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

October 17, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L011 - Tue 17 Oct 1995 / Mar 17 Oct 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISABLED CHILDREN'S HOCKEY

CLOSURE OF ONTARIO WELCOME HOUSE

BICYCLE SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

OPENING OF LIBRARIES

BETHLEHEM PLACE

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

LOTTERY FUND-RAISER

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 9

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

GASOLINE PRICES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

CLOSURE OF JAILS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CULTURAL FUNDING

SEAWAY VALLEY FARMERS' ENERGY CO-OPERATIVE

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP / NOUVEAUX MEMBRES DES COMITÉS

HOUSE SITTING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

SMOKING AREAS

KARLA HOMOLKA

DRINKING AND DRIVING

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

KARLA HOMOLKA

CHILD CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL PRICING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ÉTABLISSEMENT DES PRIX DU CARBURANT POUR VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES

OPPOSITION DAY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISABLED CHILDREN'S HOCKEY

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On Saturday, October 14, it was my pleasure to attend the inauguration of the Canadian Hockey Association for the Developmentally Challenged. This hockey association will provide children with the opportunity to develop, to their fullest ability, their love of the game of hockey. By tapping into their learning potential through hockey, these children will come to recognize that the only real handicap is that which others put on them.

The first game between the red and black teams on Saturday demonstrated the valuable contribution of promoting the full acceptance and participation of children who are developmentally handicapped or challenged in our community.

This House should applaud the officers and committee members for their unselfish dedication; in particular, the president of the association, Mr Adriano Salvati. Also to be commended are the volunteers and parents for their support. But most of all we should praise the efforts of these children for accepting the challenge of sports participation.

I'm sure that all members of this House join me today in relaying the message that we, as a community, take pride in this significant accomplishment.

CLOSURE OF ONTARIO WELCOME HOUSE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This is the first of a series of reports which I intend to make to describe the devastation that the cuts of this government are having in my constituency of Fort York.

Over the years, my riding has been the first home for hundreds of thousands of new Canadians. In any school in Fort York as many as 25 to 30 languages would be spoken.

The governments of Japan, Germany, Australia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia and Sweden have all sent delegations to Welcome House to understand how Canada settles people successfully.

In April, these centres will be closed because this government has decided that this investment in people is a luxury. Fifty-four staff members will be out on the street searching for work, along with those they used to be able to help.

In closing welcome houses, we have an example of, "If it's working, destroy it."

BICYCLE SAFETY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Honourable Al Palladini, Minister of Transportation, on his recent announcement regarding Ontario's new bicycle helmet law.

Effective October 1, the completed regulations for Bill 124 state that the law which makes wearing a helmet mandatory in Ontario applies only to cyclists under 18 years of age. In my opinion, which is in keeping with the opinion of many residents from Grey-Owen Sound who took time to write or phone my office, the regulations make common sense.

Make no mistake about it: I am concerned with the issue of bicycle safety. However, although I believe that adults should show leadership and set a positive example for our youth by wearing helmets, I don't believe we need new laws to force this type of responsibility. As adults, we should always be positive role models for our children and we should have the capacity to make responsible safety choices for ourselves.

In addition to helmets, preparing young people to ride safely and avoid unnecessary mishaps is vital. In this field, the municipal police services in my riding have proved to be exemplary. Owen Sound, Hanover, Meaford, Thornbury and Durham do an outstanding job promoting bicycle safety through annual bike rodeos and safety seminars.

It is this type of cooperative community effort combined with the new bicycle helmet law that will allow our children to enjoy years of accident-free cycling in our communities.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House a very serious matter. As reported in both the Ottawa Sun and the Citizen today, officials from the Ministry of Health stated last night at a meeting of the district health council, and in a letter from the ministry, that "the ministry will establish a management team...that will institute a separate process and structure for the next phase of the reconfiguration report."

This council has been meeting and advising the government for the past two years on the hospital reconfiguration project. The region was to release its recommendations in January. You can imagine the confusion that this has caused on such an important regional issue.

In discussion today with the chair of the district health council, Dr Soucie, he stated: "People felt shafted. Thousands of professional and volunteer hours have gone into the planning process. This has undercut our credibility."

To add further fuel to the fire, I understand that the Minister of Health stated this morning that he was not aware of this action by his own bureaucrats and was sending out a letter of apology, as he said, on behalf of his officials "who acted unilaterally, without my knowledge or consent."

If the minister is not aware of what is happening in his own ministry, then who the heck is? The issue here is very simple: Who is in charge? This is the second time the minister has admitted to being blindsided by his ministry staff, who have had their own course which the minister finds out about after the fact.

The confusion has to end. I call on the minister to investigate this matter and report back to the House. He must act decisively to restore the confidence, hard work and reputation of the district health council. I look forward to hearing his response.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): In August of this year, representatives of the community of Marathon in my riding, that of Lake Nipigon, met with the Minister of Health to alert him to the fact that the medical infrastructure of northwestern Ontario is indeed in danger of collapsing.

The longstanding issue -- and this is a perennial, a residual -- of doctor recruitment and retaining for the north continues to plague our communities.

In the case of Marathon, with only one full-time doctor, there's been an announcement by the Wilson Memorial hospital that, because they have no alternative, effective November 10 this year, in a few weeks, they will close their emergency service. How can one full-time doctor service more than 10,000 people at the regional level?

If it does happen, if this calamity, this catastrophe, because of really what is the lack of concerted effort, is allowed to happen, we people up north in our special part of Ontario have no alternatives and we shall be left holding the bag.

We've established a fund. We passed the hat around and we raised $15,000 so we can keep locums. That has been insufficient. So we beg the minister, because there's a human dimension to this, to please give us the opportunity to keep our emergency department open.

OPENING OF LIBRARIES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): We're most fortunate in the riding of Northumberland to have recently opened two new libraries in the towns of Campbellford and Cobourg.

Libraries are indeed an important resource for any community. They are an essential monument to our past, and new libraries are a vote of confidence in our future. They are a symbol of what we hold important in our society: knowledge, education, and the sharing of ideas and information.

Although the library of today incorporates computers and high technology, the purpose hasn't changed very much over the years. Libraries are still places of learning, and of fun, as our two new libraries have clearly shown.

Both libraries in my riding are bright, open and inviting. They are high tech with computers, a large selection of videotapes, talking books, and much more.

I was particularly pleased to have the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski assist with the recent opening of the library in Cobourg. The library in Campbellford was opened by local elected municipal politicians.

The development of facilities such as libraries represents large quantities of time by volunteers. A big thank you and congratulations to all of the volunteers who have worked so hard to enhance the quality of their community by having modern library facilities.

BETHLEHEM PLACE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In 1985, the Bethlehem housing project of Niagara was launched through the efforts of a Christian service group known as Outreach Niagara, local churches and concerned citizens of all political stripes and representing a wide cross-section of St Catharines.

The provincial government has withdrawn $160,000 in annual funding used at Bethlehem Place to provide support services to residents. It is very likely that this will put an end to one of the most successful community-based efforts to help end the cycle of poverty and welfare dependency.

Current programs within Bethlehem Place are aimed at residents taking control of their lives, developing self-confidence and skills needed to cope with their situations. They have seminars which provide a forum for learning how to deal with basic life skills, addictive patterns and family life; support counsellors who help residents determine their goals, how to achieve them, and give necessary support and encouragement to move on to a productive life; a relationship with more than 30 social service agencies throughout Niagara that refer residents to Bethlehem Place for housing and support.

Bethlehem Place shares the government's concern about welfare dependency, and Bethlehem Place works to end dependency on welfare by getting at the root causes. Productive lives are built that are able to contribute more than they receive.

I call upon the government to change this unwise decision to remove the $160,000 annual grant and to restore it so people can turn their lives around and so an essential service can be provided to our community.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I wish to bring to the attention of the members and citizens the continuing saga of the remarkable partnership that is unfolding in Ontario, a partnership based on politics, commitment, friendship and money. That partnership is manifested by the remarkable list of Mulroney political hacks being hired, at public expense, by this government. There are many.

Today, I bring yet another one to your attention. Mr John Toogood comes from the office of Mulroney cabinet minister Doug Lewis. It is obvious that Mr Harris owes Mr Mulroney something. Why else is he hiring a bunch of hacks from the discredited Mulroney administration?

It's time Mr Harris told us more about this remarkable partnership. After all, he is using public dollars.

Mr John Toogood is a Tory party activist and, of course, a Mulroney loyalist. Mr Toogood has been hired as the executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. At what cost, God only knows, but I suspect it's closer to $100,000 a year than $50,000.

After all, Mulroney and his gang didn't come cheap, and you all know that. If you don't know it, I suggest you read a book by Stevie Cameron called On the Take -- Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years.

So we know Mr Toogood is a Mulroney loyalist, but I suspect his loyalty to Mr Mulroney pales beside the degree of loyalty being demonstrated by Mr Harris. Why? We all respect loyalty. Let's just hope that the list of Mulroney loyalists is a short one.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My statement concerns the announcement made by the Labour minister on October 4, the introduction of Bill 7 repealing the job-killing Bill 40 labour legislation. I received a letter the morning after its introduction, the first in what I am sure will be a long string of testimonials for our actions, from the Milton Chamber of Commerce:

"The Milton Chamber of Commerce and its member businesses support the repeal of Bill 40. The implementation of Bill 40 resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs as well as the loss of many billions of investment dollars." It was signed by Michael Bourgon, president, Milton Chamber of Commerce.

Since that letter I have received others, voicing their enthusiastic support for our government's actions, notably, the Halton Hills Chamber of Commerce, Acton Precision Millwrights Ltd and members of the agricultural community, referring to Bill 91.

Amid all the condemnation and criticism from the opposition with respect to this government's amendments to this legislation, we have now heard from the business constituents of Halton North, people who helped elect this member and who are in full support of our actions on this side of the House.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I've laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures report for the fiscal year 1994-95. The members will find a copy in their desks in the chamber.

LOTTERY FUND-RAISER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) rose on a question of order to seek my advice concerning another member's connection with a lottery that was held in that member's constituency.

If the member for Windsor-Riverside is indicating or has been informed that the situation raises a criminal matter, I have to say that I cannot advise the member as to what course of action he should take. Our precedents here indicate that the Speaker is not in a position to render legal advice or an opinion. I refer the member to rulings at page 4,257 of the Hansard for June 13, 1988, page 692 of the Hansard for April 23, 1990, and page 213 of the Hansard for April 22, 1993.

