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

January 29, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

L041 - Mon 29 Jan 1996 / Lun 29 Jan 1996

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

TAX AND FEE INCREASES

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

HEALTH CARE

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

HIGHWAY TOLLS

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

WORKFARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Carroll from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 26,

An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to the standing order of the House, December 12, 1995, the bill is ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Mr Wilson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 26,

An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding that there is an agreement among all three parties to split the time evenly throughout the debate on third reading, both in the morning and in the afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I am pleased to spend a few moments to further explain this historic piece of legislation. In particular, as Minister of Health for the province, I appreciate the opportunity to further explain the health provisions of Bill 26 during this third reading debate.

Before I begin to explain further some of the details of the bill, I'd like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Helen Johns, the MPP for Huron, and the other two health committee members, Tony Clement and Janet Ecker, who, along with members of the opposition, worked very hard to try to make some improvements, some amendments to this legislation to ensure that the bill reflected the intent of the government and the policy of the government.

I'm briefly going to go through the four main health sections of Bill 26 and explain what we have before us today. The Savings and Restructuring Act provides this government with the means to complete the restructuring of the province's hospital system. Previous governments initiated local planning efforts for system-wide change, but left behind no mechanism to make sure the job was completed.

Without the measures in Bill 26, the past several years of restructuring planning may have amounted to a very costly and frustrating exercise for many Ontario communities. At best, it could have resulted in a provincial patchwork of local hospital restructurings without an eye for the system as a whole. Bill 26 establishes the Health Services Restructuring Commission, a body which will be able to assist those many communities that have undergone very detailed planning processes in order to make their communities' hospital systems more efficient and sustainable.

The government, through the hospital restructuring commission, will have the ability to bring about the changes that are identified through the district health council reports of local communities and, whether it be closing, merging or amalgamating or redefining hospitals as reflected in those studies, the commission will be able to act on those studies.

An amendment was accepted to make it absolutely clear that the commission and the powers of the minister would sunset in four years, would cease to exist in four years. Also, an amendment was made to ensure that the commission couldn't go off and do its own thing, but that it had to have regard to the district health council studies.

The idea of a health system restructuring commission was not the government's idea. The previous government, millions of dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer time later, set in motion a process where district health councils study their local hospital communities. We are expecting, this year and through the early part of 1997, that some 50 restructuring reports from the local volunteer groups will be coming forward to this government. Bill 26 puts in place a mechanism to deal with it.

It was my firm opinion and that of the district health council in Metropolitan Toronto, after reading their report and discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association, that had we let the status quo prevail, we might not have been able to move with hospital restructuring this year. We know from the Finance minister's announcement that it's absolutely crucial that a system-wide restructuring be done and that the politics in terms of hospital restructuring be taken out of the system and handed to a more arm's-length commission, called the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

I'm pleased to remind all members that after the couple of amendments to this section, the Ontario Hospital Association put out both a press release and a letter to me indicating that it's very pleased. In fact, they say that we did get it right in the legislation. I want to thank both the Ontario Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of Ontario for their help.

The people in the system -- the hospital administrators, the members of the Ontario Hospital Association -- have taken a very, very responsible approach to the restructuring that must occur to truly bring about a hospital system in Metro Toronto and across the province. Some of the discussions we've had I can tell you we would not have had three or four years ago, but reality has sunk in to all of us here with the fiscal problems we have in the province, with our commitment to preserve the health care budget at $17.4 billion but also to make sure that money is freed up so that we can invest in long-term-care services.

We announced the community care access centres just last week, which will be that new window of access for consumers, for the people of this province to access those long-term-care services. We know through the district health council reports that much money will have to be pumped into the long-term-care community-based service side as hospital restructuring and reconfigurations proceed over the next few years.

I want to thank those hospital leaders who have been very, very responsible in their discussions with the ministry, in their discussions with the opposition parties. I appreciate the tone and certainly their intent to get the job done and stop studying the system to death. That's something we hope to be able to do in 1996 and 1997.

Another section,

schedule G of the bill, dealt with copayments on the drug plan.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): User fees you weren't going to bring in. "No new user fees." Remember? What about all of those seniors who are not going to get drugs now as a result of that?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Clearly, it's of interest when nine other provinces have copayments on their drug plans and nobody in those provinces --

Ms Lankin: That makes it okay? What about all those seniors in the province not getting health care as a result of it?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order and she knows it.

Hon Mr Wilson: Other provinces have gone through this debate and today you do not find the people of those provinces calling the copayments on the drug plan "user fees." They are copayments. This government was confronted with the same tough challenge that the previous governments have had. The program has grown from the 1970s, from a relatively small program costing about $100 million to a program today that is costing $1.3 billion.

In just a few weeks and months, we as a government are going to have to deal with about two years of cuts from Mr Martin and Mr Chrétien, some $1.4 billion perhaps in cuts to the health care budgets alone over the next 24 months. Unlike the previous government, which to deal with fiscal pressures on the drug plan delisted unilaterally, without public consultation, some 250 drugs, just took them right off the plan, we were faced with a similar decision: Do we continue to delist drugs behind closed doors, some of those very important cardiac drugs?

If you meet with a group of seniors, which I did last week, and you say, "How many of you now are paying cash for the full cost of your drugs?" many of them will put their hands up, as a result of the 250 drug products that were delisted over the last year.

So that and the actions of the previous government to keep the program affordable have had a very direct effect. We were faced with the same situation. To keep it affordable, to keep it sustainable, a $1.3-billion program in which 1.2 million Ontario residents benefit from that program, we are asking people to contribute in many cases a very small amount of $2 towards sustaining that program.

Rather than have this debate that the opposition has had, I would like to know, and it would be interesting when they have the opportunity to debate today, what they would have done. Would they have continued to delist drugs behind closed doors and put 100% of the cost of those drug products on the backs of the poor, or would they have done what we did, which was to sustain the program, to make it more affordable and to take some of the savings from the new copayments and reinvest them to expand the base?

Now for 140,000 working poor, those people who didn't quite qualify for the $500 deductible and the Trillium drug program, we've lowered that deductible to $350 so that no one in this province will be faced with catastrophic drug costs. So we expanded the base, brought in 140,000 other people and really saved the program and took a responsible approach, given that we do have some pretty serious cuts coming from the federal government in the next weeks and months. That's what we've done in the program.

In deregulating the drug industry, I want to explain to members how "best available price" is set now. Members would be aware that "best available price" can very often be a misnomer. Best available price is set by the manufacturers. They simply say, "Our law says that we will pay the best available price in Canada." If you have a manufacturer that raises the prices equally in all provinces, the best available price essentially is the manufacturer's set price. What we're saying is we want to move away from BAP. We want to move to be a more aggressive purchaser, to have the best negotiated price, and to be able to challenge some of those manufacturers' prices.

We have had a freeze on drug prices for the last two years in this province. They're frozen again, by agreement of the manufacturers, to the end of this year. But prior to that, prior to the freezes, manufacturers used to come forward and say, "Well, we're going to jack up the price; the price increase will be 25%," do it across the provinces, so best available price became the new 25% level, and by law we would pay that.

Apparently, the previous government did ask every once in a while, "Why do you need the 25% increase?" by example, and manufacturers sometimes would say, "Well, we've decided to recover R and D costs over three or four years rather than 10 years, so here's the new price, and by the way, it's the new BAP for the nation." So you pay it.

Because we are the largest purchasers of drugs for seniors, through the ODB, through the formulary, we're going to be able to challenge price increases in the future and really see if we are getting the best available price. I think you'll find other provinces take our lead.

We also free up the cash market, so that institutions like Sick Kids, which is a large purchaser of paediatric drugs, will be able to exercise their muscle in the marketplace and be able to say, "Well, we don't accept your price increase" or "We think you can come in with a lower introductory price." They'll be able to exercise, as large purchasers, that purchasing power.

Also, we have committed as a government, as a matter of policy, to ensure that we keep monitoring prices over the next few years. We will keep the two people in the Ministry of Health who continue to monitor prices, because I do realize that at committee hearings it was split about 50-50 in terms of the opinion of the industry and pharmacists as to whether prices would go up or down. So we'll continue to monitor it, but we certainly intend to be --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To avoid frustration over the course of this day, some of us were present at the hearings, some of us know exactly what was said, and I would hope that the minister would be required to not mislead the public by presenting accurate information about evidence presented in that committee, since he was never there, not one day.

Hon Mr Wilson: They seem to be making new historical contexts. I sat through --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, order. The member for Oriole is out of order. I would like to hear what the minister is saying.

Hon Mr Wilson: With respect to changes to the Health Insurance Act, which seems to have caught the attention of health care providers the most in presentations to the committee hearings, we are making changes so that we can better deal with fraud.

They've sent me a note saying I only have two or three minutes, but let's use the example of the physician who recently did a heart and lung transplant in his living room. Now, the good news is that apparently he didn't also bill us for a house call. But the fact of the matter is that he did put that money in trust; he was trying to prove a point about how inefficient the system is now.

What does that example do for us in terms of the context of Bill 26? Had that physician, under current law without the changes to Bill 26, not come forward and said, "By the way, I owe you $1,800; it was an inappropriate billing," had we not caught it in our computer system -- clearly the forensic flags did not catch it this time, and we're investigating why that didn't happen, why we didn't catch --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You've got a lot of nerve as the minister to say that.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Hon Mr Wilson: We would not under current law be able to compel that physician to pay the $1,800 without being dragged through the MRC and the health services appeal and judicial appeal. It's costing $22,000 a case.

Mrs McLeod: Don't drag them through a provisional review; heaven forbid.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Mr Wilson: Under Bill 26, where there is agreement, where it is the opinion of the general manager, for some services payment can be made. The media used to call that $1,800 that the physician held the interest-free loan. Now we will collect that money where it is very clear, and in the opinion of the general manager, and again, all cleared with the CPSO.

We are not defining what doctors will do in their offices day after day. I remind people that the Canada Health Act leaves it up to the provinces to define medically necessary services. That is what ministers of health do in Canada -- we define the whole range of services that medicare will pay for in this province. It differs from what medicare will pay for in other provinces, and nowhere in any law in Canada is medical necessity defined in law.

Bill 26, as amended, gives new and very substantial appeal that when the general manager of OHIP suspects, has an opinion, that a particular procedure was not medically necessary, again, that is referred to the Medical Review Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Physicians themselves --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, it is; for insured services, it is. Physicians themselves investigate physicians, as through the MRC, and in fact, the good news in Bill 26 is that because we withdrew OHIP inspectors -- we listened and we said, "Okay, we don't need our own inspectors," but in exchange for that, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the ministry were able to come up with a new expedited Medical Review Committee or practitioner review committee process.

