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

December 2, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 December 2003 Mardi 2 décembre 2003

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

WATER QUALITY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

WATER QUALITY

TIME ALLOCATION

VISITOR

PREMIER'S RECORD

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ANNUAL REPORT,

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE SITTINGS /

SÉANCES DES COMITÉS

VERNON SINGER

MOTIONS

(CONTINUED)

COMMITTEE SITTINGS /

SÉANCES DES COMITÉS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE

STABILIZATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA STABILISATION

DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed

by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the

year ending 31 March 2004 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Ms Monique Smith (Nipissing): Last year, the auditor said that the PC government had "questionable competency." At the time, the former Premier

was quoted saying, "Judge me on next year's auditor's report." Since his return to politics, Ernie Eves has ducked and dodged allegations of mismanagement. Last year, 355,000 corporations -- nearly

half the total -- owed taxes that were not collected. There was $662 million spent on consultants and there were 10,000 outstanding warrants. To all of this, Ernie Eves replied, "Judge me on next

year's auditor's report."

Well, it's next year.

Today, our court system is experiencing its greatest backlog in 10 years.

At least 14% of Ontario's children have not received vaccinations by age seven. Nicaragua, Albania and Botswana do better.

The former Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation spent $4.3 billion without really knowing where it went.

Finally, 612 waterworks did not submit the necessary samples for E coli and fecal coliform last year -- both contaminants that led to the Walkerton tragedy.

The former Premier said, "Judge me on next year's auditor's report." We can now judge. This report is a damning indictment of the previous government. It is also

a powerful reminder of why the people of Ontario chose a responsible government for a change.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): There is some impressive work going on along the shores of Lake Erie at Nanticoke at Ontario Power

Generation's coal-fired electricity plant, or, as some people who work there call it, "the pollution scapegoat of Ontario."

Two weeks ago, the Nanticoke environmental committee, which includes OPG, issued its air monitoring report for 2002. The results spoke to the constant, ongoing

efforts to meet and surpass environmental benchmarks. Nanticoke's sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide levels were well within provincial objectives. In fact, an OPG Nanticoke spokesperson reported

that sulphur dioxide levels have dropped by 60% since 1984, and nitrogen dioxide levels by 50% since 1984.

Recently, $250 million has been invested between OPG Nanticoke and Lambton to significantly cut nitrous oxide emissions, reducing NO x levels by 80% on

the units to which they're attached.

I congratulate the workers and management of OPG for investing in and utilizing proven, science-based, new technology to help solve old, long-standing, and

emotional pollution concerns.

With news that natural gas reserves are dwindling, the 600 employees at OPG Nanticoke would like a chance to speak to both the environment minister and the

energy minister. Ministers, please pay a visit to Nanticoke OPG before you close it in 2007.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I just received this information. I was saddened and shocked to hear that the previous government has

learned nothing from the tragedy at Walkerton. The Provincial Auditor has stated to this province, for all of us to understand, that 612 times last year, we found that waterworks failed to meet the

new minimum standards for E coli and fecal coliform.

Did we not learn anything from that tragedy, that the water in this province should be tested? It should always be tested. It should always be clean. I find it

shocking to discover that over 6,700 times last year, in the water, there were excesses of what are acceptable limits about what could be in our water.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Mr Wilkinson: That is why the good people of Ontario voted our government in: to do something about this. I look forward to answering the

question next year.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Broken promise after broken promise: Since this government's swearing-in, we have seen nothing but broken promises.

They have given us the single largest tax hike in a single day, after Dalton McGuinty looked us all straight in the eye and said, "I will not raise taxes."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Would you allow the member to make his statement?

Mr Klees: In addition to that, they have hiked everyone's hydro rates in this province, after Dalton McGuinty looked us all in the eye and said,

"I will not raise your rates."

They've allowed development on the Oak Ridges moraine, after Dalton McGuinty said, "I will not allow any further development on the Oak Ridges moraine."

Today, the media reports that yet another minister is on the brink of breaking yet another promise. The Minister of Transportation, in a trial balloon, is musing

that they may not be able to roll back tolls on the 407 as they promised. In fact, it's a double whammy. They also promised that they would not hire outside consultants, yet this same Minister of

Transportation has in fact hired outside lawyers to review the contract that they will find out they cannot break. Two broken promises by one minister in this week.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Today the Provincial Auditor's report released a brutal indictment of the Conservatives and their

failures. The Provincial Auditor is releasing his report, and it is more proof of why Ontario voters decidedly changed their government.

We are saddened and angered by the Provincial Auditor's report, but we're not surprised. The people of Ontario knew, when they threw out the previous government,

that the Conservatives were failing to protect their health, their children and their tax dollars. Not only did the Conservatives gut public services, jeopardize public safety and waste tax dollars

on themselves and their friends, but they ran up a $5.6-billion deficit in the process.

This brutal indictment of the Tory government makes it clearer than ever that they used government as a trough for their wealthy friends instead of managing it

to protect the health of our families. The Tories left Ontario with two deficits: a $5.6-billion fiscal deficit and a massive public safety deficit. Together, they point to the worst-managed

government in Ontario history.

The new Ontario government under Premier Dalton McGuinty has and will continue to bring about the much-needed change for the people of Ontario.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): The Minister of Finance would have us believe that eliminating a tax credit is not a tax hike. This semantic

loophole is one the Liberals will use to increase taxes for Ontarians.

They are just beginning this game of semantics. Last week, they announced they would remove the tax credit option for parents who send their children to

independent schools. For every one of those parents, money taken from their pockets to government is a tax hike.

To add to this tax is the injustice of making it retroactive, a decision viewed by Paul Hickey, national tax partner with KPMG, as unfortunate for families who

would have based their decision on sending their children because of this tax relief. But the Liberals would proudly say it's technically not a tax increase.

As well, the McGuinty government is about to revoke the tax credit for seniors. Seniors are not going to be impressed by the finance minister saying it is not a

tax hike. They know when dollars are coming out of their pockets.

Ontarians need to ask themselves, if the government was willing to take money away from senior citizens and school children, who will they be taking money from

next?

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): The Tories like to pretend that they're tough on crime, but the facts beg to differ. Last year, the auditor

found them responsible for 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants. They made a habit of releasing sexual offenders without rehabilitation or proper monitoring. This year, the auditor tells us that

delays in the court system could let hundreds of criminals off the hook. The auditor first pointed this out back in 1997, and now we see that no progress has been made since then.

The problems are only getting worse. Just look at what else the auditor has told us today: $60 million in outstanding fines, and there's been no effort made to

collect them. Deadbeat parents are getting off scot-free. Contracts are given without tender for millions more than the original deal. The Tories were so busy filling the Eves trough for their

friends, they forgot that they were supposed to be running a justice system.

The Tories are soft on crime. They've been loud on crime, they talk about crime, but let's face it: They're soft on crime, and their record proves it.

That's why Ontarians elected a responsible government that's not afraid to work, not afraid to clean up the mess the former government left behind. Ontario needs

responsible government for a change. Despite the Tory $5.6-billion deficit, despite the Tory-created public safety deficit, this government is going to clean up their mess.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to talk about the protection in my riding of our most precious resource -- water.

Since 1978, concerns have continued to be raised about a proposed landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny. Site 41 lies in the middle of a rich agricultural area, just a few feet above two

aquifers. Like many of my constituents, I am greatly concerned about the development of site 41 as a landfill. It could result in groundwater contamination.

I understand the Environmental Assessment Board, in 1989, turned down site 41, but the following year the Liberal government of the day reversed this decision by

order in council. Because minister's approval was granted on February 2, 1995, when the NDP government was in power, final approval for this site now lies with the ministry staff at the director

level. However, on November 14, I was excited to hear Environment Minister Dombrowsky announce the creation of two expert advisory committees on protecting water sources. Just yesterday Minister

Dombrowsky stood up in this House and promised legislation, and I quote from Hansard, "to ensure that our water source is protected."

In light of these actions, I fully expect Minister Dombrowsky to place a moratorium on the development of site 41 until the new advisory committees have reported

back to government and the new legislation is actually passed. If, and before, it is developed, my constituents and I will accept nothing less than a 100% assurance from the minister and the

ministry that there will never be any groundwater contamination at site 41.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): It's a banner day for travel agents in the province of Ontario. Can you imagine? The Liberals and the

Tories got together and they said, "We don't want to work. We want to go off on an three-month junket on holidays somewhere." So they crawled into a backroom, they negotiated themselves a little

deal and they're saying that they're going to pass the mother of all time allocation motions that we've ever seen in this place. And this from a Liberal government and Liberal members who were

riled when they were on this side of the House against the then Tory government for passing time allocation motions. It is not only unbelievable; it's quite simply hypocritical on the part of this

government to move such a time allocation motion.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw whatever it is, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Did I hear you withdraw?

Mr Bisson: Withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

This is the mother of all time allocation motions that we have seen in this House. The Tories and Liberals have snuggled together and what they've agreed to,

quite frankly, is premature eradication of debate in this Legislature. I say, shame on the Tories, shame on the Liberals. Liberals campaign like New Democrats, and govern like Tories.

VISITOR

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): We're fortunate to have in the east members' gallery today the former mayor of Brantford, who was the youngest mayor ever

elected in Brantford and is the youngest, longest-serving mayor in Canada: Mr Chris Friel. Welcome, Chris.

PREMIER'S RECORD

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): The Legislature now has sat for five hours of question period, five full question periods, and we're seeing a

troubling trend of Premier McGuinty not answering questions directly in the Legislature, particularly direct yes-or-no questions.

For example, just yesterday I asked him a simple question -- whether he was going to be raising particular taxes or not. You'd think that Premier McGuinty would

be able to answer that question, yes or no, because I remember him very clearly staring into my TV set night after night saying that he would not be raising my constituents' taxes. It's a bit

reminiscent of George Bush's commitment, "Read my lips: No new taxes." I think it's a line that you remember for some time.

So you'd think the Premier would say whether he's going to raise the gas tax or not, whether he's going to raise taxes on beer, spirits or wine or not, or raise

personal income tax. It's a simple yes-or-no question that was dodged. In fact, in nine paragraphs, 16 sentences and 220 words in response, not a single yes or no, which I think is very troubling.

And I would say, folks, protect your pocketbooks, because the real Dalton McGuinty is coming after them.

During the election campaign he promised to do things differently in the Legislature and to fight the cynicism that people feels toward politicians. Well, folks,

with broken promises and dodged questions, Premier McGuinty is feeding cynicism at an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you had asked Mike Harris or Ernie Eves, "Are you going to raise taxes," would have

been a definitive, "No, I'm not going to raise your taxes." I want to hear from Premier McGuinty that he has no plan to raise taxes.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform that House that I have laid upon the table the report of the Honourable Coulter Osborne, the

Integrity Commissioner for Ontario, responding to the complaint of Caroline Di Cocco, MPP for Sarnia-Lambton, regarding Mr Ernie Eves, Mr Tony Clement, Mr Jim Flaherty and Mr Brian Coburn.

