Journal des débats 1993-nov-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, you may recall that a week or so ago I rose in this Legislature and indicated to you and the members of the Legislature that the matter of justice should not be a political issue; it should not even have the overtures or any semblance of being done for political reasons.

I have to stand here and decry the fact that Peel region, which is one of the largest and fastest-growing regions in North America, has been denied a courthouse facility which was originally announced by the Attorney General, Ian Scott, in 1987, was reaffirmed by the former Attorney General, Mr Hampton, in 1991 and was scheduled to start in 1992.

We're always grateful for any facilities in the justice system, but it seems to me that when I read in the press that the government has suddenly decided that because they were following an agenda that was set by the Liberal government they're going to change in midstream, I suggest to you that politics has no place in justice whatsoever.

In fact, one day we'll become enlightened enough here, I believe, to ensure that the Attorney General is not an elected member of the Legislature. He should not be participating in the political grovelling that goes on in this place in terms of deciding what will happen and when it will happen. It should be based upon the pure facts.

Askov started in Brampton because we have such a large number of cases. We have the airport to deal with and many, many problems coming from a rising population. I hope that the Attorney General will keep this in mind in her next announcement.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I would like to advise all members of the House and the Minister of Labour that I am in full agreement with the county of Grey, which has passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed WCB rate increases.

Homes for the aged schedule 1 employers cannot afford to stay in business if they are forced to pay $2.15 per $100 from the current payroll to the 1994 target of $6.04 per $100 payroll, a whopping increase of 181%.

Grey county council points out something that the government members have heard over and over again but still do not understand: There is no money. Homes for the aged are currently under a severe restraint program because of insufficient funding from the provincial government. This shortfall has been compounded by the imposition of the social contract and the expenditure control plan and by the limited capacity of municipalities to contribute because they themselves have been abandoned by the downloading on to them by this province.

I realize the WCB has some very grave financial problems, but it, just like this government, must look within itself to find the savings rather than relying yet again on the beleaguered taxpayer, who has no more to give.

I support Grey county and the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors in the crusade to fight this increase.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's my pleasure and honour today to rise to recognize two firefighters from my riding in Manvers township volunteer fire department: Russell Snuddon and Jason Srigley.

On the evening of April 24, 1993, these two volunteer firefighters arrived at the scene of a well-advanced house fire in Pontypool and were told that there were three people trapped inside. These two firefighters entered the burning house through the garage and braved the thick smoke and intense heat as they searched for the residents. After carrying out a thorough and systematic search that turned up nothing, they left the burning building confident that no one was inside.

Once outside, they were told that the family had gotten out safely and were at a neighbour's house. However, the firefighters weren't as lucky. Firefighter Srigley was treated for minor burns and released and firefighter Snuddon, whose face shield melted, spent some time in hospital with various degrees of burns to his face and to his body.

These two firefighters, who valiantly protected the lives of some of my constituents, will be honoured by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on Wednesday at 6:30, when they will be awarded the firefighters' medal for bravery. I ask the House to join with me in saying well done and congratulations.

TVO FUND-RAISING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Twice a year TVOntario holds a membership drive and a fund-raising drive. This support makes sure that TVO's superb educational programming will continue. Quality programs like Inside Education, Imprint, Between the Lines and Fourth Reading are only possible because of the ongoing financial support of viewers.

This year TVO's on-air membership campaign hopes to raise $350,000 from 6,000 new members. This goal is a 15% increase over last year's goal and it's not easy in these tough financial economic times. TVO is well on its way to meeting this aggressive new goal, but it needs our help.

On Wednesday evening members of this Legislature will have an opportunity to participate in TVO's membership campaign. I urge each and every one of the members in this House to join me and appear on-air, taking pledges from TVO's viewers. Let's demonstrate that we support TVOntario, television that matters.

I also have the very great pleasure today of introducing Eglinton's MPP for a Day, our 15-year-old student Jen Lamont. Other than being shy, Jen is also a superb student and she answered the skill-testing MPP for a Day contest question: "If you could make one change to Toronto, what would it be?" She's going to join us at Queen's Park. Hopefully, it will give her a zest for politics and one day she'll join us as the real MPP for Eglinton here in this House.

