Journal des débats 1993-nov-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): It is on behalf of the council of the township of Cornwall and area residents that I rise today to address their concerns about the Ministry of Environment and Energy's action on a waste transfer site.

This transfer site has been in the planning stages for some time now, and it was my initial understanding that all parties were in favour. However, the council says it was not informed of the extensive range of hazardous waste that the ministry wants to collect in Cornwall township. The reeve and council have told me that the approval certificate for the site was issued without significant public input, and it is in complete contradiction to the ministry's policy.

As a result, the council passed a resolution on October 30, asking me to raise its concerns that the Environment ministry did not apprise it correctly or fully of the details of the waste transfer site, nor did the ministry follow proper policy for the certificate of approval. At this point, the council and concerned area residents are withholding all support for the transfer site. They do not want planning or construction for the facility to proceed without the significance of their local bylaw being determined and appropriate amendments made with public consultation.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The time has come to take action to deal with the dangers associated with high-risk repeat offenders, especially paedophiles and sex offenders. We as legislators must take responsibility for the fact that the existing law allowed Joseph Fredericks, an eight-time convicted child molester, to be free when he abducted Christopher Stephenson, and allowed a repeat sex offender to be released into the York Mills community upon completion of his prison term, even though the Ministry of Correctional Services considers him to be a high-risk release and psychiatrists suggest he will strike again.

Attorney General, we know you were not responsible for the fact that at the time of sentencing of this repeat offender in 1988, the crown chose not to proceed with an application to have him declared a dangerous offender. However, as the law currently exists, there is nothing one can do to protect society from this man, who is likely to strike again.

Is it not reasonable to amend the law so that the system allows for the psychiatric review of those cases prior to release in order to assess the rehabilitative effects of the period of incarceration? I urge the Attorney General to approach the new Solicitor General of Canada to explore ways of reforming the legal system. Public security must take priority over the individual rights of repeat offenders deemed to be high-risk releases.

BETTY GERRARD

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm grateful for the chance to address this House this afternoon. Indeed I am always grateful for any opportunity to speak to this assembly. I should tell you, Speaker, I do so today with some sadness, because it's never a pleasure to have to eulogize somebody, especially somebody to whom you have been close and somebody who has been such a faithful member of our community.

Betty Gerrard was my staff person, my legislative assistant, indeed from my re-election in 1990 until now. She had worked for Mel Swart for a number of years when Mel championed any number of causes here in this Legislative Assembly. She sadly and very prematurely died a couple of weeks ago, on October 14.

She was a strong woman, she indeed was a formidable woman, and she was a faithful woman. There were times -- and Lord knows why she would ever get angry with me as my staff person -- when she was furious with me but would none the less defend me to the occasional critic that I might find here at Queen's Park.

She was faithful to her ideals as a New Democrat, and a lifelong New Democrat. Oh, there were days when she proclaimed to me that she was going to tear up that membership card, but at the end of the day she would inevitably say no, because she was faithful to the movement and the cause she believed in, that she, when working with Mel, fought for and that she, in working with me, fought for as well.

I express my sympathies to her son, Kevin, her daughters, Christine and Dawn, and her grandchildren, and I tell her and her family that on behalf of all of us we will miss her.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I stand to express my concern about the manner in which the employment equity bill is being handled. As you know, Mr Speaker, and I want to advise you, the government of the day has pulled back the bill, and I agree with that because it's so terribly flawed.

When I asked the question in the House the last time, the honourable minister stated that we had walked out, but she must understand that she has the majority and that any time she brings that bill back we're ready to deal with it. Maybe she has no confidence in her parliamentary assistant, who has done a job I'm not quite so happy with, but we want that bill.

What must I tell those communities, the business community, who want that? What must I tell Mr and Mrs Eric Birthwright, who have worked so hard in bringing their kids up and who want that access and fairness in the workplace and within the school system and want to show that equity is there?

I know this government is committed to that cause, but because it is incompetent in certain ways we are telling it that both sides in the opposition are willing to work with it to bring employment equity to a fairness there. I'm sure the Chairman, as he sits there in his frustration in the justice committee, wants that to happen, but somehow there is no cooperation, there is no commitment, there is no will by this government to bring this forward.

We need no token bill. We need an employment equity bill that is fair for all people of this province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to inform the House about a hypocrisy that I feel is occurring within the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Health stands in this House and repeatedly states that the government position of long-term care is to encourage and assist individuals to stay in their homes longer to keep health costs down and to ensure that patients are as comfortable as possible. Yet, Minister, when given an opportunity to provide the individuals with the assistance needed to stay in their homes, I say you have not acted on their request.

I have written the Minister of Health regarding one individual who is suffering from ALS and wishes to stay in his apartment in an attendant-care building. He was promised in July of this year that he would begin to receive care from the attendants in the building. As of today, he has still not received that promised care.

The Minister of Health cannot make sweeping statements in this Legislature about long-term care and then ignore the requests when they do come in. This is a situation in which you could act on one of the promises you have made in the House. Case after case proves that in many situations, and if the patients are willing, care provided at home is beneficial to both the patient and his care givers and causes less stress on the system by not placing the patient in a hospital.

I urge the minister to act on the request of the doctor of Robert Clark to provide the urgently needed attendant care in his own home.

1340

ARGORD INDUSTRIES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): November 4 will be a sad day for small business in Ontario. As chair of the Fort York Small Business Working Group, made up of more than 50 small businesses in my riding, I want to inform the House of our efforts to prevent a bank from pushing yet another small business over the edge.

Argord Industries is the business I speak of. It employs 45 people and has operated here in Toronto since 1942. But on November 4, Argord's receiver will auction the business to pay the bank's credit line. Meanwhile, Argord has retooled and redesigned its product for both the Canadian and American markets under free trade and has over half a million dollars in work orders to complete, if only the bank hadn't shut the business down.

This is all too typical of bank relationships with small businesses. They would rather put the business under at the first sign of trouble than work with an innovative business to help it grow. The failure of Argord will cost Ontarians nearly three quarters of a million dollars in lost taxes and social assistance, far more than what is owed the bank.

But on November 4, there is also hope for small business. I will be introducing a resolution calling on the new federal government to work with the provinces to ease the credit crunch facing small business. I suggest that both levels of government pass a community reinvestment act to require banks and financial institutions to recycle a minimum portion of their loan portfolio within the communities they serve.

I urge the members of this House to support this resolution.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On Saturday morning, I had the privilege of attending in St Catharines, along with the Minister of Labour and others and Mr Bradley, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario's 36th annual convention.

As you can appreciate in somewhat labour-oriented Ontario these days, there was a lot of concern being expressed about the direction this government has taken in relationship to Bill 80, as an example. Many of the members of the various unions in the construction trade feel that this minister is not listening to their concerns. The majority of the members have expressed concern in relationship to Bill 80. That came out very clearly when Joe Duffy, the business manager and secretary-treasurer, who spoke at the meeting, gave the minister a very clear message. That message was, "We represent the majority" -- "we" being the people in that room -- "and we think the minister should listen to the majority."

But in addition to that, there was also a discussion about what the economy in Ontario is really based on. The fact is that we are really a bricks and mortar economy; we are an economy that relies on construction activity. The men and women in that room in St Catharines sent out a very clear message to this government: that it should be moving ahead with infrastructure plans, that it should be encouraging construction, that it should be listening to the thousands of people who work in the construction industry, who can and will help this government get the economy on track if only it will listen to them.

PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus is proud of the excellent relationship it maintains with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. Working in tandem with the OPA, our party has advocated on behalf of fairness for Ontario's pharmacists on a wide range of issues such as the regulated health professions legislation, fee negotiations and Bill 81.

It is with great pride that I rise in the Legislature to recognize Pharmacy Awareness Week in the province of Ontario. Unlike the NDP government's draconian Bill 81, and unlike the Liberals, who implemented harsh anti-pharmacist legislation with Bills 54 and 55 in 1986, the PC caucus respects the valuable contributions made by the pharmacy profession.

The goal of Pharmacy Awareness Week is to inform the public of the important services being provided by pharmacists in Ontario and to heighten the image of pharmacy while promoting pride within the profession. During Pharmacy Awareness Week, pharmacists are encouraged to reach out to the public and to tell them why their mutual relationship is vital. Above all, it should be reinforced to the public that their local pharmacist is their true friend.

During Pharmacy Awareness Week, I want to assure pharmacists from all across Ontario that the PC caucus understands their concerns and we will work together on their behalf at Queen's Park. My caucus colleagues and I will do all that we can to ensure that the government, under Bill 81, is not able to run roughshod over pharmacists and play God with the pharmaceutical needs of the people of Ontario.

TORONTO AND AREA COUNCIL OF WOMEN

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Mr Speaker, this morning I had the honour of welcoming on your behalf the Toronto and Area Council of Women to Queen's Park.

This group has a proud history of community involvement and political involvement by women. Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the Toronto Council of Women and the National Council of Women. So this morning, to mark the 100th anniversary, and the 100th anniversary of the Legislative Building, a large group of women gathered outside to dedicate a new bench in front of this building. I hope all the members, the staff and the visitors will make use of this and enjoy it. Certainly we do need fresh air from time to time.

Local councils of women are federations across this province. In each community, monthly meetings bring together representatives of all women's groups: the church groups, the YWCA, the superannuated teachers, the business and professional women, the Zonta club etc. For the past 100 years, women have worked together to address the needs and the political issues in their own communities, and they have made annual presentations to the cabinet of Ontario.

Today I salute the many people who have worked so hard for local councils of women, those ones I know from Niagara Falls: past president Ruth Redmond, Dee McRae, Fran Dane, Flo Sandercock and my friend Ruth Guild. I thank the Lieutenant Governor for this morning hosting a lovely reception, and I salute the founders, who 100 years ago wanted to be called women, not ladies.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member of the assembly, having represented the riding of Mississauga East, Mr Bud Gregory. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I would like to remind members today that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. Today marks the beginning of the eighth wife assault public education campaign.

Everyone in this Legislature knows how pervasive wife assault is in our society, as are all forms of violence against women. Because we have focused on wife assault every fall for eight years and because we've worked to eliminate it -- all year, every year -- since that first campaign, some will complain that we have little that's new to report, that this is just another annual campaign like all the others.

But every time we run our ads or provide funding for a community group to create its own prevention project, we continue to chip away at attitudes that allow violence against women to continue. This is never just another campaign, any more than there is ever just another woman killed by her husband.

The reality is that women continue to be beaten and killed by their intimate partners, and tough economic times such as these may make public education on wife assault even more relevant than ever. An Angus Reid poll released in July 1993 showed that 67% of Canadians surveyed felt that violence against women had increased over the past 10 years. Of that 67%, 24% cited unemployment and economic hardship as the reason for this perceived increase.

The belief that outside influences are the cause of wife assault is disturbing. Economic hardship does not cause wife assault, any more than drugs or alcohol do. We know that wife assault occurs during good times as well as bad, and we know it occurs whether or not substance abuse is a factor. There is no excuse for this crime: a crime which results when one partner uses violence as a means to exercise power and control over the other.

1350

Public education is one way we can address the misconceptions which persist about wife abuse. In this year's wife assault prevention campaign, we are reinforcing two central ideas that we introduced in 1991. The first is that the term "wife assault" comprises both physical and psychological abuse. The second is that assaultive men are responsible for stopping their violence.

Throughout the month of November, we will air our award-winning television ads which emphasize these themes. We are repeating and re-emphasizing these messages because misconceptions persist and because it takes time to dispel the myths.

This year we have expanded our efforts to ensure that our messages about wife assault reach all the people of Ontario. We have created new radio ads in French and in five other languages: Spanish, Hindi, Korean, Portuguese and Polish. Our existing English and French ads are available on cassette for those who are visually impaired. And as part of the campaign, we will also air radio ads in five aboriginal languages: Ojibway, Ojicree, Cree, Mohawk and Micmac. We will distribute brochures in 18 languages, including Somali, Arabic and Polish. As in previous years, advertisements will appear in more than a dozen languages and community newspapers during the month of November.

In addition, the campaign includes grants to 126 organizations which have received $212,000 for public education projects geared to the needs of their own communities. These local awareness projects are an integral part of our campaign and help to reinforce the multimedia messages at the local level.

As I informed the House last year, in order to address the challenge of reducing wife assault and family violence within the aboriginal community, our government entered into a partnership with the aboriginal community. Representatives of the Ontario women's directorate, 11 government ministries and eight aboriginal organizations sit on an Aboriginal Family Healing Joint Steering Committee. This steering committee has facilitated extensive consultations within the aboriginal community. More than 6,000 aboriginal people in 250 communities participated in this process. The consultations resulted in the development of guiding principles which were approved by cabinet. Building on those principles, the joint steering committee has completed a report outlining a holistic strategy for family healing.

We will continue to work together with the aboriginal communities to develop appropriate implementation strategies within the limited resources which are available to us.

Last year at this time, I referred to our government's decision to integrate the sexual assault and wife assault prevention initiatives into a comprehensive strategy aimed at preventing violence against women. This decision was made in recognition that both crimes, sexual assault and wife assault, are part of a continuum of violence against women which has common root causes.

Over the past year, the OWD has reviewed its violence prevention initiatives. We have examined the levels of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of related programs and services that are funded or approved under the initiatives. As part of the program review, the directorate consulted with stakeholders to facilitate their input into the design of a comprehensive strategy aimed at preventing violence against women.

Through a joint steering committee composed of staff from several ministries and community representatives, grants totalling $280,000 were awarded to 44 community groups and coalitions of groups across the province to hold their own public consultations. The results of the consultations are currently being compiled and will be presented to me in the form of recommendations very shortly.

The directorate will continue this community partnership to ensure that the new violence-against-women prevention strategy is as responsive as possible to the community's varied needs, and the government will continue its year-round efforts to reduce wife assault and other forms of violence against women, now and over the long run.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As women's issues critic for the official opposition, I am pleased to add my support to the minister's efforts during November as we declare it Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Today I wear two symbols. One is a poppy, which recognizes the efforts of those men and women who died in two world wars. The other is a symbol of a different kind of war, and it is a war where women are indeed dying. It is a war that is occurring in many families.

Mr Speaker, I know that you won't be surprised to learn -- you may be horrified, but you won't be surprised -- that 50% of all women murdered in Canada die as a result of domestic violence. The statistics are horrifying; they're frightening, and one thing this eighth annual campaign has done is to try to educate people across this province about the extent of the problem. It also has been very successful in dispelling a number of the myths.

Last year we talked about some of the myths that were dispelled, such as the fact that it occurs in certain economic origins or certain ethnic groups. But the truth of the matter is that wife assault occurs in every ethnic, every racial, every economic, every social and every age group. It is very important that we continue to dispel myths such as the fact that it is the woman's own fault. I think that too is a myth where slowly but surely we're changing the attitudes and we are dispelling that myth.

There's no doubt that things such as economic circumstances, loss of a job and alcoholism can contribute to violence in the family. But as was pointed out today, we have to dispel the myth that they are the cause of it and we have to ensure that we as a society are not prepared to tolerate it.

But there's another aspect. While we may advertise, while we may seek to educate, we also must ensure that the resources are there at the end of the line.

Last year I did a number of things which remain in my memory today. One was I attended the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. They basically said: "Without the money to support our shelters so that we can offer the services, we cannot cope with the influx of women who are coming forward to break the silence, who are listening to the advertising campaign. We need to have that stability of funding, that core funding, not only for our shelters but for counselling." So that is something that we have to continue to do and that we must do much better than we are right now.

Another thing they mentioned was police sensitivity training. While it's there on paper, it was very obvious from listening to the stories of the women that in community upon community across this province, there was a problem with consistency, and that quite often the paper didn't translate into actions in training for the police. That is something I know we are all very concerned about, and we must make sure that the police are sensitive to the crime of wife assault, for indeed it is a crime, and that they are prepared to deal with it and to be fair to the victim and not treat the victim as though she's the perpetrator.

When I was on a women's issues outreach tour over the last year, one of the important things that came forward was the need for second-stage housing, because once a woman comes out of the crisis intervention shelter, there has to be a place where she can go in order to put her life back together. Yet there are only 15 second-stage housing projects across Ontario, 15 across the entire province, so there is definitely a need for that. I would urge the government to ensure that those second-stage housing projects go forward.

One other thing I'd like to raise is that the theme for this year is, "No man has the right." I really believe this should say, "No person has the right." While I think we all recognize that the vast preponderance of batterers in family assault are males, I think it's time that we as a society start saying that violence under any circumstances, under any conditions, should not be tolerated. No person has the right to perpetrate violence upon another.

These initiatives that are taken by the government year after year under successive governments are definitely in the right direction. We're making progress, but we have a long way to go before we can say that we've stopped violence in this province.

1400

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to congratulate the minister today on her statement, and certainly the Ontario PC Party joins her in doing everything possible in order to ensure that wife assault is no longer repeated in the future.

What we have again is a government talking about prevention. However, it is the same government which has voted down the bill introduced by my colleague from Burlington South, the victims' bill of rights, which would have ensured that female victims did have rights. I find it particularly disappointing that this has happened.

I'd also like to focus on another area. If we are going to prevent wife assault, in fact if we are going to prevent violence against others, we need to put a higher priority on dealing with the children who are at the present time at risk, and I have shared this with the minister before. If we do not provide these 7,000 children who are presently waiting in this province with treatment, we will not be able to break the vicious cycle of wife assault or violence of any other kind.

We know that everyone today is concerned with violence against women. We also know studies have found that sons who witness their father's violence are 10 times as likely to abuse their wives as the boys of non-violent parents. We also know that the mass murderer Marc Lépine witnessed his father's violence.

We now know there are many, many children, as I've just indicated, who are waiting for treatment at children's mental health clinics throughout this province. However, how are we going to break the cycle? How are we going to prevent wife assault when children, 7,000 of them, cannot access in a timely manner the services necessary in this province? That's an area I believe this government needs to take a look at and needs to ensure that these children do not become the future victims.

I also want to ask you, Minister, about another area that involves our young children and our teenagers. Again, this is an area that will have an impact on future wife assault. What action are you taking regarding the media influence on violence? We are seeing increased street violence; we're seeing increased violence in our elementary schools, our public schools and our universities.

Last July I called on you to take steps to deal with a disturbing trend and increase in video games that capitalize on violence against women. So far, we have received no response. I can remember reading in our local paper about two teenaged girls who were beaten up by two men in our city some time ago. The only reason for those assaults was to provide fun and entertainment.

These two men deliberately selected female victims. We know there is similar demeaning and brutalizing entertainment everywhere. We see it on TV, we see it in the movies and now we're seeing it in video games. Although we can't say this causes all violence, we now recognize that there is a link between media violence and what is happening on our streets, in our schools and in our homes.

We can't expect to give people a steady diet of violence and not expect that they won't in some cases follow through, because violence has become glamorized.

We need in this province and with your help, Minister, to ensure that women are not allowed to be reduced to object status. We cannot continue to tolerate entertainment which looks at women as objects if we are really serious about reducing wife assault.

Yes, the problem of wife assault is very difficult. We can pass laws, we can spend money, but we just cannot force people to treat one another with respect. We need to double our efforts. We need to provide the educational resources. We need to have preventive programs for our young people in order to combat the tolerance of violence that presently exists in our society.

In conclusion, each one of us in this House has a responsibility and a duty to challenge the influences, the attitudes and the behaviour that perpetuate wife assault.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health. A study that was released over the weekend by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences shows that too many Ontario women have mastectomies done when lumpectomies backed by radiation therapy would be a preferable treatment.

