any information of that kind prior to the story breaking in the Globe late last week?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, you have made allegations that even Brett James had information he shouldn't have. We don't know that yet. That is an allegation, and we do not know that. We know he used information inappropriately. We don't know what information he had. We don't know where he got it.

I can assure you that in my office, in the Premier's office, to the best of my knowledge in the cabinet office, including so far everything I've heard, none of this information was there, sought for, asked for, nor was there any strategy.

But since we can't be positively sure, we are calling the Information and Privacy Commissioner to find out first what information was there. If it was inappropriate information, how did it get there? These are the answers we need to know, and when we find those answers out, that report will come to the Legislature and we can take whatever action is deemed appropriate.

Mr Conway: Premier, I sat on the Martel inquiry. In fact, I have in my hands the specific testimony given to the legislative committee on February 10, 1992, by the then general manager of OHIP, Dr Robert MacMillan. Dr MacMillan detailed the elaborate protocol surrounding how this kind of confidential doctors' billing information might be made available to a minister's office.

Having sat through that inquiry, having Dr MacMillan's sworn testimony, I can say without any fear of contradiction that the information Brett James had last week was information that no political aide ought to have, and I can certainly tell you that the purposes for which he intended it, namely, an unprovoked attack on a Peterborough doctor, was clearly out of order.

My question to you, Premier, is: Will you tell the House today at precisely what time in the last week you were made aware of the Brett James-Jim Wilson-Dr Hughes affair and by whom you were so advised?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to answer the question. First of all, let a couple of things be said here.

You are assuming and implying something we don't know yet. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will help us answer that, I believe, and then we can all know. But I am telling you that we know this: A member of the minister's staff used information unacceptably, inappropriately, without direction and knowledge of the minister, and for that his resignation has been sought and is there.

Mr Conway: Information that he shouldn't have had and that he could only have had because Jim Wilson asked for it or somebody higher asked for it.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, what we do know is that a member of Mr Wilson's staff acted inappropriately, obviously without the authority of the minister, without the knowledge of the minister, and he was dismissed. I'm quite satisfied with that.

What we do need to know is: What actual information did Mr James have? Who else had it if it was inappropriate? How did they get it if it was inappropriate information? I believe the conflict commissioner is the right one to get in there quickly and give us that information.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Conflict commissioner?

Hon Mr Harris: Sorry. The privacy commissioner is the right one to get in there quickly and tell us that.

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

Mr Hampton: I want to read the letter that went from the secretary of cabinet to Mr Wright, the privacy commissioner, to show you how narrow this review is. It says in the third paragraph, "Your reports and comments have assisted the ministry's understanding and compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

The Speaker: I need to know who the question is to.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier.

This is only concerned with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. But, Premier, the Health Insurance Act has been breached; we believe the Independent Health Facilities Act and the Public Hospitals Act, all of these laws and their statutory guidelines have been breached, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner has no legal authority to conduct any investigation of this.

If you really want to get at the heart, the substance of this, if you want to ensure the integrity of the Health Insurance Act, if you want to ensure the integrity of the disclosure of personal information under the Health Insurance Act, the privacy commissioner doesn't have any legal authority to do it.

I ask you again, what we need here is an inquiry under the Health Insurance Act which will have the legal authority that is necessary. The privacy commissioner doesn't have it and it's clear by your letter of referral that --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: The privacy commissioner has the authority to go in, to investigate, to interview and to arrive at the facts. What you, sir, are suggesting are not facts.

Mr Hampton: I'll say it again. The letter that was sent by the secretary of cabinet to the privacy commissioner, all it says is, "understanding and compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." By your own letter of referral you have limited this investigation. It says nothing about the Independent Health Facilities Act, nothing about the Public Hospitals Act, nothing about the Ontario health insurance plan act. By your own letter of referral you have limited this. By the fact that the privacy commissioner doesn't have the power to subpoena, doesn't have the power to take evidence under oath, you have limited this.

Premier, I ask you, are you interested in getting to the bottom of this? In which case we need an inquiry under the Ontario health insurance plan act which can look at how that act has been breached. If you're interested in getting to the truth, it seems to me that's what we need. If you're interested in limiting this, then we're left with the privacy commissioner.

I ask you again, Premier, are you interested in getting to the bottom of this? If you are, you should appoint an inquiry under the Ontario health insurance plan act since that's where the breach of the law is occurring.

Hon Mr Harris: I have every confidence that the privacy commissioner will in fact get to the facts. If in getting to those facts there is any hint, any suspicion by the privacy commissioner that any acts you mentioned have been breached, then we can deal with that. To date, I have not a shred of evidence that any of those acts have been breached.

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Labour. About six months ago I asked the minister to bring me an update on the POWA program, the program for older worker adjustment. I have many constituents in my riding who have been waiting for something to be done. We asked the government before, both the minister and I, and now that we're the government, I would like something done about it, because I have some constituents who have been waiting five years. As I say, we asked about six months ago and really nothing's been done since. I would like the minister to bring us an update of what is going on with that program.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I appreciate the genuine concern the member has expressed. He does have many people within his riding who have been waiting.

I just want to remind the member that this is a program for older workers that is funded 70% by the federal government, 30% by the province. Unfortunately when we took office there was a tremendous backlog, and we committed to double funding for the program from $2 million to $4 million. However, we still have a backlog and we're trying to deal with that. What has happened in the meantime is that the federal government notified us that it will be getting out of the program as of March 31, 1997. So now we need to deal with that backlog as a result.

Mr Murdoch: I understand it's a joint federal and provincial program, but what's happening in my riding is that the federal government keeps blaming us. They say we're not coming across with our money. I realize also that they've said they're going to get out of this, so then what are we going to do about it? The bottom line is I have constituents who have expected something and, as I say, some of them have been waiting for five years for this program. What are we going to do about it? It still falls back on us or my constituents, so I'd like to know what's going to happen.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have been equally as frustrated as your constituents. When the announcement was made by the federal government we asked them to work with us in order that we could eliminate the backlog and provide the appropriate money for the people still owed money. However, I want to tell you that we have not received a response, so on November 21, 1996, I wrote a letter to the minister. We had been making phone calls. I have asked for a time to be set up as to when we can communicate and determine a strategy to deal with the money still owed to the older workers.

I have to tell you that as of today we still have absolutely no commitment from the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew that indeed they're willing to meet with us on this issue. So I certainly share your frustration and I can tell you that we have repeatedly tried to communicate and resolve the situation.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. I want to focus on the conversation you had with the former Minister of Health, and I will just refresh our memory. His right-hand person did something that you yourself say was totally inappropriate: He divulged confidential information about one of the citizens of Ontario designed to threaten that individual.

