L069B - Mon 14 Dec 1998 / Lun 14 Déc 1998 1
LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
The House met at 1835.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to consider third reading of Bill 92 this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.
EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE
Mr Maves, on behalf of Mr Flaherty, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 92, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): As I had the opportunity to speak on second reading, I'd like to offer the remaining time I have to the member for Wellington.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It's a pleasure for me to speak tonight to Bill 92, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. This bill, in layman's terms, is intended to ensure that the volunteer firefighters in our communities in Ontario, if they are hurt, have the compensation they deserve and the return-to-work provisions they need.
I've been very pleased to hear the debate that transpired late this afternoon. I'm glad there's a spirit of non-partisan co-operation to solve this problem. I guess we'll debate it for about half an hour in total between second and third reading, and that's something very significant. It is important that we put aside partisan considerations.
The opposition parties have highlighted something and the parliamentary assistant has asked me to inform the House of something: It's important that we note that Bill 92 is intended to correct a drafting error and an oversight that took place under Bill 99. It was not brought to the attention of the government by anyone. Unfortunately it was an oversight, but we are intending tonight to correct that problem.
This issue was first brought to my attention by the town of Palmerston in a letter to me in June 1998. In it the town indicated to me that volunteer firefighters "put their lives on the line every time their pagers go off, day or night, seven days a week, and if one of them should be injured in performing this position, the policy of the WSIB should be to compensate these volunteers at the maximum amount that we, as their employer, pay on their behalf.
"Your assistance in amending the policy of the WSIB and ensuring that all volunteer firefighters, which perform such an important and vital duty to the taxpayers and inhabitants of their respective fire service area, be treated differently simply because of a difference in their respective chosen occupations? Kindly utilize your position and influence to ensure that the appropriate coverage of these integral and often overlooked volunteer firefighters organizations is looked after."
I have been pleased to bring forward a bill to correct this problem, Bill 75. As has been pointed out previously in the debate, it's similar to the bill the government is bringing forward; in fact, it's an identical bill.
I was pleased to hear the comments of the member for Algoma who spoke in support of the bill earlier. He was quite right to indicate that our volunteer firefighters truly do embody the true spirit of what it means to be a volunteer. What they do in our communities is very time-consuming, whether you talk about the training they have to undergo to do the job they do or the preparations they undertake to be ready to respond to an emergency when an emergency takes place.
We didn't talk about the danger aspect that many of these volunteers and their families routinely live with. It is very important that we note how important they are to our communities.
As the member for Algoma indicated, they are very often the first emergency response we have in many of our communities. Whether it be a car accident or a fire or another kind of accident, they're the first on the scene to help, and in many cases they risk their own lives to save countless other lives.
I want to thank many of my colleagues who have supported my Bill 75, and now Bill 92, in the Legislature: the member for Durham East who was very supportive, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, the member for Simcoe East, the member for Oakville South, the member for Norfolk, the member for Oxford who indeed served as a volunteer firefighter for some 25 years in his home community, the member for Dufferin-Peel, the member for Guelph, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the member for Perth. At the cabinet it received great support from the Minister of Health, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General.
All the members on our side were very supportive and, in particular, I wanted to thank those I worked with.
I want to say to all members of the House, thank you very much for your support to unanimously pass this bill this afternoon. I appreciate your efforts to help us bring this issue before the House.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to stand in my place tonight to speak to this bill. It gives me an opportunity to commend the member for Wellington for the good work he did in bringing this issue forward, basically to notify the government of the error in past legislation they brought forward.
It really shows the role of a legislator in this House. While legislation in the British parliamentary system, especially in this country, tends to be dominated by the executive branch, ie the cabinet and the government of the day, there certainly is room for private member initiatives.
This is one example where there was an omission in previous government legislation and the member brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill. He encapsulated this error so clearly that the government understood they should adopt this and bring it forward as a government bill, and that's why we have Bill 92 before us, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. It's really because of the good efforts by the member for Wellington. I commend the government also for picking this up from him. It was necessary that it be done.
I think most Ontarians who live in communities served by volunteer firefighters understand, as the member for Wellington stated earlier, the importance of volunteer firefighters across this province. Men and women who have their regular day-to-day jobs go into the training, join the local firefighting corps and risk their lives when they're called upon in their community to extinguish a fire. This happens right across this province.
We're talking about fire departments that don't necessarily have all the equipment that a professional fire department has. We're talking about people who don't have all the training a professional firefighter has. Basically, they're amateurs. They're there to help their community in a way that many of us are unable to help our community. Many of us do other types of volunteer work. We can do that without putting our lives at risk. Volunteer firefighters put their lives at risk every day when they're called to extinguish a fire. They do great work for the members of the community and I know are very much appreciated by the community.
In fact, in many of the smaller communities across rural Ontario, the volunteer fire department can be the nucleus of the community, a group that not only does the very obvious of carrying out fire inspections and fighting fires, but also, on a voluntary basis, helps the community in other ways - organizing the food bank, helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves - doing a lot of good work in the community because they are a team, they're organized and they're ready to serve.
It's fitting that we make sure those people are protected in their volunteer role, for putting their lives at risk and that if they are injured, they are covered by insurance so that in regard to any injury that comes to them the community in turn takes care of them and covers them. That's very important.
I'd again like to congratulate the member for Wellington for bringing this forward. When that happened, all of us got letters from volunteer fire departments right across the province asking us, in fact begging us, to make sure that we would support the bill. We all wanted to do that and were prepared to do that and stated so in this House.
When the government realized that there was so much support for this and that there had been an oversight in its previous legislation, it finally had the foresight to recognize that and to adopt this as a government bill.
But I think that somewhere on it should have the name Ted Arnott because he's the person who brought it forward and I congratulate him for that. Speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus, we will be supporting this piece of legislation.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to rise not only to speak to but also to acknowledge our caucus's support for Bill 92 and to offer the compliments that are due to the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, for his efforts in this regard.
Certainly, no one can question the contribution that volunteer firefighters make in large parts of our province. In some communities it's beyond just a service; it's a part of the social life, a part of the planning exercise in terms of informal discussions about the future of a community. We need to recognize that, and the government needs to recognize the importance of volunteer firefighters to public safety and to quality-of-life issues, particularly as they relate to the smaller communities where volunteer firefighters offer up their services.
But let's be clear about something. I don't think it's been entirely clear what is before us and, more importantly, why it's before us. This government brought forward Bill 99, an outright attack, a vicious, unprecedented attack on the rights of injured workers in this province and rushed the process through, and at the end of the day found out that in their Bill 99 this government had hurt volunteer firefighters.
They may say that it was a drafting error, that it was an oversight, and that may very well be, but the point is that because you rushed the process and yet again denied democracy an opportunity to run its course, this didn't get picked up. This is why when you have to make pieces of legislation that affect a lot of Ontarians in a serious way, you take the time to allow proper and full debate in this place, and proper and full consultation in the communities across Ontario that are affected.
We had commitments from the then Minister of Labour: "Yes, there will be province-wide public hearings on Bill 99. Don't worry, member for Hamilton Centre, we know how important this issue is to working people and injured workers. We know how many millions of people are affected by it. Don't worry, we're going to do that. You're always hollering that we don't care about democracy. We're going to take care of that. Don't worry about it."
What did we get? We got six days, and one of those days was split between two communities, in the dog days of summer. The intent was obvious. They wanted it to go through as quickly as possible and to go into as few communities as possible.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Oh, what a shame. You had to work like all the other workers in Ontario. Imagine having to work in the summertime.
Mr Christopherson: I hear the member for Scarborough East babbling over there on the other side of the House. Let me point out that on changes to the Employment Standards Act, where the government itself said these were minor housekeeping amendments, we were able to hold them to four weeks of province-wide public hearings because we made the case that, first of all, it wasn't what you said it was and, second, it was the Employment Standards Act.
This is a crucial piece of legislation affecting workers in the province of Ontario, particularly those who don't benefit from a collective agreement. Four weeks we got on something you called minor and housekeeping, and on a piece of legislation that you acknowledged will affect millions of workers and their families, six crummy days. You rammed it through and then you wonder why people like volunteer firefighters got sideswiped in this process of yours.
1850
Let's understand why this is here and let's more fully understand why it's going through here so quickly. It's going through quickly because as much as we would love to twist as much of the political benefit as we could out of pointing out how much this government hurt injured workers by ramming through Bill 99, it's more important to us to be part of fixing the problem and making sure that volunteer firefighters aren't left vulnerable. That's why this bill is getting the rare treatment of second and third reading on the same day.
But make no mistake: This is about correcting a problem that the Tories created and that was exacerbated by their denial to have full and proper province-wide public hearings, where there was every possibility this issue would have been picked up, would have been talked about, amendments would have been put forward, and it wouldn't have put volunteer firefighters in the line of danger economically, which the bill ultimately did. It all could have been avoided if they had just followed the usual democratic tradition and given people, even those who oppose them, which is most, the opportunity to be heard.
When we talk about what you've done in the process of ramming through Bill 99, because that's what this relates to - Bill 92 is an amendment to that - we've got to talk about what else happened in Bill 99. Why didn't this get picked up? Because Bill 99 was such a vicious attack on injured workers, hurt them on so many fronts, this just didn't stand out. That's unfortunate, but it didn't because there were other huge issues in there in addition, such as the fact that as a result of Bill 99, $15 billion is being stolen out of the pockets of injured workers and $6 billion of that is being given back as a direct financial gift to your corporate pals. That's what happened with Bill 99.
You eliminated the Occupational Disease Panel, a panel of international renown that was there to discover the causal links between exposure to chemicals and cancers and other illnesses that working people are forced to be exposed to and to suffer from. You killed it. It's gone now. We don't have it in this province. You eliminated the independence of WCAT. You cut by 50% the amount of money that's put into pensions for long-term injured workers. Those are the other things that were in Bill 99.
While I'm talking about your disrespect for workers, while you stand there and say, "We're doing this because we care about firefighters," acknowledging quite frankly, as a result of seeing the mistake, that you didn't care about firefighters or any other worker in the province the way you handled it and the content of Bill 99, 11 days ago there were guests here in the members' gallery to witness the raising of an issue that affected injured workers, in fact workers who had died, former Fibreglas Canada employees.
"Out of 221 employees 102 from that plant have lung cancer or lung-related problems. The death rate out of 221 employees is 24%. One out of every two employees of 221 have health issues they believe are occupational-disease related." This is happening in Sarnia. Eleven days ago, when this issue was raised by my leader Howard Hampton and me in this place, there were individuals who were here to witness this government's great feeling of warmth for working people as it relates to workers' compensation.
This is from Glenn Sonier and it's dated December 10. He goes on to say:
"On December 3, 1998, we sat in the gallery at Queen's Park to watch as this issue was to be raised.
"I was insulted to witness that members of the PC Party had the audacity to laugh when this issue was raised and heckle the member of Parliament when raising this issue on the floor.
"For it was only moments prior that everyone there took a moment of silence for the 14 students who were murdered in Montreal, and only moments before that that everyone took a great deal of pride in recognizing the accomplishments that were made on behalf of the volunteer firemen issue." That was when this was first introduced. This happened on the same day.
"The fact that all members of Parliament were made aware that we were present," meaning the injured workers, "made the insult a disgraceful performance of conduct.
"For concerned family members of deceased former employees to witness such a performance by government officials shows the true lack of respect this government has for working-class people."
That's how he feels about the respect you've shown for injured workers in this place.
Another letter, from Mrs Jean Simpson, December 9, addressed to the Premier:
"I am writing you in regard to the anguish and disrespect that I experienced on December 3, 1998, within our provincial Legislature.
"It has been less than one year since my husband, George H. Simpson, has passed on. George suffered from cancer for five and a half years, which I believe and have documentation to show that Fibreglas was a contributing factor....
"On December 3, I was overjoyed to find out that it would be discussed within the Legislature. However, the behaviour and attitude of certain members disgusted me. Brenda Elliott from Guelph, Janet Ecker from Durham West and the member for Grey-Owen Sound - to see such serious topics taken so lightheartedly, especially when it was announced that the widows and family members were present. It was all I could do from restraining myself to comment. Overall, there was utter disrespect for my husband and the remaining survivors from Fibreglas Sarnia.
"Answers which were provided by the Minister of Labour, as I can see, were useless. In my opinion, his response did not answer any of the questions. By containing myself, I felt that I showed more respect for the Legislature than they showed to us."
Last, from Sandy Laird:
"I recently accompanied my mother to Queen's Park in which an issue about working conditions at Fibreglas Sarnia was to be discussed." By the way, I point out that Sandy Laird is the daughter of Jean Simpson.
"I sat in the gallery with my mother in hopes to hear that the issues would be seriously addressed and that we may have some closure. I could not believe the reactions and comments from Brenda Elliott, Janet Ecker and" the member from "Grey."
I have since written to the Minister of Labour pointing out the actions of some of the members of his caucus during that question period. I've also pointed out what I believe are inaccuracies in his answers.
I've raised all of this in the context of Bill 92, not to take away at all from the importance of passing this to help volunteer firefighters, but to point out the fact that it's this government's absolute disrespect for workers, and in particular injured workers, that brought us to this day. If it weren't for that attitude, we wouldn't need to be passing Bill 92, which has attacked volunteer firefighters just as Bill 99 attacked every single worker, injured worker and their family members in the province of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Questions and comments? Further debate? If not, does the parliamentary assistant wish to wrap up?
Mr Maves: Thank you very much, Speaker. I will wrap up and just quickly point out that on Bill 99, which the member opposite has spent a lot of time talking about tonight, we had over 61 hours at committee and many more days of debate in this House. We travelled to seven cities for public hearings.
Back in 1994, the member opposite will remember, when he was in government, on Bill 65, the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups said to them, "We want to express to you our deepest concern and disappointment at the decision of this committee to hold hearings in only four cities in this province," and so on. My point is, when you're in government, you have as many hours of debate as you can in this House, you have as many hours in public committee hearings, and you listen and you make changes. You listen to the amendments brought forward by both members of the opposite parties, you bring in your own amendments, and sometimes things are missed.
The member also talked about some occupational diseases. He should know that for 1998 the government is spending more money than ever on occupational disease research, with $8 million being spent in 1998. I think that's a credit to this labour minister.
But this bill is really about volunteer firefighters and other volunteers who are now going to be properly covered under this act. It's a credit to them. I congratulate them for bringing it forward. I congratulate the concern from the municipalities for bringing it forward and the member for Wellington also for bringing it forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Maves has moved third reading of Bill 92. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1900
LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
Mr Harnick moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Today we proceed with the third reading of Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act. The purpose of Bill 68 is to reform the legal aid system to better meet the needs of Ontarians who require its services.
I'm pleased to note that this bill received widespread support when I introduced it to this House on October 8 of this year. Several leading members of the legal community expressed support for Bill 68, including representatives of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the family bar, the criminal bar and community legal aid clinics.
Newspapers in several communities also endorsed the proposed legislation. For example, an editorial in the Toronto Star said, "It's been a long time coming, but Ontario's new legislation to overhaul the legal aid system was well worth the wait."
These reforms are long overdue. The need to reform the legal aid system had become apparent by the time I was appointed Attorney General in June 1995. Between 1989 and 1994, government spending on legal aid had doubled, at the same time as Ontarians began to find it increasingly difficult to access legal aid services. It was obvious that the legal aid status quo was no longer working for the Ontarians who needed it most.
To turn around the situation, I established the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan in its 30-year history. The review was conducted by John McCamus, a law professor and one of Canada's foremost legal scholars. Professor McCamus headed a blue ribbon panel of experts. Their recommendations formed the blueprint for the new organization.
Following the release of the McCamus review, we consulted extensively with the public, community groups, consumers of legal aid, legal aid clinics and the legal community about their recommendations. Everyone agreed that after 30 years without significant change it was time to reinvent legal aid and that a new organization was the best way to create a legal aid plan better able to deliver the changes.
The new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, will improve Ontario's legal aid system in four key areas: service, accountability, governance and independence.
First, in the area of service, the proposed legislation would encourage Legal Aid Ontario to strike out in new directions and find bold, innovative ways to deliver services through new approaches such as pilot projects. These alternative forms of delivery would complement certificates provided to legal aid clients to hire lawyers and legal aid clinics, which would continue as the foundations for the delivery of services. The result would be a legal aid plan that is more adaptable, effective and accessible.
Second, Legal Aid Ontario would also be more open and accountable. Several measures would ensure this result, including more public representation on the board of directors, an annual audit by the Provincial Auditor, and requirements that budgets and business plans be submitted for the approval of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
Third, in the area of governance, the provisions we are proposing for Legal Aid Ontario would ensure that it would be managed in a modern, efficient manner. The new organization would be led by an expert board of 11 directors. The board would be chosen from community members, people who need legal aid, the business sector and the legal profession, from all parts of Ontario. Board members would have experience in Ontario's legal aid services, the law, the justice system, business and financial management and the needs of those requiring legal aid. A majority of directors would be non-lawyers.
Finally, in the area of independence, the proposed legislation would lay the groundwork for Legal Aid Ontario's independence from both government and the legal profession. Independence is necessary to ensure that the organization represents the public. Legal Aid Ontario should not be in a conflict-of-interest position with the government or with the legal profession.
In addition to the above, our reforms would put legal aid funding on solid ground. This government would provide Legal Aid Ontario with a stable, guaranteed budget for the first three years of the organization's operations. Provincial funding would be set at the same amount as this current year, approximately $230 million. This would shield the organization from immediate budgetary pressures and provide it with adequate funds to deliver high-quality services.
These reforms would lay the groundwork for increasing the quality and quantity of legal aid services. They would create a new legal aid system well suited to meet the needs of Ontarians into the new millennium.
Last month, the standing committee on administration of justice held public hearings on Bill 68 in Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Toronto. A long roster of people appeared before the committee to express support for the bill.
Professor McCamus said he was pleased with the way in which the legislation meets the goals he had identified in his review.
Harvey Strosberg, the treasurer of the law society, told the standing committee that the legislation would provide the legal aid system with the flexibility it needs to adapt to changing times.
Katherine McLeod, a vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and chair of its legal aid committee, expressed her members' satisfaction that legal aid certificates would remain as a mainstay of the system.
Lenny Abramowicz, chair of the Association of Community Legal Clinics in Ontario, said the reforms would protect legal aid clinics by creating a knowledgeable committee to recommend clinic policies and standards.
Susan Switch, past president of the Family Lawyers' Association, said the reforms would be very helpful in ensuring her association's members would be able to represent needy clients.
Notwithstanding these strong endorsements, several people proposed amendments to the bill that would further strengthen the Legal Aid Services Act. We are pleased to incorporate them into the proposed legislation.
One amendment clarifies that the Law Society of Upper Canada, not Legal Aid Ontario, would undertake quality assurance investigations of lawyers providing legal aid services. This amendment would ensure that the proposed legislation is consistent with the law society's responsibility for governing and regulating Ontario's lawyers in the public interest.
A second amendment would limit the term of a transitional board of directors to a maximum of one year. This would allow a smooth transition from the old system to the new while ensuring major long-term decisions would be made under the new system of governance.
A third amendment clarifies that non-lawyers would not be able to obtain certificates directly for providing legal services. Certificates for legal services would only be available for work done by members of the bar or people working under the supervision of members of the bar.
I would like to conclude with a few important thoughts. Legal aid reform is essential for providing vulnerable Ontarians with access to high-quality legal services. Bill 68 lays the groundwork to meet this need. It would create a new legal aid system well suited to meet the needs of Ontarians into the new millennium; it would ensure that high-quality legal aid services are delivered at a cost taxpayers can afford; it would provide the correct model of governance and give a greater role for the public in the management of legal aid services; and it would once again put Ontario at the forefront of the evolution of legal aid systems.
For those reasons, I invite all members of this House to join me in supporting this bill.
1910
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise with rather mixed feelings with respect to this legislation today. We have said on previous occasions that legal aid needed to be reformed for a whole host of reasons, but there's an initial quandary for us because this particular piece of legislation which seeks to reform legal aid in fact sets up a lifeless shell. We will see whether it will develop into what we hope will be, as the Attorney General said, a new evolution which will put Ontario at the forefront. It is certainly our fervent wish that legal aid meet the Attorney General's expectations. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case.
I say that because the history in Ontario since the Harris government took over with respect to legal aid has been far from shining. The history of legal aid in Ontario has been quite the opposite. It's been a case of bungling. It's been a case of lack of access to justice for ordinary people. It's been a case of a system that hasn't worked for the people who need it most, the people in need.
We have repeatedly brought this issue to the floor of this House. The Attorney General has seen that there was a problem and therefore he set up at our insistence not one but two commissions to look into legal aid.
The Attorney General quotes the McCamus report, and it really was a very thorough review of legal aid. It took legal aid from its inception and chronicled it through all of its re-enactments. It described in detail the crisis that we're now facing. I'd like to begin by reading from the McCamus report, which I think is quite instructive as to what it thinks ought to be the hallmark of a legal aid system. As we begin the debate here tonight, I hope that members will bear these particular points in mind.
The McCamus report states at chapter 4 the principles on which design of a legal system must be based:
"(1) The design of the legal aid system should be based on the assessment of the specific legal needs of low-income Ontarians.
"(2) The design of the legal aid system, while reflecting these needs, should also address the diversity of special needs presented by such groups as ethnic, racial, cultural and linguistic minorities, persons with disabilities; aboriginal communities; women; children; youth; and the elderly," thus the disadvantaged.
"(3) The legal aid system should enhance its central and local capacity to gather and assess information regarding client needs.
"(4) The legal aid system should more effectively rely upon the clinic system, plan administrators and other service providers as a means of systemically gathering information with respect to legal needs."
Those are very important principles to bear in mind because when we examine this legislation, it is not entirely clear that we meet the standards that Professor McCamus has set out for us in his report. I say that because we engaged in a fair number of hearings in this province with respect to legal aid. During the intersession we travelled and we heard here in Toronto and elsewhere what individuals and organizations had to say about this new entity.
It's obvious that something needed to be done, and we said that on this side of the House. But the Attorney General would have you believe that everybody agrees with the concept he has set up, that this legislation is perfect as it is, that this legislation in fact will do what Professor McCamus has indicated it would. Yet when you look at the number of people who came before us, the number of people who had comments on this legislation, who had looked at the legislation, had studied the legislation, they didn't wholeheartedly agree with what's before us today. I'd like to take you through some of the testimony that was brought before our committee with respect to legal aid because I think it's important.
One of the major concerns we heard in committee was that legal aid may not be as accessible as the Attorney General would have us believe. We heard many groups that came before us and said, "We're not sure if we're included," or: "We're not included. It's clear on the face of the legislation that we're not included."