The report, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't identify all the reasons for this but Dr Goel, who is one of the authors of the report, has said he suspects that a shortage of radiation therapy is one of the reasons that lumpectomies are not performed more often.

You will be aware that the Bayview cancer centre and the Princess Margaret Hospital have put forward a proposal requesting funding for 18 radiation therapists so that they can run their radiation machines for longer periods and treat more people. The Princess Margaret and the Bayview centre, Minister, are waiting for your call.

Their proposal would provide an immediate response to the shortage and it could have an immediate impact on the treatment of breast cancer. I ask you when you will respond to the proposal they've put forward. When will you provide the support that's needed to ensure that women get the proper medical treatment for cancer?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am pleased to be able to tell the Leader of the Opposition and the House that those centres have had that call and that I have approved the joint proposal that was submitted to the ministry by the Princess Margaret and by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

Today is the graduation day for the 20 radiation technologists who will be hired as part of that proposal. I'm delighted that, as the Princess Margaret has said, by acceptance of this proposal it believes it will be able to eliminate waiting lists for this radiation treatment in Toronto.

Mrs McLeod: I am genuinely glad to hear that response today and I know that the Princess Margaret and the Bayview centre will be appreciative, because when we contacted them this morning they were not aware that you were prepared to make that funding commitment. That will be very good news to them, and it will be good news to people who are getting more and more concerned about access to cancer treatment.

I have to tell you, Minister, that I was concerned when I read in the media the response attributed to you -- it indicated that you had said you would pressure doctors into performing more lumpectomies -- because surely you recognize that you can't simply lay the blame and the responsibility for this on hospitals and on physicians who are struggling to manage with very limited resources. I am still concerned that, while I appreciate your response today, it is a last-minute response to a crisis that did not need to be a crisis. We had known this was building as a problem for a very long period of time. We ask you again --

Interjection.

Mrs McLeod: The minister responds in an interjection -- and I know, Mr Speaker, we're not supposed to recognize them -- that the problem's been building since we were in government. Indeed that's true, which is exactly why there were plans being put in place to coordinate cancer treatment, why there was a proposal to bring forward a cancer care act, why we continue to ask this minister, as I ask her today: Why will you not now take the steps, not just to deal with the immediate crisis, but to sit down with health care providers and consumers of health care to put into place the kind of planning, the kind of coordinated response that will ensure we don't encounter these kinds of crises in the future?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think I've made it very clear in the House in response to earlier questions on this subject that we have done precisely as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. There has been extensive consultation over the last three years, which has led to a doubling in the number of machines, to an acceptance that we need to bring oncologists from out of the country, and to the announcement today that in the immediate short term we will deal with the radiation therapists issue in order to provide not only the equipment but also the human resources to deal with what is a shocking and growing increase in the incidence of cancer.

I want to get back to the report that the leader raised in her first and second questions, which is the report that was released by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences on the weekend, and point out to her that many women have suspected for a long time that perhaps they were having radical mastectomies when women in other parts of the province were more likely to get a lumpectomy.

To have the scientific data available was precisely the reason our government established ICES. The report we now have is the fruit of that investment by the Ontario Medical Association and by the ministry in getting the facts. Dealing with the facts, the report also makes very clear, is the responsibility of the profession and the public hospitals. We intend to work with them to make sure that the data we now have very clearly are used to make sure that the women of this province have improved access and improved care.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Minister, exactly. The report points out some problems that we have known for a long time existed. One of those problems that the report points out is the fact that the lack of access to alternatives to mastectomies seems to be particularly acute for women in northern communities. I was again extremely concerned to read of your response to that particular finding, which seemed to be to suggest that maybe physicians in outlying communities just don't know what the appropriate care is. I ask again why you continue to blame the health care providers.

I take you back to a time, Minister, when your party was in opposition and when you did a fairly serious study of access to health care in northern Ontario. Surely you realize the complexities of providing access, particularly access to cancer care, to women who are in northern communities which are at a long distance from their cancer centres.

I ask you whether you have even begun, since you have known, as you say, that this was a problem for a long time, to look at the special challenges of providing access to cancer treatment for women in northern Ontario communities? What are you prepared to do, other than just blame the physicians in the communities, to make access to quality health care a reality for women in these communities?

Hon Mrs Grier: It's always ironic that when you in fact begin to collect the information and do the studies because you believe there is a need to change the way in which things have happened in the past, you are then blamed for the very fact of collecting that information.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition very clearly that the study to which she is referring says that the intent was to examine practice variation rather than access to treatment and the data were up to 1991, so it does not deal with the current waiting lists, which are much less than they were then or even last year.

Secondly, her contention that people in the north are less well served than people in other parts of the province is not borne out by the data or by the map. In fact, distance to radiation treatment has very little relationship to the variations in practice that are outlined by the report.

The point is that we have some first-rate facilities in this province. We know they provide a level of care not excelled anywhere. What we have to do is make sure that the information, the new practices, the studies that are done in those facilities are available province-wide so that every doctor, every hospital and every woman knows of the options available to her, knows the questions that need to be asked and is informed as to how she can have the best possible care.

That's what our cancer strategy is all about, and I'm very proud of what we've done in northern Ontario to make breast screening clinics and access to service far more available than they have been in the past.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As this is an issue we intend to continue to investigate in some depth, I will turn to a second question, and that is to the Minister of Labour.

Minister, last week many small business owners came into Queen's Park to express their concerns to you about Workers' Compensation Board rate increases. Today, we find out that the rates for workers' compensation that are being paid by the trucking industry are going to go up by more than 10% and that this kind of rate increase simply flies in the face of the consultations that were carried out, in which both management and labour agreed to 5% caps on rate increases. The 10% hike also completely ignores the fact that there has been a 15% drop in accident frequency in the trucking industry in this past year.

Minister, the trucking industry is one which has been truly devastated by the recession. They are only now slowly being able to make some recovery. I ask you today, do you have any idea what these kinds of workers' compensation rate increases will do to this trucking industry and in fact to other industries and to businesses in Ontario, and do you care?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the deregulation probably had more to do with the trucking industry's problems than anything that's being done at the Workers' Compensation Board. I think what we're in the process of is an average 3% increase for the board for this year. We are also in the second year of a three-year process of trying to re-establish the different rate groups. There are now 200 and some rather than 100 and some rate groups, and there are some adjustments within those individual groups.

Mrs McLeod: In the consultation process, it was quite clear that both management and labour involved in the consultation were addressing the issues the minister touches on in his response. The problem for them is that the results of those consultations, the very reasonable proposals they made to deal with the rate reclassification, and in fact with the financial problems of the Workers' Compensation Board, were absolutely thrown out the window by this surprise indication that there's to be a 10% increase in their rates. They are devastated by that kind of announcement. They believe the entire four months of consultation was absolutely meaningless.

According to the letter from David Bradley from the Ontario Trucking Association, Minister, the 10% rate increase was developed at the very last minute by senior management of the Workers' Compensation Board. It is a fact that the board of directors split on the issue and that the deciding vote was cast by the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, Odoardo Di Santo, who I suggest may have been more concerned about the financial problems of the WCB than he was about either the impact of these rates or their fairness. I would suggest, Minister, that your appointee is clearly out of touch with the economic realities that the people of this province are facing.

I ask, why does the Workers' Compensation Board continue to dump its financial mismanagement problems on to the backs of the employers of this province? Why should they have to pay for the cost of Workers' Compensation Board mismanagement?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The whole purpose of the reclassifications is to try and achieve fairer rates for the various groups that meet or come closer to their accident records, and that's exactly what we're trying to do. I have to wonder how the leader of the official opposition can continually raise serious objections to the unfunded liability and then immediately attack any method or any attempt to try and bring about a fairer assessment record at the WCB.

Mrs McLeod: I will continue to raise concerns about the impact of decisions of this government and its agencies on industries that are as important to this province as the trucking industry is, an industry that employs 200,000 people: real workers with real jobs who would like to keep those jobs.

When the minister says to me that they are looking at reclassification so that rates will reflect accident rates, how does that respond to the fact that the trucking industry's accident rates dropped by 15% this year and yet it is facing a 10% increase?

The trucking industry believes, Minister, that it's being asked to pay for the mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board, that it's being asked to pay for the new building that the Workers' Compensation Board has put up, that it's being asked to pay for the inability of WCB to control its own finances. When they see that of the 10% increase in fees, part of it is a 3% charge for administration, it gives their belief some very real substance.

David Bradley of the Ontario Trucking Association believes that the integrity of the Workers' Compensation Board has been called into question by this decision. He has repeated the call for a royal commission into the WCB. We have called for a commission into the WCB. Will you now establish that commission, get to the root of this problem, and begin to make the desperately needed changes in the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like to repeat once again that the average increase across the board was 3%. The classification, to repeat once again as well, was designed to make the rates in the various occupational groups, regardless of what they've been in the past, much fairer, and to relate to their accident record. Surely the leader would have no objection to that.

1420

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Last July, I asked you about what I believe to be a very disturbing increase in video games that capitalize on violence against women. Young teen boys, who are the greatest market for video game companies, can freely purchase games of exploitation. As minister responsible for women's issues in this province, why have you not responded or taken action in the four months since I raised this issue with you?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I have in fact answered the member on a couple of occasions by explaining to her what I, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, have done. The MCCR has the primary responsibility around this issue. My colleague and I have written together to the federal government around how to include these matters more effectively.

I would repeat what I said to the member at the time: It is my belief that our best kind of protection is a consumer-based protection. It is important that we as parents, as community members, put pressure on the manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers of these materials and that we determine that our community standards are not in favour of these. All of our laws depend upon the issue of community standards, and to this point in time neither the member opposite nor our government has been able to get the kind of concerted community response that would be most helpful in this area.

Mrs Witmer: I am extremely disappointed by the inaction of this government. Because of your inaction, a new video game is expected to hit Ontario stores this week without any type of restriction. This new one is called Metal and Lace: The Battle of the Robobabes. According to the Toronto Sun, we're going to see armoured women pitted against each other and sometimes against men. But when the fighting is done, the Robobabes doff their armour to become sexy, seminude pin-ups. There is no doubt in my mind or anyone else's that the manufacturer has introduced this game just in time for the Christmas rush. Minister, why have you taken no action to limit who can purchase this type of video game?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I've explained to the member before, we are somewhat limited in the amount of activity we can do without contravening other matters that involve charter issues. Obviously, we're equally concerned. Any conjoining of violence with sexuality should be of concern to all of us in this community. I quite agree with the member that the manufacturers clearly have geared this game for the Christmas market, and that should concern us all.

I'm glad that the member has raised the issue in the House, because it means we have an opportunity as a group of legislators to bring to the public's attention, particularly to parents' attention, that this game is available and ask them to exercise their role as parents, to the extent they are able, in terms of limiting this use. I think that is one thing we can do.

I should also say that the MCCR staff and their legal counsel continue to discuss with manufacturers, particularly the primary manufacturer of this kind of material, the need to classify, the need to put notices on this material and the need to restrict it. But we are not in a situation, because video games are normally exempt from the Theatres Act, to exercise the kind of control the member seems to think we can.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, I am extremely disappointed. We cannot sit here in this House and be silent while violence against women increases. You just stood in the House today and recognized Wife Assault Prevention Month, and yet when I asked you to take action four months ago, you did nothing, absolutely nothing. Minister, will you finally talk to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to look at giving legal force to the introduction of voluntary ratings for these games?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I speak with my colleague all the time. We share a very deep concern around this issue and are exploring every means legally available to us that we can use. The member, in her response to my statement, seemed to give broad and sweeping credence to the notion that a minister can control every kind of reprehensible behaviour of the population of the province of Ontario. I don't have that kind of power; no minister does. What we can try to do is to work with our communities to try to limit the use of this kind of material within the legal framework that we have, and we are doing that.

We are also attempting to engage the federal government in looking at the Criminal Code offences around this issue because we believe there is a contributory factor for this kind of pornography, and we are seeking, in conjunction with ministers responsible for women's issues across the country, ways in which we can come to a conclusion as to how best to control these. We don't have unlimited action in controlling the choices of the population of this province.

BOBLO ISLAND

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Finance minister with respect to Boblo Island. It has been learned on the weekend through your ministry staff that apparently, if there is an $800,000 deferment for some tax reasons, this would have to come through your office and you would be aware of this situation.

I would like to know, did you know about the $800,000 tax deferment that was offered up to an American-based developer for the development of this site? If so, what were the conditions applied to that $800,000 deferment? On the weekend, having reached the developer in Seattle, its claim is that the agreement it made with your government is that if it ran the amusement park for 75 days, it would receive an $800,000 deferment on taxes. That works out to in excess of $10,000 a day in deferment for taxes that cost the taxpayers money.

Having said that, did you know about this deal? If you did know about this deal, how could you approve such a deal: an $800,000 deferment to a developer for a 75-day use of an amusement park?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Perhaps to put this issue in a little bit of historical context, but not a lot because of the time restrictions, when the land transfer tax was passed in, I believe, 1983, one of the provisions was that rather than the regular land transfer tax rate on this kind of purchase by a non-resident -- if it was a resident purchasing it would be about 1.5%; with a non-resident purchasing land there's a 20% deferred tax rate applied to that property unless it's developed within five years. I could be out a year there, but I think unless the land is developed within five years, that 20% land transfer tax must be paid.

Under section 19 of the act, if my memory serves me correctly, if the developer, the non-resident purchaser, meets the requirements of the Land Transfer Tax Act for non-residents, then that 20% land transfer tax is never, ever paid and never was intended to be paid. It's simply to make a provision to ensure that non-residents are not land-banking property in the province for speculative purposes and that it must be developed for residential or commercial purposes.

Mr Stockwell: The difficulty the Treasurer has with respect to this development is that you made a separate agreement with this group.

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, yes you did, Mr Treasurer. You made a separate agreement with this group. To defer the $800,000 the agreement states, according to the principals involved who signed the agreement with you, that you would defer the full $800,000 if they operated the amusement park for 75 days.

Having said that, they have now applied, or had meetings with the local council, the local region, Malden, to make application to change the development zoning from recreational to residential, thereby doubling, tripling, maybe quadrupling the value of the property if they receive rezoning from recreation to residential. They bought the property for $3.7 million; immediately upon rezoning, they could be talking about $20 million, $30 million, $40 million of value for the property.

An American-based developer comes in, gets an $800,000 deferment from your government, applies for rezoning and will walk away without building anything with millions and millions of dollars if it gets the rezoning.

You were talking about a speculation tax when you first came to government. Why did you allow an $800,000 deferment? When they have to go for rezoning now, they will get rezoning and thereby increase the value of the property. What benefit is it to the taxpayers to give this $800,000 deferment?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps the member needs to be reminded that we did not amend the legislation. It was the legislation that was brought in by the previous Conservative government. I'm not saying that critically. It simply has not been amended by us. All the legislation is devised to do is to prevent land-banking and speculation on undeveloped land.

What happened was that the developer did indeed develop the land, developed it considerably I understand, and that land can now be transferred, can now be sold, as long as it meets the local zoning requirements. In fact, what the Land Transfer Tax Act was set out to do, it did do in this case, as in all other cases. What's it's supposed to do is to prevent land-banking for speculative purposes by non-residents. What the transaction provided for here was that if they didn't develop the property within five years, they'd have to pay the 20% land transfer tax, and they did indeed develop the land.

Mr Stockwell: The point that needs to be made to the Treasurer is this: The Seattle-based developer has got an $800,000 deferment in taxes, okay? The deal you signed with this Seattle-based developer said, "If you operate the amusement park for 75 days, we will defer the $800,000."

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): He doesn't care.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Windsor's suggesting this isn't the case.

Hon Mr Cooke: I said you didn't care about the people in Essex South.

Mr Stockwell: I'm asking for a copy of the agreement through the Treasury department, which it won't give. I've asked the Treasury department officials to fill me in on exactly what the deal is. They won't do that. The only person who will fill us in on what the deal you signed with them is, is the developer, and he said the deal they signed for an $800,000 deferment said they must operate the amusement park for 75 days. That's what they've told us. If they operate it for 75 days, they'd be given a deferral, as of today, for $800,000.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Stockwell: You suggest this is to stop speculation and land-banking. My suggestion to the Treasurer is that this is exactly what you've encouraged. An American-based developer has bought some property, deferred $800,000 in taxes, is applying for rezoning to create a windfall of profit, and you've assisted in this by allowing the deferment to take place.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: I ask the Treasurer, can you supply this House with a copy of the agreement you made with the Seattle-based developer and allow us the opportunity to review that to ensure that what he suggests is taking place, the 75 days of amusement park --

Hon Mr Cooke: I thought you read the deal.

Mr Stockwell: Now the member from Windsor is suggesting --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview is asked to come to order. The question has been placed. Would the minister please respond or take the opportunity to do so.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West is being pretty categorical about an agreement he never saw. Anyway, be that as it may, I would simply reinforce what I said to the member earlier, that the purpose of that provision of the Land Transfer Tax Act is to ensure that when property like that is purchased it is indeed developed. It is my understanding, while I've never been there, that that land has indeed been developed, and that as the land is subsequently sold, there will be subsequent land transfer taxes on that land in subsequent sales as well. I'm not sure what it is the member is trying to say other than that he's making yet another vicious attack on free enterprise in the province.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Minister of Health: Your consultation paper on drug reform envisions charging a user fee of up to $2,000 for people on the special drugs program. The Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has sent you a brief outlining the very serious negative impact this kind of fee could have not just on the health of cystic fibrosis patients but also on their ability to be productive members of our society. CF patients and their families, Minister, as I'm sure you are aware, already have to pay for vitamins and nutrition supplements, for oxygen and for special equipment involved in their treatment. Their budget bills are stretched absolutely to the limit to cover the cost of this illness, which strikes patients literally before they're born and is with them until they die. Minister, have you considered the impact of this policy option on the lives of CF patients and their families?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I'm very well aware of the impact of cystic fibrosis on the lives of patients and their families and of the need for special drugs, and in fact have made it clear to all of those suffering from this disease and to their associations that the drugs would be continued to be supplied to them under the special drugs program.

With respect to the options for reforming our overall drug benefit program, the member is correct: We have put forward a number of options for discussion. We received a great deal of response to those options, and that consultation period ended at the end of September. We're reviewing very carefully all of the submissions made to us and very carefully all of the impacts, which in many cases perhaps were pointed out to us by special groups -- I'm not particularly talking of cystic fibrosis -- that we might not have been aware of. Everything is being carefully considered, and I'm not in a position at this point to be definitive about the actions that will flow from that consultation.

Mrs McLeod: The cystic fibrosis foundation is extremely concerned that the kinds of changes you are contemplating at this point could force young adults to leave their jobs to go on social assistance because they won't be able to afford the costs of the copayment you propose. You are surely aware that we have taken pride as a province in being a world leader in cystic fibrosis research. Many of the drugs and treatments that are available to improve the quality and the length of life of CF patients are available because of the pioneering research and because of the efforts here in Ontario. I find it hard to believe that in this province where so much work has been done, you could even be considering a policy that would limit the ability of victims of cystic fibrosis to lead full lives for as long as possible.

The goal of your drug reform proposal is supposed to be to develop a drug program that achieves equity, cost-effectiveness and social compassion. How are these goals promoted by a policy that would hurt chronic sufferers of this terrible illness and that will potentially force young adults to leave their jobs in order to receive the drugs they need?

Hon Mrs Grier: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition not to portray proposals in a discussion paper as though they were fact, because I share with her a concern about the depth of worry that can sometimes be caused and that has been caused to the cystic fibrosis community as a result of a consultation paper.