The former Minister of Health must have launched an immediate investigation. I think the public would have expected, Premier -- you're responsible, it's your minister, your standards, your the person who's in charge -- that the first question you would have asked the minister is: Where in the world did Mr James get that information and does anyone else in the ministry have that information? I'm sure you asked that question, Premier. What did the former Minister of Health tell you when you asked him that question during that conversation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It's not entirely clear what information Mr James had. It's not entirely clear whether that information was even inappropriate. What is very clear is that what information he had, he used in a very inappropriate way, an unacceptable way to the government and unacceptable to the minister. So that situation was dealt with.

In my brief conversation with the minister, we agreed that the best way to get to the bottom of this was not to have the minister do it, which is the way former governments might have done it; not to have the Premier do it, which may have been the way former governments tried to do it; but that the best way was to get somebody independent in there as quickly as possible who could give some confidence or give the answers with regard to privacy of information, which is what we're concerned about with health records. For that reason, he opted to step down, which I think was a very honourable thing to do, and we agreed that the privacy commissioner could get in there the quickest and the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Premier.

Mr Phillips: Premier, you look strange on this. I think the people of Ontario have a right to expect you, the person who appointed that minister -- and I gather this information was available to this individual and that may not be all of the information he had to smear people; the information may very well be still in the minister's office, distributed to many people.

I would have thought the first question you would have asked and the assurances you would have got as the Premier responsible to the people of Ontario would have been those two questions: How did this individual get this information, and how can I assure the people of Ontario there aren't others in your office using the same information to smear people?

You should have asked that question, you should have had an answer, and you should give us that answer right now. The privacy commissioner certainly can look at it, but you deserve to tell the people of Ontario the answer to that question: What did the Minister of Health tell you when you had to have asked him that question about how he got that information, and, Premier, can you assure the people of Ontario that this was the only individual who had that information? As Premier, you surely owe us that answer.

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure you of this: The minister indicated he did not have any information that was inappropriate, nor did he authorize any use of any information, appropriate or otherwise, in the way it was used. He gave me that assurance. To the best of his knowledge, he indicated, nobody else in his office did either. I accepted that from the minister.

I accepted as well that the best way to find out whether there was anybody else who had this information and whether the information was inappropriate was not for me to ask the question or for him to ask the question, but for us to both remove ourselves from that -- he by stepping down as minister -- and to appoint and give authorization to the privacy commissioner to go in and ask those questions.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, that just is not believable. Surely as the first minister it is your responsibility -- the ministers report to you, as do the deputy ministers -- to find out how Mr James got the information and what involvement the previous minister had in the obtaining of that information.

We've had discussion here today about the testimony before the committee, which says that access to confidential information may be permitted only where there is an official need to know. That's from the sworn testimony before a committee of this House. Official needs to know must come from the minister and from the deputy minister. It is your responsibility as Premier to find out who asked for the information, how it got into Mr James's hands, and who he was authorized to give it to. What did you ask your previous minister and what did he tell you about that?

Hon Mr Harris: You raise an excellent point. It is my responsibility. In order to ensure the integrity of the process, instead of me investigating myself, I removed myself from that and went and sought the privacy commissioner to go in. I thought the privacy commissioner would be considered by you and by the public as more impartial than I might be about my good friend whom I appointed as minister and have a great deal of confidence in, Jim Wilson. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you would have accepted my word over the privacy commissioner's.

I doubt that, which is why, to get to the bottom of this and to seek the information that is in fact my responsibility, I did something perhaps different than your Premier did, or the Liberal Premier: I went immediately and removed myself; the minister removed himself. We went to the privacy commissioner to get the information.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for London North, come to order, please.

Mr Wildman: Premier, that's not acceptable. The buck stops with you. You are the one who is ultimately responsible. You appoint the ministers; you appoint the deputies. It is clear that this information could not have been in Mr James's hands unless it was authorized by someone other than himself, someone in a position of responsibility. You are the person who is responsible. You are the person for determining who has access to this information by the very fact that you appoint the two senior officials: the minister and the deputy minister. The buck stops with you.

It is inconceivable that you did not ask your previous minister if he authorized that this information be made available to the minister's office, and if you didn't ask that question, then you are shirking your own responsibility. Why is it you didn't ask that question and why didn't you get it?

Hon Mr Harris: I did not ask the question because before I could ask it, the minister assured me that was not the case. So I need not have asked the question. I have indicated to you that the minister is not aware of anything, any knowledge; he didn't request any information and he is not in the possession of any information.

I want to say to all of you that you are assuming even that Mr James had confidential information that he shouldn't have had. We do not know that at this point in time.

Mr Wildman: Why didn't you ask?

Hon Mr Harris: I could have asked, and if you would like me to stop all inquiries by independent third parties, if you would like me to ask the conflict commissioner to step aside, let me do it. I'd like to hear you say that. But I felt the conflict commissioner was the fastest independent way to go and ask those questions, and then we can deal here with facts, facts that none of you have and I don't have either.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, come to order, please.

FLU AND PNEUMOCOCCAL IMMUNIZATION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. More than 20% of the population of the riding of Perth is over 65 years of age. Their concerns are very important to me and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them.

As a government, we can take great pride in the Minister of Health's announcement earlier this year of a vaccine program to combat pneumococcal pneumonia, the most common type of pneumonia to hit seniors. I'm concerned, however, by an

article in yesterday's Toronto Star, which said the central stocks of the vaccine have run out. Could the minister please assure the House that this important initiative is proceeding and the needs of seniors are not being neglected, as they have been by former governments.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member for his question and assure all Ontario seniors that despite a worldwide shortage of this vaccine, this government is proud that it has met its first-year commitment and it has purchased vaccines for 400,000 Ontarians. The doses have been purchased. We are now preparing to purchase half a million doses in each of the next two years. We are buying as much of this vaccine as can be produced at the time, and we are going to proceed and we are on track with our program as we announced it.

We are pleased that the government of Ontario is taking the national leadership in immunization and health promotion by investing into this program $20 million for the pneumococcal program, $4.5 million for the measles program and our hepatitis B immunization program.

Mr Bert Johnson: It is apparent that the minister is well aware of the problem, and it's good to know that this program is going to continue. However, given the relatively short supply of the vaccine, I was wondering if the minister could tell us what is being done to ensure that those seniors most in need of the vaccine get it first.

Hon Mr Jackson: Those members who read the

article in the paper will know that these are being given on a priority basis to persons in long-term-care facilities and chronic care hospitals, that we are then going to have about 80,000 to 90,000 Ontarians who turn 65 each year who will be first in line.