There was a series of concerns around the funding of legal aid. The fact is that what we've seen in this province is a steady decline in terms of the number of certificates that have been issued, and certainly it has made it very difficult for individuals to be able to access the courts, so funding is a huge issue. There are concerns that even some of the most basic needs will not be met. For instance, the legislation clearly says they need to pay an application fee in order to be able get legal aid. Imagine. People who have no money have to come up with money to get lawyers in very difficult circumstances.
There were issues certainly around the appointment process. The board of this new legal aid entity will be largely selected by the Attorney General or by the law society in conjunction with the Attorney General, and there's an issue around composition, around appointments and so forth.
I'd like to spend a little time going through some of those concerns because we really heard from a wide variety of people who feel that the current legislation at the very least is short-sighted. Let me just say to you, Speaker, at the outset that if this were perfect legislation, why would we have 117 amendments that were brought to it?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): A hundred and seventeen?
Ms Castrilli: Yes, 117 amendments with respect to this particular legislation, and let me say that not all of them were opposition ones. Clearly the government realized that there were some deficiencies starting off.
Let me deal first with the issue of the application fee, because I think that's the first thing that rankles people. Legal aid was created in order to ensure that everybody had the same access to justice, that we didn't have one justice for the rich and another justice for the poor. It was supposed to be an equalizer, that if you had a legitimate grievance and you had no way to pursue that grievance, to insist on your rights in this society, we collectively would find a way to fund your ability to insist on your rights. That's what legal aid is at its centrality.
I ask you, what sense is there in insisting that those people - it could be us. It could be anybody by the grace of God. What sense does it make to insist on an application fee, yet another fee, another burden on the poor, on those who can least afford to pay? We brought this up in committee and said: "You know, you're talking about access. Why would you make that an initial barrier?" There were no satisfactory answers, and that section remains because clearly access is not a criterion for this legislation.
Many, many speakers talked to us about exclusion. I think if you had been there to hear some of the stories and to hear some of the concerns, you would have been swayed, and yet none of that is reflected in this particular legislation.
When we were in Thunder Bay, one of the first presentations that was made to us was from aboriginal women of Ontario who told us a story of finding it very difficult to obtain justice sometimes in a system that does not take into consideration their central equality, in trying to find justice in a culture which is different from what we experience every day. They looked to us for answers. They wanted to ensure that there was a system that allowed them to participate, allowed them access to justice. There were no answers that could be given to them, because of course this legislation is silent with respect to their particular needs.
Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto echoed some similar concerns. They were worried that there ought to be certainly a thrust on providing justice in alternative ways. In particular, they were worried about how their particular interests and concerns would be reflected in the governing body of Legal Aid Ontario.
They made a very simple suggestion. They said, "You know, I think it would be really useful, once you've appointed this board, to have an aboriginal committee to give them advice." They weren't looking for a seat on the board. They made a very simple request that because their culture is specific and their situation is specific, the board could benefit from the advice they could give on any given legal issue, a very simple request which has not found any place in this legislation.
1920
The Canadian environmental association and other environmentalists made some stirring pleas about the necessity of having environmental law as one of the areas that is covered under legal aid. I think their points are all the more poignant because we live in a society that is becoming much more aware of the importance of the environment and the importance of the effect of the environment on our health, on our children and on our future.
They made, again, a very simple suggestion. They said: "What we really would like you to do is just expand the definition of `clinic law' to include environmental law, because it ought not to be only the rich who can make a case in order to have their environmental law concerns addressed, but it is also the poor who breathe the same air but who often do not have access to lawyers in very difficult situations. If you have a low-income tenement, for instance, where there would be gas leaks, where there would be some very serious health hazards, the reality is that it would be next to impossible for those individuals to gain access to the law under the current legislation."
Their arguments were very compelling, and indeed a previous draft of the legislation included environmental law, and then suddenly it disappeared, with no explanation and no justification.
Some of the most compelling testimony was made by those who represent refugees in this country. In particular, I remember being struck the very first day by the presentation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Thunder Bay, reputed to be among the leading authorities, if there is such a thing, in the area of refugees in the north. They told us some horror stories of individuals who have had to deal with the system.
Bear in mind that individuals are required to be protected under our charter and under the United Nations convention, individuals who come to this country and are at a disadvantage because of the language, because of the system and trying to understand how it works. We had presentations from four such individuals in Thunder Bay, some of whom spoke English haltingly, others who spoke through a translator, who told of their nightmare of trying to get through a system they were ill equipped to deal with. They told us that there was only one lawyer in that whole area who was able to take any kind of refugee cases on legal aid. That's an appalling statement. That's an appalling acknowledgement of our deficiency in living up to our international obligations and to our own laws and covenants.
I commend the presentation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Thunder Bay because it's very instructive about our obligations at law. It's very easy to dismiss refugees and immigrants, but the reality is that they should have the full benefit of the law just like everyone else. They made it very clear that we are not living up to our obligations in this province and that you could do it very easily by simply requiring that Legal Aid Ontario have, as part of its mandate, immigration and refugee law. Again, the requests fell on deaf ears and not much was done in that regard.
Those same sentiments were echoed by other organizations - the Canadian Bar Association Ontario, the Canadian Council for Refugees - that all came and said that the reality was there was a very real need here that was not being met and is still not being met.
We had some very interesting discussions with the francophones of Ontario. Those of you who were there will recall that they were very concerned that, at the moment, it appears very few certificates are issued to francophone lawyers, and in fact there are many clinics even in designated areas that don't have any access to francophone lawyers at all. I will say this to the Attorney General: There was some acknowledgement of their concerns and the legislation was amended somewhat. I think they were looking for stronger language. I think they would have certainly appreciated a different system that was more inclusive, that allowed for their particular concerns to be addressed. It would not have been out of the question, for instance, to suggest to our Franco-Ontarians that we make it a blanket guarantee that in designated areas, at the very least, they ought to have access; and moreover, to make sure those problems don't occur, that there be an advisory body to assist in formulating policy.
These were vehicles that were advanced during the course of our discussions because we were trying to improve a system. This Legal Aid Ontario is a shell, as I have said, and how it will work will depend on the quality of the advice it gets and on the people who run it. We were trying over the course of hearings to provide advice with respect to how to make this entity stronger and function better.
We heard from women in this province in a very real way throughout the hearings, women who have been largely shunned. If you recall the McCamus report, it's obvious that family law is one of the areas that has suffered the most. Right now fully 66% of all the people in family court are unrepresented because certificates are not being issued in family court. We know statistically that the vast majority of those are women and children who are suffering. So the women of Ontario, through a number of organizations, came forward and told us that this could not go on, that it was absolutely critical, that if you were to have any kind of level playing field between men and women, particularly in a marital situation, in a marital breakup, in custody situations, it was imperative that women and children be given the same kind of access to justice as their wealthier spouses and fathers. They wanted some guarantee in the legislation that said that family law would be a priority, that we wouldn't forget the women and children of this province. Again, there was no action on the part of this government. This legislation has gone on with very little understanding or acknowledgement of their concerns.
We had a whole host of groups and individuals who have come forward and said: "This just doesn't quite wash. This isn't really a system that's accessible to everybody. It maintains the status quo; in fact, it makes the status quo worse because you have taken some groups out. You have not expanded the service that's required to those in need, and you won't even guarantee funding."
This is a real problem When you look at the history of legal aid, you have depleted the funding and you are not, through this legislation, addressing that in any substantive way. You're not even guaranteeing funding for clinics beyond the three years. What happens at the end of three years? Presumably one enters into a memorandum of understanding. But when we push to say, "If you can't get an agreement, will you at least put into this legislation that there be binding arbitration?" nobody listens. Basically you've got a system that continues the status quo, makes it that much worse and leaves the system at the mercy of the Attorney General and his government. That ought not to be the way that justice functions.
One of the large concerns that was voiced over and over again was that if this Legal Aid Ontario is to be different from what we have now, then it requires independence and it requires a composition that's truly reflective of Ontario. The legislation clearly says that the composition of the board will reflect, for instance, the geographic diversity of the province. The aboriginal people said to us, "Maybe that's not good enough." Maybe we should also be looking at the demographic composition of Ontario. We should be looking at who some of the users of the system are, to make sure they're reflected in the decisions that are made by this board that has so much impact on their lives. You have a board of 11 members, most of whom are appointed, either through the Attorney General or the Attorney General in conjunction with the law society. Everyone said: "Where's the fairness in this? Where's the independence of this?" If, ultimately, they all depend on the Attorney General, how can we be sure it will be an independent process that will be divorced from the political process? These are very serious questions, and they were brought forward by virtually everybody who came before us. They're very concerned that the process is open to manipulation.
1930
In particular, I must say that the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa made a presentation that talked about sausage factory justice, where you try to push everybody through the same little set of knives. It simply doesn't work. You need something that takes cognizance of the differences in people, the differences in their cases. They make a very good case that the Attorney General can manipulate the process so as to control the outcome. Think about that for a moment: the manipulation of the process to control the outcome through funding but, more importantly, through the appointment process.
They talk about how if you look at what's happening now with respect to the Harris agenda, which is an ideological agenda, it follows that you will have a system set up that will be ideological and may not be in the best interests of everybody in Ontario. I say that because it's important to bear in mind that whatever you do with Legal Aid Ontario, you have to be mindful of all of Ontario, not just the people you were elected to represent.
There are legitimate needs that have to be respected. When we look at the notion that you do not have a piece of legislation that's conclusive, that you do not have a board of directors that is mandated to be demographically diverse, when you don't have any guarantee of funding, you can understand why people are concerned about the outcome they're going to get in this sausage factory.
The biggest worry of all is the issue of funding. There's no question that the judicare model is expensive, but in a democratic society it's absolutely key that you have a system that equalizes people and that allows them access to the most fundamental institutions. Justice, I would argue, is one of those institutions that is fundamental. There are certain areas where it's important to focus on what we're trying to achieve.
If you look at this particular legislation, it's quite obvious that there are very limited guarantees with respect to funding, and virtually everybody who came before us found that inadequate. The notion that we would limit the clinic system to three years with virtually no guarantee of how we're going to proceed beyond that is not acceptable to people who believe the justice system ought to be based on accessibility and fairness.
I heard the Attorney General say some very beautiful words, but the reality is that when you look at the legislation, it is incapable of being interpreted in quite the way he deemed it. If he really meant it to be a system that was better, why would he introduce an application fee? If he really meant it to be better, why would he exclude certain categories from this legislation? If he really meant it to be better, why would he insist on maintaining some false categories? If he really meant it to be better, why wouldn't he listen to the pleas of women and children and aboriginals and so many others who came before us and made very logical suggestions? They weren't trying to hijack the system. They just said: "We really want it to work. We're with you on this. We're in partnership. We're together. Here are our suggestions." None of them were accepted.
We're left with some nagging doubts here. We understand that we need to move forward. We want a system that's different. We'd like to see it imbued with some life. As we look at this, we're not sure where we're going. We introduced many amendments in the course of the hearings, precisely to address the many concerns we had heard. We did that hoping the government would listen, but knowing that perhaps they could at least serve as a reminder to the board of Legal Aid Ontario that these were very legitimate concerns that were being voiced, and that the decisions they would make needed to have those considerations, that ultimately the people would hold them accountable for the kinds of issues that were brought forward if those issues were not dealt with.
It isn't an easy time for us in opposition, particularly with this piece of legislation, because we really do want to pass it, we really do want to have an institution that will better meet the needs of Ontarians. My own discomfort with the legislation after the hearings we went through is that I'm not sure we've entirely met that test.
I say to the Attorney General, look very carefully at what people have told you through those hearings. They are very diverse opinions that have been voiced, but they're constructive and they basically take up the same themes of accessibility, lack of resources and quality of service. I hope we're not moving towards an American-style system. I hope the judicare system will continue, because we heard over and over again that that's the best guarantee we have.
The Attorney General nods his head. I'm delighted to have his assurances. I wish he would give me assurances on the other points I've made. But I'm glad to hear you say that because -
Hon Mr Harnick: It's in the act.
Ms Castrilli: No, I beg to differ. The act puts forward a number of alternatives. Judicare is certainly one of them. We hope that will be the case, that you will deal with that issue, leave it as it is and allow individuals to deal with it.
I should say that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and The Islands.
In closing, we will be supporting this legislation, but with great caution. I spent a great deal of time today outlining the concerns so that the Attorney General can bear them in mind. Particularly I say to the Attorney General, as you now turn your mind to the appointments that need to be made to the board, I hope the real issues that have been brought up by real people will be reflected in the appointments you make. Again, I see the Attorney General nodding his head. I'm delighted that he has been here to listen to this debate and that he's going to take that into account. I think you will be doing a great service to the people of Ontario. If you don't, I think they will hold you accountable for it.
Mr Gerretsen: It's a pleasure to share some time with the member for Downsview on any issue relating to the Attorney General's department. She's extremely knowledgeable and has called the Attorney General to task on a number of issues over the course of this Parliament, and rightfully so. This Attorney General and this government have an awful lot to answer for when it comes to matters of justice in this province.
Before dealing with my comments on the bill, Mr Speaker, let me just congratulate you on the excellent way in which you've performed over the last hour. I cannot remember an hour in this House over the last year and a half when there was less heckling or people being disorderly. You've kept the order in this House in an absolutely exemplary fashion and you ought to be congratulated on that; maybe there are other things too.
Applause.
Mr Gerretsen: I think the people of Ontario should know that there was a round of applause from all the 50 or 60 members who are here tonight, concurring in those comments.
1940
However, we're dealing with a very important issue here tonight. Legal aid is an integral part of our society now. Let me read a couple of quotes that I used some time ago, which really show the importance of legal aid in our system. Back in 1966, a very prominent former Attorney General made the following statement.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Is that Charles Harnick?
Mr Gerretsen: No, it's Arthur Wishart, a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. He was a great Attorney General.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): What did he say?
Mr Gerretsen: What did he say about legal aid in this province? I'll tell you what he said: "What this bill does" - that was the initial legal aid bill that was introduced - "and it is not just a step forward, it is a long march forward; it is a great reach in this field - what it does is say that no person in this province of Ontario shall be denied their right of counsel, the right of legal aid by reason of his financial status." That was said in 1966, when the original legal aid plan came forward, some 32 years ago.
The dreams and attitudes of those people who were involved in the field of justice in Ontario, whether in private practice or through government work such as is being done at the Attorney General's office - within the legal community itself there was this great hope and aspiration that people from now on would get representation in courts whenever they were involved in them. That was really a step forward. I can remember in my days as a student when there were lawyers who from time to time would take legal aid purely on a pro bono basis. Many individuals came into our court system - criminal court, family court, juvenile court - who were totally unrepresented. Quite often people would be dealt with by the system without really realizing what was happening to them and without their families knowing exactly what was happening to them. I imagine the odd injustice was created and occurred during that period of time, as a result of the lack of the legal representation that people required.
So in 1966, when we truly had an enlightened Conservative government, this step was taken and legal aid was started in Ontario. This which always gives me reason to say to the people I've talked to over the last three years, if anybody thinks the current government we have is a Conservative government of the likes of Bill Davis or John Robarts, they've got another think coming, because it is anything but that. We have in Ontario a Reform government that basically wants to do away with as many public services as possible and save the taxpayer as much money as possible. But I don't think that's the kind of society we want for Ontario.
That was the start of the legal aid system. What has happened to that? Let's not talk about 30 years; let's just talk about the last five years or so. Of course, as my colleague from Downsview has already mentioned, a number of different studies were done. One of the last studies that was done was by the Law Society of Upper Canada itself. I've taken some excerpts from that study to give you some indication of what has happened to the legal aid system.
Hon Mr Harnick: Which study?
Mr Gerretsen: This is the study that was done by the Law Society of Upper Canada, I believe.
Hon Mr Harnick: I didn't know they did one.
Mr Gerretsen: You don't believe their study?
Hon Mr Harnick: No, I didn't know they did one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Through the Speaker, please.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm sure the member for Downsview will pass me a note telling me exactly the name of this study, but this is a study that was done recently. These are not figures that I've doctored myself. Do you recall the name of this particular study?
What the study clearly indicates is how legal aid has declined in Ontario. The number of certificates issued, and I'm sure the Attorney General's not going to argue with me on this, has declined from something like 230,000 -
Ms Castrilli: It's the McCamus report.
Mr Gerretsen: The McCamus report.
Hon Mr Harnick: That was not from the law society.
Mr Gerretsen: You're correct on that. I stand in error. It was not the law society; the government did the report. That makes it a very credible report.
Hon Mr Harnick: That's why we are making the changes we are making. I can see a lot of preparation went into this speech.
Mr Gerretsen: That's why. Now that the Attorney General has vouched for the credibility of the report that I'm about to quote, because it was a government report, let me say that on page 42, it clearly indicates that the number of certificates that have been issued in legal aid has declined from over 230,000 in 1992 to some 80,000 in 1996, a decline of almost two thirds - more than two thirds, actually.
I'm sure the Attorney General would say that too many people were receiving legal aid. When I speak to some of my colleagues who still practise law in the court system, and also individuals who come into my constituency office, they advise me that there are many situations now in both the family court area and in the criminal court area where people are no longer represented. That is a shame.
As a matter of fact, this report shows you that in the family law area, in which I have a particular interest - on page 47, it talks about the kind of services that are eligible for legal aid and not eligible for legal aid in the family law area. Let's just run through this list.
You're eligible for legal aid if there's a threat of a child being taken by the children's aid society - that's a very important matter; I don't think anybody's going to argue about that. If there's a threat of a parent kidnapping or moving a child so far away that the other parent loses contact - very important, no question about it. There are custody and access in cases of abuse; in situations where the parents are separating and the custody has not been established; to establish child support for a parent with no income; and to prevent access to the family home where abuse is alleged. Those are all eligible categories for legal aid.
When I look at the list of categories that are not eligible for legal aid within the family law area, it is a list that's twice as long. Let me just give you some of these categories. I ask you to try to envision situations where you know this has happened. See if you wouldn't say, "Yes, in those particular cases somebody should be entitled to a lawyer and legal aid should be given in situations where people can't afford to pay a lawyer." Not eligible for legal aid: variations to custody or support - I would suggest that a variation order in a custody matter and in a support matter can be very substantial. I think they ought to be eligible for legal aid in circumstances like that. An enforcement of a custody and support order - I would have thought that if you had a court order, you had to have the ability -
Hon Mr Harnick: You have no idea what you're talking about.
Mr Gerretsen: You don't know what I'm talking about? Well, sir, this is on page 47 of your own government report, that you gave me the title to a few minutes ago.
Hon Mr Harnick: Why don't you read the recommendations instead of misleading the people?
The Acting Speaker: Attorney General.
Mr Gerretsen: Let me just read you this whole thing.
"The following list illustrates first-priority cases which are eligible for legal aid, and all the rest of the cases are considered lower priorities which are no longer eligible for legal aid." This is out of your government report, sir.
Enforcement of a custody or support order is no longer eligible for legal aid. To establish voluntary care agreements with the children's aid society - I suppose an argument could be made that in some cases this may not be all that severe, particularly if there's a voluntary agreement, that perhaps legal aid shouldn't be required.
1950
Applications for access: Wow, that's a big one. I can well foresee a situation where custody may have been granted, maybe even in an ex parte matter where the other side wasn't there, and later on the other parent wants to have access. I guess you're not eligible for legal aid.
Out-of-country custody enforcement: I could see the merits of that, quite frankly.
Proposed custody changes where there are no other problems: Well, they're still custody changes.
Denial of access to children; change from supervised access to unsupervised access; and where property is the only issue.
I would suggest that there are some situations in that list I just read where people now are no longer eligible for legal aid where there could be some serious miscarriages of justice if legal aid is not available to an individual.
Hon Mr Harnick: Marion, explain to him.
Mr Gerretsen: "Explain to him?" Sir, I think I know what I'm talking about. If you can't explain it to the people of Ontario and if you can't explain your own reports to the people of Ontario, then I'm afraid this province is in deeper trouble than I thought we were.
What happens when we look in the area of criminal law? Exactly the same thing. I know there are some people out there who say, "People who are charged with a criminal offence shouldn't get legal aid." I've heard that argument from time to time. But it goes to the very foundation of our system or of our belief in a democratic society that everyone should have the right to be represented when they're being charged with a crime.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What should the budget be? How much money would you spend?
Mr Gerretsen: I don't know how much money I would spend, but certainly more than what we're currently spending. When I see the decline in the number of certificates in the criminal area from 115,000 in 1992-93 to 53,000 in 1996-97, almost two thirds of the amount, I say there is something wrong. I'm saying that we're going backwards. You can set up any guise you want of another corporate structure, "We're going to set up a corporate structure." This government is very much into setting up new corporations and arm's-length transactions and stuff like that. I get worried, and what I get worried about is this: The further away the government is from an organization like this, the more likely it is to cut off the funding. That is my main concern.
Hon Mr Harnick: There's guaranteed funding.
Mr Gerretsen: As the Attorney General, if you think there is a guarantee for funding, you tell that to the over 29% of people whose certificates have been refused, because there's another very important statistic.
Whenever I raise these issues, the Attorney General gets very excited. That must mean there's some truth in what I'm saying. I'm telling you there's a whole lot of truth in it, because I'm quoting directly from the government's own report. The Attorney General said this was the government's report.
Let's see what's happened from 1992-93 to 1996-97. It's interesting to see the percentage of applications refused. In 1992-93 about 14% of the people who applied were refused legal aid; by 1996-97 that had more than doubled, to 29%. Is he saying that all 29% of these people shouldn't be entitled to it because they had money in their pockets and were applying for legal aid? I don't know what he's saying, but he will have an opportunity later on to respond, and I hope he will respond. I certainly hope so, because he seems to take great issue with what I'm saying.
All I know is that 29% of all the legal aid applications that are made right now are being refused, when it used to be 14%. I don't know what the reason is, but maybe he can tell us. I certainly have some good ideas about what the reason is. The reason is because there isn't enough money in the legal aid system. It is as simple as that.
We have a choice as a society. We can say that legal aid is too expensive and we can't afford it as a society any more, and therefore we're going to drastically cut it. If you do that, then at least have the intellectual honesty to say that. What this government should say then is, "We don't value legal aid, the right to legal counsel that an individual has, as much as maybe the past government did." Have the intellectual honesty to say that.
He wanted me to go to the summary. I will go to the summary of that report. It makes about 12 different recommendations. It's interesting. The first point it makes is this, and this is the government's report, according to the Attorney General:
"It is inappropriate to attribute the present inadequate levels of legal aid service to mismanagement and lack of flexibility or conflict of interest on the part of the legal aid plan or the Law Society of Upper Canada."
I find that interesting. As a lawyer I have heard that, particularly when the plan was in serious trouble about four or five years ago. It was mismanagement, it was this, it was that, it was a whole bunch of things. But this summary clearly states in the first point it raises that it's not appropriate to attribute the present inadequate levels of legal aid service to mismanagement.