When I said to her that we were considering all of the responses and were going to be extremely careful that no action that we took inhibited the ability of anybody suffering from a catastrophic disease to live as full a life and as productive a life as they possibly can, I meant what I said. The objectives of our examination of the current program are to ensure that in fact as many people as possible can be covered, because there are many people in this province suffering from catastrophic diseases who have not had coverage available to them.

We have a very open-ended drug benefit plan which covers very effectively some people in the province and covers not at all other people in the province. Our objective as we reform that system is not to un-cover some categories of people who cannot stand to afford their own drugs, but also at the same time it is to see how we can extend eligibility to those people who now have no coverage at all.

1440

LEGAL AID

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It was reported in this morning's Toronto Sun that a convicted drug dealer would be using the legal aid system to fund his application for refugee status in Canada. Minister, can you confirm that convicted criminals can be eligible to use the legal aid system to finance their immigration applications?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): It is my understanding that the rules that apply in each area of legal aid apply to anyone who is eligible under that area, and I don't believe there is a prohibition in that regard. However, I should tell the member that because I'm not clear on that, I have asked for advice on it and have not yet received it. I will be happy to let him know.

Mr Harnick: I'd appreciate that from the Attorney General.

Attorney General, it was reported that the appeal process for this convicted criminal could cost the legal aid system up to $25,000. Do you think it's right that the people of Ontario should pay the legal fees for an individual who has been convicted of heroin smuggling so that he could remain in Canada?

Hon Mrs Boyd: My understanding is that that estimate is just well beyond the bounds of what we normally see. The average of the legal aid claims for any kind of refugee claim is only slightly over $1,000 per client.

Mr Harnick: Do you think it's right, Marion? Do you think it's right, even if it's a penny?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have two concerns about this. One would be that an estimate of $60,000 would be given for an issue like this, because it is way out of line with the average cost. The other is the issue that the member has raised: whether or not it is appropriate for a convicted criminal to have access to legal aid.

I would remind the member that in many cases, people going through the legal system have convictions in one area, are fighting convictions in other areas and, yes, remain eligible for legal aid. That is an issue we need to clarify in terms of eligibility with the law society. The member is well aware that the Ontario legal aid plan --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- is not run from my ministry but is run by the Ontario legal aid plan itself, and that plan is devised by lawyers to ensure that there is equal access by anyone who requires it to the legal system in the province of Ontario. That I do support.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last week in the Quebec National Assembly, the minister of labour, Gérald Tremblay, was asked a question with respect to the Quebec labour mobility issue. He responded that he has tried to meet with you several times, that his deputy has tried to contact you through phone calls and letters, and he says, Minister, that he can be in Toronto on 24 hours' notice. Minister, can you tell this House whether this is the case? Are you aware that he is trying to reach you? Secondly, what have you done with respect to this issue?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I believe the member's question is with respect to M. Tremblay, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in Quebec. In fact, I have read accounts of his statements in the National Assembly. I read them with some amusement, actually; I think there's a bit of smokescreen being put up there to protect the Quebec government's lack of action with respect to bringing down trade barriers.

I can assure the member that discussions took place at the deputy level to ascertain whether or not a meeting would be useful prior to the announcements I made. We offered to have a discussion between M. Tremblay and myself to determine the usefulness of a meeting, the agenda of a meeting. That discussion didn't take place, and that was at the decision of M. Tremblay.

I would suggest, however, that since Ontario took the steps to make the announcements we did with respect to retaliatory actions to the province of Quebec on the issues of construction contracts and labour mobility, in fact we have had exchange of correspondence in which Ontario has suggested that we would be more than open to a meeting and that as soon as Quebec is ready with a new position, we would be pleased to meet with them.

Mr Owens: Last week, Minister, you may be aware that a summit on construction was held in the province of Quebec which included workers, employers and members of government. Was this issue of labour mobility raised? Is it resolved or is it on the way to being resolved? Can you tell the construction workers in my riding what your sense of this dispute is?

Hon Ms Lankin: Of course Ontario had representation at the construction summit, and we were monitoring discussions of these topics and whether there was any movement on these issues. I can say from those initial reports that in fact there was not progress on the issue of labour mobility, with respect to a resolution, at least. A committee has been struck, coming out of that summit, which will continue to look at this issue in its own time line: It's targeting a response by March 1994.

I think we indicated, at the time we brought forward the actions that I announced, that we were concerned about the length of time that it would take as the summit progressed into committees and subcommittees and discussion. That appears to be what's happening. I hope, however, that the committee works in an expeditious way and that in fact it can bring some resolution to this issue that will resolve the issues for all of us. I just repeat, and these are the last words, that the overall goal of the government of Ontario is in fact to bring down trade barriers.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Health. My question deals with our war veterans and your commitment to provide high-level chronic care beds to them at Sunnybrook hospital. You must be aware that the Ontario government has agreed to provide 400 chronic care beds for our veterans at Sunnybrook hospital, which, let us remember, started out as a veterans' hospital.

I've had discussions with a Mr Jim Margerum, who is the chairman of the veterans' services committee for the Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. He has indicated to me that you have allowed 45 of these specially allocated beds to be closed and not reopened. There are 165 war veterans on the wait list at Sunnybrook hospital. They need the use of these beds, yet you continue to allow them to remain closed. Will you today commit to this Legislature and to our war veterans that these badly needed beds will be reopened?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am well aware of the issue and since becoming Minister of Health have had two meetings with Mr Margerum and representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion. This has been a matter of debate between the Legion and Sunnybrook and it has been, I think, two months since I was last informed as to the state of the discussions between Mr Margerum and the hospital around this issue. I would like, if I may, to take the member's question as notice, look into the situation and be as up-to-date as I can, because I realize only too well how very much this issue means to veterans and to all of our seniors across the province, and I'd like to be sure of my facts when I respond to the member.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, these 400 beds were allocated to our war veterans in recognition of their needs and their commitment to this country. The freedom which we have today is due in no small measure to those who fought in previous wars. Minister, you will be aware that there is an agreement in force by the Ontario government to provide 400 beds at Sunnybrook hospital for our war veterans. You will be aware that you are not providing those 400 beds.

Sadly, I was informed today by Mr Margerum that just last week two more of our war veterans died without getting off the wait list at Sunnybrook hospital. You have refused today to commit these beds to our war veterans to being open. I have also spoken to Mr Margerum, who has indicated that you are not meeting with those who do wish to meet with you, and so you have not committed to reopening these beds. I ask you, will you at least commit today to meet with Mr Margerum and to representatives of the Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion and to settle this issue for our war veterans?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think I indicated in my response to the first question that I had in fact had some meetings. I was aware of the issue and I was not making a commitment today because I wanted to be sure of all of the facts, where the discussion was and to remind the member that the federal government, through Veterans Affairs, has a role to play in this and this is a discussion that has been going on for quite some time. It is not a new issue for either the Legion or the ministry. I agree with him that it's one that needs to be resolved and I have given him my commitment that I will undertake to do that and get back to him as soon as I have an opportunity.

1450

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Last year, the Peel Board of Education had to slash its English-as-a-second-language program in response to reduced provincial transfer payments. The board cut 105 ESL teaching positions. ESL support was eliminated for elementary students at the emerging learner level, which the board defines, and I quote, as, "English communications skills are beginning to develop, but continued support is necessary to achieve academic proficiency."

Support at this level was also cut in half for secondary students, but at the same time the board's grants for heritage language programs was $646,000. Heritage language instruction is mandatory as a result of Bill 5, which was passed by the Liberal government in 1989. Province-wide heritage language programs cost $15.6 million last year.

My question, Minister, is this: If Peel cannot afford adequate ESL training for immigrant students, how can you require the board to provide Saturday classes in 28 heritage languages for elementary students?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): There's no doubt at all that the English-as-a-second-language programs in this province are absolutely essential. Along with the boards, we're doing the best we can given the financial constraints that we're all living under. That's simply a reality. We can't spend as much money as we would like to spend because we all have financial constraints.

I would fundamentally disagree with the member that on the one hand we should be putting more money into English as a second language, but on the other hand, we should be pulling out resources from our heritage language, or as it's now called, the international language program, which is really a fundamental basis for this province if we're to move ahead economically. We have to develop other language capabilities within this province. It's not just a matter of heritage languages. The fact is, a lot of the students who are taking these programs are not even students from the particular ethnic group which the program is being provided for.

International languages is quite a different concept than the member seems to understand. I don't really understand her rationale for saying that money should be pulled out of the international language program to fund another program.

Mrs Marland: If you can't afford to fund them in English or even French, for that matter, the two official languages, I don't know how you can talk about 28 other languages. It doesn't make sense.

Last spring, the Ontario Council of Sikhs in Peel region asked the provincial government to protect ESL programs from cutbacks. In Peel, ESL cuts were part of a massive budget reduction caused by reduced provincial funding. When boards have cut administration to the bone and essential programs like ESL, and special education, I may add, when these programs are threatened, the province must consider other non-essential programs that can be reduced instead. Minister, we're talking here about a non-essential program. We're simply asking you to prioritize.

My question is, if one of those non-essential programs is heritage language education but it's mandated by the province, why would you not consider rescinding Bill 5 so that school boards can choose whether to provide heritage language education or English as a second language or special education? Let them make the priorities, Minister, and not have this mandated by the province: 28 foreign languages instead of English or French.

Hon Mr Cooke: I go back to what I said and that is that the international language program is in our view a very important and essential program in this province as well.

I think it's important that the member has decided to ask this question this week, the week after her federal government has been defeated, because the essential point this government has been making to the federal government is that this province has not received anywhere near its fair share in terms of dollars to assist on questions like English as a second language for new immigrants to this province. The fact of the matter is that about 65% of the people who immigrate to Canada end up coming to the Metropolitan Toronto, greater Toronto area and the Ottawa-Carleton area, and we get virtually no money from the federal government to try to assist in providing very substantial programs to help people settle.

If the member wants to be particularly helpful, she might suggest that this is a responsibility of the federal government, and all Ontario wants is the same kind of money for immigration that the rest of the provinces get. When we get that, we can address the problem that the member has raised.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): To the Minister of Health: Medical authorities have been contending that we could safely change the regulation requiring routine preoperative blood and urine testing and that this regulation change is actually now taking place. I was particularly impressed by the initiative of Dr Jerrold Lerman at the Hospital for Sick Children in putting the case that routine testing was not necessary.

Could the minister tell us how much money the decision to change the regulation will save and how she will be communicating the decision to hospitals and physicians?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The regulation the member refers to is one that has been in place since 1968. The member is correct, of course, that a number of health care experts have challenged the need for routine preoperative testing. The regulation that makes that a requirement was changed effective September 30, 1993. So now decisions regarding the need for these tests are left to the providers, as well as the hospitals, who are responsible for ensuring that appropriate pre-operative testing occurs.

Let me say to the member that the focus on this change was not primarily on cost savings; it was with respect to quality of care, because there's a growing acceptance that quality of care is strengthened if testing is done only as needed, as opposed to on a routine basis. But it is recognized that there will be some cost savings from both minimizing unnecessary testing and freeing up the facilities for other tests that are in fact necessary.

Mr Frankford: Minister, this is a very welcome decision that will help more rational and economical use of the health care system without jeopardizing clinical care. I'm sure there are other areas of current practice where critical re-examination can also produce substantial savings.

I was very interested to read this weekend of a new study by a Toronto group, reported in Lancet, suggesting that we should reappraise some investigations being done in relation to cardiac disease. I hope there'll be some savings there.

Can the minister inform us of any areas of clinical practice where she feels similar savings could be made with the same lack of jeopardy to the health of the public?

Hon Mrs Grier: We are continually searching for new ways to improve the quality of our health care and to better manage this complex system that we are all so very proud of in Ontario. That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased that we have the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. As the member says, this weekend we've had a result of one of its reports which examined current practices from the perspective of both minimizing inappropriate utilization of services as well as strengthening the quality of care.

Let me assure the member and the House that I look forward to the continuing work of that institute and to working with the profession and the institutions to ensure that we improve the quality of our care at the same time as we manage the system better and maintain the costs.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): What was it that Mel Swart said?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm not speaking about what Mel Swart said Friday.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is about agriculture and it's to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers across the province of Ontario, and in particular in the Niagara Peninsula, are experiencing very difficult economic times, as the Minister of Agriculture well knows. Many of them are financially holding on by their fingernails at this time, partly because of inaction on some of the programs by the government.

Would the minister inform the House why he has not announced the highly touted conservation easements program, which would allow farmers to stay on the land and at long last make a decent living?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The answer to the that question is fairly straightforward. During periods of restraint, we were unable to find the necessary money to start that program this year. We as a government still support the concept behind conservation easements, as does the regional government and as do many of the farmers down in the Niagara region. But we were unable to find the money to finance that particular program this year. However, we do support it and I'm hopeful always that we can find the money to fund that program for next year.

1500

Mr Bradley: The minister would be aware that local authorities are being pressured by individual farmers and by farm organizations in fact to grant severances which, if granted, may ultimately have the effect of eliminating prime agricultural land in an area which has a rather favourable climate.

Members of his party, including Stephen Lewis, when the columns used to be in the Globe and Mail and this was on the CBC every day, talked about the preservation of agricultural land in the Niagara Peninsula.

I'm going this evening to the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture annual meeting, and I'd hoped to be able to bring to that meeting an announcement from the minister in regard to the conservation easements. My question is, would the minister assure the House that I may go to that meeting this evening and give an undertaking to those who will be assembled there that in fact you will be going to the next cabinet meeting to put forward the case for the immediate implementation of conservation easements in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Mr Buchanan: That sounded more like a fishing expedition than it did like a question. I would not want to mislead the member. He can go to the meeting tonight and tell them that we are working towards having a program that can be implemented for next year, which is what I said in my first question.

I think what he does need in addition to that is to talk to the farmers in the Niagara region about community economic development and those programs that this government has put in place which will allow Niagara area farmers and other entrepreneurs to come together to look at how they can get some value added dollars out of, in this case, the peach crop they produce down in that region.

There's a lot of work that could be done to get a higher return back in the farmers' pockets, which is above and beyond the concept of conservation easements, which, to be quite honest, is just a stopgap measure for a few years. It will not solve the long-term problem, which is to get a bigger return from the sale of tender fruit back into the hands of the farmers in the Niagara region.

JOB CREATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Treasurer. Mr Treasurer, where does your government stand with regard to the helicopter purchases by our federal government?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): That's a very interesting question from the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton I suspect followed the federal debate with some interest during the recent federal election and heard the federal leader of the New Democratic Party talk about alternative ways of spending that kind of money, and spreading it of course, allocating it in a fair and judicial way across the land.

Mr Sterling: Well, Computing Devices of Nepean could lose $120 million over 10 years to produce sonar buoys for underwater equipment designed to detect submarines. Atlantic Research Canada of Gloucester could lose $35 million. Lougheed Canada of Stittsville could lose $58 million in contracts. Canadian Marconi of Kanata could lose $12 million in contracts. Haley Industries of Renfrew could lose $3.2 million to $11 million. CAL Corpor would lose $750,000 in electronic welfare. There are also a number of other high-tech firms in the Ottawa Valley which will lose significant high-tech, important research-developing jobs.

While Quebec and Nova Scotia have clearly stood up and talked about the job losses for people in their provinces, where is the province of Ontario speaking up for the loss of jobs for the people of the Ottawa Valley and the rest of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: Surely to goodness what we're talking about here is not whether or not Ontario and other parts of Canada need job creation; we obviously do. That's why this government has been calling for the federal government to sit down with us in a spirit of cooperation and work out an infrastructure program in which we would share the cost of such a program. That doesn't mean that whatever idea the federal government comes up with is necessarily the right one. The jobs that are created have to be for the right reasons.

You heard us say loudly and clearly in the recent federal election that helicopters were not the priority of the federal New Democrats, and I share that view. At the same time, all of us, I think, would agree that at least if not more than equivalent number of jobs must be created throughout Canada. I can tell you that given the record of the previous federal Conservative government vis-à-vis Ontario, they've got a lot of catching up to do to support job creation in this province.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd like to introduce a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To legislate the east Parry Sound elementary teachers back to work and/or order the case to binding arbitration with the East Parry Sound Board of Education."

I've affixed my signature thereto, as the MPP for Parry Sound riding. This petition is signed by some 455 east Parry Sound residents on this, the 18th instructional day of the strike.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm bringing this petition forward on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an article that appeared in the September 14 issue of a local newspaper that appeared in Brock, which threatened Brock residents they might lose their OPP station.

The petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has had a long-standing, integral part in the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become strong voices in volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit to the Beaverton community; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station at Beaverton, as the closure would be detrimental to the interest of the security, safety and the wellbeing of all the residents in the township of Brock."

My hat goes off to the detachment commander, Jim Adams. His officers helped organize a car rally this weekend to raise funds for the women's shelter, Sandgate, in the community of Georgina.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have thousands of petitions from the constituents of Oakville South, which say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering for crime victims and their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I've signed that myself.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have here a petition signed by many people in my constituency -- people who've been unemployed, people whose economic future has been savaged by NAFTA and the Canada-US free trade. It reads:

"Whereas we feel the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel that the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario resulting in a loss of not only more jobs but also a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour standards, our workers' rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we further petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal right now and to live up to their commitments."

It's signed, as I mentioned, by many people in my riding such as Martha and Milton Halpenny, Kingsley Welton, and I affix my signature thereto.

1510

REHABILITATION OF OXBOW CREEK

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here from members of my constituency from the Melrose area who are responding to a planned rehabilitation of Oxbow Creek by the Ministry of Natural Resources with this petition that reads:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the rehabilitation plan of Oxbow Creek. More particularly, we feel it will infringe upon livestock owners' rights and lead to trespassing and related imposition to area land owners."

I respectfully present this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

On motion by Mr Ferguson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Assessment Act with respect to golf courses / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière en ce qui a trait aux terrains de golf.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Kitchener, would you please verify if you have some other copies? These are not the proper ones I should receive. Does the member for Kitchener have any comments to make?

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Very briefly, the current Assessment Act leaves a lot to be desired, because one section of the act as it pertains to golf courses very much leaves the golfers on the green and the taxpayers in the sand trap.

For quite some time, municipalities have had the ability to freeze the assessment for privately owned golf courses, and many exercised that option back in the 1960s. Many municipal councils don't feel bound by previous councils and wish to change the act. My municipality has lost about $100,000 in revenue as a result of freezing the assessment on a golf course in Kitchener.

The purpose of the act would be to give the municipality at least the option to get out of this deal and to negate a previous deal that was signed by a previous municipal council.

PUBLIC SECTOR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE LA RÉTRIBUTION DES CADRES DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

On motion by Mr Stockwell, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 114, An Act to provide for the disclosure of Executive Compensation in the Public Sector / Projet de loi 114, Loi prévoyant la divulgation de la rétribution des cadres dans le secteur public.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have other forms in your hands?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I sure do. I am not certain exactly how many forms you should get.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to make any comments, the member for Etobicoke West?

Mr Stockwell: I think everyone would be in support of this, considering the announcement made by the government just recently with respect to compensation review for the private sector, so I would ask for unanimous consent for second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Introduction of bills?

Mr Stockwell: Can't I ask for unanimous consent?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You can ask.

The Deputy Speaker: Were you asking this? Were you serious?