DIABETES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Over 100,000 new cases of diabetes will be diagnosed across Canada this year, 100,000 cases of a disease that can lead to serious complications such as blindness, heart attack, stroke, kidney disease and amputation. The Ontario health care budget for diabetes and related complications amounts to 10% of its annual health budget.

The Canadian Diabetes Association marks the month of November to raise awareness for this disease that affects 1.5 million Canadians. All over the world people are trying to raise awareness for diabetes. In fact November 14 was World Diabetes Day.

The incidence of this disease rises every year. Insulin has allowed many diabetics to lead lives that are not that different from our own. Insulin, however, is not a cure. The Canadian Diabetes Association is working towards prevention and cure.

I would urge you to find out more about this disease, diabetes, and how it can affect your family and friends. How many Ontarians do not even realize that they have diabetes? The Orangeville diabetes association has directed its efforts towards letting people know the symptoms of diabetes for early diagnosis and treatment.

I ask that we all help to raise awareness of diabetes by participating in many of the events happening throughout Ontario and indeed the world. The celebrity challenge raises awareness by asking local celebrities and dignitaries to assume the life of a diabetic for a week.

The Orangeville diabetes association has had a terrific response to its challenge. One participant even named the stuffed bear she had to inject with insulin Hope, to mark many people's hope that a cure will be found soon.

1340

CONSTITUENCY OPEN HOUSE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Last week I held a three-day open house in my constituency office and the response was very positive. My staff and I were available for constituents who chose to drop by for a visit to say hello or to have me address any questions or concerns.

It was a fair turnout of individuals, and after meeting with my constituents the consensus is that Bob Rae and our government are doing a good job. There's the feeling that we as a government have had to make some tough decisions. We have acted on these decisions and we shall continue to stand firmly behind these decisions. We have taken the right actions, given the fiscal situation of the province.

These actions are something that no other government has been willing to face or deal with. Government practice in the past has been to sit back and wait for a better day. This government refuses to do that. This government continues to work towards social and economic justice, and our commitment remains steadfast to all Ontarians.

We are investing in jobs that make sure that anyone who wants a job will get one. We are removing barriers which have traditionally prevented all people from being full participants in the workforce.

Through our programs and initiatives we continue to invest in our infrastructure, communities and small business. We are investing in our children's education to better prepare them for the challenges they will face in the future.

My constituents say these are the positive things we are doing for Ontario and the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot. Problems arise when there is a misunderstanding of our policies and initiatives, often created by media hype. Therefore, I will continue to keep my constituents informed through town hall meetings and open houses.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Last Friday was indeed a miserable day for the people of York region and particularly for those residents of King City and Maple. The futility of the farcical Interim Waste Authority process begun by this government was underlined by the theatre of the absurd atmosphere during the announcement of the preferred dump sites at the Abruzzi banquet hall in Vaughan.

Were Franz Kafka the Czech novelist alive today, this background would have been the perfect setting for one of his bizarre tales, and all of this at a cost of $50 million. Yes, since the IWA started this process in June 1992, $50 million has been wasted, and for what?

This government, through its flawed Bill 143, has stated time and time again, firstly, that York region must accept Metro Toronto's garbage, but it has never said why. Secondly, this government has argued repeatedly that only a gigantic dump can be the answer to the garbage needs of the greater Toronto area. This government continues to state that no other options are to be explored, let alone implemented.

The government's waste disposal policy is in total disarray. They are bound by ideological blinkers that have placed the residents of York region in a straitjacket, but those residents are fighting back and they will win. They will win because the decision that was made on Friday last is wrong and it will be shown to be wrong.

UNION REPRESENTATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): The employees of Randall Klein Design Inc, a successful furniture manufacturing company in London, found themselves unionized, like it or not.

In February, employees signed union cards and told their employer they intended to hand in their cards for certification as the employer did not take their concerns seriously. An agreement was reached and, although they set aside their union cards, employees kept them to make sure the company held up its end of the deal.

