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

May 14, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 14 May 2003 Mercredi 14 mai 2003

COMMUNITY LIVING DAY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Wednesday 14 May 2003 Mercredi 14 mai 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

COMMUNITY LIVING DAY

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask if we could receive unanimous consent that each party might

make a short statement on community living.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there a specific time for the short statement -- any time requirement?

Hon Mr Galt: I'm asking for approximately 90 seconds per caucus.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to announce that today is Community Living Day. We have in the audience

members of the community living community, and I am particularly pleased to sponsor their annual Community Living Day here at Queen's Park to promote awareness of the wonderful work the Ontario

Association for Community Living does for those who are developmentally handicapped. I am particularly pleased and proud to recognize Community Living Day. Joining us today in the Legislature are

guests from Community Living Ontario.

Community Living Month is an opportunity to increase public awareness about people with developmental disabilities and the significant contribution they make to

society. It's also an opportunity to acknowledge all the dedicated people who work in the developmental services sector. I want to recognize our government's commitment to supporting vulnerable

people in Ontario. I'm particularly proud to introduce all the members who are here today. I believe this House should join in welcoming them warmly.

Applause.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and recognize that this is Community

Living Week and today is Community Living Day. We are very pleased and honoured that various representatives from across the province who are part of community living associations in their

communities have taken the time to come here to Queen's Park to speak with members of provincial Parliament to continue to press with us issues that are very real for the people they work with and

on whose behalf they advocate.

I would say to the members of the government, as we recognize the very fine efforts put forward by people involved with community living associations across the

province, that it is time the government stepped up to the plate to provide some real assistance for people with disabilities, people with whom the associations live. The government has indicated

in its throne speech that there will be an increase, but we don't know what that increase is going to be. We know that there need to be increased supports, assisted living supports, for persons

with disabilities. We know that people living on Ontario disability have a very low threshold for savings. A parent came to me last night and suggested that they can't even prepay the funeral of

their child because of the threshold. That's considered an asset for the person who is disabled.

We have a lot of work to do. Listen to what these people have to say.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also want to offer my sincere congratulations, and the congratulations and thanks of our caucus here at

Queen's Park, to Community Living Ontario and to all the community living associations across the province. I want to say to the workers in those associations that they deserve our thanks and our

congratulations as well, because together you do a tremendous job. You have a sacred trust and you rise to the occasion in spite of the fact that you have less than adequate resources coming to you

from this government.

I want to particularly pay respect today to my own community living association, Community Living Algoma, and the CUPE workers, who just yesterday resolved a

very difficult labour dispute and will be back to work in the next day or two to provide the services that I know they all want to provide to my constituents and my citizens who live with

developmental challenges every day of their lives.

I call on this government to also rise to the occasion. In Sault Ste Marie it was obvious that the reason for that strike was the lack of resources over the

years to that association to provide the services, the accommodation and all the other things those folks deserve and need to lead lives of dignity and quality in the communities in which they

live. They deserve every opportunity, the same as the rest of us, to work in the community and to have housing that's affordable and of a quality that speaks to their inherent dignity.

Today, again I thank those folks across the province who do this, such important work for all of us, for those very vulnerable and at-risk citizens.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek the unanimous consent of

this House to sit next week on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Government House leader.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I need consent to adjourn this debate for the purpose of seeking unanimous consent to moving a motion to seek unanimous

consent to sit Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week, without debate, and immediately go back into the present situation.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

A point of order, the member for Windsor-St Clair.

Mr Duncan: My point has been addressed, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(i), the House shall meet on Tuesday, May 20, Wednesday, May 21 and Thursday,

May 22.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2003, on the amendment to the motion by Mr Conway arising from the Speaker's ruling of May 8, 2003.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Resuming the debate, the government had the floor. Seeing none, further debate?

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I'm pleased to participate in this debate today to emphasize not only how this government has acted in

contempt of this Legislature but in other ways beyond that. It ties into your ruling, Mr Speaker, very much so, on the lack of respect that the Harris-Eves government has for us as elected

officials.

I'm going to start my presentation today with a quote from John Ibbitson's Loyal No More.

"On the last day of the 1999 campaign, a handful of desultory Tory protesters greeted him at a party rally in Orillia. Harris appeared to ignore the jeers of the

demonstrators as he made his way to his campaign bus, but, as he stepped into the coach, he suddenly turned and waved. The protesters howled in impotent defiance. Harris waved back, his ear-to-ear

grin an unmistakable declaration of victory -- and derision. This was the real Mike Harris: confident, arrogant, determined to win at all costs, contemptuous of his enemies."

I want to talk today a bit about some of the contempt that this government is showing for us in this Legislature as democratically elected individuals. We hear

over and over again about "the Eves government." This is not the Eves government that the 103 of us here are representing. This is the Ontario government. This is a government that represents, and

a Legislature that belongs to, the people of this province, but unfortunately we've seen over and over again how the relevance of this most important building has been undermined. We've seen in

your own ruling, Mr Speaker, how the relevance of this building has been undermined by the budget being taken outside of the Legislature. We've seen again the contempt of this Legislature and the

contempt for yourself from the member from Oshawa. I think that that picture of that member is going to resonate with people all across this province because that's the attitude that this

government has: sticking the finger out at the people of Ontario. It may have been directed at one of the honourable members in here, but it went beyond that. It was a portrayal of the contempt

that this government has for the citizens of this province. It's the contempt of this government of, "If you didn't vote for us, be darned with you." It's a terrible attitude.

I want to talk, though, about some of our rights and something that every one of us in this Legislature should be concerned with: the contempt that exists for

the democratically elected individuals here. I'm going to cite some examples.

The first one that I choose to cite is an issue that's in my riding right now. It deals with the deer hunt and whether or not to allow the use of shotguns. We've

had a traditional hunt in this riding that only has allowed muzzle-loaders since 1978. Yet for some reason, the bureaucracy wants to allow the introduction of shotguns. I commend individuals like

Dave Snook and Bob Bishop, who have come to me to make me aware of this issue and the concern that they have over the loss of this traditional hunting opportunity, and the concern that's been

expressed out there by landowners.

As I've been dealing with this issue, I've been dealing with the minister's office, as I rightfully should be. A little over a week ago I had a call from an

individual to tell me that the PC candidate has suddenly got himself involved in this. I thought it was quite odd. How could the PC candidate get himself involved? Lo and behold, I find out that Al

Pyette, the MPP liaison, who is supposed to represent every one of us, picks up the phone, doesn't talk to the MPP who's democratically elected; he talks to the Tory candidate. That's wrong.

Then it continues on this issue of a letter that was written on May 1 from the Ministry of Natural Resources. The district manager writes to a constituent about

an issue dealing with the change in designation in WMU 92. This is where I'm very concerned, and we all should be concerned, that the bureaucracy in this province is becoming politicized as well.

Not only is this a political environment that we're in, but the bureaucracy is now becoming politicized, and it never used to be. It's wrong. The bureaucracy should not be political.

I'll quote from this letter: "The district has identified concerns...in your letter....The Ontario Conservative government has spoken out against the federal

firearms legislation." Not the Ontario government; the "Ontario Conservative government."

I'll continue with this letter, which really troubles me when I look at who it's cc'd to. It's cc'd to Steve Peters, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London; rightfully so.

It's cc'd to -- I won't even name his name -- to the PC candidate, Elgin-Middlesex-London. Cc'd on a piece of government document. I just find that a terrible undermining of my democratic

rights.

I want to talk about another issue, again how they undermine us. Last Saturday, Minister Hardeman was in my riding to make a very important water announcement.

Did this government have the courtesy to contact the democratically elected individual? No, again they showed their contempt for this Legislature. If it hadn't been for a little birdie who called

me on Friday night and said, "Are you going to be at the announcement?", I wouldn't have known about it. I think that's contemptuous of this government, that they would direct that at an individual

member and not invite a member.

We'll continue on. This one's a real kicker. Again, contempt for the Legislature: a funding announcement in my riding sent to the Elgin County Public Library

announcing $29,000 for the Early Years child fund, congratulating the county on the money and saying how the candidate strongly encouraged the honourable minister to approve this money. This is the

Tory candidate on his own campaign literature announcing government money, and I think that's contemptuous of this Legislature and all of us as individual members, that we as individuals are being

bypassed.

Here's another media release from the Elgin-Middlesex-London Provincial PC Association, welcoming the grant to support the victims of domestic violence in St

Thomas-Elgin -- a press release announcing a $30,000 donation. But what really troubles me is that now this starts to show the contempt not only for the elected officials, but the contempt that is

existing within the bureaucracy of this province, because the bureaucracy of this province didn't notify the local member of this grant. The bureaucracy is using a Tory candidate as the vehicle to

make a government funding announcement. I think that is extremely wrong.

I want to point back to the Early Years challenge fund. The county of Elgin was so disturbed by this letter that they sent it to me so that I could be aware of

it, because they were not impressed that the government would bypass a local member and go through a Tory candidate to make a funding announcement.

Let's cite some other examples of contempt that exists of this government. We saw recently the announcement in Scarborough of the hiring of 1,000 new police

officers. Who is standing in the background of that photo opportunity? Not elected officials who represent the Toronto area; there were some elected officials -- no opposition members -- yet there

were Conservative candidates standing in the background.

Let's talk about another example where this government shows its contempt for the democratically elected individuals in this province. In April, the Minister of

Tourism visits the riding of Sarnia-Lambton and goes to announce a grant of money. Do they have the courtesy to let the honourable member know that they're coming to town? No, they don't. Again the

contemptuous nature of this government, again how it ties in with the ruling that you made and how we're seeing this very fine and most important facility undermined.

Let's look at the nutrient management hearings that took place back in February in the municipality of Leamington. This is the final speakers' list of those

individuals who could make presentations for those hearings. This is a speakers' list that was not determined by people on the ground; this is a speakers' list that was determined by the ministry's

staff.

We've heard the Minister of Agriculture stand up and talk about how much they consult and how hard they work at consultation, yet when you hear this it will just

blow you away, how they're prepared to put the interests of the PC party first and the interest of the farmers of Ontario second. Who's listed on this list produced by the government? One of the

presenters is a gentleman -- I won't name his name either -- listed as the PC candidate, and the PC candidate bumps out such organizations as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Kent

Federation of Agriculture, Ridgetown College, concerned citizens, vegetable growers, farmers, farmers, farmers. PC candidate -- two candidates there, plus two elected members who were disregarded;

another example of the contempt that exists in this province.

Let's talk a bit about this so-called throne speech consultation that took place. Again it shows the contempt that exists out there. The Minister of Agriculture

was in my riding doing throne speech consultation with my constituents, farmers I've developed a good working relationship with and who I believe have been in many ways abandoned by this

government. Does the honourable minister have any respect for the democratically elected member when she comes into the riding? No, she doesn't. She holds invite-only, behind-closed-doors secret

consultation meetings -- it sounds very much like the old Ontarians with Disabilities Act consultations. Do they invite the democratically elected member? No, they don't.