Right now, sometimes when we have a relatively small amount of money in dispute between OHIP and a practitioner or a physician, they still have to go through the very long -- it takes three years for the case to even be heard by the Medical Review Committee, and in the end, if they're found guilty, their names are published. Now, practitioners and physicians will have the opportunity to check off if they want to go through a new expedited MRC.

As one of the incentives to do that for relatively small amounts of collectibles, we won't publish their names -- or we don't publish the name, the College of Physicians and Surgeons does. They'll have an expedited process so their lives aren't disrupted. Sometimes these things do boil down to a matter of opinion between the college investigators, the general manager and the actual physician, so we think that's a tremendous improvement. If I were the OMA, I'd be claiming a victory on this rather than continuing to slam the government.

Because we listened to them, we listened to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we will have a better, more fair system for the doctors of this province with respect to disputes over billings. It's a vast improvement and it's something that I'm very proud of that we were able to work through.

Mr Speaker, my time is up. We've worked very hard to get Bill 26 right. I think you'll find that the government will be able, on behalf of the taxpayers, to bring some good management into the health care system, which is what we're all about, and we'll have the tools to restructure that system and meet not only the financial needs of the province and the financial constraints that are on the province, but more importantly, we'll be able to better meet the patients' needs.

We'll be better able to have a system, to plan for the future, to bring in our new information system so that we can catch the doctor who admits he inappropriately billed the system and we'll be able to do that in a far more commonsense fashion.

Mr Speaker, I thank all members for their very good attention to the remarks I just made.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It has been some time now since I have, as you know, Mr Speaker, stood in my place. It's good to be back. I am so happy to be here. I feel like I could just stay here all night.

The last time I was here I was filled with a sense of outrage. I was outraged because I saw a system disappearing before my eyes. I saw government bullying its way, trying to mug the democratic process. I was outraged because I saw the government trying to shackle and muzzle any opposition to its blind adherence to an ideological agenda.

Bill 26 is about a lot of things. It's about taking money out of the pockets of the poorest Ontarians, putting user fees on drugs for the sick and the elderly, just so Mike Harris can deliver a tax bonanza to the wealthiest Ontarians. It's about telling middle-class Ontarians that they won't have to pay any tax increases, then opening up the door to hundreds upon hundreds of user fees, license fees and registration fees, from walking into a park to calling the police. Most of all, this bill is about shackling democracy -- unbridled arrogance. It's about steamrolling over people's rights.

Democracy is a very cherished principle. To subvert real or substantive democracy is to be unaccountable to the people it represents. Real democracy calls for the respectful and sensitive use of the power achieved through the ballot.

Bill 26 shows us how easily the abuses of the past can be repeated in the present. The real intent of Bill 26 is to create conditions for the absolute reign of the business of the lords; the masters of this government. This is being done in the name of the people and in the name of progress.

The enemies of progress, according to this government, are the poor, the unemployed, the elderly and the workers and their organizations. The social guarantees put in place to protect the most vulnerable in our midst, guarantees in which we measure the humanism and the civilized status of the people, are now seen as obstacles to this government's goal of absolute power for the rich.

The people of this province understand this. They recognize that this bill is a blow to democracy. That is why 30,000 teachers and parents marched to protest against this government at Queen's Park this month, that is why over 300 taxpayers gathered at Albert Campbell Collegiate in Scarborough to protest against this bill, and that is why 150 concerned citizens gathered in North Bay, the Premier's riding, to speak out on this vulgar haste and secrecy.

It was over 200 years ago that Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger the most to be feared." I'm going to repeat that because I want the members of the government to hear it and to understand it, "The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger the most to be feared."

Jefferson was warning us against governments using their majorities to bulldoze their way over the will of the people. He was warning us about the arrogance that even a popular elected government can have.

We have seen lots of arrogance in this government. We have seen the arrogance in Mike Harris who wanted to ram this legislation through without any hearings. This bill would have been law on December 14. We have seen the arrogance when Mike Harris told over 1,000 groups and individuals, "We don't have time to listen to your presentations." I saw the arrogance so clearly when Mike Harris and his ministers refused to appear before a legislative committee to explain this bill or answer questions about it or even to defend it.

My colleagues and I have done everything we could to give the people a voice. We fought for public hearings and we have travelled across this province conducting our own hearings into Bill 26 while Jim Wilson was on vacation. I was in Windsor with my colleagues listening to auto workers talking about their fear and their personal medical records that would be invaded. While Al Leach was bunkered in his ministry, afraid to open his mouth and make yet another mistake, I was in St Thomas listening to mothers who feared for their children's education because they may not be able to afford user fees on library books.

While Mike Harris was having his picture taken in front of the Taj Mahal, I was in North Bay listening to seniors talking about how they may have to choose between buying food or paying for medication with user fees. You've heard the phrase "Hobson's choice." This is Harris's choice: food or medication. Shame on you, Mr Harris, wherever you are.

The Tories have angered all decent Ontarians who have taken the time to understand Bill 26 and its terrible implications for doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, parents, and the list goes on and on and on. They're all united in the conviction that Bill 26 represents a monstrous erosion of rights and guarantees of the people of this province. Strangely, the Premier seems alone in not understanding what this bill says or what it means. Perhaps it was the devil who wrote this bill, since it reads like a document straight from hell.

The Tories have tried to stifle public debate on Bill 26 from the start, and you are quite a witness to that. They have denied the right to a hearing to hundreds and hundreds of Ontarians. I would like to read into the record just some of the individuals and groups who have been denied their right to give their input on this bill.

Before I do that, Mr Speaker, I want you to bring your attention to the fact that I've had thousands and thousands of petitions, and while this government has refused to receive petitions in this House, petition is one of the oldest traditions in our Parliament. We are denied to have petitions in this House today, and I have thousands of this petition here, which I would lay on the desk of the Clerk, because you refuse me and deny me the right to have those petitions, Mr Speaker. We know we have no pages, but I ask my colleague Mr Grandmaître if he could just drop this on the Clerk's desk.

These people have come to me this morning in the cold to say they want their voice to be heard, because thousands and thousands have not been heard. I will just read a few of these names, because if I should read those who were shut out -- especially the mayor of Scarborough, who represents over 600,000 people and was refused to be heard, and yet you're going to give them permission in which to administer taxes.

The 5th Medium Regimental Association, Douglas Sword, was denied; Aberhart, Charles; Academy of Obstetrics; Administrators of Medium Public Libraries in Ontario, Jane Watkins; Aird and Berlis, Christopher Williams. The list goes on: Church in Society Committee, London Conference, United Church of Canada; CUPE Local 778; Francophone Community Health Centre; Halton Regional Coalition for Social Justice, Terry Kelly.

These are lists, and these are some of the names I'm reading: Mental Health Rights Coalition of Hamilton; Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, William Hogle; Queensway Carlton Hospital or District Office of OMA -- and you know the OMA was shut out from any consultation; St Joseph's Health Centre, Don McDermott; Zone 14 Senior, Orvel Kerr, and the list goes on.

Democracy has been hijacked by this dictatorial government. I say that I wish this province well and I hope sense will come to Mike Harris and many of his absent ministers who are not even here to listen to this.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: None of us has a copy of Bill 26. According to my reading of the standing orders, it says, "When a bill has been amended in any committee it shall be reprinted as the Clerk of the House directs, amendments being indicated, and shall not be further proceeded with until it has been reprinted and marked REPRINTED on the Orders and Notices paper."

I wonder, Mr Speaker, if you could be helpful here for us. As we're proceeding, I gather, to vote later today on this bill, it may be helpful if we all actually had a copy of the bill that we're voting on.

The Speaker: We have a special order of the House, the procedures that are being followed today. We're in those procedures and they're in order.

Further debate? The leader of the third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I will not only be giving a speech on third reading of the bill; I will also be marking the third reading of my political career this morning. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I'm going to have to ask you and the House for some slight indulgence. I will of course focus my attention on the contents of Bill 26 in so far as that is possible, given that we don't now have a copy of the legislation, but perhaps members will understand that I would like to take this opportunity in giving some reflections on the last 20 years in public life, as well as on questions about the future.

I have four things that I would like to say, and if I can keep to four, I'll have done well.

The first is that I feel very strongly that politics is a very necessary part of life. Public life is neither a recipe for self-enrichment nor is it a crown of thorns. I often hear people talking about how difficult and how trying and how onerous it must be to be in politics or in public life. Similarly, I often hear from my constituents as to how they know that everyone in public life is a millionaire and how one is simply there in order to enrich oneself in one way or another. I just want to make the point at this time in my life of saying that I think both those views are completely wrong.

Politics for me has been a wonderful, wonderful experience. I have absolutely no regrets about my having chosen, as a relatively young man, to enter public life. I'm sure there are times and moments when I could have made far more money in doing other things, but I can honestly say that that was not a factor. I can also say very directly to members that I'm sure each and every one of us knows some of that sense of joy and the sense of fun, the sense of partnership, the sense of camaraderie, the sense of working in common with others for a good cause. In my view, there is no finer thing in life -- in public life in any event, in these forms of very necessary partnership.

I've been lucky enough to be elected eight times. The very first time I ran, I was considered to be an impossible candidate. I was too young. I was allegedly too rich. I had never worked a day in my life, and there are some who would no doubt say that is still true. I've been lucky enough to be a rising star in four separate decades, and I'm looking forward to the next one, I would say.

But to my constituents in Broadview in the east end of Toronto and in the west end in York South, I would simply like to say thank you. You've given me a chance to serve, a chance to learn something of your lives, a chance to represent you in so many different ways, and to have received the confidence of the electorate on eight separate occasions is something of which I'm enormously proud. I have done so standing on behalf of the New Democratic Party and due to the assistance and help and work and dedication of literally thousands and thousands of volunteers.

If any one of my children were to say to me at any time in their lives that they would like to enter politics, I would encourage them to do so, as I would to any young person who wants to make a contribution and is prepared to perhaps develop an extra layer of skin, an additional sense of perspective and irony. But once those things have been settled, it is truly a marvellous, marvellous opportunity to learn and to serve.

To have been able to become a Premier of this province, which I was lucky enough to do on October 1, 1990, was obviously, for me, the culmination of a lot of hard work and effort. The fact that I was not re-elected as Premier was of course a disappointment but, as I've subsequently discovered, not the end of the world.