In July one employee, with a few supporters, handed in the signed cards to the union without consulting his co-workers. The union applied for certification days before the cards would have been invalid under the Labour Relations Act. Under Bill 40, employees can only revoke their union membership before the application for certification is filed. Because most employees didn't know their union cards had been handed in, they didn't revoke their membership and the union qualified for automatic certification.

The minister should know that a Progressive Conservative government would use common sense and integrity in labour relations in this regard. During the Bill 40 hearings, my caucus colleague Elizabeth Witmer introduced an amendment making a representation vote mandatory. On July 23, 1992, she again introduced a private member's bill that would require a mandatory secret ballot vote prior to certification.

Several months and several thousands of dollars later, the company is still attempting to decertify. There is a possibility that the company may close its doors if they cannot come to some sort of an agreement, needlessly putting 25 to 30 people out of work.

The small business task force of our party is currently travelling the province, and we will tomorrow visit Randall Klein Design. I'm sure they'll let us know how the NDP government is making it increasingly difficult for the public to do their work.

SNOWMOBILING

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I come here today to talk about one of the most important job creation programs in my riding. That job creation program is Sno-TRAC.

The snowmobile industry within my riding creates winter tourism. In the last week to two weeks I've been making several announcements in my riding to the tune of over $600,000 to go into snowmobiling. These dollars go directly to the clubs. Those clubs are volunteers.

Our winter tourism, which is the biggest growth in tourism in my region at this point in time, is run off of the backs of volunteers. It's a wonderful program. Indeed, throughout the province last year over $408 million was brought into the coffers from snowmobiling. There was an increase of 28% in the participation of snowmobiling, and all of this. The jobs created directly from the Sno-TRAC are just part of it. The biggest part of it is the jobs created within the tourism industry and how it makes my area of the province run throughout the winter, how it makes us viable in the winter.

I wish to thank not only my colleagues who made the funds available, but in particular those volunteers who make snowmobiling and winter tourism in my area of the province so important and so viable.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the 12th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament: Malcolm Allan, Beaches-Woodbine; Charles Alexandre Arseneault, Markham; Tasha Balla-Boudreau, Renfrew North; Brant Robert Baum, Wellington; Jean-François Benoit, Cochrane South; Catherine Cabral, Mississauga East; Lyn Caruana, London South; Joseph Dickenson, Lambton; Pamela Heidi Douglas, Durham East; Dion Drewlo, Quinte; Christopher Gemmell, Brantford; Susan James, Simcoe Centre; Rachael Kay, Peterborough; Albert Lee, Brampton South; Sheila Mathies, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; N. Gwendolyn May, Middlesex; Craig O'Neill, Algoma; Thomas Lloyd Parker, Northumberland; Tanya Sermer, York Centre; Kevin Thomson, Scarborough North; John Van Dyk, Fort William; Kristen Wever, Waterloo North; Patricia White, Welland-Thorold; and Nicole Will, York North. Please welcome our pages to our assembly.

Statements by ministers, and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I hope this is good news.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Oh, it is good news.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPS D'ÉLITE AWARDS

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): We have six special visitors in the Legislature today. Four of these individuals are the recipients of the Corps d'Élite Awards, this province's highest honour in recreation. Two are the daughters of one who is unable to be here in person with us today.

They are Harold McAdam of Heidelberg, Marguerite Rogers of Manotick, Ric Symmes of Terra Cotta, Bill Vass of Thunder Bay, and representing the fifth, Gordon Hutchinson of North York, are his two daughters, Marjorie Wetmore and Nancy Par.

In a few moments I will escort them to the Lieutenant Governor's suite, where they will receive their awards in a ceremony presided over by His Honour, Lieutenant Governor Henry Jackman.

The Corps d'Élite Awards honour outstanding recreation volunteers and professionals from across the province of Ontario. Each of these individuals has shown incredible leadership, creativity and commitment in helping Ontario's recreation system to better serve the needs of all of our citizens.

Volunteers serve a vital role in providing excellent recreational services -- services from which we all benefit. Their contributions are essential, yet I wonder how many of us actually show our appreciation for the time, the energy and the dedication that volunteers give to our communities.

1350

We should also show our support for the many other volunteers who contribute in so many other ways to the quality of life here in Ontario.