Nevertheless, I thank the member for the concern that he has raised.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Yesterday, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) rose in the House on a question of privilege before question period. The member requested that the Speaker determine whether or not the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Tsubouchi) was "deliberately misleading the members of this House" when he indicated in last Tuesday's question period that the government had made no decision on a matter concerning his portfolio.

This member also requested that the Speaker determine whether or not "the Premier did counsel the minister to make misleading statements...."

The leader of the third party (Mr Rae), the leader of the official opposition (Mrs McLeod), and the Premier (Mr Harris) spoke to the question of privilege.

Later the same day, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin) rose on a question of privilege that was separate from but related to the question of privilege raised by the member for Algoma.

The member requested that the Speaker review the record concerning a document that the Minister of Community and Social Services had indicated earlier he would be willing to make available.

I have had an opportunity to review the Hansard, our precedents and the relevant authorities concerning the issues raised in these various submissions.

Let me say several things at the outset. First, because members -- all members -- are presumed to be honourable, no member should suggest otherwise.

Second, it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to determine the veracity of statements that are made in the House. In this regard, let me refer members to two precedents.

On June 7, 1988, a member rose in this House on a question of privilege concerning an alleged inconsistency in a minister's response to an oral question. The member requested that the matter be referred to a committee "to determine whether the minister intentionally or whether the minister inadvertently lied to the House." Speaker Edighoffer responded by making the following remarks (at page 4101 of that day's Hansard):

"It is not the Speaker's duty to judge the validity of the words used. I cannot make a judgement on whether any member has stated the facts correctly."

In a similar vein, Speaker Warner made the following remarks on November 18, 1993 (on page 4140 of the Hansard for that day) in response to a member's claim that a minister was misleading the House:

"The veracity of statements is not to be tested by the Speaker. Those are matters to be dealt with by members of the House in orderly debate."

Let me turn to the extract from page 119 of the 21st edition of Erskine May that was mentioned by the member for Algoma. The authority for the proposition in Erskine May that making a deliberately misleading statement in the House may be grounds for contempt is a 1963 resolution of the House of Commons at Westminster. That resolution found a member guilty of grave contempt for making a personal statement in the House that he later admitted was not true. The circumstances raised by the member for Algoma -- and the similar set of circumstances raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- cannot compare with the very serious circumstances associated with that incident.

That 1963 resolution is the only authority in Erskine May for the proposition that the making of a deliberately misleading statement may be treated as a contempt. The circumstances surrounding the resolution are explained in greater detail on pages 704 and 705 of the second edition of House of Representatives Practice. This authority indicates that although many claims have been raised -- as a matter of privilege or contempt -- that a member has deliberately misled the House, no Speaker has ever accepted such a claim.

These statistics suggest an obvious point, namely, that it will be a rare situation indeed in which there can be a finding of contempt. The incidents that were brought to my attention yesterday are not suggestive of contempt.

On a separate but related matter, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) rose on a question of order concerning the way in which the member for Algoma had framed his question of privilege. My review of Hansard indicates that when the member for Algoma used the words "deliberately misleading" and "misleading," he did so in the context of a request that the Speaker review the circumstances. As the member for Algoma himself indicated, he was not suggesting that the minister had misled members.

I thank the various members who made submissions on the matters addressed in this ruling for their contributions.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 9

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Yesterday, Monday, October 16, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) introduced a bill entitled

An Act respecting the rounding of the Penny in Cash Transactions. It has been brought to my attention that this bill is in unilingual format only, which is contrary to subsection 3(2) of the French Language Services Act, 1986. I must therefore advise the House that this bill contravenes standing order 38(

d) and must be removed from the order paper.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I am very pleased to announce today the appointment of Graham Reynolds as director of the special investigations unit. The special investigations unit is an independent body that investigates police actions which result in serious injury or death from alleged criminal activity.

Since his call to the bar in 1976, Mr Reynolds has worked in the administration of justice for the federal and provincial governments at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. During this time, he has gained a high level of knowledge and experience with policing and investigative agencies. Since 1988, he has managed 48 lawyers and 23 support staff who are responsible for federal legal administration in southern Ontario. Prior to that, Mr Reynolds was a senior counsel and

section head of the federal tax litigation office in Edmonton. He has also held the position of special prosecutor with the Attorney General of Alberta.

An excellent lawyer and administrator, Mr Reynolds brings to the job an effective, fair and balanced approach to decision-making. Mr Reynolds will serve as SIU director on a one-year secondment from his current position as general counsel and

section head of prosecutions in the Toronto region with the federal Department of Justice.

He replaces Dana Venner, the acting director, who has worked diligently to eliminate the chronic backlog of cases that was crippling the SIU's effectiveness and reputation as an oversight body. Ms Venner agreed to take over the director's job last March on a temporary basis.

In seven short months, her commonsense approach to management resulted in the SIU's backlog being reduced by 35%. At the end of February there were 70 outstanding investigations; she has now reduced that number to 45. She quickly wrapped up the four investigations that dated back to 1992. In addition, Ms Venner eliminated 60% of the case backlog from 1993. Currently, there are only two cases left from that period of time. Since her arrival, Ms Venner has also quickly dealt with the 1994 case backlog, reducing it by almost 77%. When she arrived there were 39 outstanding cases; now there are nine.

Her efforts demonstrate that the legislation works and, with proper management, the SIU can function in an effective manner. The government owes a debt of gratitude to Ms Venner and thanks her for her efforts.

The SIU is responsible for the most sensitive cases involving police and public. To be effective, the public must have confidence that the SIU is conducting impartial investigations. With the appointment of Mr Reynolds, the people of Ontario can be assured that the SIU will continue to operate in an effective, fair and efficient manner.

In the members' gallery today are Mr Reynolds and Ms Venner. I thank them on behalf of the people of Ontario.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I rise today to acknowledge a serious mistake made by my ministry. I would like to fully disclose to the Legislature the chronology of events that led up to the issues raised in the House yesterday.

On August 29, staff of my ministry drafted a series of amendments to regulations regarding social assistance eligibility. When these regulations were brought to me, I gave explicit instructions that any regulatory changes that affected the disabled be removed. Regrettably, my instructions were not carried out and the incorrect regulations proceeded through the approval process.

In response to questions in the Legislature raised last week, I said that no decisions had been made. I had not been informed at that point that the incorrect regulations had proceeded. I regret any confusion this might have caused.

I have spoken with the officials involved and their superiors. I am satisfied that this was a human error and not deliberate. Mistakes do happen. When they do, the proper course is to acknowledge them and to correct them immediately. This is what my ministry has done.

The official who made this mistake and the deputy minister have apologized, and I have accepted their apology. As the minister, I apologize to the House and to the people of Ontario for this mistake, with the commitment that it will not happen again.

I'm making this statement because I want the House and the people of this province to know the facts. We are strongly committed to protecting the benefits of the disabled. At no time were steps taken to implement the change. No change took place to any benefits provided to the permanently unemployed people of Ontario.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I will comment on the Attorney General's statement. First of all, I'm very happy to share with him in congratulating Ms Venner on the job which she has accomplished in such a short time period, and I certainly want to congratulate Mr Reynolds and wish him well in his new responsibilities.

But I am concerned about one aspect of the minister's statement, when he indicates -- and I think he's accepting the fact that the SIU's structure at the present time is satisfactory and the minister is under the impression that with administrative improvements and good administration from Mr Reynolds, the present regulations and law will suffice. I want to differ with him. I want to remind him about his comments when he was in opposition questioning the structure of the SIU.

In particular, there is one underlying problem with respect to the SIU which cannot be resolved by good administration, and that's a structural weakness in the composition of the regulations themselves. The Police Services Act requires police officers to answer questions and cooperate with the SIU. On the other hand we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which permits individual citizens not to incriminate themselves.

We have seen the experience of police officers refusing to cooperate with the SIU because they did not want to incriminate themselves. In fact, last week in the Legislature I brought to the attention of the Attorney General a case in point, the Moses case, where the police officer was not cooperating with the SIU, taking the charter defence. That cannot be improved or changed by administration.

I urged the Attorney General at that time to conduct a court reference on this issue, to find out the parameters of the Police Services Act's obligation for an officer to give information and his or her rights under the charter. That is still an outstanding issue, and unless and until the Attorney General resolves that judicially, and I'm urging him to do it by way of a reference, there will always be this flaw in the legislation at the present time. So I'm urging him to correct that flaw, and that is something which he is burdening his new director with. I wish that he would assist him by changing the law in that regard.

The other thing I would say to the Attorney General is that he's making this announcement out of context. The people in the province of Ontario, in fact the legal profession, are looking for leadership from the Attorney General on where the justice system is going. I'm sorry that he did not have anything in the speech from the throne. He has not made a major speech on this issue and I encourage him to do so. I think he has the ability and the capacity to show leadership and I am encouraging him to do so.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to respond to the comment made by the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am absolutely astonished at the comments made by the Minister of Community and Social Services. What is in front of us today is not a question of a drafting error; it is a question of who's in charge. It is clearly a question of who's calling the shots in this ministry; it is a question of a ministry that is out of control; it is a question of a ministry that doesn't know one part of the day from another.

We have a committee made up of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a lawyer; the vice-chair, the Attorney General, another lawyer; the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, an experienced legislator; the ministers of Transportation, Citizenship and Environment. This legislation and regulations committee of cabinet must approve every single change that comes through. How can such a blatant error occur?

Is it a coincidence that the minister stood up last Tuesday in the House and made reference to changes in the definition of "disability" and then we see this in front of us? Is it a coincidence that it had to be the opposition and the media to bring this to the government's attention? Had that not occurred, 115,000 seniors and disabled would have had their benefits cut.

Minister, this is not good enough. To say this was a drafting error is to suggest that the Titanic hit an ice cube. It is wrong. It is not good enough.

This continues to be one of many errors that have occurred daily in this ministry. Minister, if you cannot control the actions of your staff, then you must question who is calling the shots. The government members and the ministers must be responsible. The accountability must stop with the minister. It is not good enough to pass the buck to the staff, to the deputy minister and to the people who drafted this regulation.

This must fall clearly in the lap of the minister. It is a question of competence. It is a question of the direction of this ministry and this government. It is out of control, and disabled people and people who are on welfare in this province are paying the price as a result of this incompetence.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): The issue is partly the one which has been mentioned by my colleague from Hamilton, and that is the question as to how a mistake of this magnitude could have been made. But there is another question which I don't think the minister has addressed in his statement today.