Mr Stockwell: Because the government announced the plans a couple of weeks ago with respect to publicizing the private sector payroll of senior officials and my bill is simply doing the exact same thing, which is publicizing the payroll of government officials, I would assume they would agree. That's why I asked for unanimous consent on second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise here today to talk to Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice, and in particular with respect to photo-radar. Having some knowledge of photo-radar and having worked with this, I think this afternoon I'll be able to add some insight to this debate that would be of benefit to this House.

I'm quite disappointed that the member for Nepean is not here this afternoon, because when he was speaking I vowed to convert him to supporting this bill, and he's not here.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): He'll watch it on TV.

Mr Mills: I would much rather that he'd been here in person, but my friend and colleague from the north says he's going to watch it on TV.

Earlier, on October 21, my colleague and friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich and also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation gave this House some very frightening statistics. He said that the human price of highway collisions is more than 1,000 people killed every year and 90,000 people who are injured annually. He said, quite rightly, and I agree, that this is not acceptable in a caring society, and particularly not today.

If you add the human cost of that, the social cost of health care, insurance rates, property damages and lost wages, you see the massive scope of the problem we face. Collisions on our roads cost Ontario more than $9 billion every year, and that's scary. It's very disheartening and scary.

I'd just like to say that this carnage on our highways has got to be stopped. It would seem to me that the conventional method, with police patrols, is not working as it should. I know that I have a lot of constituents who have to journey at different times to Toronto to get medical attention at some of the hospitals there, and they're absolutely terrified and can't face the consequences of driving into Toronto via Highway 401, and that isn't right. That is a scary situation.

I'm sure that in this House we represent many constituents, most of them in their later years, who are absolutely terrified to get behind the wheel of a car and drive on one of our multilane highways, be it the 401, the 400, the 403, the 35, the 115 or whatever it is. I think such a situation is absolutely diabolical. We shouldn't have this. Our citizens should not be frightened to drive on the highway.

1520

I think that as a government, as legislators here, we all have some job to do to make this right, because I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, if this sort of thing was happening through the dispensation of a drug or a food or whatever, that we lost 1,000 people a year and maimed another 90,000, we would have so many people in front of this Legislature --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Excuse me for a moment. I would like to inform the members of the assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Gagik Harutunian, vice-president of the Republic of Armenia, accompanied by the Armenian delegation. Welcome.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): There are more of them than of us.

Mr Mills: It's nice to see the folks from overseas here watching this. I wish there were more Tories here, but there aren't. Anyway, I'm not going to get political.

This carnage has got to stop. I don't know about the people who are watching, but I drive the 401 and 400 quite frequently and when you see the lights flashing and someone's got the wind that there's an OPP car somewhere, miraculously everybody starts behaving and it becomes such a pleasure to drive. Everybody signals when they're going to turn, they keep the speed and right away you feel comfortable driving. You feel safe and you're secure. I say to myself when I see that happening: "Why on earth can't people drive like that all the time? Why do they act so idiotic?" Then, sure as the dickens, you pass the cruiser and then everything picks up again and we become threatened.

I must say that when people keep the speed limit and drive carefully and signal their intentions, it's a pleasure to drive on our highways. It should be like that, not only when there's a cruiser by the road or someone suspects that the police are around, but it should be the way of life, the way we operate.

We all come to this Legislature from different backgrounds. I think it's very good that we do. We bring different perspectives to the debate here, and through our life experiences and those different perspectives, we encourage those who don't see our way to legislation to come on side. I sat here the other day and I listened to the lawyers here talk about all the problems they saw with Bill 47 and how they sort of built in all these obstacles. We know lawyers; they can talk up a storm. I must say, I'm sure there were a lot of people watching who were very confused about Bill 47, when really it isn't confusing at all.

We heard those folks talk and then we heard the member for Don Mills, who's an entrepreneur type of fellow. He spoke about the impact on business, on car rental agencies etc, so we had his point of view to discuss. Like my friends the lawyers, the businessmen, I have a perspective I'd like to bring to this debate this afternoon in that I have had experience with photo-radar, and perhaps more importantly of all, I've investigated, as a police officer, numerous fatal accidents.

I can tell every member in this House that when you investigate a fatal accident it's not very nice. It really gets to your heart. It upsets you. You can't eat. If you have any sort of empathy with the victims, it's an awful job. I don't know if there's anybody in this House today who sits in this 35th Parliament who has had the awesome task of knocking on someone's door and telling that person a loved one has passed away in a traffic accident. It's not pleasant; it's awful.

I can tell you that as an investigator of fatal traffic accidents, it doesn't end there. There's another step, because the next day the investigating officer has to attend the post-mortem and that is absolutely a terrible thing to have to work with. You have to do that because the pathologist or the coroner wants your opinion in case he comes up with some sort of injury that is not consistent with the accident. He'll say, "Well, I want to hear about the accident."

I can tell you that I still remember the first one I attended. I was in a little room at a British military hospital in Isolohn in Germany where they used to carry out these post-mortems. I remember standing back to the wall as far as I could go and pressing, because I didn't want to see and I didn't want to be a part of it, but a part of it I had to be. I can tell you that when I left that place that afternoon, it had an impact on me that has stayed with me to this day, and that's almost 30 years ago.

When I drive the 401, the 400 and these other highways, and I see people driving in such a stupid way, my mind flashes back to Isolohn and what I saw that afternoon. Under my breath I say to myself, "All you idiots on the road, all you people who don't want to obey the Highway Traffic Act, you should be forced to attend a post-mortem examination of a traffic accident victim, a fatal accident." It has a very sobering effect on the mind, and when you leave that place, you drive along very carefully. As I came back from Isolohn that afternoon in 1966, I drove very carefully.

I investigated one terrible accident in 1966. Even as I stand in this Legislature this afternoon, I can see the pictures of the victims and the carnage that took place there. That carnage was caused solely by excessive speed and nothing else. In this incident, a car was going down the autobahn and it ran into the back of a truck. The truck, by the driver's own admission, was doing 125 kilometres an hour. This car -- no brake skids, no marks at all -- drove right under the back of the truck, decapitating the two people in the car. That scene is still in my mind today and it's almost 30 years ago. That's why I'm such a proponent and such an advocate of photo-radar, because I've seen how it works and what it does.

We've heard that photo-radar is Big Brother looking at us and all kinds of things. I would hazard a guess that the families of victims who have been involved in fatal accidents would say to me today, "If photo-radar had been around and slowed down my son or my daughter or my husband, I would have been glad to see that."

When I was serving in Europe, we had accidents that you wouldn't believe. People get into bad habits. They have a habit in Europe, believe it or not, of passing in the middle of a two-lane highway. There is traffic coming this way, traffic coming that way and they pass in the middle at speeds of 100 kilometres an hour. It didn't take long, unfortunately, for we copy bad habits, and I remember going over there and seeing the Canadian folks emulating that. They started driving down the middle. It wasn't any wonder that we had people sailing through windshields and hanging up on trees, and goodness knows what all.

Then came photo-radar. Photo-radar had such an effect on the driving habits in the area where I was that it was unbelievable. The German police would phone and say, through an interpreter, "Come down; we've got all these photo-radar things we want you to look at." I used to go down and get them by the armful. We had a particular registration system in Europe that was peculiar to Canadians. The Germans couldn't access it, so obviously they couldn't tell who was driving, the offenders, on their photo-radar. They used to bring these reports to us and I would go about deciphering who these people were.

I heard the lawyers over there. I can't believe what they said. I think the member for Willowdale said: "You lend your car, and then under this legislation the person who owns the car is responsible for the speeding infraction. Good Lord, you might lend your car to someone and then you get this and you scratch your head and you say, 'Now, I wonder who I lent that to.'" What nonsense. I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

Here we have a car, which next to the purchase of a house is the most expensive piece of equipment that most ordinary people will buy in a lifetime. The member for Willowdale was telling me that you lend it and then a couple of days after, when you get the summons, you can't remember who you lent it to. I say balderdash.

1530

Anyway, to get back to my experience, I used to go down to the German police station and get these things, sit down, go through the registrations, call up so-and-so: "I want to see you." "Okay, what's it about?" "I'll tell you when you get here." So he comes down and I have the photo-radar document in my hands and there it says time, date. You've got a picture of the car, you've got a picture of the licence plate, and over top of all this, superimposed, you've got a speedometer and it stops right where that speed is happening.

Anyway, I get these fellows down there and I say: "Were you driving your car on such and such a day on such and such a highway? Yes? Okay, I've got some bad news for you. Look at this." He says, "Oh, crumbs, what's this going to cost me?" I say, "It's going to cost you plenty. And not only is it going to cost you, but it's going to cost you an offence report." And you, Mr Speaker, know all about that. "It's going to cost you an offence report in addition to that."

And then I had people come down and they'd say, "Well, I wasn't driving my car that day." So I'd say, "Well, who was?" They'd say, "I lent it to my son," right off the bat. And I'd say, "Well, this is what your son was doing on this day," and the speed. And he'd say: "Well, I can tell you, Sergeant, what's going to happen. He will not borrow that car any more. Thank you very much for letting me know."

I never saw one person I confronted with photo-radar evidence who didn't know, if he wasn't driving the car, who was. So I say to the member for Willowdale -- there are no Conservatives here; what a shame -- that he doesn't know what he's talking about when he says you can't remember where you were.

With the big pile of photo-radar, they got the message. You don't hit anybody on the head or in the pocketbook with some money before it starts getting through. That big pile started getting smaller and smaller and smaller until, guess what. The accidents dropped off. We weren't going to so many fatal accidents as we used to be. People weren't passing in the middle any more; people were behaving like Canadians should do, you see. So they got the message and they did not like being touched in their pocketbooks because it had a great levelling effect on them.

I spoke briefly when the member for Nepean was talking and he was on about the United States experience. We know the Americans are patriotic people. They're patriotic. I used to drive to Florida in those days when there was a fuel embargo and the speed limit was 55 miles an hour. I can tell you that you kept to 55 miles an hour because all the Americans did too, because they felt somehow that it was patriotic to drive the speed limit and to obey the traffic laws. Goodness help you if you whistled by someone: He would give you the dirtiest look that you'd ever seen and probably shake his fist or give some other significant gesture to you that you were breaking the law.

When we got over the gasoline shortage and things came back to normal, the United States was wrestling with the speed limit, because the side-effect of lowering the speed limit to 55 was incredible. It reduced fatal accidents and other sorts of accidents in an unprecedented amount. So when the oil embargo was lifted, the American states and the President were caught in a bind. They didn't know whether to allow the speed limit to be raised or to keep it as it was. They were caught in a bind. But unfortunately, we know how lobbyists work in the United States. They lobbied the Senate, they lobbied the President, and before long the speed limit was up to 65. I think the last time I drove down there it was 75. It's scary when you drive along the highway and everyone's whistling along at 75 miles an hour. Well, 75 is the limit, but they're driving 100.

Interjection: A Snowbird?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): He's had his wings clipped.

Mr Mills: Right. It's awful.

Anyway, I want to spend a few minutes now trying to convince my colleagues how very important this legislation is. If you care about your constituents, if you care about people, you will support Bill 47. You will support it.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, give me a break. That's such socialist drivel. I thought you'd give it a rest.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: There are some technical benefits to this too.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I wish you'd be quiet. You'll get your turn. It's my turn.

One of the benefits of photo-radar is it can't be detected by the Fuzzbusters. We know that. In the States they buy them and they slow down and keep going like this, and it's safer for peace officers.

I don't know if there's anybody in this House -- I doubt it -- who has tried to stop a high-speed vehicle on Highway 401 or the 400. You take your life into your hands. I've tried it. It's as though you're going to commit suicide. So when the members out there say, "Why aren't the police stopping it?" it's not effective. You go on doing it.

I remember this car coming down the 400. It had a funny licence plate. I think it said "Catch Me" or something like that. This car went whistling by me as though it was going to take off in the air. Then I got down a little way and the OPP had caught him, and I said, "There you go; they've caught him." Anyway, they write out the ticket and I'm coming out along into Whitby: "Stop Me." This guy goes by me, the same rate of speed again. So the argument that they say with photo-radar you don't stop the person and you don't tell him and he doesn't mend his ways is utter nonsense. If you're bent on speeding, it doesn't matter how many times you get stopped, you just keep going.

You try to stop these speeding vehicles in multilane highways, and it's impossible. Photo-radar will reduce the need to engage in high-speed pursuits, which endanger lives, and photo-radar will enable the police to focus their attention on traffic matters such as dangerous driving and impaired driving.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If you want to hold conversations, you can hold them outside, not in the House, please.

Mr Mills: We heard from the opposition parties about this Big Brother: Big Brother is invading our privacy. Let's listen to what the police who use photo-radar say in Canada.

Kelowna RCMP Sergeant Donald Chadney said: "Some consider radar cameras to be like Big Brother. I don't. Driving is a privilege, not a right." And I say, "Hear, hear."

Calgary Superintendent Gerry Baxter: "We will continue to use photo-radar because we view it as the tool to assist us in making Calgary's streets that much safer."

Another one: "Photo-radar is a tool, not a replacement for current policing. It has a proven record and forces the owners of motor vehicles to take greater care when driving or in fact lending their cars."

You can see that photo-radar is quite an effective tool in reducing tragic, fatal accidents.

I've only got a few minutes left. I want to talk about the Game and Fish Act, which is included in this.

I just want to leave with the members here this afternoon some statistics on the impact of photo-radar and how it impacted after its introduction. I wish the member for Nepean were here, because he said that if I could convince him, he would support it, and boy, I'm going to convince him.

1540

Interjection: We'll recommend it.

Mr Mills: Yes. Someone should get to him.

Anyway, in Pasadena, California, photo-radar introduction saw a decrease over six years of accidents of 21%. Isn't that amazing?

Mr Stockwell: Where?

Mr Mills: Pasadena, 21%.

Mr Stockwell: What years?

Mr Mills: In West Germany, and I can speak with some knowledge of this, in a three-year period in one location the accident rate decreased by 58%. I mean, this is absolutely phenomenal, isn't it? These statistics are mind-boggling. At another location in West Germany, over 19 years -- he says, "What year was it?" -- the decrease in accidents was 62%. In another spot in West Germany in a three-year period, the accident rate decreased by 61%. At another location --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: I'm speaking from the heart. I haven't discussed this with the minister at all. I have a passion for safety, believe you me. I've seen it. You haven't seen anybody in a fatal traffic accident. You've never attended a post-mortem. I have, and it hits you here. I'm speaking from the heart. I'm not mimicking what the minister told me. He doesn't know what I'm going to say.

Now, to get back, another location in West Germany in a three-year period saw a decrease in accidents of 89%, and another one in West Germany, over 19 years -- the member for Etobicoke West, we're talking about 19 years here -- there was a decrease in accidents at this location of 100%. This is Big Brother: 100%.

I just want to follow up on what traffic accidents cost us. You know, I come along the 401 into Toronto from my riding, Durham East, and sometimes the traffic comes to a dead stop. I think, "Oh, golly, what's going on now?" I find out that some nitwit has gone so fast -- and we see them all the time. You see them in the mirror. I say: "Here comes one -- whoof. Here comes one -- whoof." And eventually they come a cropper; there's an accident and then we're all backed up on the 401. Not 10 minutes, not one hour: three hours we're backed up.

Do you ever think about the people who have lost three hours' employment, the people who are going to the doctor, the people who are going to hospital, the people who are going to see their lawyers? Goodness knows, what a tremendous waste of time, effort and money through the stupidity of a few people who think that driving a car is akin to flying an airplane. And they're all over the place. I came down here this morning and I saw two in my rearview mirror. I thought: "Here they come again. How appropriate it is that I'm speaking about this in the Legislature this afternoon."

Let's talk about the costs. Each fitality --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Fitality?

Mr Mills: I've had my teeth fixed today. Each fatality in Canada costs $310,000.

Mr Mahoney: To get your teeth fixed?

Mr Mills: Yes. They fell out this morning.

Each injured victim costs $3,600, and property damage only -- nobody killed, nobody injured, just a good old rip-roaring smash-up -- costs $3,100. This is absolutely preposterous. Why do we put up with it? Why do we let this happen to us in a caring, sensible, modern society?

I know that when they go by me at 120 miles an hour, I feel like I could jump out and strangle them, I feel so bad about it, because this hurts me, it hurts everybody.

Mr Stockwell: Where do you drive and they're going 120 miles an hour?

Mr Mills: I have a pretty good mind to estimate speeds of vehicles, believe you me, and I've got that by a great deal of experience.

I've said enough about photo-radar. I hope I've convinced my colleagues in this House to support it. If they care about the people they represent, if they care about preserving life, they will support this legislation 100%.

Included in this legislation is the Game and Fish Act, and I just want to talk to that.

I think this makes such profound common sense. Section 3 of the Game and Fish Act says, "No person shall use a vehicle for the purpose of chasing, pursuing, worrying, molesting, killing, injuring or destroying any animal or bird." Isn't that a caring society? Doesn't it make sense to you that we should amend and do that? I think it makes profound sense, and all those animal lovers likewise.

Finally, there's subsection 3(4), as amended, that no person shall "have a loaded firearm in or on, or discharge a loaded firearm from, a vehicle." That is another piece of legislation that, to me --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Long overdue.

Mr Mills: Long overdue, as my colleague from Essex says, and certainly it makes such a wonderful point in this House today.

So with those few words, I'm going to close off. It's a pity that there are two Tories here and two Liberals here. They should be here, every one of them, to hear what I have to say, because it's so important to this country and to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): As one of the members of the Progressive Conservatives who is here to listen to this beautiful speech, as has been indicated by one of my colleagues, I must say I was very taken by the comments of the member for Durham East with regard to the carnage, the loss of life and the injuries on our road system in the province of Ontario. This legislation should be looked at very carefully, because it is addressed to promoting safety on our road system, and some law enforcement officials have expressed support for the concept.

But I have a concern that this legislation is primarily aimed at generating provincial revenues, much more so than at safety on our road system. That suspicion arises, I might say, because the fine money goes directly to general revenues, no extra money goes to the police in the province of Ontario, and the person driving the vehicle loses no points. I ask myself, will this be a disincentive?

I suppose if you have few resources, if you have little money to pay for the fines, then it may be a disincentive. But if you're one of those people perhaps on your way up to the cottage on a Friday night in a big hurry to go up Highway 400 and you're fully aware that no points will be lost, then I suspect it's very little disincentive. Indeed, if the police divert their resources from roads such as this and rely on the photo-radar, it may in fact be an encouragement for people to speed up and may encourage or result in more traffic accidents rather than fewer.

I think it's a concept that is pervasive, it's a concept that is not going to achieve the result the government has in mind, and there are many other measures that should be taken instead.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I've seldom heard anyone being so committed, so passionate and yet so accurate in describing the situation vis-à-vis the proposed legislation of photo-radar. This was done by the member for Durham East, Mr Gordon Mills.

I could repeat verbatim what has been said. I can also acquiesce that there's been no briefing or discussion vis-à-vis this. This member speaks from the heart. He speaks from the heart because he cares about safety. He wishes to see an end to what some people have termed "the carnage," sees his responsibility going beyond the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Simply put, the member is dedicated.

The member brings forward experience, not only an experience in Ontario, Canada, but also in Europe and many countries. He has seen with his very eyes that excessive speed -- when people surpass, go beyond the threshold, they kill themselves only too often. They kill others as well.

Who can, therefore, be against this safety initiative which is photo-radar? How can someone be so cynical as to refer to it as a money grab on the backs of the victims? No, the member has reminded us that we're hoping to break even, that the system will just barely pay for itself. But much more important, and this is where the human dimension comes in, is the obligation and the ability of this government to do what's right, to restore some sanity on our roads. I thank the member for Durham East.