I'd like, if I might, to pay tribute -- perhaps this is a little unusual -- to some of the extraordinary opponents I've had, because in public life no doubt people focus on the partisanship and on the harshness of the things that are said. I've certainly given as good as I've received -- at least I hope I have -- and I hope no one has taken offence at things that I have said in moments of extreme partisanship.

But I think of William Davis, who was the Premier when I was first elected to this House, someone whose patience and whose sense of humour I always have enjoyed and continue to enjoy to this day.

I think of the Honourable Robert Nixon, who served with me in opposition, from whom I learned an enormous amount not just about politics but about the life and history of this province, and whose intense sense of partisanship never prevented him from becoming a friend.

I think of the masterly control of the House which I used to see by one Allan J. MacEachen, who was the archetype for me of a truly dedicated public servant, a marvellous speaker and an extraordinary political tactician. All of us could learn something from watching him, and I hope I did.

I have had the opportunity to serve with some marvellous people, both federally and provincially. In my own case, when I was elected to Parliament in 1978, Ed Broadbent was my leader. I also had the chance to serve with Stanley Knowles and with Tommy Douglas, two individuals whose integrity stood out like a beacon for me, whose incredible sense of the history of this country and sense of sacrifice is quite extraordinary, and I'm truly grateful for having had the opportunity to serve with them.

Mr Broadbent was the first and only leader I had the chance to serve with before becoming leader of the provincial party myself, and I can honestly say that in many respects I have tried to match his sense of patience, his sense of humour, his sense of balance and his sense of the need for our own party to come to terms with the dramatic changes under way in our economy and in our lives.

Of course it's an enormous risk to pay tribute to one's colleagues, because in doing so there are always people one leaves out, so as I had chance to do yesterday evening at a private dinner with my caucus colleagues, I would like to single out simply my seatmate, the member for Nickel Belt.

We became friends in political opposition, but I think it's fair to say that our partnership was never stronger than in the five years we served together in government. My colleague served as Deputy Premier and as Minister of Finance and, as I'm sure the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance today will know, there's probably no more onerous responsibility in the government. It's one that Floyd has carried out with humour, with patience, with perseverance and with incredible loyalty. To him I am grateful for having made politics as enjoyable and as rewarding as it is.

To my staff: I've been very lucky to have had some who served with me throughout my entire time in politics. David Agnew and Sheila Kirouac both came into my office at a very young age. They married and are raising two children. I just want to pay tribute to both of them for their dedication to my public life. I would also like to say that my constituency assistant, Tony Romano, has been with me in York South from the very beginning, and, as all of us know, it's the constituency staff who not only get us there but keep us there.

For many people in my constituency of York South, Tony Romano is Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party, and to him I am enormously grateful, as to all those who've helped.

Shakespeare wrote at the end of All's Well That Ends Well:

The web of our life is of a mingled yarn,

good and ill together.

Our virtues would be proud if our faults

whip them not,

And our crimes would despair if they were not

cherished by our own virtues.

I think I can say that this Legislature has served its purpose in making sure that my virtue was never allowed to be very proud either in opposition or in government, and that's as it should be. But perhaps my critics will not be surprised if I point out the second half of Shakespeare's comment, that "our crimes would despair if they were not cherished by our own virtues."

I am proud of what I have tried to do in public life and I feel that the efforts of our government to keep the province whole in a time of enormous financial and economic challenge, our determination not to forget the least fortunate, and our determination to try to find the correct balance between the need for efficiency, the need for greater productivity, the need for a successful economy, the need to respect freedom and the need at the same time for social justice -- it's never an easy task, it's never an easy balance to find, and no doubt there will be those who will say we failed to find it at different moments, but we never stopped trying to find it.

That indeed has been my central political belief.

I'll repeat it again: The politics of this province and the politics of Canada is about balance. Social justice, economic efficiency, liberty have always to be balanced. Balanced economies and balanced societies are just as important as balanced budgets, and they do not necessarily have to be at odds or at war with each other. They need to be made to work together.

There's a role for markets; there's a role for companies, for banks and for business; there's also a role for unions, for universities, for non-profit agencies, as well as for government itself. Government is not an evil. Government is the means we have chosen together to accomplish critical ends and objectives. Above all, there's a role for people, not just the wealthy and the well-spoken, who, from my experience both in opposition and in government, have a great deal of ease in making their views known and in making their influence felt.

I'm always reminded of a comment of Harry Truman, who made a point of saying at the end of a large lobbying session that it was his job to represent the people who didn't have a lobbyist. Fundamentally, that is the objective of government, and it becomes harder in our time because the lobbyists and the special interests, which exist in all sectors, always are able to find the voices and the lawyers and the people who can put forward the views and make the case and make the representation. They can get to the newspaper editors and they can get to the publishers and they can get to the editorial boards.

But the broad interest of the common people has got to be represented and has got to be spoken for by the Legislature of this province. It's got to be represented above all by the government and by the Premier of the day, even if it means making decisions that are exceptionally unpopular.

I think it's fair to say that history as well as current analysis would reflect that our government made many unpopular decisions. Only time will tell whether they were the right decisions. Sometimes they were, no doubt; sometimes, I'm sure, they weren't. But they were always made in the spirit of being determined to try to do the right thing, and I did that and our government did it at significant political cost.

But I also can say to all of you that I have a clear conscience about those decisions because they were made not to impress a poll or an editorial board or a particular publishing company or a particular media outlet, or even because it was in conformity with something I had said or allegedly said three years or five years or 10 years before, because I believe politics is also about the courage to change, the courage to change one's mind, the courage to recognize when something one has believed in might not be still correct today and that circumstance requires this courage to change.

What troubles me most about politics today -- I know it is going to be hard for me to strike exactly the right note, because I do not want to be meanspiritedly partisan, but at the same time I want to say what I think and what I feel about where we are in the Legislature today.

We told the people of the province, and not just during the election campaign but for the entire period in which the Common Sense Revolution was made public and then presented to the people, that it was an absurd document, that as wonderful as the objectives in it might be, anybody who's had 30 seconds' experience in governing this province would know that what it was proposing to do could not be done in the way in which it was proposed, that a promise not to cut health care, a promise to guarantee law enforcement and justice spending, a promise to guarantee educational spending in the classroom, was entirely and utterly incompatible with the financial and fiscal objectives set out in the document.

It is a document which -- I do not know whether it was intended to deceive, but I do know that it is a document that is fundamentally based on a deception. And Bill 26 is the attempt to square the circle. That's all it is. It is an attempt to square the circle, and members opposite should not be surprised at the outrage.

My Conservative opponent in the good riding of York South -- I'll be interested to see if he runs again -- Dr Edwards, a neighbour of mine, had bought the OMA line about our government, and had bought the line of his leader about the fact that health care spending was going to be guaranteed.

I can't speak for Dr Edwards, but he has spoken for himself, and I'm sure there's a sense of personal betrayal on his part, because the powers this government has accrued to itself are far more ominous, as far as the medical profession is concerned, than any powers that have been taken by any government in the history of the province of Ontario. No government has taken upon itself such a degree of centralized power, and that is not what Dr Edwards thought the Conservative platform meant. He did not believe he was voting for new bureaucracies.

He did not believe he was being enrolled as an architect of a new despotism, yet that is what we have.

I hope the government finds the courage to change. I hope the government has the courage to finally admit that the promises contained in the Common Sense Revolution are literally unachievable. They're unachievable because the numbers don't add up and because if you try to achieve the kind of fiscal financial wizardry proposed in this document, you will do so only at enormous expense -- expense to jobs, expense to families, expense to growth, expense to justice, all in the name of ideology, all in the name of a document which is now being taken as some sort of holy gospel.

This document has to be exposed for what it is. I look at the contortions the government has had to go through. I look at the bending and twisting of, "Is that a promise or is that a user fee or is that a charge?" How can we explain the absolute and total absence of any minister from defending this legislation for the space of three weeks? Say what you like about our government, but we took the heat and we were there. This government is led from behind. It stands in the name of the Minister of Finance. Where was he? Where has he been? Where is his leadership on this bill?

The Premier says, "I'm unacquainted with the details." I say to my friends in the media, if I had said that, you wouldn't have put up with it for more than five seconds. You would've crucified me and crucified the government. There wasn't one thing our government did that we weren't supposed to be responsible for. Then this Premier stands up in his most genial fashion and says: "Oh, gosh, I'm not a master of detail. Sorry, folks, I've been away. I've been telling everybody that Ontario is open for business, because Ontario's been closed for business for the last five years or 10 years or 15 years."

Interjections.

Mr Rae: Right. Wait for it. You tell that to Honda. You tell that to Toyota. You tell that to the European interests. You tell that to the largest increase in investment in 1994 that we ever had in the history of the province. What poppycock. What poppycock and what arrogance.

And the Premier explaining why he has to suffer in going to Davos next week because he has to overcome the problem -- well, this kind of suffering I'm sure the Premier will get used to over time.

That kind of arrogance ill becomes him, as well as the statement he made in the wilds of India saying: "What's the legacy of Mr Rae, as he announces his retirement? One word: Deficit." What a shot.

I put it all in balance and I put it in perspective, but there's far more at stake here in this legislation. It's precisely because this government is obsessed -- obsessed -- with what needs to be done with the numbers and with the tax break it has proposed that it is forcing the public sector and forcing the people of this province into a box that is not of their own making.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Your making.

Mr Rae: No. The member opposite said of my making. I say to you, sir, have you ever heard of the recession? Have you not the decency to at least admit that there was, for three and a half to four years in this province, an exceptional recession caused by high interest rates, by a free trade agreement that came on long and fast and hard? Do you not have the decency to admit that? Will you not now at least admit that? Will you not now at least admit that during the time that William Davis governed in 1975, there was an increase in the deficit?

Will you not have the decency to admit that in the recession in 1980 and 1981, Mr Davis also allowed the deficit to rise, because he had a sense of proportion and balance which the right-wing zealots who have taken over the Tory party have utterly and completely lost? That's the problem.

There is the stench of right-wing zealotry about this government. There is the stench of the Reform Party which hangs over this government and which has affected it. That is what is wrong with this legislation.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Bob, this wasn't going to be partisan.

Mr Rae: I would not want to make my exit any more quiet than my coming into public life.

Some 60 years ago, it was a British conservative, a distinguished jurist named Lord Hewart, who, observing the dramatic change in administrative law which was under way in Britain at that time, described the accrual of power to bureaucrats and to ministers without limits, without review, without any kind of constructive law. He called it a new despotism. He said it threatened, in his view, the capacity of people to be truly free. It affected the ability of our courts and of the rule of law to establish and re-establish a sense of balance. I never thought that I would be drawing on the work of true conservatives in order to call this government to order.