"(2) The law society reaffirms that access to justice is essential in a democratic system and that the protection of individual rights is a crucial purpose of the legal aid plan."
I guess the bottom line is this: If too many people get turned down for legal aid, it just means that access to justice, an essential part of our democratic system, is no longer available or that it is less available than it used to be.
"(3) The law society rejects the notion that people can face the legal system without legal representation. Self-representation is no representation, and it is an unacceptable retreat from the fundamental democratic values."
Very well said. It basically says that if you go to court and you can't afford to pay for a lawyer but you still have to proceed with your case, you are being denied one of your democratic rights. That's what we've adopted in this province. If this government wants to step aside from that, let it be intellectually honest and say so. But of course it never says so; it couches it in other terminology and sets up another corporation to take it even further away from the government than it currently is.
It goes on to say, "The law society does not agree that the purpose of legal aid is primarily to ensure the smooth functioning of the court system," which is true. Legal aid is there to make sure that the people have representation, which is not quite the same thing as saying that the court system should function smoothly. We all hope it does. Those of us who have been involved in the system for years have been saying there is something dramatically wrong. All those who are lawyers can relate to the fact that there are courts throughout this province, on a day-to-day basis, that start off each morning with 20, 30 or 40 lawyers there milling around, waiting for their case to be called, waiting for an adjournment to be given or a remand to be made etc. I have often thought over the last 30 years or so that there's got to be a better system. This is an awful lot of high-priced help standing around, usually for most of the morning. I don't know what the answer is. Certainly I think -
2000
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the member, but his points are important and I think there should be a quorum here to hear them.
The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Gerretsen: I have now been informed by the member for Downsview that this may indeed be the Law Society of Upper Canada's report that was issued in May 1997.
Hon Mr Harnick: Do you know which one you are reading? You are making a speech and you are quoting. We all want to know what you are quoting.
Mr Gerretsen: No, you were telling me, Attorney General, which one I was reading from.
Hon Mr Harnick: Have you ever read a bill since you've been here?
The Acting Speaker: Order, Attorney General.
Mr Gerretsen: Are you disagreeing, Attorney General, with any of the factual information I've given here so far?
Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know what you're reading from and neither do you.
The Acting Speaker: Attorney General, come to order.
Mr Gerretsen: I will be pleased once my time is over to send the Attorney General a copy of this so that maybe he can take it home tonight and peruse it and come back with some information on this matter tomorrow.
I'm getting close to the end, because I want to give the third party some time. I'm sure they will have something to say about this as well. They may be more complimentary to the government, because there is something between those two parties right now so that they try to bolster each other up. It may very well be that the third party will congratulate the government on the proper funding of legal aid. We in this party certainly don't think it's proper right now. All you have to do is look at the -
Hon Mr Harnick: Spend, spend, spend. You are going to raise taxes and increase spending.
Mr Gerretsen: The Attorney General says, "Spin, spin, spin." Speaker, do you know of any government in your recent memory that has been spinning its line more than this government? Do you know of any other government, Speaker? I know of no other government.
This government even tried to spin the $600,000 paid out in the McLean-Thompson affair as something that was reached by way of consensus in the Board of Internal Economy. I can tell you, I take quite an affront to that. Having been on that board for almost two years, I can assure you that was not reached by consensus; it was forced through by the four Conservative members on the board. There being only two opposition members present on the board, we didn't stand a chance.
Applause.
Mr Gerretsen: That round of applause, by the way, was for another Speaker taking over. I want to congratulate your predecessor, Mr Speaker, for doing an excellent job.
Let me just get to recommendation 9. It says, "Full funding for the legal aid plan should be committed on a multi-year cycle, containing an element of flexibility to deal with contingencies."
Hon Mr Harnick: Yes, we are doing that exactly the way McCamus said to do it.
Mr Gerretsen: He's saying, "We're doing that." That is kind of like comparing this glass and a five-gallon jug. You could argue that all the money in this glass is enough for the legal aid system and somebody else could argue, "No, we need a five-gallon jug." When somebody says, "We are committing full funding to this," I suppose it's all a question of semantics.
I always rely on looking at the facts in terms of what's happening to the system. Go into a courtroom or a courthouse in the province and you will find today that there are many more people unrepresented than used to be the case five or six years ago. The number of certificates has dropped by two thirds, and that is undeniable. It is from the law society's or the government's own report.
I am very pleased to have invoked the kind of discussion and debate that has taken place here this evening. I would hope that some other members will have some comments as well on this issue.
Let me remind you of what a former Attorney General said on August 17, 1995. This gentlemen was Attorney General during the Peterson government days. It's interesting that what he had to say about legal aid was very much the same -
Ms Lankin: Was it 1985?
Mr Gerretsen: No. He said this in 1995, but he was a former Attorney General. I'm sure he said this in 1985 as well. What's interesting about this is that his comments were almost the same as those of Arthur Wishart back in 1966. Ian Scott said, "Legal aid is a fundamental bulwark of our way of life, a critically important part of our social fabric and an essential element of the social justice which holds us together as a society despite wide divergence in economic well-being."
I know that the Attorney General who is part of the present government is well intentioned. I have a great respect for this Attorney General, and I know that over the last three and a half years he must have been very frustrated from time to time when he couldn't necessarily get his way with cabinet. I'm quite sure he was out there fighting to get more money into the legal aid system, but unfortunately he has not succeeded and now the situation is going to be offloaded. Sir, I hold you in the same respect now as I did then, although I'm sure the legal community wishes you had been more successful in your efforts to get the legal aid plan properly funded.
I will leave it at that. I see the Attorney General getting redder and redder in the face and I certainly would not want to be the cause of any discomfiture or that he wouldn't feel comfortable this evening, so I will just leave it at that. But I'm sure the member for St Catharines will have something to add in the final two minutes on this debate on legal aid.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My concern was that apparently this bill does in the law association which deals with environmental matters. CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, has been done in by this bill. Not only has the government gotten rid of intervener funding, which of course allowed both sides to - a well-financed, giant developer, knowing all the levers of power in government, would come in to deal with an issue, and on the other side you had just the poor residents around there who were trying to fight this major development which would be disruptive environmentally, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association was quite helpful to them.
They have expressed their concerns. They say that poor people are often exposed to multiple sources of toxic pollution and they have a great concern about this. I don't blame them for having this concern. I know they can be seen as, let's say, a thorn in the side of the government from time to time, because they are representing people sometimes against government-initiated or government-applauded projects.
I see this as one more nail in the coffin of the environment in this province, when you have in this bill provisions which are going to be detrimental to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which has fought so hard for the kind of funding that's necessary to make fairness part of the judicial process as it relates to environmental matters.
That would be my contribution to this. I know my colleagues have covered the other areas rather substantially, but I can well recall the excellent word done by CELA and I'm very disappointed that the government apparently wants to do them in with this particular bill.
2010
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'll be sharing my time with as many members of the caucus who want to share my time.
Ms Lankin: You're such a giving fellow.
Mr Kormos: Well, far be it from me to hoard this hour and keep it all to myself. It is 8:10 on a Monday night.
Look, at the end of the day, there was very little, if any, outright criticism of the structure being proposed here for the administration of legal aid.
Mr Gerretsen: That's what I said too.
Mr Kormos: Mr Gerretsen says, "That's what I said," and then he went on to talk about his profound respect for the Attorney General. I was with Mr Gerretsen until he reached that observation. He and I were ad idem, as they say, in accord, and then Mr Gerretsen started talking about his respect for the Attorney General and how much he liked him and what a nice guy he thought he was etc, as the member for Niagara Falls might say. At that point, we reached a fork in the road, so to speak - that is, Mr Gerretsen and I did - and I found myself travelling a somewhat different path than he did.
During the course of the committee hearings, we heard from a reasonable cross-section of the community: the legal community; the legal clinic community, an incredibly important role; in some respects from consumers, though not as much as I would have liked to. One of the problems with the committee hearings was that they weren't well publicized, especially the out-of-town ones, and those were few and far between.
One of the things that was acknowledged, notwithstanding the general acceptance of the proposed structure, was section 14, which speaks of the duty of this corporation to provide legal aid services, "having regard to" - and the final regard it must have is regard to the corporation's financial resources. I suppose that's trite, but at the end of the day we know that it's the government of the day, whether it's this government or the subsequent government, whoever's going to be elected in 1999, that's going to be effectively determining the status and the effectiveness of legal aid. What they won't do through the front door, they can very effectively do through the back door simply by defunding.
One of the interesting things was that the bill contains a guarantee of two years of stable funding for refugee law, but then goes on to omit any reference to refugee law whatsoever. In fact, when you take a look at the comments made by Mr Tascona on second reading, where there was some criticism of the province's obligation to fund refugee and immigration law, and when you take a look at the Hansards of the committee hearings and see the approach of the parliamentary assistant during the committee hearings, along with some of the government committee members, to the issue of refugee law in an effort - look, I have no quarrel with criticizing the federal government. Good, let's criticize the federal government.
Have they defunded, have they downloaded a huge number of areas down to the province? Of course they have. We know that. It's no credit to them that they've done exactly that. I suppose it's awful hard for any of us to hear this government complaining about downloading after we've seen what they've done to our communities. Down in Niagara region, we have new property taxes to the tune of $18 million and fewer services - get this, please - fewer services but new property taxes to the tune of $18 million, a direct result of this government's downloading policies.
I understand what Ottawa has done to Queen's Park, to the province of Ontario, by way of downloading, but I find it hard to listen to this government's criticism of that without any acknowledgement on their part that they've imparted at least as much pain, probably more, on municipalities and communities across the province by virtue of this provincial government's downloading exercise.
Obviously, funding of the legal aid system is critical. It should be the focal point of any discussion. The government has made it quite clear that it doesn't intend to fund refugee or immigration law after the first two years. It's getting out of the business. It has offered up some sort of argument that the federal government should accept responsibility for that because, after all, as the government members said on the committee, refugee and immigration law is federal legislation. Well, so is the Criminal Code, so is the Young Offenders Act, so is the Divorce Act and so are any number of federal statutes that people or groups or corporations are prosecuted under. It clearly isn't much of an argument.
Several people, including some with great expertise, were specifically questioned about how valid it is to distinguish refugee and immigration law from other areas of law, be they with sources in the federal Parliament or in provincial legislatures, and those witnesses indicated no, there was no valid distinction to be made, that this is an artificial and very political distinction.
Again, the province could and probably should have its dispute with the federal government about adequate funding by way of transfer payments, but in the interim, the defunding of refugee and immigration law - and let's cut to the chase; we're primarily talking about refugee law here - is going to have tragic consequences for huge numbers of people.
The fact is that the process a refugee claimant finds himself confronted with is an incredibly complex one, and if that person's going to have a snowball's chance in hell of anything akin to fairness, it requires that they have adequate representation. Without that representation, they run the risk of becoming victims once again of a government-controlled, government-dominated process that could have as one of the consequences their unjust return to their country of origin and what could well be a return to torture, death or unjust imprisonment, not only for that individual but for members of their family, for their children, for their parents, for siblings, even for friends.
I don't think there's a fair-minded Ontarian who wouldn't want to see this province, as part of its legal aid system, fulfilling that role of advocacy on behalf of refugee claimants. I think it's a telling thing that this government wants to play politics. The government members sometimes talk - even the Attorney General was talking about playing politics. This government's very much playing politics with the refugee issue and its position on the refusal to make a commitment to the provision of services for refugee claimants by way of legal representation.
Are there refugee claimants who can afford their own counsel? Not the majority - I wouldn't hesitate to say that - but are there refugee claimants who can afford it? I dare say there probably are, but let's be clear: the vast majority - some of them may have been reasonably affluent in their countries of origin, but when they come here as refugees, as often as not they come here with literally nothing more than the clothes on their back and a small satchel of personal possessions, certainly not with any great wealth.
Is it all about funding? I think very much it is. Speaker, I'm going to warn you, I'm going to tell you right now - it's as if I could predict the future - that somebody may jump and suggest on a point of order that I'm drifting off topic. I can safely predict that that may well happen. Now for the life of me, I can't understand that sort of presumptuousness. Sometimes people just aren't patient enough to hear where you're going to and want to interrupt you halfway. I'd just caution you, if you stand up and tell me I'm off topic, you're probably right, but a little bit of patience and we'll bring this back home to where we started and I'll demonstrate to you why it would be premature to rise on that sort of point of order. If people want to use time in that regard, if they want to use valuable legislative time in that regard, I suppose it's their prerogative.
2020
I've got a letter dated December 3 from a woman in St Catharines. She wrote a letter to Premier Mike Harris, and she writes most respectfully:
"Dear Premier Harris,
"Recently there has been a blitz of million-dollar ads on TV paid for by me, one of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario."
The author of this letter from St Catharines says she has also received some glossy pamphlets asking for her views on Harris's welfare reform and the health care system. She writes, "The TV ad which particularly provokes me is the one which compares the restructuring of our health care system to removing a Band-Aid."
Don't forget, this is a woman from St Catharines. Folks in St Catharines, like people across Niagara region, know that this government has targeted Hotel Dieu Hospital from day one, an incredibly important part of the whole health care system in Niagara, Hotel Dieu Hospital, with its historical and high-level commitment to oncology, dialysis and palliative care. So this woman knows whereof she speaks, and she very politely, in a most respectful letter to the Premier, speaks of this government's "restructuring" of our health care system, but in fact she knows that what that restructuring means is shutting down Hotel Dieu and other hospitals like it.
Mr Bradley: Destruction.
Mr Kormos: Destruction of our health care system.
There's a method here, let's make no mistake about it. I'm going to tell you what I've been telling people down in Niagara. Once this government has finished with health care, once they've shut down hospitals, defunded health care - and that's not to say that there won't be quality health care available to Ontarians. It'll be there - only if people can afford to pay for it, only if their wallets or their pocketbooks are thick enough or their bank accounts are big enough. But that is an aside.
The author of this letter writes to the Premier that she found particularly offensive the TV ad that compares the restructuring of our health care system - the destructuring - to removing a Band-Aid. She writes:
"I have had to accompany two people to the emergency wards of our local hospitals in the past six months. The emergency wards were understaffed and there was only one doctor on duty. This is an example of how your new health care system is working." I would say "isn't" working.
"People have died because of our present inadequate health care system. How many more have to die?" the author of this letter from St Catharines writes.
"I keep hearing you have directed millions of dollars into the home care system in Ontario. My husband requires home care services and experiences difficulties and frustration because of your cuts and your new system. Caring, dedicated individuals are leaving the services and moving to other types of jobs."
That's what's happening in Niagara region. That's what's happening in this woman's life, in the life of her husband and in the life of her family. Members like the member from High Park know full well what I speak of. He's listening with great attentiveness because people may not have felt as comfortable addressing him as this resident of St Catharines would me. I share this with him now and I ask him as a backbencher with this government to take that message to his Premier, to take this message to his leader, to use his persuasiveness, if there is any.
Interruption.
Ms Lankin: That's harassment.
Mr Kormos: Ms Lankin makes reference to harassment. You can harass all you want as long as the Board of Internal Economy is as welcoming to me as it is to your Tory backbencher. You can harass all you want, pal.
I say to the member from High Park, take this message to your Premier. I say to you here and now that if you're really concerned about the people of this province and the health care system that you and your government are destroying, you will listen to this author and thousands like her who say "no thank you" to you and the likes of you who want to shut down her hospitals, like Hotel Dieu. As I would say that to the member from High Park, I would say it to every other member of the Conservative caucus.
Is this bothering you, Speaker? I only just met the gentleman.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): In this House we only have one person standing and that person has the floor. In this case it's the member for Welland-Thorold, and I'd welcome him to continue.
Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I've been in Toronto often enough to be familiar with that type of conduct. You just ignore it, you don't get excited about it. If you ignore them and don't respond to them, as often as not they go away.
Ms Lankin: We've been trying that with these Tories for three years.
Mr Kormos: The folks in High Park have a plan. Let me tell you, they're looking to clear the way.
The author of this letter - you know, the smugness of the Conservatives here at Queen's Park, the sanctimoniousness, the Pharisaic attitude. Note that I'm not calling them hypocrites because that would be out of order, but I will call them Pharisaic. I spent some time looking for that particular adjective, that particular label. I couldn't find one any more appropriate than "Pharisaic."
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): What do you call $50 billion in debt? What do you call that?
Mr Kormos: By God, there's a Tory backbencher who talks about spending taxpayers' dollars, which is what the purpose of the letter was. I wasn't going to mention it. Mr Gerretsen brought up the $600,000 payoff, the hush money out of the Board of Internal Economy, the one that the four Tories rammed through the board notwithstanding the persistent opposition of the two members of the opposition, Mr Gerretsen and very much Mrs Boyd, notwithstanding that they stood their ground and said: "Look, you've got legal opinions that say you're not liable. Why would you be using taxpayers' money to effect this settlement? Why?" The questions are still being asked. Why would four Tory members of the Board of Internal Economy squander $600,000 worth of taxpayers' money?
Why, as the author of this letter writes, one Sheila M., would this government spend almost $50 million on highly partisan advertising? That's the thrust of her letter.
You see, one of the issues around legal aid is going to be the adequacy of funding, because this government and subsequent governments, whichever government is elected in 1999, is going to have complete control over the funding and the level of funding of legal aid. What this government or any subsequent government daren't do through the front door they can very effectively do through the back door.
Sheila M. writes that caring, dedicated individuals are leaving services like home care and moving to other types of jobs. She writes, "Your government," the Harris government, the Tory government here at Queen's Park, "has drastically reduced social assistance rates."
I'll just add as a footnote that shortly after reducing social assistance rates they increased MPPs' salaries by at least 10% across the board. Sheila M. writes: "Your government has drastically reduced social assistance rates. Welfare reform has not worked." It hasn't worked. "More people, including children, are homeless in the province of Ontario than ever before. Men, women and children are going hungry. Do you not see the connection between an increase in poverty and your cuts, Mr Harris?"
Mr Harris doesn't see that relationship. Sheila M. certainly does. Sheila M. finds the cuts and the consequences all that much more tragic in the context of a government that has spent now almost $50 million on glossy, high-priced television, radio, newspaper, magazine and door-to-door pamphlet type of advertising.
Sheila M. writes:
"Our children are being infected by your Common Sense Revolution. Children with special needs are suffering because they are not receiving the special services they require both in school and at home.
"You've asked for my ideas and opinions. First, the rich are getting richer," they're getting wealthier, "and the poor are getting more and more destitute. Second," she notes, and she says this very boldly, "wealthy people should be paying more taxes, not less."
She knows that Mike Harris's tax scheme, his so-called 30% tax break, doesn't mean much to the unemployed or to the average working person, or even to the middle-income person. But once you start making the big bucks, once you start getting close to the triple zeros, after the first three, once you start getting into the $80,000, $90,000, $100,000, $110,000, $120,000 tax bracket, then Mike Harris's cuts put a whole lot of cash in your pocket at the expense and to the detriment of a lot of hard-working middle-class people, working poor and unemployed.
Sheila M. knows that. She says, "The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting more and more destitute."
2030
Second, she says, "Wealthy people should be paying more taxes, not less."
This government believes in giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. This government gives the biggest tax breaks to the people who have enjoyed the most prosperity in our society, to the detriment of and at the expense of kids and working parents and parents who very much want to be working but who can't in this era of higher and higher levels of unemployment.
Third, "revenues from casinos and other forms of gambling" - and she knows that these are significant - "should be funnelled into our health and social programs."
Fourth, she says to Mr Harris, "Simply stop spending our money on TV ads and pamphlets promoting the Progressive Conservative government."
She closes by saying:
"I'd appreciate a response to my letter, in particular to how you are going to rectify the problems in health, education and social welfare, where revenue from gambling is directed, why the wealthy cannot pay increased taxes and when you will stop spending taxpayers' money on ads."
She very respectfully closes, "Yours truly, Sheila," and uses her last name. I refer to her as Sheila M.
Here's a woman who knows what this government is about. This government is all about giving tax breaks to the richest, downloading on to municipalities - $18 million in new taxes alone for the Niagara region because of this government's downloading - shutting down hospitals like Hotel Dieu, shutting down schools like Merritton High School.
Do you realize how expensive it is to shut down Merritton High School? I know this government had to steal the money from education to pay off its tax break to its rich friends. But do you realize what the cost is going to be to the community of Merritton? It's a community with a rich history, a community with a great tradition. Oh, I understand, I know, it got merged into the city of St Catharines. How long has Merritton been a part of St Catharines? A good chunk of years now. I can identify with it because it's so much like Crowland. You'll know what I'm talking about. You know my affinity for Crowland. I was born there; I grew up there. Notwithstanding that Crowland has been a part of the city of Welland for 40 years, now, Crowland still very much has its own identity, its own heart, its own soul, its own pulse. So does Merritton. But when this government starts to steal schools from municipalities like Merritton, it starts to eat away at the heart and soul of that unique community with a strong history and a rich heritage and a rich set of traditions.
Sheila M. knows what it's about.
Mr Bradley: The Tories say it's the board's fault.
Mr Kormos: Mr Bradley makes an acute comment and an astute observation. Mr Bradley notes that this government blames the board of education. I happen to know that board of education; I happen to know its chair. I happen to know that this was not an easy decision for them to make. I also happen to know that that board of education and its chair have articulated clearly that it's this government's funding formula that necessitated, that dictated, the closure of Merritton High School. The board was left with few choices. The board got marching orders from Queen's Park. One way or another, they were marching orders from Queen's Park. I know this government is obsessed with centralization of power; it's obsessed with an undemocratic approach to decision-making. I know that. A lot of people down in Merritton know it too. They knew it before, and those who didn't know it before are starting to understand it now.
Sheila M. knows this government's policies: big tax breaks for the richest, downloading on to the weakest and the poorest.
I've got senior citizens down in Niagara who have worked all their lives, who saved as much money as they could, as much money as you can when you're raising three, four or five kids, who have modest pensions and maybe even a bit of income from some savings and who thought they were going to do OK until this government's downloading and the huge increase in property taxes, accompanied by this government's imposition of yet another market value assessment. We've got old folks down there, seniors, retirees, who are in fear of being forced out of their homes, losing their homes.
I raised this with a group a couple of weeks ago, and somebody in the group said, "Well, what about these reverse mortgages?" Do you know what that means? That means you're gambling in a way that you would at a crap table in some American casino. Do you realize what position that forces you into? You know what? When you go into a reverse mortgage and you spend that money, there's no equity left in the house.
Do you know what's bizarre about this? How many generations have people struggled and worked and built a health care system so that folks could live longer? Now we're starting to see a generation of seniors who are hoping they don't live too long. It's pretty tragic, isn't it? They're hoping they don't live too long. They're hoping that somehow the timing of their lives will be concurrent with the money supply.
So here we are with this government's legal aid plan.
Mr Tilson: You've come back to it.