1550

Mr Mahoney: I also listened to the member for Durham East, and first of all I would say to the member I think it's unfortunate that when you suggest that if somebody in this House, be it in opposition or be it even in your own party -- although that's not likely when the whip's put on; all the trained seals will come home to do whatever the minister says, briefing or no briefing -- I think it's unfortunate that you suggest that someone does not care about --

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On behalf of decorum and good manners, I cannot sit idly by and have my distinguished colleague referred to as a trained seal. I find this very offensive and I ask, under your jurisdiction, that the honourable member withdraw those offensive remarks.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I won't withdraw them. I think it's a known fact. But in any event, thanks for using up a little bit of my time.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Oh, no, no.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry, but in any event, I wanted to --

The Deputy Speaker: Just a minute. Let me explain --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How many times did he vote against Peterson when he went to raise taxes?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Just remember the weasel.

Interjection: What's the difference?

Mr Bisson: That's a good point. They're both four-legged animals.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I don't like this language. I don't find it unparliamentary. I don't like it. I've heard worse in this House. What I would ask you is to refrain from heckling. You'll have your time to debate. Take advantage of it. Would you please give back the two minutes to the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. Since they seem to get so sensitive and upset, I can understand it. You have some difficult cans to carry, shall we say, on behalf of the minister.

I want to address the member for Durham East. I don't think that you, sir, should cast aspersions at any members in this place in relation to them not caring about reducing accidents on the highway because they either support or do not support any particular piece of legislation. Ask the question: Everybody in here in favour of more accidents and more carnage, please put up your hand. Let's not be silly here. We have some serious problems and concerns about the legislation that's on the floor. Anything that will legitimately reduce the carnage on the highways is a good thing. The graduated licensing that's going on in committee, I think there are some very positive things about it, being the father of three sons, now three young men who are past the teenage years. You live through some very scary times as a parent when you know that those kids are out there.

Does the problem go away because some camera automatically takes a picture of somebody speeding down a highway? I don't know that it does. The point has been made about the lack of accountability with regard to a point system. I don't know if that resolves it. It's our job, I say to the member for Durham East, to question the government on legislation like this, to say: "Can we not do it better? Should we not be amending the legislation? Perhaps this doesn't go far enough in some areas and it goes too far in other areas." I frankly don't think that casts any kind of aspersion on any members in this Legislature. I believe that if they honestly believed a bill would reduce accidents on the highway, they would support it. We think there are flaws in this legislation and it's our job to point them out.

Mr Stockwell: I echo the concerns of the member for Mississauga West. I think that's a fair comment. Anyone can stand up and debate a bill, and I don't think you should impute motives that anyone who doesn't support you on this doesn't care. That's not fair.

The next point I'd like to bring forward --

Hon Ms Churley: You do it all the time.

Mr Stockwell: They suggest that we do it all the time. If that's the case, then give examples. I've not said that. Maybe we have a difference of opinion, but whether or not we care is not the case.

Mr Mahoney: Show me in Hansard.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I'd like to see it in Hansard. They suggest we say it all the time. Go dig up Hansard. I can dig up dozens of times where you people have said it.

The question that needs to be asked is, how many people do you run into who worry about getting a ticket? They're worrying about the money or the demerit points. Sure, there's concern about money, but the fact is you've dealt with police when you're going to get a ticket and they knock it down so you don't get demerit points, because demerit points mean you lose your licence. Most people would be happy to pay a ticket if all they had to do was pay the ticket. The demerit points bug them because if they get too many demerit points, they go in for an interview and they lose their licence. That's a very real fact. We all know it's a fact. The cops know it's a fact. That's why they bounce it down, so you don't lose demerit points.

The second point is, you're going to set one of these photo-radar things up on the way to the cottage. I go to the cottage all the time, up the 400, up Highway 11, and I'll tell you right now, nobody but nobody goes the speed limit on the way to the cottage. Nobody. You could set that up and make thousands and thousands of dollars every Friday night and Sunday night on the way home, because nobody does the speed limit. You're not going to slow anyone down. They'll think that's just the price of going up north.

If this money was being directed to police departments and this money was being directed to stop the carnage, I'd say maybe there's debate here, but all you're doing is generating this money, putting it in general revenue and spending it wherever the heck you feel like. That's where the rub is.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham East, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Mills: I'd like to thank the members for their comments. The member for Mississauga West talks about legitimately reducing fatal accidents. I think I've read out enough statistics to choke a horse about how it reduces accidents. It reduced them by 100% in some areas. It's ridiculous to say, "Well, we don't know if it legitimately reduces accidents."

Unless you're pretty wealthy, I don't care whether there are points attached to it or anything, but once you have to pay the fine, it has a pretty big impact on the ordinary folks who have to pay a fine. I would think that is sufficient enough to deter them speeding.

I must say that I had no conversation with the minister about this legislation. I saw it coming up. I'm not connected with that ministry. I went to him and I said, "I'd like to speak to that, because I really feel so passionate about the stupidity that's going on on our highways."

The member talks about revenue. I'm sure if we could reduce the carnage on our highways -- I've given you some figures here; we're talking about $9 billion a year -- the affected Health ministry and all the related services would welcome it if we don't catch anybody. It's not revenue at all. This is about saving lives, for goodness' sake, and it's about caring for the people we live with. Good Lord, do you want to go along and see your neighbours wiped out? I think this is a piece of legislation that is very well-thought-out and to the point, and I for one want to see this $9 billion a year wiped out.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to enter this debate on Bill 47. At first glance, it seems like an innocuous and harmless bill. Indeed, I think it's very difficult for anyone to disagree with the sentiments as expressed by the member for Durham East over the past half-hour, but I would ask the member for Durham East to listen to some of the comments I have to make today and see whether or not there might be some ways to improve this particular legislation.

I think if we look at the legislation, we'll see that it deals with much more than photo-radar, and that's been the subject of comment by a lot of people in this Legislature. There are many very good ideas which are ruined and destroyed in the execution. What we're concerned about is that some of the provisions in this bill will destroy the good intentions of this particular legislation.

I'm going to start by simply looking at the title of the bill itself. It's called An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice. It's called a justice bill, the administration of justice, but the sponsoring minister is the Minister of Transportation.

1600

If it is a justice bill, why is not being introduced by the Attorney General? In fact, some people have suggested that it might properly be introduced by the Treasurer. Is it more of a justice bill, a transportation bill or a revenue bill? The opposition has been addressing its attention to the other two components besides transportation, and those are the justice and the revenue sides.

There are some very significant flaws in the legislation. It's all well and good for the government to stand up and say how wonderful it is to reduce carnage on the highways. If you're going to reduce carnage on the highways, do it the right way. This province has been swimming in a sea of red ink over the last number of years, and almost everything it does it taints by bringing in revenue components to it. I'm going to address that in a little more detail as I get into my comments.

Let's look at the bill again. It's referred to as the photo-radar bill and it's couched in terms of road safety. Indeed, if we look at the comments of the Attorney General when she spoke a week or two on this particular issue, she said on October 21, last month:

"Our government is committed to making Ontario roads the safest in North America by the year 1998.... The legislation before you today will allow for the use of photo-radar technology to reduce speeding and to reduce pressures on courts and police so that resources can be focused on more serious charges."

The member for Durham East said essentially the same thing.

Nobody disagrees with that intent or that particular goal.

Then the Attorney General goes on, and all of her comments are couched in the context of road safety, carnage on the highways. But let's look at the bill and see how it extends from that particular idea or that particular goal. If we look at the explanatory notes of what's called, by its very title, a justice bill, it says,

"The main purposes of the bill are to amend the procedures for ticket offences and parking infractions under parts I and II of the Provincial Offences Act, to amend the provisions in that act for dealing with persons who default in paying a fine imposed in respect of conviction of a provincial offence and to provide for the use of evidence obtained through the use of a photo-radar...."

Then it goes on to say, "Section 1 of the bill amends the Provincial Offences Act. Defendants who wish to dispute a charge set out in an offence or parking infraction...." Basically this bill does not only deal with traffic offences or speeding. It deals with all offences under the Provincial Offences Act.

When the member for Durham East stands up and talks about carnage on the highways and road safety, that's one thing, but the bill talks about provincial offences: all provincial offences. So there is, I would suggest, a misrepresentation of what the bill is really doing, because it extends much beyond mere traffic offences.

Let's be very clear about provincial offences. Matters under the Provincial Offences Act are presided over by provincial judges and justices of the peace, who render the final disposition for offences under the statutes of Ontario -- all statutes which create provincial offences -- and municipal bylaws, including parking offences.

So this bill doesn't only deal with photo-radar. It deals with municipal bylaws: your poop-and-scoop bylaws, your anti-noise bylaws, your property standards bylaws. Fines for licensing of professions and trades, such as plumbers, are included and contemplated to be included under this particular legislation in terms of how fines and the collection of fines are dealt with. It goes much beyond photo-radar.

If I can go back to the bill, it provides basically that you can withhold the issuance of a renewal of a licence or a permit which normally is governed or for which there are punishments under the Provincial Offences Act. I want to read and quote specifically from subsection 69(2) of the act, which deals with that particular issue. As I said, I hope that people on the government side and the people across Ontario will realize how widespread the coverage of this bill is.

It says under subsection 69(2): "A justice of the peace who is satisfied that payment of a fine is in default" -- that does not mean a fine imposed under photo-radar; it means any fine imposed under the Provincial Offences Act. Let's be very clear about that. "A justice of the peace who is satisfied that payment of a fine is in default...shall order that any permit, licence, registration or privilege in respect of which any act," not just photo-radar, "authorizes a refusal to renew, validate or issue the permit, licence, registration or privilege because of non-payment of the fine not to be renewed, validated or issued until the fine is paid." And the bill goes on.

Really what that means, and it's been interpreted that way by many people, including a very esteemed counsel who is the Attorney General critic for the Conservative Party, is that if someone is ordered to pay a fine because he doesn't have a particular permit or he has breached something, such as property standards, when he goes to renew his licence for his car or his truck, it can be withheld from him. There's no connection between the driving, the licence and the offence which is being enforced under the legislation.

I would suggest that is unconscionable on the face of it substantively and more so unconscionable because this government is not talking about that effect. They're couching it in the guise of photo-radar and traffic on the highways. To the extent that it covers all the fines for all those provincial offences, it is a collection system to help the government's revenue.

Photo-radar, as you're aware, is an apparatus that's put on the roadside and it basically makes a photograph of the licence plate to catch a speeder. Let's look at some of the implications. That purpose would be very good if it didn't have some of the problems that flow from that simple process.

Speeders convicted on the basis of photo-radar evidence will not lose demerit points and there cannot be any impact on their driver's insurance. What that does is create two systems of justice vis-à-vis speeding in this province.

If, for example, in the city of Nepean they have a machine that does the photo-radar and they snap all these licence plates, there's no demerit points. If you cross the border to the city of Ottawa and somebody is caught for speeding through the normal radar device, then you can lose demerit points; it can impact on your driver's insurance. That creates a double system of penalty and a double system of justice and is probably going to be challenged constitutionally with some legitimacy. This bill does not address that particular problem.

This should really be called a treasury bill, for a number of reasons. First of all, as I mentioned, it doesn't only deal with photo-radar; it blankets all provincial offences and it's used as a hammer to refuse to renew licences, not only car licences but any type of licences, if you haven't paid a particular fine. There may be good reason, public policy, for enforcing the payment of fines, but they are sliding it in the back door. They're not talking about it and they're couching it in terms of traffic and road safety, and that verges on dishonesty, if it's not dishonesty.

The other point is that there are a lot of inequities involved in the process. It's been shown that this particular device covers someone who's going two kilometres an hour or 52 kilometres an hour over the speed limit, with no relevance to points. It's mail-order tax on drivers the way this government is planning on imposing photo-radar.

In fact, they already have the numbers. The Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Revenue have gotten together and they've already projected that it's going to generate $15 million in additional fines that they don't otherwise get.

1610

One machine costs $80,000. They're going to be doing it on a pilot project. They're projecting something like $15 million in additional revenue. It's a revenue generator and they refuse to talk in those terms. We must look at this particular initiative in the context of other government revenue generators. The May budget introduced at least 35 fee hikes which will raise $220.9 million in extra revenue in 1993-94. That is a lot of money; that is big-time taxation, $200-plus million.

Let's relate that to other transportation fees and charges. That budget, in addition to talking $15 million for photo-radar -- the cost of registering a snowmobile increased by 20% to $30 from $25; that's the Ministry of Transportation, the government, introducing a $15 fee for a snowmobile permit validation sticker. That's an increase, the same as photo-radar. The cost of taking a road test increases by almost 80% to $25 from $14. The cost of off-road vehicle permits doubles to $10 from $5. The cost of a permit validation sticker for a moped quadruples to $1.25 from 25 cents. The cost of obtaining a collision report from the Ministry of Transportation jumps up 20% to $12 from $10. The ministry expects to net $42.4 million in non-tax revenue from these higher fees.

The Minister of Transportation is there and he's standing up right now and he's taking a bow, saying to all these people across Ontario that he's proud his ministry is taking $42.4 million from the people of Ontario in increases in fees this current fiscal year. The photo-radar is part of it. They don't talk about it and the photo-radar process has to be tied right to it.

This government does not get the message of last week's election. People want their governments to deal up front. They want their governments to deal honestly. They don't want to bring in measures by the back door.

Just consider Bill 47. Bill 47 has generated --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. Order. The member for Ottawa West has the floor. Please allow him the opportunity.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we look at Bill 47, we see that it is, as part of that total revenue generation of $42 million from the Ministry of Transportation, used to generate dollars. Number two, it generates a double system of justice so that speeder in community X will pay a fine and speeder in community Y will pay a fine and lose demerit points. Where's the justice? This bill does not address it. They shake their heads and they say: "Well, it doesn't matter. We're just going to get more revenue and catch more speeders." That's not good enough for a bill, particularly a bill that really effectively is a justice bill.

In terms of being up front with the people of Ontario, they talk of this bill and they call it a photo-radar bill and yet it deals with all provincial offences across the whole gamut in Ontario. People will be very surprised when they walk up to a licence counter to get any kind of a permit and they're told, "No, you can't have your permit." This government is not up front with the people of Ontario, it's not up front with this Legislature with this particular legislation.

There's also a very significant problem with respect to constitutionality of this bill. When I talk about coming clean with the people of Ontario and having a government of credibility, you have to look at the issue of constitutionality of this bill and how it is being dealt with by this government. I'm going to use an analogy.

We've had several of our members rise in the House at question period and direct questions to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and to the Attorney General with respect to the serial killer cards. Both ministers have stood in their places and they've said: "We can't pass this type of legislation because there's a question of constitutionality. We don't have the jurisdiction. We don't have the authority."

They stand there and say they can't deal with serial killer cards, for which there's a total consensus in the province of Ontario, and yet the Attorney General is on record as saying publicly with respect to Bill 47, "We understand there are some questions of constitutionality, but we're proceeding anyway and we'll let the courts deal with it." It's a double standard.

There's no credibility with respect to how this government introduces and deals with legislation. It's not acceptable in this House. The member for Durham East stands up and says that he feels passionate about the carnage on the highways. We all do. But if they're going to bring in a bill to get rid of carnage on the highways, tell them to bring in a bill that makes sense, that's up front and that deals with the issues directly. This is a revenue bill and it's a bill that has serious flaws in terms of the justice system.

Let's look around at some of the opinions that have been expressed on this particular legislation, Bill 47, across the province since it was introduced. I'm going to refer to some comments that have been made, particularly on the question of constitutionality again. First of all, I'm quoting from an article by Richard Mackie from the Globe and Mail of May 14 this year:

"Ontario Attorney General Marion Boyd agreed that 'there could potentially be a lot of revenue.'" There's nothing about "potentially"; it's in the budget. The budget documents project revenue from this, so there's no "potentially," and the Attorney General admits it but she also goes on to say, "Mrs Boyd said that the changes planned by the province, and the idea of penalizing the owner rather than the driver of the car, could lead to a constitutional challenge."

She proceeds with Bill 47, where she knows there's likely going to be a constitutional challenge, yet on the serial killer cards she does absolutely nothing and she washes her hands. It's an unacceptable standard from the Attorney General and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

On the question of constitutionality, I want to refer to an Alberta case. Alberta has the photo-radar devices. I want to read from a commentary on the case which says: "It was held that the accused was acquitted. The police officer who had clocked the accused on the Multanova device" -- which is the photo-radar device -- "could give no backup evidence as to the speed of the accused. The results obtained from the device were only prima facie evidence of the offence. Without more, a reasonable doubt existed. The manufacturer's information about the device warned that it was not reliable when two or more vehicles were clocked together. The crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

When the member for Durham East talks about the 401 and you've got three, four or five lanes of traffic coming down and you've got a photo-radar device and it catches two or three cars which are roughly, approximately, going the same speed over the speed limit, they're going to be thrown out. So rather than simplifying provincial offences in the court system, this is going to clog them up and it's going to clog them up royally, because if you're planning on using the photo-radar device in high-traffic areas, they're going to get caught in that type of case.

There are going to be defences entered for this type of case time and time again. While the principle of photo-radar and reducing speed is very good, the practical effect of this bill is going to have some of the same effects it has had in Alberta: that is, clogging the courts up rather than improving the safety on the roads.

If I can make a comment again, this time getting closer to the minister's home territory, the Windsor Star says: "No, we're not going to suggest that Ontario's plan for photo-radar cameras is a page out of Big Brother. But the idea of photographing speeding cars in order to ticket them isn't exactly Candid Camera either.

"In short, it's a proposal that raises some very serious questions and deserves close scrutiny."

These very serious questions that have been raised by the opposition and by editorial writers have not been met and have not been dealt with, nor do they have any intention of doing so. To that extent, I believe the government is being extremely irresponsible. The editorial goes on to say: "Then there is another question: Just how many of these cameras is the province eventually going to buy? At $80,000 a unit, one has to wonder if the money would be better spent on police officers to enforce the law."

1620

I think that's a very serious comment, and I don't know that the Minister of Transportation has even looked at it. It's a Transportation bill, but as I said, it might properly have been introduced and vetted through the justice part of this government's cabinet committee system rather than Transportation, because I think the Transportation ministry has botched it and has botched it royally. They should bring it back to their Attorney General and their Solicitor General to look at once again.

If I may, the North Bay Nugget, again closer to the minister's home town, has an editorial which I'll quote from: "We don't condone speeding on highways or city streets," -- neither does the opposition, Mr Minister -- "but this plan is going too far. How many times have drivers been behind other motorists who are moving along at 80 km or so in a 90 km zone, passed them at a 100 km, but then returned to the speed limit of 90 km or so. What happens if the pass occurs during a stretch where the radar is being operated? Big Brother will get you, we suppose."

Not only will Big Brother get you, but Big Brother will also get that type of defence that I mentioned in Alberta. It's going to clog the courts up; it's not going to speed the courts up. That's what's going to happen on our high-speed highways such as 401.

Again, we'll go to the Sudbury Star; I'm going to read a little extract from it. "A new form of radar designed to photograph the licence plate of a speeding car will be nothing but a colossal nightmare, says a Sudbury lawyer.

"Guy Hurtubise, who in addition to practising law has taught the subject at Laurentian University, says that while the new devices will generate 'tons of money' for the province, they will also generate a legal nightmare."

I have pretty well completed my comments on Bill 47, but in all seriousness I just simply want to say to the ministers on the other side who drafted this legislation that they do look at all of the implications. We on this side do not question the motivation of trying to reduce carnage on the highways, but we do think that the way this legislation has been introduced raises a lot of questions and perhaps some doubts in terms of the motivations of the legislation.