ANNUAL REPORT,

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I further beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2003 annual report of the Provincial

Auditor.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I further beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of the order in council appointing

the following members as commissioners of the Board of Internal Economy: the Speaker, who shall be chair; the Honourable Rick Bartolucci, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among

the members of the executive council; the Honourable David Caplan, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council; the Honourable Dwight Duncan,

appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council; Monique Smith, MPP, appointed by the caucus of the government; John Baird, MPP, appointed by the

caucus of the official opposition; and Gilles Bisson, MPP, appointed by the caucus of the New Democratic Party.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Government notice of motion 11, that the membership of the standing

committees for this Parliament be as follows:

The standing committee on estimates: Mr Arthurs, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Craitor, Ms Di Cocco, Mr Jackson, Mr Kular, Ms Martel, Mr McNeely, Mr Milloy and Mrs

Witmer;

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Barrett, Mr Colle, Mr Crozier, Mr Hoy, Ms Marsales, Mr Orazietti, Mr O'Toole, Mr Peterson, Mr Prue

and Mr Wilkinson;

The standing committee on general government: Ms Churley, Mr Dhillon, Mr Lalonde, Mr Leal, Mr Ouellette, Mr Parsons, Mr Rinaldi, Mrs Van Bommel, Ms Wynne and

Mr Yakabuski;

The standing committee on government agencies: Mr Agostino, Mr Berardinetti, Mr Bisson, Mr Brown, Ms Matthews, Mr Parsons, Mr Qaadri, Ms Scott, Ms Smith and Mr

Tascona;

The standing committee on justice and social policy: Mr Brownell, Mr Craitor, Mr Duguid, Mr Flynn, Mr Gravelle, Mr Klees, Mr Kormos, Mr Patten, Mr Wilson and

Ms Wynne;

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Ms Cansfield, Mr Hardeman, Ms Jeffrey, Mr Leal, Mr Marchese, Mr Mauro, Mr Miller, Mr Orazietti, Mr Racco

and Mr Sergio;

The standing committee on public accounts: Ms Broten, Mr Flaherty, Mr Fonseca, Ms Martel, Mr Mauro, Ms Munro, Mrs Sandals, Ms Smith, Mr Sterling and Mr

Zimmer;

The standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Delaney, Mr Marchese, Mr Martiniuk, Mr McMeekin, Mr McNeely, Mrs Mitchell, Mr Murdoch, Mr Ramal, Mr

Ruprecht and Mr Wong.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

Carried.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS /

SÉANCES DES COMITÉS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move government notice of motion number 12: That the following

schedule for

committee meetings be established for this Parliament:

The standing committee on justice and social policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on general government may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings;

The standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings;

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings;

The standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings;

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Duncan has moved government motion number 12.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: I believe this is a debatable motion.

The Speaker: This is a debatable motion.

Mr Kormos: Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to call for debate.

The Speaker: We'll have the debate. Further debate.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I'm pleased to be able to rise to debate this motion. I want to speak to the role of committees in this

Parliament -- in fact, the role of committees in all Parliaments.

Indeed, we've got to have a thorough consideration of the fact that committees are the link between the electorate, the public and this Legislature. In fact,

one could say, I think quite accurately, that committees are where the real work should be done. However, we've witnessed over the course of a number of years here now at Queen's Park a real

erosion of the role of committees, an incredible erosion of the role of committees, an incredible diminishing of the effectiveness of committees. Indeed, over the course of 15 years -- and there

are members here who've been here longer than I, people like the member from St Catharines, who I know would speak to this motion, if given an opportunity. The member for St Catharines has

witnessed the shameful sight of seeing good-meaning members of the public come to committees with briefs in hand given short shrift, making sincere submissions after having done considerable

background work and research only to be, oh, dismissed with but a cursory audience at that committee.

That's been a regrettable observation on my part, and when my six colleagues speak to this motion -- well, I won't speak for them, but I'm sure they may

reinforce that observation as a result of their own anecdotal experiences.

We've seen committees over the course of the last eight, nine years travel less and less, indeed to the point where they almost don't travel unless the

government -- it was the government of the day from 1995 through to this year that travelled only on those rare occasions when they thought they had an issue in committee that they could spin out

there and get positive press.

Today, I see filed in the Orders and Notices paper a time allocation motion that restricts committee work and committee's role with respect to Bill 2, Bill 4

and Bill 5. I was shocked to see the notice of motion that restricted committee consideration of Bill 2 to but two days. That's not just for public participation; that's for clause-by-clause

consideration as well. Indeed, on the second day, the committee interrupts its progress at 4 pm because the time allocation motion then requires the committee to suspend its normal business and

proceed immediately to votes on clause-by-clause.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out that we are debating motion number 12, not

another motion tabled by the government House leader. The member opposite is not referring to any subject matter in motion number 12. We believe that it's important to hold the government of the

day accountable in question period, and we're looking forward to doing that.

The Speaker: The member from Nepean-Carleton made a good point of order. I would caution the member to stick to the topic that he wants to

discuss. That's motion number 12.

Mr Kormos: I certainly will stick to the topic I was discussing, Speaker. I appreciate your guidance in that regard.

Committees are an incredibly important thing. That's why, to see committees deal with important bills in but two days, including not only public hearings but

clause-by-clause, is a devastating thing to witness, whether it's Bill 2, whether it's Bill 4 or Bill 5, with its

section 6, which requires, I put to you, considerable and thorough consideration by

a committee.

When we see time allocation motions which restrict the participation of committees in the consideration of that business, we then call into question the

commitment of the government to its promise during the election that they will require public hearings for all major legislation. The public, they said, should be given the opportunity to comment

on any legislation of significance.

The norm has become the exception under the Harris-Eves government. Drastic reforms to education, municipal government and social policy have been forced

through the Legislature without public hearings.

Public input is essential to good government. We will ensure that you have the opportunity --

that, please?

Mr Kormos: Speaker, I understand where you're coming from. Boy, do I understand where you're coming from. I understand real good where you're

coming from.

Tell you what: I will speak to motion number 12. I suppose that means I've gotta start at the beginning. Starting at the beginning means dissecting the motion

piece by piece and piecemeal. I would have wanted a rather more contextual debate, but I accept the Speaker's ruling. With no disrespect, I interpret the ruling as not wanting me to be contextual,

so I'll be specific.

Mr Duncan moves that the standing committee on justice and social policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons. Let's take a look at what that means.

Monday and Tuesday afternoons. I regret having to resort to the minutiae -- you understand that, my colleagues, but I'm following the guidance of the Chair. Monday and Tuesday afternoons. Well,

what does that mean? I suppose, for members from outside of the community, it means that they'll have to come here on Sunday night to be ready for Monday afternoon.

I'm wondering if an amendment wouldn't be appropriate. I know my staff now, in response to my comments, are preparing an amendment to suggest that, no, it not

be Monday and Tuesday afternoons; it be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, to accommodate those members of this assembly who have to travel from great distances -- Durham area and Etobicoke and

Huntsville, who knows where from -- Nipissing, that's a good four-hour drive, the way I recall it. Lord knows, in winter weather it could be even longer, and dangerous. The mover of the motion says

the committee should sit on Monday and Tuesday afternoons. Well, I beg to differ.

I hope I'm remaining within the confines that the Speaker has placed me in regarding this debate. If I am to speak about the motion, well, I will speak about

the motion. I appreciate the incredible patience being displayed by everyone here and those folks as time progresses.

I'm looking forward to the amendment. My colleague, the whip, Mr Bisson, member from Timmins-James Bay, is preparing that amendment.

You note, then, that the standing committee on general government is proposed to meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings. You

see, you've got two Mondays there. You've got Monday afternoon and Monday afternoon but you've got Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon. I appreciate that there was some consideration of the

Tuesday and Wednesday and the avoidance of a conflict, but I'm worried about Monday. Having said, of course, that the justice and social policy committee should sit on Tuesday and Wednesday, I

suppose then that if that amendment passes, it will remain acceptable for the standing committee on general government to meet on Monday and Wednesday but for the fact that just as it was for the

justice and social policy committee -- you understand, my friend from Trinity-Spadina, because you'll be able to follow up with these arguments when your turn comes to speak.

The standing committee on general government on Monday and Wednesday -- you see, the problem is that if we move an amendment to change Monday and Tuesday for

justice and social policy then we may have to move an amendment, or the House may be compelled to consider an amendment, to the standing committee on general government meeting Monday and Tuesday

rather than Monday and Wednesday. But then the Tuesday would be in conflict, so we may just have ourselves a dilemma that can't be resolved.

The standing committee on estimates can meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings, according to the mover of this motion. I think

I understand. I'm looking forward to hearing from government members to explain or justify or rationalize the choice of Tuesday and Wednesday, and again following routine proceedings. Of course we

don't want it to precede the commencement of routine proceedings because then people won't be able to fulfill their obligations here.

I am wondering if there has ever been any consideration given to using Fridays. Think about this. The House used to sit on Fridays; it doesn't any more.

Fridays clears up a whole day. We could use Fridays for committee hearings. We could start at 9 in the morning -- think about it -- because what happens, as you well know, is that "following

routine proceedings" means at 3:15 or 3:30 or 3:45, sometimes 4. The committee clerks do their best to accommodate people, and people show up at 3:45 when the

schedule for routine proceedings

doesn't start until 4, and then somebody gets knocked off the agenda. Is that fair? I put to you, no.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: My colleague, my seatmate from the rump here, Mr Ramal from London-Fanshawe, agrees that that's not fair at all. I'm looking

forward to his comments during the debate on this motion, with respect to the fairness of the proposal.

Perhaps the real goal here should be to develop a radical new sitting

schedule for committees. Rather than weekdays, Monday through Thursday following routine

proceedings, perhaps using Fridays would resolve the problem for all of these. I know New Democrats would be pleased to be here on Fridays. It would give us the full day, from perhaps 8:30 in the

morning or 8 am to 4:30 or 5 -- Mr Bisson is indicating that he wants to speak to this motion too; he'll have his time in due course. There's lots of time.

Perhaps Fridays from 8 am to 4 or 4:30 pm would be acceptable.

I overheard, from the audience here, a comment about, "What about constituencies?" Yes, I appreciate that's a problem. Now, mind you, you're taking a

three-month vacation, January through March, which may permit some access to your constituency if the cruise ship docks on the Great Lakes.

Saturdays and Sundays can then be used for constituency work. We can have constituency appointments on Saturdays. That would be a good idea. Saturdays would

work and fit in with in my proposed schedule, because not everybody has to work on Saturdays, but a whole lot more people don't have to work on Saturdays than don't have to work on Fridays.

I guess what I'm proposing by way of my comments on this motion is that maybe we should adopt a five-day workweek here at Queen's Park and use our weekends

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: It's hard to hear you, Speaker.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, Speaker; I wasn't sure whether you had said something. I presume you haven't.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): He's got 20 minutes to debate this, you know.

Mr Kormos: Yes, I suppose, as Ms Churley-NDP points out, those people who are heckling should know that they can have their turn at the debate

once the floor is yielded.