He starts out by saying he wants "to fully disclose...the chronology of events that led up to the issues raised in the House....

"On August 29, staff of my ministry drafted a series of amendments to regulations regarding social assistance eligibility."

How would they do this? By spontaneous combustion? How would it be that the staff at the ministry of Comsoc would come forward with regulations? Who would have instructed the staff at the ministry to come up with regulations affecting eligibility for social service if it is not the minister? Why wouldn't his fingerprints be inserted prior to August 29? How would it be that on August 29 -- and I ask all these questions knowing now that the Leader of the Opposition will get the first chance to ask them herself when the time comes for questions. So I speak with candour and with some frustration. But it strikes me that that's a reasonable question to ask.

All of us recognize that mistakes are made and all of us recognize that public servants do their best. None of us wants to point the finger at any unfortunate official and say that they are responsible. I certainly don't want to do that. What I do want to do is say that the minister and the cabinet have to take responsibility for the steps that are taken. It is not possible, it defies credibility, to suggest that the ministry, on its own, came up with a series of regulatory changes as drastic and as severe as the changes which were eventually approved by cabinet.

We also know, and it's not mentioned anywhere in this document, that in order for a regulation to go through to the next stage of the process -- perhaps the member for Hamilton East isn't fully familiar with this, but if my memory serves me correctly, and it's not that long ago that I presided over a cabinet -- the chairman of cabinet has to sign a document on the basis of a cabinet discussion, on the basis of a submission by the minister. The minister has to sign, the deputy has to sign, all that documentation has to be there.

For a mistake of this kind to have been made, instructions have to have been made to the staff of the ministry to prepare regulations. Those regulations have to have been submitted, discussed in the leg and reg committee, then discussed in a full meeting of cabinet and then signed by the chairman of cabinet upon approval. That's how it works, and that chronology is not even recognized in the minister's document.

I would say to the minister, in all candour, if you're going to come clean, let's have a complete exposition as to how it could be that these regulations came to be drafted in the first place and how it could possibly be that the permanently unemployed would be so singled out for discrimination and for action by your government.

I do not subscribe to the view that it was sheer inadvertence that led to this taking place. That is not an adequate explanation as to what has happened and the minister still has some explaining to do.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): With reference to the statement today from the Attorney General, I want to rise to congratulate Mr Reynolds on his appointment. It's unfortunate that it's only a one-year secondment, because I know that stability in the SIU is very important. I hope that the support he will find from the ministry and indeed from all of the players in the area will enable him to continue that work.

I'm very pleased to join with the Attorney General in congratulating Ms Dana Venner on the work that she did as acting director. Having appointed her in March, I know how reluctant she was to take on that job. What she has done is to act with the very best traditions of the public service and we all stand to be grateful.

The minister is quite right that the SIU needs the confidence of both the community and the police community. It is going to be extremely important as time goes on, in dealing with the issues raised by the member for Ottawa West, that we all work together to ensure that civilian oversight of the police has its very best traditions in the SIU.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question again today is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, we heard from this minister how concerned he was about the lengthy waiting list for heart surgery in Ontario. His sympathy and concern are of course appropriate and welcome, but they do not do much for patients and their families who are waiting for surgery and who are worrying about whether they will make it to the top of the list.

Minister, I suggest to you today that they do not need your sympathy; they need your action and they need it now. You should be in a position to make a specific commitment as to when you're going to fix the problem.

My question today again is a simple one: Will you stand up today and announce when and how you will reinvest in cardiac care? How many days will cardiac patients have to wait for their surgery while they wait for you to act?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question once again from the leader of the official opposition. I reiterate to her and to the people of Ontario and the members of this House what I said yesterday: I'm working very hard, I'm talking to front-line providers, and we are currently putting together the dollar amount that may be needed to patch up what is a very serious problem in the province of Ontario, and I hope on behalf of the government we'll be making an announcement in the very, very near future.

Mrs McLeod: That response is simply not good enough. It's not good enough for patients who are waiting for surgery, it's not good enough for their families, and it's not good enough coming from a minister who has a plan, a plan that was submitted to him in the summertime as to how he could respond to this crisis.

Dr David Naylor of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences has made it quite clear that he gave you such a plan last summer. That plan would cost $20 million. You say you're looking for the dollars to be able to respond to this crisis, but that $20 million is less than a third of the money left in what you have referred to as a reinvestment fund. There's $67 million left in that reinvestment fund, you've got a $20-million plan, and I just don't see what the problem is.

We know that you know how to cut; you can do that instantly. We know that you're sympathetic to this situation. Now we want to see some action. I ask you again, will you commit to acting immediately on the plan that was submitted to you last summer, a plan that could already have saved lives and relieved families and patients of anxiety and pain?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member leaves the impression that last summer was last year and that this plan's been around for a long time. It's only been around for a few days, and I know Dr Naylor will be pleased to confirm that. It came in towards the end of September, which was only a few days ago. I immediately began working on reviewing those recommendations with officials. I went to Ottawa last Friday, in an unprecedented move, and sat down with Dr Wilbert Keon to ask him --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, wow. We didn't see you there.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We didn't see you in Ottawa.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: No, honourable members should know that he thanked me very, very sincerely for coming to see him, for asking for his advice as a front-line, world-leader cardiac surgeon on how we best invest the dollars we have. I'm looking forward to making that announcement in the very near future to help the people who are on our waiting lists in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: There is no need for the minister to make the superhuman effort of going to Ottawa to discuss the situation. Minister, you have a plan. You have a plan that tells you exactly how you can deal with the situation, a plan presented to you by the very body that has been put in place to tell you how to effectively use our health care dollars. You've got the money and you've got the plan. Don't talk to us about days, that you've only had it for days, because every day you delay makes a difference to that patient who is waiting for heart surgery.

We see that the hospitals in this province are struggling to cope with the crisis, and have been struggling. I mentioned yesterday the situation at Sunnybrook hospital. Let me tell you today about the situation at the Toronto Hospital, where the provincial adult cardiac care network recommended that they increase the number of heart surgeries they were doing by 150 for each of the next three years. Now, that is a 20% increase at that one hospital alone, and that is just to meet growing demands, not even to shorten the waiting list.

That hospital decided it would go ahead with those additional surgeries at the recommendation of the cardiac care network. But you have not indicated and your ministry has not indicated whether you are prepared to guarantee funding for the operation.

I suggest to you, Minister, that the hospitals are doing their job to the best of their ability and to the limits of their resources and beyond.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: It is now time for you to do your job. We need your action, not your sympathy today, Minister. We need to see money flowing to the hospitals so they can do what everyone agrees needs to be done. When are we going to see some action, and how many patients will have to die on the waiting list before you act?

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't think it's helpful that the Leader of the Opposition raise the anxiety of patients, of their families, of the people of Ontario and front-line providers in cardiac care.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Come to order.

Mr Pouliot: They are like jackals. They never stop --

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon is out of order, I must remind him.

Hon Mr Wilson: I say to the honourable member that this is a serious issue. Making a political football out of it does nothing to help those patients.

I am working very hard on behalf of yourself, this government, the people of Ontario, to ensure that we reinvest the dollars available, that we reinvest those wisely, that I take the advice and wisdom of the front-line providers themselves so we don't have to keep coming back and raising these questions in the Legislature. I want to bring in a more permanent solution to this problem, which has recurred over the years. We owe that to the patients on the waiting list, we owe it to their families and we owe it, in the name of good management, to the people of Ontario.

We will be making that announcement in the very near future. I need to hear from just a few more front-line providers and then we'll make that announcement, I assure all members of this House.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I would like you to note for the record that it is Dr Naylor himself who has said that we can expect to see patients die on the waiting lists if this minister does not act.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It's becoming apparent during this minister's reign of error that we're going to continue to see him make serious mistakes. This minister told people on welfare that they could earn back the cuts he had imposed on their benefits. Well, that is not the case, and we are still waiting for the minister to make good on his commitment to fix that mistake.

We've also seen the minister make what he calls a drafting error, which would have reduced benefits for some 115,000 disabled people and their families. The minister acknowledges that that was a mistake, even though he takes no responsibility for it, even though he gave instructions to his ministry to redefine "disability." But we assume he has made a commitment to fix that mistake.

Today I am asking this minister to correct another serious mistake that affects hundreds of abused women and children across this province. Yesterday the member for Ottawa Centre asked the minister for women's issues about the government's decision to eliminate funding for Harmony House in Ottawa, which provides second-stage shelter and services for abused women and children. In response to that question, the minister for women's issues replied, "I can assure you that the core funding to Harmony House has not been withdrawn."

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): And your question is?

Mrs McLeod: I ask the minister, can he tell us whether what his colleague said yesterday in this House was accurate? If what the minister for women's issues said was accurate, can this minister tell us his definition of core services, and can he tell us what is left of those core services to Harmony House and other second-stage housing projects?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): We are continuing to fund and spend over $60 million to support women's shelters and other services for victims of family violence. This funds almost 100 shelters -- I believe it's 98 -- to help women and children in need. These shelters will ensure that women will have a place to go where they can be safe and protected, and not just a place to go but a place where they can receive the support they need to get through this difficult time.

Mrs McLeod: Clearly neither the Minister of Community and Social Services nor the minister responsible for women's issues gets it, again. I was not asking you about your funding for emergency shelters; I'm sure that will be an issue for another day, Minister. I'm asking you about core funding for second-stage housing projects, the core funding that your colleague the minister for women's issues assured us had not been cut.

I suggest to you that it is the Ministry of Housing which provides funding for bricks and mortar for second-stage housing, and that it was your responsibility to provide the core funding for services for abused women and that that core funding went to staff and services. And I suggest to you that your policy is rather like a neutron bomb: The building may still be standing but everything else has been wiped out; the staff and the services and the program are all gone.

I have a copy of a letter dated October 5, 1995 --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I will place the question based on the letter that I present to you and to the minister, the letter from the area manager of the ministry's Ottawa office, and it's written to the president of the board of Harmony House. The letter states, "I am writing to advise you the second-stage housing for abused women program has been identified as one which the government is no longer able to continue funding."

Minister, I ask you, how can you or the minister for women's issues suggest that you are continuing to provide core funding for second-stage housing projects when the funding for staff and programs has disappeared?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think that to categorize the core services of my ministry as not serving the purpose is a little bit of a stretch. The funding we are providing, the $60 million in women's shelters, does include much programming to actually fulfil these needs. As the Leader of the Opposition correctly pointed out, this government, through the Ministry of Housing, does continue to support residences in the second-stage women's shelters.