Every year, our ministry, along with the Ministry of Citizenship, hosts the Ontario Sports Awards and the Volunteer Service Awards. It's our opportunity to say thank you once a year to the many volunteers who work to improve the sports, fitness and cultural opportunities throughout the province of Ontario.

Today we're here to honour five very distinguished individuals, and in recognizing them, we celebrate all of the recreational volunteers throughout Ontario. Their work enriches the lives of people of all ages and of all abilities throughout Ontario.

I wish to thank them as well as their families. The families' contributions are also extremely meaningful. It's often through the various supports that the families provide that helps to enable the time commitments of their loved ones to be possible.

I would now ask that Gordon Hutchinson's daughters, along with Harold McAdam, Marguerite Rogers, Ric Symmes and Bill Vass, stand as one group together.

Thank you to each of you and thank you to all of those people whom you represent in our communities across this province.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I rise today to inform the House of some decisions I have taken as Chair of Management Board with regard to the government's goal of accomplishing employment equity in the Ontario public service.

Members will be aware that last week an advertisement appeared in the government's Job Mart listings announcing a vacancy at a senior managerial level in my ministry. The advertisement stated that only applications from members of groups designated under employment equity -- namely, women, visible minorities, francophones, persons with disabilities and aboriginals -- would be considered. This is what is called a limited eligibility competition.

This measure was introduced for no other purpose than to further the goals of employment equity. However, it is clear that it has sparked genuine and widespread concern, both among designated groups and among the population at large.

As Chair of Management Board, I am therefore suspending this advertisement and launching a review of the application of this measure. I am taking these steps because I cannot allow one measure to endanger an entire program.

The people of this province know that aboriginals, people with disabilities, women and visible minorities experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in Ontario. The people of this province know that members of these groups experience more discrimination than other people in finding jobs and in being promoted. As a result, they're underrepresented in certain areas of employment, especially senior and management jobs, and they are overrepresented in areas that provide low pay and little chance for advancement.

Employment equity is about making the most of our workforce; nothing more, nothing less. It is about taking advantage of the skills and capabilities of all our people rather than overlooking the talents of some. Employment equity, whether in the Ontario public service or elsewhere, is a goal we all must support and a goal for which we all must strive.

Ontario cannot afford to continue to waste the talents and the abilities of its people. For this reason, Management Board has developed a wide range of positive measures. These measures are aimed at helping both our managers and our employees understand and benefit from employment equity. They include coaching, training and developing employees' skills and increasing their opportunities for learning. They include efforts to increase access for persons with disabilities, and mentoring, where senior employees provide support and guidance to designated group members.

Let me assure my colleagues that until I'm satisfied that this measure will not have an effect opposite to its intention, until I'm satisfied that this measure will not discourage members of designated groups from putting themselves forward, until I'm satisfied that this measure will not jeopardize the goals of employment equity, limited eligibility will not be used.

Reaching agreement on the best ways to achieve employment equity isn't easy, a fact with which I'm certain all members of the House can agree. The government's employment equity legislation now being shepherded through committee by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship has been a testimony to her ability to consult and to listen. I trust that all members of the House will continue to support the goals of employment equity, both in the public service and in the private sector.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This minister came into the House today and said he has withdrawn this awful policy that he put in place. This minister does not understand employment equity. The Minister of Citizenship -- I have a lot of faith in her and I think she has been completely misguided about employment equity. This government does not understand employment equity. They have played political football with one of the most important pieces of legislation in this House. Fifty per cent of the clauses in Bill 79 were withdrawn because they were not ready. My feeling is that it's no surprise that the minister came in today and said, "I withdraw this part of the policy" and then says that somehow he's still convinced he was going in the right direction.

I am very, very disappointed. It took them three years to come up with an employment equity plan and now they have screwed it up so badly that today they have put a worse twist on this employment equity situation.

Employment equity is about access. It asks you not to patronize the designated groups who have been violated for years in the workforce. They have qualifications and they have merit towards what they can do, and you continue to patronize them in every way that you can. We are legislators and we must bring legislation in place that is fair to protect those who are vulnerable in our society. Those people we are talking about, as I said, are very qualified. It reminds me very much of what Jackie Robinson asked for: "I'm not asking for any slow-pitch; I just want to participate so I can hit the home runs."