Others have suggested that perhaps they're merely trying to create efficiencies by debating simultaneously -- simultaneous debate instead of simultaneous

translation -- which we've heard often here in the chamber.

Some may say, why do I rise to debate this motion? I want you to understand that I would be loath to do anything contrary to the rules because, after all, the

rules are the rules. In the standing orders there are a number of motions which one may not debate; this is not one of them.

Please, Speaker, don't let people suggest that I'm hard-headed about this, because the first motion that the government put -- the membership of committees --

we didn't feel the need to debate, although we were entitled to debate it. So I don't want to create the impression that we do things just because we can.

Ms Churley: I wanted to debate that one, though.

Mr Kormos: No, we waived our debate on that.

Ms Churley: Why?

Mr Kormos: Because we are people of compromise. We are people of consensus.

Ms Churley: So what are we debating?

Mr Kormos: We're debating notice of motion number 12, the

schedule for the committees.

Ms Churley: Oh, the Monday through Thursday.

Mr Kormos: The Monday through Thursday, and the fact that the committees follow routine proceedings -- because sometimes routine proceedings

don't end until 4 o'clock. It means you've only got two hours of committee. So you don't have a day of committee; you've got two crummy hours of committee. And then when you have a time

allocation intrude, you've got zero hours of committee because the time allocation says the committee has to start voting at 4 o'clock, so you've got no committee. That's pretty weird stuff, and I

appreciate that it's troublesome for others as well as for me.

I want to underscore the importance of these committees -- all of them -- whether it's the standing committee on justice and social policy, the standing

committee on general government, the standing committee on estimates, the standing committee on government agencies or indeed a somewhat more, dare I call it, "obscure" committee, the standing

committee on regulations and private bills. I don't know if you've ever been a participant in that committee, Speaker.

Just for a moment, to the people who were nominated to that committee by their respective caucuses: That committee is at the bottom of the ladder. That

committee is at the very outer limits --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Well, it is. Come on. You go to reg committee as punishment. You go there because either nobody else will or your whip simply

doesn't like you as much as you wished your whip did, because it's a painful committee -- but not unimportant.

Let's clarify one thing: Not all regs go through the leg and reg committee, which is regrettable, because the leg and reg committee should probably work

harder. The leg and reg committee is an opportunity for all three caucuses -- the government caucus; the Conservative caucus, the official opposition; and the New Democrats, the third party -- to

review regulations and to get a handle on them. Because those regulations of course don't occur as a result of debate. They go zip, zoom -- like e-mail, sort of -- off into the stratosphere and

don't cross our desks here, short of reading the Ontario Gazette. When you read the Ontario Gazette, there certainly is no analysis of the reg, or opportunities to pose questions or call for

answers, as there is in reg committee, so reg committee cannot be underestimated.

We've got the committee on public accounts. Ms Martel traditionally serves, and she has been stellar. A harder-working committee member one will not encounter

-- one has not encountered. It is a very hard-working committee. That's why I have concerns about public accounts meeting on Thursday mornings. I'm worried that perhaps it should meet more

frequently. It's a tremendous amount of work. The public accounts committee should meet more frequently -- and then this caucus would of course have to consider having a second member on that

committee, but the rules don't permit that. So we'd have to seek, of course, a change in the rules. We'd be prepared to discuss that.

I regret and note that I have but 60 seconds of time left to make my comments. I hope I've addressed these matters in a way that's been of some help to members

in this House, who at some point are going to be called upon to vote for or against this motion, and for or against the amendments that are going to be put forward.

I say to you, committee work is incredibly important. It's an important part of the democratic process. So are debates, which is why we have to be very careful

about ensuring that committees work effectively and meaningfully, just as we have to be committed to making sure that this chamber works effectively and meaningfully, and that we don't truncate or

guillotine or time-allocate debate and we don't gag members. It's a course of events that's all too sad to have occurred all too often.

VERNON SINGER

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for each party to

speak for up to five minutes to pay tribute to a former member whose family are in the members' gallery, and then revert back to this debate.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do I have unanimous consent for five minutes to pay respects?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): And then revert back to debate?

Hon Mr Duncan: Oh, yes.

The Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent for us to have a five-minute debate to pay respects, and then we would go back to the debate?

Agreed.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise to pay tribute to Vernon Milton Singer. In all the hustle

and bustle of the provincial election, many observers of Ontario politics may have missed the passing, on September 20, 2003, of a great former member of this House, Vernon Singer, at the age of

84. He was a giant of a man, both in intellect and in physical stature. He was a lawyer, a former mayor of North York and a Liberal MPP for 18 years before he retired in 1977. He was a graduate of

the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall. During the Second World War, Vernon served in north Europe as an officer with the Royal Canadian Dragoons.

He took his experience into Young Liberal politics, becoming the president of the Young Liberals in 1947.

Vernon deserves a lot of credit for the planning concepts that he laid down in his time on North York council. A recent column marking his passing noted that

it was his foundation that allowed North York to transform the Yonge Street centre of the city into a modern downtown complex.

He was first elected to this place in 1959 and he began his political career in the riding of Downsview. We both had the pleasure of representing its new name,

Wilson Heights. We also had a similar pattern: We served for 18 years. I am now serving in my 18th year in the exact same riding.

While here, Vernon was critic for the Attorney General and municipal affairs. He also served as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and became a Queen's

Counsel in 1963. From committees, Vernon was able to make a substantial impact on the reform of Ontario laws, including municipal law, automobile insurance and election laws. Many of his

suggestions for fair expropriation, landlord-tenant legislation and compensation for victims of crime were turned into law. For 10 years, Vernon Singer fought for the establishment of a provincial

Ombudsman. After 10 years, Bill 86 was enacted, making Vernon's vision a reality.

Vernon acted as counsel for royal commissions and judicial inquiries. In 1965, he organized a task force to assist in the reform of the administration of

justice in Ontario. The lawyers and law students and professors and laymen worked together under Vernon's able leadership to produce a submission to the Attorney General that in many parts was

turned into law.

As was common at the time, he continued his law practice while a member here. Vernon was an acknowledged and widely sought expert on municipal and planning

law. He ran for the leader of the Liberal Party, running against the successful John Wintermeyer. Vernon was considered unbeatable during his time in the Legislature. He won five elections: 1959,

1963, 1967, 1971 and 1975. His decision not to run again in 1977 was dramatic. He decided to retire and, upon his retirement, one of the other parties was able to win that seat for the first time

in decades.

Vernon was a tireless worker for the Liberals. His own biography from the legislative library states that, "since 1947, he has participated in every provincial

and federal election campaign on behalf of the local Liberal candidates at the party organizational level and as a fundraiser."

It was a sign of the respect he had on all sides of the Legislature that Premier Davis appointed Vernon to the Ontario Municipal Board, where he served with

distinction for a record five terms. He is an example of what a private member can accomplish in this place. He was the father of new law, of much-needed reforms and of the Office of the Ombudsman

in Ontario.

Ontario is the poorer for the loss of Vernon Singer. I'm sure all members will join me in welcoming his widow Dorothy and his son Eric, who are sitting in the

east members' gallery. Thank you.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My party and I and my leader would like to associate ourselves with the comments of Mr Kwinter.

Although I did not know Vern, I came here in 1977 at the time that he retired and heard many stories about him, about his persistence and his great oratory skills in this place. He was one of the

members who, when speaking, was closely listened to by all members of the Legislature. I only wish that, over my past 26 years since that time, we had had more like him, because I understand that

he was very entertaining to listen to because of his wide breadth of knowledge and his commitment to changing things in the province of Ontario, albeit that he always sat on the opposition

benches.

I too believe that all members of the Legislature can accomplish something in this place, regardless of whether they sit in the government benches, the

government backbenches or in opposition. I think Mr Singer was a very, very important example for all of us to know that, if we concentrate long enough and hard enough and push hard enough,

accomplishments can come to light. So I would like to add our condolences to his family.

I was in the caucus room when Mr Davis came in and told our caucus, I think in 1978, that they were appointing Mr Singer to the OMB. I can only say that, as I

recall the reception in the caucus room, there was no question of his capability; they knew that he was well suited for that particular position. The respect that the caucus had for him at that

time was evident in the room.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and my leader, I would like to express our condolences to the family and thank them for giving so

much of Vern to the province of Ontario, and for all of his contributions. Thank you very much.

Mr Hampton: On behalf of New Democrats, I want to offer our condolences to the Singer family. While I was not a member of the Legislature when

Vernon Singer was a member here at that time in the early 1970s, when I was a student I used to often come here and do volunteer research for NDP members. So I got to know him in fact through some

of the work he did with Jim Renwick, Patrick Lawlor and Roy McMurtry, all of whom were members of this Legislature who were deeply concerned with the issue of law reform. All of them had a passion

for law reform in this province and all of them, whether they were a part of the government or part of the opposition, often worked collegially in the cause of law reform in this province.

As pointed out earlier, this is how we got the Ombudsman's office in this province. But this is also how we got, in many respects, the Ontario Law Reform

Commission. This is also how we got legal aid in the province of Ontario, through the collective efforts of Vernon Singer, along with many of the members on both government and opposition sides who

said that, witnessing the changes that were taking place in the late 1960s and early 1970s everywhere in the world, Ontario's laws needed to change, that Ontario needed to move forward, not only in

terms of reform of our courts, but in the creation of other bodies and agencies that would more fully respond to an Ontario that was becoming much more urbanized, an Ontario that was welcoming

literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the province each year and an Ontario that was then beginning to see the baby boomers, literally millions of young people who were not so much

interested in the customs of what had gone before but were interested in exploring the ideas that would benefit society into the future.

It was interesting to watch in those days some of these people -- Vernon Singer, Roy McMurtry, Jim Renwick, Patrick Lawlor and, from time to time, others --

quietly get together. And in those days, members of the government and members of the opposition, after debate was over, often went out for dinner. They often spent time together socially. Once in

a while, they would even go off on things like fishing trips together. It was quite a different kind of Legislature in those days. That was in fact when much of this work was done. Much of it was

done informally. It was done when people agreed to get together and talk about, "How do we best approach this?" That is perhaps where Mr Singer was quite effective. He was eloquent, articulate and

tough-minded in terms of his presentations here in the Legislature, but I know that he worked collegially when the session of the Legislature was over or when there was recess for the supper

hour.

I think all Ontarians who recognize the work that was done at the Ontario Law Reform Commission, who recognize what Legal Aid Ontario has done, who recognize

what the Ombudsman's office has done and who recognize the developments in terms of human rights in this province, owe Vernon Singer a debt. He was truly someone who was committed to public

service; he was truly someone who recognized that this was a duty, a responsibility, an obligation; but it's also very clear that he was quite committed to the work that went on here and the work

associated with the Legislature.

On behalf of New Democrats who are here, and on behalf of New Democrats who worked collegially with Mr Singer over many years and who were part of those

informal meetings and discussions that happened, not just here but away from here, I want to again offer our condolences and to say to members of the Singer family, you should be very proud of the

contribution of Vernon Singer. Many people in this province have seen great social benefit, great public benefit, from the unselfish work, from the hours of dedicated service that were on the

record and the many more hours that were off the record, which were indeed productive. Our condolences and best wishes.