Mrs McLeod: I simply can't follow the minister's answer. I don't know whether he's still telling me that he hasn't cut the funding for emergency shelters and just wants to ignore the fact that he has cut the funding for second-stage housing projects, or whether is telling me that this letter from the area manager of the Ottawa office is some sort of new drafting error or bureaucratic error and we'll have an apology tomorrow for the mistake that particular manager made.

I suggest that if this minister and this government are not providing the support services for abused women in second-stage housing, they are not providing funding for core services. There is no way around that. Your minister of women's issues said you were not cutting core funding, and you are. You don't seem to feel you are closing second-stage housing projects, but you are. Minister, if you didn't mean to cut the core funding and if you didn't mean to close down second-stage funding projects, if this is another transcribing error of some sort, will you act now to fix the mistake?

Will you restore the real core funding for Harmony House and for scores of other second-stage housing projects across this province which are threatened by your cuts?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I certainly hope the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that $60 million is somehow an insignificant fund to include in terms of programming and counselling.

The only services affected through the reduction with respect to the second-stage women's shelters were those of counselling. We're very confident that, out of that $60 million, there is sufficient programming and counselling. Our idea right now is to protect the core services. Core services are for women in need, and we certainly have been putting in $60 million to assist. Certainly I think the programming is there, and we're trying to eliminate what may be some duplication.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I want to ask the minister some questions arising out of the statement he made in the House today. He states, "On August 29, staff of my ministry drafted a series of amendments to regulations regarding social service eligibility." I wonder if the minister can tell us, under whose instructions did they make these changes and under what cabinet order did they make these changes?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): On August 29, the date the leader of the third party is referring to, a series of amendments that had been suggested were going to cabinet. As I indicated before, when these regulations were brought to me and I saw that the definition of "disabled" or regulations that might affect the disabled were included, I asked explicitly that they not be included in the package. Certainly we have not made a decision on the definition of "disabled" at this point.

Mr Rae: No, this won't do, Minister. You have to answer the question or try to answer the question that's put to you. It's a very simple question.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): You can check the five-year record.

Mr Rae: If the Premier wants to answer some questions, he can try to do that.

I want to ask the minister again, how is it that on August 29 the staff of his ministry would have drafted a series of amendments to regulations? How could that have happened? Did it happen on the basis of instructions from the minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This government had made a commitment already to move the elderly and disabled out of the welfare system. It's our intention to develop a program of assistance to protect income support for the elderly and the disabled. As I've stated previously in the House, we intend to bring more clarity to the definition of "disabled persons" as part of that process.

Also, I must add that in my statement I have already apologized to the House for the mistake that was made.

Mr Rae: The minister commits himself in this statement, quoting from his words in the second paragraph, "I would like to fully disclose to the Legislature the chronology of events that led up to the issues raised in the House."

All I'm asking the minister to do is to fully disclose something that's not in the statement. Staff of ministries do not prepare regulations by spontaneous combustion. They respond to instructions from ministers, from deputies, from cabinet secretaries, from somebody. I want to ask the minister, how would it be that the staff would have prepared regulations regarding social services eligibility if the instructions did not come from the minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I indicated before, at that time we were looking at a series of amendments dealing with eligibility, but we were also looking at a program to take the elderly and the disabled out of the system. Frankly, this is all part of what we were looking at. I can't believe that it is appropriate for the disabled or the elderly to be on the welfare system, and certainly when we saw that the definition of "disabled" was included among the regulations, we made explicit instructions to take them out.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Rae: Let's keep going here and just try and deal with how it would be that this could have happened.

Again, I'd like to ask the minister to confirm: Did he sign the cabinet submission that had the change to the thousands of people on permanently unemployed? Did he sign that recommendation, and is that the recommendation he took to the cabinet discussion with respect to the changes under way?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I apologize to the House for the error. It was regrettable. It was never intended. But I think the leader of the third party is also raising an appropriate question. It's one I've also asked of my officials, how this error occurred. I'm satisfied that this particular case is one of human error and not of intention. As a result, we've directed our staff to put in safeguards to ensure this does not happen again.

Mr Rae: I want to ask the minister again, did he sign the recommendation to cabinet that contained the regulatory changes? Did you sign that document?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly, the process we have to go through in order to sign any submissions to cabinet -- and certainly I signed the submission.

I've also indicated already that a mistake was made and I've already apologized to the House. Certainly there was a mistake made; we've admitted it. I think the best solution at this point in time is to correct the mistake, which we did as soon as it was brought to my attention.

Mr Rae: Can the minister tell us whether he signed the document before he read it? Did he read it before he signed it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I indicated before, there was a series of regulations in the package that had been sent back for amendment. The instructions were clearly given to take out any reference to the disabled in this matter. Unfortunately, it was not done.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. The Windsor Star reports today that a Toronto law firm with close ties to the Tory government has been given a lucrative government contract. In fact, a former member of the firm, Guy Giorno, a close aide to the Premier, was on paid leave of absence from the firm to work on the Tory campaign team before he moved to the Premier's office. Now we learn that the firm has been given a $15,000-a-month contract to lead negotiations with OPSEU.

Minister, is this the new Tory tendering process, where you only get a contract if you have Tory connections and have contributed to the Conservative Party? Minister, will you confirm whether Hicks Morley Hamilton was the low bidder for the contract, and will you release details of the government's request for submissions for this contract and the responses from the firms that participated?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The situation that this government encountered is, number one, we are facing 12 tables in terms of negotiations this year as opposed to five tables previously. Consequently, the negotiation process is much more complex.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Have you got 12 Tory hacks?

Hon David Johnson: Secondly, one of the directors involved, in a key position, changed positions just before the negotiations were to start. The staff came to me at that point and indicated that assistance was needed in terms of the negotiating process.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Essex South is out of order.

Hon David Johnson: As a result, we approached three firms, three firms well recognized in labour law, and we accepted the best and lowest price from those three firms, which is the firm in question.

I can also indicate to you that this firm, which is well recognized in labour law, also performed services for the Liberal government prior to 1990, and this same firm, a well-recognized and highly regarded firm, provided services for the NDP government between 1990 and 1995.

We think we've made an excellent choice and that we'll get excellent service from this firm.

Mr Cordiano: It's very clear, however, that the minister misses the point of the question, absolutely misses the point, because the real exercise in all of this is that only friends of the government, only with Tory connections, and those who have contributed to the last campaign for the Tories are going -- that's the message the minister is sending out; that's the message this government sends out.

At the end of the day, Minister, there is no tendering process that you followed, and if there is in fact, then you should lay that before this House for us to examine. The tendering process is an obscure one, if one does actually exist. We want to know what tendering process you're going to bring forward as you dismantle your government, as you sell bits and pieces of it to the private sector. We want to know what process in fact you're going to be following, or is it going to be, as I say, only the friends of the government who benefit from the exercise of privatization that you're now engaged in?

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr Cordiano: Certainly it seems to the public, the appearance is such that you're only going to favour Tory cronies and Tory friends as you privatize every part of the government. That's the impression that you're leaving with the public.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will put the question.

Mr Cordiano: Can you tell us the exact procedure by which you're going to privatize government services?

Hon David Johnson: The member has indicated that I missed the point. I think the point to the general public, the people who are watching this Legislature, is: Did we get the best firm for the best price? I'm happy to indicate to the member for Lawrence that the answer is yes. We put out requests for proposals, we sought the best firms, we took the lowest price and we got the firm with the best experience; a firm, I might say, that has had direct experience in dealing with OPSEU, the union involved.

This is a firm which apparently was good enough to be employed by the Liberal government during its period; it was a firm that was good enough to be employed by the NDP government during its time in office. I think the point is that we are getting excellent value for money and the people of Ontario are well served.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I want to ask the minister again some questions with respect to not only the statement that he made today but answers that he's given me and other members concerning the issue of benefits for the disabled. The minister says it was a mistake that the category of "permanently unemployable" was taken out of the range of benefits. He's also said that the government is considering making changes to the definition of "disability."

I'd like therefore to ask the minister how we are to take the statement that he makes on the bottom of page 2, where he says, "We are strongly committed to protecting the benefits of the disabled." I'd like to ask the minister, can he tell us, is it the intention of the government to change the definition of "disability" and/or change the definition of "permanently unemployable"? Is that now under consideration by the government?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I indicated before, what we're looking at is a new system, an income supplement, to get the disabled and the aged off the welfare system. As such, that's why we're examining what a person who is disabled is. We're looking at the options. We have not made the decisions on this matter, and that's the same statement as I gave before.

Mr Rae: Therefore, I'd like to ask the minister, when he says, "We are strongly committed to protecting the benefits of the disabled," can people who are now receiving benefits as disabled people and as permanently unemployable people -- can you give the assurance to each and every one of those persons that they will continue to receive disability and social assistance benefits from the government of Ontario? Can you make that categorical assurance to those people today?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I want to assure the people of Ontario that we will move on these issues with sensitivity and that the needs of current recipients will be met.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. Some days ago the Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee released its report entitled The Privilege of Professionalism.

I've had several questions from both teachers and parents regarding our intentions and the recommendations of this report, so I would like to ask the minister what his intentions are regarding the future shape and direction of a proposed college of teachers.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to advise the member for Durham West that I have received the implementation committee's report. As you know, the implementation committee was established in February and submitted their report last Wednesday.

I think it's a very thorough report. It addresses all of the items the implementation committee was asked to address, including making some suggestions about training and professional development for teachers in the province of Ontario. It talks about pre-service for teachers and in-service for teachers, and it also makes suggestions about establishing a register for teachers.

I believe the college of teachers that's been proposed will be one that helps teachers develop a sense of professionalism in this province which I'm sure they'll all back.

Mrs Ecker: What time line does the minister have for perhaps introducing legislation or changes along these lines?

Hon Mr Snobelen: No final determination has yet been made about the college of teachers. However, I'm pleased to inform this House that we will be working with the implementation committee to spell out the details of the implementation and also to talk to the members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the representatives of that organization, about a plan that they have submitted to the ministry, that I have committed to them that I would review that plan and review the proposals from the implementation committee.