All that the designated groups who are qualified are asking you very emphatically is to identify those barriers, to remove those barriers and let us participate in the place because we have merit. You have constantly and consistently done a terrible job with employment equity. It has been one of the greatest blows towards this legislation.

I hope today when it comes back into the House from the justice committee, after they have withdrawn the clause-by-clause because it's so badly done, you come back with a much more informed version of it and that we can bring equity into the workplace.

I want to say also that if they feel employment equity is just about the workplace and just about botched-up policy like what this government and these ministers have done, they have something else coming. There are other things.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Say something.

Mr Curling: Of course, the member there who is saying "Say something," he himself doesn't even understand what employment equity is about. They're asking for fair treatment, they're asking for access, removing barriers, and let them perform in the way they can because they have merit. I am very happy in only one aspect of it: that you have found guts enough to withdraw this very ill-formed policy.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On behalf of our caucus, while we join in celebrating the awards given to the various recipients today -- I see they have now departed for the Lieutenant Governor's suite --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Because of the nature of the intervention I would ask to stop the clock. There was a point of privilege raised. It should not interfere with the member's response time but I take it to be serious.

1400

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The comments made by the member for Scarborough North -- I would challenge you, sir, to cooperate and do your best to improve employment equity. Your cooperation --

The Speaker: No, the member does not have a point of privilege. The honourable member for Bruce.

CORPS D'ÉLITE AWARDS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was making some remarks and congratulating the people who are receiving the awards of Corps d'Élite. It's a very important milestone to have recognition for people who have endeavoured to work very hard on behalf of various communities around the province.

While we stand and congratulate those award recipients, we bring to the attention of the government that in recreational departments right around this province today, there are people who are losing their positions. In fact, I know of one particular position which has been totally terminated as a result of the social contract and the implications of the funding cutbacks brought forward by this government.

The creative thinking that this government promised this province has totally evaporated. They have left us without any hope. They have left us without jobs. They have left us without any feeling that they care about real people in this province. We condemn the government for abandoning the people of this province and we will not stand for it. We are going to bring it back to the people of Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I thought the Chairman of Management Board was going to talk about the second-quarter financial results, where we see that the capital budget now has been slashed by another $300 million; 10% of the capital budget gone when the Premier's out talking about capital jobs. We see revenue dropping dramatically. The Premier has taken taxes up $3.5 billion and tax revenue has actually dropped now by $2.5 billion. What is going on over there?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to respond to the statement made by the Chairman of Management Board today.

What is employment equity? This is a question many people in this province are asking. It's about fairness. It's about equal opportunity. The minister said in his statement today that, "Ontario cannot afford...to waste the talents and abilities of its people." We agree, and that's why we believe the government's policy to restrict job openings is wrong.

I'm interested in the statement made by the minster today, as we all try to come to grips with correcting a problem that we have in our society and in our workforce. The minister says, "Employment equity is about making the most of our workforce -- nothing more, nothing less."

What concerns me about this statement is that it comes from the point of view of the employer. I think employment equity is about allowing individuals to make the most of themselves. I think employment equity is ensuring equal opportunity for every Ontarian.

We've had problems, as all countries have, with discrimination in the past, either intentional or otherwise. We've had difficulty, as we know, in ensuring that the target groups that have been identified by the minister in their policies and legislation: aboriginals, people with disabilities, women and visible minorities -- they have not, for whatever reasons, through barriers that we think need to be addressed, been able to have equal opportunities themselves.

It is, I believe, this attitude that it is nothing more, nothing less than making the most of our workforce, with a sense that this seems to come about by taking advantage of the skills and capabilities of all our people -- I understand that and I think that's important for public sector and private sector employers, and we agree. But it is about far more than that. Don't say "nothing more, nothing less." It is about far more than that. It is about individual people. It is about removing the barriers so they can have equal opportunity. It is also making sure that all Ontarians will have equal opportunity -- all Ontarians.