The Speaker: Those words of condolence and tribute are just a reflection of the deep respect that we hold for our great former colleague. I

also convey my condolences and pay tribute to this wonderful member. We will send copies of Hansard to the family. Thank you.

MOTIONS

(CONTINUED)

COMMITTEE SITTINGS /

SÉANCES DES COMITÉS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Further debate. The member from Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It used to be called Broadview-Greenwood, and before that, Riverdale. So I can

understand why it takes a while to remember what the riding is called.

Before I begin this --

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): He'll have it memorized soon.

Ms Churley: You do have to memorize it. I know when I was Deputy Speaker, I was given pictures of every member in this House by the Clerk's

office, with their riding written on the back. You'd have to go home at night and practise matching the face to the --

Hon Mr Smitherman: I do that.

Ms Churley: Yes, exactly. Do you do that? I still have them. Believe me, I'm saving them for a rainy day, the 1995 pictures -- hang on.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Many people were much younger then.

But, Mr Speaker, to the motion, because I know you've made it clear that we are to speak to the very important motion before us. I think everybody here will

forgive me, though, if I take a moment on behalf of my caucus to welcome the member for Windsor West back to the Legislature today. I want her to know that the thoughts and prayers of all of us

here have been with her. We're very happy to see her back and look forward to the opportunity to ask her her first question, I believe, as a minister. Welcome back, Ms Pupatello. All the best.

The motion before us today -- and of course there are rules in this place. The new Premier has pointed out on several occasions that rules are rules. Of course

there are rules, and today we're adhering to a very important rule in this place, and that is, the rule with respect to the ability to debate motions that are put before this House. New Democrats

believe it's very important to debate this motion before us today, and I'll tell you why, Mr Speaker.

I've been a member of this place now since 1990. I've been, for a brief period of time, a backbencher in a new government, and I've got to say to all of the

backbenchers, it's not the best position to be in this place. Out of every position you can be, a backbencher in opposition or a backbencher in government is one of the more difficult positions to

be in, because you don't have the power to make the decisions. But you also don't have the ability as individual members to speak out against your government -- unless, of course, you've given up

any hope of ever getting into cabinet. Sometimes, then, mavericks are created. We've all seen them in every caucus from time to time: members who speak out against their own government because they

don't agree with the policies or they don't believe the policies of their own government represent their constituents.

That's where committees come into this debate here today. I believe with a new government -- indeed, the new Premier, during the election campaign and after,

talked about reforming democracy and in fact enhancing democracy, making democracy in this place more relevant for all members, in particular backbenchers, including backbenchers in the opposition

benches, to be given more tools so that we can better represent our constituents, and in fact we're not using that opportunity. The Premier, as yet, has not demonstrated in so many ways that he

could that he really meant those words.

Coming back to the motion on the committees before us today, my colleague from Niagara said that we need a radical new sitting schedule. I think that we

perhaps need to have a radical restructuring of how the committees are run and how they actually work.

As you know, right now, and you would have heard when the names were all read out today, the majority of members on all of those committees are government

members. It has always been that way, as far back as I've looked, so that even in committees, where the important work is done and government backbenchers do have an opportunity to speak their

minds, they do their own research -- and sometimes incredible research -- and they find things that don't necessarily agree with the government bill before the committee. Or we have witnesses who

come in who convince all of us. I have seen it in government, as a minister sending a bill to committee with my parliamentary assistant and government members there to represent the ministry's

views. I've seen it happen from all three, governments of all stripes, where you have, dare I use the word, independent-minded members from the government backbenches who come into the committee,

listen to the witnesses --

whereas the minister frequently doesn't, only comes the first day and gives the statement, and then the backbench members from the government have the opportunity to sit

in the committee, hear the witnesses, ask questions and then perhaps decide, "No, this bill before us needs some amendments." So we need a radical restructuring of the committees.

I don't believe those committees should be made up of a majority of government members, especially when you have government backbenchers still hoping -- many

of us have been there -- they will get into cabinet and toeing the line that they know in their hearts and in their minds, after hearing the information from other committee members, from their own

research, from witnesses who come in, that radical amendments need to be made or in fact that the bill needs to be withdrawn and completely restructured.

I believe that we need to take a look at the makeup of committees so that the government cabinet doesn't give backbenchers marching orders to go in and defend

bills that are indefensible, or when new information comes in and there's no way for those members to actually agree with changes that opposition members -- who are in the minority in the

committees, as they are here -- make. Government members know those are good amendments but are told to vote against them. It happens repeatedly, and you would know it, Mr Speaker, because you have

sat on committees in this House, as I have, as a minister. You were once the Minister of Housing; I remember that. You've also served on committees as a backbencher in opposition. You know what I'm

talking about, and the dynamic that goes on that's very unhealthy --

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are currently speaking to motion 12, which is what day and what time a committee is supposed to

sit, not what it's supposed to do. I would wonder if you could look at the point of order, and if you agree with it, bring the member to order.

The Speaker: I'll just caution the member to maintain that direction.

Ms Churley: I do, sincerely and most humbly, apologize. As you know, the issues are intertwined, so sometimes one can wander off the subject

at hand.

Let me come back to the very important issue on timing of the committees. I've been appointed, for example, to the general government committee, and it meets

on Monday and Wednesday afternoons.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: I've been interrupted by the member for Nepean, just standing on a point of order. He is heckling, and I don't believe that you

can hear me, Mr Speaker. Can you hear me?

The Speaker: I'm hearing you well.

Ms Churley: On the timing, let me give an example. I like to sit on general government, by the way, just as an aside. I'm going to come back

to the time. I usually sit on that committee. All of the environmental issues go before that committee.

Let me tell you something about the timing. Quite frequently, as you would know, Mr Speaker, what happens is we get delayed during routine proceedings in this

House and we're late getting into the committee room. There are two reasons why that's particularly harmful: Number one, frequently we call witnesses and they are time-allocated, so to speak. I'd

love to talk about time allocation today and the backroom deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals on time-allocating some motions here today to get us through the House and out for a

vacation earlier, but I'm not allowed to talk about that right now, I believe. But you can be guaranteed that you'll be hearing more about that later.

Back to the timing of the committees: You have very important witnesses who are scheduled at a particular time. We're a half hour to 45 minutes late going into

the committee room, so right away you're backed up and those people are behind. Then you either have to cut down their time -- and they come so well prepared; I'm always so impressed by the amount

of work that witnesses do before they come to speak to us. Whether it's pro or con for the bill, they do a tremendous amount of work. Sometimes they practise their remarks to the five minutes, or

10 or 20, whatever they've got, to get it right. It's really hard for them when they're suddenly told, "We're running behind

schedule so you can't give us all of your comments, or you are going to

have to hurry up, or you're going to have to come back another time," whatever. It's not fair to them.

The other thing that sometimes happens, routine proceedings in this House being as they are, is that unanticipated votes happen and the bells ring. We all have

to keep one eye on the TVs up in the corners while the witnesses are there or while we're debating amendments or certain aspects of the bill. We have to keep one eye on the TV and listen for the

bells to ring, and sometimes we don't give our witnesses the full attention they deserve for that reason. So that's one of the problems with the timing and the scheduling of these committees.

The other thing that I would like to point out that I have experienced many times because of the timing of these committees -- and all of you here will

experience this and that's why I believe we need not only a radical restructuring of the time when these committees meet but the way these committees are run. I have had the experience when the

Tories were in power, sitting on that side of the House, where I would go to the general government committee at the scheduled time. I would go with sometimes tons of amendments. In fact, I think

it was the Nutrient Management Bill, put forward by the then Tory government, which you will all remember, an issue dear to my heart and, of course, to many people across Ontario, particularly in

the wake of Walkerton. I was up, along with Fred Glogler, one of our researchers at the time. We were both up pretty well all night, coming up with reasonable amendments because there were so many

holes and problems with that bill. I think it was nutrient management; it might have been another one, just for the record. I'm sure Mr Glogler will correct me if I'm wrong on that.

We had some substantive amendments. The government too put forward -- and this relates to the timing; I'm coming back to that. This outlines why the scheduling

is a problem. The government also put forward quite a lot of amendments, many of which were technical in nature. The Liberals, then the opposition, also came forward with many. Mr Bradley, the

Minister of Tourism now, was on that committee with me. He will remember --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I was here back when the NDP said something.

The Speaker: Order. I don't need discussions across to each other. I hope that your comments are directed to the Chair. I'll caution members

on all sides to adhere to that.

Ms Churley: I could talk on this subject for hours because --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: No, but this is a very important topic. Again, I was starting to explain to the Speaker and all members in this House why the

timing and the scheduling of these committees is a problem. I was talking about the fact that you can work for hours on amendments, that you can spend a lot of time doing your research, talking to

other outside groups who have an interest, getting it right, and then coming into the committee, it's been delayed, and the government of the day has brought in a time allocation motion that says

this, for the committee hearing: "At a certain time, all amendments" --

Mr Kormos: Four o'clock.

Ms Churley: -- four o'clock, usually, in committee hearings -- "are deemed to be put." Do you know what that means? That means that when

amendments are deemed to be put, they are just voted on. You can't have any discussion.

Furthermore, after staying up -- I gave an example -- all night preparing amendments, going through all of the other amendments, marking the ones from the

government I didn't understand -- the technical aspects of them --

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would again draw your attention that we're debating number 12 and the member opposite is not

debating this motion. She has been warned three times.

The Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth, I've waited very much as you divert. I waited for you to come back to the relevant part of the

motion. Could you direct your discussion on that, please?

Ms Churley: I know the member for Nepean is trying to help me here. Indeed, talking about the scheduling, the timing of committees: Let me get

directly to the point. My point here is this: There is a problem with the scheduling of committees to date. I was giving --

Mr Baird: What?

Ms Churley: I'm speaking to the Speaker, and if you're interested in what I have to say, you would pay attention to what I have to say. I'm

directing my remarks to the Speaker. I would say, Mr Speaker, to the member for Nepean -- who is constantly interrupting me -- he has an opportunity in a few minutes to stand up and speak to this

motion for 20 minutes. It sounds to me like he has significant things to say. I would say to all of the members in this House: Instead of heckling me and standing up on points of order, why not use

the opportunity to get up and debate this motion that's before us today?

What happened to me because of the scheduling of the committee and the time allocation, and why I'm agreeing with the member for Niagara, why we need to

radically change the sitting

schedule for committees -- that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm telling you why we need to change it. How do you feel? How do you think I felt? I am on topic

here.

After staying up all night working on amendments, because of the timing and the scheduling of that committee, I was unable -- once it was deemed that all the

amendments be put, and this indeed is about scheduling -- I had some very specific questions for the government members on the technical amendments that were put forward. I didn't know whether I

wanted to support them or not. I sincerely didn't. I needed to ask some questions. But because those amendments were deemed to be put, I was forced into a position of not being able to vote either

way.