But I must remind members that this is one of the most massive immunization programs undertaken on the continent and that we are the first government in all of Canada that has included this program in its drug benefit plan. I want to remind members that 1.4 million Ontarians will be inoculated, and frankly, in 1993, under the old way of doing business in health care, only 2,080 Ontario residents were immunized under the NDP program. Under the leadership of our Minister of Health, the member for Simcoe West, we are leading the continent in immunizing its citizens, and that's good news for 1.4 million Ontarians.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. In light of everything that we have heard in the last couple of days, can you advise this House whether or not you or any other member of the cabinet has authorized a police investigation to determine whether or not either the invasion of privacy provisions or the breach of trust provisions in the Criminal Code have been violated in this case, and if not, why not?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, I know I haven't, and I don't think anybody has called in the OPP to launch that investigation, and I don't have any evidence to suggest that's necessary.

Mr Gerretsen: You may want to take a look at that, Premier, because there are two sections that deal specifically with a situation like this.

I'd like to come back in my supplementary to the commissioner you've asked to investigate this matter. According to

section 59 of the act, the commissioner may only do about five things, and that is to comment on proposed legislation, order an institution to cease getting certain kinds of information, do research with respect to particular matters, hold educational programs and receive public representations. There's absolutely nothing in the act, sir, that specifically authorizes him to investigate this kind of an alleged violation. Why did you ask this commissioner to do this, and why don't you allow an all-party committee of this Legislature to look at this matter in its entirety so that we can have a complete look at the entire situation?

Hon Mr Harris: Because to this point in time, there is absolutely nothing to refer to an all-party committee. There have been a few allegations. There's been inappropriate behaviour by a staff member, who has been dismissed. However, because we're not sure of what information, whether it was appropriate, who had it and how it got there, the first thing we have to determine is, was this information inappropriate? The privacy commissioner can tell us that. How was it obtained? Was there a breach of the privacy guidelines that he's there to advise on? He can tell us that. When he reports those facts back to me and to the Legislature, then we can decide what action is appropriate from there.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, you keep trying to miss the point. The point is that it is illegal for someone to even possess this information. That much has been settled around this Legislature and the law of Ontario for at least the last five years. It's illegal for someone -- the minister, anyone on the minister's staff -- to possess this information. That's the issue here.

The fact of the matter is, you keep referring to the privacy commissioner, but you have limited the privacy commissioner by your own letter. You're limiting the privacy commissioner to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's not the issue here. The issue here is that under the Ontario health insurance plan act, there is a host of laws and rules that are supposed to be observed. They have nothing to do with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Hampton: What we're asking you for is an inquiry to get at the real issue, the fact that the Ontario health insurance plan act as a law was not obeyed. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has nothing to do with that. That's why --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I would suggest to you, with a great deal of respect, you are making allegations that have no foundation. But the privacy commissioner will be able to tell us whether there is any foundation, whether there is any information that was inappropriate, who had it and who did not. I can assure you, and I've assured all members, that I do not have that information; my staff does not; the minister does not; to the best of his knowledge, the minister's staff does not. The privacy commissioner will be able to tell us that, and then we can deal with appropriate action from there.

Mr Hampton: Here's the conundrum. We've asked the Premier today to come forth with information. We've asked the Premier to tell us whether the office was secure. We've asked the Premier what questions he asked of the Minister of Health. We've asked what questions were asked of Mr James. None of that information comes out here.

The privacy commissioner now, who has a narrow jurisdiction, the information and privacy act only, who has no jurisdiction under the Ontario health insurance plan act -- can't subpoena evidence, can't get evidence under oath, doesn't even have the crime scene, the office of the Minister of Health, secured -- is somehow going to come in and clear this up.

Premier, what you're doing is the equivalent of sending a parking bylaw officer to investigate a hit-and-run. That's the equivalency here. He has none of the legal tools, none of the legal authority. He doesn't have

an act to investigate under. If you're interested in securing the health information of the people of Ontario --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I have answered all the questions. I've indicated the minister has gone above and beyond the call of what any honourable member would do -- set precedents, I might add, in Ontario and in politics in this province, by stepping down and allowing this investigation. I have gone above and beyond to say I will have the privacy commissioner gather the evidence.

You asked about being secure. The member's office is secure. The minister's office is secure. I have been assured by the now minister that all the procedures have been followed in securing the information so the privacy commissioner can get in there according to all the procedures that should be followed, and they've been secure all this week, I can assure you of that. I can't tell you the precise second, but if you'd like to know the precise second, we'll ask the privacy commissioner to give us that information too.

FRAUDULENT CHARITIES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Several constituents of mine in Scarborough Centre have written to me expressing concern about true charitable solicitation from legitimate organizations and many of the telephone charity scams that are currently going on. I recently read that an organization in York region is being investigated by the public trustee's office for this very reason. With the holiday season here and the spirit of giving paramount, my constituents want to know how to ensure they are donating to a true charity.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. Actually, it's too bad that Mr Rick Short and his grade 10 history class from Leaside High School, constituents of the honourable member for York East, are no longer here, but it's very timely up to the holidays right now.

It's not uncommon during this season to have a variety of solicitations from various charitable organizations or seeming organizations either by phone or in person. My ministry has been very proactive in getting information out to the consumers so they can make informed choices. We remind people to check these organizations very carefully and ask questions about who benefits out of the charity and what percentage goes to charity.

Legitimate charities are very pleased to answer questions with respect to the funding. We also remind people to be very cautious if they're approached for a donation over the phone and never, never give out your credit card over the phone unless you're positive you know who you're dealing with.

Mr Newman: I'd be happy to share this information with my constituents. I'm sure they would also like to know what to do when they discover that they are being scammed or someone is attempting to swindle them. If they've been scammed or suspect that they have been scammed, is there somewhere they can report this information?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I thank, once again, the member for Scarborough Centre. Phonebusters and the enormous success this organization is having is rooting out this type of telemarketing scam. They have had quite an experience where they've reduced this type of a scam in Ontario by about 40%. This is a cooperative effort in connection with Industry Canada, the RCMP, the OPP and certainly our ministry, and we have had a number of convictions and successes.

Project Phonebusters has been recognized this month for its excellence and success by receiving an Amethyst Award. Anyone who suspects they are being scammed should contact Project Phonebusters. If they would like to, the number is (705) 495-8501. It is very important during this season for us to continue this initiative.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Premier. Several times this afternoon, in various responses to questions that have been placed to you, you've said really the question is still to be decided as to whether it's appropriate or not for this particular assistant to have had this information in the first place.