Mr Kormos: Of course I came back to it; I told you I was going to. I as much as promised you I'd come back to it. I didn't say, "I promise," but I indicated that I was going to digress for a few minutes and take a little route and then get back to the bill, and I did, and you know exactly what I was talking about. You'd have to have been a fool not to have understood it. I say that to the member.
Mr Gerretsen: It's possible.
Mr Kormos: Others are speculating now. I don't want to join in that speculation.
As I say, it's all about adequacy of funding.
One of the recurring issues before the committee was that legislatively the bill contains, as I said, the two-year guarantee of stable funding for refugee law. But we know that at the end of that two years refugee law is gone, finished, out of the picture. It didn't warrant mention or consideration in any other part of the bill, least of all in the earlier parts of the bill where they talk about the overall mandate of the legal aid system. It suffered much the same fate as has environmental law.
You will know that earlier today my colleague, the very capable, very able Marilyn Churley from Riverdale, addressed the concerns of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the omission of environmental law from the definition of clinic law.
Mr Bradley: Has anybody been writing letters to the Minister of the Environment?
Mr Kormos: Mr Bradley, again being something of a provocateur, has suggested that there may well be a paper trail of government backbenchers, or at least one of them, trying to suppress prosecutions under the Environmental Protection Act here in the province of Ontario. I suspect the member for St Catharines has no personal knowledge of this but that he availed himself of the reporting of that incident and the outcry it generated among environmental activists. I suspect he read about that in the St Catharines Standard and in the Globe and Mail.
2040
Mr Bradley: Well, I read it in the Globe and Mail.
Mr Kormos: The member pretend he doesn't read the - let me put it this way: He doesn't buy the St Catharines Standard. That's not to say he doesn't read it; I know for a fact that he reads it. He has a system. The member for St Catharines, Jim Bradley, has a system whereby he has access to the Standard without ever putting a penny into the coffers of Conrad Black, because he figures, I bet - I don't know; I don't want to speak for him, and he might want to respond - that Conrad Black has already been the beneficiary of enough largesse from this government and doesn't need any contributions from Jim Bradley.
I'm very much inclined to agree. I take the same sort of attitude with respect to - let me tell you what I do with the Welland Tribune. I like the people who work for the Tribune, a good group of people. They're not very well paid and they're beat up on and pushed around by management. They are. Talk to some of them privately. Denistoun Variety accommodates me. Sang Ahn is the owner. He and his wife run Denistoun Variety, and their son Jay helps out. Jay's 11 or 12 years old now. Sang knows I come in the morning, when I'm in town, to pick up the Toronto papers, and he lets me read the Tribune. If I fold it carefully and don't crease it, I can put it back - because I don't want to pay for it either. Do you know all three daily newspapers in Niagara are owned by Conrad Black? Do you know what that does to any sense of independence of the press? Conrad Black, I'm told by some journalists, is not the easiest person to work for if you're a journalist with any integrity.
Earlier, Ms Churley, the member for Riverdale, had raised the concerns of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the fact that the Canadian Environmental Law Association has been the leading voice for citizen access to the legal system, as a tool for protecting the environment since its founding back in 1970. It has a history of almost three decades now. CELA was among those that specifically proposed that environmental law be included in the criteria for the allocation of legal aid. It was also - this is what's most interesting - understood by many that the original draft proposal, the white paper, had a reference to environmental law in it but that this got deleted in time for Bill 68 as it was presented for first reading.
Environmental law, especially environmental law from the perspective that the Canadian Environmental Law Association has taken, is very much an issue that's interrelated with poverty, with low-income people, the individuals in low-income communities and neighbourhoods. Low-income neighbourhoods suffer disproportionately higher impacts from environmental problems. That makes it all the more imperative that environmental law, especially the kind of environmental law that the Canadian Environmental Law Association has practised for the last 28 years, be included in the definition of "legal aid services." They weren't. There were specifically omitted.
We know that poor people, lower-income people, are often exposed to multiple sources of toxic pollution. Low-income communities are more likely to have poor air quality. Poor people are more likely to work in polluting industries and to be exposed to higher levels of industrial pollutants. They're also more likely to work as migrant or occasional workers in agriculture and be occupationally exposed to pesticides. They often reside in inner-city neighbourhoods of mixed industrial and residential housing and with poorer housing stock. Urban poor kids, children, are more likely, because they're poor, to be exposed to lead paint, car emissions and local industrial emissions. Those are facts - not conjecture, facts.
Rural poor people are more likely to reside near power stations and landfill sites - fact, not speculation. Poor communities in rural Ontario, including aboriginal communities, have experienced serious water contamination problems, including contamination from mercury and radioactive mining waste.
Mr Bradley: How does that stack up against Bridle Path road?
Mr Kormos: Mr Bradley mentions Bridle Path road. I've heard of Bridle Path road; I've never had occasion to visit there. I don't feel apologetic about it. I just don't have any friends or acquaintances on -
Interjection: It's just Bridle Path.
Mr Kormos: Oh, I'm sorry. It's "the" Bridle Path, because of course when you're on the Bridle Path, to demean it with "road" or "avenue" or "lane" or "court" - if you live on the Bridle Path, you just say, "the Bridle Path, Canada," postal code deleted, because: "We're on the Bridle Path. We won't sully it with `street' or `avenue' or `road' or `lane.'"
Mr Bradley: The Tories do well on that street.
Mr Kormos: Mr Bradley has been around. He indicates that Tories do well on the Bridle Path. I would have no doubt that he's right. I would think the Tories do well on the Bridle Path.
Ms Lankin: Is it "the Beach" or "the Beaches"?
Mr Kormos: Ms Lankin lives in the Beaches. She doesn't live on the Bridle Path.
All kidding aside, the point is well made. The people who live on the Bridle Path don't suffer the environmental hazards that poor families and their kids do in urban and rural Ontario. That's not to say that they haven't been impacted by environmental issues, but they're far less likely to need the assistance of legal advocacy than are poor people. The omission of environmental law from consideration or a listing of the areas of law that legal aid was intended to provide is a serious and dramatic one, and confirms, illustrates, reinforces this government's absolute abandonment of concern about environmental law.
Let me raise another issue. This one I have to confess I have mixed feelings about. I'm speaking particularly of section 22. I asked people appearing, especially - there was a committee of legal aid directors who appeared before the committee. I have regard for most of the legal aid directors I know. Certainly down in Niagara south Jim Railton has done an outstanding job. I should mention as well that I have the highest regard for lawyers, practitioners, who practise with legal aid certificates. Let me tell you, these lawyers, be they in family law or criminal law, the two most frequented areas of issuing legal aid certificates, are out there in the trenches on a daily basis without a whole lot of resources available to them.
2050
Mr Gerretsen: He's getting mad. Don't say that.
Mr Kormos: Well, they are. They're out there with heavier caseloads than I suppose anybody should have, but they've got them anyway, working, as I say, with scarce resources, and dare I say winging it? No, I'm not going to suggest that they wing it, but they're dealing with cases without the luxury of huge batteries of staff and investigators and forensic people and so on. They're doing a good job. I have the highest regard for those people, people like Mark Evans down in Welland, who I can identify as somebody who is held in extremely high regard as a criminal defence lawyer.
I want to point out section 22. Knowing legal aid directors, I also know a lot of the lay staff in a lot of the legal aid offices. I expressed some concern, and I express it again tonight, that this bill continues the requirement that a legal aid director be a lawyer. I put this to the panel of legal aid directors who appeared in front of the committee. I think all of them were lawyers; of course they were, because they were all legal aid directors. They assured me that was the best way to go, that legal aid directors should be lawyers.
It could well be that in the course of appointing and hiring legal aid directors, the majority, or even all of them, are lawyers, but to make it a requirement in the bill seems to me to unfairly exclude -
Mr Gerretsen: The law society is going to get after you.
Mr Kormos: Well, God bless - an individual who may have a great deal of experience in the area of legal aid, who may have demonstrated a great deal of proficiency in administration of the office - it's one of the important skills - and who over the course of their experience may have acquired a vast array of skills similar to what a lawyer would have. For instance, we know there will be lawyers available for legal opinions from the head office if there's a dicey or touchy or sensitive legal issue to be considered which that legal aid director, a non-lawyer, may want to consider.
But let's also consider this: There are all sorts of lawyers currently acting as legal aid directors. Some have civil experience, some have primarily solicitors' practices behind them, some have had criminal work. Most criminal lawyers will never become legal aid directors because a huge or substantial part of their practice comes from legal aid certificates. Therefore, they wouldn't want to be a legal aid director because that would preclude them from doing that kind of work; similarly, family litigation people.
I think the argument, and it wasn't very well developed in the committee - I respect what the legal aid directors who were there had to say. They clearly were advocates of people being lawyers, but I'm a little troubled by it because I think it excludes unfairly a consideration of people, people I know, for instance, in legal aid offices who, while not lawyers, in my view would be very effective and capable and skilled and talented legal aid directors. So I was troubled by the maintenance in section 22 of the requirement that a legal aid director be a lawyer before she or he is considered for the job, for the task.
I don't think that sends out a healthy message to hard-working staff in any number of legal aid offices who over the course of years have demonstrated their capacity, and a capacity which I say includes the capacity to be a legal aid director.
I've mentioned, as have others, that the act provides for guaranteed stable funding for refugee law for a period of two years. It provides for guaranteed funding for clinic law for a period of three years.
Then we were called upon to rely merely on the Attorney General's commitment. The Attorney General said, "Trust me." That's one of the world's three greatest lies: "The cheque is in the mail," "Your money cheerfully refunded," and "Hi, I'm the Attorney General of Ontario and I'm here to help you." The Attorney General said, "Trust me."
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: My colleague is thinking of another lie. Perhaps when it's her turn to speak, she can deliver her own punchline.
The Attorney General said, "Count on me." He may not even be the Attorney General six months down the road. If this government were really serious about stable funding for the overall system for a period of three years - like it says, "Trust me," - it would have included it in the legislation. That would have been a simple proposition. It's already been noted - I thought my whip was waving to me. In fact he was saying, "Five minutes."
Ms Lankin: Four.
Mr Kormos: Four, Ms Lankin corrects him, as she's wont to do. She doesn't hesitate to correct the whip.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Or anybody else.
Mr Kormos: Or anybody else.
It's already been noted that there's no minimum standard as to what constitutes an adequate level of legal aid services. There is no recourse for the legal aid corporation, this arm's-length corporation, there's no process whereby it can go to arbitration, let's say, to determine a level of funding that would permit the corporation to provide a basic level of legal aid services, that would allow it to fulfill its mandate.
As I say, it's here. The structure has been approved by virtually everybody who appeared before the committee and by so many others I've talked to. People across the province, be they lawyers, be they people familiar with legal aid, have said, "Good." The prospect of an arm's-length corporation, a board, the structure - some concerns about the nature of the appointment process - people have said: "Yes, good. Good for everybody involved."
But at the end of the day, without a means whereby that corporation can ensure that it has an adequate level of funding, there's nothing there. It's all paper; none of it interpreted or translated into practice. It's hard for me to be particularly enthusiastic about this when this bill creates a structure whereby this or any subsequent government can effectively cut legal aid off at the knees, shut it down in a New York minute simply by saying: "No, you won't get the funds that you had last year. You'll be starved to a not-so-slow death."
So my lack of enthusiasm isn't about the structure as it's laid out in the bill; it's about this government's total refusal to build in any sort of structure or process to guarantee minimum levels of funding, and this government's abandonment and abdication of its responsibility not only to say, "Good for us, we're going to create a legal aid system that works and that's independent," but also, "We're going to accept our responsibility and call upon subsequent governments to fulfill their responsibility to adequately fund it."
I tell you, give it a year or two down the road and you'll see the damage wreaked by a government that doesn't want to acknowledge its financial responsibilities. It's going to have a corporate board of directors out there doing bake sales and raffles, trying to raise money, instead of the government accepting its responsibility to adequately fund a system that could be starved to death readily by this or any subsequent government. That's where the Attorney General and I part ways on this issue in a significant way and where I'm simply not prepared to accept his say-so. If he meant it, it would be a part of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 26, 1998, I am now required to put the question.
Mr Gerretsen: Shame. We should have some more debate on this, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Harnick has moved third reading of Bill 81. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The motion is carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
2100
FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to continue my remarks on this most interesting piece of legislation, because what it does, obviously, is allow the opportunity to talk about gas pricing and gas taxes and the way in which they are distributed.
I should note that a lot of people out there think there are some specially designated funds within the government, that somehow there's money that comes forward from various sources that goes into a special category of funding. That of course is not true. What the people of Ontario should know is that there's only one big what's called the consolidated revenue fund where all the money goes.
For instance, they'll phone and say, "What do they do with all that gambling money they make from the casinos in Niagara Falls and Windsor?" I say, "It doesn't go into some special fund, it goes into the consolidated revenue fund." So when they say, "We need more casinos, these charity casinos, so we can give money to the charities," that of course is balderdash, as you would know, Mr Speaker, because there isn't a special fund it goes into; it goes into that huge consolidated revenue fund.
We talked a bit the last day about gas taxes and gas prices. At that time, gasoline in St Catharines was at 44.9 cents per litre, and all of a sudden for no particular reason - I guess the gas-busters on the Tory side were asleep at the switch - the gas price went up to about 51 cents a litre. That's about 30 cents a gallon that it went up. I thought every time there was apprehension about gas prices going up, they sent out four or five Tory backbenchers who had nothing else to do, gave them a camera and they were supposed to scare the oil barons into keeping the price down.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): That'll do it.
Mr Bradley: Obviously it hasn't done it in this particular case, just as they snicker when they hear the Premier huff and puff and talk tough to the oil companies and then approach them like a pussycat when it comes down to the crunch. He doesn't call them on the carpet. For instance, I heard that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had them together in his office and it was a fine party. There was no reprimanding of the oil companies. It was a very pleasant chat, I'm told.
We know this government has two things it can do with the price of gasoline. Number one, it could pass a predatory pricing law which would prohibit the major oil companies from selling at one price to the independent operators and another price to their own dealers; make it a level playing field, in other words. Second, if they wanted to be quite radical, they could do what Bill Davis did in September 1975 when he passed an act which froze the price of gasoline, the price of fuel oil in this province.
This government isn't going to do either, because as Bill Saunderson, formerly the Minister of Tourism, said, "This government has no intention of interfering in gas pricing in this province." So we need not look to Mike Harris, with all his huffing and puffing, or his ministers to do anything about this. Just so we know that when they start barking at the federal government about this, the best they can do is to produce in the Legislature a resolution blaming some other level of government and not taking any action themselves.
There's another issue we deal with when we deal with fuel, and that is what's called the Reid vapour pressure. That talks about the amount of low-level smog which is emitted by gasoline. This happens in the summer. Here's what happens: You get into the months of June, July and August, when it's very hot, and there's a natural evaporation of the gas from one's gas tank, even when it isn't going. When they're putting gasoline from the pump into the car or taking it from the truck and into the tanks at the gas station, there's a certain amount of evaporation that takes place. This can be controlled by looking at the makeup of the gasoline. When you say to the oil companies, "We have to bring that Reid vapour pressure down," what they say is, "We can't do that because we'd have to close all the refineries and go out of business."
Something interesting happened in New Brunswick. There was a company - I won't mention it - that was producing gasoline for the New England states, where they have much tougher environmental requirements than in the province of New Brunswick, and producing gas for New Brunswick. Interestingly enough, in the same operation the same company is producing one set of gasoline for the US and one for Canada, and the cleaner one is for the US. Why did they do that? They did it because it was required by the New England states so that they have less of this low-level smog being produced; in other words, a lower Reid vapour pressure. That's what this province could do if it really wanted to.
Then we heard about sulphur in gas. This province was dragging its feet. The federal government finally moved to bring down over a period of five years the level of sulphur in gasoline in this country. The Ontario government didn't know what to do, because they really didn't want this to happen. They were prepared to bow to the pressure of the oil barons who said, "This will cost jobs and we'll have to close down our plants," and so on, when in fact all they have to do is adjust the refineries to solve that problem.
I am wondering, and I have to lead into this subject, whether as a result of the passage of this bill, we're going to see another orgy of government advertising. As I calculate it now, we're up over the $50-million mark in what I call political partisan advertising. We're not talking about putting ads in the newspapers saying there's a position open in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We're not talking about advertising tenders, where companies can apply for a particular job and bid on it. We're not talking about basic information such as, "You should get your flu shot in the fall because the flu season is coming," or about the dangers of German measles for pregnant women. We're not talking about any straight information; we're talking about blatantly political advertising.
Even my Conservative friends in St Catharines are now embarrassed when they see how much money is being spent on advertising. I saw that my friend the member for Lincoln was in our local newspaper the other day denouncing the settlement for Mr McLean. He said he disagreed with it. The reason I get to that is he talked about how he hated that kind of thing when he used to be the head of the Taxpayers Coalition. I suspect my friend from Lincoln and others in the Taxpayers Coalition must be horrified at the fact that this government is spending now over $50 million on what I call partisan advertising, simply there to enhance the position of this government.
The government is spending much more than that on other kinds of advertising, some of which is legitimate. But even when they do it legitimately, when you can say that it fits the category of legitimate, they still have to make it political. For instance, they're advertising in the United States now. They have these ads on television in the US, and you can guess whose picture is in the middle of the advertising: none other than the member for North Bay, the Premier himself, Premier Harris.
You would say: "If this is down in Kentucky or if it's in California, why worry about that? It's aimed at a US audience." Well, lo and behold, you find out that a lot of the advertising is taking place in border states, where on cable television or accessing it simply through television aerials or satellite television, you can pick up these ads from the United States - New York state, Ohio, Michigan, I think maybe Minnesota as well. So they're really being beamed back here. What do the ads say? What a great place Ontario is. As I say, I don't mind that when you're doing it way down in the US, where you're not trying to influence Canadians, but even when they're doing something I would agree with, trying to get business here and trying to get tourists here, they still have to have a political angle.
2110
I'm told - you may or may not know this, Mr Speaker - that they have Mike Murphy on a retainer now. Mike Murphy is the US Republican Party consultant who worked on the senatorial campaign in Virginia of Oliver North of Irangate-Contra fame and on that of Senator Jesse Helms, who is certainly no friend of Canada when it comes to our dealing with Cuba. He has worked on both those campaigns and he knows how to advertise. The Conservative Party has him working here in Ontario now. Somebody said he's in a hotel room with a huge retainer. I don't know that to be true, I haven't seen him in a hotel room, but it sounds plausible. The member from Muskoka smiles, so he must know I'm on to something. There must be something happening there.
Anyway, all this advertising is going on. People say: "Is it because of this gas tax we have tonight? They may be lowering it or something, making some changes that reduce revenue. They're trying to tie it in. What does advertising have to do with this bill?" They're afraid that this bill will pass and there will be more advertising.
This is something you'd find interesting, Mr Speaker: They have this so-called Drive Clean plan. They've been developing this, or talking about it at least, for some three and a half years. They don't even have the plan in effect, but I'll tell you what is in effect: their advertising on television, this saturation bombing with advertising on the airwaves, the electronic media of course being the television sets.
They are usually very clever. They put them in places where they think people are going to be watching, such as newscasts. You see, if you put them around newscasts or Mike Duffy's program at noon hour on Sunday, they think, "People who are interested in news really won't know whether this is part of the newscast or it's a commercial or what it is." They're on the radio, and when you open up the newspaper - I saw the Globe and Mail the other day and there was a full pull-out section paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, nothing but blatant political advertising.
If the Conservative Party wants to do this with the funds that are overflowing from their coffers, I guess I can't object to that. They will spend money on that; I can assure you they will. If they spent their own money, even though part of that is subsidized through tax credits, that's available to everybody. But what they're doing is using taxpayers' dollars to advertise to make the government look good. The same isn't available to the opposition. For instance, I don't mind if government members put out their householders or reports to their constituents, because everybody in the Legislature has that opportunity, or the Tory caucus bureau puts out press releases and so on. I understand that. That's part of the process.
What I object to, because it's not only a waste of taxpayers' money but an unfair advantage that the government uses, is the government using over $50 million to talk about what a great job they say they're doing in health care, in education, in municipal affairs. You name it and they're there to take credit for it. I've always said of this government, they're first in line to take the credit and last in line to take the responsibility. When there's good news out there, you'll find a contingent of ministers surrounding the Premier. When there's bad news, they're hiding in the background. That's what this government is very good at.
I look at this and say we're talking about a revenue bill, a bill that deals with gasoline taxes. It's more of a technical nature. But it reminds me that this government is moving massively ahead on increasing gambling opportunities in this province, despite an assurance that it wouldn't. You know the fight that we in the opposition and a lot of people in the public have put up against the so-called charity casinos, the new Mike Harris gambling halls that were to be placed in 44 communities in Ontario to operate up to seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, or perhaps a couple of days less than that. The pressure was so great, especially on the video lottery terminals, that the government started to do some polling, found out it was in trouble, started to listen to even their own backbenchers who were uneasy about this and said, "We'd better step back." So the minister got up to take the heat off. He said, "No more charity casinos - well, just four - unless there's a municipal vote which says they're OK and they meet all these conditions."
We have several charity casinos going up now, casinos by the back door. They're putting hundreds and soon thousands of slot machines into racetracks across this province. In effect the racetracks are not horse racing tracks primarily by the time they get through; they're casinos. Of course, they're preying upon the most vulnerable people in our society, people who are addicted to gambling - and that's a growing number that grows each week - and vulnerable people who are low-income perhaps and see no other chance of getting ahead except this one chance, because they don't have good connections for the jobs. They don't know the presidents of the corporations and they may not have had an opportunity, for money purposes, to access education, because they know how high the tuition is in this province today. In desperation they try to win it all in one toss of the dice, which will be soon, or in one operation of the slot machines.
Make no mistake about it. Anybody who thought this government had abandoned its quest is wrong. What I resent are the agents of the government heading out to various communities trying to talk them into the casinos, places like Brantford and Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay and so on. What they'll do as well - this is a trick that Professor Kindt, a law and commerce professor who visited here last week or the week before from the University of Illinois, talked about. He looks strictly at the economic impact of casinos and he thinks the charity casinos are a loser. If you put one in a community, for instance, where you're not drawing tourists - Niagara Falls draws tourists; Windsor draws tourists from abroad - essentially you're just taking discretionary dollars and spending them on gambling instead of other services and goods which may in fact produce more jobs.
They try to portray that as being beneficial. Then they send their agents around to communities and call all the charity groups together and say, "Look at this pot of money we have to give you now, and it's only because we've got these charity casinos." That's baloney. You and I know that. The government could, if it wished, take the money it already receives from the three major casinos we have, Casino Rama, the casino in Windsor and the casino in Niagara Falls, the rake-off the government has there, and apply that to funding for the charities, and they'd have just as much money. But as Professor Kindt said, this is a trick the pro-gambling people use all over. They try to get the charitable groups out there who are desperate for money. Because the casinos are competing with them, they try to get them onside. They try to go to municipalities desperate for funds because of the impact of downloading, like the $18 million it's costing the people of Niagara for that. They prey on those people.