The Minister of Health has the power to shut down institutions, and now he says, "We're going to sunset it." You can do a lot of shutting in four years. I think that sunset is a complete phony. What you need is a process in which the interests of the parties can be reconciled. What you need is a process in which one says, "We're going to make this a genuinely non-political, non-partisan exercise." I would say --

Mr Tilson: You closed beds.

Mr Rae: Yes, we closed beds. I recognize the need for reform and I'm glad the member for Wellington is active. He should be in the cabinet if he wants to be so active. I don't see why he shouldn't be put in there. Give him a chance to speak up, instead of forcing him on the front lines to constantly be defending legislation which he hasn't had the chance to read and amendments which he hasn't had the chance to see.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): This is Wellington over here.

Mr Rae: The member for Wellington should be there as well. He couldn't do any worse than the others who are there.

This is a critical point and this is what is driving all sorts of people who are not New Democrats and who are not Liberals and who would like still to be members of the Tory party and who would like to be supporters of the Tory party, driving them to say, "This bill has gone too far." It is the power that is being accrued to a few and it is the inability of citizens to have their voices heard and the determination of people to force this through.

Over time, I say to members opposite, you too will come alive and, as you come to caucus meetings, you too will start to ask questions about what kind of legislation needs 160 amendments in the space of three days, presented and rammed through. What sort of process is this? Mr Speaker, you will find and members opposite will find the need to make reform happen in a way that draws on public sentiment and that draws on what the public is saying. This bill goes too far and it goes too fast and it gives too much power. Fundamentally, it is based on the absurdities of the promises made in the Common Sense Revolution.

Tragically, it is at the same time the complete denial of the document called the Common Sense Revolution.

Let me just for the record repeat it again, because I know how much members like to hear this document read out:

"Let's start with the top priorities -- the essential services that Ontarians want to see protected.

"Health care:

"We will not cut health care spending. It's far too important."

There are layoffs throughout the health care sector and there are, in every community in this province, people who know full and perfectly well that it is part of the agenda of this government to cut health care spending. That's what they're doing, that's what they are carrying out.

I have many who are afraid to speak out and, now that I have left politics, I hear more from hospital presidents and chairmen of boards of hospitals than ever before, because they're intimidated and they're afraid. They say: "Should we speak out? What do you think we should do? Will we be punished if we speak out?" I look forward over the next few weeks, as I begin to discuss with people in various institutions, and my answer to people will be, you must speak out. You must work. You must. Don't be afraid. There is nothing wrong with saying the debate must continue. Bill 26 is not the end of the day.

These issues must continue and this opinion must be changed, and the only way to change it is for ordinary people, and extraordinary people, to have the courage to speak out against this government. That's what must happen. That's what must continue to be done.

It then goes on to say:

"The people of Ontario are rightly concerned about community safety in our province, particularly the increasing incidence of violent crime. That is why funding for law enforcement and justice will be guaranteed."

There has never been as great a crisis in our justice system since the time of the Askov decision. I'm not here going to say what happened and what didn't happen. We all know what happened. We know the trauma and we know the outrage and we know the sense of betrayal that was felt by thousands of citizens, innocent victims, when cases of alleged criminals were thrown out because of the decision in Askov.

I can well recall the Attorney General of the day and I having to sit down in the very first weeks of the government. Even before we were sworn in, we became aware of the magnitude of the decision. We right away had to deal with this issue. It involved additional resources and it involved moving things as quickly as we possibly could. I'm very proud of those achievements, of the investments that were made by the member for Rainy River and by the member for London Centre.

It would now appear that all of this is threatened by virtue of this mania for cuts -- mania for cuts at the expense of jobs, mania for cuts at the expense of health, mania for cuts at the expense of the basic protection of the person and protection of property.

That's not why the Tory party was elected. If the Premier, leader of the Conservative Party, had said, "Elect me and I'm going to cut health care. Elect me and I'm going to cut police funding and I'm going to cut the funding for courts and I'm going to close a whole bunch of jails and I'm going to do X, Y and close a bunch of halfway houses and I'm going to close all these things. Vote for me," he would have been laughed out of the province -- and he knows it. That's why I say this document is a deception, it's a complete deception.

It is a deception that continues to this day as the government says, "Well, you know, when we said `user fee,' we didn't mean user, we didn't mean a charge," or "We didn't mean da, da, da, da, da, da."

Interjection: Copayment.

Mr Rae: Copayment. But the leader of the Conservative Party in opposition, standing where I stand today -- and it's all on tape now, and we can all recall it very clearly -- said: "Oh, don't mix words. Do the numbers. Don't mix words." "Premier, is it a user fee or a charge? We all know it's the same thing." Well, we do know it's the same thing.

So when it comes to drugs, when it comes to education in the classroom, when it comes to every basic issue that the Conservatives knew they were vulnerable on in the last election, because they knew that people did not want those things to be cut, they said: "Don't worry. We won't cut them." And now you're cutting them and that's why people are mad, that's why people are upset.

Interjection: That's why we're at 50% in the polls.

Mr Rae: You've lost the need for balance. I hear someone saying over on the other side, "That's why we're at 50% in the polls."

Mrs McLeod: Not a chance.

Mr Rae: Trust me, my friend, those numbers will change. I know whereof I speak, and so does the Leader of the Opposition. These numbers change. They don't mean a damn thing, and if you govern by those polls, my friends, you are making a very, very sad and tragic error. Do not fall into that trap of complacency about some dumb poll that's taken one day or another. Politics is not about following polls; politics is about changing opinion and about providing leadership. That's what politics is all about. It's not about following some stupid poll.

I said I had four points; I've covered two and I've got two to go.

My third point is that we must all of us in this House and in this province work much harder for a Canada that understands the need for unity and diversity at the same time. We are at a critical moment in our history as a country. Having said that, I've made the same point and the same statement on many other occasions in this House -- on this side, on that side and now back on this side again. Yet I must confess, I believe it more strongly today than I have believed it at any other time.

Canada was born because of the decision of politicians in the combined province of Canada, in what is now Ontario and Quebec, that it was necessary for the survival of British North America north of the 49th parallel that there be developed a partnership. It's interesting to remember that in a sense Canada had to come apart before it could come together. You will all recall that Lord Durham made the decision to bring people together. We needed to come, in a sense, to be at one with ourselves in forming provinces in order to allow that to happen.

Quebec is a distinct society. We must recognize that. We lose nothing by granting what is unique and distinct in others. I've been very proud to have been part of a tradition that transcends party in this regard, that we've found a common ground on these questions for decades, that we have not played footsie in any way with those who would deny the uniqueness of Quebec and the importance of recognizing their cultural, linguistic and other concerns. So I say once again to my fellow legislators, we must reject the solutions that divide or that insist that we all be the same or that deny diversity.

The genius of federalism and the genius of Canada is that we have been able to combine unity and diversity. I shall continue to work throughout my political life and my public life in the future, whatever form it may take, and my private life, whatever form that may take, for this continued sense of balance and for the continuing importance of the unity of our country.

Mr Speaker, I have to do something rather unusual. I have about five more minutes and I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to proceed to that point.

Je dois dire que nous sommes un pays qui n'est pas un pays centraliste mais un pays fédéral, ce qui veut dire que les provinces ont des pouvoirs importants, et en même temps nous avons décidé d'être ensemble pour des raisons importantes et permanentes.

Mais cette association commune que nous avons, qui s'appelle le Canada, n'est pas un État centralisateur. Nous avons les garanties des droits minoritaires au Québec et en Ontario parallèlement. Nous avons montré, je crois depuis bien longtemps dans cette province, notre volonté de continuer de parler, de participer dans ce dialogue constitutionnel tellement important en même temps que nous nous sommes engagés à protéger les minorités dans notre propre province.

Je dis encore à nos concitoyens québécois que nous voulons garder le Canada uni, mais en même temps divers, qui reconnaît la spécificité du Québec et le fait que le Québec est une société distincte. C'est ça qui est important, certainement pour les jours à venir.

Nous sommes tous reconnaissants du fait que M. Bouchard deviendra cet après-midi le premier ministre du Québec et qu'il a encore répété l'engagement de son gouvernement à tirer le Québec hors de la fédération. C'est pourquoi je crois que c'est important que la population québécoise sache que pour nous, Ontariens, notre volonté de faire les changements nécessaires pour tout le Canada est permanente, que c'est quelque chose qui est partagé par tous les partis dans la Chambre et je crois par tous les premiers ministres dans cette province depuis bien longtemps.

Je suis fier du fait que pendant ma période en tant que premier ministre, nous avons pu montrer de façons très concrètes et très spécifiques notre volonté et notre sens du devoir.

Finally, I would like to pay a somewhat unusual tribute in this House, but it is to my wife, Arlene, and to my family.

Shakespeare's 25th sonnet goes like this:

Let those who are in favour with their stars

Of public honour and proud titles boast,

Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars,

Unlook'd for joy in that I honour most.

Great princes' favourites their fair leaves spread

But as the marigold at the sun's eye,

And in themselves their pride lies buried,

For at a frown they in their glory die.

The painful warrior famoused for fight,

After a thousand victories once foil'd,

Is from the book of honour razed quite,

And all the rest forgot for which he toil'd

Then happy I, that love and am belov'd,

Where I may not remove nor be remov'd.

My family have done much to teach me something of the limits of politics and the rewards of other parts of life. I'm very proud of having been able to serve the people of Ontario for nearly 20 years. I could not have done it without the example of my parents and the cherished support of my family and friends. Arlene, Judith, Lisa and Eleanor have given me the joy and security of a love that cannot be removed, and for that I am eternally grateful. And so I say, hail and farewell.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I understand that there is going to be a special tribute to the leader of the third party later today. However, I would at this time like to --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Resign.

Hon Mr Leach: At least he has a little class. I'd like to wish him my very personal best. I do have a great deal of respect for his integrity and his dedication to the people of the province of Ontario and to Canada. In the past we've worked together on major transit issues, and he always, always provided very strong support. Obviously, there are issues that we do not agree on, and Bill 26 is one of those.

When Bill 26 was introduced on November 29, our only agenda for this legislation was the need for quick action to give municipalities the tools they require to manage with fewer provincial subsidies. The fiscal and economic statement of November 29 set out the reduced funding transfers for this year and beyond. We prepared the municipal sector for these reductions in the months that preceded the announcement. I know that municipalities heeded our advice and started to prepare, but they were missing some important new tools to help them adjust. These tools are what the municipal side of the bill is all about. I'm sure that everyone is familiar with them now.