I would like to note that we are pleased that the member for Ottawa Centre spoke highly of the implementation committee's report and I am sure the member for Windsor-Riverside is equally pleased with the report, so we would expect some great cooperation from the House when we bring forward ultimately the college of teachers.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, you are aware of the overwhelming evidence that people from every region of this province do not trust how gasoline prices are set and have become very cynical, not only of the gas companies but of governments, on this particular issue.

You are also aware of the private member's bill that I will be introducing this afternoon, which is designed to ensure that gas companies will be held accountable for the prices at the pumps. The public wants this debate to be held and will continue to be very cynical of the gas companies and of governments unless the issue is addressed.

Minister, my question to you is this: Will you acknowledge that there is a recurring problem with gas pricing practices across the province and will you take the necessary steps to send this bill to committee for public hearings so that the problem can be responsibly addressed?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I asked Bob Elgie about this.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): With regard to gas pricing, it's interesting the member for St Catharines says he asked the Minister of Energy, I believe, the Honourable Robert Elgie, this question some time ago.

I can remember the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in 1988, the Honourable Bill Wrye, was asked this question. In fact I asked the Treasurer, the Honourable Floyd Laughren, this question in 1991.

I think that the answer all of those ministers would give to this question is that we would love to find a solution to this problem, we would really love to find a solution to this problem. If the member has a good suggestion on how to address this, we will listen to that suggestion.

Mr Chiarelli: Indeed, the bill has been very well received by many people across the province, and there is a lot of interest in it, but I do want to remind the minister that in the last Parliament your Premier, the MPP for Nipissing, had this to say to the NDP government: "I know you share my concern on the difference in gasoline prices. I ask the minister if he does not agree there is a gas price problem, and why are you so silent on that problem?" That's your Premier, several years ago, of the NDP government.

Of course, the MPP for Carleton, namely you, Minister, in the last Parliament had this to say: "What is the Rae government going to do to stop the gouging of eastern Ontario consumers paying too much for their gasoline?"

My question again, Minister, is this: Are you now saying that you and your Premier were wrong then? Have you changed your mind and will you seriously look at the provisions of my bill?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think I did indicate in my opening that in fact we would look at constructive ideas. Several other provinces have attempted to regulate gasoline with limited success.

The province of Prince Edward Island, for instance, has regulation of gasoline prices, and has the highest prices in Canada as a result of that. Nova Scotia got out of the regulation of gas prices in 1991, after having 50 years of regulation of gas prices, and their gas prices now are lower than they were when it was regulated.

Consequently, to the member for Ottawa West, I, like my government, a new government, am open to fresh ideas on how to approach this problem. We look forward to reading your bill and to debating your bill in private members' hour so that we can fully understand the implications of it.

However, I must say that this is a government that is not looking for extra regulation, extra red tape, and if your bill requires a great deal of that, it would be looked at with some scepticism.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Now that the opposition, as well as the people of Ontario, has good reason to be concerned about whether or not you and your colleagues are reading and understanding the laws that you are enacting in this province -- as we've seen with your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services -- I am asking you today, in light of the fact that Bill 7 is an extremely complex, complicated, lengthy document running some 132 pages, would you today agree finally that province-wide public hearings are needed, if for no other reason than so we can be comfortable that what's signed here will work in light of what we've seen with your colleague who's made a major disaster and hurt potentially tens of thousands of people?

Minister, will you today finally agree to province-wide public hearings on Bill 7?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, through you to the member for Hamilton Centre: As I have indicated to you, we have certainly indicated that we are willing to respond to any concerns. We're willing to have meetings. In fact at the present time I'm actually meeting with some unions regarding some changes that we are quite prepared to make. We have been consulting with individuals. Our door is always open for those individuals who have information that they want to share with us. Certainly we would agree to meet and to listen to all of the concerns out there.

Mr Christopherson: The minister will know that the answer she's given here today is in complete contradiction with the position that she took when she stood right here as the Labour critic for the third party. There were extensive consultations before Bill 40 was brought into the House, and indeed there were public hearings in London, Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Windsor.

Yet you said at that time, Minister, on August 4, 1992, the day the debate on Bill 40 began: "I can understand the government's desire to see some changes made to our labour laws, but you know, in something as sensitive as labour relations, it's important that you cooperate, consult and build consensus."

We agreed with you then. We ask that you agree with yourself and us now and again call on you for province-wide public hearings before you ram this draconian piece of legislation through this Legislature. Minister, I'm calling on you again to give the people of Ontario a chance to have a say before you change the way labour relations exist in this province.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, through you to the member for Hamilton Centre, yes, I agree. I believe very strongly in the need to cooperate, I believe in the need to consult and I believe in the need to form consensus. Unfortunately that's exactly what your party did not do.

You pretended to cooperate, you went all over the province consulting, but in the end let me just remind you of what happened. Your minister, Mr Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour at the time, when he got three people from management, three people from labour, said: "Here are 30 issues related to the Labour Relations Act. Take a look at them. We need some changes." Management came back and said, "We don't need any changes." Labour came back and said: "We like these 30 changes. In fact give us 61 more."

HYDRO RATE FREEZE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The constituents of Niagara South have been very concerned about excessive increases in Hydro rates and the negative impact they have had on employment opportunities in my riding. For example, recently, Mr Russ Davies from Robin Hood Multifoods of Port Colborne, Ontario, asked me some excellent questions about this issue.

I told Mr Davies that this government is following through on its Common Sense Revolution promise of a five-year freeze in Ontario Hydro rates, which was confirmed both in the throne speech and then again in an official statement by the minister herself on October 3. What can the minister tell the House and Mr Davies about what follow-up there has been to her announcement in the House?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would like to thank the member for the question. A few weeks ago, in response to our promise in the Common Sense Revolution, we did commit to a five-year rate freeze for Ontario Hydro rates, and at the throne speech and again in the House I did give notice that we had requested Ontario Hydro to follow through on that request for a five-year rate freeze.

It is my pleasure to announce to members of the House today that in fact Ontario Hydro, following its board of directors' meeting, has agreed to a five-year rate freeze for the following year.

This is very good news for Ontario. It's following our plan for making Ontario competitive again and for keeping businesses competitive and in this province.

Mr Hudak: I am very pleased to hear that Ontario Hydro is responding so positively to the direction received from this government. Could the minister further explain to the House and to the constituents of Niagara South what this rate freeze really means to our economy and how this rate freeze will benefit the people of this province?

Hon Mrs Elliott: This rate freeze applies to the direct users, to the municipal utilities and to the customers all across this province. What it really means is, taking inflation into account, an actual decrease of 15% in Ontario Hydro rates. This is good news to keep those businesses in Ontario competitive and here working and supporting and employing taxpayers of Ontario.

CLOSURE OF JAILS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Today I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, on October 5, two days after you closed the halfway houses across Ontario, I asked you about your plans to close jails. You dismissed the question out of hand, saying there have been rumours of lists for years and that there were no such plans.

Well, Minister, I have a copy of your communications plan from your ministry that outlines all of your closure plans. It is dated September 29, 1995, seven days before I asked you that question in this House. This plan outlines the procedure to be followed to close Camp Dufferin, and you have done that; to close the halfway houses, and you have done that; and it also outlines procedures to be followed to close the jails.

Minister, I have difficulty, and I'm sure the general public would have great difficulty, in reconciling what you said in this House to us and your actions. Minister, did you mislead this House?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): With all respect, I think the member has known me long enough to know that I'm not going to come in here and deliberately mislead him or any other member of this Legislature.

I want to indicate that what I said in my original response holds true today. I have not seen this document. What I have done, as all other ministries have done, is ask our officials to go back and look at efficiencies, recommendations in terms of how we can meet our operating targets.

I have indicated to you and I have indicated to others who have concerns in respect to the list that was originally published by the Provincial Auditor, I believe back in 1993, that I will talk to you, consult with you, members of the opposition and members of the government, with respect to any closure decisions prior to their being taken. I remain true to that commitment.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, on that day, October 5, you said to me, "We have made no decisions in respect to jail closures," but in fact your plan is two-thirds completed already, and it details very precisely exactly what procedures you would entail and would be involved by all pertinent ministry officials when jails are closed.

For example, regional managers are to contact the local OPP detachment commanders. The judiciary has to be contacted, the crowns, the defence bar in the affected communities, by fax letter. The minister's office has to call the mayors of the different municipalities where the jails are going to be closed, the OPP commissioner -- I mean, the details are here. So you're telling me you have no decisions, except you've got such a detailed plan to do it without making the decision, I'm surprised that you would have gone to this length and this detail.

Minister, why don't you come clean and tell the people of Ontario that you have made a plan to close the jails of Ontario?

Hon Mr Runciman: I have come clean. We have no plans to close jails in the province. What I'm trying to indicate clearly to the member and other members of this Legislature is that I realize that recommendations are coming to me within the next number of weeks and that in all likelihood, based on the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor in 1993, they will indeed include the possibility of jail closures. I've never suggested otherwise.

I am not being critical of my staff in respect to preparing a full presentation, in respect to all of the questions that might arise, if indeed we make a decision to close a jail or a number of jails. They're talking about the consultation process, they're talking about the communications plan, and I think that's the appropriate way to deliver a package to a minister, so if you're making a decision or a recommendation to cabinet and your colleagues you'll have all of the information, all of the details, a fully detailed plan in front of you before you make that kind of a decision.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health, the man who's in charge of his ministry. The minister would know full well that there are district health councils across the province working very hard on hospital restructuring recommendations.

I'd ask the minister how it is that either he himself, as in the case of Sudbury, intervened in that local process, therefore jeopardizing the possibility of a local solution, or sends his officials to Ottawa, unless of course they went without him knowing. I think a man who runs his own ministry well would know if his officials went to Ottawa and claimed that they were taking over the process for hospital restructuring.

Could I ask the minister: Exactly what is going on? Are you intending to continue to intervene in the hospital restructuring process, where local people have worked extremely hard for many years to bring it to fruition? Indeed, I would think that the minister would want local solutions to hospital restructuring. Why are you intervening in this way?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I think the honourable member for Nickel Belt's question is precipitated by a meeting that occurred in Ottawa last night with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council and Ministry of Health officials. It's my understanding that indeed there was a misunderstanding of what this government's policy is.

We've made it very clear, I've made it very clear -- the policy in the four and a half years I was critic remains -- that we believe that district health councils are the ears, eyes and conscience of the local community. We want them to conduct the hospital restructuring studies and in no way do we want to interfere in those studies.