The throne speech consultation continues when one of the honourable members, Mr Dunlop, visits the riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Do they

notify the local member and involve the local member in the throne speech consultations? Of course, they don't. But they point out very clearly that the Conservative candidate for that riding was

at those throne speech consultations -- again, undermining her credibility.

Again, back in February -- the sad politicking that takes place in this province -- the Minister of Health puts out a press release talking about the

Conservative members in the Niagara area and their efforts at working with the dispatch services in the Niagara area. He includes in his press release the sitting members, which is fair game. But

he includes in his press release the Tory candidate in St Catherines, undermining the democratically elected individual who represents the riding of St Catherines.

Here's another one, an event that took place back in February. This one is actually on the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines' Web site. This was an

announcement of $750,000 being put into the riding of Thunder Bay for agricultural research. In this big photo of the announcement is the local PC candidate. Did they have the courage and

conviction to invite Michael Gravelle, the democratically elected member? No, they didn't. Did they invite Lyn McLeod? No, they didn't. But on their own Web site, they're prepared to put a photo of

a Tory candidate; again, total disregard.

Speaker, I think this underlies much of your ruling, showing how provincial dollars are being used not only to make government announcements -- and that's

acceptable -- but how provincial dollars are being used to prop up Tory candidates around this province. I think it's contemptuous of this Legislature that they would do that.

I would say to every one of you in this room: ask yourself, "Why am I here?" I think every one of us is here because we want to make a difference in this

province. Some of us have come from different roots. Many of us, like myself, have served our apprenticeship at the municipal level; have gone through municipal government and come here because we

want to continue to serve and represent the people of our province.

As a municipal politician, I had a lot of respect for this facility. I respected this place and the role the provincial Legislature plays in dictating policies

and programs for municipalities in this province. Did we always agree with the provincial government? No. Quite honestly, I've lived through three provincial governments and all three of them

treated municipal governments like dirt, and that's a real problem.

But we're here to represent our constituents. We get undermined, as we come to this facility, in dealing with such things as the budget. I think it's important

that we understand the role of the Legislature. The important part of this job is to legitimize government decisions. When the elected representatives of the people meet in the Legislature and

debate the issues of the day, the Legislature provides the outlet for the expression of different points of view and the opinions of the electorate we represent. The most important responsibility

of this Legislature is to provide a public forum in which actions of the government are to be examined and scrutinized. Those opportunities to examine and scrutinize the government in dealing with

this budget have been undermined by the fact that this budget was not tabled in this Legislature.

I would encourage the members -- as we were elected, we all received this procedural briefing book. You should have a look at it, because some of you, I think,

forget what we were elected to do. It talks about how a bill is introduced -- it is introduced in the assembly for first reading -- and the debate process that one follows. It talks about

substantive motions that this Legislature needs to deal with, and in talking about substantive motions, examples of such motions include the budget motion. Read the book that was prepared for each

one of us as elected individuals.

We've heard a lot of attacks on the Speaker. I think it's appalling, the attacks we've heard directed at the Speaker because, my colleagues, we should realize

that the Speaker is, in parliamentary terms, the most important member in the Legislative Assembly, as he presides over the debate and is the guardian of our historical rights and privileges. The

Speaker is an individual whom we should be treating with respect, yet we see contempt day after day in this Legislature directed at the Speaker. There's something seriously wrong with that.

The loyalty of the Speaker is not to any political party; the loyalty of the Speaker is not to unelected backroom party hacks; the loyalty of the Speaker is to

the 103 members here in this Legislature and to ensure that we do things in a way that is going to be in the best interests of the citizens of Ontario. That is being undermined. You are continuing

to undermine the Speaker in the important role that the Speaker plays on our behalf.

Let's talk a bit about accountability. Some of you should spend some time going down to the legislative library. The legislative library does a wonderful job

providing services for us as elected officials. In one of the papers that they presented, they talk about accountability and how the accountability of this House for the expenditure of public funds

and the effectiveness and the management of government have been predominant concerns of politicians and public administrators for several decades. The question of fiscal accountability and how the

government of the day is responsible for effective expenditure of public funds and ensuring that we get value for our money: that has been undermined.

We continue to see wastes of money with these propaganda pieces that continue to come out and flood into our mailboxes -- $400 million in propaganda. How many

further millions in TV ads and newspaper ads? Quite honestly, I think the public is sick of receiving this and seeing the waste of taxpayers' money, and there's the latest one coming up right now:

Maclean's magazine, Office of the Premier, 30 pages. Let's recycle it; let's recycle this government. It's time for a change in this province. It's time to put a government in place that's going to

have respect, not only for the Speaker but for the Legislature, the citizens of Ontario and elected officials. This is a government that shows contempt for elected officials.

I want to close with some quotes from Hansard in 1993. This is about the so-called budget.

"I was rather astounded today, when ministerial statements were read, that there was not one by the Treasurer...of Ontario. I cannot recall another time in the

history of the province of Ontario when a mini-budget has been introduced by a government and not introduced in the Legislature of Ontario."

Ernie Eves said that in 1993, how disgusted he was that the NDP government didn't introduce that budget in the Legislature, and he has the gall to stand up and

defend the process that's taking place right now. This government is bent on undermining the democracy of this province. Speaker, I thank you for standing up for this Legislature and standing up

for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: Just before we carry on, we have with us in the Speaker's gallery a former member of the House of Commons, Mr Jesse Flis. Please

join me in welcoming our special guest and colleague.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Today, by all accounts we should be debating the government's budget. We should be raising the issues

and concerns of people across Ontario in the context of the government's budget. But the government didn't have the courage to present a budget in the Legislature. Instead, they produced a

television infomercial in a car parts facility. So instead of debating the important issues of a budget -- how money shall be raised, invested and spent in the province -- we are in the fourth day

of a debate over a motion regarding this government's contempt for the Legislature and, I would argue equally, its contempt for the people of Ontario.

Today, in the context of this debate, I want to raise one of the issues that we really should be debating and which I believe this government has shown contempt

for, not only through its television infomercial but through its unwillingness to tackle the issue. Today I would like to introduce the members of the Participating Co-operatives of Ontario

Trusteed Pension Plan, who are in the gallery. These former employees of farm and dairy co-operatives located all over Ontario worked hard all their lives and thought they could count on a modest

income in their retirement years from their employers' pension plan, but, tragically, that is not turning out to be the case. Their pension plan has been fatally damaged by a risky investment

strategy gone terribly wrong, accompanied by an almost complete breakdown in the regulation of pensions in this province. In fact, just this month all members of the plan have seen their already

very modest pension benefits cut in half, while an actuarial consultant decides on the best way of legally winding up the plan and distributing the remaining assets left in the plan.

Last February, Gilles Bisson and I alerted the Conservatives to problems with Ontario pension plans and the legislation that regulates them. We called for a

royal commission to examine the current state of pensions and what was needed to strengthen them in the future. Our aim was to provide stability for retirees. We believe that people who work hard

all their lives and contribute to pension plans in good faith should be able to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement. The Conservatives ignored the issue then and, from what we saw of their

television infomercial, they intend to ignore the issue now and show contempt for these retirees and other retirees across the province.

This is a government that has ignored the growing problems in pension plans, and we see the result here today. The collapse of the Participating Co-operatives of

Ontario Trusteed Pension Plan has affected 2,300 people in every part of Ontario. Some 2,300 retirees have seen their pension incomes cut in half, while other costs such as hydroelectricity, gas,

rent and food continue to climb. The co-operative plan now has $64 million in assets but has pension obligations of $120 million.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario, the government of Ontario's pension regulator, had ample warning of the problems with the pension fund's

investment strategy but did nothing.

This government made mistakes, the plan trustees made mistakes and the investment manager made mistakes, but it is the people in the gallery today and

thousands of others all over Ontario who are now paying the price. These people worked hard and played by the rules and they are paying for the mistakes of this government and its refusal to

undertake the needed and meaningful pension reforms that we need to see in this province.

Pensioners have little recourse when this happens. This is especially a problem with multi-employer pension plans such as the Co-operatives pension plan

because they are not covered by the pension benefits guarantee fund. Without a backup, they are sometimes at the mercy of incompetent investment managers protected by inadequate regulations. The

government knows this, and yet they have refused to act, and in doing so have shown contempt for these very retirees, people like Don Slinger. Don is 81 years old, worked for United Co-operatives

for 32 years and retired in 1982. It's because of this tragedy that today I repeat my call for a royal commission to look at all aspects of pension plans in Ontario.

New Democrats have some practical ideas for pension reform that can be implemented now. First, there needs to be pension backup for all pension plans in

Ontario, including multi-employer pension plans such as the Co-op pension plan; portable pensions from job to job, so as people are forced to move from one employer to another, their pension plan

travels with them, vesting from day one -- that's what they have now in Quebec; the day you go to work is the day your pension plan vests and you carry it with you as you move through the workforce

-- and pensions geared to cost-of-living increases. These would be good first steps, but much more needs to be done to protect seniors, retirees and all those people who look forward to a secure

retirement.

What exists now is a government pension regulatory disaster, because there's no backup for these kinds of multi-employer pension plans. People deserve the

security of knowing that a pension will be there for them when they retire. New Democrats would reform pension laws and prevent pensions from being robbed by employers or inflation. We would

implement pension backup for all Ontario pension plans and ensure that multi-employer plans are covered by the pension benefits guarantee fund. We would remove the contempt this government has

shown for pensioners like our visitors today who are here from all over Ontario.

I want to elaborate for just a minute on what happened here. The investment manager in this particular case engaged the pension fund in a very risky

derivatives investment. Everyone knows that derivatives are risky at the best of times. Here was a pension plan that had a large number of people who were already retired and a large number of

people who were slated to retire. Anyone would know that in that context investing in derivatives is especially risky.

What is worse is that the Financial Services Commission of Ontario knew this was happening. They knew, in the context of many people already being retired and

many more people about to retire, that the investment manager was investing in possibly the most risky form of investment, and the financial services commission of this government did nothing. This

happened between the years 1997 and 2000. That's when these very risky investments were made.

I know the government will say, "Why didn't some of the trustees of the plan take action?" Well, some of the trustees of the plan didn't know the risky nature

of the investment that was being undertaken. So here we have several million dollars, of people who have worked hard all their lives, people who observed their responsibilities as citizens and

taxpayers, who believed their pension investment was going to be financially supervised by the financial services commission and who believed, as this government has said, that if you play by the

rules you should do all right. And what did they find out? A risky pension investment plan and the financial services commission of this government did nothing, even though they knew for over three

years that this was happening.