As I mentioned, the bill deals with all provincial offences, and yet when the Attorney General debates it in the House and when the member for Durham East debates it in the House they couch it in terms of road safety, speeding tickets, carnage on the highways. It goes way beyond that. I think we in the opposition have an obligation to bring the full import of this legislation to the public of Ontario, which we're doing in this debate and which we'll do through other means.

I also think that it's important to look at this initiative in the context of all the other fee increases, revenue generators, which have come from the Ministry of Transportation, some $42.9 million from the budget last May.

In that context, I was happy to enter this particular debate. I'm looking forward to the additional processes in the Legislature, and I'm also looking forward, quite frankly, to more comment from the general public. I hope there are some people out there monitoring the debate, some special interest groups and general citizens who are quite concerned about how far this legislation goes. Indeed, this bill, called the photo-radar bill, affects plumbers, it affects landlords, it affects anyone who needs or requires a licence for which there is a penalty under the Provincial Offences Act. So these people must be informed; these people must have a say.

I'll say quite clearly that the reason why all provincial offences are included in this legislation is to try to get a little bit of leverage to enforce the payment of fines under the Provincial Offences Act. There's nothing wrong with that goal. If someone is guilty of a provincial offence and there's a fine assessed against them, they have a legal obligation to pay, and the government has an obligation to try to enforce payment of that fine.

In this particular case, it's being done in a backhanded way. It's being done without admitting that they're doing it. This bill ought properly to have been introduced by the Attorney General as a justice bill to collect fines for all provincial offences, dealing with all provincial offences. She should be the lead minister. If they want to piggyback photo-radar on a justice bill, so be it; there's nothing wrong with that. But please, I would encourage the government to be up front and deal with the bill in terms of its contents, not in terms of its altruistic motivation, which it puts in a very small context.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I really had no intention to get up at this stage, certainly no intention to be repetitious, but with respect, Mr Speaker, may I avail myself of this opportunity one more time vis-à-vis this subject matter, this safety initiative, to set the record straight.

I respect the member. Of course I respect his opinion. But on and on, people impute motives. Not so hypothetically, we should go and take a trip to the trauma unit at Sunnybrook. Ask those women and men in blue, members of the Ontario Provincial Police, those foot-soldiers, who witness the carnage more often on Friday and Saturday night. They see the very victims in front of their very eyes, getting them out of those twisted wrecks, the result of excessive speed.

What we have at this time is a radar system in any event. What we have at this time is the monitoring of compliance for those who exceed, who surpass, the law of the land, the speed limit, the ordinance, the posting of what you can and cannot do.

What we're saying is that you have to catch up with technology.

It's part of the safety initiative. It's really no different from the graduated driver's licence to make the drivers more responsible. It's really no different from demerit points vis-à-vis wearing your seatbelt. It is no different from the obligation, morally and legally, of the government of the day to improve the statistics, to make it safer. Our goal is simple, by way of conclusion, and in answer to the member's comment opposite: to make the roads of Ontario the safest in North America.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Mahoney: The minister says they have an obligation to improve the statistics. I think that's exactly what I heard him say. You have an obligation to improve the roads; let me tell you that.

Talk to people in the area of the member who just spoke about Highway 416 and what happened to the commitment of this government to improve Highway 416.

Talk to people in my community about the almost haphazard improvements going on to Highway 403, about material flying through the air and smashing out windshields all the time. Talk to the people about those kinds of safety problems.

Talk to people about Highway 69, north of Waubaushene. How long is the government going to take to do some serious improvements and four-laning? The promise is supposed to be all the way to Sudbury one day.

If you were to take the revenue, some $15 million a year, out of this particular bill, and if you were to commit that specifically to improvements, just in the three areas I've mentioned, and I'm sure there are others, then I would say to the Minister of Transportation that he indeed would be doing his job at the cabinet table. Talk to your colleagues and say, "If you want to put something in that some people have concerns about, at least take the $15 million a year and put it directly into doing something that indeed will make our roads safer."

They are wild to drive on. The passing lane, if you go up through Parry Sound, where you are supposed to pull over, to let faster cars go by, it's a frightening proposition for a lot of people to drive, and you could do something about improving safety by improving the roads.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the comments made by the member for Ottawa West. It's always the same in this House. It's not so much the question that the opposition doesn't have an obligation and also a responsibility to point out particular parts of the government's legislation as being inadequate; I think that's obviously what the role of any opposition is, any good opposition. However, the difficulty is, it seems to me, that every time any kind of bill comes through this place there are always a number of points made that are somewhat exaggerated, to say the least. Let's keep in mind what this bill is all about and how the legislation's going to work.

What it's going to do is allow the police within the province of Ontario -- and certain jurisdictions at the very beginning were probably anticipating anywhere from one, two or three photo-radars being set up initially on particular troublesome highways -- to put a sign up on a particular highway and they will warn the driver, "This highway is being patrolled by photo-radar." That by its very nature will put the driver on notice in order to watch his or her speed so that we can make our highways safer. That's basically what's going to happen around photo-radar.

The other point I would like to make is, let's say, for an example, that the highway speed is somewhere posted at 100 kilometres per hour. The police are not going to set the photo-radar at 100 or 110 or even 120. Who we're really trying to get at are not those people who are driving 110 kilometres in a 100-kilometre zone. On the 400 or the 401, most people tend to drive 10, 15, 20 kilometres over the speed limit. If the police try to stop that, it will be fairly difficult. What we're trying to do is stop those drivers who are doing 20 and 30 kilometres over the speed limit by warning them, first of all, and if they persist, the photo-radar will basically be the tool by which we're able to get to them and allow our police officers to go out and do the work that they're paid to do and put their valuable resources to much better use than trying to stop some of the people on our highways.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to make a few comments on my colleagues' remarks and to state very clearly that, like another piece of legislative agenda, the tobacco act, where we have perhaps half of our members in caucus who smoke, and the bicycle helmet act that's already been passed by this very ministry, what we're looking at are safety measures. If we looked around us in this assembly, we would find many members of the frequent flyer club. Do they? No. I know that the minister has not, but many of us have been known to exceed the speed limit.

When we put legislation in like this, is it because we are looking for revenue? Of course not. If we were looking at revenues alone it would not be an effective tool. It is, however, a very effective tool when one knows that every time you exceed the speed limit you run that risk.

It's not a matter of looking around the corner or knowing that the hill coming up you can slide up, and other little techniques we can use like following behind speeding vehicles. No. We know this is a tool that will work and work time and time again, and it will curtail the driving habits of many of my colleagues.

So we know that this method bespeaks legislators who are concerned about public safety. Even their own behaviour will have to be curtailed, and curtailed severely, and I know that's not true of the minister. But many of my colleagues have seriously looked at this and, like the tobacco act, said, "This behaviour has to stop," because they have seen the carnage, they have seen the results and they are committed to a safer province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The member for Ottawa West has two minutes in response.

Mr Chiarelli: Once again, the government members have spoken strictly of the traffic highway safety issue. This bill is called the Provincial Offences Statute Law Amendment Act. One would think that photo-radar would particularly come under the Highway Traffic Act and we would be looking at an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. But no, the reason for the title of the bill comes from section 69 of the bill.

The government side did not speak of section 69 of the bill and I want to read it into the record again. It says, "A justice of the peace who is satisfied that payment of a fine is in default" -- that's a fine under any provincial offence. Whether you're an engineer, a plumber, property standards bylaw, any of those offences are covered by this legislation. What does that have to do with photo-radar? -- "shall order that any permit, licence, registration or privilege in respect of which any act authorizes a refusal to renew, validate or issue the permit, licence, registration or privilege because of non-payment of the fine not to be renewed, validated or issued until the fine is paid."

This is a hammer to collect fines under any provincial offence, and that's why it's an administration of justice bill. It's called the Provincial Offences Statute Law Amendment Act, and they can talk until they're blue in the face about photo-radar -- for which there is monumental consensus in this Legislature, that we have to stop speeding, that we have to collect fines from the speeders and that we have to cut out the carnage on the highways -- the issue is one of credibility, the issue is one of constitutionality and this government refuses to talk about what is really in the bill in the guise of photo-radar.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on second reading, Bill 47. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I want to talk first about the minister's motivation in announcing this bit of legislation. Let's be clear. I don't particularly think this minister has a tremendous handle on his ministry, to be perfectly blunt. I think a lot of things happen within this ministry --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I'm expressing my point of view. I honestly don't think that the minister --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. I know there is provocative language. However, all members will have the opportunity. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I say that because there are a bunch of things going on in this ministry that I find rather offensive.

Mr White: "A bunch."

Mr Stockwell: A bunch. In fact, I can list them and I will.

First off, we'll have to look at the track record of this ministry under this minister. As we look at the track record of this ministry under this minister, we'll come to the very clear conclusion that what this minister says publicly and what happens within the ministry are two very real, different things. I want to say that very clearly. I'm not personalizing this; I'm just saying what the minister has said very publicly on a number of issues and what actually took place.

Let's examine those who are in the licence renewal business, those people who are running licence renewal operations. The minister, during his original tenure, the very first period of time he was in the business, said categorically that no way would anyone running a licence office have any loss of revenue by any decisions that he made with respect to licence renewals.

They wanted to caterwaul when I said I didn't think he knew what was going on in the ministry, but they don't want to listen to why. They go back to their reading. I'll this to you: He's in fact instituted a program where people can get licence renewals at those kiosks or the bank-type teller machines where you can go in and get your licence renewed, thereby cutting out the licence office operations.

Those people have worked for the province, in some cases for long periods of time. The amount of money they're getting on a transaction is pennies, literally pennies per transaction, and the minister gave them the understanding that he wasn't going to do anything that would affect their income, and in fact he has.

Those people are very upset with this minister. I see them occasionally and they tell me how offended they are that they got some undertakings from this minister to protect them and in fact he did not do what he said he was going to do, and did exactly the opposite, I might add. I wish the minister were here and he could respond to those things, because they're upset.

So we move on to the track record of this ministry. You tell me what this ministry was doing when it extended the driver's licence permit from three years to five years. Now when you go in to get your driver's licence renewed, you pay for five years' worth of renewal rather than three. What benefit could there be to the taxpayers to extend that permit from three to five years?

Mr White: Simplified administration.

Mr Stockwell: There's no benefit. The simple fact is, it simply generates more revenue for the government to spend than a next government would have because they've had an extra two years when they have to come in and renew their licence fees.

1640

Mr White: Chris, would you have them review the licence every month?

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Durham East who's not listening, now when you go in to get your licence renewed, you get it renewed for five years, two years' worth of expenses paid up front by the taxpayers, and that money is taken by you, put into general revenue and spent. So where is the benefit there? There's no benefit.

The simple fact is they're generating revenue on the backs of the taxpayers, on the backs of future governments because they need the money. They want the money. They want to spend the money.

Let's continue giving examples about this ministry, which I have very little respect for, to be quite honest, because I see every day, it goes further and further into the private sector and the taxpayers' pockets to generate revenue, and I don't think it's fair or reasonable.

The list was given for snowmobiles, for mopeds, for other vehicles that you use in the province of Ontario. You've gone and increased the costs of those renewals, those licences, to the tune of $42 million. They were not underpaying. They were not being unreasonable in how much they were paying. You simply increased the cost to renew the vehicles in these licences by $42 million. Why? There's no more safety on the roads. There's no more safety on the snowmobile. There's no more safety on mopeds. You just wanted the money.

People are saying to themselves: "Every time I turn around to get a licence renewed, you've extended it by two years. If I want to renew my licence on my snowmobile, you've increased the price. You want to renew the licence on a moped, you increased the price." Where's the benefit to the taxpayers? Where's the safety?

The next point I would point out is, they're now examining in the ministry, which I know for a fact, extending the licence for your car from one year to two years. The member for Middlesex says, "Good."

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I did not say "Good."

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry, the member from Lambton said, "Good." The problem they have when they say "Good" is that the money these people are going to have to pay instead of $90 for a licence renewal will be $180. This government will take the money in and spend it, and future governments will not have the money in revenues.

If you want to know my opinion of this ministry, it is nothing more than a money-grubbing, revenue source they're looking for. There's no doubt in my mind, they're examining every option they can find to generate revenue, whether they deserve it or whether they don't deserve it, whether it's a future government's revenue or whether it's not. All they're doing is asking for more, more, more.

Now we get to today. We now have photo-radar. The argument that's put forward by this government is it's hoping -- this is another insulting fact and I say to the minister, this is why I don't believe the position this government's putting forward. The minister's coming in now. I'm glad. He had the audacity to stand up in this House and say to the House and to the people who are watching, they're instituting photo-radar with the hopes of breaking even. That is nothing more than a bald-faced untruth. He knows it and I know it.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind, including his own Treasurer --

Mr White: Mr Speaker, he has accused the minister of fabrication or prevaricating. Will you tolerate this language?

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but those are the facts. In the budget announced by the Treasurer of Ontario, the Treasurer has said this could generate as much as $200 million in revenue. You have the minister standing in this House having the nerve to tell the taxpayers they're hoping to break even on this. That is truly insulting the intelligence of the taxpayers of this province. They're hoping to generate $200 million in revenue.

Now, to deal with the issue, we have a track record on this ministry. We have a track record of extending drivers' licences by two years so they could gouge more money from the public. We've a track record of them increasing licensing permits for snowmobiles and off-road vehicles and mopeds to the tune of $42 million so they could gouge more money from the public. We have the track record of them looking at extending the licence for a car from one year to two so they could gouge more money from the public.

We have the record of this minister telling licence office operators that they were safe and he wouldn't do anything to impinge on the operation, and he immediately goes out for a trial basis and operates a kiosk where you can go in and get your driver's licence, thereby cutting out the licence operators. They're gouging the licence office operators in the province.

So we have a track record. You have a track record, my friends, and the minister has a track record. His track record is saying one thing and doing another, of increasing licence permits by $42 million, of extending drivers' licences from three years to five so he can get more money out of the private purse and of examining the extension of a licence for cars from one to two. So we have a track record.

If this government and this minister were to come forward with photo-radar the very first day they were in government, they may well have an argument, but the problem is you don't have an argument now. You know why you don't have an argument? Mr Minister, you don't have an argument because you've got a track record, and your track record is not, may I suggest, impeccable.

I ask the members opposite in the back benches that maybe it would be good if they examine the track record of this ministry. Maybe it would be good if you went out and figured out exactly how much money and revenue you're generating for the Minister of Transportation over and above what you took in when you first came.

Further to that, we ask the minister, if he's truly looking for a way to protect the driving public in Ontario today, why doesn't he spend more money on fixing the roads that are in such disrepair so that they could save lives? Being in the kind of disrepair they are, they are mitigating damages, they are mitigating the problems that drivers have with respect to accidents and deaths and costs of accidents.

I ask the minister that. Why does he not maintain a level increase each year to road reconstruction? He doesn't do that because he doesn't really want to make it safer to drive in Ontario. The only reason he wants to make it safer to drive in Ontario is if he can generate some revenue by doing that.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Chris, that's too much. That's really too much. Come on. "He's not interested in safety." Come on, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Apparently, what I say is too much but what their member says is okay, and what he says is, unless you agree with this legislation you don't care if people die in accidents. So apparently, what I say is too much but what their own member says is completely acceptable. Sounds like a double standard to me.

So now we examine photo-radar. Why don't we just examine radar, period, first off? Let's examine radar and the cop who sits at radar stops. I could say to every member in this House that you know where the cops set radar up in order to give tickets and demerit points. A lot of those places the cops set the radar up have nothing to do with whether they're speeding roads, whether they're unsafe or whether there are a lot of accidents.

A lot of the reason they set up radar is because people are speeding in those locations whether it's safe or unsafe. A lot of the reason for those radar setups, you'll note, I'm sure, is at the bottom of hills. Why do they set them up at the bottom of hills? Because they know when people are coming down the hill they're generally going faster than when they're going up the hill. Where else do they set these radar traps up? They set them up --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Such brilliance. He's so brilliant, Mr Speaker, he's so profound.

Mr Stockwell: It isn't profound. I say to the minister, I never suggested it was profound; I just suggest it's a fact. The fact is also this: They set up radar traps in school zones at 10 o'clock at night.

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member here has impugned not only the minister but the entire constabulary of the province of Ontario, establishing that the radar system is not for the public safety.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr White: Mr Speaker, I think that's outrageous.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: That comment pretty well sums up the government, I would suggest.

Further, they set radar traps up in school zones at 10 o'clock at night. The schools aren't in. There are no children at 10 o'clock at night going to and from the schools, but you know full well what happens in a school zone. The speed limit drops from 60 to 40 kilometres an hour.

Look, this isn't any new information. I made these same comments as a member of Metropolitan Toronto council. I think it's offensive. They're not setting it up for safety. They're not setting it up to save children. They're setting it up for revenue. You know it, I know it, the police know it. The fact is, everybody knows it. You know full well, when you see a cop in a school zone at 10 o'clock at night, they're giving out tickets to boost their ticket count, to generate revenue.

1650

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To really impute motive on and on, using the House, this honourable place, as the kind of halo of sanctity that allows one --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- to hit people because you have immunity without recourse is completely and totally unacceptable.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: If you don't respect the government, at least respect the --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please. That is all a matter of opinion. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has the floor. Other members will have the opportunity to participate. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: It is getting frustrating because they changed the rules and give you half an hour to speak. Then when you're speaking, they pop up on silly points of order.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Come on, Mr Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The Speaker can't hear a word.

Mr Stockwell: Just to save the minister the concern, I have said this very publicly outside this Legislature. I've been saying it for a number of years. Generally speaking, photo-radar or radar set up by the police helps to boost the coffers of the Metropolitan Toronto area. I don't know about other municipalities; I know about Metropolitan Toronto. They use it to increase revenues. They use it in school zones at 10 o'clock at night, they use it at the bottom of hills and they have quotas they have to meet. They meet those quotas by setting up in areas that happen to have a lot of speeders, not because they're unsafe, not because there's a lot of accidents, but because they can generate a lot of revenue.

The question now is, if this provincial government institutes this piece of legislation, I'll tell you right now where you can get a lot of speeders. Any Friday night you can set it up on Highway 400 or Highway 11 going to the cottage, because there's nobody who drives to the cottage at 80 kilometres an hour on that road, absolutely nobody. The fact is that if you're going 80 kilometres an hour going to the cottage, you'd be run off the road. They'd be beeping at you to get out of their way.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member has every right to make his point.

Mr Stockwell: I can't believe these people don't know this. I can't believe they live in such a cave that they don't understand this. I can't believe they've never driven up Highway 11 during Friday rush hour to the cottage --

Hon Miss Martel: We don't have cottages.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We don't have a cottage.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think Bob Rae has a cottage.

Mr Stockwell: -- between Barrie and Orillia, and not known that nobody goes 80 kilometres an hour. They claim they don't have a cottage. I know their Premier has a cottage and he takes a helicopter there, so maybe you wouldn't know about it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want to remind members that interjections are out of order. It's creating havoc in the House. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, please address the Chair and we will proceed.

Mr Stockwell: I've got 30 minutes to make my presentation.

Mr Bradley: That's because of Bob Rae.

Interjections.

Mr White: How do you get to your cottage? In your Lotus?

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): You do the same thing to us all the time. I'm so glad you're getting it back. How do you think it feels?

Mr Stockwell: I'm getting very frustrated. They changed the rules so you get 30 minutes to speak in this House, and the heckling from the member from -- I'm not sure where she's from; she used to be in cabinet --

Mr Bradley: Perth.