Simply, I'll just ask you, Premier, do you think it's appropriate for a minister's political staff in your government to have sensitive, private information on citizens' income, especially doctors who bill your government for that income?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It is totally inappropriate, I believe, for a minister's staff to have confidential billing information that is contrary to any act of the Legislature. That's why we're investigating to see if any of the staff, including the one who has resigned, possibly did have any of that kind of information.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Motions? Point of order, the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I know that you will be required to make a ruling on a very important issue around the standing orders later today, and I wanted to put forward some considerable concern that we have so that you will be able to use that information in consideration of your ruling and whether or not the motion that is going to be put --

The Speaker: The member for Algoma, pardon me for a moment, please. I appreciate the fact that you're standing on this point of order. It seems to me it's a point of order for a potential motion that's coming.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The motion has been tabled.

The Speaker: Oh, I see. It has been tabled. Pardon me.

The member for Algoma, at the time the motion is on the order paper, but as I've just been informed, it could be on the order paper for months. There's nothing that says this has been called.

I say to the member for Algoma, I'm not saying I won't hear your point of order. What I'm saying to the member is, there's an appropriate time to hear your point of order, and I think it's at the time it's called. When the government House leader calls the motion, that's when I'll hear the points of order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This is quite a concern I think, and it was something I've mentioned in earlier speeches. It relates to the fact that subscribers to Hansard will no longer be able to receive Hansard from this House. What members of this House say will no longer be available by subscription to people in this province. You will now have to own a computer and be on the Internet to be able to obtain this information. You, as Speaker, may have some interest in this. I'm sorry I didn't raise it yesterday, because I did notice this.

I got a notice and it says, "In the interim, Publications Ontario will renew existing subscriptions only until December 31, 1996, and will therefore continue to provide uninterrupted subscription service to December 21, 1996. The existing rate of $68 plus tax will apply" --

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, let me just say quickly to you before you go on much longer, that particular decision was made by the Board of Internal Economy. Your party has a representative on the Board of Internal Economy, and I suppose the place to bring that particular issue to bear would have been at the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr Bradley: I agree with your ruling on that, Mr Speaker, in a general sense. It's just that it's rather urgent at this time. When I look at this, it's very urgent, and the reason I have a bit of a problem --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: No, I know the government thinks I'm trying to cause a problem, but I didn't mention this the other day. The problem is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. The member for St Catharines is now getting to the problem. What is the problem?

Mr Bradley: I'm wondering if the direction to the Legislative Assembly services was a general direction and not a specific direction and if they have not taken some action that in fact was not authorized by the Board of Internal Economy.

The Speaker: I give my undertaking to the member for St Catharines that I will investigate that vociferously and get back to him at my earliest --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can I ask the House just to come to order. The member for Wellington and others, I know there are conversations. If you're going to have conversations, please go outside. I'm having difficulty hearing the points of order.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your guidance on this. I understand the suggestion that you made to the member for Algoma and our House leader that it might be more appropriate to bring up the point of order at the time that the order paper item is called.

Here's just the dilemma, and perhaps you could give us your advice: To put you on notice and members of the House on notice that at that point in time when the order paper item, the motion with respect to extending sittings and calling the House back early, is put to the House, we will be making arguments that there are items out of order with respect to that motion, some considerable arguments, and at that point in time we would hope that you would actually give consideration to them.

The reason we were going to make the arguments now is so that you could have some time to give consideration to that before the item is called, so that we don't delay the debate if the debate is going to proceed and if it is ruled in order. That's why we were suggesting it. If there is another way of handling it or if we certainly have some undertaking that at that point in time you will give due consideration to the arguments, then fine.

The Speaker: Yes. As a matter of fact, that is the order of business, and at the time, if you stand on a point of order, I will give due consideration to the arguments at that time. I give you my undertaking as well.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the new Minister of Health:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two acute care Sudbury hospitals; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by approximately 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the new Minister of Health to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals."

I have affixed my signature to this petition, as I agree with it -- another 1,014 names, which brings it to 20,304 who have signed this petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the UFCW to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 55 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 175 who are employed at the Bancroft IGA have been on strike since October 21, 1996, in an attempt to gain a fair and just collective agreement; and

"Whereas the employer has been found in violation of nine separate provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and has failed to comply with the Ontario Labour Relations Board directives; and

"Whereas UFCW Local 175 has filed a contempt-of-court motion with the Ontario Court of Justice in order to enforce compliance with the orders of the OLRB; and

"Whereas the employer, who is also the immediate past chairman of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, has instituted the use of replacement workers; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario is witnessing growing labour unrest as a result of actions such as have been taken by the owner of the Bancroft IGA, in particular with the use of replacement workers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to restore the ban on replacement workers and bring forth labour legislation that restores a fair and equitable balance between labour and management, which was contained in the previous NDP government's Bill 40."

On behalf of our caucus I add my name to theirs.

VIOLENCE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I have a petition to the government of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, note that the movie Crash now being shown at theatres in Durham region contains material which contravenes the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to the depiction of obscene material. The explicit and gratuitous scenes of violence, linked with sexuality, are dangerous influences to susceptible persons and violate our community standards;

"We therefore request that you enforce the law by refusing to allow this motion picture to be shown in our community."

It's signed by various constituents in Oshawa and Whitby.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have a petition from the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and St Francis Xavier Catholic High School in Hammond.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the right of Catholic ratepayers to govern Catholic education in Ontario is protected in the British North America Act (1867) and the Constitution Act (1982); and

"Whereas the Minister of Education and Training is reviewing and considering a number of reforms to the education system in Ontario; and

"Whereas a number of these proposed reforms would have a serious negative impact on Catholic education;

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

"We strongly urge that the Minister of Education and Training be requested to reaffirm the government's commitment to the maintenance of Roman Catholic denominational rights ensuring that any reforms will not lessen or abrogate any such rights;

"And further, that the minister enter into realistic and meaningful consultation with all education stakeholders that will lead to positive change for students."

I've added my signature to the petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris and John Snobelen promised no cuts to classroom education, and since their election, the Harris government has cut more than $430 million from school board budgets, representing a cut of nearly $1 billion to public education on an annualized basis; and

"Whereas our children have already lost 50% of their special education funding, they've lost their librarians and in some areas their junior kindergartens. Many of them have no music programs left in their schools. Their class sizes have increased enormously. Some are in danger of losing their buses; and

"Whereas parents across Ontario know that most of the changes in education are being made just to cut $1 billion so the government can help fund its tax cut; and

"Whereas parents know these cuts are affecting the classrooms and quality of education for their children; and

"Whereas parents know that they have not been consulted;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris stop these cuts to our children's education and their future."

This is signed by 20 constituents in the riding of Sudbury East. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed it as well.