Yet right around the racetracks now, my good friend from Virgil knows - I know in his heart of hearts he probably agrees with me on these gambling initiatives. I won't ask him to say it tonight, but I have the feeling that he does. He must wonder why the government would go through the back door and flood the racetracks now with all these slot machines and take away the emphasis on the racing itself, on looking after the horses.
2120
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): The only thing I bet on are Leafs and Sabres games.
Mr Bradley: That's probably acceptable. I know it's only 25 cents in that particular case.
I want to say as well, about this tax we're talking about, I think we should apply the money to keeping the Hotel Dieu Hospital open. In St Catharines now they've got a fight going on among some people. Most people of goodwill say: "The Shaver Hospital provides excellent chronic and rehabilitative care. We've got the General Hospital, which provides emergency and acute care in an excellent fashion. We've got the Hotel Dieu Hospital, also emergency and acute care in an outstanding fashion. All good hospitals. Why come in and disrupt, why come in and bar the doors to the Hotel Dieu? Why close the windows, put the boots to the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph who have operated for years?" If they wish to bring more services to St Catharines, we're pleased to see them. They can be accommodated in any one of our hospitals, and we will need them because we have in the Niagara region, on average, the oldest population in the province of Ontario, and perhaps in Canada, on a per capita basis.
In schools - it has been mentioned earlier this evening, and you may have this happening in your constituency, Mr Speaker - historic Merritton High School is being closed as a result of a decision of the board of education. It's not that the board of education wanted to. They didn't go to a meeting saying, "Oh boy, let's close Merritton High School." They're faced with a new funding formula, with a new formula for space requirements. In effect, a symbolic gun is being put to their heads and they have to close secondary and elementary schools. Merritton High School is a casualty of that, and sad it is.
I'm sure that if the board of education had the opportunity to do so, they would keep that school and other schools open, because all of us recognize that they're not simply for educating students in the daytime. They're for night school, though this government has cut back on extended school, adult education. But they're for that. They're a community centre. The Cubs, the Scouts, the Brownies, the Guides, community groups meet in there. It's used for putting on plays, for sports activities. A school is part of the community, but this government seems determined to close them.
You know, you can't say easily, "I agree with the government's policies but I don't agree with closing Hotel Dieu Hospital or Merritton High School," or this place or that place, because it's as a result of those policies that those institutions are being closed.
In addition to that, I want to say that we have in this province a good opportunity to make some changes in terms of health care, to place additional emphasis on home care, on long-term care, but I think we have to remember that we will also need, as the population ages, more acute care, because senior citizens, advanced in age, tend to need that kind of acute care more often than younger people in our society. They are more susceptible to disease. Their bodies being more advanced in age are often hit with acute attacks of some kind or other and they require the emergency services, and certainly we need those in our city of St Catharines.
I always hope that the government, in its new speech from the throne, if indeed it's going to have one in its new session, if indeed it's going to have one, will change its mode of operation. The tactic so far, the style, has been that of, many have said, a schoolyard bully. It's not me saying this; I've heard others say they're like a schoolyard bully out there, or bulldozer operators. They just bulldoze ahead and the heck with the consequences.
I think good government comes about as a result of consulting extensively, analyzing problems, gathering all of the important information and proceeding with a solution that is largely based on a consensus in the province. Then you find the people who are on the front lines to deliver those changes are going to be energetic and enthusiastic and assistive in terms of their support for those changes. But when you try to impose them almost as a punishment on those individuals, then you're going to lower morale to the lowest it's been in some time. You see this in terms of health care workers and you see this in terms of those in the field of education.
Lastly, I again make a plea for the preservation of agricultural land. Since I know gas is used by farm equipment, I guess that's how I can tie it in. We have some significant tracks of excellent agricultural land in the Niagara Peninsula that I see under duress, under huge pressure for development. If members of this assembly have a vision of the Niagara Peninsula simply being suburban Toronto, then that's what we'll have: development from downtown Toronto right to Niagara Falls and Fort Erie.
While we want good development, particularly in our downtown areas, redevelopment, and within our urban boundaries, what we don't want to see is the kind of urban sprawl which is now becoming an issue south of the border in the United States. Once you plow over the grapes in Tom Froese's farm, then you don't have them any more. Once you put something there, he doesn't have that any more. Once you get rid of the cherry trees, the peach trees, the apple trees, the apricot trees, the pears, the plums and the vegetables that are grown in the area, once they're gone, once that land has gone to development and you've got your umpteenth shopping centre, with the video store, the convenience store and the doughnut shop in it, once those are all over the peninsula, it loses its attractiveness and the quality of life begins to deteriorate.
I hope that won't be so. I hope this government will recognize what is happening and take the appropriate action before it is too late.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Speaker: I know the member for Kitchener-Wilmot went to look for enough members to have a quorum, but I don't think he has been able to find them. Could you ascertain whether or not there's a quorum?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Would you see if there's a quorum present, please.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have the chance to respond and comment on the presentation made by the member for St Catharines. In his usual very valid fashion, the member for St Catharines tied a number of different threads together in speaking to the fuel and gas tax bill.
I know one of the points he talked about this evening that he wants to continue to remind members of the House of, particularly the government side from time to time, is the inappropriate use of government advertising. I just thought that he would be interested in comments I have received from a number of constituents, these ones from parents and students at various schools. This one comes from Winona Public School. Among the many points they make to Mr Johnson, the Minister of Education, they say:
"Don't spend my money on advertisements to tell me the crisis is someone else's fault. Fix the problem. Send your education bureaucrats out to talk to the boards to discover the real program needs."
This one is by a woman called Nicole Miller, who goes on to say, "Your many, expensive ads are outrageous," and what you need instead is an education funding formula.
I know the member for St Catharines would agree with me that this is typical of what this government does. They want to paint over the problems or portray the problems that exist in a very different way, as they have been doing by spending millions of dollars on advertising as opposed to dealing with the real problems in a real way that resolves the issues for people, in this case education, or whether it's concerns around the environment that the member for St Catharines was also speaking about in a very capable fashion, as he's wont to do in that area, as a former environment minister. I was particularly interested in the comments he made about the jurisdiction out east that was able, when pressed, to come up with two different fuels. The question he was putting was, why couldn't that be done for the Canadian jurisdiction, since they could do it for the American exports to the south?
2130
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I listened with great interest to the speech by the member for St Catharines. While it was an entertaining speech as usual, I had difficulty finding a lot of detail about Bill 74. So I thought I would provide him with a question so he might have something to respond to. I wonder if he might make a comment about the section in the bill that provides more flexibility to distributors of special products. Some of these people have approached the government and indicated that they would like more flexibility to develop special products and collect the tax on them. I understand that under the legislation that presently exists, they're having difficulty not only marketing the product but collecting the tax on it. It certainly seems that a person with his interest in the environment would want to encourage those people to develop special products that might replace or augment sources of energy from the petroleum industry. I'll leave that for the member to respond to.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I didn't expect to have an opportunity to comment on the speech of the member for St Catharines. It's always a puzzle to me how to tell him that he ranges so far that it's hard for all of us to keep up. I was listening in the lobby and I heard him mention at least three or four different issues in the five minutes I was there. So I would just like to say, about the member's efforts in this place, that he is always interesting, he always has something to edify us. He tells us with every word how passionately he feels about his riding of St Catharines; he brings it into the conversation at every turn. That, of course, is his job as a representative of his constituents. I would like to congratulate the member on managing to carry on such a wide-ranging discourse over 20 minutes without really focusing too much on the extensive content of Bill 74.
One issue I expected to hear him talk about was the history of how this bill has kicked around and some of the concerns that have been raised about gas prices and that sort of thing over a long period of time. The member is one of the longest-standing members of the Legislature and knows that the topic of gas taxes is always of passionate interest to constituents all over the province. I congratulate the member on his discussion tonight.
Mr Froese: I wish to comment on the comments that the member for St Catharines has made. I think he was talking about Bill 74, but I wasn't sure. I think he was talking about this bill right here, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act.
I guess we're supposed to make comments about the comments he made. I appreciate his mentioning my name and mentioning the great town of Virgil. He and I think the same way as far as agriculture in the Niagara Peninsula is concerned. We're very strong on ensuring that farmers stay on the farm. I agree with him that it shouldn't be paved over. But in order to do that, we need to keep the farmers viable. As we know, the grape industry is very viable.
I appreciate his support. He is obviously on the opposition side and he spins his comments. He talked about Hotel Dieu, which is a very strong hospital in our area. He talked about Merritton High School as well. He forgets that his government should have been dealing with some of these issues in the past. But I appreciate his support of me when I bring forward to different ministers things for the city of St Catharines.
I guess I'm really not talking about the bill or anything like that, Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act, but that's the way the member continues as well.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines has two minutes to respond.
Mr Bradley: I thank all members for their kind remarks. My friend Tom Froese - that is the style we've used over the last three and a half years. While we're on opposite sides of the House, when it comes to looking after things for our community, we try to work together for the betterment of our community. That's the way it should be.
I noticed a bit of a poke when he said that the previous government should have dealt with these matters. I don't agree that previous governments should have closed Hotel Dieu Hospital or Merritton High School, however. That's where we would differ a bit.
We do have the same views on farming. I think it's very important to make sure that farming is a viable operation, and members from agricultural areas realize this. If it isn't financially viable, then it's difficult to keep the farmer on the farm. That is why I believe we have two choices: We either pay the appropriate price for food or we support farmers with various programs that governments come forward with. Though I'm an urban member, I can tell you that I support those kinds of programs to assist our farmers.
I'm glad the member for Dovercourt raised the issue of people complaining about government advertising. Everywhere I go I have people, including Tories, complaining about the tens of millions of dollars being spent on government advertising - self-serving, blatant propaganda.
The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay asked a good question. I happen to agree with that provision in the bill. I think we need that. I think we can always find some provisions within a bill that are helpful. I happen to like that provision within this bill, and I'm glad he asked that question so I could underline that.
The member for London Centre, of course, was wondering whether I had spoken about gasoline prices. When I began the speech the other night I spoke at some length on that. I wanted to ease your concerns about that.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Silipo: I'm glad to have the chance to speak on third reading of Bill 74 this evening and to say at the outset what a fascinating piece of legislation this is. If you love dealing with nuances of legislation and legalese - and there's probably more in tax laws - there's probably more in this bill to delight you than in most other pieces of legislation that we see in front of us.
In terms of the content of the bill, there isn't a lot of controversy in it. There isn't a lot of what we tend to see from the government in tax bills, and perhaps that explains most easily why this bill is now in front of us in its second incarnation. It was presented to us last session in essentially the same format as Bill 173, and it purports to deliver on a commitment the government made in its budget, not the last budget of 1998 but the budget of 1997, which gives you a bit of an indication how high on the scale of importance this bill is for the Harris government. We are dealing with third reading and presumably final debate on this this evening, in a time frame that has just a couple of days before we recess for the Christmas break and for what many, including me, believe will be the last real recess or break before we actually go to the polls, because I believe we may not see this Legislature back in any real way, other than perhaps to be called briefly back at some point in the spring for a throne speech, the reading of a budget and then an election.
2140
I noted with interest as I was reading the comments of Premier Harris on Focus Ontario the other night that when he was asked specifically by Robert Fisher, "Do you want to rule out a spring election here? The people of Ontario are watching" etc, Premier Harris responded, "Well, listen, I can tell you that we're certainly planning for a spring throne speech and a spring budget and governing, so that's really what we're focusing on."
I remember another time when the government deemed that January was the beginning of the spring session, so it may very well be that we will be here for a spring session that could start as early as January. It could be as short as a couple of days; it could be as long as perhaps a week or two. We will, I'm sure, get a budget in which the government will tell us that they've balanced the books and that we will get on with the important event most people across the province are waiting for, and that is the next election.
Bill 74 in effect brings in some minor changes which deal with how you measure taxes as they relate to the fuel that's pumped into cars particularly. It clarifies, for example, that where a taxable product, in this case fuel, is sold at temperature-adjusted volume, the tax collected should also be based on that same method; that is, because of the fluctuation in the volume of gas, dealing with the fluctuation and temperature, there has to be a similar and reflective share in the way the taxes on that fuel are calculated.
I found it interesting in the briefing that was provided to us that ministry officials assured us this was already being implemented. I guess all of the industry is already complying with this. I'm happy to have heard that and to know this is not the kind of measure that is going to change dramatically the amount of money that's collected by the government, because if it was, one would ask why they would be bringing in a measure that was going to raise taxes, as a government that doesn't want to raise taxes.
We will have to be assured by the comments we've been given by the ministry officials that we're not talking here about a lot of additional money, and that that, after all, is not the real reason they're doing it - at least that's what the government says - and that the real reason is just to bring everybody in line to do what is being done across jurisdictions now, which is to measure the tax you apply to gas to reflect, as I was saying, the actual volume of gas, which changes depending on the temperature because gas expands when temperatures are high and you then require a way of measuring that that's useful.
The other interesting aspect of this bill is the way it provides for the minister to be able to regulate with respect to the dyes that are used in gases. Those are important in terms of fuels that are exported so that we know which jurisdictions' fuels actually are being transported, particularly when the trucks are carrying fuel in between jurisdictions, and that is something we obviously want to ensure. So this provides both a legal framework and an administrative framework that allows the minister to continue to govern that.
We could talk at length about those nice little details, each of which is spelled out in a very detailed way in the explanatory notes we've been given. I thank the ministry officials for providing those, but I think to go into those would be, quite frankly, to bore everyone in this House and anybody who might be watching.
I welcome anyone who wants to actually talk in great detail about this. I'll be interested in listening. I said earlier that I was particularly fascinated by the comments that one of the former ministers of the environment, the member for St Catharines, made with respect to the issue of fuel and some of the ways in which regulations are set, rules are set, laws are set with respect to how clean that fuel should be and how companies that say they cannot do that because it's going to add to the cost find it quite possible to do it when they are forced with having to, and wanting to for market purposes, export fuel to the United States.
Some jurisdictions have more stringent regulations than we generally do here in Canada, and then, as the member for St Catharines was reminding us, they do manage to come up with two different kinds of fuel: one, the cleaner one, which is exported in that case to the United States, and the other one, which is sold in the Canadian jurisdiction. So it's not a question of, is it possible? It's a question of, is there the will on the part of the companies, and is there the rule-making and the legislative-setting on the part of the government? Therefore, is there the courage on the part of the government? That's an area on which we need to spend more time. I wish this bill dealt more with that, because I think that would be a more interesting issue and a more useful issue for taxpayers across the province to be dealing with.
Another area that I find far more useful and interesting to talk about than the details of the Fuel Tax Act, as they are touched on in this particular bill, is what will happen to the provisions of the fuel taxes and gasoline taxes as they will be affected by another piece of legislation that this government seems, at least in its rhetoric, to be intent on passing and of which the Premier made a great deal today, and that was the balanced budget legislation. In that presentation the Premier gave us, there is mention that there will be a requirement in that legislation, if and when it's approved, of prior voter approval being necessary before the provincial government of the day could increase taxes in the personal income tax category, corporate taxes, retail sales tax, employer health tax and gasoline and fuel taxes, which together raise about 95% of all the provincial tax revenue, we are told, and I believe that's certainly the case.
I found it interesting that here was another piece of legislation, the one dealing with the balanced budget legislation, that is also one on which the Mike Harris government has a long-standing commitment. In fact, I believe Mr Harris and most, if not all, of the Tory candidates signed an agreement with the Ontario Taxpayers Federation committing themselves to bringing in that type of legislation. I know the folks in that organization have been after them since the installation of the government, wondering why they have not been able to deliver on that promise. Not up until today did we get from the Premier, with a lot of hullabaloo, as he is wont to do even when he comes in with something that may or may not see itself pass into law before his government is over - he comes in and says, "Here we are, we're now delivering on this promise." Here we are, two or three days before we adjourn for the break, and as I was saying earlier, before we adjourn for probably the rest of the life of this government.
I don't know how serious, to echo the member for St Catharines, Premier Harris is in wanting to put forward this legislation, if it's anything like what we've seen with the Fuel Tax Act changes, which took them two years to bring forward from the last budget. This commitment on the balanced budget legislation has taken them almost four years from the life of the beginning of their government. If it was something that really was central to their agenda, you would have expected to see that much earlier.
2150
I'm not going to be too critical on that score, on that particular issue, because I think what the government is doing there is fundamentally wrong. The issue of balanced budget legislation is simply a hoax that's placed in front of people. It's a pretence that there is control provided over the budgets. It only tells a fraction, not even half the story, because while legislation like that purports to give taxpayers the assurance that no taxes will be raised without a referendum first, it doesn't deal at all with the reality of what a government has to deal with during the course of its mandate; it doesn't deal at all with the fact that taxes at the end of the day are what we collectively use to pay for the services that we deem to be important as citizens of Ontario.
Whether those taxes are collected through income tax, property taxes, fuel tax, business taxes, any of the taxes we collect, or any of the fees Mike Harris now calls user fees that he used to say were taxes and which people who are paying them know to be just another form of taxation, no matter what the source, the issue is that all of that money collectively goes to pay for the services we deem to be important.
You cannot put the issue to people in terms of saying, "Let's put in place legislation that prevents government" - or limits, because it doesn't really prevent governments, because governments could amend that law by virtue of the income tax changes or other tax changes they would want to bring in, but it purports to give people a sense that somehow, something is being done about maintaining taxes and not increasing taxes without telling people the whole story - that's not to say the whole truth but the whole story - about what that means.
It's interesting that this move is coming from the Mike Harris government at this late stage in their mandate. What they have lost in doing that, I want to say to them, is the ability to convince people that there is any validity to that promise, because people out there now understand far better than they have ever understood, after three and a half years of the Mike Harris government's providing an income tax cut that benefits only the wealthiest Ontarians on the backs of middle- and low-income Ontarians and at the cost of sacrificing many services that Ontarians tell us they want and are important to them, whether it's their schools, whether it's their hospitals, whether it's their community services, whether it's the support we give to people who are less fortunate, any and all of those ranges of services which Ontarians continue to tell us in any number of ways are crucial and important to them and that they're prepared to pay taxes for those services - in a fair way, but they're prepared to pay taxes for those services.
The difficulty that the Mike Harris government has now, coming in at this late stage in its mandate and pretending or trying to sell people on this notion of the taxpayers' protection, is that it just won't fly. It won't fly because people have seen the consequence of the tax cut; people have seen that the cost of the 30% income tax cut, which is the one promise, in my view, that Mike Harris has maintained, has been so severe that you will not be able to convince Ontarians any more that limiting taxes, whether it's fuel taxes, gas taxes, income taxes, property taxes, however you want to concoct it and present it to people, can be done in any way with no cost attached.
Am I saying that we should just continue to increase taxes? No, I'm not saying that and I want to be very clear about that. We will take, I expect, into the next election a position that we've already outlined in part in terms of one of its main pieces, which is a commitment to roll back the tax cut that Mike Harris has implemented for people earning over $80,000. We have been very clear about that and we have chosen to be very clear about that well before the election is called, because we believe that people need to understand the consequences of what Mike Harris has done.
We believe that most Ontarians will agree with us about taking back that $1.5 billion that would be collected from reversing the Mike Harris tax cut for people earning over $80,000. That $1.5 billion is better spent on those collective services that we want for ourselves and our communities, in our schools, in our hospitals and spent in our many other services.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Talk about the special assessment on OHIP too. You'd give that back to the public?
Mr Silipo: Somebody was asking about the details. Let me assure members of the government that we will have a very detailed, very spelled-out position on that which will outline exactly how it will apply and where it will apply. We'll make it mesh with the tax tables that exist now, but we have chosen to make the $80,000 as the cut-off in terms of giving people the real picture. We've portrayed and painted that picture looking at the numbers that come from the Ministry of Finance, not numbers that we have made up but numbers that are readily available, numbers that tell us we are talking about basically 6% of taxpayers, because 94% of taxpayers are people who have a taxable income of less than $80,000 or thereabouts.
What we are talking about is a very small portion, 6% of the taxpayers of Ontario, who are seeing collectively in that small component the benefits of the tax cuts to the tune of $1.5 billion, and that's 25%, 26%. Just to give you a comparison point, almost that same amount of money, that 26%, is being shared at the other end by all the people who earn - in the last numbers I looked at I think it was all the way up to about $40,000. So you have an incredible number of people, over half - 60%, in fact - of Ontario taxpayers, who collectively share the same amount in tax cuts they are getting as is being shared by a very small portion of people at the top end.
When you look in a more real way at what all that means on a day-to-day basis, yes, the Premier can run around the province with his jar of loonies and say, "This is what it means for a typical family." What the Premier forgets to bring is the other jar, into which we ought to put all the property taxes that those same families are being asked to pay, all the additional tuition fees if people have children or young sons or daughters they are trying to send to college and university, the 20% increases and more they have to pay in tuition fees and will continue to pay.
If they are seniors and they have to pay their copayment when they get their prescriptions filled, or if they have to pay the whole array of user fees that municipalities and other bodies are now charging that they weren't charging - these are user fees that, again I remind members, the Premier used to call taxes, but now he says: "They're not taxes; they're something else. They're user fees."
Mr Bradley: The second jar would be the fullest.
Mr Silipo: You'd probably need a much bigger second jar to be able to put in, to use the Premier's example of loonies, the same kind of thing that he's doing. You would need a much bigger jar. At the end of the day, you know what would happen, what that would show for most families out there? I'm not just talking about the poorest families across the province. It's quite true for them, but I'm talking about middle-income families. They would find what they would be putting into that bigger jar, what they are paying out, is far more than they are receiving through the Mike Harris 30% income tax cut, far more.
It's only that small portion of people at the higher income levels who maybe are seeing any benefits, net gains, from the income tax. We don't think that's a price worth paying. We don't think that collectively we should be satisfied with the deterioration in our services, whether it's in our schools, in our hospitals, in the rest of our health care services, in our social services, in our child care services, in that whole array of services that collectively make Ontario one of the finest jurisdictions in which to live but which is being quickly made to deteriorate month after month, year after year, in the kind of Ontario that the Mike Harris government and his measures are bringing about.
2200
We don't think most Ontarians want to see this Ontario deteriorate. We don't think most Ontarians want to see the kind of Ontario that Mike Harris is giving them. They are not fooled by this notion of the tax cut. They are not fooled by this simplistic view of looking at the world that I know is central to the public relations gimmicks of Mike Harris and his government. It's certainly been central to the many advertisements they have put out, whether on TV, on radio and in our newspapers, in which they try to sell a very simple message: "We're managing the store. We're doing it well. We're making the tough decisions."