Just let me say that most of the bill's provisions fall into two categories: those that give municipalities more autonomy to make local decisions, and those that help municipalities cut costs or raise additional revenues.

Bill 26 was introduced to combat the province's financial crisis. And let's not make any mistake: We are in the midst of a very serious crisis, one that gives us no alternatives other than the tough measures this government has had the courage to take. They're not pleasant, they're tough medicine, but Ontario cannot continue down the debt spiral. We must take action to restore prosperity to this great province, and we must take it now.

Many of the municipal provisions of Bill 26 were long overdue. Municipalities have been asking the province to introduce them for many years. Bill 26 recognizes that municipalities have grown up. They've been asking us to stop treating them like children. I think Bill 26 is a clear recognition that municipalities are capable of managing much more, that they can make their own decisions on matters of local interest, and that they will act responsibly.

Our municipal partners have been pleased with the tools provided in Bill 26 because they give them coping mechanisms. With these tools, municipalities won't necessarily have to resort to raising property taxes to make up for the reduced provincial subsidies.

When I introduced the bill to the standing committee on general government, I assured the committee members that clarifications would be made to the bill if they were necessary. Our goal was to make sure we had things right so that the legislation would work. During the hearings which took place in Toronto and locations all across the province, we heard some genuine concerns expressed. We responded to them. It is proof that we were open to suggestions and listened to representations during the committee hearings held on the bill.

Some amendments clarify what has always been the intent of the legislation; still others strengthen it in areas where it needed to be stronger. We publicly announced several significant amendments on January 18 and introduced others for the clause-by-clause consideration by MPPs that followed. There are a number of detailed amendments affecting local government. It's not my intention to go into each one of them here, but I would like to focus on a few key amendments to make sure the intent of the legislation is crystal-clear.

One of the major concerns we heard was that Bill 26 might allow municipalities to levy income, sales or gasoline taxes. That was never the case, and we wanted to clarify any misinterpretations. The bill will indeed provide municipalities with more flexibility on how they raise revenues, but our amendment makes it clear that this does not include income, sales or gasoline taxes. The amendment explicitly prohibits municipalities from imposing taxes in this area.

In a similar vein, there has been much debate about Bill 26 making it possible for municipalities to charge a poll tax as a way to raise revenues. My personal belief is that such a tax for any municipality would be suicidal, and I don't think any municipality would impose that kind of charge. But there has been enough concern expressed that we decided to amend the legislation to prohibit such a tax. We are not going to allow municipalities to charge a poll tax or any similar fee or charge simply because someone lives in a municipality. This was never the intent; this was never in the legislation.

Concerns also surfaced around the provision in Bill 26 about licence fees. The bill will allow municipalities to charge licence fees, and it will also remove outdated, unreasonable fees set in the Municipal Act, such as $1 a year for a bakery licence. The problem with maintaining licence fees at such a ridiculously low level is that they are money losers for municipalities. They cannot possibly recover administration and enforcement costs with that kind of fee.

When we drafted the legislation, we were convinced that municipalities would use this power responsibly. But some have raised concerns that municipalities might use the provisions in the bill to charge excessive licence fees as a way to raise revenues. They have also suggested that municipalities could use licensing powers to make it too expensive for a business to set up shop, thereby excluding it from the community.

In view of these concerns, we amended Bill 26. We did this to prevent municipalities from setting unreasonable licence fees as tools simply to raise revenues or exclude certain types of businesses from the community. That was never the intent. So the amendment will specify that municipalities must take into account the cost to administer and enforce business-licensing bylaws in setting fees.

One final provision of Bill 26 relates to municipal restructuring. The bill removes barriers to municipal restructuring and gives greater authority to municipalities to make restructuring decisions. The government's intention in Bill 26 is to provide more flexibility to municipalities that are interested in restructuring. The reason, of course, is to help municipalities achieve greater efficiency and cost saving.

Restructuring attempts have been long and tedious in the past, and few have been successful. The current legislation is cumbersome, inefficient and expensive. Unless there was 100% consent by the affected municipalities, provincial legislation was always needed to implement restructuring. Because of this, the legislation originally gave authority to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appoint a restructuring commission to be used when consensus could not be achieved locally. This commission would have the powers to develop and implement its own restructuring plan.

This caused some concerns that the minister could arbitrarily impose restructuring on a municipality where there was no local interest, that Queen's Park could impose a made-in-Toronto decision where it wasn't wanted, without any local input.

We've agreed and have introduced an amendment so that the minister cannot even consider appointing a local restructuring commission unless there has been a local request. Before the minister can appoint a restructuring commission, there must be a request made by at least one municipality or, in the case of an unorganized area, at least 75 residents. Without a locally initiated request, a commission cannot be appointed.

To further limit this authority, restructuring commissions can't be appointed after December 31, 1999. By then, we should have a good idea whether or not commissions have helped accomplish restructuring and whether or not they are still an economic necessity.

The amendments also require a restructuring commission to consult with the municipalities involved. It must issue a draft report, hold at least one public meeting and receive written submissions before the final decision is made. The municipalities and the public must also be given notice about how they can have input into the process. It's clear that these amendments make the process completely democratic while serving our interest of increasing local autonomy.

One other amendment I would like to mention deals with the liability of municipal councillors in municipalities where a restructuring proposal has been submitted but not yet enacted. The original legislation would have made councillors personally liable for violating any parts of this regulation. After consideration, we have decided to repeal this liability clause because it was unnecessary. There will be appropriate protection for the future restructured municipality in the regulations that municipalities and their councillors will have to follow.

You have heard me mention several times increased local autonomy, more local decision-making and confidence in our municipalities. We were sure enough that municipalities would make appropriate choices that we gave them the flexibility to decide how to spend the money we give them.

Bill 26 creates the Ontario municipal support program. This program rolls three previous provincial grants into one block grant fund, with virtually all funding conditions removed. Municipalities will now have the freedom to spend this money on local priorities.

I don't want to gloss over the fact that municipalities are going to be receiving less money from the province. Some municipalities had substantial reductions this year; others had less. Those that got off lightly are aware that we will be reviewing our distribution formula for next year. All municipalities must take a long-term view and contemplate change. The breathing space we have given some municipalities this year is an opportunity for them to do better planning for future restructuring.

These are challenging times, and I am confident that Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, will be instrumental in revolutionizing Ontario's municipal sector. It is recognized that our municipalities have come of age and are ready to be treated like adults. Passage of this bill is very important so that we and our municipal and other transfer partners can move ahead in the months to come, so that they can take the strides they must take to become truly self-reliant and help get this province moving again.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 26, to say that I think this bill has completely changed the mood of this province. I think most people across the province were prepared prior to this to give you a chance, to say: "Listen, they were elected. They've got an agenda. Let them get on with it." But I would say to you that on November 29, when you introduced this bill, the mood in this province changed. Two things happened. One is that we in the opposition, and I think the public, don't trust you any more, and this bill is a symbol of that.

The second thing is that many people thought you had some competency; they may not have agreed with your agenda, but they thought you were at least competent. This bill and the process we've been through have proven that you're incompetent.

If you want to know why we're so angry, it is because we in the opposition feel betrayed by this bill. I will just go over the reasons we don't trust you any more.

First, the public may remember that this bill, 211 pages, was introduced when we in the opposition were in what's called a lockup. The government knew we would be there. We were in that lockup until 4 o'clock on November 29 to review the fiscal statement, and at 3:30 in this House the government introduced this bill. It was deliberate and was the first indication for us that you're not to be trusted.

Then what did you try to do? You tried to ram this bill through in two weeks with no debate. I hope the Conservative backbench members now realize that was a fundamental abuse of power. Why did you try to do that? Because somebody in the Premier's office thought they could get away with it.

The alarms went off for me when that night, November 29, I was with one of the senior ex-members of this Conservative Party who said to me: "Gee, I hope you're going to let that bill go through. I hope you're not going to be obstructionist about it. I hope we're going to get it passed before Christmas." I realized what you were trying to do: ram a bill through this House in two weeks, with no debate, which you had no business doing. It's an insult to the people of this province. This bill touches every single person in this province and you wanted to ram it through with no debate -- nothing, zero debate.

Now we've found out some of the details of the bill as we've been moving along. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing just spoke, and I would say his fingerprints are all over this bill in a very nasty way. The first thing that happened was that the Minister of Municipal Affairs went to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and said: "Listen, I'm cutting your grants in half. What will it take to keep you quiet?" Do you know who was sacrificed there? The firefighters, the police, hospital workers, conservation authorities, library boards, and the public.

You have given them carte blanche to introduce user fees in the widest possible way. As a matter of fact, as you know, your language was, "We're going to give unlimited flexibility for user fees." There is no doubt that this bill permitted gas taxes; there's no doubt of that. The Canadian Bar Association went through the bill. The only one who thought it didn't is the minister, who's shaking his head. Then we had the extraordinary circumstance of the minister saying he's going to call for his own resignation if he's wrong. It was an incredible show.

He said, "I'm going to call for my resignation if I'm wrong." And we find he was wrong, dead wrong, 100% wrong. This bill, until it was amended, indeed did permit gas taxes. And that's not us talking; that's everybody who's looked at it. As a matter of fact, he says he tabled a legal opinion that said it prohibited it. We don't believe that.

Even today we hear him saying things about this bill that I don't believe are true. He said that the licence fee must reflect the cost of the inspection. The bill does not say that. He is either once again not aware of what the bill says or he's misleading the House. He says that the bill never permitted gas tax or a poll tax. Well, he himself said it permitted a poll tax, and now he's saying the bill didn't permit a poll tax.

Hon Mr Leach: I never said that.

Mr Phillips: You didn't say it permitted a poll tax? You didn't say it permitted a poll tax? Of course it permitted a poll tax.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): You didn't say it today. You said it to the media.

Mr Phillips: Exactly. Then I heard him on Saturday night saying, "There are only 12 amendments in my section." Add them up, Minister. There are 34 amendments. My point is simply this: Why do we not trust you? It's because you do not say things that are accurate. On Saturday night he said, "Twelve amendments in my section." Count them. There are 34 amendments. Can the opposition have any trust at all in a government that as recently as a few minutes ago was once again saying things in the Legislature that are not in the bill?

I would say to every firefighter, every police officer, every school teacher, every hospital worker, that the bill fundamentally changes collective bargaining for you. Why? Because Al Leach bargained away your collective bargaining rights to AMO. You were never at the table. You didn't have a chance for a debate. It was simply put in this bill with no opportunity for debate.