Mr Stockwell: -- from Perth, who's blathering away, but can't get up in the House and say a word, hasn't got the guts to leave her government after not supporting the social contract, has time to blather away in this House, continuing to heckle.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I can't understand why this --

Mrs Haslam: I'm glad you know the frustration.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Perth, please. You will have an opportunity.

Mr Stockwell: Since she left cabinet I haven't even heard her speak in this House. I'm very shocked.

Mrs Haslam: I never get a chance.

Mr Stockwell: Of course you never get a chance because your government won't let you. You're muzzled. Maybe you should cross the floor and you'd get an opportunity to speak, rather than sitting back there heckling in such an unbusinesslike fashion.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, let's get back to the point at hand here. There's something to be said for -- at least in a year and a half I won't have to put up with this crowd here and listen to their heckling.

The point at hand is this: They can set these photo-radars up on the way to northern Ontario, on the way to any of the cottage country outside of Metropolitan Toronto, and they can make a whole bunch of money, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in a decent night if they want to snap a picture, because the fact is that every car that goes by that photo-radar that night will in fact be speeding. Then on Sunday night, on the way home, I will guarantee you that every car that goes by that photo-radar will be speeding.

Tell me what service they're providing to the public by nailing every single driver to the cottage on Friday night and home on Sunday night because they're going 15 or 20 kilometres over the speed limit. They're not serving anybody. What are they doing? They're generating revenue for their coffers. That's what they're doing.

Mr White: Outrageous. We have Mike Harris saying to go on welfare and you say keep speeding.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham Centre, please let the member for Etobicoke West complete his participation in the debate.

Mr Stockwell: Clearly, Ed Broadfoot's brother did not go quite far enough with him.

They're going to generate revenue, and that revenue will be generated not because people are travelling at excessive speeds, not because people are causing great concern for the safety of each other, but because they're travelling to the cottage, and that's what this bill says.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please, members. I know it's Monday and you may be frustrated, but let the member for Etobicoke West participate in the debate. Please.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, Mr Speaker, I can take it. This is from the member for dumps. I have no problem accepting this. All I'm telling you is what the people in the province of Ontario are saying about your photo-radar. All I'm telling you is what people have come up to me and said is the problem with photo-radar.

The other problem they have with photo-radar is that they say to me -- and I'll tell you, car rental companies are saying the same thing to me. This isn't going to stop anyone from speeding in a rented car. Why would they stop speeding? They're not getting the ticket. Have you addressed that issue? The owner of the car gets the ticket and the owner of the car happens to be a rental company. So who is that saving? That's not saving anybody. That's just generating revenue from a private source of business. We're not talking about demerit points for those people who drove the car. We're just going to hammer the car rental company that rents the cars, is shown as the owner, and he or she is going to have to pay a significant number of dollars each year to the ministry, by way of claiming this is saving carnage on the road.

Tell me whom they're saving. Tell me how many demerit points you lose if you get caught in photo-radar. How many demerit points do you lose? Not one. Nobody loses demerit points. How do we know who's driving the car? We don't. You don't know who's driving the car. You take a picture of the licence plate. How do we know the car wasn't lent? You don't know that. How do we know that the person who actually has to pay the bill was in fact the speeder? You don't. How do you know that anybody who's driving the car, let alone the owner, is going to lose demerit points? You don't. Here we have a situation where nobody gets penalized except for money, and they're suggesting this is going to save carnage on the road.

Next, we move on to the system of Green Hornets or whatever who operate in Metropolitan Toronto. What about those Green Hornets? It's the same theory in Metropolitan Toronto. Why does Metro Toronto hire Green Hornets to walk around and ticket cars? It's because every Green Hornet makes them money. It's not that they're concerned about parking. It's not that they're trying to save the parking dilemma, like they're frightened somebody's going to walk into a parked car and kill themselves. They don't have that argument. They're only doing it because they make money. Why do they make money? Because they go all day long writing out parking tickets in areas that probably shouldn't be no parking, but some local council has agreed to make it no parking because a few neighbours have made complaints.

1700

They just generate revenue. Every Green Hornet they hire makes them money. Every photo-radar unit they buy will make them money. Why will it make them money? Because they'll just take pictures of licence plates going by, with no repercussions to who's driving, with no demerit points on anybody, because they're going to generate $200 million in taxes. That's why they've got photo-radar and that's why photo-radar is being instituted today.

They can talk about the other areas where photo-radar was instituted. Why don't they go to Alberta and ask them what their record on photo-radar is? Why don't you go to Alberta and ask them?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We did.

Mr Stockwell: They didn't tell you it was being challenged constitutionally? They didn't tell you that they think they have a very good case, the challengers? They didn't tell you that they think they may well lose the constitutional argument? They didn't tell you that? I'm absolutely shocked that the Minister of Transportation, who's trying to save all these lives by taxing people who happen to own a car -- not necessarily driving it -- didn't get told that in Alberta. I'm absolutely shocked.

You know why he didn't say that? Because he doesn't want to admit it, because this minister knows as well as probably most on that side that photo-radar is not working. Photo-radar has never worked. Photo-radar is a right for the rich to speed. That's what photo-radar is.

Of course it is. I don't understand why they can't understand this. If someone's driving along the streets of this province and they are fairly wealthy and they want to get someplace quickly, they're going to drive at 120 kilometres an hour, they're going to get a speeding ticket and they're going to say to themselves, "That's the price of driving in Ontario." They're going to write a cheque for that speeding ticket, with no demerit points, put it in the mail and send it.

Mr Perruzza: What do they get now?

Mr Stockwell: What do they get now? I say to the member for Downsview or Yorkview -- I'm not sure which one -- that they get demerit points. When you get nailed, you get demerit points. You know what? Everybody in this province knows that they would be prepared to pay a ticket when caught. What they don't want to lose is demerit points, because if they get demerit points they have the potential of losing their licence. That's the difference.

So what's the question? Someone who's reasonably affluent, who can afford to pay speeding tickets, drives along and decides he's got to get someplace very quickly. They'll just say that that's the price of doing business in Ontario. The ones who won't be able to do that are those who can't afford to pay the tickets --

Mr Bradley: Backbenchers.

Mr Stockwell: -- those members they were supposed to be representing. They can't afford to pay the tickets. They may not even be driving the car. Their son or daughter may be driving the car, but they'll get the ticket.

What we have here is a government saying: "It matters not who's driving; it matters not whether you get a demerit point; it matters not whether it was unsafe. All that matters is that it's okay to speed as long as you pay the ticket. There are no demerit points; there's no effect." That's your government's thinking.

You see, you don't get it. You have no idea. All you're saying to the public out there is, "If you're willing to pay a speeding ticket, you can speed." That's what you're saying to them, because there's no other way of costing those people from driving. The fear most people have when they drive is the demerit points.

So here we have $42 million in snowmobile licence increases; $42 million added in with off-road vehicles and mopeds; $200 million in photo-radar; we have an extension of drivers' licences by two years to generate them more revenue; we have an examination of a process to extend the licence of cars by a year, so they can generate more revenue; we've got government-set-up kiosks so they can cut the licence operators out of their 1% or 2% take so they can generate more revenue, and then you want to sell us in the back for doing this because we're worried about whether or not people are injured in car accidents.

What an absolute joke. If you want them to absolutely stand up and say that's true, I dare this minister, and I put it right to you, I say to you, for every nickel you generate in revenue on photo-radar, put it back into road improvements, dedicate that money to road improvements if you really care whether people are injured on Ontario roads. Because unless you do that, all the people are saying is: "All you want is our money. You don't want any safer roads; you just want our money."

So that's the challenge I give this government. You talk a big game; when it comes down to actually spending the money where it needs to be spent, when it comes down to improving the roads, when it comes down to stopping accidents, you have a very, very big control and that's providing safe and reasonably accessible and drivable roads in this province. I know the minister knows full well there are literally dozens of roads in this province that are under standard.

I challenge you, Mr Minister: Don't give me this argument about carnage on the highways. If you want to save lives, take your revenue from photo-radar, dedicate it to road improvements and prove it. Anything else just says to me you're standing in line like every one of your cousins there in caucus and you just want your fair share of the cut that's on the beleaguered taxpayer.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired. Questions and/or comments. The honourable Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, the opportunity afforded me, simply put, to set the record straight following what my friend and colleague has mentioned. We've heard representatives from the official opposition say $15 million in revenue; then the member says $200 million -- what a round figure; what convenience indeed -- and then challenges the minister, saying, "Well, spend the money on the highways."

Well, the budget for the Ministry of Transportation is $2.7 billion. We have 23,000 kilometres of roads; we have 9,700 employees; a very comprehensive safety program. Let's ask ourselves: When you have a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour, why would I be so obsessed, so possessed, why would I be so much against it? Is it because I encourage speeding? Is it because I'm not cognizant of the carnage that is taking place? Is it because I wish to go above? What do I have to hide? One thing remains constant; there is one given: If you don't speed, if you abide by the law, you don't have to be concerned about photo-radar.

You are Joe or Josephine Citizen; 100 kilometres an hour is plenty for most people, thank you very, very kindly, unless you're chasing a culprit. To make matters worse, we do acquiesce. We say, "Well, it's quite all right to have an existing radar system."

When someone gets caught speeding, somebody doesn't descend from the heavens. They get caught by radar as is. We want to catch up with the 21st century. What we're doing is we're making our system more sophisticated; no more than that, no less than that. We're determined to save lives.

The Acting Speaker: The minister's time has expired. I recognize the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I'd like to direct a couple of questions to the member, whose speech, as always, was highly entertaining and very insightful.

I would like to know whether the member for Etobicoke West believes that perhaps it would be much more appropriate if this bill were to appear in the name of the provincial Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, who will be receiving all of the funds that are derived from photo-radar. I'd be interested in his observation on that. I realize that's somewhat in-house, but I want to know whether he believes, instead of the Minister of Transportation carrying this bill, that in fact it should be the provincial Treasurer who's carrying the bill.

Second, I would like to ask him whether he believes that this is a good use of the time of police forces in the province of Ontario, dealing with these photo-radar machines or whether it would be a more appropriate use to have them get the bad drivers off the highway, those who are darting in and out of traffic, those who are sitting in the left lane holding up traffic for miles and causing anxious drivers to switch lanes; whether it be those who are driving when their ability is impaired, whether they should be pursuing others who are driving in a dangerous fashion or are driving vehicles which are clearly incapable of being on the highway and being operated safely; whether indeed the police should be spending more time fighting crime than chasing people down the highway or sending summonses to them, and last, whether he feels that it is rather revealing -- perhaps he's covered much of this in his speech -- that no points will be assigned to anyone as a result of these offences.

In total, I suppose I'm asking if he believes that this bill is simply an opportunity for the government to bleed more money out of the residents and others who visit the province of Ontario and that it has little or nothing to do with safety.

1710

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's interesting when you get to hear the minister stand up to reply to some of the criticisms of what I think is a bill that could be an honest, decent bill if he did what people are telling him to do. He doesn't answer those questions. He gets up and makes a theatrical speech but doesn't deal with any of the issues that are being put before him.

Why won't he answer why the funds can't be dedicated to the Ministry of Transportation? Very simple: Say it's right or say it's wrong, but at least answer the question. Don't dance around it. Why won't he answer the question that's been asked in a number of speeches: Why won't he just start taking photographs of the driver? Why not try and deter the people who are actually committing the crime?

The Acting Speaker: To the member, you are not referring this through the Speaker.

Mr Harnick: Take the photographs of the driver. The technology is there. Let the owner identify the driver. Let the owner be exempt from paying the fine in the event that the driver is identified. Let the driver then be the person who gets fined and demerit-pointed and thus deterred from speeding.

What's the point of taking a photograph of someone's licence plate and telling him a month later he was speeding? You could kill a dozen people between now and then. What's the point of doing that?

Another thing about this bill that really isn't being discussed in any of the speeches, because we don't have enough time, is the issue of parking tickets. Do you know that once this bill comes into force, it's going to be harder to fight a parking ticket than it will be to get a case into the Supreme Court of Canada? This bill will be so complicated for the public to use in terms of fighting parking tickets, they're going to have to go to court two and three times before they even get to someone who's going to make a decision about their ticket. This bill is so complicated, it's so ridiculous and it's such a huge waste of resources that it should be scrapped and redrawn in so far as the parking ticket section is concerned.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to respond to the member for Etobicoke West. I was quite interested in his rationale, or the lack thereof.

He talks about all those people out there who drive like mad people, and it seems to me that this kind of rationale, if you extend it, applies to those who would refute the arguments against drinking and driving, to those who would say: "Drinking and driving are part of our society, part of our culture. Do it because everyone does it."

Saying that because everyone speeds going to and from the cottage that somehow condones it makes no sense to me. If the member were to be completely honest, I'm sure he would have to say that the carnage on Highway 400 going to and from the cottage every weekend is unspeakable and is unacceptable. I would be very concerned that he would dismiss that as simply, "Everyone does it."

I'd also like to say that as the mother of a teenager -- and I will admit that with my teenage daughter, who is 14, some of these new acts are not terribly popular -- where I get to get a notice indicating that my vehicle was being driven at excessive speeds, I would be thrilled and delighted to be able to say, "Your driving days are over for now, my dear," and know that this child perhaps will live to drive another day. Once that crash occurs, once that horrible accident happens, that life is lost for ever. I would much rather that she be angry, concerned, perhaps a little put out than for me to lose her for ever.

I support this. I would say that a financial disincentive to speeding is a very important one.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Etobicoke West has two minutes to respond.

Mr Stockwell: I want to comment on whether it should be a treasury bill. Yes, it should. Is it a good use of police resources? Absolutely not. The police have got far better things to do than moving photo-radar around the province.

I say to the minister, you spend $2.7 billion on roads. You collect $4 billion or $5 billion in associated costs for cars and the operation of those cars. Don't give me that. That's such a shallow argument it doesn't even befit this minister. You've got $200 million you can apply to the $2.7 billion you have; you collect $4 billion or $5 billion from the car-related businesses. Don't tell me you can't apply that money as well.

To the member for Middlesex, the people who are driving -- I don't know what she was talking about -- "madcap drivers," she said I think. I'm not saying they're madcap drivers.

Mrs Mathyssen: No, I didn't say that.

Hon Miss Martel: She didn't say that.

Mr Stockwell: She said, "The mad people running around the province" or "driving around the province." That's what she said or announced.

I say to her, the point I'm making to you is quite often on our highways there are artificially low speed limits. On Highway 11 going up to the cottage, it gets reduced to 80 kilometres an hour. Nobody knows, other than the few places you see it, because you're going through Gasoline Alley etc, and no one is going 80. Nobody is driving haphazardly, nobody is causing outrageous accidents, but everybody is going above 80 and they're honest, law-abiding citizens. They're reasonable drivers. They're not criminals. These aren't the people who are causing carnage on the road, but these are the people you're going to tax because they're driving at 95 kilometres an hour going to the cottage.

The point I was making -- and she shakes her head, and I'm glad she only has to shake it for another year and a half. I say to the member that I know there are artificially low speed limits in this province where they will set up a photo-radar and get everybody who goes by. If you think you're getting people who are speeding, if you think you're getting dishonest citizens, if you think you're getting those people who are causing all this carnage, you're dead wrong.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Are there any further members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Winninger (London South): As those members who have read the compendium will know, Bill 47 addresses many needs, but the paramount need that's addressed in Bill 47 is the need to make our roads safer. In fact the objective is to have the safest roads in North America.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'm afraid I cannot hear the speaker who has the floor. Order, please.

Mrs Haslam: Please be quiet.

Mr Stockwell: I'm not being quiet now, not a chance. Not a chance of me being quiet.

Mr Winninger: Photo-radar can indeed reduce speeding, just as it has done in other jurisdictions. The photo-radar initiative is complementary to many other initiatives that this government is taking --

Mr Stockwell: You people are not going to finish five words without a heckle, I tell you, the rest of the day. Speak as long as you want, I'm going to heckle you.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order.

Mr Winninger: -- such as better training for drivers, graduated licensing, improving our roads. The fact is that this government is going to spend $900 million on improving roads across Ontario. Just last Friday I had the privilege with my colleague from Middlesex, when we stood on the Dingman Road bridge across the 401, to celebrate and announce the completion --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I have warned the members and I am now warning them that I cannot hear the member who has the floor. It is my job to be able to hear the speakers. I would ask everyone to come to order.

Mr Winninger: As I said, it was just last Friday that I and my colleague from Middlesex stood on the Dingman Road bridge across the 401 to announce the completion of some very important work to Highway 401 in the vicinity of my riding, which erected median barriers as well as extended and paved the shoulders in an area where numerous deaths have occurred over the past few years. I was quite thankful that this work is now completed. Many lives, I'm confident, will be saved. As well, our countermeasures against impaired driving have proven very effective to reduce the incidence of drunk driving in the province.

The Minister of Transportation, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation's parliamentary assistant I think spoke quite eloquently for the need for these kinds of initiatives, given that each year we lose 1,000 lives on our highways, given the fact that each year 90,000 people are injured on our highways, with immense costs both in human terms and also in economic terms, because these kinds of injuries and deaths cost society billions of dollars.

1720

The Attorney General said at the commencement of second reading proceedings that Bill 47 will reduce backlogs in the courts, that it will prevent the dropping of charges due to delay or to police not showing up for the trials, and restore confidence in our justice system.

It's a well-known fact that many defendants choose to elect to have a trial, hoping that the trial will be delayed or hoping that the police officer will not show up and that the charge will be dropped. This costs our police system and our court system dearly. Great time and expense is needlessly expended for ex parte trials where the defendant does not show up, the police officer does show up, but the charge must still be proved.

As you may know, Madam Speaker, 85% to 90% of all ticket offences are minor offences involving fines under $500. There is a great volume of these offences that take up police time and create delay and backlogs in the courts. In Metro Toronto in the last fiscal year, charges and requests for trials increased by 10%. Many of these charges and requests for trials, as I indicated, proceeded to ex parte trials in the absence of the defendant and the presence of the police.

The first appearance courts that are initiated under Bill 47 in Toronto and perhaps other venues where photo-radar may be piloted will serve to greatly narrow the issues before the court. Charges can be withdrawn or reduced, if appropriate, after consultation between the defendant and the police or prosecutor, guilty pleas can be entered in an expeditious fashion, frequently with submissions as to sentence, or if the issue is irresolvable at the first appearance court, a trial can be scheduled in an expeditious and timely process. This will certainly reduce pressure on our courts and relieve the police and the courts for more important work.

I think the pilot project is a good experiment in streamlining how our justice system operates. It offers better use of police resources. For example, a police certificate can be entered in evidence at a trial unless the defendant requests to have the police officer there to give personal evidence and to exercise the right to cross-examine that police officer. If the defendant fails to show, however, a conviction can be entered without an ex parte trial. However, if there are extenuating circumstances, that defendant can move to have the matter reopened.

There are also some important changes with respect to enforcement of fines in Bill 47. As you may know, Madam Speaker, right now it costs an average of $121 a day to incarcerate a defendant for failing to pay a fine. In 1991-92, almost a quarter of people in jail were in jail for fine default; 60% of these people had defaulted on fines involving liquor offences.

Of the number of people going to jail at public expense for unpaid fines, there is a disproportionate number of native people. But before I deal with figures on native people, be mindful of this: If someone is incarcerated for up to 30 days for not paying a fine, at an average cost of $121 a day, and that maximum fine is $500, it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to incarcerate the penurious at great public expense when other remedies may be available, including strengthened civil enforcement of fines through garnishment or through seizure of assets. This bill certainly goes a long way towards strengthening those civil remedies.