It isn't so particularly tough to play the bully. It isn't tough to just come in and cut and slash and worry about the consequences later, and then after you've seen those consequences, after you've had group after group, whether it's small businesses on the property tax mess, whether it's the hospital administrators or nurses as far as the hospitals are concerned, whether it's parents and students and teachers as far as our schools are concerned, and in each of those examples, only after weeks and sometimes months of those groups pointing out to Mike Harris and his ministers and his government what the consequences of their actions are, we begin to see, late in the mandate, a little bit of movement in each of those areas by the Mike Harris government as he tries to appease people or, as I see it, as he tries to patch things up in preparation for the next election.
We had a classic example here over the last few weeks in terms of what we saw with the school closings issue. I was pointing earlier to one of a number of letters that I have received, and I know a lot of members have received, from students and parents in many of the schools in my area who talked about the plight that their school was being put into and what the threat of their school closing meant to them. It was only after many of those parents and many of those students came together in protest that Mr Harris and his government seemed to pay any attention.
I could go on with these letters, but let me give you one example. This is from two very upset grade 8 students, as they classify themselves. I won't repeat their names but their names are here on the record. This is a letter they've asked me to deliver to Mr Harris, and I will. I will just quote one paragraph. It says: "In the years that you've been in office we've learned a lot. One of the things is the difference between good and bad governments. Your government, Mr Harris, is a bad government. Please think before you act. We don't want this delayed, we want it stopped." This was a letter that was written on November 30th, telling the Premier that people haven't been fooled by the announcement that he made delaying the cuts to the school system.
I know Mr Gilchrist, when he appeared with me on a TVO program the same night the Premier made the first announcement, made it very clear that the position of the government as he saw it was that all they were doing was basically giving the Toronto school board, which was the example we were using there, an additional year within which to make the cuts and find the money. He was very adamant about that. We kept saying, "But the Premier said these were all permanent changes, that the boards were going to look to more money here to be able to deal with the problems they have," and again Mr Gilchrist was very clear in saying -
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Do you mean the member for Scarborough East?
Mr Silipo: The member for Scarborough East, one and the same. Thank you. He kept making the point that all they had done was simply given the school board one more year within which to find the money, as he put it. That's exactly the point we have been making. Anybody who believes that what the Mike Harris government has done with respect to school funding is any kind of a saving measure for those schools is really being fooled. But you know what, Speaker? People are not being fooled. People understand that this was, as the member for Scarborough East himself said, to paraphrase, simply a delay of one year.
If he's prepared to be that blunt and that clear about it, the only question I have is: Why do the Minister of Education and the Premier not have the same courage to step forward and tell us the same thing? If the member for Scarborough East were to be wrong, then I would want him to be corrected by one of the government ministers. I haven't seen the member for Scarborough East coming in saying: "By the way, what I said on that program on TVO the night the Premier made that statement was wrong. In fact, the Premier is right when he says these are permanent changes to the funding formula."
Mr Gilchrist: Right, it is permanent.
Mr Silipo: "It is permanent but we're going to get the money out a year later." That's the way we're supposed to understand this, right?
Mr Gilchrist: You'll see him in a few minutes.
Mr Silipo: All right, I'll see him in a few minutes. I'll be listening with great interest.
Here's the moral of the story. The moral of the story is that people are no longer being fooled. People are no longer buying the simplistic answers and the simplistic messages. There may be a fraction of the population who will. I've no doubt that the Mike Harris government and his party, the Conservative Party, continue to have an element of support out there. I'm not going to stand here and say that nobody supports what they're doing. Obviously, a number of people do. I may even wish that the proportion of the population that supports them was smaller than it actually is, but it's there and it's real, depending on the polls.
Any politician who tells you they don't look at polls or they don't pay any attention to polls is not telling you the whole story. Let me just put it that way. We all look at polls. We can discount some polls, we can condition them, we can justify them, we can explain them. Some polls mean far less than other polls. But in fairness, we all pay attention to the polls that show where each respective party is and what people say on particular issues. So there's no denying the fact that the governing party, the Conservative Party, probably has anywhere from 25% to 30% of people, depending on which polls you believe, saying that they generally support them. That's not a portion of the population to be ignored or to be sneezed at.
I'm sure those folks agree with the government line, although I suspect even within that group you will find some people, if you were to really ask them seriously, who would not particularly agree with the approach the government has taken with respect to advertising and with what they're doing. But they agree philosophically with what the government is doing. That's fair. That's part of the democratic process we live in. We at least acknowledge, if not respect, that reality; we don't have to agree with it. But I come back to the fact that, take any poll you wish, the vast majority of Ontarians does not agree with what Mike Harris and his government are doing, particularly does not agree when you deal with the issue of taxes and tax cuts and what they mean and what they translate into when it comes to the issue of services.
In the letters that I have here, whether from students or parents at Winona or many of the other schools, what we hear is the message that I have heard in school after school in the many meetings that I've attended, and I know other members have attended, throughout the city of Toronto and throughout the province on the issue of school closings. We heard a lot about it here in Toronto. Certainly I did in my own west-end community because there were a number of schools, in fact some 22 of the combined Catholic and public boards' schools, that were slated to be closed in my west-end community of Davenport-Dovercourt, however you want to look at that whole west end, but essentially in the Dufferin corridor. If things don't change, that will be a very large proportion of the schools in that area.
In school after school, the message that I was picking up was exactly the same. People were saying (a) they don't agree with what Mike Harris is doing; (b) they certainly don't believe that it's worth any benefit of a tax cut that they might be seeing; and (c) they laughed when any discussion of the tax cut came about because they certainly haven't seen any net impact of the tax cut. They haven't seen their paycheque go up in any great way. What they've seen instead are the increases in property taxes as a result of another measure that this government has brought about; what they've seen are the increased user fees; what they've seen are the increases in a variety of ways. Collectively and individually they're saying that in their families they're actually paying more and at the same time getting less in the way of services compared to what they used to have before.
2210
They don't see this rosy picture that Mike Harris and his PR friends are trying to portray. They see a very different world out there. They see a world in which their communities are being changed, all for the sake of a tax cut and in a way that isn't benefiting them in any great way. Isn't it ironic that when you look at the whole notion of that tax cut, of course the government chooses never to talk about the fact that that is money they have to borrow, that it is money they have to raise in any number of ways? They have to borrow in part and take in part by cutting away the provision of services in health care, education and other services, as we've been discussing, and by doing so they add some $5 billion to the deficit.
If the government really was that serious about balancing the books, they could have balanced the books this year. They could have come in with a deficit being eliminated, had it not been that they have to put out some $5 billion, if not more, depending on which calculations you want to rely on. They have to borrow that much money. It is money the government doesn't have. So a combination of borrowing and cutting from services results in the deficit continuing to exist in this fiscal year when, if the government was so serious about eliminating the deficit, they could have eliminated it this year.
When you look at the cumulative effect over the life of the Harris government, they will have added to the debt of the province some $22 billion - this from a government that says they are against debt and deficits. It's one thing to blame the former NDP government, as the Harris government does, for having run up deficits during the worst depression since the 1930s, when we were in the early years of our government, when we chose to spend more and to borrow money to spend more to help people who were in dire need, hundreds of thousands of people who lost their jobs, because of the free trade agreement and because of other factors, as factories were shutting down here in Ontario. As we were going into what turned out to be the worst recession since the 1930s, we also chose to invest in creating jobs, because we, like many economists at that point, believed we were dealing with a short-term recession. Had that been the case, the measures we took were exactly the measures most economists would have agreed were necessary to infuse some money into the economy to help protect the most vulnerable during that time and to help create a sense of job growth, because the private sector was doing very little in terms of creating jobs and growing jobs during that period of time.
It's one thing to criticize us for that action; it's quite another for the same government that's critical of that to be running up a debt and to be increasing the debt simply because they believe philosophically in putting out a tax cut which is not benefiting most Ontarians; in fact, it's benefiting the smallest number of Ontarians at the cost to that 94% or 95% of Ontarians who end up paying for the rest of that small 6%.
That's the reality of the Mike Harris government. That's what we see coming from the Mike Harris philosophies.
This particular piece of legislation that we are directly dealing with tonight, the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act, while fascinating in terms of some of the little nuances and little pieces that are in here - I don't want to make light of those. They are important provisions in terms of helping us to govern and to deal with an area of law that the government is responsible for. That Ontario and Quebec switched to a new dye in November 1996, and therefore that has to be reflected in the regulation-making and the administrative structures, allowing the government to deal with this and make sure they are able to govern this important area of taxation, is nothing to be sneezed at. I don't want in any way to make light of the provisions of this bill.
I expect that the government will carry this bill. I don't believe we're going to put up any great opposition to it at the end of the day, because it is something that needs to be done to ensure that the legislative process keeps up to date with changes, in this case in tax governance and in providing that companies that sell fuel are taxed in a way that is equitable, that is fair, that reflects the change in the capacity and volume of gas, dealing with temperatures and affected by temperatures and temperature variations.
At the end of the day, this bill will carry and will become law and assist the minister of the day, the Minister of Finance, to carry out his responsibilities, and the ministry officials to carry out their responsibilities, in a way that cannot be questioned. As I said earlier, I'm glad to see that by and large we understand the companies are already complying voluntarily with a lot of the provisions in this bill, and that's good, but it's useful to bring the legislation in line with the reality of the taxation process.
On that score, I don't have any particular problems with what's here and I expect we will see this bill go through, but I wanted to take a few moments, as I've done, to talk a bit about the broader issues of taxation that this government so boldly tries to push, not just upon us in the Legislature, but more importantly tries to push upon the population out there; that is, that they are the taxfighters, that they know what they are doing, that they are doing all the things they are doing when it comes to tax changes in the interests of taxpayers. What we see more and more is that that is the farthest thing from the truth when it comes to measuring the impacts of the Mike Harris government on typical families out there.
Typical families are the people I care about the most, the people I have the privilege and pleasure to represent here. They are families in a variety of income situations, from some of the poorest to some of the most well-to-do. That's a healthy mix to have in any community and in any riding that any of us represents. But by and large, the vast majority of people I have the privilege of representing in the current riding of Dovercourt are people of middle-income groupings and middle-income levels. As I talk to them, they don't see any huge benefits from the tax changes that the Mike Harris government has brought about. They don't see at the end of the day that they are particularly better off than they were a couple of years ago. What they do see, though, is that when they look at the services they are getting, whether those services are being provided by their local municipality or the provincial government, those services are less than what they were, those services have deteriorated.
When people complain about how much longer the ride is in the ambulance to the hospital, how many hospitals the ambulance might have stopped at before making the final delivery point to where their loved ones are going to be treated, then it gives you a very real picture of what actually is happening out there.
When people see the majority of their schools, whether they're Catholic or public schools, on the chopping block and in danger of being closed, not because they've gotten too small and therefore need some changes made but simply because a funding formula somebody else out there has set up says, "We're not going to give you the money you need to run your school and therefore it probably has to be sacrificed" - that's how people look at what governments are doing, either to them or for them.
What the people in my constituency are telling me more and more is that what they are seeing from the Mike Harris government is a series of actions that are not doing anything for them, but are doing a lot of things to them that they don't particularly appreciate. When their schools are being closed down, when their hospital services are gone - I think of Doctors Hospital, serving most of the west end of either the old Toronto or the new Toronto.
2220
Ms Lankin: It's not what this government was supposed to be about.
Mr Silipo: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is quite correct. It's not what this government was supposed to be about. It wasn't supposed to be about less services, it was supposed to be about greater efficiency, and isn't that an interesting example? The community and the members of the advisory board of that hospital came forward numerous times with a proposal that would have kept the hospital. They weren't even locked into the actual building. It wasn't a fight about the bricks and mortar, it wasn't a fight about the actual physical building; it was a fight about the entity of the hospital staying.
While they would have preferred the old Doctors Hospital to remain on Brunswick Avenue, they were even prepared to say, "Fine, if you're going to decide, government, to move the hospital and incorporate the physical plant into the old Western Hospital," now all part of the new Toronto General Hospital, "then so be it. But at least maintain the distinctive nature of what the Doctors Hospital has been all about," which was a particular attention to the needs and how to serve the needs of the multicultural and multilingual population that we have in much of west-end Toronto; indeed in other parts of Metro, but particularly this hospital as it relates to that community.
Isn't it amazing that when they came forward and were even able to show how that could have been done for even less money than what is being spent now in this new global structure that we have, even with that proposal, the government, hiding behind the hospital restructuring commission, said: "No, we can't do that. It has to be amalgamated and it has to be amalgamated completely." Any time that any government minister or the Premier of the day gets up and starts to rant about government efficiency and doing more with less, I just think of examples like that, because what we are seeing and what my constituents are seeing is simply less, just less. They are seeing less in the way of services. The only thing that they're not seeing less of are taxes.
Mr Bradley: And advertising.
Mr Silipo: "And advertising," the member for St Catharines correctly jumps in. They're seeing a lot more advertising. There hasn't been much in the way of cutting there. If you want to cut, I say to Mr Harris and his government, cut there. You can use that $50 million in a lot better ways to serve the needs of constituents in my riding and in many other ridings across the province than by doing what you're doing.
If you're really serious about taxes, then don't play this kind of silly game of cutting taxes for the wealthiest by cutting the income taxes and then simply shifting the cost of much of those taxes on to middle-income and low-income Ontarians by virtue of increases in property taxes, the whole array of user fees from tuition fees to medicine copayments and everything in between. Do you think that people aren't going to notice those things? Do you think that people don't understand what Mike Harris himself used to preach up to only a couple of years ago, and now we hear very little of, which is that there's only one taxpayer at the end of the day? Do you think that the taxpayers, whether individuals or families, when they go out and pay those taxes at the end of the day, think it comes from different pockets? It is the same pocket.
It's the one thing that Mike Harris had going for him when he presented himself to the Ontario taxpayers as the Taxfighter and said, "There's only one taxpayer." If only he had remembered his own advice; if only he had believed his own rhetoric but, of course, that's the problem with rhetoric. It's only rhetoric at the end of the day, and that's the problem with the Mike Harris rhetoric. He never actually thought it would have to be implemented maybe, or he never thought he would actually have to stand up and defend it one day. He thought it just sounded good. It sounded great in those days, "There's only one taxpayer."
Now people are realizing that there is only one taxpayer. They are actually realizing that there is only one taxpayer and they're it. They're the taxpayer. Those taxpayers, family by family, are being asked to pay more and get less. You tell me what kind of a bargain that is, when you're being asked to pay more and more and more. You would think that if you're getting more in the way of services, then most reasonable people out there would say, "OK, if there's a good reason why I have to pay more, I'll tighten my belt and I'll pay a little bit more if I can." But when they see that they're not getting anything more, and indeed when they see that they're getting far less than they were getting before, then people begin to say to themselves, "Why are we doing this?"
When we talk to them about the income tax cut, people begin to understand why Mike Harris is doing it and then they don't agree with what Mike Harris is doing. That is more and more what I'm sensing out there, more and more what I'm hearing out there, more and more what I am picking up from people on a day-to-day basis, whether it's seniors or people on fixed incomes who have to pay $300 or $400 - $300 this year and more next year for those families that have been hit with really high increases in their property taxes because of the new assessment system that Mike Harris has implemented here in the city of Toronto. These are seniors, people who have put their life savings into purchasing their homes and fixing up their homes. Now they're being asked to pay another $300 a year for this year and maybe another $300 next year until they fill out the whole of the increase that if the assessment increase were applied all in one year would be even worse. Those are the people I worry about.
I listen to people making over $80,000, $90,000, but quite frankly they are able to take care of themselves. People who are making $50,000, $40,000, I have to tell you, those families are finding it hard. Those families are finding it hard particularly if they are trying to meet their property tax bills. If they have parents who are elderly and need medication, they now have to pay more money; if they are trying to send their children to post-secondary education, to college or university, they are having to come up with much more money than they did before.
Those are the families that Mike Harris is going to have to answer to at the end of the day. Those are the families that none of his legislation - whether it's this new balanced budget legislation or any of the other pieces of legislation that reflect the Mike Harris taxation philosophy, he's not going to speak to any of those concerns, because what he wants to do is to try to put things to a very simplistic level that only gives people a piece of the message and doesn't tell the story about the impact that those real cuts are having.
Tonight we're dealing with the fuel and gasoline tax amendments through Bill 74; as I say, in the whole scheme of things not a hugely controversial piece of legislation, but certainly a step to that broader policy of taxation which the Mike Harris government has been quite adamant in pursuing and which has been central to their philosophy and which we in the New Democratic Party are very strongly opposed to in terms of that broad philosophy.
That's why we have taken the step, unlike our Liberal colleagues, I might say, to say that not only are we against the income tax cut but we would actually do something about it. We would actually be prepared to roll back that portion that applies to people over $80,000. By doing that we believe we are being both credible in terms of our position today and realistic in terms of the position that we will take into the next election with respect to where the money will come from when we talk to people about the importance of reinvesting in health care, in education, in many of our services. People will no longer buy the notion that the money will simply fall from the sky. You have to be able to show them where the money is going to come from. We have taken a very realistic position that says, "Here is where $1.5 billion can and should come from."
I'll be very proud to take that position into the next election, to continue to talk with taxpayers, certainly in my own riding and across the province, and explain to them why we have taken that position and how it is that position is far more credible than what the actual Mike Harris government is doing, and certainly far more credible than what our Liberal colleagues have taken as a position, which at this point is opposing what Mike Harris is doing but not being prepared to undo any of the substantial pieces.
I'm going to end with those comments. I know this is a debate we will pick up at some point. I don't know when, but I don't expect we will be here much longer after we finish this week. We may be back for a few days at some point in the spring, however early or late Mike Harris chooses to define the spring, whether it's from January right on through to March, and we will see a throne speech and particularly a budget, and then we will be in the election, where I think all of us are eager to be so that we can hold Mike Harris accountable and hopefully replace him in government.
2230
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?
Mr Gilchrist: The member for Dovercourt raised a number of issues during his presentation, a few of them related to the bill but a few that weren't. His comments touched on a lot of things: taxation in general, taxation theory, education funding. He mentioned that certain economists gave them advice, so there's no doubt people across Ontario thought the NDP were experts at controlling deficits. Whatever advice he got I hope he didn't pay for. Keynes himself back in 1932 said that the best way to balance a budget was from tax cuts, not by increasing tax. I guess his previous leader, Mr Rae, didn't pick up that little gem during his stay in Oxford.
The reality is that back here in the real world we know that the tax cuts have had an impact on the very people he's talking about, the typical family. I say that as someone who represents a riding with the highest density of public housing in the province. My riding is as typical or perhaps even more balanced in terms of the demographics than his riding.
I know full well what the impact has been of the various tax cuts in Scarborough East. I know there are more people working. I know you can't find a retail spot to rent. All the premises on Kingston Road and Lawrence Avenue in the smaller plazas are taken up. I know there are fewer people on welfare in our riding because they're working. The very typical people who you suggest have not seen the benefits, I say, with the greatest respect, that I see that every day in our riding.
I think the people have a very different view of the future of Ontario than the one he espouses and suggests they should be having, based on his doom-and-gloom prophecies of the future. We have from Mr Silipo a number of things to look forward to in the future. His leader has said -
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Bradley: I thought the speech was very good, despite what the member for Scarborough East said. I was hoping he was going to say it was good, and then he started to pan it. I thought it was a very good speech myself. I liked it when he responded to interjections about government advertising - I thought that was particularly good - and when he dealt with calling the bluff on polluters. These people never want to call the bluff on polluters.
He got into the situation in New Brunswick, where you've got a huge oil company, which when told they had to reduce the Reid vapour pressure, that is, eliminate materials within the gasoline which cause low-level ozone or smog, which is bad, said, "We can't do that - impossible." Then the New England states said: "We've got a new rule. Your Reid vapour pressure must be nine point something. You can't send us this dirty gas or we won't buy it." You had the silly situation where you had a refinery here producing dirty gas for New Brunswick and cleaner gas for New England. I'm glad he mentioned that in his remarks this evening.
He certainly pointed out some of the challenges that had to be faced by the New Democratic Party government when they were in power in the deepest recession. These people have been running huge deficits, and they've got a booming economy because of Bill Clinton. I know they will be sending a letter to Bill Clinton thanking him for having low interest rates - they'll be sending that to Jean Chrétien too - and a booming economy so we can export to the US. I know government members will be writing letters to them. Still, you've accumulated $22 billion in additional debt for this province.
Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member for Dovercourt. I thought it interesting the way he contrasted this bill and the fact that here we are, on one of the last four days of the session, spending evening time debating this bill when much of the industry has already implemented the position. It follows on changes that were made at the federal level.
As he said, it's important, good housekeeping legislation that needs to be done. But the fact that it makes the priority list of the government in the dying days of the session I find quite interesting, particularly when there is a bill next door to it numerically, Bill 73, amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, which purports to be a very important bill for the government - I think it is an extraordinarily important bill - which the minister desperately wants passed and yet it's not being brought forward to the House, it's not being debated.
As the critic on children and youth issues, I've been waiting to have an opportunity to participate in debate on that bill with a lead speech and haven't had that opportunity yet. The bill sort of sits there, and yet the minister has got the whole community stirred up, writing letters demanding that the opposition parties allow this bill to pass, not that there's anything we can do to stop it from passing.
It's quite interesting the way in which the government sets its priorities. When we could have been debating a bill which will affect thousands and thousands of kids and their safety in this province, we are instead faced with the Legislature dealing with third reading on a bill that has essentially already been implemented.
It not only makes you question the priorities of the government, as the member for Dovercourt has said, in comparison to other activities in the province that we could be debating, but it makes you wonder whether or not there's actually support within the government ranks for the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. Perhaps the minister has been left out to hang on a limb, and what she's attempting to do is to hang that limb -
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Wettlaufer: I find it odd that the member for Dovercourt constantly talks about tax cuts. He has sat, as I have, in the pre-budget hearings for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and has heard, as I have, from many of the expert economists that tax cuts do in fact create jobs. Granted, he's going to stand up and have his one exception, because there has been one expert economist who has made presentations otherwise in each of the pre-budget hearings, but the majority of them have said that in their discussions with foreign investors, whether they be from Germany, England, the United States or Japan, if they wanted to attract investment here, those investors were not going to invest here unless they knew that their costs were going to be lower.
One of the reasons their costs were not lower, and they pointed to this fact many times, was the fact that the taxes in this jurisdiction were higher.
Ms Lankin: It's got nothing to do with personal income taxes. What nonsense.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That's nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
Mr Wettlaufer: Isn't it interesting how the members of the opposition harp and carp. They don't like to hear the truth. They don't know what the truth is.
We have one question for the public today: Are they better off today than they were three and a half years ago? There are 461,000 net new jobs in the province as a result of our tax cuts. I think the people of Ontario are much better off. As far as taxes are concerned, I don't care whether they include property taxes, I don't care what taxes they include. Including the income tax cut, they are better off. They are paying less tax today than they were paying then.