The public sector pension fund is another example where people can't trust you. It was you people who tried through regulation, not through negotiation or any openness, to take $250 million out of the public sector pension. You tried that. The union took you to court and you were proven to be acting illegally. So what did you do? You took this bill and exempted yourself from the Pension Benefits Act. How can anybody trust you when you try and do something through regulations and go to court and the courts say you're acting illegally, so what do you do? You change the law. Surely you recognize that means that people in this province are unable to trust you.

As we look at the rest of this bill, in the areas of health -- and it's been touched on -- it was clear, 100% clear, during the campaign that you were saying, "No new user fees and no new copayments." You spelled it out in detail.

So what do you do with the first major bill? You completely repudiate that promise. The minister today said, "Well, nine other provinces have that." Well, nine other provinces had that when you made the promise, but you said you looked at those nine other provinces and rejected that. You said you were going to bring a fair share health levy to pay the copayments, not to put it on people. You looked at those nine other provinces, you rejected that during the election, and now we find, six months after the election, that the government is essentially repudiating its own campaign document.

You went through the same thing on health care. "We won't touch a penny of health care." This bill is all about cutting health care spending. If you felt that's what you needed to do, you should not have misled the people during the campaign.

I go on about the mistrust. I can remember the government saying: "We're going to put this through in two weeks, no debate, because we've studied the bill. We've got to get on with it. This bill is just fine." Then we find 160 amendments. The bill has been gutted by your own amendments. You were made to look like fools because of 160 amendments to this bill.

Still on trust: We had the spectacle where one day we're in committee hearings at 9 o'clock in the morning -- I remember it well, we were in Thunder Bay -- and we said, "Will you table your amendments?" The government said to us, "We have no intention of tabling amendments until we complete the public hearings." At exactly that moment, at 9 o'clock that very day in Kitchener, the government was tabling I think 50 amendments to the health sector of the bill.

The point I'm making is that we can't trust you. At 9 o'clock in one committee, we're being told that the government has no intention of tabling amendments, and at 9 o'clock and 1,200 kilometres away in another committee, they're tabling 50 amendments. So what's the public to believe?

Mr Murdoch: What's the point?

Mr Phillips: What's the point? I appreciate one of the members over there asking. The point is trust. The point is doing what you said you would do. The point is not lying. The point is being straight with people. That's what the point is. If you think you could've rammed this bill through in 14 days, with the bill essentially filled with mistakes, you now have found out you can't do that.

The second thing I want to talk about is competence. Again, there was a feeling that at least you may have known what you were doing. The bill proves you're incompetent. I don't know who was responsible for this mess, but to have a bill that purports to implement your agenda, that purports to do what you've said you thought about for all these four years in opposition, and then to find we've got 160 amendments, shows your incompetence.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs himself was unable to explain some of the most fundamental parts of the bill, and even today in his explanation he's wrong. The licence provisions are not as he outlined them. The tax provisions are not as he outlined them. He's wrong on the restructuring. Even today, hours before we vote on this bill, the minister once again either he doesn't seem to understand the amendments he's brought forward or he's trying to -- perhaps "mislead" is too strong a word -- perhaps sneak it through.

Also in terms of competence, I thought we had an undertaking that the ministers would come to our committee and explain their amendments. For the public, this may all sound like just procedure, but for the Legislature it is extremely important that the ministers come to the committee and outline the amendments they're making. Frankly, they didn't have the guts to show up. That's strong language, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who says he's made important amendments, did not have the courage to come to the committee and review the amendments that he was proposing. He was hiding.

The Minister of Health refused to come; substantial amendments -- hiding. I thought we had an undertaking from the government that those two ministers would appear and they would review their amendments and review where they were going with the amendments.

Competence: I remember at the hearings last week, at 3:45 -- and all the amendments had to be filed at 4 o'clock -- we in the opposition were raising a fundamental point with the government. That was protection of medical records in a

section of the bill that permits closure of hospitals. What could be more fundamental than that, that when you close a hospital, there's protection of personal medical records? We were told by the government: "No, no, the privacy commissioner is very happy with the proposals in here. Don't worry."

Remember, there are 15 minutes to go before amendments can be filed. My colleague Ms Caplan said, "I'll make a phone call," went and phoned the privacy commissioner at a quarter to 4 to inquire about this extremely important aspect of the bill and found that the commissioner was very worried about it, felt the bill had to be amended to fix that problem. It was quite literally at 4 o'clock when an amendment, a part of which had been proposed by my colleague Ms Caplan, was finally filed to provide some protection for people's personal medical records when a hospital closes.

It was a bizarre process that we all went through. It was bizarre in the sense that even the people who came to support the bill had major reservations about the bill. I have never been through a process that was, frankly, more discouraging, because you were trying to ram through a bill that was obviously very faulty, but also almost comical in the incompetence of the government to develop a proper process for this bill.

I wanted, in the time permitted me here, to make those two points. One is that this place has changed. The backbenchers who were not here before may not realize it's changed, but as a result of what the cabinet tried to do on Bill 26, the mood has changed. We frankly won't trust the government any longer. We will be watching for similar activities. I think it was a fundamental mistake by the government to attempt to do what it attempted to do. So you've lost our trust, but more importantly, you've lost the trust of an awful lot of people out there. Even many of your supporters would say, "I don't understand why you tried to do that."

The second thing I would say to you is that you've lost another important element, and that is the belief that you were competent. Any government that could allow a bill to get introduced like this, and where the cabinet obviously had agreed you were going to try and ram it through in 14 days, a cabinet that could allow a bill this faulty to get this far is incompetent. So those two things have done serious damage to this government. Certainly, for our side there is rage about Bill 26.

We understand the need for you to get on with your agenda. You have taken the most clumsy, ill-advised and, in our opinion, dishonest route to try and do that, and it's damage that I think your government will have difficulty recovering from.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): The clock is showing I only have 6:49. I hope that's not the case, but if it is, I'll try to rush through.

I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 26 in really two capacities, I suppose: first as a committee member, one of the members of what was called the evidence subcommittee who went around the province and participated in the process that started in December and ended just last Friday; and secondly as a new government member, somebody who is new to politics, somebody who is working very hard to try to deliver through our agenda what the people of Ontario expect us to deliver.

I want to start off this morning by saying that I listened very carefully to the leader of the third party's comments today. In spite of our perhaps partisan differences, I appreciate his comments and, I think, his advice to all of us in this House about the political profession, the profession that he appears to be leaving, at least temporarily perhaps, and a profession that I'm just starting to learn, and some say learning perhaps not as quickly as I should.

Many people have said that Bill 26 will be this government's signature legislation. I doubt that's true. But as we've heard the leader of the third party say, only time really can tell; only time will be the judge of that. But I do believe that this bill is a crucial part of our governance program, because it addresses restructuring across a number of fronts. The bill is a large piece of legislation, no question about that; it deals with a number of ministries, no question about that, because it's restructuring legislation that allows each ministry involved in that legislation to come to grips with the restructuring issues that we have been challenged by the electorate to deliver on.

We heard any number of times, and this came from deputants from all sides of the political spectrum, that restructuring government and restoring confidence in the financial strength of this province is essential to our future. I think that's the general theme that I heard from just about everybody who spoke to us. The concept of massive restructuring and cost-cutting is one of the items that the private sector is very familiar with. Over the last decade, many private institutions have dealt with restructuring, and they've dealt with it because they had, frankly, very little choice. It was either re-engineer the way they're doing their business or go out of business, plain and simple.

Many of them had to sit down and say, "What is it that we do well?" Many of them had to sit down and say, "What is it that we do not do well?" That's the difficult part about restructuring: identifying what one does well and what one does not do very well. Part of restructuring is stopping what you don't do well, letting somebody else do it, letting somebody else who has the ability, the capability, the resources to do it. That's part of what's in Bill 26.

What we're attempting to do through Bill 26 is to empower the municipalities to deal with what they do well, and that's provide services to the people of this province, that's to understand what the people of this province want, region by region, municipality by municipality, locality by locality. They understand that. They're the closest to the people. Many of the deputants who came in front of us said: "I have more confidence in my local municipality. I want them to deliver the service. They know how much we can afford to tax."

Throughout the process it was quite clear that the other members of the committee fundamentally did not agree that municipalities are the better providers of local service. I understand that view. Some of them, coming from careers in the municipal sector themselves -- that's their view. That's not the view of this government. We're prepared to empower the municipalities. We're prepared to say to them: "You choose what services should be provided. You choose how the taxpayers' money should be spent. You're the closest. You make that decision."

I want to speak briefly, if I can, to the process, the committee process we went through. Clearly, the committee process has helped us improve the bill. That's why we brought amendments. We brought amendments to address the issues and concerns that we heard from the areas as we went from city to city, from town to town, from one part of this province to the other. We listened and we responded, and what we have in front of us today is an improved bill as a result of that.

The opposition has told us today that amendments somehow put us in the form of being incompetent. Well, if listening to the people of this province is being incompetent, then that's the cost we must pay. That's clearly what we've done, that's clearly what they were not prepared to do, and we have delivered to this province a piece of legislation that is far more effective in its fundamental concept than --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mrs Caplan: Today is a sad day for Ontario. Bill 26 is a very bad bill. It will be a dangerous law, and despite the 160 government amendments, it has not been fixed; it remains fundamentally flawed. This bill should be split or withdrawn.

This legislation was conceived in haste and is being rammed through this Legislature by an arrogant majority government. Mr Harris, Mr Eves and Mr Wilson are obviously suffering from an overdose of testosterone. This is their bully bill. The potential for abuse of power, the lack of due process and the elimination of natural justice are a result of Bill 26, and that means that democracy in Ontario is diminished.

As a former Minister of Health and now Liberal opposition Health critic, I tell you that Bill 26 is bad health policy, it is bad for health care and it will be bad for Ontario's health status. Most importantly, Bill 26 is bad because it will hurt people: sick people, old people, children, poor people, and it will hurt the dedicated doctors and nurses and hospital workers and others who look after us when we are sick and when we need their care. This bill hurts us all.

Bill 26 gives us new user fees, called copayments and deductibles, for the Ontario drug benefit plan. Senior citizens and/or others have told us that seniors and social assistance recipients may be forced to choose between having a prescription filled or buying their groceries.

Psychiatrists and the Canadian Mental Health Association said that disabled mental health patients may end up back in hospital because they will not take their drugs if forced to pay what they cannot afford. We were told that nursing home and long-term-care residents will be poorer when they lose up to 25% of their meagre comfort allowances. Did the government listen? No.