I'd be happy if a page would come here, please, to provide the member with a letter I faxed to the chair of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council just this morning, clarifying and reaffirming that it is not the intention of this government to interfere in a local process. I'd ask the honourable member to take a look at that letter.

Mr Laughren: I have seen that letter. I appreciate the copy from the minister, but it doesn't answer the question of why he intervened in the Sudbury hospital restructuring that the district health council is trying to accomplish there.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): He sent a letter there too?

Mr Laughren: He wrote a letter there but didn't deny that he was intervening. As a matter of fact, it's just a given that he's already intervened in the process in Sudbury.

Could I ask the minister if he's going to honour the commitment to the district health councils and to the hospitals and to the communities, the commitment that was made by the previous Minister of Health, that savings that are achieved in the restructuring process will be reinvested in health care in those particular communities?

Hon Mr Wilson: The commitment, indeed the planning framework set out by the previous government, isn't as specific as the former Treasurer wants to let on. That is, the commitment of the previous government and indeed the commitment of this government is that dollars saved from those restructuring studies, once they're fully implemented, will be reinvested into health care.

I have no problem saying that we will not necessarily invest dollar for dollar back in those exact communities. The understanding of the district health councils -- and I've clarified this with a number of them -- is they know that the dollars will go into health care in the province of Ontario. It's part of our commitment to reinvest.

For example, the issue raised by -- and it's a concern of all members: the cardiac waiting list, for example. There is no restructuring in Metro Toronto. You're saying I have to take those dollars, reinvest them strictly in Toronto when all the people of the province benefit from people like Dr Tirone David, when they benefit from those world-class surgeons who happen to be located in Toronto.

So we will be taking reinvestment dollars that we've already identified that come from the health care system and reinvesting them in priority areas. That's our commitment and we're very proud of that commitment.

CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation recently announced a number of spending reductions in programs administered by her ministry. My riding of Scarborough East is one of the most culturally diverse in the province, and based on the feedback from a number of my constituents, I'd like to know exactly what the minister's position is on cultural diversity in this province.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): To the honourable member for Scarborough East, this government recognizes the cultural diversity and benefit that this diversity brings to this province. But given the economic climate that we all find ourselves in today, the province can no longer afford to fund the kinds of programs and groups that we have done traditionally in the past. Many of the cultural groups in this province are well established and well suited to play leadership roles in the advancement of their own cultural diversity.

Mr Gilchrist: I thank the minister for her response. That being the case, will the minister please inform this House the ways that her ministry will continue to support cultural diversity in Ontario?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Sandwich is out of order.

Hon Ms Mushinski: We will work with cultural groups in this province to continue our support of their diversity. For example, we'll support those groups that are in the best position to help new residents of this province, community-based organizations which are best suited to help newcomers fully participate in the province's society.

SEAWAY VALLEY FARMERS' ENERGY CO-OPERATIVE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I would like to mention that it's National Co-op Week and I would especially like to applaud Seaway Valley ethanol cooperative in our area, which has 2,000 members and $5 million in shares. Their goal is to construct a $40-million to $45-million facility for ethanol and byproducts. Many jobs will be created, along with hundreds of indirect opportunities and transportation and private sector jobs.

The project was made possible by a $3-million commitment from the former government in April, which all parties supported. However, I have heard the new Minister of Agriculture say that he's not 100% certain he will honour this agreement but he will look at the ministry.

One week ago the minister commented in the House that he was surprised no opposition members had made any comments on agriculture. Well, Minister, my first question is -- and I have lots of them -- can you provide a firm answer here and now: When will you honour the $3-million commitment to the Seaway ethanol co-op?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Cornwall for his support. I have been a promoter and a very, very strong supporter of the Seaway Valley energy co-op for many years. As a matter of fact, I was in the farm kitchen the night it was initially thought up. It was in Glengarry county.

I have been supportive of that industry, as the honourable member knows, for many years and I continue to support the industry. I certainly hope that in the near future there will be an announcement that the $3 million is indeed going to go to Seaway Valley. I do not have the legal

interpretation of that today.

Mr Cleary: Before the election I worked with the former Minister of Agriculture and Food to make sure that this project became reality. Prior to this minister getting that position, when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in 1989, we had people up from the States telling us how to go about an ethanol project. My only regret is that the former minister's commitment did not happen more quickly.

Since June 8, I have gone back over the records to make sure the new minister's commitment is there. I was relieved to note that when in opposition, the minister said:

"Fuel ethanol has recognized public benefits."

"It would boost employment in the Cornwall area."

The project "has my full support and encouragement."

"I strongly urge your support for the proposal."

And even -- and this is a direct quote from the letter:

"As the only vocal supporter of fuel ethanol in the Ontario Legislature through the late 1980s...."

I assume then he won't have a problem, from the then member and now minister, to maintain his support.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mr Cleary: It's time to put your money where your mouth is. Exactly when can the group expect the government's commitment?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm quite sure that the honourable member for Cornwall will know that I was at the co-op meeting last night and I spent some time with Mr Atkins, who happens to be the president of the Seaway Valley Farmers' Energy Co-operative, and he knows he has my full and unadulterated support.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's amazing, Mr Speaker. These people spent money in a way that was unbelievable and now they're trying to go the other way. I have difficulty understanding, particularly as the official Leader of the Opposition, when Minister of Energy, was not all that supportive of the ethanol industry, and I have correspondence to that effect.

I want to assure my colleague from Cornwall that indeed the ethanol industry has my total support.

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. The minister is well-known for his belief in the essence of protecting public safety and he has made speech after speech about the necessity for a law-and-order approach that protects public safety. Yet a couple of weeks ago, without warning, he closed the halfway houses and seemed surprised in this House that anyone would be concerned.

The public is concerned about its own safety and it's concerned about the issue of recidivism; it's concerned about how prisoners are reintegrated into society. The Common Sense Revolution itself said, "With more cooperation and support to private sector initiatives such as the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies, more offenders are likely to be successfully integrated back into society."

This minister and this government have slashed support to the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, they've cut grants that have been available to those societies, they've cut the halfway houses, and I want the minister to explain how he thinks this is going to be protective of public safety.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): If you compare the track record of the previous government with respect to its commitment to public safety and the initiatives we've undertaken in a very few weeks in office, I think you'll find that the public, very much so, supports the initiatives that have been undertaken by this government with respect to public safety.

I can simply reiterate what I've said in the past with respect to the closure of halfway houses, CRCs, that they represent only one half of 1% of the offender population in the province on any given day; about 398 beds, I believe. We believe we've come up with a system in terms of the electronic monitoring, plus the risk assessment process, plus the criteria for consideration for electronic monitoring, that is much safer for the public of Ontario, and we feel very comfortable with that position.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Lake Nipigon has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning winter maintenance of highways. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Within the context of question period today we had two ministerial statements delivered. I seek unanimous consent of the House for us to respond in the usual fashion to the statements we received today on multiculturalism and on hydro rates.

The Speaker: He's asking for unanimous consent. There is not unanimous consent.

MOTIONS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would seek unanimous consent of the House to strike committees of the Legislature, move their membership and set up a

schedule with regard to committee meetings.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent of the House to do that? Agreed.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 110(

a) and for the duration of the 36th Parliament, no standing or select committee shall consist of more than 14 members.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP / NOUVEAUX MEMBRES DES COMITÉS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Mrs Boyd, Mr Chiarelli, Mr Conway, Mr Doyle, Mr Guzzo, Mr Hampton, Mr Hudak, Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mr Klees, Mr Leadston, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Parker, Mr Ramsay, Mr Tilson.

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Barrett, Mr Bisson, Mr Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin), Mr Brown (Scarborough West), Mr Cleary, Mr Clement, Mr Curling, Mr Cordiano, Mr Kells, Mr Martin, Mr Rollins, Mrs Ross, Mr Sheehan, Mr Wettlaufer.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Arnott, Mr Brown (Scarborough West), Ms Castrilli, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Ford, Mr Hudak, Ms Lankin, Mr Kwinter, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Phillips, Mr Sampson, Mr Silipo, Mr Spina, Mr Wettlaufer.

Standing committee on general government: Mr Carroll, Mr Danford, Mr Flaherty, Mr Grandmaître, Mr Hardeman, Mr Kells, Mr Marchese, Mr Maves, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Sergio, Mr Stewart, Mr Tascona, Mr Wood (Cochrane North), Mr Young.

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Bartolucci, Mr Crozier, Mr Ford, Mr Fox, Mr Gravelle, Mr Johnson (Perth), Mr Kormos, Mr Laughren, Mr Leadston, Mr Martin, Mr Newman, Mr Preston, Mrs Ross, Mr Wood (London South).

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Arnott, Mr Bartolucci, Mr Boushy, Mr Cooke, Mr DeFaria, Mr Froese, Mr Hastings, Mr Grimmett, Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mr Miclash, Mr Morin, Mr O'Toole, Mr Silipo, Mr Stewart.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mrs Caplan, Mr DeFaria, Mr Doyle, Mrs Fisher, Mr Froese, Mr Galt, Mr Hoy, Mr Jordan, Mr Lalonde, Mr Marchese, Mr Parker, Mr Stockwell, Mr VanKoughnet, Mr Wood (Cochrane North).

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Agostino, Mr Beaubien, Mr Boushy, Mr Carr, Mr Colle, Mr Crozier, Mr Fox, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Hastings, Ms Martel, Mr McGuinty, Mr Pouliot, Mr Skarica, Mr VanKoughnet.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would the member take his seat please. The member for Windsor-Riverside has a point of order.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, in that the government can choose to do what it wishes, but it was clearly communicated to the government House leader's office that we were not prepared to proceed with this motion today on unanimous consent, that this is a substantive motion that requires the motion to be filed and printed and that we were going to proceed with that.

I was not in the chamber. The acting government House leader knows that, knows that this was communicated to the government House leader's office today.

If they want to proceed this way, I can tell you this is going to cause great problems. They can proceed the way it was agreed to on the phone, that there was not going to be unanimous consent, and we can have that kind of straightforward, open relationship where we communicate our views with one another, or we can constantly not communicate with one another. If that's the case, the current member who's speaking knows what that means over the next four years.

The Speaker: I've heard the honourable member. I asked for unanimous consent as Speaker; I heard unanimous consent. The member can proceed.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent that the acting government House leader proceed with the agreement we had, that this was not going to proceed --

The Speaker: The member is out of order.

Mr Cooke: I'm asking for unanimous --

The Speaker: You're out of order. I recognize the member for Carleton.