This is why we should be debating the government's budget here today. We should be holding the government to account for not including in that budget new

pension reforms that would adequately protect these retirees and adequately protect retirees and those who look forward to retirement across this province. I just want to say in passing that this

is but one symptom of the issues this government has shown contempt for and, frankly, has tried to ignore.

When I looked at the television infomercial that I saw announced, what did I hear the government saying they were going to do? They're going to provide

property tax relief to Frank Stronach, who had an income of $56 million, who lives in a $10-million mansion. This government believes Frank Stronach needs government help to pay his property taxes.

I say to this government, I think Mr Stronach has enough money to pay his own property taxes. If he wants to live in a $10-million mansion, then he can certainly pay his own property taxes.

Where were you when these pensioners, these people who have worked hard all their lives, who played by the rules, who paid their taxes, who met their

responsibilities, asked you to show some responsibility and take some accountability for an investment scheme that had clearly gone wrong? Where were you? Where were they? They were in a car parts

facility in Brampton producing one of those made-for-TV infomercials, trying to spin out how a tax giveaway for Frank Stronach was somehow going to address the needs of seniors across this

province. How completely contemptuous.

I say to this government, I don't know why you haven't used the last four days here to once and for all bring in a budget and allow us to examine that budget.

Why do you insist on, first of all, showing contempt for the Legislature, and then showing contempt for the people of Ontario? Instead of saying, "We made a mistake; we shouldn't have done this;

let's get on with the real issues," you drag out this farce. You drag this out.

I suppose we should have noted from the documents that became clear yesterday that the government's real plan when they launched the television infomercial was

to do the television infomercial and then call an election without ever facing any scrutiny in this Legislature, without facing any scrutiny from the media. That apparently was the plan: to produce

a television infomercial, to spend $36 billion of the public's money without submitting to the scrutiny of a budget or a budget process.

I say to the government, if you're not prepared to observe the rules, the conventions of our Constitution, if you are not prepared to observe the parliamentary

process, a process that has been put together over generations by people who think long and hard about how we protect democracy and how we enhance democracy, then why don't you call the election

tomorrow? Go out there and explain to these people and to other people across Ontario why it's more important for you to pay Frank Stronach's property taxes on his $10-million mansion than to look

after the legitimate needs of pensioners who've paid their way, who've lived by the rules and who've worked hard.

These pensioners have been treated unfairly, unjustly. I say to the government: in the time you have remaining, would you at least meet with this group of

pensioners, would you at least look at the arguments they've put forward, would you at least consider the arguments they have put forward pointing toward alternatives that will give them a better

result, a fairer result, a more just result than you're prepared to foist on them now? It seems to me that that would at least address some of the contempt you have shown so far.

Then you can argue your point on the hustings -- that you believe it's really the Frank Stronachs of the world, the Steve Stavroses of the world, the Eugene

Melnyks of the world who need help paying their property taxes -- rather than address the legitimate needs of these retirees and other retirees like them for better pension regulation and pension

reform in Ontario. Speaking for all New Democrats, I would be happy to take you on in that debate, because the Eugene Melnyks, the Steve Stavroses and the Frank Stronachs don't need your help; they

don't need government's help; they don't need taxpayers' help. They've done very well, thank you, according to the regime that you've already put in place. But what about fairness for these

retirees, and what about fairness for all the other people in this province who are trying to plan now for a retirement that has some income security? You've been silent on that issue. In fact,

you've disappeared on the issue. You've tried to ignore the issue.

I say again to this government, what you should have brought forward, instead of your television infomercial, was pension reform that would have allowed

Ontario to catch up to where other provinces are at already. Other provinces already provide for immediate vesting. Other provinces already provide for pension portability. Other provinces have

already put in place at least partial indexing to protect pensions against inflation. Other provinces have already put in place pension governance legislation which would require the Financial

Services Commission of Ontario to take action when they see this kind of risky investment scheme. Other provinces have already put in place other regulations which require better, fairer, more just

pension governance. Where have you been? Looking after Frank Stronach; looking after someone who owns a $10-million mansion, has a $56-million income and wants more tax cuts. That's where your

priority has been.

I just want to say I still think it's not too late for this government. It is not too late for this government to stand up and admit that you made a mistake.

You made a horrendous mistake: your idea of defying 800 years of constitutional convention, your idea of ignoring 800 years of parliamentary process, to not present a budget before the people, to

not present a budget before the elected representatives of the people and instead present a television infomercial in a car parts plant. It's not too late to say, "We were wrong." It's not too late

to say, "We should never have done that." It's not too late to say, "We would never do that again." And it's not too late to recognize your real priority, the priority that we should be taking care

of now: the needs of pensioners like these pensioners here today, the needs of other pensioners, the needs of other hard-working Ontarians who want to contribute to a secure pension fund, who want

to know, when they retire -- and most of them want to retire earlier rather than later -- that they will have a secure income, who want to know that that income will be protected at least to a

certain extent against the vagaries of inflation.

I wish the Minister of Finance were here today. In fact, I wish the Minister of Finance were prepared to meet with these pensioners. I wish the Minister of

Finance were prepared to recognize the legitimate aspirations and the legitimate arguments that these pensioners have put forward. But I see that this government still hasn't learned its lesson. It

still believes that it can listen only to the wealthy and the powerful. It still believes that it doesn't have to listen to the voices of ordinary people. It still believes it can show contempt for

constitutional convention. It still believes it can show contempt for 800 years of British parliamentary development. You still believe that you can make the rules as you go along and that you can

ride roughshod over the law, roughshod over constitutional convention and roughshod over the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people like this who have paid their taxes, who have worked hard and

now deserve your legitimate attention.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak

to the amendment to the motion. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge, as did the capable member for Scarborough Centre, Community Living Day in Ontario. There are a lot of our friends here.

The member for Scarborough Centre and I were able to attend a fundraising event for the Toronto Association for Community Living the other day, and I see Agnes Samler, Cay Shedden and Jesse Flis

from the Toronto association, so I would like to particularly welcome them, as well as Chris Grayson from the Campbellford and District Association for Community Living, a pretty innovative group

in Northumberland county, which I was able to visit with my colleague Doug Galt. So I say hi to them.

Hon Ernie Hardeman (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): There's a great group from Oxford, from Tillsonburg.

Hon Mr Baird: I'm sure there are a lot of good representatives from Oxford, from Tillsonburg, as the minister tells me.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this debate. I think we can have a fair discussion about the evolving role of Parliament. It has

changed in a very big way. There is a huge influence of mass communications, not just in Parliament and how it affects Parliament but also in how it affects government. We live in a 200-channel

universe. We have more daily papers than we've had. We have instant access to the Web. We have 24-hour newscasts. We have 24-hour radiocasts. No longer is there a 24-hour news cycle; there is in

fact a news cycle that demands instant reaction, almost to the hour, if not the minute. The media have tremendous power in this place, as do non-parliamentary groups.

This challenges Parliament's role, and that's not a reflection on either opposition party or on the government. I think we have to ask ourselves: is Parliament

as effective a body as it could be? I think you could say yes and no. There are not enough free votes. I think we can look at both sides of the House. How often is there a member of the government

who votes against his or her own party? You could look just as equally at the two opposition parties and ask how often one of their members stands up and votes on a controversial issue against

their party leadership. I don't think you'd find a substantial difference. You might even find a number of instances where people have stood up on principled grounds, like the member for Stoney

Creek. But I don't think that's a comment on the opposition or the government; it's a reality of how our parliamentary system has evolved, not just here in Canada but specifically in the province

of Ontario.

I think there is a fundamental challenge, when you have the legislative body and the executive branch together, when you have them co-located. I think we have

seen the growing instance of politics turning into a "gotcha" politics. I once saw one of the reporters here at Queen's Park do the intro to his story, and he made a few mistakes. In fact, he stood

there and I think taped it eight or nine times until he got it just right, exactly right, exactly what he wanted to communicate to his viewers. Mr Speaker, you don't have that chance, I don't have

that chance, no member of this House has that chance. But if one member on one occasion makes one bad judgment: gotcha. Those of us on this side of the House will scream, "Gotcha!" and those in the

opposition will scream, "Gotcha!" I don't think that's good for the process. It's a game that all of us, if we're honest, would admit that we've fallen into, and I think that's too bad.

Too often, people are more concerned with the politics than they are with the legislative issue in front of them or of sound public policy. I think of the

issue of time allocation, where we now have to time-allocate bills in this place where all three parties agree. When all three parties support a minor bill, we have to go through the full

legislative debate and process because, come hell or high water, one member or one party will want to slow the whole place down. When we have a consequential bill that's meaningful to all members,

we'll sit here and have to debate it for just three or four days, but if there is an inconsequential bill where everyone agrees, it has to be debated for the same amount of time. We can't debate

one bill longer than the other. I don't know whether that's the fault of the third party or the government, or perhaps both of us and the official opposition. But that's what Parliament has come

to. I think that's a sad statement about all of us.

There is this dial-up indignation where people can simply press a button and explode with outrage. We heard the leader of the third party speak earlier about

the lack of respect for Parliament on the side of the government. He was the Attorney General and a front-bench member in a government where the House only sat for 15 days in the course of an

entire year. Where was the indignation there? Fifteen days in a single year, but no indignation. I certainly think that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I think we have to reflect on how this place has changed and look at what we can all do as individual members. I had the opportunity to appoint a new chair of

the Ontario Energy Board. I went out and recruited someone of the highest calibre, someone of the highest integrity, someone who has a huge amount of experience as an advocate for consumers at the

federal level, someone who served as a federal court judge, someone who served as a reform agent at the Ontario Securities Commission, someone whose past was absolutely impeccable as a public

servant. We went to the legislative committee and, to their credit, Mr Bryant and Mr Conway supported it, but the NDP said no, despite this man's unquestioned ability for the job, despite his

unquestioned character. It's the game; they'll just vote against it. I don't think that serves this place well.

Routinely, members in this House -- opposition members -- will ask questions of the government on behalf of their constituents and then scream and yell

hysterically while the answer's being given. Why did they come? Why did they ask the question if they don't even do the courtesy of listening? I'm not going to be dishonest; I'm sure it was the

case when the other two parties opposite were in government, from members of my party. Again, it's dial-up indignation. That brings the whole place down. I think we've all got to acknowledge

that.

I've been listening with great interest to Mr McGuinty, the leader of the official opposition, talk about the democratic deficit in Ontario, how there's got to

be more democracy, how there's got to be more of an opportunity to expand the right of all citizens and legislators to participate. But what did they do in my friend the member for Ottawa-Vanier's

riding? An individual stepped forward to run for the nomination, spent one year campaigning. This was someone with degrees from Harvard and Oxford, an outstanding public servant. What did they

decide? They weren't going to have it. They cancelled the nomination meeting. Like any Third World dictatorship, "The vote is off; I will impose which candidate will be here." But again that same

individual comes into this House and seeks to lecture those of us on this side of the House about a democratic deficit. It's absolutely disgraceful.