Many presenters agreed with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association when they said, "Copayments are a quick fix which may in the long run do more harm than good."

A literature review of recent research was presented to us by doctors in Hamilton. That research proves beyond any reasonable doubt that user fees and copayments for drugs and necessary services are bad health policy. Did the government listen? No.

User fees don't save money; they don't stop abuse; they don't solve the problems. If the United States has taught us anything, it has taught us that making people pay costs society more. That is bad for business and that is bad for our economic health.

Mr Harris's new user fees take us on a very slippery slope; yes, they do. This legislation will deregulate drug prices, and frankly, we don't know what the impact of that will be. We know, however, that deregulation and Jim Wilson's new drug policies will certainly increase overall costs -- overall costs for employers and employees and pensioners alike. His new drug policy will have serious consequences for us all. We heard that from several insurance companies. Anyone with a drug plan and anyone living in a small community in Ontario should be especially worried.

Health minister Jim Wilson really can't be serious when he suggests that buying medically necessary drugs is like buying a tin of tuna or buying a car. Can you imagine a sick patient or a parent with a child bartering or going shopping for the cheapest antibiotic they need? Tory drug policies will not lead to the goal of optimal drug therapy. Don't be fooled. When this bill is proclaimed, Jim Wilson will have complete control over every aspect of health care in Ontario.

Negotiations will no longer be required, or permitted, with the doctors' Ontario Medical Association or the pharmacists' Ontario Pharmacists' Association. There will not be a partnership. There will be dictatorship, and that is the truth.

Billing numbers may dictate where doctors can practise. Who wants to be treated by a doctor who has been coerced to a community, even perhaps separated from his or her spouse? A young doctor's wife with a career of her own spoke eloquently and passionately at the committee. We need our young doctors. We don't want them to leave Ontario. Did the government listen? No, they did not. Surely, we all know that the quality of care will suffer when providers are demoralized, suffering from poor morale or feeling insecure. The Health minister's powers will be absolute.

I see that it is 12 of the clock. If it is appropriate, I will adjourn the debate at this time and commence my remarks following question period.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole has adjourned the debate. The House will resume sitting at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that we have unanimous consent for the member for Nickel Belt to make a statement to the Legislature and the other two parties to respond.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my thanks to my colleagues in the House for allowing me to do this and for them taking

part in it as well.

It has been 14 years since I started working with the member for York South when he became leader of this party, and during those 14 years it has been turbulent at times -- not our relationship of course, but the times have been turbulent. Any time you go from third party to government and then back to third party -- I'll say it before you do -- it's turbulent. I don't like to think it's returning to your roots, but I do know that political life is very turbulent and unpredictable.

I know as well that we would never have had the opportunity to be the government of this province as New Democrats if it had not been for Bob Rae as leader of New Democrats in this province. Of that I am absolutely certain.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I won't tell Stephen Lewis.

Mr Laughren: Don't tell him.

I must say that during those 14 years I've seen Bob Rae in many tight corners but I've seen him come out of those tight corners in every case keeping his perspective with courage and with dignity.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): A few bruises.

Mr Laughren: And bruises on top of that. That's absolutely correct.

When we were in government, it is not possible to govern -- perhaps it never was -- it's certainly not possible in the 1990s to govern without making some very, very difficult decisions, as this government is learning. There are differences, of course, in that we made the right decisions, or at least we thought we made the right decisions. But I must say that I was always impressed by the creativity of the Premier of the day.

Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but I can recall a couple of occasions when I would have thrown up my hands, and I'll give you a specific example: on the employee ownership issues. They were so difficult and so complex that there were several times during those negotiations that I would have thrown up my hands and said, "I don't think we can make this happen, even though we've tried hard." But the Premier did not do that. He just dug in a little harder, worked a little harder, worked a lot longer and made those employee ownership deals happen, which made an enormous difference to communities like Sault Ste Marie and Kapuskasing. That always impressed me a great deal.

I can remember, in my role as Minister of Finance, I often used to bring Premier Rae information from Finance that was invariably horrible, absolutely horrible. If he had believed in shooting the messenger, I'd look a lot more like Swiss cheese than I do today, because it really was amazingly difficult during those five years with the way revenues kept falling off the table.

But he always dealt with it with good humour, a certain amount of toughness from time to time, and I must say, when I talk about difficult decisions, there were many of them and the Premier and I did not always agree. I know you'll be amazed to know that. We did not always agree, but I must say that he was always supportive at the end of the day and that really was what counted. At the end of the debates we invariably came together.

I keep going back to the word "dignity," Mr Speaker, because I can tell you that I saw some instances where I'm not sure I would have kept mine. When I saw the billboards that were put up -- very, very personally insulting billboards put up in this province -- that could only have been put up by people who spend their lives wallowing in bad taste, nevertheless we treated that and the Premier himself treated those with a certain amount of humour and acceptance that public life is difficult and those things, from time to time, will happen.

I don't want to make Bob Rae sound as though he's perfect. I want to point out a fault while I have the opportunity. His fault is that he has a poor memory. He told us this one day at cabinet when we were in a particularly difficult debate. He admitted that his memory was poor as he looked me straight in the eye when we were in disagreement and said, "I don't want you to think that I even remember that you did not support me for the leadership back in 1982," and he assured me he'd forgotten that I'd been on the other side of that struggle.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: Well, yes, it's true. But I must say, and Bob referred to it this morning, that when you're in difficult situations, a bonding exercise does occur. We became better friends in government than we had been in opposition because of the struggles that you go through together, and I'm sure that happens to other people as well.

Of course I think that Bob was also sustained a lot by the media in this province. I mean the obsequious fawning over him, particularly by the three Toronto tabloids, which day after day were heaping praise on him. Now they've had to transfer it to the new Premier of course, but the new Premier will get used to that, I'm sure.

But I really shouldn't trivialize the sustaining part of it. Anybody who knows Bob Rae knows that he is sustained more by his family than by any other aspect of his life, and I think that came through in his comments this morning. You need only see them together to know that that's the case. His family now will be able to reclaim him from a broader world, and what a joyous reclamation project that must be for them. I'm sure they're all looking forward to that.

Comments about Bob Rae wouldn't be complete without a reference to the role he played in federal-provincial relations. His role went way beyond this province and his concerns went way beyond this province on the whole issue of national unity and his understanding and the way in which he was able to articulate the needs and the problems. I very much hope that there will be a way in which he will involve himself in the inevitable debate that will occur again on the national unity issue. I very much hope that he will be able to involve himself in one way or another in that regard.

I feel very strongly that Bob Rae has changed the province of Ontario by his presence here in the last 14 years, and particularly in the five years in government. While I don't expect everybody to agree with a lot of the initiatives he took as Premier, I don't think many people would disagree that they were based on the need to make this province more humane and more equitable. If you think about all those initiatives, that's largely what they were designed to do.

I know that I have been changed, I believe this Legislature has been changed, and you can't go back to what we were before, because of what we did in the last five years. Political life, as I said earlier, is turbulent and unpredictable but it's also honourable, and I know of no one who leaves public life having been through as much as he has with as much honour as Bob Rae is about to do.

I would simply say that we will miss you, Bob. I personally will miss you a great deal. You certainly leave us in this caucus with all our respect and affection and, quite frankly, a better understanding than we had before of what we owe one another.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to be able to join on behalf of my caucus in acknowledging Mr Rae's contributions to politics and to the people of this province. I have to acknowledge that I want to use this occasion, as is appropriate, to say some rather complimentary things about Mr Rae, but I have a little bit of reservation at the outset and I should share it with you. I know Bob has said he is leaving politics but I understand he has also said he is young enough to return. So I would like an assurance from him that anything I am about to say will never appear on a campaign pamphlet in the future.

I have not known Bob as long as some of my colleagues, because I joined the Legislature, came into provincial politics, some time after he did. But he and I have both been members of this House during what I think we have all described as a rather tumultuous period, with each of us having kaleidoscopically changing roles and circumstances over that time. I remember being a cabinet minister besieged by Mr Rae's opposition leadership, an opposition leader against his government, and now a sort of colleague in the leadership of opposition.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, it is easier to be a sort of colleague than to be up against him. No one would ever doubt the debating skills of Bob Rae, and those skills have made him truly formidable in this Legislature, even when he was defending his government policies that we thought were so completely indefensible. But no matter how much we may have disagreed, as is the wont of opposition, with what he was doing, he always made it sound interesting.

In all of his roles Bob Rae has been a passionate spokesperson for social democracy and social conscience. He has carried forward all his responsibilities with flair, with intelligence and with intensity, and in all his roles I believe he has demonstrated an openness and a willingness to hear all points of view. The desire to build consensus, as elusive as it may be, is nevertheless a sign of true leadership.

It seems to me too that Bob has always kept a clear perspective on what this business of politics is all about and why it matters. As a result, he has respected all who share in the political process and contribute to it, of whatever party. He has never forgotten, I believe, that government is about people. This is one of the things that I have particularly respected in Bob Rae. I may have disagreed with his government's policies or his government's management, but I have never questioned that he was genuinely concerned for this province and its future and its people.

I thought over the weekend of what the essence of Bob Rae's contribution to politics in Ontario has been and I thought it was interesting that I came to the same conclusion that he came to in making his statement this morning about what he thinks is the essence of his contribution, and that is that his reason for being in politics has been to serve the public good and that he has always viewed politics as public service.

He has made as well, as is widely recognized and was recognized by his colleague the member for Nickel Belt again today, a strong commitment to this country and to ensuring that it stays both united and strong in the future. His eloquence and his passion, expressed in both official languages, were the basis of a valued contribution to the unity debates and deliberations.

It is for all those reasons that I am indeed sorry to see him leave not only the leadership of his party but elected politics. We need his voice, and I trust it will still be heard loudly and clearly in many different forums -- although again I express one reservation, because I do hope that he doesn't seek to find that voice on the musical stage. I think that would be a true loss of genuine skill and the tremendous knowledge and experience that Bob can bring to future roles in public life.

I am sure that Bob's family has no regret at all about his decision. As the member for Nickel Belt has said, political life is very demanding on families, and although it is a life that Arlene has clearly shared fully with Bob, I would imagine they are both looking forward to being able to spend more of their time together in the peace and the privacy of their family.

So, Bob, on behalf of all the members of my caucus, let me express appreciation to you for your commitment and your contribution and wish you much personal fulfilment in the future.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I want to say a couple of things, first of all, in response to some of which has already been stated from the leader of the official opposition. I too believe that the former Premier and member for York South and leader of the New Democratic Party is too young to not be back involved in politics at some point in time. However, I've learned something, a lesson, and that is, whatever you say, in whatever forum, can and will and ought to be on the public record and ever potentially used against you. So I give permission for my remarks to be reprinted in any campaign brochure at any time.