So there are several very big problems with the scheduling of the committees, as outlined by the House leader today. I think that this is an opportunity for us

to completely revisit, restructure, the sitting schedule. The member for Niagara, my colleague, the NDP House leader, talked about that perhaps we should be sitting more on Fridays, perhaps even

some time into the weekend. Perhaps we need to be giving opportunities to the public more frequently than we do with the existing scheduling. For instance, I know that it's very difficult, for lots

of people who want to come in as witnesses, to come in from, say, 3 in the afternoon to 6 at night.

At one point this House kindly gave me unanimous consent in terms of scheduling committee hearings for my adoption disclosure bill -- which, I'm glad to say,

will be coming back soon. Because of that very scheduling problem, I was able to get unanimous consent a few times from both of the other parties to allow the general government committee to sit

into the evening a couple of times, although that was not part of the routine proceedings around here, so that the witnesses could come in. Most people work during the day and are unable to come in

and speak to us during our scheduled committee hearings. I was able to get that special agreement, that special unanimous consent to hold a couple of evening sittings in the committee so that those

people were able to come and give their deputations at that time.

I would say that this is an area where we could do some work. We need to have a discussion in this place around scheduling committee hearings into the evenings

and, indeed, some time into the weekend, more for the benefit of our constituents and interest groups who are unable to come in during the day.

There are a number of things that we need to discuss when it comes to the sitting

schedule of our committees. My colleagues will be taking this opportunity to

let people know about their ideas of how we might change some of the sitting

schedule so it's more beneficial to all of us and, indeed, is more beneficial to democracy in this province. We New

Democrats believe that we need to enhance democracy, that we need to give more opportunities to backbenchers from all three parties to participate in committees, because, as the member for Niagara

said, some of the most important work in this place gets done in those committee hearing rooms.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Baird: I want to say to my New Democratic friends that I support your desire to be recognized as an official party. Many of us on all sides

of the House support that. There are only two groups that don't: (1) the voters, and (2) the government House leader. I can't do anything about that.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Speaker: I will remind the member from Nepean that the motion is motion 12.

Speaker --

The Speaker: I've got your point of order. Give him a chance to speak first.

Mr Baird: With respect to the Legislative Assembly committee sitting on the prescribed time as outlined in motion 12, short of full party

status, I think with motion number 5, they're giving you a pretty reasonable offer. I wish it was full party status. I made a number of recommendations to the government House leader with respect

to the debate.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Speaker: Is the member speaking to the motion?

The Speaker: I know the member for Nepean-Carleton is going to speak to the motion. Could you come to it quickly?

Mr Baird: We're speaking to motion number 12 with respect to when the legislative committee would be sitting and when they could debate this.

Committee time is important; so too is question period time. The public at home should know what's going on today.

This is not about the motion that's in front of us, motion number 12. What it's about is the New Democratic Party holding the Legislature of Ontario hostage.

They want a ransom of $1.8 million --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Nepean-Carleton has gotten about three warnings about speaking on the topic. Could you, please?

Mr Baird: So the Legislative Assembly committee will sit on Thursday mornings. They don't have question period on Thursday mornings because we

have question period in the afternoon. But we're not having it today because the New Democratic Party members who just spoke are holding the Legislative Assembly as hostage. They want $1.8 million

The Speaker: Order. Further debate?

Mr Marchese: I want to thank the members for Niagara Centre and Toronto-Danforth for their efforts to try to talk about --

Ms Churley: Try?

Mr Marchese: Well, "try," because we're all trying. We are doing our best to speak to motion 12 and to try as best we can to make them as

efficient and as effective as possible. That's our job.

Speaker, I have to tell you, I'm profoundly nervous about the growing intolerance in this place for people like the member from Niagara Centre, who makes

tremendous efforts to follow the rules and participate as best he can. Each time he does this, I hear howling from the other side, from the Liberal members -- Speaker, I'm trying to see you -- and

it concerns me.

Mr Baird: The cameramen are getting dizzy.

Mr Marchese: It's just that someone is blocking my view of the Speaker, and I always want to address him. Mr Speaker, I want to address you,

you understand. You and I were both in opposition, and I remember clearly how we were often told that we need to address the Speaker, and that's what I want to do.

I am concerned about the little tolerance we display to members who want to participate as best they can to help each other in this place, and that's what

we're doing. The member from Niagara Centre talked about the difficulties people have in getting to committees on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Wednesday or a Thursday, particularly in the afternoons.

You and I and the member from Toronto-Danforth talked about how difficult it is for many to come on an afternoon, where they sometimes are expected to come at 3:30, but usually they don't start

until 4 o'clock. So when you have deputants who come to speak for 15 or 20 minutes, it's tough to fit a lot of people in that time slot.

The member from Niagara Centre talked about the idea of meeting on weekends. It's a useful, practical suggestion to make, and while I think some of us could

make those hearings, if we held them on a Saturday or Sunday -- I could because I'm closer here in Toronto and I could make myself available to do that. But some people would have a difficult time,

if they come from different parts of the province, so I know that for some people Saturdays or Sundays would be complicated. So I admit that --

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Rosario, what point are you making? You're way off topic.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, you see the intolerance to any view that any member of the opposition would have from the Liberal ministerial benches? I

think it's wrong. I think people need to be a little more flexible, Speaker, as you are, often -- or at least as Speakers are generally -- where they allow for some freedom of debate, if even

tangentially connected to the topic. But we've seen that and we've allowed that. I was getting concerned by your ruling, because I thought, my goodness, is the Speaker all of a sudden becoming

intolerant to members speaking outside of the little boundary of the particular motion? We've never done that before.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Don't attack the Speaker, Rosario.

Mr Marchese: To the motion: So yes, the member from Niagara Centre talks about the possibility of Saturdays or Sundays. I think it's something

the government might want to look at, because not everybody is available Monday to Thursday. And I want to talk about Fridays as a possibility, but Saturdays and Sundays certainly are good

days.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Don't talk about Fridays.

Mr Marchese: I want to come back to Fridays. Please, don't be so intolerant. Give me a break.

Saturdays and Sundays would permit people to come, because they would be able to have the time, and I think the government should not exclude it as a

possibility.

Hon Mr Sorbara: You can talk, but never on Fridays.

Mr Marchese: I believe that Fridays are good days. Why do I say Friday is also a good day? Because while it's difficult for some members who

live in the outer regions of the city -- and some very far; you've got to travel quite a fair bit to be able to get here to Toronto. So I think it's complicated.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: You could travel outside, you're quite right, and we've done that. That could facilitate it. That's not excluding Saturdays and

Sundays. But I did think that Friday was a good day, because on a Friday we are not sitting here in the Legislature, from 1:30 till midnight often -- at least in the next two or three weeks. But

Fridays --

Mr Kormos: What about January, February and March? We could use them.

Mr Marchese: If we had to. You're right. I'll come back to that.

Fridays are good because we're not sitting in this place and it gives us all an opportunity to come to Toronto to meet, if we didn't want to meet outside of

this place. So for those who live in Toronto, in the GTA and beyond, Friday would be a good day for them to be here. Yes, it would complicate it for some who might want to do some constituency work

on a Friday, but that could be considered to be constituency work, in a way, and they could do constituency work on a Saturday or Sunday. So it doesn't exclude their ability to be able to connect

with their constituents on a Saturday or a Sunday. Friday is good. It's a good possibility.

I was thinking about what Jim Bradley would have said if he were in opposition. I was thinking that because I recall the member from St Catharines, who often

would have so much to say on so many things and on a regular basis. Why, he couldn't stay away from this place but one moment. Whenever there was a debate he would be here to say, "We can't

strangulate debate; we need to have more and more opportunities to discuss bills." Then I thought, what would he say? He came in and he said the following -- I'll get back to motion 12 in a second,

but if you could, a little flexibility, Speaker; I'm not asking for much; just a little. The member from St Catharines said, "I was here when the NDP had something to say instead of playing games."

I couldn't believe it. That's what he said about a mere five minutes ago. This is Jim Bradley, our buddy for eight years when we were in opposition together. He comes in and says that we are

playing games, that the NDP, in the past, used to say something but now, today, we're saying nothing. I find that hard to believe.

The Speaker: I'd like you to get back to the topic at hand to discuss that, and refer to the member by his riding.

Mr Marchese: Quite right. He's the Minister of Tourism right now. But I was reflecting on the Minister of Tourism as he came by to make that

remark because I thought about what he would say to this argument. I think the member would say that opposition parties need to be able to stand up and speak to any bill any time they wish, that

they would be able to stand up and speak to any bill and improve it in any way possible, however ill it might be considered by the government party. I know that he would be here today, were he in

opposition, and say that members need to have the freedom to stand up and say what they want. I'm sure he would say that whatever members would speak to is pertinent, is reasonable, is done with

the purpose of advancing the interest of the public and public debate and done in the interest of democratizing this place. I know that he would say that. I know that he would when in opposition,

like me, say how complicated committees have become because members no longer have the freedom to say what they want when they're in government, so that they could, having that freedom, make sure

that the bills that are debated reflect everyone -- government members, opposition members and the public -- to the extent possible.

It happened to me when I was in government. Often I participated when I was in committee in a way that my own caucus didn't like. I thought that was wrong.

They accused me of freelancing. I thought that it was a mistake not to allow the members of opposition parties to have something to say. And if they can improve a bill, we should be listening to it

and not fighting it because we are the government and they're not. It was my view, in government, in 1991 to 1995, that when opposition parties have something to say, we should listen to what they

have to say, and if we find it reasonable, we should not exclude it or reject it on the basis that it's coming from the opposition benches and therefore not worthy of supporting. I felt that my

friends often in that committee were wrong to try to shut me up because I threatened to support an opposition motion in committee.

So I urge tolerance. In the way that the Liberal members urged tolerance while they were in opposition, I urge tolerance by them now while they are in

government, to listen carefully to what opposition members have to say, weigh it, and at the end of allowing for sufficient discussion and debate, say whether they agree or disagree. That's fine,

but please don't mock the members as they speak or try to say something in this place that is an attempt to make things better. I do see the mocking from time to time; not recently, but often as

the member from Niagara Centre spoke I could see the heckling from the government benches. I think it's wrong to do that.

So I say that we should be looking very carefully at when these committees should be held. I'm urging for consideration Fridays as a distinct possibility here.

I'm also urging, connected to this discussion, that we also consider whether or not we can allow members of the public to speak in another language and allow for translation services in committees,

language, we say to them, "You can come and speak in Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, Greek or Polish. Whatever language it is that you speak, we as committee members want to hear from you." It is

connected in terms of how we make it possible.

Mr Kormos: That sounds like a possible amendment.