The member opposite dials up his indignation because he doesn't want to listen. He thinks that's acceptable. Cancel the nomination meeting and impose one man's

iron will on the riding association members in Ottawa-Vanier. The candidate that's appointed couldn't get the nomination meeting.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Baird: You should heckle. You should be embarrassed. An outstanding individual who wanted to represent his community was sloughed aside

when they cancelled the vote. I'll tell you, Ernie Eves or Mike Harris or Larry Grossman or Andy Brandt or Bill Davis would have none of that.

I notice there are a lot of uncomfortable members over there. Who's it going to be next? We saw that in the riding of Scarborough Centre with my colleague

Marilyn Mushinski. I don't have anything against Brad Duguid, but they cancelled that. It was absolutely wrong. We have confidence in the ballot box, not in the pen to slough aside democracy, to

cancel votes. I think it's regrettable.

I say there is a lot of blame to go around for the way this place has changed, but you've got to ask yourself, is the leader of that indignation without

doubt?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: Oh, they're going to win the seat, one of the members says. So it doesn't matter. "We can end democracy because we're going to

win the seat." Not a single ballot has been cast and yet that party says, "We're going to win the seat." That's shameful; that is absolutely shameful. They should never take for granted the votes

of people in this province.

You should hear what the Ottawa-Vanier Liberal association is saying about your party. You should hear what they're saying in Scarborough Centre.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): What are they saying?

Hon Mr Baird: "The dictatorship of Dalton." It's shameful.

There is, among all members of this House, a common respect that we all have as we enter the front door. It's that we all had to seek election; we all had to

stand for nomination of our party. I may disagree with the member for Windsor-St Clair, I may disagree with the member for Nickel Belt, but I know they had to get in here the same way. They didn't

get appointed; they didn't get the seat by acclamation; they had to stand for nomination and had to stand for election, and there is a fundamental respect that we all have.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Call an election.

Hon Mr Baird: "Call an election." I'd like you to call an election in Ottawa-Vanier. I'd like to you call an election in Scarborough Centre.

Let the people decide. But no, there won't be a nomination meeting in Ottawa-Vanier. There won't be a nomination meeting in Scarborough Centre because the vote was cancelled and a candidate was

appointed. I think that is disgraceful.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): One vote. There was one vote.

Hon Mr Baird: One vote -- Dalton McGuinty. We've gone from first among equals to first and only.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that there is not a lot of blame to go around on all sides of this House for the changes that have taken place in this

Parliament over the last 25 years. But I do question the rightful indignation of some members of this House.

Interjection: Shame and indignation.

Hon Mr Baird: The "shame and indignation," one of my colleagues says.

Too often members of this House on all sides don't work together, but sometimes they do. I can say as minister of francophone affairs that I've had an

excellent relationship with the member for Ottawa-Vanier. If she has a problem, she comes to speak to me, as does the member for Timmins-James Bay, as does the member for

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. If there's a problem, they want to solve it, and I think that's rare. You don't see that enough on all sides -- when we're in government, when the Liberals are the

government or the New Democrats are government. I think that's a pity and I think that's a shame.

I think of the years when I was social services minister. Members, like the member for Nickel Belt or the member from Wilson Heights, would come to you with a

problem to want to solve it. But too often other members will just choose the political route. They only care about getting the media headline that they're out there fighting for something, and I

think that's regrettable. So I guess in this House you do see the best and the worst, and that's too bad.

The members opposite were talking about recent special warrants. The member from Renfrew, whom I have a tremendous respect for, got up yesterday and, I don't

think it's unfair to say, deliberately wanted to leave the impression -- just on the size, because he was clear in pointing that out -- but that special warrants were somehow never used. He

absolutely wanted to --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): It's the amount of the special warrant.

Hon Mr Baird: I realize it was the amount. I said he recognized it was the amount, but he clearly wanted to leave the impression of just the

use of it, that it was secret. Of course something in cabinet is secret. But he deliberately wanted to leave the impression that this was somehow extraordinary and had never been used before.

So I said to my friend Stockwell, "Stockwell, how could this be the case?" My friend Stockwell came back to me: the warrant that was brought forward in 2003-04

was, indeed, for the largest amount, $36 billion. As a percentage of the estimates, it's 50%. So I said to Stockwell, "Stockwell, is that the highest ever in Ontario's history?" Stockwell didn't

know. He probably had to ask Pete Hardie. Back in 1995-96, because the House had only sat for 15 days of the previous 365 days, 60% of the budget was signed by special warrants -- 60%. Again,

where's the indignation for that? Did one member of the cabinet say, "No, I'm sorry, the House hasn't come back in a year, so I'm going to step aside"? Not one.

People said that these were sometimes done for one or two years in a row, but special warrants had never been done three years standing in a row, except for

three years: the three years from 1985 to 1988. Three years in a row, special warrants were brought in by the Liberal government -- three years in a row. Did Richard Patten say, "That's wrong"?

Mr Gerretsen: How much?

Hon Mr Baird: How much? It was 29%, 20%, 25% -- we're talking $9 billion. That's chicken feed for you, I suppose -- $9 billion. Three years in

a row. I suspect that's the first time in Commonwealth history that special warrants had been issued three years in a row. Alas, where's the indignation?

Don't talk about that, though. It's all our fault; it's all the Conservatives' fault. The Liberals and the NDP are clean. They've never, ever done anything to

contribute to that. They're pure as the driven snow. No wonder they want an election. They thought that there should have been an election two years and 10 months after the election.

I can see some of the Liberals members leaving. They're in shame. That member, I know, served as a member of the Peterson Liberals.

Hon Mr Clark: With their heads down.

Hon Mr Baird: With their heads down.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Three years in a row -- never in the Commonwealth.

Hon Mr Baird: Never in the Commonwealth, the former Speaker says.

My point is this: this institution is only as relevant and as meaningful as members on all sides of the House want to make it. I think we can all share a

degree of responsibility for the changes that have gone on in this place and can work to try to make it more relevant. That's certainly something that I'm committing to do.

I did appreciate the time that we had to consult on the throne speech. It was an excellent opportunity for members to get out in their constituencies and talk

to people. I had the opportunity to meet with members of the Ottawa-Carleton Life Skills board -- they're a board which helps people with developmental disabilities in my riding -- to get their

thoughts on the direction. I appreciated the chance to meet, on a number of occasions, with Dr Jack Kitts and Gino Pucciano of the Ottawa Hospital -- a real turnaround success story. It was the

second-biggest public sector deficit in the entire province of Ontario. Now they've got a balanced budget, more hope and a big expansion underway. If you talk to any nurse or any worker in that

hospital, they'll say the hospital is in solid shape.

I had the chance to talk to people from the Queensway-Carleton Hospital and talk about the new MRI, the expansion going on and the huge, gigantic $30-million

budget increase that they've had in recent years; to go to the Montfort Hospital and see the new long-term-care beds open; to look at the success at the Osgoode Care Centre, where they've raised

money.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Baird: Grace Manor is a lovely place. It's a new long-term-care centre. It's a good opportunity.

If you look at home care in Ottawa-Carleton, I had the chance to work with Graham Bird and others. Hospitals in Ottawa are better today than they've been in

years. There are more long-term-care beds, no lineups at the community care access centre for medical services. We see a growth going on at all of the hospitals. We're finally able to expand the

Queensway-Carleton Hospital. It was cancelled back in 1989, a year when they didn't bring in any special warrants.

I appreciated the opportunity that we all had to work hard in our constituencies, to listen, to bring those priorities back and have them reflected in the

provincial budget and in the speech from the throne.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of the House, in the west gallery, the co-op

students from my riding: Ashley, Kamila, Jill, Elizabeth and Holly, who are in my constituency office and at the Brantford Expositor learning about democracy. I'm glad they're here, and I'd like us

to welcome them.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to join the debate and to remind the public of what we're debating. On May 8, Mr

Speaker, you said, "From where I stand, the 2003 budget process has raised too many questions for the House not to reflect on them. In order to facilitate that exercise, I am finding that a prima

facie case of contempt has been established. I want to reiterate that while I have found sufficient evidence to make such a finding, it is now up to the House to decide what to do." That is what we

are debating.

I want to say that I found your comments well developed. Particularly, I found the three paragraphs before your ruling important to the public. I honestly

think that if all members in this Legislature reflect on your decision, you made the right decision. I honestly believe we need to step back and calmly look at what you are trying to do on our

behalf, Mr Speaker.

You said, "I have a lingering unease about the road we are going down, and my sense is that the House and the general public have the same unease. Let me

summarize it by posing the following questions:

"First, what does the planned presentation of a budget speech outside the House suggest about the relevancy and primacy of Parliament? It is one thing not to

make the traditional budget speech in the House because the government is backed into such a decision by an ongoing House process, or a budget leak; it is quite another for the government to have a

deliberate plan not to do so."

I honestly believe -- and I think members do -- that there is no more important document than our budget. It's the basis on which the Legislature says to the

public, "Here's how much of your money we are going to spend, and here's how we're going to get it." Surely none of us here cannot agree that the budget document is an extremely important document,

and if it does not have to be presented here, what document does?

Your second point: "... if left unchallenged, will this incident not embolden future governments to create parallel, extra-parliamentary processes for other

kinds of events that traditionally occur in the House?" I've seen a creeping diminution of the role of Parliament since I've been here, since 1987. It took what I regard as an egregious breach, one

that no one could ignore and one that, in my opinion, Mr Speaker, allowed you to say for all of us, "No more; we cannot go any further."

Finally, you said: "Third, why is an extraordinary parliamentary process needed if there is already a process in the House?" I really think that the public

understands this issue, in many respects far better than perhaps we do here when we get into a partisan environment, where if that side says one thing we'll take the other side. It was up to you,

Mr Speaker, and I know how difficult it was -- we're all members of political parties; our Speakers are chosen from among us. It is important, when that decision is made, that the Speaker step

aside and try his or her best to provide balanced impartiality.

Mr Speaker, I think if we all were to be objective, you've done an admirable job, and your ruling, objectively -- forget the partisanship -- was the right

ruling and was a well-reasoned ruling. I suppose one might expect I might say that, because I agree with the ruling. I do know how difficult and challenging it must have been for you because of

your deep roots with good friends in the Conservative Party, but you stepped aside from that.

What I want to say to the public is this is not an insignificant, minor debate that's going on. It's a debate about the role of Parliament. It's not an

exaggeration to say that wars have been fought and lives have been lost over this issue, about what role the public should expect from democratically elected Parliaments. I once again compliment my

colleague Mr Conway, who I thought put it in well-researched language to remind us of how we arrived at a parliamentary democracy and the importance of it.

Just on the face of it, Mr Speaker, if we all step back, your ruling that there was a prima facie case of contempt of the House is, in my opinion, exactly

right and does require us to stand back and reflect on it and take the appropriate decision.