NATIVE FISHING

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Bruce.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government's objective for fisheries on Lake Huron is to manage the aquatic resources of Lake Huron to ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy ecosystem; and

"Whereas the attainment of this objective is based on the preservation and restoration of habitat and the control of exploitation of fish populations; and

"Whereas dedicated conservationists and the Ministry of Natural Resources have worked hard for many decades towards the achievement of this goal; and

"Whereas the fishery on Lake Huron rebounded from the demise that occurred several decades ago to a relatively health fishery, producing millions of dollars annually to the Ontario economy; and

"Whereas the rehabilitation and management of this important fishery is in jeopardy due to the uncontrolled aboriginal commercial fishing; and

"Whereas negotiations to resolve this issue have been largely ineffective;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government immediately resolve the fisheries management crisis on Lake Huron and ensure conservation of the fisheries."

I've affixed my name to the top.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): 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 affix my signature.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sultan Industrial Road is the most important and widely used transportation link for our community and people from both within and outside our community use the road; and

"Whereas the Sultan Industrial Road is very poorly maintained, which makes it extremely dangerous to use at any time of the year;

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

"That the Harris government immediately upgrade the Sultan Industrial Road to provincial standards."

I support the petition and I have signed my name to it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition that was signed by 27 parents and students. It was delivered, along with 62 letters, to the Premier and the Minister of Education and Training. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the government of Ontario's cutbacks to public education."

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition from a good number of my constituents in places like Summer Beaver, Kingfisher Lake, Muskrat Dam Lake, Sioux Lookout, Lac Seul, Wunnummin Lake and Big Trout Lake and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVOntario's distribution system."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the members of CUPE Local 1287 in the Niagara region that was forwarded to me by Brian Hodgkins. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I add my name to theirs.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have 500 more names to add to petitions for the Barrhaven high schools. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Barrhaven lacks any high schools to educate the large number of students living in this area;

"Whereas Barrhaven is the most rapidly growing community in Ottawa-Carleton;

"Whereas the National Capital Commission's greenbelt severs the community of Barrhaven from Nepean, forcing students to be bused in their community, wasting both time and money;

"Whereas St Pius X and St Paul's high schools in Nepean have 36 portables onsite;

"Whereas the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board has undertaken significant cost-saving measures to help reduce the construction costs of its high schools;

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

"We strongly urge the Minister of Education to recognize the urgent need for a Catholic high school in Barrhaven and provide the funding required to build our school."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and only after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I affix my name to it as I agree with it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Petitions? The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, I believe the government needs time to consider its orders of the day, and I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Beaches-Woodbine has moved adjournment of the House. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1507 to 1537.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has moved adjournment of the House.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28, the nays are 58.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Petitions? The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the concern over what we're going to be doing today, I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: No, we're in petitions, and you can't move adjournment of the House on a point of order.

The member for Hamilton Mountain.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I move that we now proceed to orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton Mountain has moved that we proceed to orders of the day. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1539 to 1609.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain has moved the motion that we proceed to orders of the day.

Will those in favour please rise and remain standing.

Those opposed please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51, the nays are 25.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, government notice of motion number 13.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The new Bill 26.

Hon David Johnson: Give me a break. This is the kind of motion we've had many, many times, and this is a motion that I heard the opposition parties clapping for.

The motion is that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, December 16, 1996, until Thursday, December 19, 1996, and that when the House adjourns on Thursday, December 19, 1996, it stand adjourned until Monday, January 13, 1997, which date commences the spring sessional period.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I rise on a point of order because I'm asking you to rule on whether or not this motion contravenes the rules of this House. If you will allow me, I will explain the reasons for that view and ask you to determine whether or not you believe the motion is admissible.

First, I want to make clear, as an aside, that our caucus, and I'm sure all members of the House, are not opposed to sitting next week, nor are we opposed to meeting in January, because obviously, as opposition members, we wish to have more question periods. But the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is obviously going to be a point of order of some interest to all members. It would be very helpful if the heckling were kept down -- I'd like to hear it -- and we can get through it as quickly as we can.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. I know I don't have to remind you of your obligation to protect the rights of the minority in this House. I refer you to Hansard of June 25, 1992, in which the member for Etobicoke West, with whom you are quite familiar, stated:

"I suppose one day, the way these rules are going, we may well end up that way, because as we tighten the noose around opposition members and we tighten the noose around government backbenchers to the point that they have fewer and fewer rights and privileges and they have less capacity to represent the people who elected them, they'll eventually become obsolete and all we'll have is three leaders, a big hall, a lot of bureaucrats and no idle conversation when they're talking."

The reason I rise on this point of order is that we have the motion put forward dealing with rule 68, which clearly states that the government cannot introduce in the last eight sessional days new bills for debate. For that reason, I believe this motion more properly should be split into two motions: one motion dealing with the extension of the session next week for one more week, four more sessional days prior to Christmas, and a second motion dealing with what the government wants to have in terms of a session in January. The way the motion is now stated is a clear attempt to circumvent the rule.

Obviously it is consistent with many precedents and with the history of this House for the government from time to time to move motions to extend the sitting of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In my 21 years in the House I've seen many governments do just that. But this motion is significantly different, because in the second part of the motion the government determines that spring will start early -- very early. In the Legislature, spring will start on January 13, the government has decided.

The reason the government has moved this motion as it is worded is so they can get around the rule, because unlike the statement made by the Premier last week when he said he wanted the government to have the House sit in January so that the Legislative Assembly could deal with restructuring of municipal governance, restructuring perhaps of educational governance in the province -- despite that, the government, as its motion is put forward, is not talking about an extension of the House but rather a spring session beginning in January.

Interjection: Brand-new.

Mr Wildman: A new session. I remind you that we specifically dealt with the issue of introduction of new legislation in the last part of the session in rule changes that were debated in this House and were debated at great length just prior to the passage of those rules. The then third party House leader, the MPP for Parry Sound, spoke in favour of tightening the rules of the House re the passing of bills introduced very late in the scheduled sitting. He expressed satisfaction that the proposed rule changes would produce a restriction on second and third reading of bills introduced late in the session.

It's important to consider that in that debate, the member for Parry Sound, a very experienced legislator, a member of the House who was involved in discussions around rule changes and who has acted as House leader on both sides of the House, said that this rule, as was being proposed and was subsequently passed, applied not just to the last eight days of the normal session, but that the rule continues even if the session is extended.

He said that he believed we had "closed a loophole in the standing order." In other words, he understood clearly what the purpose of the rule change was, that a government could not pile up legislation at the end of the session and then simply extend the session and debate new bills.

What we have here is one motion dealing with what we know it to be, an extension of this Legislature. If that's what it really is, then the rule applies, and the only reason this motion is worded as it is is to try and get around that rule and to circumvent that rule. Bills have to be introduced prior to the last eight sessional days even if a sitting is extended. The government cannot get around that rule and must not be allowed to introduce this motion as it is worded in order to circumvent the rule.