I also found the comments from the member for Nickel Belt -- you know, he and I have shared a lot of things in common as well, and I found out one new one today, in that neither he nor I supported Mr Rae for leader of his party. That's just another in the long list of things we have worked together on -- not everything, but some.

I have had the opportunity now to sit across from and alongside Mr Rae in this House for some 14 years, and I want to say a few words personally and on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of those members of our caucus over that 14 years, many of whom, thanks actually to Bob Rae, were not re-elected from time to time.

Progressive Conservatives in this country have learned over the years to be wary of Mr Rae, and this wariness sprang, as it usually does, out of the sense of two things: respect and fear. And there was clearly respect for the exceptional political talents that Mr Rae possesses. The fear was inspired by something else, the fact that Mr Rae twice played an integral

part in the downfall of Tory minority governments. I know, as I say those words, that these were painful experiences for Canadian Progressive Conservatives. Perhaps some members of the official opposition caucus remember them as far more delightful circumstances, but for their benefit I add that while it was indeed painful for them, it was not long before Mr Rae also learned a thing or two about humbling governments, even in a majority situation of a different stripe, and did so very successfully.

It was soon after my own arrival in this House that Mr Rae came from Ottawa to take up the leadership of the New Democratic Party.

For 14 years we have sparred in this House, but I want to go back to my thoughts 14 years ago and clearly put on the record something that reinforces what I believe was stated by the member for Nickel Belt: that when Mr Rae assumed his position as leader of the third party at that particular time, I believed, as did quite frankly a significant majority of people, including my own caucus when I assumed the leadership from the third-place party, that Mr Rae would never be Premier of the province of Ontario.

That was just a given in my thinking at the time, and I acknowledge that, and probably it was that kind of thinking that assisted Mr Rae to become Premier, but I agree with the member for Nickel Belt that I don't think the party would have assumed the position of the government of the province without Mr Rae's leadership.

I've sparred in this House with Mr Rae. Our political differences are many. Those I believe are only the stuff of politics. More enduring than the ebb and flow of political battles won or lost, I have known Mr Rae to demonstrate exceptional integrity, principle and, I would say, commitment in his service to this province. I believe it has been to the entire province, to all segments of the province. I think he has striven to provide that, in opposition and in government.

Earlier today, the member for York South talked about the number of decisions he had made and acknowledged that some were mistakes, and with some only time would tell whether they were the right decisions or the wrong decisions, would prove to be correct or incorrect. He said, though, always, in every one of those decisions, right or wrong or yet to be judged, he tried to do the right thing, both as a member and as Premier. I applaud that. I say to all members of the Legislature that this is indeed, I hope, what all of us aspire to. That is an example, certainly, for all of us to follow.

I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "Man is only truly great when he acts from the passions." No observer of recent political life of this province could help but agree that Mr Rae is deeply passionate about Ontario and its people. I looked hard to find a Disraeli quote that would fit Mr Rae and I think this one does, because it is a passion that stands as an example to all those who aspire to public life. When brought to this House, it's a passion that credits this institution. Indeed, it credits all of us. He has projected and continues to project a deep passion for public service.

He has served in a time, and still today, when faith in political office has been diminished. Mr Rae worked to restore that faith, I believe. He is one of us who consider politics to be an honourable profession and wants to be able to continue, through children and grandchildren, to be proud of the honourable profession of political life. I think his exercise of political office has been consistent with this.

Despite the many difficulties that accompany any public career, it was often remarked that Mr Rae found a certain personal joy in political service. Just when you would think that he must be having a rough week, Mr Rae would slide on the stool of the piano out there, set up in the main legislative building for the holiday season, and he'd start banging out a tune. I want to tell you that I liked the sound of you banging on the ivories a lot more than the sound of you banging on my ministers in question period. I want you to bear that in mind if you wish to play a tune over the next hour.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Bring in the piano.

Hon Mr Harris: I'll bring the piano in. I think we can do that.

I know Canada is also a passion of Mr Rae's. It's a passion that we share. Time and again, he stood up on behalf of all Canadians to speak forcefully in support of this wonderful country. From his determined efforts on the Charlottetown accord to his very emotional defence of Canada on Quebec open-line shows during this last year's referendum, his contributions to national unity were legion and I believe they are a lasting legacy.

I would like to say that I have accepted and sought his counsel in my short time in this position, and I would like the member to know that I would like to continue to be able to do that in the weeks and months and years ahead as we wrestle with an unresolved problem that is confronting our country.

We all, as the leader of the Liberal Party has indicated, admire Mr Rae's exceptional support of family. Every member of this House knows the strain that the rigours of the profession can place on a family. I can't help but envy Bob in his new freedom to spend time with Arlene and the girls. I want to say that it's very difficult for anybody -- you can guess, you can think about it -- to know the stress and the burdens on the family of one who is Premier of the province of Ontario. Arlene has offered support to my wife, support that undoubtedly she will continue to need.

I want to say that to have been able to find the time to share that indicates the deep understanding that she has of the family commitment to this job.

I have a feeling, I think many do, that Bob Rae will be around. I wanted to say that when I indicated at the beginning that I'm on the record, I hope he is around, that he continues to lend his talents and his energies to the service of our province and to the service of our country and to the service of me personally, understanding that it is me, the Office of the Premier. I understand the difference.

On behalf of the people of Ontario, might I also extend thanks to Mr Rae for his service to this province, wish him and his wonderful family every success in the years to come.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I feel I had my chance earlier today, so I will not give another speech --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Ah, do it again.

Mr Rae: -- though I know the member from Etobicoke would like me to.

I just want to say first of all that I feel a little bit like Tom Sawyer did when he had a chance to listen to the comments made at his own funeral. Short of one other experience in life, I think there are very few opportunities other than retirement to hear so many nice things said. I'm obviously embarrassed by them, but not so embarrassed that I won't remember them and appreciate them. I really do personally appreciate everything that's been said here today.

Just a couple of comments, if I may. First of all, Mr Speaker, I'd like to express my thanks to you, sir, and to the officers of this House who have served me personally with a great deal of professionalism and kindness at all times. The Hansard reporters have put up with my mumblings and the Clerk has put up with some obscure legal point that I was trying to make and each and every Speaker has always been fair as far as I'm concerned, and I do appreciate very much those courtesies and those kindnesses which have been given to me.

Just a brief word. My colleague from Nickel Belt refers to the poor taste of some posters. Members opposite will no doubt recall the large photograph of me next to a donkey that was widely distributed in the province. I was asked how I felt about it, and I said I didn't mind but I thought the Tory candidates might object to having their picture taken with me.

The Premier referred to the difficulty he found getting a Disraeli quote. I think there are more Disraeli quotes that I would be comfortable with than his government would be comfortable with at the moment. In fact, I have a bust of Benjamin Disraeli outside my door in thinking there are at least some Conservatives that I can relate to. I would say that in my new life I'm finding that more and more as well. As for the Premier's preference that I should spend more time on the ivories than on his ministers, I would say that I've found in recent days there's a little bit more give on the ivories than there is from some of his ministers. But only time will tell.

To the Leader of the Opposition, let me say this: I admired tremendously her work in government. Her reputation as a very fine and talented minister was widespread in the government and in the public service. I can't say that I appreciated all of her work in opposition because she was a very tough critic, and that's part of what one has to do in this job. Part of what's in place is that we're, in a sense, assigned certain responsibilities. But I have, it's fair to say, enjoyed the last few months of our relationship a great deal.

To all of you, let me say thank you for your kindnesses and for your courtesies. The Premier and I have served together. We've disagreed, but I appreciate very much the comments that he has made today. If he were to resign today, I'd say nice things about him as well.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Would it be possible to seek unanimous consent of the House to amend the orders of the day in order to extend the debate on Bill 26 beyond 6 o'clock?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I hear some nos.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your counsel on this point of order. It's with respect to a matter that took place during the hearings and clause-by-clause of Bill 26 within the purview of the standing committee on general government.

On Tuesday, January 23, I tabled a motion with the clerk of the committee and the Chair of the committee and indicated that I was giving notice of an intent to move that motion but that I didn't want to, at that point in time, interfere with proceeding to the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

The content of the motion, just so you're aware of it, was with respect to what happens after the committee had finished dealing with Bill 26 and this Legislature, if it passes it today, had done so. It was with respect to a request from the standing committee on general government to the House leader of the government to bring forward the regulations under Bill 26 and send them to the standing committee on general government so there could be a process of public review of those regulations, given, as you know, in the structure of the bill, that so much is left to the regulatory power of cabinet.

That motion, it seemed to me, would be appropriately debated if and when the committee had finished its work with respect to Bill 26, that being the work of the week which was clause-by-clause.

You may know that we were operating under the order of a motion of the House that set out the time allocation for Bill 26, set out the weeks of public hearings and travel, and the week of January 22, from 10 am to 6 pm, to deal with clause-by-clause. During the course of that week, it was set out that on Friday, at the end of the week, at 1 o'clock, we would begin at that point in time to deal with any amendments that had not yet been dealt with. Again, just for your edification, you should know that we had moved maybe a third of the way through the bill.

Two thirds of the bill was left undebated in terms of the amendments, which were proceeded on just with a vote and no debate, no questions, at that point in time.

There was a provision within the order that would allow for the committee to sit past 6 of the clock if in fact we had not completed the clause-by-clause. That was not necessary. It was some time approaching 5:30 or so when the committee finished that work.

At that point I sought, as a member of the committee with the right to move motions, a voting member of the committee, to place my motion before that committee so that we could determine whether or not there was an agreement of all the members of that committee to request the government to bring forward its regulations under this bill for public scrutiny, given the problems we have had right from the beginning with respect to this bill: the lack of desire on the part of the government for proper public hearings, for proper participation by the public in this process, and of course, as we saw last week, its lack of desire to have proper debate of the amendments or to allow the bill to be examined in its fullness.

At that time, the Chair of the committee ruled that I was out of order, that in fact there was nothing the committee could do but proceed with the clause-by-clause and then adjourn. I point out to you again that it was before 6 of the clock. The committee time for sitting had not expired. I had given notice of this motion and had in fact at that time attempted to move it.

I attempted to appeal to the Chair, and the Chair simply struck his gavel, adjourned the committee and left the room. That left me no ability in that process to appeal the ruling of the Chair and/or to have a reconsideration of tha