My colleague Mr Conway moved what I regarded as a very balanced motion. He simply said, and I'll quote it just so the public is aware: "That this House

declares that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario."

I actually believed the government would say, "You know, we made the decision to present the budget outside the Legislature because we thought it was

appropriate; we decided to do it. But we understand the Speaker's ruling, and we accept that ruling." I really thought that's what they would do. In my opinion, that would have put this matter

behind us, to a very large extent. But the government has chosen, for whatever reason, to say they're not going to accept that.

Therefore, I go back to your reasoning, Mr Speaker. If the government is saying, "No, I'm not going to accept Mr Conway's motion," what they're essentially

saying is, "And furthermore, we'll keep doing these sorts of things." Therefore, the contempt ruling will essentially be null and void because the government says, "We have decided we are not going

to accept the contempt ruling." So I say to the public, where does it end?

You laid out your concerns, which I think the public would agree with: "What does the planned presentation of a budget speech outside the House suggest about

the relevancy and primacy of Parliament?" If the government is saying they'll continue to do it, it says a lot about their

interpretation of it. If left unchallenged, what next? Indeed, what next?

If the budget is not something that should be presented here first and that we have it, where are the boundaries? Your final point, Mr Speaker, is that if this was the right process, why in the

world did we not have a process in place here for dealing with it?

In many respects, my larger concern is as a result of the government's decision that they are going to defeat Mr Conway's motion. I say to all of us, where

does it lead in terms of the role of Parliament? This process has been long developed. The public has had confidence that there was a system of checks and balances in place, where a process was

being followed and a parliamentary democracy was dealing with it. The government has chosen not to follow that and, worse still, to say, "Not only did we not follow it, but we're making a conscious

decision that we'll do whatever we want in the future as well."

Mr Speaker, I've read your finding several times. It was well done. The final few paragraphs caught the essence of it for me. I think the public must be

wondering what the government's thinking is here. Are they not even remotely sorry for what they did? The Liberals and NDP are offended, but that may not matter to the government. Did the

government not see that the public is offended by this? Does the government not recognize the will of the public? Believe me, the will of the public is, "Don't do it. Admit you made a mistake and

don't do it." That is essentially Mr Conway's motion. But the government has said, "No. Frankly, we didn't make a mistake." Maybe it's difficult for them to say, "We made a mistake." I think the

public in many respects has been hit twice. When I heard that the budget was going to be at Magna, I thought somebody had pulled a joke on the media. I thought, if they're not presenting it here in

the Legislature, what would be the worst thing they could do? And they did that: they made that huge mistake of not presenting it here. But now we find that they're simply going to ignore your

finding, Speaker, to which I think, had they accepted the motion, the public would have said, "All right, they've learned their lesson and let's move on."

My colleague Mr Conway raised in the Legislature yesterday a further step of my opinion of contempt, with the special warrants. The public should recognize

that December 12 was the last time the Legislature met until we came back here in May. I find that in many respects contemptuous. I live in Scarborough-Agincourt, an area dramatically affected by

the SARS outbreak. I would have appreciated the Legislature being in session so the public could see us grabbing control of it and dealing with it in a public way. But from December 12 to May we

didn't even meet. That was the government's decision.

I remember, right after the 1995 election, when Mr Eves appointed the Ontario Financial Review Commission, this is what he said: "In July our government

established the Ontario Financial Review Commission. I asked them to look at ways to restore confidence and credibility to the province's financial reporting and planning practices." He went on to

say, "In taking these steps ... I want Ontarians to have confidence that their government's financial planning is open, realistic and credible." He was responding to concerns about the way the

finances were begin reported, so he appointed this commission, and one of the things he said was, "We are going to present the budget to the Legislature before the fiscal year starts." I took him

at his word in 1995 that he was serious about bringing what he called in this document, "I want Ontarians to have confidence that their government's financial planning is open, realistic and

credible."

This commission was appointed in July 1995, literally days after the election, because they wanted the public to feel that the process was going to be open,

transparent and credible. But what have we found? First, a budget that was not even presented here in the Legislature, and, as you have found, Speaker, a prima facie case of contempt; and the

Legislature not meeting from December 12 until May 1. The public is incredulous when they find out that during all these challenges we were faced with we didn't even meet. And then they're aware

that Mr Eves, when he became finance minister, was going to improve the openness and credibility of the process. Then we found yesterday, because of Mr Conway's awareness, that there was something

called a special warrant, where the government went for -- I think it was $32 billion --

Mr Gerretsen: Thirty-six billion.

Mr Phillips: That's right, $36.2 billion, secretly, behind closed doors. Frankly, there was virtually -- well, not virtually -- no public

notice of it. My colleague was aware of it because someone informed him of it. So here we are now, as the public is making an assessment of the government and the Premier on how they treat the

people we are here to serve. All of us, I hope, try to remind ourselves on a daily basis that we're here to serve the public, but firstly the Speaker, with a well-reasoned finding, says to the

government, "Listen, you've made a mistake. You are in contempt of the Legislature and I, the Speaker, now look to the Legislature to find a redress to this."

There's a solution put forward that any fair-minded person would say -- I thought -- is a reasoned motion: henceforth, the budget would be presented first here

in the Legislature. I've listened carefully and I do not understand the logic of the government saying they're not going to agree to that. To me, that is particularly contemptuous.

Part of the background of all of this was the Legislature was due to sit in mid-March and the budget could have been presented, should have been presented,

right there. There was no need for the government to go for these special warrants. Nothing, nothing, nothing other than the personal and political agendas of the government prevented us from

meeting. Was there any single reason why we could not have met in March? None. Other than the political and personal agendas of the government, there was no event that required delay. There was no

reason why we should have been delayed.

Part of my opinion that the government was treating the public with contempt was, "We simply won't meet. We've decided we won't meet, even though we agreed

when we left in December we would meet in March," even though, frankly, if you reflect back to mid-March, there were major issues facing the people of Ontario -- major issues -- that we should have

been here dealing with. But there was not a single reason other than political. This was all about the election. That's why we didn't meet. It was all about the election, so that the Premier would

not be subject to one of the treasured parliamentary traditions, and that is question period, where the opposition, on behalf of the public, get to ask the government to defend and to answer

legitimate public business.

We see a series of what I regard as contemptuous moves. I see no reason, other than political, why we did not meet in March. Frankly, it's embarrassing and the

public should be aware of it. On December 12, we left this place and we did not come back until May. There's no reason why, other than political. We found yesterday, because of Mr Conway's work,

that over $36 billion of money was appropriated; in other words, the government got authority to spend $36 billion of taxpayers' money without even coming before the Legislature for that; all done

behind closed doors. Some members may say, "Well, warrants have been done before." But why in the world -- they're done when there is no other recourse. But the government, once again, created

this. All we had to do was come back in March for our normal session.

Mr Speaker, it's with sincerity that I say I know how difficult it was for you to do this. You did the Legislature a service. It is a finding that, I think,

will be quite historic. My regret is that the government could have dealt with this in a statesman-like way and put this matter behind us by simply agreeing to the motion that henceforth budgets

will be presented first here in the Legislature. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government doesn't agree to that.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I listened carefully to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, for whom I have a great deal of respect in

his thought process. He is a bulldog when he thinks he is right, and you can't criticize someone for being that. He is also an individual who will truly apologize when he is convinced that he was

incorrect or didn't have all the facts. I'm not asking that the member do that at this point. He's right that comments in this Legislature are often made in a purely, clearly partisan nature. His

thought is that any fair-minded person should support this particular motion.

I will say that I feel that I am probably a reasonably fair-minded person. I grew up in a small town in northern Ontario, in Sault Ste Marie. My father was a

lifelong railroad worker, a member of the union.

Interjection.

Mr Spina: It was Steel City, Sault Ste Marie. I often listen --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): Hey, hey.

Mr Spina: Well, the other Steel City, yes, I say to the member from Hamilton, with respect. Hamilton carries the crown.

We learned and we grew up with a very grassroots appreciation for life. We all tried to get the best education we could. We tried to raise our families, just

as everyone does, in a good, compassionate manner, and make a contribution to our community and to our society. And then some of us got elected.

But I will say that even though I consider myself a fair-minded person, as the member indicated, I will not be supporting this motion. I fundamentally disagree

with the motion, for many reasons. I'm not going to get into that.

What I am going to talk about is the comment that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt, and others, have made regarding these special warrants. The minister

earlier spoke about special warrants -- and they admitted that this wasn't a precedent.

Mr Gerretsen: He did it in secret.

Mr Spina: There is nothing secret about special warrants. A warrant in fact is put forward -- and its effective time -- by the secretary to

cabinet. The civil service then bases the amount on the amount of money that they feel they need to meet the business needs of operating government. So it's not a political decision. When you're

going into an election year, it is necessary for the public service to be able to pay the wages and to pay the normal, everyday bills of government. These are our nursing homes, our transfer

payments to hospitals, our payments to the doctors across this province who bill OHIP, the funding programs that are put forward to the municipalities in this province, the Ontario Works

recipients, our welfare recipients, our social service agencies, children's aid societies. All of these people could not have been paid without a special warrant. So why was a special warrant

requested? As a normal course of doing business. You're facing an election year and when the public service isn't certain when that specific election will be called, it's a matter of course to

request a special warrant.

The strange thing is how special warrants are requested and put forward in a non-election year. The minister spoke earlier about three consecutive years of

Liberal government, and some of those former cabinet ministers are sitting here today and don't want to talk about it. But they put forward these amounts: $23 billion, when the average budget for

three years was $31 billion. That's 74%, for Pete's sake. That's unbelievable when you look at --

Mr Gerretsen: It is?

Mr Spina: And that's what the Liberal government did from 1985 to 1987.

Mr Gerretsen: That wasn't right, either.

Mr Spina: The information is available from Management Board. Take it out of Management Board. These are not concocted numbers; they come

right out of Management Board. I say to the member from Kingston and the Islands, you sit on the estimates committee -- or you did.

Mr Gerretsen: No.

Mr Spina: Well, you're close to it. I know, sir, that you are close, as the member from Scarborough-Agincourt is, to the financials of this

government, and you're the critic for how this government spends money. I tell you, look in your own backyard. You have a lot of stones there. You have a lot of stones.

I say to the Liberal Party that I am stunned at their accusation of the undemocratic way that this government has been said to be operating. I bring not only

the example of Ottawa that the minister indicated a few moments ago, but let's look at Brampton Centre. Let's look at Brampton Centre, my riding. There are many long-term, long-time responsible

community people in Brampton who have been Liberals and would have been willing to run for the Liberal nomination, but what did the party president do? He didn't want any of those people. He wanted

to choose the person that his leader could appoint -- destroy democracy. Guys like Billy Bengal and Gus Grewal would have been good candidates for the Liberal Party to run against me. I'm not

afraid to name names, like the member from Middlesex.