Mr Marchese: It could become a possible amendment that we could consider in terms of sending this off to committees. It could be. And you know

that, Speaker. You know how threatening this Legislature can be to so many people. It's threatening to a lot of members in this place, let alone some of the constituents out there who come before

us and find it incredibly difficult to confront a committee of, what, seven, eight or nine, and do it in a language that is possibly not their strongest of languages. I'm urging the government to

consider the possibility of democratizing our committee hearings by communicating to them in the various respective languages through whatever channels we've got. We have newspapers, of course,

where we can communicate in different languages; we have different television stations in different languages; we've got radio. You, the government, should consider publicizing the fact that we

want every Ontarian to participate and we will not allow language to be a barrier to their participation in committee. I was thinking that we need to consider how we make it possible and easier for

people to come to Queen's Park so that we can hear them all and so they do not feel threatened. I don't want to come back to the issue of meeting on Sundays. I think on Sundays, it's too

complicated.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My guys just went home because of your filibuster.

Mr Marchese: You see what I mean about the intolerance? Just trying to find where the member is from; I forgot. The member for

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot -- holy cow, it's a long riding. It must be difficult to cover --

Mr McMeekin: You said you wanted to hear from people. They were here and had petitions to present.

Mr Marchese: We were buddies in opposition. It's so hard to imagine how difficult it must be to be government.

The Speaker: Order. Direct your --

Mr Marchese: With you too, Speaker. You were in these ranks, and we shared a lot in common together.

I was saying that we are offering suggestions to the government, and the suggestions ought not to be dismissed. We talked about the idea of Sundays as a

possibility now. I was trying to say that Sundays have to be ruled out. It's not a good idea, Peter; I'm sorry.

Mr Kormos: What about Saturdays?

Mr Marchese: But you agree with me that Sunday is complicated. Saturdays, however, member for Niagara Centre, we shouldn't exclude that, in

your view?

The Speaker: Member for Trinity-Spadina, could you direct your comments to --

Mr Marchese: Just conferring with my buddy to see whether we were in agreement with Saturdays. He believes that Saturdays should not be

excluded, and I too, with him, say that should be considered.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: He didn't say he was agreeing with me? All right.

Saturdays are a possibility. I insist on considering Fridays. I do insist on that. We have to give people the time, and that includes the members of this

place. I think we should rotate committees on a Friday basis. One committee meets on Monday; the other committee could meet on Fridays.

So let me look at all the various committees that meet: standing committee on justice; standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday

afternoons; and the standing committee on government agencies meets on Wednesday. I'm saying, the standing committee on government agencies could meet on a Friday from time to time, to give people

the opportunity to come and see which appointments have been made by the government and allow them, on the basis of their being able to get there, to see the appointment and hear what the

government members have to say about that appointment, and the opposition parties. Give them the opportunity to be part of those hearings. Fridays would allow them to do that,

whereas other days

could be very complicated in terms of getting here and timing and so on, I believe.

We should consider allowing the public who want to come from outside the GTA the opportunity to come and witness and participate and possibly consider the idea

of paying for their bus ride to get to this place. We might want to consider that as a way of enlarging the democratization of this place by saying to people, "Look, we invite all of you to come.

We don't just want to select political ideologues to come to this place, or just journalists to sit in on those committees; we want each and every one of you to take an interest in the workings of

this place, whether it be government agencies, estimates or finance, or whatever it is. Government agencies is a very interesting one because often the opposition parties say, "Ha, government only

selects Tories when they're in power." Now the Tories are going to accuse the Liberals of only selecting Liberals while they're in power.

The only ones who made a mistake were New Democrats who opened up the doors to everyone. I've got to tell you that was a serious mistake. We were accused of

appointing New Democrats when our leader, Bob Rae, said, "No, we can't do that." Our leader at the time said we have to open up the process to so many who are able, be they New Democrats, Liberals

or Tories. We thought it was a good thing to do, but we didn't get any credit for that. We got attacked. We got attacked by the Liberals and Tories, who had German shepherds at the doors. Every

time they smelled somebody who might have sounded or looked like or spoken like a New Democrat, they were at the doors barking before they even went in. You could get in if you were a government

member, right, but imagine those poor folk who were appointed by us and the trauma they must have felt.

Now the Liberals are in power. I'm sure they, like the Tories, are going to appoint people on the basis of merit, because that's what the Tories said. "Merit,"

understand, means you've got to be a Liberal, so I want to invite -- and the Liberals might want to invite -- people to come and say, "Look, come and see the kinds of people we nominate. Because

the people we nominate will be able; not Liberal-connected in any way whatsoever. They will be able people. We want you to see them personally."

So I say to the members, invite them and let's have it on a Friday -- morning, afternoon, possibly evening, although evening might be a bit too much for some,

and I agree. Like the member from Niagara Centre said, we could start at 8, so that we could end at 6 o'clock, which would give reasonable time for people to be able to come, the time that it takes

to be able to make a deputation, allow perhaps the citizens to participate in committees. We could reflect on that in some way so as to democratize our processes as much as we possibly can.

I know the Liberals are committed to this, you see. I know that McGuinty, your leader, is committed to the democratization of our institutions, our committee

hearings, the way in which we participate here. Oh, God, he spoke so eloquently on this so many times; I am sure he is reflecting on the best way to do it. If the House leader of the Liberal Party

is not going to do it, I'm sure the whip of the Conservative Party is thinking about that. Why, he stood up on a number of occasions here playing the role of deputy House leader, yet he's the whip

of the Conservative party. I don't understand this.

The Speaker: Further debate?

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): J'ai le plaisir d'avoir l'opportunité de parler de cette motion, la motion numéro 12, qui va

en effet donner l'habileté aux comités de cette Assemblée de siéger ici durant la semaine, et j'imagine aussi durant le temps entre les sessions de cet automne et du printemps

prochain.

Je veux être pas mal spécifique dans mes commentaires sur cette motion qu'on a devant nous aujourd'hui. Je sais que tous les membres de

l'Assemblée, comme vous, monsieur le Président, veulent que les travaux ici à l'Assemblée soient pris d'une manière où on fait le mieux dont on est capable pour

représenter la population de notre comté quand ça vient aux projets de loi qu'on va traiter à ces comités.

C'est important, quant à moi, que n'importe quel comité auquel on donne l'autorité de siéger à travers cette motion soit donné

l'opportunité de siéger d'une manière adéquate, l'habileté de siéger et de traiter les questions que cette Assemblée va traiter cet automne et le printemps

prochain.

On sait, par exemple, que cette Assemblée traite présentement plusieurs projets de loi que le gouvernement a introduits dans les dernières

semaines, ces projets de loi qui vont être référés à ces comités par la manière dont on fonctionne ici à l'intérieur de l'Assemblée

législative de l'Ontario.

Le problème que j'ai avec la motion, c'est que je trouve qu'on ne va pas avoir le temps adéquat de faire les travaux qu'on a besoin de faire comme

députés pour traiter les questions à l'Assemblée qui vont être référées à ces comités. Par exemple, je sais qu'on va référer toute la

question d'énergie qui était créée sous la Loi 4 au comité de la justice et de la politique sociale. Ce comité qui va traiter cette question, on dit ici à

l'Assemblée qu'ils vont se rencontrer les après-midi le lundi et mardi.

Mais vous savez que l'Assemblée siège durant ces après-midi. Je cherche une certaine flexibilité de la part du gouvernement et des

conservateurs, parce que les deux sont ensemble là-dedans. On veut qu'on ait la flexibilité que ce comité siège autrement que juste le lundi et le mardi après-midi pour les

députés qui ont besoin d'être ici à l'intérieur de l'Assemblée durant ces journées-là, parce qu'ils sont donnés par horaire parlementaire la

responsabilité d'être ici pour représenter leur parti. On veut donner l'opportunité à ces députés de revenir d'autres journées, autrement que lundi et mardi,

pour traiter, par exemple, la question de la Loi 4, qui va créer un régime qui va faire augmenter le prix d'énergie dans la province de l'Ontario.

C'est important pourquoi, monsieur le Président? Comme vous le savez -- excusez-moi. Je ne peux pas vous voir. On a quelqu'un entre nous deux ici.

The Speaker: Could I ask the members to sit. I cannot see the member who is speaking to me. Thank you very much.

M. Bisson: Merci, monsieur le Président. C'est important que je dirige mes commentaires envers vous. Je ne veux pas que vous ne me voyiez

pas. Par cette manière-là, c'est un peu plus difficile de faire le débat.

Comme je l'ai dit, de on va avoir l'opportunité dans ce comité de la justice et la politique sociale de traiter la Loi 4, une loi qui va donner

l'habileté d'augmenter les prix d'énergie de cette année à l'année prochaine. On sait que c'est une question très importante pour tous les membres de cette

Assemblée. Comme vous le savez, la manière dont le comité était donné le mandat de siéger à travers cette motion dit que le comité de la justice et de la

politique sociale va seulement se rencontrer le lundi et le mardi après-midi.

Comme je l'ai dit, c'est un problème. Il y a certains députés qui ne pourront pas être là. Je sais qu'on va tous avoir des questions

des citoyens qu'on représente dans notre comté sur cette question. Comme vous le savez, quand les conservateurs ont changé le régime du prix d'électricité à peine

deux ans passés, c'était le hurlement complet de tous les citoyens de la province de l'Ontario qui sont venus voir leur député provincial pour dire, « Arrêtez

ça, ça coûte trop cher. » Moi, je veux m'assurer comme député que je suis capable d'aller à ce comité et siéger là-dessus. C'est pour ça

que moi, j'aimerais que le gouvernement nous accorde une certaine flexibilité de changer ou peut-être d'additionner d'autres jours à ce comité.

Je vous donne deux options : on pourrait possiblement prendre la pratique, en place d'avoir siéger les comités durant l'après-midi lorsque

les députés sont assis ici à l'Assemblée, de référer nos comités qui siègent le matin autrement que le jeudi matin. De cette manière, tous les membres

de l'Assemblée auraient la flexibilité, s'ils la choisissent, d'aller à un comité pour représenter les questions qui sont importantes pour eux ou pour les citoyens qu'ils

représentent. Vous comprenez le problème.

Je vous donne, par exemple, les comptes publics. Comme vous le savez, aujourd'hui le vérificateur de l'Ontario a introduit les comptes publics de la

province. Son rapport va être référé à un de ces comités. Il va être référé au comité des comptes publics, qui siège ici le jeudi matin.

Vous savez bien que le jeudi matin l'Assemblée siège de 10 heures du matin à midi et l'après-midi, quand tous les membres de l'Assemblée sauf les ministres viennent ici

pour traiter des questions des projets de loi des membres privés. Ça veut dire que moi, je vais être ici ce jeudi pour traiter les projets de loi de M. Murdoch et de

M. Levac, je pense. Je n'ai pas l'habileté d'être dans deux places en même temps.

C'est pour ça que je pense qu'on doit possiblement regarder la manière de laquelle on organise nos comités et qu'on dit, comme concept, que les

comités ne siégeront pas durant le temps que l'Assemblée elle-même siège. En d'autres mots, si l'Assemblée siège l'après-midi de lundi à jeudi, les

comités siègent le matin, et parce que l'Assemblée siège le jeudi matin, les comités ne siègent pas en même temps. De cette manière, ça donne à

tous les députés l'habileté de venir et de représenter leur point de vue, leurs intérêts et les intérêts des citoyens et citoyennes qu'ils représentent

dans leurs comtés. Je pense que c'est important.