Prior to that debate, the member for Parry Sound, who was the House leader for the third party at the time, said, "I don't think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion, `If I can just get past June 25'" -- or in this case December 12 -- "`and have the House come back on June 29'" -- or December 16 -- "`then I can introduce 1,027 pieces of legislation and I'm entitled to get them passed next week because I've found a technical way to breach the rules.' I know that would be the technical argument the government House leader might use, but I would strongly urge you to consider, Mr Speaker, the thinking and the rationale that went into and the intent behind rule 66 in the first place." It was rule 66 at that time.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Who are you quoting here again?

Mr Wildman: This is the member for Parry Sound, the former government House leader and the third party House leader at the time. He said, "Surely if the government has ordered its agenda in a proper fashion, it will have no problem at least having first reading of any bill it intends to pass"; that is, prior to the last eight sessional days. "I can see it, as it finds itself now, not being able to get its legislation passed and therefore extending the sitting of the House. But I don't think that should allow it to abrogate the spirit and intent of rule 66." Now of course it's rule 68.

Those were the words of the current Deputy Premier, who was very critical of an attempt by our government to extend the session to deal with new pieces of legislation and was calling for changes in the rules which would prevent it. Now his own government has devised a stratagem for circumventing the very rule he was defending. For that reason I believe, in line with the words of the member for Parry Sound, this motion should be split into two at the very least. I believe that unless we do that, the government is making a mockery of the rules. It's attempting to relieve itself of the responsibilities it has under standing order 68(b).

I remind you, Speaker, that standing order 68(

b) represents a very particular protection for the opposition, for the minority in this House. The order reads as follows: "When the meetings of the House as provided for in...standing order 6(a)(ii) are extended by motion of the House beyond the fourth Thursday in June and the second Thursday in December, no government...bill introduced during the last eight sessional days in June, the last eight sessional days in December or in the extension period shall be called for second reading in the extended period."

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Pretty clear.

Mr Wildman: The rule is indeed very crystal-clear. You can extend the House -- it's certainly within the precedents of the assembly for the government to move a motion to extend the sittings -- but within the time of that extension the government cannot require or request discussion, debate on second reading and third reading, of new legislation either in the eight sessional days at the end or in the extended period.

It's clear that in the first part of this motion we're looking at an extension to December 19, and during that period the government understands, I think, that new pieces of legislation cannot be debated at second reading or third reading. The government can introduce for first reading, but it can't debate second or third reading. In the second part of this motion, the government is saying they're hoping for a January thaw, I guess, that spring starts in January. This isn't an extension of this session, of the fall session. It's going to be a new session, a spring session, despite the fact that the rules are clear as to when the spring session commences under the calendar.

In fact what this government is attempting to allow by moving this motion is to do exactly what the member for Parry Sound said no government should do, that is, to stockpile contentious pieces of legislation until the very end of the session, to bring them in without proper notice for the opposition and without allowing proper time for debate or public consultation right at the end of the session, and then to try and get them through.

Because the government understands that the rule says they can't do it that way any more, they've changed the rule. This motion changes the rule for this instance. The Tory government is doing exactly what other governments in the past have been criticized for by the opposition, and the rule was changed to protect the rights of the opposition and the minority in this House.

In fact, they've discovered the very loophole that the member for Parry Sound thought they had closed. They've called a January session. The January sitting is going to begin the spring session. The Premier can't be fooling anybody. Everybody understands that.

I know the government House leader doesn't like to hear this, but I have just a couple of other comments to make and I'll sit down.

First, I'd like to refer also to rule 42(c), because I believe that, in passing, this motion also contravenes that rule. That rule, as you know, provides for the distribution of opposition days, in effect. It says there will be five opposition days for motions in any scheduled sitting, that is, there will be five opposition days in about a three-month period. But the way this motion is worded, if it is allowed to proceed, the government could call -- I suppose they could call any session an eight-month session in each year.

They could call it the spring session or the fall session, whichever they happened to designate it, despite the calendar, and tell the opposition that the opposition is only allowed five days for opposition day motions in an eight-month period, again abrogating the rights of the minority in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Kitchener and Oakwood, please come to order.

Mr Wildman: For that reason, Speaker, I wish you to consider very seriously, first, whether this motion is admissible, whether it is within the orders of the House or whether it contravenes those orders, the specific ones I've referred to and that I've quoted the member for Parry Sound in dealing with.

Second, if you deem the first part to be admissible, whether or not the motion should be split and dealt with as two separate motions, so that we can deal with the extension of the House for four more sessional days prior to the Christmas break in one motion and deal in a second motion with what the government wants to designate as the spring session.

I point this out because there are other options for the government. There are other ways the government could deal with having a session in January. They could of course prorogue the House and call a new session. A second option is that they could simply ask you, Speaker, to call the House back because matters of public business have to be done.

Mr Conway: Urgent and pressing necessity.

Mr Wildman: Yes, that was the term that used to be used.

They have those other options. They don't have to use this strategy which is so obvious. It is so transparent that the government is trying to contravene the rules of the House. And it's not because they haven't been able to get things through. The two very important pieces of legislation the Premier has said he wants dealt with in this extended session haven't even been introduced yet. We haven't seen them yet. So here we are in the last part of the session and we haven't got any legislation that the Premier has said he wants debated.

They haven't even introduced them for first reading: municipal restructuring and the educational governance legislation, which comes out of the Who Does What panel.

I recall that it was the Premier himself who said that's why we had to have a session in January, not because of what's on the order paper now, but because we had to deal with what comes out of the Crombie panel. We're well into the last eight days of the session and we haven't even seen the legislation, much less have it introduced for first reading.

This government cannot get around the rules. I again ask you, Speaker, to rule on whether this is admissible and, if part of it is, whether the motion should be split into two.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Just to respond through the point of order on a couple of points, the House leader for the third party is expressing concern about a process that is being proposed here today. Indeed, if I look back to 1992 -- June 30, 1992, to be specific -- the government at that time, represented by the House leader who just spoke, did in fact amend the standing order to do a similar sort of thing to the degree that the House was adjourned until July 6 and then the House continued to meet from that point. So the House leader from the third party is arguing against a method that his own government has used.

In June 1993, on a second occurrence, again the former government moved an amendment to the standing order to extend the length of the sitting.

Mr Wildman: We're not arguing that you extend. You can extend if you wish. We'll be quite happy to have it extended. The question is whether January 13 is spring.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite says he's not arguing that. Apparently what the member then is arguing about -- he's not arguing the extension, because certainly the previous government did that on at least two occasions -- is the start of the session.