As far as health care is concerned, my own region of Waterloo is a really good example of what the NDP and the Liberals did to Waterloo region. They did nothing for 20 years. We've got a new cardiac care centre in the region as a result of the policies of this government, a new cancer care centre.
The Speaker: Response, member for Dovercourt.
Mr Silipo: It's when you get responses like the one I've just heard that I wish the debate could go on, that I could be here to go on, because -
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): What kind of masochism is that?
Mr Silipo: I don't know. It's just that those are the kinds of things you really want to be able to reply to. Economists are like lawyers, and I speak as a lawyer. If you shop around long enough, you can find one to agree with what you want to hear.
The reality is this: A number of people in this House have said in many meetings of the finance committee - to say it was only one economist who supported the notion I had put forward, then I want to say to the member for Kitchener that he hasn't been listening to the many economists at that committee. Even when they said that the tax cut was some element, they always couched it in such qualitative words, they talked about all the other factors that had a greater degree of job growth.
Interjection.
2240
Mr Silipo: No, just go back and read the record. Read the Hansard and you will see it there.
The member, and the member for Scarborough East and other members of the government, talked also about how people today are better off. I tried to say in my comments earlier that when I talk to my constituents, many of them are not better off as a result of the Mike Harris government. Maybe the member for Kitchener is finding that he's opening new wings to hospitals. What I'm finding and what my constituents are finding is that hospital services are being shut down; schools are being shut down.
Mr Gilchrist: There is no school.
Mr Silipo: "There's no school." Maybe not now. Maybe another year from now. Maybe that's been put off until after the election. I talked about the Doctors Hospital as a very real example. That service doesn't exist any more.
Mr Gilchrist: Sure it does. It moved to Toronto.
Mr Silipo: It moved to Toronto. Yes, it moved, it moved, it moved and it lost, it lost, it lost. That's the point. People are getting less than they were getting before. People are not generally better off, and that's something that I know people on the government side don't want to hear.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Grimmett: It's my pleasure to join in the debate on Bill 74. I certainly enjoyed the debate earlier on this evening and I've had the opportunity to look back through Hansard to see the other speakers on third reading of Bill 74. I note with some mirth that there seem to be a lot of references in those comments in Hansard to an earlier speech I gave on second reading, so I want to let you know that I'm going to try as well as I can to stick to Bill 74 without repeating the remarks I made on second reading.
With a bill as exciting and stimulating as Bill 74 it shouldn't be that difficult, because we are after all dealing with the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. We're dealing with a bill that's trying to address concerns that have been raised by the industry, and we're also trying in Bill 74 to improve the cash flow of the government, always something that the provincial government has to keep a close eye on.
On the cash flow issue, the member for Dovercourt indicated earlier that part of the purpose for the bill was to bring into line with the federal government our procedures at the provincial level when it comes to collecting both taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline. These acts deal with the fuel that's used by motor vehicles in Ontario and they come under two different acts. The current method of collection used by the federal government is one we are trying to match up with at the provincial level, and I understand from some of the comments earlier in the debate that to some extent this has already been adopted as a practice. So the legislation is designed to accommodate to some extent suggestions by the industry on how to simplify the collection methods used by the provincial government and put them in line on a timing basis with what the federal government does.
The bill outlines how at present the federal government collects their fuel tax on a bimonthly basis and the province I believe is currently collecting it on a monthly basis. What we're trying to do is bring it in line with the federal payments. That should simplify things to some extent for operators and certainly will improve our cash flow. I understand it may have as much as a $4-million annual impact on our cash flow.
That's something all governments want to keep a close eye on. Probably all governments in Ontario have tried to improve the cash flow, and it's certainly something we have to keep a close eye on. The public expects us to maximize our cash flow when we deal with this type of tax collection.
When you look back on the 1997 and 1998 budgets, some of the suggestions in this bill were mentioned in those budgets and, as the member for Dovercourt indicated, there was a bill brought in the last session - I believe it was Bill 173 - that was similar to Bill 74, which we're currently debating, but we weren't able to get to it in the final days of that session. What we're trying to do in addition to improving the cash flow is to minimize red tape for fuel exporters. Fuel exporters have requested, and we are trying to comply with that request in Bill 74, to no longer have to give advance notice of their intent to remove motive fuels in bulk from Ontario. That may not seem like a terribly important issue to people at home, but the industry has brought it to us, we have considered it and we have included it in the provisions in Bill 74. We feel that will reduce the amount of red tape these people in the industry have to deal with without affecting the public interest.
I thought I would comment also on the particular section of the bill that deals with the volume measurement difference. This is really a rather complicated issue and has been commented on by a number of speakers who have addressed the bill. I have to admit that it is not an easy one to understand. This is an issue that has been brought to government again by the industry. The industry is concerned that there are too many methods currently of determining the measure of a fuel at different temperatures. The motive fuels industry introduced the temperature-adjusted volume measurement standard of 15 degrees Celsius to correct for the seasonal fluctuations of gasoline and diesel fuel.
The volumes of many liquids, especially motive fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel, expand and contract with changes in the temperature. Volume based on weather temperature is referred to as "ambient temperature volume." Generally speaking, as temperatures rise, volumes expand, and as temperatures fall they contract. This volume measurement difference is especially noticeable with gasoline. In most cases, the same method of measuring the volume of motive fuel sold is used both for tax and sales purposes. However, in other instances, tax has been collected and a sale made on two different volumes of motive fuel. You might ask: "Why is that important?" I understand that in some cases retailers with ambient pumps may not be able to collect enough tax from consumers in the warmer months to recoup what was charged by the supplier using a temperature-adjusted volume because of a smaller volume measured by ambient pumps.
As the federal government has already done, what we're trying to do with this bill is introduce rules that require that both the tax and the product be sold based on the same volume measurement; for example, either ambient volume or the industry standard. We are now implementing a similar provision so that everyone in the industry can operate under the same rules and so that everyone will know what the standard is in terms of measuring the volume.
I mentioned earlier in a two-minute hit, in discussing the matter of the speech by the member for St Catharines, that the bill deals specifically with the issue of special fuel products. In researching the bill, I was surprised to learn that there are people in Ontario who are involved in the recycling of motor fuels. Anyone who has changed their own oil will find that there are certain places where they have to take their used oil and from there it's recycled. However, a lot of the companies that are in the recycling process are so small in their operation, and that's the only product they deal with, that under the current law they don't have the right to be called distributors and therefore they don't have the right to collect tax on their bills under either the Fuel Tax Act or the Gasoline Tax Act.
They have come to the provincial government, to the finance ministry, and they've said: "We're in the business of recycling old oil and fuel. It's good for the environment. There is a market out there. We can sell our product. We're generating revenue, we're generating enough business that we can operate viably, but under the current provisions we're not allowed to operate because we cannot collect tax. We're not considered to be distributors."
The act specifies that people who are in the special fuel business, who are in the business of selling and processing special fuel products, can be designated by the minister, at the minister's call, to be distributors and therefore they would have the right to collect tax under both the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. I think the member for St Catharines would agree with me, and in fact he has already agreed with me tonight, that this is a provision of the act he could support. Actually, I'm getting the indication from the discussion this evening that both parties are likely to support the bill, and I certainly hope we're able to put this in so that the industry can enjoy the benefits of having many of these changes brought into the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act.
2250
For the benefit of those watching who are interested in the details of the act, I thought I would provide some other information on some of the sections that haven't been discussed so far in the debate.
One of the things the act does is to provide one standard for how long people have before they're able to get in their appeal if they feel their taxes have been improperly assessed. In the past situation there has been a variety of time limits on when people could appeal their taxes or ask for reassessment. Under this act, everything will be four years, Mr Speaker. I'm sure you're delighted to hear that. I think the industry supports the idea of having the same length of time to collect the taxes and claim tax refunds and that's something the act would provide.
Another section of the act that is of importance to the finance ministry in terms of collection is that it deems persons who are distributors to be holding tax monies in trust. That provision allows the government to be the highest creditor on those monies so they can't be seized by other parties in the event of trusteeship or bankruptcy. Her Majesty in right of Ontario would have the highest right to those tax dollars. The distributors are deemed to be trustees of that money and they will certainly have to answer to the government in the event that they get into financial difficulty and have trouble paying off their other creditors. That's of course as it should be. Under most circumstances, tax dollars are held in trust for the collecting government that is owed them.
Other sections of the bill that are of interest include the section -
Mr Bradley: I can't think of any section of this bill that is interesting.
Mr Grimmett: I think it's very interesting, just as the member for St Catharines said, and I know he spent many hours poring over it before he gave his 25-minute speech this evening.
Changes in the bill are making it easier for the distributors to apply dye to their fuels, and the requirements for using dyes are clarified. Also, the minister is provided with added powers to assess a penalty against a person who uses the dye incorrectly. If you talk to people in the industry, such as the member for Quinte who has quite a history of being in the fuel business, there are a number of operators in Ontario and other jurisdictions in recent times who have been found to be using dye illegally or colouring their fuels when they shouldn't be colouring them. Those penalties have been increased under the act and that is something that I'm sure is going to be important in the industry. Most of the good operators in the industry want to see that happen.
Those are the remarks I want to make this evening on the bill. I look forward to hearing from the later speakers as we move along.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Bradley: I found the remarks of the member absolutely scintillating on this bill. When he talked about the interesting parts of the bill, I was thumbing through it to see if there was an interesting part to this bill.
The one part I'm interested in that is not in the bill I thought might be in the bill. I was looking for the part that would contain a provision to prohibit major oil companies, the oil barons, from charging to the independent retailers a wholesale price different from that which they charge to their own dealers. That's a kind of financing or a kind of pricing which is called predatory pricing, and the member for Quinte would be aware of that. Unfortunately, he wasn't allowed to bring in a bill on predatory pricing. They had to give him a resolution to go and see the federal government about something.
I was looking for that, or I was wondering whether this bill would contain the provision that was brought in in the late summer of 1975 by Premier William Davis. When he saw the oil barons lining up against consumers in Ontario, he passed a bill in this Legislature - it had nothing to do with the election coming up - which prohibited the oil barons, the major oil companies, the conglomerates, from raising either the price of gasoline or the price of home heating oil. There was a person prepared to stand up to the oil giants, to the captains of industry who kept shifting the price of gasoline up and down. I was wondering why neither of those provisions would have been part of this bill. It would indeed have made it more interesting and more relevant to the general population of this province.
Ms Lankin: In the member's comments, he raised the fact that this bill is almost identical to an earlier bill that had been tabled by the government in a previous sitting of the Legislature; Bill 173, I think it was numbered at the time. It's interesting to note that that bill didn't proceed past first reading. It was tabled, it was introduced, it was read into the record for first reading, and the government House leader never called that bill back for any further debate or discussion. Sometimes that is the fate of housekeeping bills.
In a sense, while there are some measures that are important in this bill and helpful to vendors of gasoline in terms of harmonizing tax collection periods between the federal government and the provincial government, and certain other rules, harmonizing for example the collection of taxes on adjusted volumes, whether it's temperature-adjusted or ambient temperature volumes - those sorts of harmonizations are important things for small businesses that often get caught up in the red tape of different levels of governments and the different departments within individual levels of government and their regulations and their requirements. So I think there are some useful aspects to the bill, but it is interesting that bills of this sort - and it happens with every government - often get left and don't get dealt with because of pressing public policy.
I would say to the member opposite that I find it passing strange that this bill, in the last two or three days of this legislative sitting, is being called forward as a priority on the part of the government when the Minister of Community and Social Services is making much ado about the fact that Bill 73, the Child and Family Services Amendment Act, has not been dealt with.
The Speaker: Further comments? Response?
Mr Grimmett: I thank the member for St Catharines and the member for Beaches-Woodbine for their comments and questions.
The member for St Catharines of course has spoken many times on many bills about the same topic, which is gas pricing, and he always manages to bring in Gary Carr's mother and casinos, and now he's got into the bashing of the oil barons. He's thinking probably about the Cleveland Barons.
Of course I was much younger in 1975 than I am now and than the member of St Catharines is now. I remember back in 1975 and in the mid-1970s when both the provincial and federal governments went on flights of fancy to try to bring in wage and price controls, to try to bring more government control of fluctuating prices in the marketplace, and I think generally speaking most people feel that was a completely failed exercise. Actually I think it's a good idea that we haven't embarked on the same kind of price freezes that were tried in the 1970s because I think history has shown that they aren't particularly effective.
2300
I can't comment on why Bill 173 wasn't brought forward. I really don't know. At the time I wasn't carrying that bill. All I know is, on this particular bill, there is a need to bring it forward to address concerns that the industry has raised. Some of the comments that I made about the companies that were in the special fuel products business - I'm sure they need to have these changes brought into law before they're able to get a distributor's licence. That's about all I can really address on the comments from the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Conway: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I see that you're taking a well-deserved rest. I think too much stress at this hour is not good for anyone.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): He's a wreck.
Mr Conway: I wouldn't call the Speaker a wreck, my friend from Caledon. That's almost intemperate, if not injudicious.
It's been quite an interesting evening. I've been sitting here listening to these remarks. There are two or three things I want to say about the bill, and I will confine myself to the bill.
The first and central concern I have has to do with that bête noire called "the adjusted temperature methodology." I simply say for about the fifth time that as far as I can tell - and I'm sorry our friend from Belleville is not here - this adjusted temperature method is anti-consumer in the Canadian context because it is pegged to an American standard. I gather the member from Muskoka has carriage of the bill. I'd like to know what the government intends to do, what we intend to do about this adjusted temperature methodology, because I hear from all kinds of gasoline vendors that this ATC, adjusted temperature control, is not a fair standard in Canada and Ontario where our winters are normally - and we're not talking about normal temps.
I've got to tell you, I spent four and a half hours tonight driving from my home in Pembroke across the Queen's highway system to get to Toronto. I don't know whether I should say this but it was a beautiful night on the road and there was almost a kind of celestial incandescence. The sunset tonight was probably one of the most beautiful I have ever seen. This weather is just absolutely remarkable. The roads were clear.
The price of gasoline is very interesting. You might be interested to know, I say to my friend from the Beaches, that gasoline prices in Toronto are about three or four cents a litre higher than they are in Pembroke and about five or six cents higher than they are in Petawawa and Chalk River; not a situation we see very often.
Ms Lankin: Why is that?
Mr Conway: Well, it's the dynamic of the marketplace.
I'm sorry to disturb the Attorney General who is ploughing through the New York Times at quite a steady pace. I don't fault him for that at all.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm listening.
Mr Conway: He's only got to the sports section. You've been very attentive. I celebrate your duty and your attention.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Reading about Dennis Mills.
Mr Conway: Reading about Dennis Mills. The poor member from Scarborough wherever, she's so consistently choleric in her observations. It is the season of goodwill. If we want to have a debate tonight about who hasn't paid his or her taxes, I can tell you it won't be long before it becomes a very bipartisan debate. I'm not here to defend any member of my party or anybody else's. I just say to the phlegmatic member who interjected a moment ago that just once, please, a hint of generosity, just a whiff of goodwill in the season of Christmas, might be a bit of an uplift to some old curmudgeons like myself.
Adjusted temperature control is an anti-consumer methodology, because in Canada, I say to my friend from Muskoka, it is set at a standard that more reflects the American climactic experience than that which we have here in Ontario. In the name of this bill, you have a duty, I hope, to explain to your consumers and mine if, as and when they're ever going to get any relief from this prejudicial measure.
I'm sure you're going to tell me it's the responsibility of some other government, that it's Mel Lastman's job or it's David Collenette's job, but I just want to take the opportunity tonight to simply note that this is a piece of this legislation. I've heard, and continue to hear, particularly from small operators, that the consumers of retail gasoline products are not getting what they're paying for. In fact, my friend Rollins said the other week, "You should, young Conway, go and take a gallon jar" - I think he said a gallon jar; is it possible, Harry, to get a gallon jar? I guess it is - "and measure out what you get for what you pay."
Interjection.
Mr Conway: There it goes again. Mr Speaker, you're a man of warmth and goodwill. Can you not somehow inspire the lady from Ellesmere to do something sweet and generous rather than something caustic and political here tonight?
The suggestion that Mr Rollins made is a good one. In most cases, if you take what you pay for and measure it against what you were supposed to have received, you'll find a discrepancy, and it's not a discrepancy that is to the advantage of the customer. When you consider the trillions of litres of gasoline that are pumped regularly in this jurisdiction, one wonders whether Bill 74 shouldn't be adjusted to provide some greater protection for Ontario consumers.
You can just imagine the Americans. You can just hear them in the state Legislature in North Dakota or in Congress yelling and screaming. They'd have the sons and daughters of John D. Rockefeller at least backed into a corner and beaten up a bit. We are so wonderfully docile that if it's good for Standard Oil, it's got to be good for the people of Ontario; a small business, I know.
One of the reasons that transportation bills are always of interest to most people I know is that they speak to a very fundamental reality in the Canadian experience. As someone said, we've got an awful lot of geography. I say to my friend from Hastings, I drove through a lot of it tonight and it was particularly attractive through his part of the world. We are very dependent on our cars and our trucks and other vehicular modes of transport to get from place to place, and my friend from Chatham-Kent has sold more than his fair share. In fact, I'm in the market for a new vehicle. I should get some advice, Jack.
Adjusted temperature control is a real issue. I don't ever hear anything from government as to what, if anything, we in Ontario intend to do about it. Before the debate's over tonight, I'd like to hear from someone, perhaps the parliamentary assistant for finance, if there is any concern in the current government about that particular problem.
A second issue - I thought of it tonight but it's been on my mind of late. Have you noticed, particularly along the throughways where the government of Ontario, I gather, still controls the franchises that we lease out to the big players - do we still do that? We must. Travelling east of the Queen city to the Quebec border, I've noticed in the last couple of years that you can't find the price of gasoline any more. Have you noticed how that's all disappeared? Maybe it's not a big issue, but on the third reading of Bill 74, the amendments to the Gasoline Tax Act and Fuel Tax Act, I would like to make the point that perhaps somebody in government should encourage, and if not encourage, then stipulate, that on the throughways, the freeways, the 401, the 400, the 407 or whatever, where there are the big gasoline outfits, where I'm sure a very substantial amount of petrol is sold, the consumer have at least the benefit of a clearly marked sign of what the retail prices are. It was there for years and for decades, but I have just noticed in the last 18 months that it's gone by the board.
2310
These days you can find in various regions or subregions of the province price differentials of upwards of 10%, so I simply want to make the point that again, thinking about the consumers - I thought the undersecretary for finance made a very good point, and there's no parliamentary secretary to finance who doesn't have as his or her first concern the cash flow of the exchequer. You wouldn't have the job and you wouldn't be paid if you weren't worried about the cash flow to the Ontario treasury.
That's all well and good, but it's always good to look at these things from the point of view of the consumer, and I submit tonight that the consumer is getting hosed in this province via adjusted temperature methodology. I think the consumer is not being helped and to some extent the consumer is being prejudiced by the fact that in recent times we are not seeing any advertisements, particularly on those big stations along the 400 series highways, of the retail price of gasoline.
While the hour is late and the moon bright and Christmas coming fast, I thought I would not talk about the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and not talk about a variety of other things but simply submit on third reading those two concerns on behalf of consumers, not just in Renfrew but I hope and pray elsewhere.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mrs Boyd: I must say to the member for Renfrew North, I came back especially to hear his speech and am disappointed that he didn't take his full time and didn't go into full flight. I thought he was starting to. When he first started off his speech he started talking about, and I believe I heard it correctly, the "climactic" experiences of Americans. I think he meant the "climatic" experience of Americans. In these days of Viagra, it might make a difference, so I just wondered about that.
I would share with him that even west of Toronto along the 401 and the 403 and so on, where you can find a gas station at all, because of course that becomes increasingly difficult, I think you're right; I think we are not seeing those signs posted about the cost of gasoline and I do think that consumers should be very clear that it is important to know as you go along what the relative price of gas is. Of course, you're kind of a captive audience when you're travelling along those 400 series highways.
I don't know about the member for Renfrew North but I find myself very often filling my gas tank - it's kind of low on my list of priorities so I often find myself with very little choice even if the price posted were one to which I objected. I'm not sure that if the posted price was one you objected to whether you would find it any better if you went off the highway.
The member for Renfrew North would know because there are very few of us in this place who drive as many miles a year as he does. He is famous for the kind of travelling that he does across the province. He probably has visited every village along every highway, so I always am interested in hearing what he has to say about any issue of travel.
Mr Grimmett: I'm pleased to respond to the comments made by the member for Renfrew North and I too am disappointed that he didn't take the full 20 minutes to discuss just about anything that he wants, because at 11:10 on a Monday evening it's always nice to have an entertaining speaker like the member for Renfrew North.
The suggestion he has made about the use of the 15 degrees Celsius: I would recommend that he look at section 2 in the bill, which deals with measuring volume and calculating tax. Rather than read the section, I'll just say that the option is there for either the adjusted temperature method or the unadjusted temperature method. In deference to his comments, I think I would have to as well speak to an operator to understand exactly what the practice currently is, but the act is designed to provide the operators with the option as long as they use the same method of measuring the fuel on all sales to the same person during the same year.
I don't know whether that addresses his concerns, but certainly next time I stop for gasoline I'll also be asking the operators for their views on that. However, it's my understanding that the industry wanted to have one consistent method of measuring the gasoline. I'm not sure whether I can really pass any opinion or comment on whether this is in keeping with some standard temperature in any jurisdiction in North America.
The other comment he had about the signs - I've noticed myself that there are very few posted gasoline pricing signs on the 400 series highways. That's certainly something we can pursue, perhaps privately.
Mr Ramsay: At such a late hour, it's amazing how entertaining a speech can be wrought out of such a highly technical bill as Bill 74, which deals with ambient temperatures and taxation levels, but it's all the work of government - not so much an interest to consumers, gasoline pricing being the big interest of consumers in northern Ontario.
As was observed by the member for Renfrew North, who from time to time - though unlike now, I guess - has usually a regime of high gasoline prices, it's an issue that perennially comes along in elections and to politicians that people are very concerned about the high level of gasoline, especially in northern Ontario, where many times it's as high as 10 cents more per litre, though not as much today with the very low level for crude oil that we have around the world. It's an issue that really fails to have a resolution, in that many parties and many governments have proposed resolutions to it but none of us has been able to resolve the situation that in a free market the companies are allowed to set their prices.
However, I've found that from time to time, when the prices do get high, pressure from local politicians and municipal and federal politicians, as we have done a few times at home, has really faced down and embarrassed the oil companies to start to put the prices down when people start to raise a fuss. In areas such as where I live in northern Ontario, where there isn't the competition that causes the gas wars to give highly competitive prices, there are other methods of putting pressure on the oil companies and it's something that from time to time we have to get into. I wish it wasn't so and we could always get southern Ontario oil prices at home, but there are ways of getting those prices lower.