L'autre point, c'est l'habileté du public de venir à ces comités. Comme vous le savez, la démocratie est supposée être quelque

chose pour le public de l'Ontario. En d'autres mots, on a choisi ici en Amérique du nord, comme dans beaucoup d'autres places, en Europe et dans d'autres parties du monde, d'avoir un

système démocratique. Le concept de la démocratie, c'est que les citoyens nous chargent, nous les élus, de les représenter pour un terme de quatre ou cinq ans,

dépendant de la juridiction. Quand on est ici, c'est pour les représenter sur les points importants que traite notre société dans le temps.

Mais les comités donnent au public la chance de venir ici à l'Assemblée pour présenter leur point de vue comme individu, comme citoyen ou

citoyenne de cette province; de dire, « Je suis d'accord », ou « Je ne suis pas d'accord », avec un certain projet de loi, ou « J'ai des

amendements à apporter », ou « Vous avez manqué le point complètement ».

Comme vous le savez, on vient tout juste d'avoir une élection. Ça fait à peine un mois et demi. Le taux de participation aux élections a

baissé d'année en année. Ça ne fait pas tellement longtemps que 75 % ou plus de la population ontarienne votait dans les élections provinciales. On est rendu à

peine à 50 %. Je pense qu'une des raisons est que le public a certainement perdu confiance en notre système politique, parce qu'il ne se voyait pas là-dedans. Il regarde notre

Assemblée et la politique et puis il dit, « Comment moi, le citoyen de Timmins-Baie James ou Scarborough North ou Kenora-Rainy River, se voit dans ce parlement, dans ce processus

démocratique? »

Les comités qu'on fait à travers la motion 12 sont un des mécanismes -- excuse-moi, le député, vous êtes entre moi et

mon Président. Merci.

The Speaker: Could you please keep your seat so I can listen to the member for James Bay.

M. Bisson: Merci, monsieur le Président. Je veux m'assurer que je vous donne mes commentaires. Le point que j'ai essayé de

faire dans mes commentaires, c'est que vous donnez l'habileté au public de venir présenter à nos comités. Ça veut dire qu'on a besoin de s'assurer que les horaires de ces

comités sont faits d'une manière que la population a l'habilité de venir présenter. Il y a un petit problème avec ce qu'on fait. On dit que nos comités vont

siéger du lundi au jeudi. Monsieur le Président, combien de personnes chez vous ont l'occasion de venir ici du lundi au jeudi ? Les gens travaillent. Ils partent le matin pour aller

travailler puis reviennent la soirée s'ils travaillent le "shift" du jour. Le problème, c'est que s'ils veulent présenter, ils n'ont pas l'habileté de venir parce que leur

journée de travail ne leur alloue pas le temps de venir présenter à ces comités.

C'est pour ça que je dis, sur le concept que j'ai présenté, que nos comités siègent le matin autrement que les journées qu'on

siège ici à l'Assemblée. On doit regarder la possibilité que chaque comité siège une fin de semaine au moins une fois par mois, ou possiblement plus. Ça donnerait

l'occasion aux citoyens et citoyennes de cette province de venir une journée de congé pour eux à cette Assemblée ou à un comité. Puisque, comme vous le savez, dans le

passé les comités se promenaient autour de la province avec les projets de loi. Ça donnait l'occasion au public de donner un commentaire.

Au moins, si on ferait une pratique de donner à chaque comité l'habileté de siéger ces fins de semaine, ça donnerait la chance à

un comité, par exemple, qui traite la question d'énergie d'aller une fin de semaine à Ottawa, à Sudbury, à Thunder Bay, à Kapuskasing ou ailleurs, et donnerait la

chance aux citoyens et citoyennes et autres de venir présenter à nos comités.

Je sais qu'on va traiter des projets de loi dans cette Assemblée qui vont être référés à ces comités. Je le sais

déjà parce que les téléphones sonnent chez nous comme chez vous ; le courriel et le courrier régulier nous envoient des lettres et des commentaires sur la question

d'assurance-automobile, sur la question d'énergie, sur la question des réductions d'impôt. On a déjà des refs à ces points.

Le monde dit, « Je veux faire sûr que mon opinion comme citoyen ou citoyenne soit entendue dans tout ça. » Mais comment est-ce

qu'on le fait avec un horaire qui, lui-même, n'alloue pas même aux députés à certaines occasions la chance de présenter à ces comités ou de participer? Et

comment peut-on s'organiser si même le public n'est pas capable de venir devant ces comités? Je trouve qu'il est important, qu'on doit avoir une manière de donner l'habileté

à la population de présenter devant ces comités.

I also want to say that it is interesting to note that at the end of this particular motion -- and again I refer back to motion number 12 -- it says, "The

standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings." That is a very important committee because the Legislative Assembly committee is the

committee that deals with much about the way things happen or don't happen, both in committees and within the House. I think it is rather important that we give more importance to that committee

because quite frankly we've started on a practice -- and I want to say up front that all three parties have endeavoured in this practice of tightening up the rules in this Legislature to the point

that members are not as able to participate. I just want to say that the Tories certainly ratcheted it up quite a bit, but the Liberals, by way of motion number 13, which we'll debate at another

date, have really ratcheted up the inability of members to participate on important government matters.

I think the Legislative Assembly committee is one of those committees that quite frankly we should tie a little bit more importance to. Why? I think it's

simply this: Right now we're saying that the assembly committee is going to meet on Thursday afternoons. Most out-of-town members, members like myself and others who live far away from here, in

practice leave here about 4:30 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon to catch flights to get back to their constituencies. Otherwise you're stuck here till the next day. It virtually means that a whole

group of members are prejudiced by way of geography from being able to fully participate on such a committee. This committee sat last year, chaired at the time by the member from Mississauga South,

I believe, and treated a number of important issues that dealt with how this assembly should function better. A number of members were not able to participate. I know the times I've gone there,

I've had to rearrange my

schedule by way of not being able to get back into my constituency on a Thursday rather than a Friday morning. That throws off your whole ability to meet with your

constituents, as far as scheduling time.

That's why I think it's important that that committee be given an opportunity to meet again, I would say, in the morning of either Monday, Tuesday or

Wednesday. That way, any member of this assembly who feels it important to be able to appear before that committee or to participate on that committee has the ability to do so, because the House

would not be sitting. At least that way, members of this House would be able to meet as a committee to deal with what kind of role we should really have in this Legislative Assembly.

We know there has been a change in the standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act about how this place operates. We now have a situation where a

government, in this case a Liberal government, is able to do virtually pretty well anything it wants by way of the new standing orders. They're able to introduce a bill on Monday and have it passed

into law by Thursday. I don't think that makes for particularly good legislation. That's why that assembly committee is so important. We should allow the Legislative Assembly committee to meet on

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and that way deal with how we structure the rules in this House so that the following two principles are met: first is that the government at the end of the

day should have the ability to pass its legislation -- I believe that firmly. The government is elected by way of a majority, and they should have the right to pass legislation. But the second

principle is that the rights of the opposition are also protected, so that we have an ability, when necessary, to be able to scrutinize the decisions of the government. I think those matters are

best dealt with at the Leg Assembly committee. I don't think those things are best left in the hands of a government House leader and his or her staff or by way of House leaders meeting, in this

case Tory and Liberal House leaders meeting, to determine how the rules of the House will be applied and how government business goes through. I think we can do that at the Leg Assembly committee

much better if we were to sit down and take a look at, "All right, what do we want to do?" That's why, I propose that the meeting dates referred to in motion number 12 under the standing committee

on the Legislative Assembly, which says "may meet on Thursday afternoons," really don't give us an ability as members to participate in that committee to the full degree that we would wish to

participate.

I also want to say that we know, for example, in motion 12 again they're saying that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs "may meet on

Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons." I've got a file about this high -- yea high -- of people who are mad about auto insurance. I'm telling you, I've got people, as we all have, who used to

pay $700 or $800 a year for auto insurance who are now paying $4,000 or $5,000, and we're going to be referring that to this committee. I want to be able to have a

schedule on this committee that

would allow me to bring all of those letters, e-mails, faxes, voice mail messages that I've gotten and messages my staff have taken before they've committed to dealing with it.

Now, as it stands, on Thursday afternoons I am here in the House, so I'm not able to participate by way of our schedule, and on Thursday mornings -- not every

one -- I'll be here for private members' hour, and that is a really important committee. The standing committee on finance and economic affairs deals with what are probably the most important bills

that this House treats by way of debate in this House and passage at second reading.

That's why I propose that we should also again look at getting the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which will deal with this auto insurance

bill that's really not going to protect rates -- but nonetheless I'd like to be able to get to the committee to deal with it. That's why I think that particular committee, finance and economics,

should be meeting on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings as other committees.

Again -- very important -- we should be putting in this motion the ability to have that committee travel. I'm sure if you drive to Kapuskasing -- the committee

would never drive to Kapuskasing; it would probably take a bus or would fly or whatever. But my point is, if we were to bring that committee to Kapuskasing, Balmertown, Terrace Bay, Scarborough or

wherever it might be, I'm sure there are all kinds of people, citizens of all types, who would like to be able to come to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to deal with how we

resolve the problem with auto insurance. That committee is very important. That committee is going to be the one that's going to hopefully deal with that particular issue; that is, if the

government allows us to have a role as far as opposition members, because we know the government, by way of majority, controls that committee.

The other committee which is extremely important -- other than public accounts, which I mentioned earlier, finance and economic affairs and others -- is the

standing committee on estimates. I've sat on the estimates committee for probably as many years as I've been here in the Legislature. It is the first time in my time here in the Legislature that

the

schedule in the House is not going to permit me to participate on estimates to the degree that I would like. Again, some members would say, "Too bad, so sad; such is the draw of House duty." As

individual members, we have rights. I'm the whip. I guess I could have scheduled myself. But the point I make is that everybody has a duty in the House. It means that some member is going to be

disadvantaged, kept from being able to participate on the estimates committee because of the scheduling we've done in the House. The government whip, the opposition whip and myself as third party

whip determine who sits in the House when and who sits on committee, but as an individual member you're allowed to go to that committee and do work if there are issues there that you want to deal

with on behalf of the constituents you represent. That's why I say the estimates committee should be meeting Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and should be meeting possibly on weekends in

order to deal with those issues, because that's the committee where a lot of those types of decisions are made.

Mr Speaker, I've made my point, and I hope the government House leader is going to reflect on that.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Hon Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to join this debate on government motion number 12. The government House leader states, "That the following

schedule for committee meetings be established for this Parliament." That's an important thing to debate, and I'm pleased to join the debate.

The first clause reads, "The standing committee on justice and social policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings." "May"

meet; that's an important word, the word "may." It basically says to members that you have a lot of flexibility when you're going to sit. With agreement, and with the ability to sit down and be

reasonable, you can amend those things. That's why this is a routine but debatable motion and that's why we brought it forward today because we would like the committees to start meeting next week.

We would like to begin those discussions. The standing committee on justice and social policy: May they meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons? Yes they may, provided it's after routine

proceedings.