The start of the session is set in granite and you cannot change the start of the session. However, they changed it. The previous government changed it in 1994. In June 1994 the previous government brought forward a motion to amend the start of the session. The start of the session would normally be the fourth Monday in September, but the government of that time did not want to start, for its own purposes, on the fourth Monday in September, so they changed the starting date. They made the starting date later in that case. That motion was ruled in order and that motion was adopted by the House.

They changed the starting date of the session to October 31, over a month later. They changed the date of the starting point.

In our case, in the case of this government, we're not advocating that the session start later, as the previous government argued successfully and was ruled in order. They wanted to start later. We want to start earlier. We want to work. We want to be here to work for the people of Ontario. The previous government wanted to change the starting date so that we would not be in session, so we would not be here in this House working for the people of Ontario. That is the only difference. So the precedent is clearly there on both counts from the previous government, ruled in order.

Finally, I would say there's an accusation perhaps about this government stockpiling legislation, or there is speculation on what may be coming that we're going to introduce and deal with in the next session. Certainly we are going to be here to deal with legislation, but I will say I have attempted to deal openly and honestly with the House leaders of the other two parties in terms of what we have on the order paper today.

What's on the order paper today, by my count, are at least 16 pieces of legislation that we are prepared to deal with this week and next week. We are prepared, if we are allowed by the opposition parties to get to these pieces of legislation -- if the stalling continues, if the ringing of the bells continues, if the long debates which are obviously not required -- if the foot-dragging and all the stalling would cease, we would be happy to be here and, this week and next week, deal with these 16 pieces of legislation. The reason we can't is obviously what's happening here today and what's been happening over the last several days and the ringing of the bells. That's the problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can the member for Hamilton Centre please come to order; and the members for Cochrane North and Oakwood.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I'll speak on behalf of our caucus on this so you won't have a series of these. I want to indicate my support for the position that this motion is not in order. I know the motivation behind it is so the government can ram more of its legislation through. I understand the government position; I simply disagree with it.

I believe it makes good sense to split the motion because the opposition has already said, indeed encouraged the government, if it wishes to do so, to sit next week to deal with legislation. That is a given and I don't think you'd find any problem with that as a solitary motion. The argument arises when the government wishes, not to extend the motion into January -- in other words, we would be happy to have this particular fall sitting extended into January and February, if the government saw fit. We're agreeable to that. We've suggested that this would be happening in any event to deal with the present legislation on the order paper.

Where argument arises is the government reinterpreting spring to commence on January 13. We know that spring begins March 21 or 22, depending on the circumstances.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You're trying to legislate when spring will start.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, either go back to your seat or stop that.

Mr Bradley: We really believe this is a misuse of the rules. I was very influenced by the member for Parry Sound when he was the House leader for the Conservative Party and made an argument against this. Clearly, the purpose of the rules we have in effect now -- and I won't be repetitious -- is to ensure that the government doesn't stack all of its legislation, particularly controversial and important legislation, to near the end of the session and then wish to have it expedited quickly. If the government has important legislation, it should bring it in early in the session and call it for passage on a priority that the government determines. That is what they are not doing.

I too recall the intervention by the member for Etobicoke West in June 1992 -- I thought it a very perceptive and persuasive intervention at the time -- pointing out the problems in the use of this rule. Rule 68, as you know, says the that government cannot introduce new legislation for debate within the last eight days of a session on the parliamentary calendar. It can introduce it of course on first reading but cannot deal with second and third reading. That's sensible. I think there's been a consensus in this House with the three political parties that this was sensible.

We think that if the government wishes to bring forward a motion, it should bring forward one motion to extend the sitting into next week and a second motion to continue the fall session of the Legislature in January and February. When it wishes to prorogue or when it wishes to have an intersession for the purpose of public hearings and other hearings, it can do so.

That's important. You would recognize, as an eminent parliamentarian, Mr Speaker, that it is essential that we have this opportunity for an intersession. What the government wants to do, so I can explain it to you in very plain terms, is rush through its controversial legislation. You see, if it were simply to extend its fall session, the intersession normally might be found in February or perhaps March, and then the final stages -- that is, third reading or any other committee work that had to be done in the House -- would take place, we will say, in April, May and June.

What the government wishes to do, however, is to have a full spring session, push everything up as far as it can and then complete everything by the end of June if it can -- items that in their new legislation would normally be completed in the fall; that is, there would be a full and frank debate of the new legislation that they wish to bring forward, let's say, in April and May and June, then in the summer intersession there would be public hearings across the province to get the input I think all of us need to make legislation good legislation, then in the fall session that would be completed.

Clearly the agenda of the government is to bypass that normal procedure. They are moving up the date. The government House leader mentions moving back the date. I contend that that's substantially different than moving up the date. I believe there's a compelling reason for you, as the Speaker of this Legislature, as a person who understands the rules of this Legislature, to make a ruling that this motion, first, is out of order and, second, any motion of this kind should be split so that there is appropriate debate on both.

In fact, to be accommodating, may I tell you, I would be happy to give unanimous consent to a combined motion which removed the words "spring session" to help accommodate the government's desire to allow for a sitting next week and to come back in the fall session. I think that's a very fair suggestion. I know a fairminded government House leader would respond quickly to that, and I think favourably to that, if it were not the agenda of the Premier and others to simply move everything up so they can ram all the controversial legislation through by June of this year.

If that's the agenda, then I know the government House leader will not agree with me. If that isn't the agenda, I know he will quickly acquiesce to what is a very sensible suggestion on my part.

The Speaker: Briefly, before I recognize the member for Dovercourt, I've heard the points of order and they were raised rather well and I certainly think I have the very good understanding of exactly where all members are on this issue. I'm not going to rule, obviously, points of order out of order, but I would ask, if you are standing subsequent to the first three, that you offer the information up front and whatever new information that you feel would provide me with more information. I don't want to cut off your opportunity but, by the same token, I don't want to create a situation where everyone will stand up and just repeat the same comments.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I will take your request and respect it because I want to go beyond some of the arguments that have been made and not repeat what has been said. I certainly see that what the government House leader is trying to do here and what the government is trying to do is essentially to usurp the rules as we have them. As you know, Speaker, the rules set very clearly the calendar that we have. It's something that has now been in the rules for some time, which didn't exist before, so any change from that calendar has to be looked at, I suggest to you, as carefully as needed in order to accept any changes or any deviations from that calendar.

What the government House leader is trying to do here in putting forward this motion is not only, as has been pointed out, to usurp the normal process of the calendar. They are not simply trying to extend the sittings, which again, as has been said, and I won't belabour this point, we would have no trouble accepting; they are trying in effect to create a new session, and that is essentially a significant change in the rules. Within that, you, as Speaker, have to take very seriously the impact that change in the rules has on the rights of the minority, which we in the opposition in this House have the privilege to represent.