Ms Lankin: It's always a pleasure to respond to the member for Renfrew North. I found interesting his explanation, or I guess the concern he was raising, with respect to the temperature-adjusted controls. It's not something I'd given a lot of thought to, particularly as it relates to this bill, because as I understand this bill it's just the government saying, "Whatever volume you're selling at, we're going to tax based on that price at that volume," so the government gets its revenue, and there is the fact of harmonizing with the federal government as well.
There is, he may be interested to note, an increase in taxation that will be coming to the government. The parliamentary assistant talked a little bit about the tax harmonization bringing a cash flow benefit to government, but it's more than that. There is actually a slight increase, and I find that interesting from a government that, in any other guise, would say that is something that should go to the people in a referendum. In fact, their new referendum bill suggests that should be part of it. While I was interested in the concerns the member raised, I don't understand them directly in the context of this particular bill.
But I was particularly interested when he raised the point of the differential in gas prices, as we sit here tonight, between his home communities, particularly talking about Petawawa, for example, and Toronto, where Toronto's gas prices are higher right now. Would that the member for Timiskaming is correct in the points he raises, that simply embarrassing them would bring the oil companies in line in terms of gas pricing policies. I think public pressure does from time to time, when there's a bit too much attention drawn to them.
I think I'm at a point where I wish governments would be direct with people, would say, if they don't intend to intervene in a free market, that that's just the way it's going to be, and not pursue these crass political, empty-of-content mechanisms and fooling people, like the gas-busters.
2320
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North has two minutes to respond.
Mr Conway: I want to thank my friend from London Centre. I am truly red-faced for having misspoken myself. Like a lot of people, I've regrettably got impeachment on my mind this week and I did not use the proper language. I'm glad she corrected me.
The parliamentary assistant makes a good point, and I was aware of it in the bill. The issue, though, has to do with how the system works for the consumer. The big suppliers and of course governments can agree, because it really is no skin off their noses; it's just money out of the pocket of the consumer. As I understand it, in the marketplace it's basically big oil that decides whether or not adjusted temperature control is in fact going to be the standard. The parliamentary assistant makes a very good point; I understand that and I was aware of it being that way in the bill. All I'm looking at is that if I'm a consumer, in Toronto or in Pembroke or in Deep River or wherever, if ATC, adjusted temperature control, is the methodology being used, for at least half of the year I'm getting ripped off as a consumer in Ontario, because it's an American standard that doesn't reflect our weather conditions and it means I'm generally paying for more than I'm getting.
Somebody said something about high flight. I'm not taking any high flights at all for a few days, because the last time I tried to do something of that nature was yesterday morning, when on a beautiful Sunday morning with lots of clear air and bright sunshine I tried to back out of the garage in my house and didn't succeed. I ripped half the side of my car off in the process. So I'm trying to be moderate this week.
Mrs Boyd: No wonder.
Mr Conway: Yes. If I can't get the car out of the garage in my own house, I'm not taking too many flights, for a few days anyway - and I was sober.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): We don't believe that.
Mr Conway: Well, it's true.
The Deputy Speaker: The results were the same.
Further debate?
Mrs Boyd: I must say, it's always fun to listen to the member for Renfrew North.
I want to talk about a particular part of this bill that really interests me and I want to explain how I'm going to start. We have had from the government a very handy little chart that explains to us each of the amendments and gives real clarity about what sections of the bill those amendments appear in. I'm going to be referring to the third page of this little chart. It's number 4, where it says, "Amend the offence provisions for carrying coloured fuel in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle." The explanation is:
"In 1991, the act was amended to define `operator' and `driver' and placed the liability for the offence with drivers who had coloured fuel in their motor vehicle tanks. Court decisions since implied that the responsibility for ensuring compliance, in the majority of the cases, rests with the operator, in other words, the registered owner. Similar cases involving operators and drivers under other statutes, such as the Highway Traffic Act, have supported this notion. The proposed amendment would charge the operator, the registered owner, with the offence."
This interests me, because of course the discussion we've had in this province over the issue of red light cameras, over the issue of photo radar, has been this government's ideological opposition to any kind of offence that would involve the registered owner as opposed to the driver of the vehicle. It interests me that in this act one of the features is a transference of responsibility from the driver to the registered owner, obviously on the contention that the registered owner holds the ultimate responsibility for what happens.
I am amazed, truly amazed, because although we have seen the current Minister of Transportation announce that there will be ways in which municipalities will be able to use red light cameras and indeed the announcement of a pilot project in the city of Toronto, this government has very vehemently opposed the notion that you would charge the registered owner as opposed to the driver. I can remember certainly back in 1993-94 the kind of outspokenness of some members of the current government front bench about the plan to have photo radar, which would have identified the registered owner of vehicles and have charged registered owners for the speeding that was going on on the 400 series.
My friend from Renfrew North talked about not being able to see the gasoline prices along the 400 series, but quite frankly no one could read anything along the 400 series with the speed at which traffic is now going. It is quite normal to see traffic moving along at a speed of 120 kilometres an hour, and some high-flyers zooming past at up to 140 kilometres an hour, and of course there is no mechanism available to the police to control that speed. I know that some strange ideas in the Conservative caucus seem to involve, "If you can't control the speed of people, you simply raise the speed limit and then it won't be a problem," but we all know that speed kills and that high speed is a very serious problem.
Ms Lankin: That wasn't in the caucus, that was the Solicitor General.
Mrs Boyd: My friend from Beaches-Woodbine tells me that it was in fact the Solicitor General who thought this was a really good way to solve his budget crisis and at the same time make people feel better about the high speed on the 400 series.
I find it quite fascinating, what with all that vehement arguing about how unfair it was, how it violated people's rights, how it wasn't appropriate to charge the owner of a vehicle if that owner wasn't driving the vehicle, now to find in this act the acceptance of the notion that the person ultimately responsible for offences is the registered owner of the vehicle. It seems passing strange to me that we have this kind of doublethink going on in the Conservative caucus.
I must tell you that I, as the person who had carriage of the photo radar legislation, was the subject of such outcry from the Conservative caucus around this notion -
Mr Conway: And us.
Mrs Boyd: - and yes, indeed, from selected Liberals, as my friend from Renfrew North indicates, yet here it is in this bill and nobody's raising an outcry at all. In fact the government appears to think this is a very fine idea.
I see the real irony in this because I read out the whole thing and I said that in 1991, when we were the government, the act was amended to make drivers responsible, and now the act is being amended to make the registered owner responsible, and that appears to be a reversal of roles between our two parties. It's a confusing kind of situation when we have one kind of regime applying to one kind of offence and another kind of regime applying to another. The parliamentary assistant apparently does not know the answer to this question.
Mr Grimmett: I'm going to look it up and see if I can find it.
Mrs Boyd: He tells me he's going to look it up. I'm not sure where he's going to look it up, because I'm quite sure that this is the kind of thing that is there for ease of enforcement. That was the whole issue about photo radar, the whole issue about red light cameras, that you can in a very efficient way, using the technology available, enforce your regulations, enforce your laws, without having the level of expense, the level of danger to police officers that is there when they chase speeders on a four-lane, eight-lane or 12-lane highway.
2330
I find it very interesting that in this case the efficiency and the effectiveness of enforcement has been seen to be a logical way to enforce this particular offence section, whereas it wasn't with the others. We all have known for some time that technological change has made it possible for us to do many things differently. This is a government that likes to tell us, when we're talking about the restructuring of hospitals or the closing of hospitals or the closing of schools or the amalgamation of municipalities or the amalgamation of school boards, that they understand why people resist change, but that change is necessary. Yet they themselves, when there are technologies available that assist in the enforcement of laws that are there specifically to protect the safety of Ontarians, find it difficult to accept that technology is appropriate.
It might interest some of the members of the caucus, particularly those who were not here throughout all the discussions of photo radar, to know how thorough was the study of how that technology worked, how to protect the privacy of individuals. That, I recall, was a very big issue for a lot of Conservatives. There was all this worry that if a photograph were taken of the licence plate and inadvertently included a picture of the back of the heads of the people in the car, you would be able to identify who was in the car and that could become a surveillance technique or might be used in private lawsuits, that sort of thing.
Now, the interesting part of it is that the technology and the plan that the Minister of Transportation is prepared to put forward apparently allows people to take pictures from the front, in which case of course the driver would be recognized, or of the licence plate or of the whole car. There seems to be some confusion about what the purpose is. If in fact what the pictures that will be taken at red lights do is identify the occupants of the car, what does that do to privacy concerns? I had to go through all this in great detail when we were going through the whole examination of photo radar, and I can tell you there are conflicting views on all sides. The one issue is that you have to come down and make some decisions on this in a principled and consistent way, and this inclusion of charging the operator, the registered owner, with an offence in this case seems to me to fly in the face of many of the statements that the government has made.
I need to make my position quite clear. I think it is quite appropriate to charge the registered owner of a car, because if I lend my car to someone who is going to drive recklessly or over the speed limit or go through a red light, it is my responsibility for not ensuring that I have confidence in the person who's driving my car. I would say that this is an appropriate section; I'm just pointing out, of course, that it creates some confusion, in my mind at least, about what the principles are on which the government bases its laws.
You might think it's peculiar that I'm worried about that, Mr Speaker, because I think you're aware - you've heard me speak many times - that I don't really think there are very many principles that underlie and are consistent in the laws this government has brought forward. Quite frankly, the only consistent principle that I've seen is a drive to the lowest common denominator when we're talking about public services and a drive to the highest common denominator when we're talking about redirecting the wealth of the province into the hands of fewer and fewer of those at the top of the earning scale. That is very consistent, very ideological.
We know that this is a government which when it attacks civil servants, when it attacks trade unions, when it attacks those who criticize it, has a very strong view that if you disagree with their bottom-line way of looking at the world, if you disagree with their notion that we always have to be trying to drive lower and lower the services that we offer people, lower and lower the wages that we pay people, in order to redistribute the wealth of the province to those who are most wealthy already - that of course is consistent.
We see it through piece after piece of legislation, and it's having its effect, because if you lower the income of the lowest-paid people in the province and you ensure that you lower the taxes of the highest-paid people in the province, then you're going to have an automatic redistribution of wealth, and of course this is a government that thinks absolutely nothing of setting up situations in which the employees within the province, those who are employed, find it harder and harder to ensure that their work is paid for appropriately.
This is the government - they did withdraw it, but we know that if they get a second term it will come back in - who attacked the employment standards legislation, who attacked the notion of people having minimum standards, who wanted it to be possible for unions to bargain below minimum standards in order to maintain jobs. We know that there are many in this government who are most enamoured by the notion of the right-to-work states in the United States where the whole purpose is to continue to drive down wages further and further, increase working hours for people, decrease working conditions, decrease workplace safety, the kinds of protection for workers, in order that the profit made by the company will get higher and higher. It's a very clear principle of removing wealth from those at the low end of the scale and pushing it up to those at the high end of the scale, and report after report is showing exactly how this is happening.
I want the members of the government to know that although you're responsible for a lot, you're not responsible for all of that; in fact you have complicit partners at the federal level. We know there is a right-wing ideological position that is very much in the minds of both the federal Liberals and the Ontario Tories that it is OK to transfer that wealth up the line, it is OK to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
When I tell you that I'm confused about what your principles are around this issue of the registered owner being the one who is charged with the offence and say that puzzles me and it doesn't appear to be consistent, it's only because that registered owner is likely to be the person at the top end of the scale, while the driver is certainly likely to be the person at the low end of the scale. So it's interesting here to see that, given your overriding principle of distributing wealth to the high end, in this case you're going to be prepared to charge the high earner as opposed to the low earner. It does appear a bit confusing.
When we talk about bills like this, and we know that the government has the power in a majority government to push these bills through, whether they are consistent, whether they make sense or not, whether, as the member for Renfrew North suggests, they erode consumer rights, it sometimes can feel a bit futile. All we can really do is point out some of the inconsistencies.
I must tell you I believe fairly strongly that when we see a bill come back like this - it has been here before, of course; it was Bill 173 at one point and, as several members have pointed out, is actually already in effect even though the law has not been brought through the Legislature. It was a little commitment that happened in the 1997 budget and it died on the order paper when the government prorogued the House last year. It's back here again, and it raises its head at a time when the government tells us that there are all sorts of very important things that they absolutely must have before this government rises for the Christmas break and, as many have suggested, perhaps never to return to this place until an election has been held, at which point of course I heartily believe they will not return.
2340
My friend from Beaches-Woodbine pointed out earlier in one of her comments that one of those bills is the Child and Family Services Act, a very important piece of legislation that is being clamoured for by those who are trying to protect children across the province. For some reason we're getting all sorts of calls and letters accusing us of holding this legislation up when in fact the House leader has not called the legislation and has not brought it to this place to be discussed. Instead of that, we sit here and discuss a fairly innocuous bill which has all the warts and bumps that many of these pieces of legislation appear to have but which has very little effect on the people of the province in the short run, at least when you compare it to an important piece of legislation like the Child and Family Services Act.
In a way it feels very peculiar that this government, with all its important legislation to get through, had to have this bill discussed tonight, had to have this issue dealt with, when there are so many other important ones that should be dealt with first.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): At this late hour of the day I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on the comments delivered by the member for London Centre.
She doesn't speak about gasoline issues with the same passion that she speaks about child and family service issues, and I suppose that's only normal. It may have to do with the lateness of the hour or it may have to do with her particular interest.
She says she was confused about what appears to be a difference in opinion about our interpretation of red light cameras and photo radar as opposed to offences under this particular act. I would presume the difference probably lies in the fact that it's not a moving offence, similar to a parking ticket. A vehicle is parked illegally, and the vehicle owner receives the ticket because it's not a moving offence. I presume that is the difference and I don't see it to be an inconsistency. In fact, if a vehicle runs a red light or is speeding, it is the driver who is committing the offence, as opposed to a vehicle being illegally parked or in this case containing some bad fuel. I don't think it's a confusing situation. I think it is a logical position to take, that moving offences would be interpreted differently from other offences.
Maybe she would make some additional comments on that when it is her chance to sum up. I believe that is the difference in that particular area and I don't believe it's an inconsistency on the part of the government.
Mr Conway: The hour is late and I should be careful on these matters. I just want to make a couple of points. The member for London Centre makes a point with which I differ sharply. I do not, as a practical matter and as a general rule, like to see policies whereby we fine the owner and not the operator of a vehicle. I don't care how good the technology is, I feel very strongly that in a free and democratic society, notwithstanding technological advances, you should not be fining anybody but the operator.
At 11:45 I just want to register that complaint and I won't go into a full flight over photo radar. Poor old Runciman has been tempted, now that he's in government, and I understand the temptation, because it's a bit like the technology. God, if we could just get our hands on the money.
Nobody was a louder and harsher critic of photo radar. I'm even prepared to confess that there are now sections of the 401 north of Toronto where, for those few hours of the day when the entire highway is not knotted in a hopeless morass, when the average speed is four kilometres an hour, there must be 15 or 20 minutes in a 24-hour cycle when you could actually drive at something above the speed limit between the 427 and Victoria Park or whatever.
I accepted the argument that it's not easy, but I state again that the previous government, for all its good intentions, lost me when their agents - certainly not the ministers but their agents - left the very distinct impression that photo radar in 1992 or 1993 was more about picking my pocket than it was about changing my sometimes bad behaviour.
Ms Lankin: That's as close as we come, with the member for Renfrew North, to confessions of an MPP, a commuting MPP, but I know of what he speaks.
I find irony delicious and this is a case in which the irony just rings through this bill. The member for London Centre is so attentive to detail and so sharp and able to bring forward these points. The response of the member for Chatham-Kent just falls so short. First of all, the ministry's own briefing notes point out court cases that refer to all sorts of similar rulings by the court under the Highway Traffic Act and the provisions therein.
If the principle that is held so dear within the Conservative caucus is that you fine or you punish the offender - which is what we've heard when it comes to, as the member for Chatham-Kent says, moving offences, but more particularly when we come to red light offences and running red lights - then surely the case would hold that if the driver happened to be the person who filled the gas with the wrongly dyed gas - in other words, the illegal gas for which tax hadn't been paid - then it would be the driver. It would be perpetrator of the crime who should be the one who is prosecuted.
But of course that's not what this act provides for. This act doesn't even say, in the case where you can determine it, that's who will be charged. It makes it very clear that it is the owner of the vehicle. Isn't that interesting? Completely in opposition to the hard-held principle of the Conservative caucus in their opposition to red light cameras. The member for London Centre so deliciously points out the irony, and yet again here we are debating something which seems to run absolutely in contradiction to your own principles when there's such important legislation as the Child and Family Services Act that we could be passing.
Mr Grimmett: I am not going to touch in great depth on the issue of owner versus operator mainly because I don't know the answer at this time as to why it's in the bill. But I want to congratulate the member for London Centre, unlike the member for St Catharines who managed to talk about many other issues besides the legislation that's under debate.
I suspect, without reading the legislation, that the member for London Centre has managed to find something deep in the bowels of this bill that allowed her to get from fuel taxes to photo radar. I have to congratulate her on that because that's quite a leap.
I think photo radar is another issue which I'd be quite prepared to debate privately, and I often do because, my wife being a police officer, I run into police officers of totally different views on that issue. There are some police officers who think it is a straight issue where you have to slow the traffic down. There are other police officers who think that it's ridiculous that you wouldn't just allow police officers to go around and charge the operators for changing lanes etc.
It's an issue we could debate at great length. However, the hour is late. I want to say, though, that several members raised this particular issue. Regarding the comments from the member for London Centre about our inconsistency as a government, I think we have been consistent. We set out some lofty goals when we were elected and I think we have, by and large, satisfied those goals. We have been consistently keeping our promises on the major issues and your party has been consistently opposing them. I think there has been a certain consistency in both our positions. I can't understand where the Liberals are on any of those big issues but I think we're all very clear on where we are.
2350
The Deputy Speaker: The member for London Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mrs Boyd: I'd like to thank the members for Chatham-Kent, Renfrew North, Beaches-Woodbine and Muskoka-Georgian Bay for their comments.
To the member for Chatham-Kent, I don't think it has anything to do with a moving offence or a non-moving offence, since the ministry's own briefing notes clearly talk about this as happening throughout the Highway Traffic Act. So, good try but I don't think that's an explanation for the inconsistency here.
The member for Renfrew North is consistent. He has consistently defended his right to drive at the speed he chooses without being caught. He has been consistent in his opposition to photo radar. I don't quite know what he does with red light cameras. That must be very confusing.
Mr Conway: I see it as a different issue.
Mrs Boyd: Oh, he sees it as a different issue. You see, there we go again, we're not quite sure where the Liberals stand on principle. If there's inconsistency with the Tories, at least over here we know there's inconsistency as well. Nothing is strange here.
Mr Conway: I don't see that as inconsistent. If you run a red light, you should get nailed.
Mrs Boyd: But if what happens is that a picture is taken of your licence plate -
Mr Conway: If you speed and you are apprehended, you should be fined.
Mrs Boyd: If the issue is that the camera takes the picture of your licence plate, it is the registered owner who will be charged.
The vehemence with which people deal with this tiny little element of this bill indicates quite clearly that there are many, many areas on which we disagree, and we can find them no matter what kind of bill we're discussing.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Ms Lankin: We were expecting that a member of the caucus of my colleague the member for Renfrew North was going to be speaking next, but he seems to momentarily be -
Mr Conway: Out for vespers.
Ms Lankin: - out for vespers, so at this point in time perhaps we can switch rotational order, and I will speak.
The government is bringing forward this bill, as I have pointed out, and I want to explore this issue at some length, at a curious time, late in the session of the government. The House is scheduled to sit for three more days and we're into late-night sittings, sitting till midnight, which is a time when the government usually uses the opportunity to deal with priority pieces of legislation.
I am at a loss to understand exactly why this bill, which was introduced once by the government in an earlier form, Bill 173, and was left lying on the order table after first reading, never called for second or third reading, allowed to die on the order table, has been reintroduced in this session as Bill 74, the bill we have in front of us now; a bill which puts in place some provisions of harmonization with the federal government, which are fine in and of themselves, not bad measures; a bill which actually puts into law a practice that is already in place in the field out there, in the industry. There is nothing wrong with that, that's good, but it's not compelling, urgent public business in the sense that the provisions, by and large, have already been put in place by the industry as the result of federal legislation that has already been enacted.
This is the bill the government brings forward for very serious debate with very limited time left, when there is a piece of legislation, the Child and Family Services Act, which the government purports to be a significant bill, and which I personally believe is a very, very important bill. It is a bill that deals with such heavy issues as including neglect as grounds for determining that a child is at risk of harm, and as ensuring that the threshold at which children's aid society workers can move in to either bring protection for a child or remove a child from a situation, to ensure that child's protection is changed to a level that, while it may be debated out there, the expert panel that reported on this felt was more appropriate, and particularly appropriate in terms of placing the child at the centre of the act and ensuring that the protection of the child was the primary principle of the act and that all other goals and principles of the act were secondary to that.
This is a piece of legislation about which the minister herself has expressed great concern that there's a chance the bill won't be passed before the government goes to the people in the next election. She's so concerned that she has contacted everybody in the field who was involved in discussions around the development of this legislation and asked them to start a letter-writing campaign - the text has been provided, I guess, by the association out to some of the individual agencies because the wording is identical in each of the letters that have come in - asking them to demand that the opposition make this bill go through.
As people who have followed the changes in the rules in this Legislature will know, in fact there is no ability for us to force this legislation through, nor is there the ability for us to stop this legislation if the government wanted to bring it through.
I find it really interesting that the government called this bill for second reading on one day, and the government did their leadoff speech and the official opposition began their leadoff speech. The second day it was scheduled to be called was a day for which, because I would be doing the leadoff speech at that point in time, I had indicated a request if it could be rescheduled to an earlier day or to later that evening because I was attending at a hospital with a dear friend who was going through surgery that day. The government said, "No, we've got to move ahead." Fine, we deferred the leadoff and we had other members from my caucus participate. I have been waiting ever since for an opportunity for the bill to come for its third day of reading so that I could participate in this debate.
It's quite amazing to me that here we are debating this tonight when this important piece of legislation - which was, by the way, scheduled to be debated last Thursday afternoon and which the government House leader pulled from the agenda with no explanation and substituted, interestingly enough, his bill from the Ministry of the Environment, which he said he wanted to get through by the end of the session. If I were the Minister of Community and Social Services, I would be asking about that.
Mr Speaker, there appear to be a few more minutes left on the clock, but if at this point in time you judge it to be nearing 12 of the clock, I will relinquish the floor and look forward to the opportunity to continue this at another time.
The Deputy Speaker: I judge it to be so close that neither one of us will argue about it. It being almost 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2358.