Mr Gerretsen: Name names.

Mr Spina: OK, Linda Jeffrey is a nice person; she is. She has been a friend. And do you know what? I will take most pleasure when the election

is over to call you, Mr Sorbara, and gloat when that happens. But I will say that Linda Jeffrey is a candidate I have a great deal of respect for, and we will have no problem running an election

campaign against each other. The people around her, I question. When some of the people around her campaign team disgracefully send out fundraising letters on city of Brampton letterhead -- it is

totally unacceptable to use city of Brampton letterhead for a partisan Liberal fundraising event. And Linda Jeffrey's people did do it.

Interjection: Isn't that illegal?

Mr Spina: I've been told that it was illegal. The CAO of the city of Brampton is looking into it. In fact, even Elections Ontario is examining

this issue. It is absolutely improper, and even worse, when the signature on the letter is the chair of the planning committee of the city and the letter went to all the developers. My God, I've

never seen such a state of coercion from the Liberal Party. It's totally unbelievable that this kind of coercion would take place in the role of provincial politics.

Brampton is booming. We are doing well. We have business. We have $2 million to Brampton Transit to buy 200 new buses, virtually doubling our fleet. We have

increased the Peel District Board of Education budget by over $188 million since 1997. That's a 22% increase that equals over $857 million. The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board budget

has also increased by $169 million since 1997, a 28% increase to total $603 million. The improved, new school capital funding formula that began in 1997 helped to build or renovate more than 37

schools in Brampton. That, gentlemen and ladies, is the most construction that has taken place in the history of Brampton with regard to the construction of schools. This government is committed to

education.

This government is also committed to health care. We are welcoming a new hospital that will be built using a P3 model which equals 100% universal public health

care at its best. I say to my NDP candidate Kathy Pounder, "God bless her." She's a good candidate. She speaks for the health care coalition. And do you know what? I welcome her as a candidate

because she at least is consistent. It's going to be very interesting to watch the Liberal candidate caught in the crosshairs when she believes in the hospital construction going ahead but her

party leader says he'll roll back the P3 partnership. Won't that be an interesting debate, Mr Sorbara? You'd better prepare that little girl for that debate, let me tell you. But I'm very happy

Interjections.

Mr Spina: She is a good friend. She is a bright woman and she is a good candidate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, take your seat. Order. I'd ask all members to please remember that we do have some young people in the galleries here

today who are watching. I apologize to the member from Brampton Centre.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): On a point of order, Speaker: The member for Brampton made a reference to an

adult woman as "that little girl." I believe that is offensive and I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: I'm afraid I was speaking with one of the other members during that and did not hear it, but I know all members, if they say

something, they can regret it. We were chatting with one of the House leaders on another issue and I apologize; I didn't hear it. But if any member does say it, I'm sure they will apologize. Sorry

for the interruption again. The member for Brampton Centre.

Mr Spina: I withdraw, Speaker. That was not a fair comment. Thank you, member. She is a bright, intelligent woman. The member representing the

NDP will be consistent. She is a good candidate. Kathy Pounder is a good candidate and I look forward to her presentation.

On Saturday, when I opened my campaign office and we had a celebration, I was very pleased to welcome Kathy and the NDP candidates. The health care coalition

came with their placards, visited our office. We welcomed them. We shared soft drinks with the kids and said that there would be room for debate when it comes to the election. We look forward to

that opportunity.

There is a concern in Brampton that even with the development of our new hospital, the 608-bed, largest non-teaching community hospital in this province, we

will be redeveloping the current Brampton Memorial Hospital site to include 112 complex continuing care beds, a modern emergency and ambulatory care centre, an eye institute and an outpatient

surgery and rehabilitation centre.

As far as public safety is concerned, I was pleased to speak personally with Chief Catney as early as today. We've provided $14 million to the Peel Regional

Police Service to hire 124 new front-line police officers so that Brampton may continue to be a safe and secure place for families to grow.

Brampton is booming thanks to this government, thanks to the economy that this government has brought. We've increased total new employment over this recent

period 26%; total new business in the past year, 35%; the unemployment rate dropped by 1.4%; average active UIC claims dropped by 26.5%. If you want a job, folks, come to Brampton. We've got work

for you. Our construction value has gone up by 72%; residential, 185%; commercial, 326%. Our housing resale activity has dropped 12% but the average house price has gone up 9% and housing permits

and units have gone up by 135%.

Mr Gerretsen: So your point is?

Mr Spina: Our point is, sir, that this city is succeeding, and is succeeding well. The economy is moving forward because of this government's

positive economic activities and initiatives. We will continue to do so over the next mandate of this government. We've invested in health and seniors' care; we are building over 1,100 new

long-term-care beds in Brampton; we've increased health care spending -- provincially, of course -- by $8 billion to $25 billion this year, as is declared in the estimates; and we've invested, in

Peel alone, $9.5 million for the Carlo Fidani Peel Regional Cancer Centre in Mississauga, which will serve all of Peel, and we're very pleased. Because of that we will not be having to transport

our patients from Brampton to Toronto as we currently do.

With respect to transit, it's always a problem, particularly if you're in the GTA. We've increased GO Transit service throughout the day, something for which

we had been lobbying for 15 years, from when I was president of the Brampton Board of Trade, to try to increase GO Transit service on the northwest corridor. Why? Because we had people who had more

flexibility in their hours than GO Transit was able to provide. We also needed to provide the opportunity for GO Transit people to come from Toronto out to the suburbs, where the jobs were, and we

needed a good two-way commute throughout the day. We're pleased that a few months ago we made that announcement. It is now a reality.

We have installed lights. We're expanding the highway system. We plan soon to make an announcement to complete Highway 410 right up into Caledon. It's amazing.

When I got elected in 1995 we jokingly referred to it as Highway 205 because it was half of 410. I have no idea where the bureaucracy was in this government but, for whatever reason, they built

half a highway and stopped it dead at Bovaird Drive. Now we will be able to complete it, finish Highway 410, and go all the way through into Caledon.

I'm very pleased to, as I said earlier, not support this motion, because I think it is wrongheaded. I think there are precedents in this government. Just

because it is a precedent, doesn't make it law. I will say that I think the entire parliamentary process ought to be brought into the 21st century -- and it barely is, kicking and dragging, but

nevertheless, we must continue to do so.

I've been a resident of Brampton for 28 years, and I can tell you that I've enjoyed the time that I've lived there, and I will continue to enjoy it. We welcome

today the children from St Joachim school who are visiting us. We're pleased. These children were very proud and happy to come to the Legislature and see where government works. Thank you for this

opportunity.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): I'm pleased to speak, particularly after the remarks of my colleague on the other side of the

aisle from Brampton Centre. I note, in passing, that on what I --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Could you reset the clock in a minute, please?

Before I get started, I just wanted to introduce, also in the east gallery, some of the students from Wallace Public School, close to the town of Listowel in

the north end of the Perth-Middlesex riding. The only reason I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to do that was that they were also recognized last night at the SkyDome for their

participation and attendance at the ball game. If you wouldn't mind welcoming all the visitors today, also in the west gallery as well as the east gallery.

The apologies to the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora. You'll now have your full 20 minutes.

Mr Sorbara: We all welcome the kids and hope they're enjoying the debates in this Legislature.

As I was saying before your introductions, sir, I was pleased to speak after the member from Brampton Centre, but I have to note, in passing, that -- and I

listened very carefully to his remarks -- I don't think he addressed but 30 seconds to the motion that's before us today.

The reason why I'm here and speaking today is because I truly believe that the motion put in front of this House by my colleague Mr Conway, the member from

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, is perhaps, in a strange, parliamentary kind of way, one of the most important motions that this Legislature has ever considered. I say that because -- and the thesis of

my remarks will be quite simple -- the prima facie contempt that you found in your ruling was a historic opportunity for this Parliament, and for this province and its political system, to start

now, perhaps, to get its act together and to stop the outflow of respect that has been infiltrating and poisoning our political system for a very long time now.

We've heard, I think, some great remarks during the course of this debate. I want to particularly refer to the remarks of my colleague Mrs McLeod, the member

from Thunder Bay-Atikokan. In her remarks of yesterday, she said, "This government was in contempt of this Legislature because of what the Premier said. It was contempt to the people of Ontario

because he said they don't care. He was in contempt of this place and of members because he said that ... to take the budget speech outside the Legislature because they wanted to communicate with

the people. This is not a government that communicates; this is a government that advertises."

The point that Mrs McLeod was making is that there is a course of conduct of contempt by the Progressive Conservative government that has culminated in this

Parliament stopping all its other business to consider an unusual and historic ruling by the Speaker, finding that the government, in its failure to live up to its obligations to account for its

business, is in contempt of Parliament.

Maybe we should get rid of a whole bunch of the words surrounding this debate and tell the story pretty plainly and pretty simply. What does this contempt

mean? What it means to me is that the government has bunkered itself behind a wall of advertising and spinning and management and manipulation of the public agenda that, if it continues, will bring

the practice of politics in Ontario into huge disrespect.

I want to tell my friends on the other side of this Legislature that not only have you lost the respect of this Parliament; you are very quickly losing the

respect of the people of this province, because you have taken the practice of governing and the practice of parliamentary democracy and transformed it into a system of manipulation and spinning

and distorting and misrepresenting such that we've reached a point where all other business stops to consider your behaviour.

Frankly, during the course of this debate, I found it appalling that the members on the other side of the House, the government members of this House, haven't

yet been able to see the light.

The motion before us is quite simple. It reads: "That this House declares that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled,

to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario." That's pretty simple. The resolution here is that we're not going to do budgets at Magna any more; when it's time to present a budget, that

budget will be presented before the elected representatives in this Parliament.

Yet I've listened to speaker after speaker on the government side -- Progressive Conservative members -- talking about anything but this resolution. My friend

from Brampton Centre just spent 20 minutes talking about the great things that are happening in the city of Brampton -- agreed. What does that have to do with the threat to our system of democracy

that exists right now?

I don't want to pretend that we need to support and pass this resolution to protect cherished traditions. I'm not all that hot on cherished traditions. I think

what this motion and this event and this contempt and this disrespect indicates is an opportunity to start down a new and better path, to start to look at ourselves and the way we have distorted

politics in Ontario and set a new and better course.

At this point in the parliamentary calendar, we are supposed to be dissolving this Parliament and having an election. A year ago, the acting Premier, Ernie

Eves, promised that if elected he would govern for eight, nine or 10 months and that we would have an election this spring. I hope he has the courage to actually call that election, but there is

some doubt.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Well, well, they've finally woken up over there. We've finally got their attention.

The Deputy Speaker: Only one person has the floor. It happens to be the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora, and you'll give him your attention if

you're here. The Chair recognizes the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker.

Whether or not there is an election this spring is up to one person: the acting Premier of Ontario.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): And the people of the province.