The NDP is arguing about accountability in debating this routine, debatable motion today, and they have effectively denied themselves and the Conservatives

question period. I will tell you that we will seek unanimous consent to revert to question period because we think that's patently unfair. In spite of their efforts to take away their own ability

to question the government and hold it to account, we now believe we'll have 15 of our 23 ministers here to answer questions, should they deem that it's appropriate for the opposition to use the

hour available to them to ask questions rather than debate whether or not the standing committee on justice and social policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine

proceedings.

I should also say that these are the standard dates by which these committees and subcommittees have met throughout my time here. And I should point out that

the third party members will all be on committees. We passed that routine motion just before their attempt to filibuster themselves here with this particular little diatribe that takes away

question period, in spite of their arguments that they want to hold the government to account.

Hon Mr Bradley: I always liked question period when I was in opposition.

Hon Mr Duncan: Yes, question period is something that I would have thought the opposition would have wanted rather than to debate.

The second clause of the motion, because I do know it's important that we focus on the motion: "The standing committee on general government may meet on Monday

and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings."

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): That seems reasonable.

Hon Mr Duncan: That seems very reasonable because it allows a lot of flexibility. Unfortunately, certain members of the Legislature don't want

to negotiate. They prefer --

Hon Mr Bradley: Anarchy.

Hon Mr Duncan: -- anarchy, grandstanding, whatever you like. They'd rather get up and fire-breathe about something where there's no fire. It's

unfortunate because we on this side were looking forward to question period today. We have a commitment to being here. We want the opportunity to take questions and to answer questions. In fact,

the Premier was going to be here earlier today for question period; he won't be able to now. But that's all right. If they want to filibuster themselves, that goes a long way, in my view, to

explaining why perhaps they're in the position they're in right now.

The standing committee on general government: What could go to general government? The tax bill could go to general government, the one we promised in the last

election, the one the NDP voted against last week. I would like that bill to get to committee next week so they can explain why they voted against getting rid of the education tax credit, which

they promised to do in the election.

Interjection: They want more corporate taxes.

Hon Mr Duncan: And they want corporate taxes to go up. They want to filibuster themselves in the Legislature and take away the precious time

they have to question the government.

Hon Mr Bradley: Conrad Hampton, it sounds like to me.

Hon Mr Duncan: Conrad Hampton, that's correct.

"The standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings." What does estimates do? The estimates

committee holds the government to account on its spending. That's where the opposition gets the government on matters of spending that it chooses to ask questions about. Of course, we all know that

the convention at estimates, if not the rule, is that you go down the political road. You ask ministers and their officials very tough questions.

The third party chooses to filibuster getting this started. The third party chooses to get rid of question period today. The third party chooses to prevent the

estimates committee from starting. If we were still in the opposition, I would probably want to call the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry

of Energy. The third party and us disagree on a major piece of government policy, even though their position on the rate cap has changed, I think about five times in a year and a half.

But I have to get back to the substance of the motion. The motion says, "The standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons

following routine proceedings." I imagine those members will be busy some afternoons. Most nights, there aren't many of them here anyway. We understand that. They go wherever they go on those

weeknights. We often have three times as many members here as they have in their caucus to make sure that our members are here debating these. We're pleased to be here, to deal with estimates at

committee. All of our members look forward to that opportunity. All of our members want this place to work.

We tabled something unique last night, something very unique that will make sure this House functions better and takes the irrelevance out of a lot of what we

do. For instance, standing here --

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is the member speaking to the motion?

The Speaker: I think he is. Please proceed.

Hon Mr Duncan: Let me just refer back, for the leader of the third party, because obviously he doesn't understand the significance of

estimates to the opposition. Estimates committee should meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. We're here Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I don't know about them, but we're here to work. I've come a

long way from my riding, and my colleague from St Catharines is here; we want to work.

Again, the motion is very careful. The motion says "may meet." "May" meet: that's an important word. It doesn't say "shall" meet; it says "may" meet. Why does

it say "may" meet? So that we can accommodate them. What happens if their member can't be at the committee? Well, you know what? Historically, the way this place has worked, when people aren't

playing games and filibustering themselves, we work together and try to co-operate.

We put another motion on, which will be called later on, dealing with making sure that they have every opportunity to participate in all aspects of the

proceedings that they had in the last House. Instead, they want to debate whether or not the standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, following routine

proceedings.

Here's one that I would have thought that any opposition party would be interested in: "The standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday

mornings." What does the standing committee on government agencies do? They review the order-in-council appointments of the government of the day. The third party apparently wants to filibuster

itself on these and prevent that committee from meeting next week to hear what the government appointments are. Even though the motion is worded in such a way as to allow some flexibility in terms

of accommodating the schedules of 103 members, all of whom, other than those seven who don't want to go to committee, it appears -- the 95 rest of us, if you count the Speaker, who can't

participate -- would like to get to this committee. The rest of us would like to have the opportunity to have government appointments scrutinized by the Legislature.

It's passing ironic that those members would chew up question period today under the false guise of somehow making things better for the opposition, when in

effect they're debating against having the very committees that will hold the government to account. They're keeping those committees from meeting. I think that goes a long way to explaining why

they find themselves in the position they're in today.

The next one -- here's an important one: "The standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings" -- may meet on Wednesday

mornings. Our members are all at work in time to meet on Wednesday's mornings. Where are you and why wouldn't you be available? It seems to me, given the fact that the resolution itself allows

flexibility, if there are items before the committee, if there is a need to change the time, we have a subcommittee, which you will be able to participate in, that can change the time. Is it

because you don't want to scrutinize government regulations? I don't understand why the third party would want to filibuster itself and prevent itself from doing its job; probably because they'd

rather just get up and go off about nothing over a long period of time and not focus on the real business of this Legislature and the people of this province. What an absolute abrogation of their

responsibility as an opposition to do that.

How many times now have they voted against sitting at night? Every time we've asked for extra time to sit at night, they vote against it. Then they say we're

going on vacation, even though we're following the standing orders that they voted for. They agreed to these standing orders -- they sure did.

Back to the motion, Mr Speaker, because I know you require that we debate these things very carefully. Now here's an important committee for the opposition:

"The standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings." What does the standing committee on finance and

economic affairs do? They do pre-budget consultations. And, by the way, the Thursday time frame that's agreed to here has been the time frame over the nine years that I've been here.

What is motivating them? Do they really want to filibuster or prevent the finance and economic affairs committee from meeting? Do they not want the tax bill to

go to committee so they can explain why they voted to keep the private school tax credit, why they voted to keep cuts to corporate taxes? Is that why they're trying to block this committee from

meeting? Is that why we see the spectacle in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where the third party, which has been duly and properly recognized by the Speaker, chooses to filibuster itself?

This is unbelievable and not worthy of a respectable opposition that wants to make this House and our parliamentary institutions work.

We still have a couple of more items to deal with that are in the motion. The first one is: "The standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday

mornings." The members of the third party are talking about meeting on Fridays, which we're quite happy to accommodate at some point, but where are you on Thursday mornings? You don't want to meet

on Thursday mornings? What are you doing? The House is sitting those days. You should be here. Our members are here. The official opposition wants to meet. Again, the resolution is the same

resolution that you've voted for in the past on umpteen occasions, but consistency has never been your forte.

What does the standing committee on public accounts talk about? What are they trying to prevent happening at public accounts? What does public accounts deal

with? It deals with the accounts of the province. They don't want to meet. They want to stall, filibuster and delay. They're delaying their own question period today, which we're going to give

unanimous consent to give back, to help them out of this silliness where they're filibustering themselves. I could understand if you were filibustering the government -- that's a long and noble

parliamentary tradition -- but it's very rare that one sees the opposition, or the third party I should say, filibuster itself. The Speaker would understand the significance of filibuster. He led a

very historic filibuster, in proportion. But these folks over there would just as soon get up like -- all I can see is wind coming out of balloons when they speak. They say nothing, mean less, and

they're just having a cute little game instead of holding the government of the day to account.

I still have a couple more clauses of the motion to address. Here's one: "The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Thursday afternoons

following" -- make sure you understand that -- "following routine proceedings." The Legislative Assembly committee, what do they deal with? For instance, last year the standing committee on the

Legislative Assembly met to consider, by order of the previous government, reforms to help private members. Now, the NDP members of the day didn't participate through most of it. They came at the

beginning and then at the end. What was one of the items we dealt with in that report? Programming motions. We saw how they worked in many other jurisdictions so that we could prevent unnecessary

filibustering. Again, I respect the right of the opposition to filibuster the government, but when the NDP filibusters itself, it's hard to believe that the party of Tommy Douglas and many other

great Canadians would find themselves in that position of their own accord.

Hon Mr Bradley: Stephen Lewis used to give great speeches in this House.

Hon Mr Duncan: Yes. Stephen Lewis is an example of a great NDP leader who could hold this House in the palm of his hand while he spoke.

Hon Mr Bradley: I'm for a by-election. Bring Stephen back.

Hon Mr Duncan: Bob Rae in opposition was a remarkable politician, one who was worthy of the opposition. I can't recall, and we have been

looking over the past hour, if there's any example in Canadian history where the opposition has attempted to filibuster itself. Frankly, they haven't.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is some greater goal in getting rid of question period and not allowing committees to sit to hold the government to account.

Hon Mr Bradley: It has nothing to do with money.

Hon Mr Duncan: It has nothing to do with money, I'm sure. All it has to do with --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Duncan: I'm sure all it is is whether or not the standing committee on justice and social policy may meet on Monday and Tuesday

afternoons. Would we be prepared to meet and talk about other days and times? Of course we would. The subcommittees can do that. It says "may meet," not "shall meet." This, by the way, you've

agreed to on umpteen points in the past. But I understand your need to filibuster yourselves today, so we respect that. The standing committee --

Mr Baird: I think you're filibustering.

Hon Mr Duncan: No, I'm just participating in the debate. The opposition wanted this debate and I'm going to seek unanimous consent for

question period. I've got at least 15 of our ministers who want to stay and answer questions today, in spite of the NDP's desire to filibuster itself and prevent proper questions from being asked

and try to prevent the government from being held to account.

So in the short time I have left, I want to come back to the standing committee on estimates and whether or not they meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons.

If they don't meet, I'd like to know where the NDP members plan to be. We're going to be here ready to answer the questions. That's our job now. And frankly, that's a more difficult job. I forget

who it was who said, "It's easier to pitch than catch" --

Hon Mr Bradley: Larry Grossman.

Hon Mr Duncan: Larry Grossman. They have an important role to play. Their job is to hold the government to account. You will see, looking down

on the opposition, the figure of the hawk. The hawk is in this House to say to the opposition, "You must pursue them vigorously." This kind of tactic where they filibuster themselves is

incomprehensible on the part of the government. We prided ourselves in opposition on trying to be an effective opposition in the context of the rules that were present in the day.

I'm glad this filibuster on the part of the NDP against itself is coming to its timely end. It's an unfortunate waste of parliamentary time, but if they choose

to do it, there's nothing we