I want to suggest to you, sir, that if you look at the rules as they are written, and mention has been made of 68(

b) and I want to come back to that, again not to repeat the points that have been made but to say to you that, as I read the motion that's in front of us, the last phrase in particular, "which date commences the spring sessional period," I would make two points to you further to what has been said to you, both of which go to the heart of saying that, even if you accept the motion as it is, even if you do not split it as has been suggested by the previous speakers, I would suggest to you, sir, this motion does not do what the government House leader wants to do, which is to create a new session.

That is because, first of all, there is a reference here to the spring sessional period. This is going to sound overly technical, but we are dealing here with technicalities. There is no reference in the rules to a spring sessional period. I suggest to you, you can't create something with a simple motion of this kind. There is a definition in the rules of two time periods during which the House sits. It's not called a spring period or a fall period; that's the jargon we use, but the rules don't define them other than through specific dates on the calendar.

Second, there is no reference in this motion in front of us to usurping or changing what's set out in rule 68(b). So I suggest to you, sir, that if you find that you cannot support the request to split these motions, you also have to find that in fact 68(

b) has not been changed by this motion and that in fact the rights of the minority to be able -- the government would not have the right to call for second reading legislation that they have not to this point introduced. They could continue to deal with what's on the order paper.

Again, we've suggested that we have no objection if the government wants to continue to deal with the legislation that they have properly introduced within the time lines and deal with that in whatever time extensions are necessary, and then if we deal with new legislation -- they could introduce, certainly, new legislation; it just could not be called for second reading. I think if you read the rules strictly, as I believe you have to do, the first rule that we have in the rule book says that we are to be guided by the rules as they are written, and only when there is some ambiguity in the rules do you need to then go to legislative precedent.

I would suggest to you, sir, that even if you don't accept the argument that has been made around the splitting of the motions, you should not allow the government to do what it's trying to do here, which is to create a new session for the purpose of having legislation that they have not yet introduced taken on to the second reading stage, because they have not addressed that specifically as they need to in this motion and they have not therefore gotten around the requirement in 68(b).

The Speaker: I think what I shall do is recess for 20 minutes. I'll come back in 20 minutes with my decision.

The House recessed from 1648 to 1708.

The Speaker: Order. I've reviewed your comments specifically and I've got a few comments of my own.

First and foremost, the Speaker cannot split a motion; it's not within the power of the Speaker, nor can he accept a motion. In fact, a split is not within the purview of the Speaker.

Second, this motion is in order. We've had many motions in the past that have stood down standing orders, and literally in the back there were dozens and dozens of examples of motions that have stood down standing orders. All that you have asked for in opposition in your points of order is debatable. This is a substantive motion, it is debatable and it is amendable, so all that you ask at the time you may in fact debate and amend in your comments with respect to the motion.

Finally, and I think this is the most important of all, the House is supreme. The Legislature itself can change sessional periods, it can make changes to the standing orders. The House is always supreme. These are guidelines, and if a motion is in order and the House votes on it, it can change the standing orders at any time. We must remember that, because we've often in past governments, and in examples that I've seen, seen all parties and all governments change standing orders or stand down standing orders for specific reasons.

So the motion is in order. It is also a substantive motion. It is debatable and it is amendable. Government House leader.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thanks a lot.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton Centre. I heard your comments and I heard your comments previously. I do take exception to them. I get the impression, from hearing you the first time, hearing your comments the first time and now this time, that there's some concern on your part that I am not acting impartially. I want to say to all members, particularly the opposition members and the member for Hamilton Centre specifically, I am acting impartially. I take great exception to anyone suggesting otherwise and I ask that you keep those comments to yourself, not just that comment but the comments that I heard previously. Thank you. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, perhaps we have debated enough the introduction to this motion, and this motion is clearly here because we do have pieces of legislation.

We have, as I indicated earlier, some 16 pieces of legislation on the agenda right now. It was the hope of this government that we would get to those pieces of legislation before Christmas. Many of the pieces of legislation are legislation that would cut through red tape and that would encourage economic growth, investment and jobs in Ontario. That indeed was the agenda of this government on assuming office in June 1995.

Many of the pieces of legislation have been on the agenda for some considerable period of time, yet we have not been able to get them to the House because there has been considerable debate around each and every motion and each and every piece of legislation. I think we would all agree in our inner souls that some of the debate has been a little bit beyond the bounds of reasonableness and in fact we could accomplish a great deal more if we set our minds to it.

In that spirit, I will acquiesce to the fact that the government is here to deal with this legislation today, tomorrow, Thursday, next week and, yes, we will be coming back in January. Perhaps this is a sad commentary that we get into a great debate on technicalities about how the government and the members of this House as a whole should come back to work in this Legislature to put through pieces of legislation for the benefit of the people of Ontario. Why do we worry about all the little technicalities? If we all applaud the fact that we should be back here and debating legislation and working for the people --

Mr Pouliot: How naïve can you be?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. The member for Lake Nipigon, come to order.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: -- why do we need a great amount of time on a motion like this?

I would much prefer, you know, if the other two parties would say: "Look, House leader, sit down. We won't debate this. We will let this go through and we will get down to debating some of the other pieces of legislation." I'd sit down right at this moment if I could have that undertaking, but obviously it isn't going to happen. We're going to talk about a simple motion to extend the sitting to bring us back in January of next year to deal with legislation.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's not simple. That's the whole point.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite I enjoy very much, but his government had a different kind of agenda and I guess in their last year they didn't have a great deal of legislation, as my colleague is indicating, so they shortened the time frame. We have the opposite problem. We have to work double time, as my colleague is saying. I think the people of Ontario would say: "Go to it. Deal with that legislation. Get rid of those rules and regulations which are impeding the business community, which are slowing down economic growth." We want Ontario to be prosperous, we want to deal with the issues in the province.

I hope very much over the next week and a half, as we sit through the extended session before Christmas, that we will be able to get to Bill 52. It's a bill out of the Ministry of Natural Resources, an aggregate and petroleum resources statute. It allows the ministry to develop compliance partnerships whereby the industry --

Mr Gerretsen: You gave this speech last week.

Hon David Johnson: It wasn't a bad speech, was it? -- whereby the industry will be accountable for day-to-day site inspections and monitoring. So it puts more onus on the industry so that they can manage their own industry and encourage economic development.

Then we have an environmental approvals bill to repeal the Ontario Waste Management Corp. I hope we can get around to dealing with that. We have a whole lot of red tape bills. A bill out of the Attorney General; a bill out of citizenship and culture; one out of consumer and commercial relations to eliminate redundant procedures, for example. Aren't we all in favour of eliminating redundant procedures?

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: Good. I'm going to hold you to that then. When we come to that bill, let's get it through. Let's get it through in a timely fashion. This will be a Christmas prese