Mr Sorbara: No, my friend, not the people of Ontario. Right now, it's only the Premier who decides that question.

Talking about disrespect and the way in which our system has fallen into disrepair, in anticipation of the possibility of an election, we have found, in my

view, some of the most scandalous manipulation and spinning that any government has ever indulged in in the history of this province. Every single Ontarian has been badgered, lobbied, polled by

advertisements on television, radio, in magazines like Maclean's, in inserts that come in the mail -- taxpayers' money in the millions and millions of dollars to try to use your money, sir, my

money, and the money of 12 million Ontarians to try and convince the people that the government has done a great job. The great news for me is that the more those leaflets come in the mail -- and

they're all the same, more or less. They've all been written by the same ad agency; they all have the same blue Tory colours; they all have the little inserts where you send them back to the

government and say, "Yeah, you know what? These are my concerns." That's a nice way of doing a poll at the taxpayers' expense. You send in your name, your address, and your e-mail, and you probably

get a nice letter printed by the same advertising agency saying, "Thank you," etc, etc. This is in the millions and millions of dollars. This is an abuse that we have to put an end to. This is yet

another example of the government losing respect, holding the people in contempt.

There is a time to tell your story to the people, and that's during an election campaign. There are ways of paying for that, and that's by the money that is

donated to political parties. That's the appropriate way of doing it.

But this theme of contempt and disrespect: I tell my friends on the other side, when the history of your time in office is reviewed by unbiased, objective

historians, the theme of disrespect and contempt for the voters will touch everything and be a theme in everything that you've done.

In the public education system: contempt and disrespect for teachers, for the quality of our system. Where does the action go? Where does the good stuff go?

The good stuff goes to the private schools. We don't have enough money to fix our public education system, but we have $500 million to support the private education system.

Contempt and disrespect for our health care system: six years ago, this government summarily, with its spending power, sent 15,000 nurses packing. They spread

all over North America. They left Ontario; some of them left the profession. Contempt and disrespect for professionals in the health care system.

On the environment: contempt and disrespect for the high standards that Ontario used to maintain in making sure that we could drink the water from our water

systems in the province. Do you remember the early days of Walkerton? The Premier of this province stood up and just brushed off the problem. "It's no problem. It's a couple of guys that were

screwing around with the system."

Contempt and disrespect in the public transit system: six years ago, the Premier of this province, the predecessor to Ernie Eves, said, "We have no time for

public transit and we have no money. Cities and towns want to have public transit? They'll pay for it themselves" -- contempt and disrespect for the needs of the general public.

In my own riding, a great toll highway was built. Actually, Highway 407 was started under a Liberal administration. At that time, Ed Fulton was the Minister of

Transportation. Our government was succeeded by the NDP government. They decided to built it more rapidly.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Excuse me; the Conservatives started planning that.

Mr Sorbara: God, that voice just grates in this place.

The construction of the highway was started in 1987, while Ed Fulton was the Minister of Transportation. Our government was succeeded by the New Democratic

party government. In 1990, Bob Rae decided that, to speed up construction, it would be a toll highway with fascinating new technology, an all-electronic toll system. It worked pretty well. In 1999,

the government of the day, the government that was led by Mike Harris, the government in which Ernie Eves was the finance minister, sold that highway to private foreign interests at a pittance of

its value. They promised the people of Ontario that under this contract, tolls would only go up by 2% above inflation, whatever that might be, for 15 years. In that regard they misrepresented the

contract, and what they did there showed contempt and disrespect for the public of Ontario and, in this case, the driving public that uses that highway. Can you imagine a government negotiating a

contract, selling a very valuable public asset, and not putting in that contract one word about consumer protection?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Why don't you read the contract?

Mr Sorbara: Contempt and disrespect, I tell my friend from Mississauga South, for her constituents and everyone else who uses that highway. I

want to tell you that after the next election, should our party be successful, we will do everything we can to roll back those rates and put in reasonable rates that respect the interests of

consumers in Ontario.

So it has gone over the course of eight years: an increasing degree of contempt and disrespect for the people. You see it more and more in government

activities, this business of listening to the spin doctors say: "Don't worry. You don't need to go back to Parliament. I think we've got a great idea. I think we can do the budget in a place where

we can control everything. We can control the audience; we can control the spin. There will be no opposition replies. There will be no debate for a long time, and we'll tell them, `Yeah, yeah,

yeah, we'll present it all in Parliament as well when we come back after a throne speech.'" Contempt and disrespect for the systems that we have in place in Ontario to hold the government to

account.

Now I say to you, sir, there's further contempt and disrespect in this very debate, where speaker after speaker from the government party, the Conservatives

over there, refuse to stand up in this House and explain why they are not going to support this motion.

But I think there's a bright light in all of this, because when things get so bad -- and recently a marvellous book called Tipping Point was written about this

very idea, that stuff gets worse and worse and finally it gets so bad that we have the capacity and the energy suddenly to change the system. Our parliamentary system is in drastic need of repair.

Our parliamentary system, particularly for the last eight years, isn't working well. Maybe we should thank the government for doing what they did, because finally we have the courage to stand here,

and authors and reviewers and political columnists have the courage to say, "It's not working and it needs repair."

I am thrilled that our party, in anticipation of the next election, whenever the Premier finds the courage to call it, will bring forward a package of

democratic reforms that I believe can start us down a better road.

First among those is to take away from the Premier, whoever he or she is, the power to manipulate the timing of an election. A simple change in our

constitution will provide fixed dates for elections so that after the next election, should we be successful, from there on in elections will be held on a date that everyone knows about from the

moment the results of the last election are counted. Some people have said, "Oh, my God, what about responsible government, and what about the Parliament falling as a result of a vote of

non-confidence?" All of that has been taken into consideration. We can do that. We're going to do that by way of allowing for an extraordinary election should a government be defeated on a vote of

confidence in this House. That's just one provision.

We're going to transform the way business is done in here. We're going to make the lives of parliamentarians relevant again, whether in committee or in this

Legislature. We are going to make what we do here relevant again and we are going to try to regain the respect that we believe we deserve as parliamentarians sitting in this great House. It's not

going to be easy. The agenda will be difficult, and those of us who are returned here after the next election are going to be tempted to fall into old ways.

But I want to say that the ruling of Mr Speaker Carr, in finally saying out loud from that chair that the government has shown a prima facie case of contempt,

may just be the best thing that has ever happened to this Parliament if we can change the way we do business and set ourselves a new course. That's the result I would like to see and that's why I

am urging not only members on this side of the House but on that side to support this motion.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I stand to speak to the amendment made by Mr Bisson to Mr Conway's motion. Further, I now move an amendment

to Mr Bisson's amendment to Mr Conway's motion. I move that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding the following thereto: "and its members."

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Maybe you can advise the House. This would then be the second amendment to the main motion?

Mr Kormos: No, an amendment to the amendment.

Mrs Marland: All right, an amendment to the amendment. It would be the third motion on the floor, correct? There is the main motion, Mr

Conway's motion. You already have an amendment, I believe, and this would be a second amendment. That would be three motions on the floor. Mr Speaker, can you advise us whether that would be in

order?

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to clarify that that is a legitimate question but it's not a point of order. There are other means you can go

to to find out the answer to that question. The answer to your question is that of course it is in order to have this amendment to the amendment to the motion. But to stand up on a point of order

and ask a question is not a point of order.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Are you going to reset Mr Kormos's time?

The Deputy Speaker: This is not question period, either.

Mr Kormos moves that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding the following thereto: "and its members."

From now on, that will be the central topic of debate.

The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate Mrs Marland's interest in our amendment and her enthusiastic participation in my having moved it.

Mr Caplan: I tried to get your time back, Peter.

Mr Kormos: There were other members who tried to get my time back. Gosh, I remember a member, yesterday or the day before, who did get his

time back and, notwithstanding that, responded in a somewhat objectionable way.

First, let's understand that this amendment to Mr Bisson's amendment is designed to make the motion in its broadest sense, as amended, perhaps more appealing

to all members. The issue is contempt. The Speaker found contempt. Make no mistake about it. And make no mistake about it, Conservative members, that your defeat --

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that in the decision rendered, the Speaker explicitly

said he cannot find the government in contempt; it's up to the House to decide on that. That is the ruling of the Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is what the Speaker ruled.

The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: I say to these Conservative members that they may somehow think they're going to reverse the Speaker's decision, the Speaker's

finding of contempt, by defeating the motion put forward, as amended by --

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Speaker: The member from Welland-Thorold keeps insisting on saying that the Speaker ruled the government was

in contempt. That is not the ruling of the Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: You have a point of order, and you are absolutely correct. But this Speaker, the person occupying the Speaker's chair at

this point, does not have the authority -- you have not given us in this chair the authority -- to make sure that what everybody says in this House is correct. So to continually get up and say the

member is incorrect may be perfectly true, but it's improper for me to interrupt his proceeding all the time to remind him that that may be so.

Mr Beaubien: Speaker, on a point of correction: I called the member the member from Welland-Thorold; it's Niagara Centre. I would like to

correct the record, please.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I will give the member for Niagara Centre an opportunity to correct himself.

The Chair recognizes the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr Kormos: The Speaker's finding of contempt is not going to be overcome, is not going to be negated, is not going to be nullified, is not

going to somehow be eradicated from the parliamentary record --

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Speaker: The member for Niagara Centre keeps insisting that the Speaker found the government in contempt.

That is not the ruling of the Speaker. I would like that on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: That will be on the record. But let me be very clear: the member for Niagara Centre or any other member may get up in this

House and say that black is white or, on the other hand, that white is black, and everybody may know that that is so. But it is not within the authority of the presiding officer to keep ruling that

that is not so. It is up to you to indulge in proper debate and for people to take what they can and should from that debate.

I'm a little bit impatient. I would like the member for Niagara Centre to have the opportunity to continue debate on the amendment to the amendment to the

motion.

Mr Kormos: There is nothing that the Conservative majority in this Legislature can do during the course of this debate or upon the vote on

this amendment, or the amendment which it amends or on the motion as amended, hopefully, or unamended, to eradicate, to erase, to somehow reverse, to nullify or in any other way alter what was a

clear finding by the Speaker, a finding that there was contempt by this government; contempt not only for this Parliament, I put to you, but contempt for the people of Ontario.