On the issue of native people in our jails, while native people constitute 12% of the jail population, they only constitute 1% of Ontario's general population. Some 50% of native people in jail are in jail for failure to pay fines, frequently -- in the majority of cases, I would suggest -- because they do not have the financial wherewithal to pay those fines, and of the 50% of native people in jail for fine default, a full 80% of them are in default of fines for alcohol violations.

The Liberal and Tory parties did nothing to remedy this situation. Bill 47 does address this situation, and what Bill 47 provides for the general population is that no one will go to jail because of inability to pay without a hearing. At that hearing, if the defendant can show that the default in paying the fine was due to lack of financial means to do so, the justice of the peace presiding at that hearing can look for alternatives, such as lengthening the time for payment of the fine or allowing instalments to be paid.

In addition to that, as I said earlier, there are of course civil remedies available to collect fines, including garnishment of income and seizure of assets, so that jail will no longer be a sanction also for public drunkenness and illegal possession of liquor, which contributes to a sizeable proportion of offenders who are incarcerated for failing to pay fines.

Justices of the peace under this new, more streamlined process, will be able to hear all Provincial Offences Act matters involving young people except if the youth can be placed in custody. Right now, as you are probably aware, provincial court judges normally deal with young offenders. These provincial court judges could devote more of their time and concentration to other matters once they are freed up from hearing these summary kinds of offences.

As well, under this new and more streamlined process of justice, no formal order will be required by a justice of the peace to suspend licences for fine default. Court staff will be able to direct the Ministry of Transportation in the same way as is being done with plate denial when parking fines are in default.

Further, as the Attorney General indicated in opening, licence suspensions will be extended to situations involving driving without insurance or a licence, misuse of snowmobiles and road vehicles, and Criminal Code offences involving vehicles, not just moving violations as is the case under the current law.

I must correct a false impression that was left during the debate on second reading by the member for Willowdale, who is also Justice critic for his party. Some of the submissions that were made by the member for Willowdale have also been picked up subsequently by other members of the opposition participating in this debate.

1730

In debate on October 1, the member for Willowdale argued that Bill 47 changed the law by extending the use of licence suspensions to enforce unpaid fines. Just so there's no mistake, what the member for Willowdale said on October 21 is,

"If you are in default and under any act, whether it's related to motor vehicles or auto insurance or something as distant as a veterinarian having his licence to practice veterinary medicine, if the Veterinarians Act says that someone who is in default of a fine can be suspended, then what this means is that they can have their licence suspended because it's under any act."

It goes on to say:

"When I'm told that it's a matter of making roads safer and I see that if someone is a veterinarian, a lawyer, a doctor, a plumber, a pipefitter and they have a licence and under the act that licenses them to do their day-to-day work it says if they're under suspension they can't get that licence, it is very remote, very remote indeed, from the idea of driving an automobile. There are many provisions in this bill that are like that, and it goes much further than the surface."

In addition, on October 26, he said the following:

"What this essentially means is that if I have a licence to be a plumber, and if there's an act that authorizes who can be a plumber and that act says if I'm in arrears of any fines my licence to be a plumber is to be taken away, then if I have a fine of any kind under the Provincial Offences Act as it's now being amended, then my licence to make a living is taken away."

Mr Harnick in essence is stating that the new subsection 69(2) involved a change because it allows permit and licence suspension under any act that permits suspension for non-payment of fines.

Bill 47 does not in fact change the basic rules for licence suspension in the Provincial Offences Act; it only changes the structure of subsection 69(2). Let me remind you what the Provincial Offences Act, introduced and proclaimed by the Conservative government in 1980, said. This is the section, subsection 69(2). I'm not confident that the member for Willowdale went back and looked at it, but I'm going to read it anyway.

"Where a justice is satisfied that payment of a fine is in default, the justice

"(a) shall order that any permit, licence, registration or privilege in respect of which a suspension is authorized by or under any act for non-payment of the fine be suspended, not renewed or not issued until the fine is paid."

If you study the new subsection 69(2) closely, you will see that while it's different marginally in structure, it has the same effect, and this I think is what the member for Willowdale missed here. So if he has a complaint, it shouldn't be with the purpose of our subsection 69(2); it should be with the purpose of the original subsection 69(2) in the Provincial Offences Act introduced by his own government and proclaimed by his own government in 1980.

The fact of the matter is that Bill 47 by itself does not authorize the suspension of any permit, licence, registration or privilege unless the specific act authorizes suspension or non-renewal as a method of collecting unpaid fines or where the specific fine sought to be collected is mentioned in that act as one that can be collected by using suspension or non-renewal.

You can understand my concern when this argument is introduced by a member and then picked up by others who clearly have not gone back and looked at the original section of the Provincial Offences Act to determine that the purpose is indeed the same. The policy of the Provincial Offences Act, now and before, has always been that no permit, licence, registration or privilege can be suspended for fine default unless the Legislature decides it's warranted and passes the necessary legislation.

Bill 47 does not deal with suspension of fines for any offences that are not related to the operation of a motor vehicle. It does not affect veterinarians unless the Veterinarians Act is explicitly changed to permit same; it does not affect plumbers unless their governing legislation is changed; doctors under the Health Disciplines Act, lawyers under the Law Society Act and a host of other professions. These licences to practice cannot be revoked under Bill 47 unless there are fundamental changes to the governing legislation for those professions.

On the whole, I think if we look at Bill 47, if we look at the compendium and if we look at its avowed purposes -- to streamline the justice system for minor offences, to improve the manner in which we enforce payment of fines in default, to implement photo-radar on our highways so that motorists will reduce their speed and some of the carnage the Minister of Transportation alluded to earlier can be prevented -- then I think we will have made some very important strides in improving the safety of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions and/or comments. I recognize the member for Durham West.

Mr White: I want to commend my colleague from London South for his excellent remarks and for his clarification of the many, many misdirections we've heard.

I would also like to mention, of course, the important issue about safety on our roads, the issue in our area of how it's impossible to speed given the heavy use of the 401 during all hours of the evening and night. I am confident, though, that with the kind of investment this government is making in safety at the Harmony Road interchange in Oshawa, or with the expansion of the 401 into collectors and express lanes in the east end of Metro, we will actually have a need for this kind of legislation for the commuters in our area.

I know that with our government we will have not only that expansion of the 40l to allow for greater road use but also the Steeles connection and other major intersections, the 407 speedup, which will actually give a meaning to and a necessity for this kind of legislation.

Certainly in our area there haven't been that many accidents due to speeding, given the lack of the capacity to speed, but my friend's points, I think, were very, very important to the issue about safety, the clarification. These are the things a responsible member of the government needs to do to ensure the people of Ontario understand the purposes of the legislation, understand the intricacies that have been misrepresented to them so frequently by members of the opposition, that this is not a bill about setting élites, setting up social workers below lawyers and the rest of our community. It's a law that deals with safety and deals with an efficient means of ensuring safety on our roads, which is compatible with our government's thrust towards better roads.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member and I do recognize that you are from Durham Centre; I'm sorry. Any other members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments? I recognize the member for Downsview.

1740

Mr Perruzza: It's indeed a pleasure for me to be able to rise and congratulate the honourable member for London South on his very studied analysis of this particular piece of legislation. I just simply take my minute and a half that I have to say it was a pleasure to listen to him, because quite often we sit in this place and have to listen to a litany of uninformed, unstudied, unfounded, frivolous allegations with respect to particular pieces of legislation. I can't help but go back to a comment that the Conservative member for Etobicoke West made about his speeding up to the cottage and driving at 80 kilometres per hour.

The Acting Speaker: Your comments are to refer to the member for London South, please.

Mr Perruzza: It refers back to what my colleague the member for London South said. There are these speed limits that say you can only go 80 kilometres an hour, because to go any faster my sense is that some authority has made a decision that's how fast you can go on that particular stretch of road. But nobody adheres to that. He obviously doesn't adhere to that, and he's quite concerned that he may get caught in a photo-radar and be fined for that.

The Acting Speaker: You are referring to the member for London South?

Mr Perruzza: Because safety's not an issue. When you've got to rush on up to the cottage, you're going to rush on up to the cottage. If you've got the money to pay for tickets and if you get caught on a radar, then that's tough, because you've got money, so therefore you'll pay. That is hogwash, and I can't believe that kind of argument is brought into this place.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Are there any other members who wish to participate in questions and/or comments regarding the member for London South's speech? Seeing none, the member for London South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciate the generous and expansive support expressed by the members for Durham Centre and Downsview, and they certainly acknowledge and support the truth of what I said. I can only surmise, since none of the members of the opposition stood up to respond to my comments, that they too appreciate the intrinsic truth of the propositions I put forward.

The Acting Speaker: Are there other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to join the debate this afternoon, and I want to thank my friends from St Catharines and Etobicoke and others who wanted to respond to some of the comments of the previous speaker but were kind enough to take a pass so I could take a few moments this afternoon to put my remarks about Bill 47 on the record.

There are few subjects about which I feel as strongly as some of the issues raised in Bill 47. I can say without fear of contradiction that I don't think there's another member in this Legislature who spends as much time in an automobile as I do, and I accept entirely what members from all sides have said that there is a problem with speed, and speed kills, and we all know that. I think we are all agreed we have to recognize that as a problem, and we have to make reasonable steps to deal with it.

I have, over the course of nearly 20 years in this job, driven almost a million miles, and I'm a speeder and I'm sorry for it. I've been fined several times for breaking the law, and I'm not proud of that. I've dealt with a number of law enforcement officers from one end of the province to the other in that respect.

But I look at this legislation and it just enrages me. Few things have enraged me like this Bill 47, and not because I have a problem with the problem. But the notion that we're going to have in 1993 some kind of an Orwellian world where posted on a tree some place along a roadside is going to be some kind of an impersonal machine that's going to spy down on me and my fellow citizens and without any opportunity for a dialogue fine me in some kind of way that I know not what, it just offends something basic in the culture from which I have come.

I want to say to my friends in the new democracy, I just want them to think about what we're dealing with here. I wonder what the member for Riverdale, the member for Oxford, the member for Lake Nipigon would be doing if any of us, from Etobicoke West to St Catharines, was in here saying, "You know, we should have some kind of automatic surveillance for welfare fraud or for workers' compensation abuse." I mean, there would be a meltdown, because there would be an argument that that kind of technology is a violation of something fundamental in the Ontario culture, and they would be right.

But again, as I learned a long time ago with my friends in the NDP, if they are committed to a certain end, then any means are justified to support that end. I want to say to my friends opposite that this week particularly --

Hon Ms Churley: You're smarter than that.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Conway: Well. I have no plan -- but I'm going to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this is far more than some people imagine. There is going to be a reaction that is something of a firestorm when people start to encounter this new policy. When people in Niagara Falls and in Pembroke and in North Bay and in Toronto start to get those fine notices weeks after some kind of violation along Highway 403 or 406 or 401, there is going to be a very swift and negative reaction, and the minister of highways or the provincial Treasurer will have won nothing but a pyrrhic victory.

Police forces that imagine that this is going to enhance their public relations had better think about it, because I am deeply worried about the way in which citizens in this province are going to respond when they get the ticket under this new set of provisions. I may not be able to convince the member for Riverdale, but I'm going to tell you that there is going to be a fury --

Hon Ms Churley: You're going to love every minute of it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Conway: I am not going to love every minute, but I'm going to use myself as an example. I think I am a reasonably law-abiding citizen.

Hon Ms Churley: But you break the law.

Mr Conway: I do, and I'm not happy about the fact that when I head home every week along Highway 401 or north along Highway 15 and I'm driving at 120 kilometres an hour, I am passed by virtually everyone on the road.

Hon Ms Churley: Then they should all slow down.

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says, "They should slow down," and I agree. I agree that speeding is a problem and speeding kills. I accept that and I accept that every person in this assembly wants a good public policy to address that. In my view, we're not here disputing that objective --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment. The member for Renfrew North has the floor. He has the right to express --

Mr Stockwell: Instead of heckling, do something worthwhile with your life instead of signing licence permits for elevators.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would like the members to come to order. I would like to hear the comments of the member for Renfrew North, and others will have a chance to comment later.

Mr Conway: I just simply want to say that there can be no dispute about the problems we've got on our highways, and in this assembly this week I would like to think all honourable members are very keenly aware of the tragedy that attaches to our roads, because we have all experienced in very recent days in a very real way the measure of that tragedy.

I spent a good bit of the summer and fall with my colleagues from Nepean and York Mills and others on the committee looking at the graduated driver's licence, and though I think there are some refinements needed to the policy, I accept what the government is saying about the need for that kind of change. I sincerely hope and expect to be able to support some kind of government bill in that connection, because there is carnage and we must be concerned and we must respond to it.

1750

As someone who lives in an automobile and who represents a very large rural community where there is no public transport and very little opportunity to travel beyond the personal car or half-ton truck, I am going to be unspeakably furious when I get a fine in the mail weeks after --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: I ask my friends opposite to listen and to measure what I'm saying because I don't think I'm going to be alone. The member for Frontenac-Addington represents a lot of good people, and if one of these machines is stuck up along Highway 41 some place between Northbrook and Denbigh on some clear fall night, and the machine is locked in at 80 kilometres, every person who passes that machine will be fined and every one of those citizens will be in a blue rage a month later when they get that kind of ticket in the mail, because they will know and they will rightly understand that something fundamental to their citizenship in Ontario -- and I'm not talking about Albania, and I'm not talking about Australia, and I'm not talking about Alabama; I'm talking about Ontario.

When I read some of the government propaganda, I'm asked to think about the autobahn or the autostrada in Italy. I've travelled those, and if they are being held up as some kind of example of controlled speed then I must have been hallucinating when I last travelled the autostrada in central Italy or when I last was on the autobahn in Germany.

I come back to my central point that there is a problem and we must deal with it. But the problem of too much speeding on our highways does not justify this kind of Orwellian policy, and that is my point. We've all had the experience of being stopped along the roadside by a police officer and being told that we have breached the Highway Traffic Act, and there is some opportunity to talk to that police officer, to give some kind of explanation. Yes, some of the stories are absolutely laughable and are generally dismissed if they are so transparently laughable. But we've all known situations where there were extenuating circumstances. What opportunity is there in this policy? None.

As I say again, representing a large rural constituency, like my friend the chief government whip, there's no TTC in north Frontenac or in north Renfrew. There's no OC Transpo in Lake Nipigon. The rural communities that some of us represent are going to be additionally discriminated against with this kind of policy simply because there are no alternatives to the car and the half-ton truck.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Obey the law.

Mr Conway: My friend says, "Obey the law." I'm going to be very interested, and I'll use the 401 eastbound as a good example, because I drive it every week. If we set these machines, I just assume that every single vehicle will be issued a notice of fine because everybody passes me at 120. That's not going to happen because the technology --

Mrs Haslam: It doesn't make it right.

Mr Conway: The member for Perth says, "It doesn't make it right." Of course, she's right. My point is, we have a problem. What kind of policy can we reasonably develop that will (a) make people better understand the need for behavioural change, and (b) assist our police forces? Part of assisting our police forces is to try to make people feel as positively about them as possible. How angry do you think people are going to be in Oxford county when they start to get this kind of impersonal ticketing in the mail, asking for $240 or $90 or $100? I think it is a public relations nightmare.

As my friends from Ottawa West and Etobicoke West and others have pointed out, it couldn't be more obvious what one of the main intents of this policy is. It is a revenue grab and it will be seen as such. If you're going to proceed with this, then you'd better contemplate some kind of amendments that make it appear to be something other than a revenue grab. But you look at this, and if you ask yourself whether this is here to reduce the carnage, to reduce speeding, there's not very much evidence in those sections of Bill 47 which deal with photo-radar to make you believe that it is going to be anything other than a revenue grab.

I can imagine -- and I might be sorely tempted to do it myself, to smudge in a very real way my licence plate, because I find this kind of intrusion so outrageous. I view in my society certain rights of citizenship as pretty basic, and I'm telling you, I want to know and I want to meet my accuser. I don't want some machine looking down from some maple tree north of Kaladar, Ontario, to be my accuser. I find that illiberal and intolerable. You know what? I might be wrong, but I don't think I am: I think a goodly number of people in Ontario will agree with me.

I asked one of the pages to get me a copy of the Globe and Mail, because every morning over my bagel and orange juice I'm reminded, and I think quite appropriately, by the Toronto Globe and Mail, "The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." What could be more arbitrary than this policy? What could be more invasive and more intrusive than this policy against which the Roman Junius rightly advised? I just refuse to be told, "We've got carnage on the highways, therefore we must do something," and anything might be something.

Mr Perruzza: Leave us a couple of minutes. If you want a response, leave us a couple of minutes.

Mr Conway: Why do I want to engage the member for Downsview in any kind of debate?

I simply want to say that the experience I had this summer with my friends, including the government representatives, on the resources committee around a graduated licence was a truly educational experience. My friend from Kitchener-Wilmot was there. I've got to tell you again, as someone who lives in a car, and I speak only for myself, I'm increasingly concerned about what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing. I want to applaud the government. I think the move on the graduated licence is an appropriate move and one I want to support, but I will not accept the notion that just because we've got a problem with speeding, and we do, that justifies any kind of policy. Politicians today are having a real problem with credibility.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members come to order. We have a few minutes left. The member for Renfrew North would like to use them. Please go ahead.

Mr Conway: The member for Essex-Kent invites me to be perhaps more controlled.

Mr Hayes: No, you're being Liberal.

Mr Conway: Well, I'm being very serious. If I seem a bit agitated, it's because I am agitated. It is because I share the concern about speeding and about serious accidents and deaths on our highways, but I can't support this photo-radar because in my view it violates something fundamental in the Ontario political culture.

Mr Winninger: Besides, you might get caught.

Mr Conway: I have been caught under the old system and I ought to have been caught.

Again, on the hearings this summer, quite frankly, I was impressed by the people who said to me that the thing that really did make the difference was the police officers. The member from Wilmot will remember this. We had a couple of people who said they were stopped, and rather than fined, they were encouraged, told, to take a defensive driving course. That was the kind of testimony that really impressed a lot of us in the committee.

Getting a notice in the mail a month after some kind of transgression --

Mr Stockwell: That you didn't necessarily do.

Mr Conway: Yes, that you may not have done, because it's your car, you own the car and the fine attaches to you. The fact that it was perhaps one of your children, one of your neighbours or someone else is immaterial to this technology and to this policy.

I just think we are going to create a bigger problem than the one we've got now. We are going to infuriate a large number of law-abiding citizens in this province. We are going to cause the police, if not in first instance then in later days, a very, very real problem around public relations. I think overall the public is going to look at this and say: "Whatever the intention was, the reality is that they've just reached into my pocket with some kind of new, fancy technology, and they've simply taken money. That's all they were interested in and I don't believe anything else they've said." The credibility problem that all of us have had in elected office will just continue, and the carnage on the highways that has brought us to this policy in the first instance will not be materially affected.

I say in conclusion that there is a problem and we've got to deal with it, but I ask honourable members to look at the mechanism that the government is recommending in part of Bill 47 with photo-radar. I think it is obnoxious and objectionable, because in a flagrantly Orwellian way it violates some of the basic aspects of fundamental citizenship that people in Ontario and Canada have rightly come to expect as hallmarks of any kind of good public policy.

The Acting Speaker: It is now 6 of the clock; therefore, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, November 2, at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1802.

1 novembre 1993