Hon Mr Sterling: In accordance with rule 106, the committees are to be struck within the first 10 sessional days of the Legislature. This is the 10th sessional day, and therefore I feel obliged to continue, as consent was given by this Legislature.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Barrett, Mr Bisson, Mr Boushy, Mr Hastings, Mr O'Toole, Mr Pettit, Mr Pouliot, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Rollins, Mr Ruprecht, Mr Sergio, Mr Shea, Mr Sheehan, Mr Smith.

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Baird, Mr Carroll, Mr Christopherson, Mr Chudleigh, Ms Churley, Mr Duncan, Mrs Fisher, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Hoy, Mr Lalonde, Mr Maves, Mr Murdoch, Mr Ouellette, Mr Tascona.

Standing committee on social development: Mr Agostino, Mrs Ecker, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Gravelle, Mrs Johns, Mr Jordan, Mr Laughren, Mrs Munro, Mr Newman, Mr Patten, Mr Pettit, Mr Preston, Mr Smith, Mr Wildman.

The Speaker: Mr Sterling moves that the membership of the standing committees for the session be as follows -- dispense?

Interjections: No, read it.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): If you guys want to play these games, that's what it means.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Standing committee on administration of justice: Mrs Boyd, Mr Chiarelli, Mr Conway, Mr Doyle, Mr Guzzo, Mr Hampton, Mr Hudak, Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mr Klees, Mr Leadston, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Parker, Mr Ramsay, Mr Tilson.

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Barrett, Mr Bisson, Mr Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin), Mr Brown (Scarborough West), Mr Cleary, Mr Clement, Mr Curling, Mr Cordiano, Mr Kells, Mr Martin, Mr Rollins, Mrs Ross, Mr Sheehan, Mr Wettlaufer.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Arnott, Mr Brown (Scarborough West), Ms Castrilli, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Ford, Mr Hudak, Ms Lankin, Mr Kwinter, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Phillips, Mr Sampson, Mr Silipo, Mr Spina, Mr Wettlaufer.

Standing committee on general government: Mr Carroll, Mr Danford, Mr Flaherty, Mr Grandmaître, Mr Hardeman, Mr Kells, Mr Marchese, Mr Maves, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Sergio, Mr Stewart, Mr Tascona, Mr Wood (Cochrane North), Mr Young.

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Bartolucci, Mr Crozier, Mr Ford, Mr Fox, Mr Gravelle, Mr Johnson (Perth), Mr Kormos, Mr Laughren, Mr Leadston, Mr Martin, Mr Newman, Mr Preston, Mrs Ross, Mr Wood (London South).

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Arnott, Mr Bartolucci, Mr Boushy, Mr Cooke, Mr DeFaria, Mr Froese, Mr Hastings, Mr Grimmett, Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mr Miclash, Mr Morin, Mr O'Toole, Mr Silipo, Mr Stewart.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mrs Caplan, Mr DeFaria, Mr Doyle, Mrs Fisher, Mr Froese, Mr Galt, Mr Hoy, Mr Jordan, Mr Lalonde, Mr Marchese, Mr Parker, Mr Stockwell, Mr VanKoughnet, Mr Wood (Cochrane North).

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Agostino, Mr Beaubien, Mr Boushy, Mr Carr, Mr Colle, Mr Crozier, Mr Fox, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Hastings, Ms Martel, Mr McGuinty, Mr Pouliot, Mr Skarica, Mr VanKoughnet.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Barrett, Mr Bisson, Mr Boushy, Mr Hastings, Mr O'Toole, Mr Pettit, Mr Pouliot, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Rollins, Mr Ruprecht, Mr Sergio, Mr Shea, Mr Sheehan, Mr Smith.

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Baird, Mr Carroll, Mr Christopherson, Mr Chudleigh, Ms Churley, Mr Duncan, Mrs Fisher, Mr Gilchrist, Mr Hoy, Mr Lalonde, Mr Maves, Mr Murdoch, Mr Ouellette, Mr Tascona.

Standing committee on social development: Mr Agostino, Mrs Ecker, Mr Gerretsen, Mr Gravelle, Mrs Johns, Mr Jordan, Mr Laughren, Mrs Munro, Mr Newman, Mr Patten, Mr Pettit, Mr Preston, Mr Smith, Mr Wildman.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know why it wouldn't be possible for us to have a debate and a discussion on this question. The question of the establishment of committees of the House and the approaches being taken by members opposite towards the work of these committees I would think is an extremely substantive matter and one which I'm sure the House would, in due course and after a substantive reflection, want to consider.

I certainly plan to speak to this question because of its importance for members of the House.

The Speaker: We'll have a debate. The member for Carleton, anything?

Hon Mr Sterling: Yes, I do have something to say, Mr Speaker. Both the government and the loyal opposition had the membership of their committees ready for some period of time, and we were waiting for the third party to strike their membership. Therefore, as a matter of courtesy we waited for them to put forward their names.

They were hesitating in giving us their names, and then they said yesterday that they would prefer to have them considered at caucus meeting this morning. This did not leave the necessary time for us to give notice as required under the standing orders and that is why I asked for consent.

When Mr Cooke was asked yesterday by one of the assistants of the Legislature if he would consent to this order being considered, he agreed that he would allow it to go on consent. He changed his mind this morning. I assumed, when I asked the question today, when I asked for unanimous consent, that he again had changed his mind back to giving consent to have this motion called.

Therefore, the reason we were unable to give notice -- and I would not have had to ask consent -- was in fact caused by the New Democratic Party caucus itself.

I felt obliged to complete the order and move the next motion -- as you know, I have consent as well to move the times for when the

schedule of these committee meetings will take place -- because under our standing order 106 it says, "Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of each session in a Parliament the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed for the duration of the session."

Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the government House leader, and I'm speaking in his absence, to live within the spirit of the standing orders. This being the 10th sessional day since we began this session, I thought it prudent that we go ahead with naming the committees, naming the committee

schedule and setting it forth.

That is the background behind this particular matter. I believe that members of this Legislature want to know what committees they're sitting on and therefore it should be placed in the form of an order, which has been put forward today, which you have read and I have read, and upon which there is now a debate.

Mr Rae: I want to take this opportunity to raise some questions that we have on this side of the House with respect to how it is that this government intends to proceed with the program called the Common Sense Revolution and the amount of consultation and discussion it plans to carry out in response to questions and concerns that have been raised by many members of the public with respect to their program.

One of the most frequently heard criticisms I hear, and not only from tried and true New Democrats or members of the Liberal Party, with respect to the approach that's being taken by this government, is not only a concern about its ideological direction, a concern which I spoke to directly --

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the honourable leader of the third party to speak on the motion with regard to the people who are involved on the committees.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, the member for Carleton and I go back a long way, and if he wants to harass and prevent me from speaking by virtue of constant interruption, I can handle that. I've been around this game long enough. But I do want to raise directly on the floor of the House today for the consideration of the House some of the concerns people have with respect to the willingness of this government to listen and the willingness of this government to use the membership of the committees as a way of informing itself about the concerns people have with respect to government legislation.

The concern people have about this government, as I said before I was interrupted, if only briefly, by the intervention from the member for Carleton, is not simply a concern about ideological direction. It's also a concern about process.

When we discuss the establishment of committees and the working of these committees, above all we're dealing with questions of process, questions which the member for Carleton himself has been involved in for many years as an opposition member, as a new minister in the Davis government when he was one of the main protagonists on behalf of freedom of information legislation, and on many, many occasions when I know he's expressed his personal interest and concern about the workings of committees, about the responsibilities of committees and about the willingness of governments to listen to concerns and to criticisms which come from the public with respect to legislation.

I think this question of the style, the temperament, the willingness of this government to listen in the face of concerns which are being raised is going to prove to be one of the major, major issues in the politics of this province in the years of the Harris government to come.

I have heard it said by the Premier, I've heard it said by ministers in government, I've heard it said by many individual members: Their view is that the process of consultation is one that took place prior to June 8 and that there is now no need for the government to use the committees of the House to listen to the concerns of the public.

I've heard it said that this is why the government's feeling is that it can move, it can cut welfare rates by nearly 22% without a breath of consultation, without a breath of discussion; it can deal with labour legislation, which is, as my colleague from Hamilton has pointed out, some 132 pages long, without for an instant considering the need for a full public debate and an active public consultation.

I want to deal directly with this process and this question of how it is that the committees are going to work; for example, the standing committee on resources development, which would in the ordinary course of events be the committee that would deal with the issue of Bill 7.

I want to take issue with something that the Minister of Labour said today in response to questions from my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre. The Minister of Labour said, "Well, the former government didn't listen, and we're not going to listen." I want to take some issue with that, because I want to say directly to the members opposite that if you look at the process which was followed by our government with respect to labour relations reform, you will see a striking and startling contrast to the process which is being suggested by the government with respect to the establishment of committees, to their membership and to their willingness to listen.

We started out with two drafting committees, from labour and from management. We asked them to come forward with particular recommendations. Those recommendations were published. They became public documents. They became a matter of public concern and public debate.

We then had a process by which the ministry brought forward some suggested changes in a white paper, which white paper was considered, discussed, debated. Efforts were made formally and informally to try to reach a broader consensus. Efforts were made in response to the concerns that were present to try to find a consensus.

The government then produced legislation, and what did the Conservative Party in opposition insist on the very day that legislation was brought down? The opposition at that time, the Conservative Party which is now in government, insisted at that time that there be a process of discussion, that there be hearings, that there be committees, that there be consultation, that there be research, that there be studies and that work be done.

My friend from Etobicoke, who has magically moved his chair so he can be closer to the centre of power, something which we all understand his aspiration to do -- and we can share his frustration at being outside the pale, outside the sacred circle in which all decisions are made. It's a circle which we understand is very small indeed, very tiny. I say with respect to the members who are in the House listening to what I have to say that I share, I'm sure, their sense of frustration as they see things happening and wonder how it could be that it took place, what was the source of the information, how could it be that it happened.

To come back to the point on the standing committee on resources development, our response to this was to establish hearings; our response was to let people come forward. Upon a conclusion of hearings in which people's views were heard on all sides, the legislation was amended.

My colleagues who were with me in caucus and in cabinet at that time can recall the very intense discussion and debate which took place within us as to which amendments we should consider, as to how they would be considered, the pros and cons, the back and forth. That is the process by which decisions are made.