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The official report of Hansard dated May 8, 2003, on page 234, quoting the Speaker, states,

"From where I stand, the 2003 budget process has raised too many questions for the House not to reflect on them. In order to facilitate that exercise, I am finding that a prima facie case of

contempt has been established. I want to reiterate that while I have found sufficient evidence to make such a finding, it is now up to the House to decide what to do." That is the ruling of the

Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Let me be very clear. The member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, you are correct, and I would encourage the member for Niagara

Centre to use the terminology of it, but it's not my purview; it will only become mine if it's cause for grave concern and a lack of decorum in the House. I know that you know better, but it is

causing a little bit of concern to not only the one member but to other members. I would encourage you to bring your language within the confines of good debate, but I give you your time in proper

debate.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker, and I appreciate your observation that I in fact know better. I certainly know better than Mr Beaubien. Mr

Beaubien somehow thinks that his caucus and their majority can alter history, can change the ruling. The fact is that in Erskine and May, decades from now, if you look up "contempt" in the index,

there's going to be a reference to Speaker Gary Carr and the Conservative government of Ontario, year 2003. Look up "contempt" in Beauchesne in the index, and there will be a page on which there's

going to be a clear reference to Premier Eves, to the finding of the Speaker. The Speaker established a precedent that this House can't erase, not in any way. The only thing this government can do

is purge its contempt. Rather than purge its contempt, what has it done? It has aggravated its contempt -- one member with the now-notorious, nationally advertised, middle digit raised in contempt

for this Parliament and the people of Ontario -- a Conservative backbencher.

Another Conservative backbencher, reported in the press as voicing the most vulgar of obscenities --

Mr Caplan: Who?

Mr Kormos: One Mr Spina, I'm told in the newspapers, expressed the most vulgar of obscenities here in this House.

Mr Sorbara: Oh, you can be more vulgar in Italian.

Then we have Mr Beaubien, who shows contempt --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Go outside the House and say that, Peter.

Mr Kormos: Oh, inside the House, outside the House, you're all being contemptuous of this House. In fact, you're contemptable. I've said it

outside the House, I've said it inside the House, I've said it on television, I've said it on radio, I've said to the newspapers. Don't be silly. Go hire your lawyer. Maybe it'll be the same lawyer

who helped Mr O'Toole draft his peculiar speech the other day. Maybe you can hire the lawyer who was paid to write opinions for you, however brief they were.

Mr Sorbara: Vacuous.

Mr Kormos: Indeed, as Mr Sorbara indicates. Mr Sorbara is a lawyer as well as a developer and a politician. It can't get any worse, really,

can it, Mr Sorbara?

Mr Sorbara: Now, I just got the dictionary for you.

Mr Kormos: You did. I'm just making an observation.

The contempt is not just by this government; the contempt is by every single member of this Legislature who stands up and defends this government, who tries to

vilify the Speaker, who condemns the Speaker both inside and outside the House, who suggests that somehow the Speaker isn't impartial. That's contempt.

You see, this government had every opportunity, from day one. I was at the press conference. I was at the stand-up outside the Premier's office when the

Premier, to the shock of everyone listening, announced that this government was going to ignore the House calendar, was going to ignore the adjournment date, and that this House was going to be

prorogued. They didn't prorogue it back in December but waited until March to prorogue, just days before the House was scheduled to come back. Not only did he say that, but then he announced that

his bogus budget, his buy-a-Chia-Pet, just dial 1-800-NOW infomercial bogus budget was going to be up at Frank Stronach's Magna corp instead of here in the Legislature. From that very moment New

Democrats, amongst others, pointed out that that budget would be illegal, that that budget would be contemptuous, that that budget would be a violation of parliamentary tradition -- from the very

minute the Premier made that speech outside his office. Fair warning, I say.

There are rumours -- albeit rumours but not beyond belief -- that the Ministry of the Attorney General prepared an opinion about the constitutionality of the

Chia Pet budget at Magna corp, the Ginsu knife budget down at Frank Stronach's auto parts manufacturing centre. Again, the press reported the rumour. But is it that difficult to believe that the

Attorney General would have been called upon in consultation? I say to you, no, that's one of the jobs of the Attorney General. That's why he's paid the big bucks. Oh, not the Attorney General.

Look, the Attorneys General of this government have such a pathetic record in court and otherwise. They haven't won a case yet, have they?

Mr Sorbara: No.

Mr Kormos: And indeed have embarrassed themselves. Or maybe the Supreme Court of Canada appears, by one long gone -- he's not long gone; he's

simply not the Attorney General any more. I recall some rather unfortunate conduct by yet a prior Attorney General. See, the Attorneys General haven't had a good track record here. But is it beyond

belief to think that an Attorney General would have been called upon by this government for an opinion? I'm not sure which Attorney General, which person. One suspects it's the current Attorney

General.

But contempt? You guys are contemptuous. "Contempt: the action of contemning or despising; the mental attitude in which a thing is considered to be of little

account, or vile, or worthless." This government perceives this Parliament, its members, to be of little account, worthless. The problem with you Tory backbenchers is that your Premier's office is

as contemptuous of you as he was of every other member of Parliament. Now it's time to defend yourselves from an executive board, an executive office, a Premier and a cabinet -- very, very

inner-inner-circle -- that treat you with contempt, that find every one of you to be nothing more than little voting machines. Here's a Premier in a government who bullies the occasional

dissident.

I heard from one dissident yesterday who told me he had been told he'd have to resign from caucus if he voted with the motion. What a stupid bit of advice to

that backbencher. That backbencher was told that if government members voted for this motion and against their colleagues, it would be a vote of non-confidence. What a stupid observation. What a

stupid comment. Whoever made that comment -- I know who made it; I won't name the person -- knows nothing about parliamentary history and parliamentary procedure, and certainly has no idea of what

constitutes a vote of non-confidence.

The problem is that the contempt this government shows for Parliament, the contempt it shows for taxpayers, for every single resident, it also shows for its

own backbenchers, who are treated as mere voting machines, who are told in caucus meetings, "Don't worry. Just follow the Premier. He will lead you on to victory."

Well, I tell you, you've been Edselled. You've met the Edsel factor. You've acquired a brand name that couldn't be sold even if it was built on a Cadillac

chassis. Mind you, there aren't too many Cadillacs out there in the Tory parking lot area. They're mostly Lexuses and any number of foreign cars; I've taken a look myself. Here are people who

aren't great fans of cars their neighbour builds, North American cars that maybe Canadian workers have had a little bit of input to.

But this is about contempt, contempt that occurred when the bogus budget --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Steve Peters): That is not a point of order.

Mr Kormos: That's contempt. That's a member of the Legislature who, after how many years, hasn't read the standing orders and doesn't know

what a point of order is. It's contempt not to have read the standing orders so you can stand up -- Mr Beaubien shows contempt when he stands up on non-points of order. That's contemptuous. If he

were a novice, if he'd only been here --

Interjections.

Mr Beaubien: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the member from Niagara Centre is out of order. He certainly shows contempt and no

respect for this House. The Speaker who preceded you, Speaker, ruled that I was in order.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I'd like some time back. It's in your power.

Mr Beaubien shows contempt when he tries to interrupt with non-points of order. That's contemptible.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join in the debate today on the motion arising from the Speaker's ruling earlier in

the week, and I'd like to just clarify what the Speaker's ruling was.

The Speaker said, "From where I stand, the 2003 budget process has raised too many questions for the House not to reflect on them. In order to facilitate that

exercise, I am finding that a prima facie case of contempt has been established. I want to reiterate that while I have found sufficient evidence to make such a finding, it is now up to the House to

decide what to do. As I have said, only the House, not the Speaker, can make a finding that there has been a contempt of the House."

The Speaker ruled that the House must decide. From the Speaker's ruling came the motion by the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, and I'll read that; it's

sort of a motherhood-and-apple-pie motion. He put forward that this Legislative Assembly has the "undisputed right ... in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario,"

certainly a motherhood-and-apple-pie motion that would be very difficult to vote against.

At least the NDP has amended that motion to make a little clearer what we're talking about by adding, "and not to present the budget in this way constitutes a

clear contempt of the House." Really, what we're talking about is the issue of contempt. I think the answer to the question, "Is the government in contempt of the Legislature?" is, "No, it is

not."

Let's talk a bit about the budget process. The principal difference in this year's budget process was the location of the actual budget speech. The budget

papers were deposited with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. There was a pre-budget lock-up, at which time members of the opposition and members of the media had pretty much the whole day to

analyze the budget and to be questioned by the media on the budget.

Then, the actual speech was the thing that was different: it was delivered at a location other than the Legislative Assembly. However, the budget motion will

still be moved. Once we're finished with this debate and once the debate on the speech from the throne is over, the budget motion will be moved in the Legislative Assembly, and following this

debate, then, any bills needed to enact the budget will need to be introduced in this Legislative Assembly and pass first, second and third readings and receive royal assent.

Traditionally, the actual budget motion is normally voted on as the last order of business in December. In fact, there were many times in the NDP years when

there was no budget vote held at all. But the key difference this year was the location of the actual speech.

I would say there were some merits to the process. Certainly with this year's process, there was an unbelievable amount of consultation that went on prior to

forming the budget. Over 1,300 groups, individuals and organizations were consulted all across the province in the process of writing the budget.

Contrary to what was popular in the media, representatives of all those groups were invited to the location at Magna as well as to the many other locations

across the province, whether it be North Bay, Thunder Bay, Ottawa or London, to actually watch the budget speech, and I'd just like to point out that that is different from the normal, traditional

method of delivering the budget speech. Usually, it's delivered here in the Legislature, and it's mainly Tory invitees who are here, and usually, there is a nice, cozy little reception that goes on

after the speech. My father was Treasurer for five years, and I certainly enjoyed coming to many of the budget presentations when he would be here in his nice plaid jacket, delivering the budget. I

know the one thing he would be very envious of of this government is that this was a balanced budget, the fifth balanced budget in a row. I know he was working toward that, until the Liberals got

back into power and started spending in their usual fashion.

From the perspective of the minister, I'm sure Minister Ecker would much prefer the traditional method, because after she had finished delivering the budget

speech at Magna, she then faced 34 tough questions from groups that were involved in the process, from groups that had their specific issues, whether it be regulated child care or teachers' unions

or other various interest groups that have a very specific interest and have gone to the budget consultation, usually, because they're looking for more money for their specific interest. They know

their interest, they know their issue, so as soon as the budget speech was over, they had the opportunity to ask some very tough questions of the Minister of Finance. There were in fact 34 quite

challenging questions for the Minister of Finance to immediately answer, so I think that was an interesting innovation in this year's budget speech.

Part of the reason this budget was done the way it was, outside of the Legislature, was that the Premier had made a commitment. He had made a commitment to

deliver the budget before the end of the fiscal year: March 31, 2003. As we know and as has been the case with Conservative governments of the last few years, a promise made is a promise kept, and

Ernie Eves, our Premier, is one who keeps his word. He had made a promise to deliver the budget before the end of March, before March 31, 2003, and in that, he was also promising to bring

multi-year funding to the budgeting process.

I come from small business myself. I was surprised that government doesn't budget more in advance, so I think this is the way we should be going, and it's a

commitment the Premier had made. He also decided that it was time for a new throne speech. He wanted to get input into that throne speech, so he started consultations through the month of March on

that throne speech. In fact, there were 10,000 participants who gave their opinion of what they thought should go into the throne speech, what legislation and i