Now it's a messy process. It's not perfect, because it's not driven simply by one authority, it's not driven simply by one sacred document, it's not driven simply by the holy text of the Common Sense Revolution; it's one in which people listen, in which there is give and take and in which there is part of a public discussion.

I well remember when the Minister of Finance in our government brought forward his first budget. The members of the Conservative Party insisted that that budget be subjected to public hearings, and we agreed. We agreed in a move that was unprecedented. We said: "We have nothing to fear from public hearings. We have nothing to fear from a committee that travels, that gets around the province, that listens to the concerns of people. We have nothing to fear of that at all. In fact, we have everything to gain from that."

So it is that I think the fundamental question which is going to come back to haunt this government and the members of the Conservative Party again and again and again is, there is no point in establishing committees of this House and there is no point in establishing the membership of the committees of this House if the government is not prepared to let those committees do their job: to listen to the public and to respond to the concerns which the public has about the workings of government.

We have asked repeatedly with respect to the first major piece of legislation, Bill 7, of this government that it respond, that it tell us what it is intending to do, that it allow the committee to travel, that it allow there to be hearings, that it allow the process in which it will admit, "Yes, that was a mistake. Yes, we need to correct it. Yes, there was a drafting error. Oh yes, there was something done by inadvertence," or, "Now we understand that there are unintended consequences to the changes which we're making, and these unintended consequences need to be dealt with in a process of give and take," which is what the parliamentary process is to be all about.

I think all of us share a concern, not simply with the ideological direction of this government, a concern which I think is going to be increasingly shared across the province of Ontario, but about the willingness of the government to listen.

We had today a minister of the crown who was not prepared to admit in a written statement in which he intended to fully disclose the issue surrounding his misleading comments the week before -- he was not prepared to disclose in the document itself a couple of very simple facts. He was not prepared to disclose, and still isn't, as far as I know, though he may be because there's no time limitation on questions in the scrum. He may in fact eventually come to the conclusion that he has to come clean.

He still hasn't told us how it would be that a group of civil servants would get together on August 29 and decide to draft a series of changes to regulations, as if they would simply get around and have a pizza party and say: "Oh, we've got a good idea. Let's change some regulations." They obviously acted on the basis of instruction. They obviously acted on the basis of direction. Civil servants in the middle of the summer aren't going to be thinking of ways of dreaming up regulatory change unless they're instructed to do so. Everyone knows that.

Why wouldn't the minister have the courage, why wouldn't he have the straightforwardness to say: "I asked the staff to prepare changes and it was on my instruction that these changes were made. I'm the person who signed the document that went to cabinet and I carry and take full responsibility for the fact that I made this mistake, that this mistake was made not simply under my watch, but I signed a document that I hadn't read, I signed a document that I didn't fully understand and I carried that document through cabinet"?

Why wouldn't the Premier stand up and say: "I participated in a cabinet meeting that approved a series of regulations. I wasn't aware what was in them. It was a mistake. I will personally ensure that it doesn't happen again"? Why wouldn't he say that?

Well, they haven't said it, and what concerns me is that because of the determination of this government to act on an ideological basis, the mistake -- and clearly it was a mistake -- that was made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services is going to be repeated again and again and again, because this is a government that will not listen, this is a government that is not prepared to listen, this is a government that has made up its mind; and there's nothing more dangerous than a government that has made up its mind and is not prepared to listen.

A welfare cut of 22% across the board -- greater than even their own officials said was necessary to reach the financial targets -- in which they went out one day and said, "We'll do it. We won't affect disabled people," and now we have people who are disabled in their teens who are being cared for by their parents, and their benefits have been cut.

Did they intend to do that? I don't know. Were they advised by their officials that this would be the effect of the regulatory change? I don't know. But I can say to members opposite who are listening to this discussion, these are very, very basic questions about how wise governments act and how it is important to at least attempt to establish a consensus.

Having said that, let me be the first to admit that at the end of the day the government has to govern. But the question is, what is the end of the day? Is it at the conclusion of a process in which everyone's had their say, or is it because people have simply sat down and said, "Well, this is what's in the CSR and that's the way it's going to be"?

As I said in my response to the speech from the throne, this is a very, very fundamental question as to how we are going to be able to get along in this House for the next several years. How are we going to be able to carry on the public business of this province if it is the view of the army across the way that they've got the votes, they don't need to listen, they don't need to learn, they don't need to consult, they don't need to talk, they don't need to bring people in, they don't need to change their minds, they don't need to admit that there might be something wrong in the Common Sense Revolution? They are simply going to plow ahead regardless of the consequences.

When I look down the list of the membership of the committees, when I look down the considerations that have been made and when I look down the list of the understandings that have been reached with respect to the membership of these committees, I still question the willingness of this government to really listen and learn.

We know that my colleague from Nickel Belt is going to be a member of the standing committee on government agencies, and he'll be joined by my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie as well as my colleague from Welland-Thorold, and that'll be a happy and effective trio. My colleague from Mississauga is enjoying the thought of those three together. I look at some of the other membership of the committee and I think it'll be a very lively set of discussions that take place, knowing the affection and high regard that all these members have for each other.

But I would say to you, Mr Speaker, already in response to the charge of the 10 wasted years -- which is one of the great myths, one of the great pieces of mythology that is being persistently spread and repeated by the members opposite -- look at the contrast in the membership already of people who are being named to patronage positions, to government appointments in senior government agencies, already the changes that have been introduced, already the things that are being put in place which clearly indicate that in 10 years the Conservative Party in this province has forgotten nothing and has learned nothing.

I look at the member opposite from Mississauga and I think of the questions that she raised about every single appointment that was made. I would ask her, on a fairminded basis, she will know perfectly well that when it comes to the Social Assistance Review Board, we established a process, as we did with every single government agency, in which, at my personal insistence, I said to the person whom I appointed as in charge of appointments -- we set up a process of consultation which was literally unprecedented in the history of the province.

In a book that went out to every library, to every municipal council, in which jobs that had previously only gone to the anointed Tories or the anointed Liberals, we said that, yes, there will be New Democrats among them because, Lord knows, there are some New Democrats who we believe are qualified to do certain jobs and we believe it should be permitted and permissible for them to be appointed.

But we also said that there will be Conservatives, as we appointed a former Conservative to head up the Liquor Control Board of the province of Ontario, my colleague Mr Brandt, who served with us in opposition, and he's done a very effective job. I look forward to hearing from him, for example, when it comes to the question of the privatization of the LCBO, which is to be found in the Common Sense Revolution.

I contrast that, where we said to every chairman, "We want your views, we want your list, we will agree to put forward any names to you, you put forward any names, and there will be a full discussion of the acceptability of who they are." We appointed Liberals, we appointed Conservatives, we appointed New Democrats. For the most part, we appointed people who had no particular party affiliation whatsoever, because most people in the province don't necessarily subscribe to any particular political party and see themselves as neutral.

Instead of which, what do the members opposite do? What did the minister do? The Minister of Community and Social Services decides to appoint some of the most partisan, some of the most strong-willed --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Well, somebody did.

Mr Rae: Well, we don't know whether it was him or not, or whether he signed -- perhaps it was another mistake. I thought perhaps he'd come forward and say: "I hadn't actually read that name. I wasn't sure it was coming forward. I was promised that she wasn't on that list."

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Evelyn Dodds.

Mr Rae: Evelyn Dodds, the other Conservative appointments that have been named: former candidates, defeated candidates.

At some point, the concern is not only the fact that this is a government that is determined to return to the bad old days in terms of partisanship and in terms of patronage appointments. We've seen it again with respect to the way they handed out the contract on the government negotiations, where we insisted that the grievance work be handed out fairly. We said to the law firms that had been there for a long, long time, that had had a monopoly on it: Under our government, no monopoly. Government advertising, no monopoly. In every case, a rigid process; in every case, a tendering process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You were doing extremely well at the beginning. I'd like you to stay on topic, which is on the motion. Thank you.

M. Rae : Monsieur le Président, je suis déterminé de rester, mais il faut que je vous parle directement.

J'espère que vous êtes d'accord avec moi que la substance du travail des comités et de l'approche du gouvernement face à son programme et sa volonté d'écouter les membres de l'opposition, sa volonté d'écouter les gens de la province, est une question substantielle dont nous avons le droit comme membres, comme députés, de discuter. Nous avons le droit, même l'obligation comme députés, de parler directement sur cette question, et je crois qu'au moment où le gouvernement décide de présenter les noms des députés qui seront les membres de ces comités, il est permis au chef d'un parti de parler directement sur la question du travail de ces comités.

La question, c'est, est-ce que le gouvernement est vraiment prêt à nous écouter ? Est-ce que le gouvernement est vraiment prêt non seulement à écouter les députés, mais à écouter le public qui veut s'exprimer sur ces questions ? Je pense que c'est une question qui est dans le cadre de notre débat. Si j'ai tort je suis prêt, naturellement, à accepter le jugement de M. le Président, parce que j'ai le respect non seulement pour lui personnellement mais pour son travail et son poste. Mais je pense que la question que nous touchons aujourd'hui est absolument fondamentale.

Let me return to this question. We have, over the so-called 10 lost years that the members speak of opposite -- what did we do in the 10 lost years?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Just the last five.

Mr Rae: The member from Kingston is a little uneasy about that as well, but he should know that back in 1985 --

Interjection.

Mr Rae: No. Again, the Liberal Party did not form a government in 1985 because of spontaneous combustion, I say to the member. It was not a process in which miraculously the Liberal Party was elevated to office. The Liberal Party was put in office in 1985 because the membership of this party decided that it was time to make a change and because we could agree on a program.

A substantial part of that program -- and I've had no thanks for that move for the last 10 years, not a word of gratitude from the Liberals for that move, but I'm used to that. I do not expect that in my lifetime. But what I do expect is for members to recall that a good deal of what was determined in 1985 was that we would change the way the House did business, that we would open up the membership of committees in the House.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): And we did.

Mr Rae: And we did it. That we would open up the process of nomination to committees, and we did it; that we would accept a democratization, and we did it; that the names of those appointed -- and I see the member for Carleton listening intently. He will know, because when he was in opposition he was totally in favour of this, that every single name that was proposed by the government would go to the committee and would be considered. That's a process that's been well accepted and well understood as to how that would take place and how it would happen: that there would be a process of negotiation and discussion; that we would give members of the House a role and a real job to do.

I say again, as I said last week in the speech from the throne, I am enormously proud