It is this attitude, and I've tried to get behind it, that would prompt the government to come in with this policy, reflected in the advertising, that is reverse discrimination, pure and simple, that excludes some people from this day forward, not only for that job but for other jobs.

I am most concerned as well with the statement today saying, "We're going to pull the ad." Let's pull the policy. Let's once and for all come up front and say, "This policy was a mistake; it was wrong."

We have raised these issues before. The member for Etobicoke West a month ago tomorrow raised this in the Legislature, and he was told in response and the minister said, "Oh, the member can't read." That's what he said when it was brought to his attention that this policy was reverse discrimination, that it was wrong. Well, we all read the ad and it was exactly as the member for Etobicoke West said would happen if you followed this policy, this direction; exactly that.

This isn't something that I think should even be partisan. I think we all agree there are problems and we want to deal with those, but Bill 79, which you now want to foist on to the private sector, is full of this exact policy that you now say is under review. It is exactly on that legislation and that side of the legislation and that policy, of limited eligibility, that we have been telling you we cannot proceed this way, that it is wrong, that it is reverse discrimination and that it is creating a huge backlash in this province that is preventing us from getting to implement the real solutions, some of which I know the government and we agree on. So I think, Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, you better rethink this policy, not just withdraw the ad.

MEDIA BRIEFING

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 21 to protest the violation of my rights as an opposition member of the Ontario Legislature. As an elected member of this House, it is my responsibility to represent my constituents and to be present when there is government information being tabled that may affect them. This right was violated on Friday last.

The government held a closed-door session in which it discussed the dump sites in York, Durham and Peel. Only the media was allowed into the room. The public that was concerned with this and their elected representatives, including myself, the member for York Centre and the member for York North, were barred entry to this room, which was a media conference only. This is not democracy.

I have to raise to you, Mr Speaker, the very serious concern of who is to speak for the people of Ontario unless members are present at such a meeting and given the opportunity to know what is being said. It raises great questions as to the fundamental question: What is the big secret? What is the big secret that would cause the Interim Waste Authority to give a private session to the media and not to elected members and the public at large?

This raises a fundamental issue of respect; respect for all people, respect for the office of MPPs, respect for the system and the process that should be followed. It made a sham of the whole thing.

The IWA has already bought the silence of many people who are living in areas that were being considered for the dump sites. People were waiting for an answer and have been waiting for months. This government failed to show fundamental courtesy and therefore failed to allow me to have my rights as a sitting member to be briefed at the same time as the media and anyone else was. I ask you to consider this very seriously.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On the same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There were five MPPs who attempted to participate in the briefing on a very serious and controversial issue; that is, the disclosure of so-called preferred sites for landfill in the greater Toronto area.

I can confirm what my friend the member for Markham says. I can tell you, sir, as you consider this matter, and I hope you give it due consideration, that in my eight-and-a-half years, some nine years here at Queen's Park, there has been a tradition of so-called press lockups, and in every single instance where there is a press lockup, MPPs or their staff members have been given access so that information will go to members of this Legislature so that they can comment to their constituents at the same time it is given to the media.

This is the first occasion where we were physically prohibited from entering the room where the information was being disclosed to members of the press. We have no idea whether or not the information given to the press at the lockup is the same information given to the people and their representatives at the subsequent so-called press conference. The only way we are able to report to our constituents is if we are not prohibited from participating and having full information so we can debate fully those subjects in this Legislature and represent our constituents appropriately.

I would support the point of privilege on behalf of my friend from Markham and the other three MPPs who were present and tried to get access to that information session.

1410

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I would like to rise in support of the point of privilege raised by the member for Markham and to support both his comments and those of my colleague from York Centre. I think, as has been stated but needs to be underlined, that in most instances where there is a lockup, members may attend that lockup, and on behalf of their constituents hear what information is being passed on. We went to that press conference, we presented ourselves at the door and we were told that we were not welcome; this when there were a good number, probably in the hundreds, of the media who were in attendance.

I think that when government policy is being set out, as it was in this case, away from these precincts, we need to be very clear on the procedures that are followed, and fundamental to that should be that an elected member representing his or her constituents should be allowed in that meeting. Quite frankly, there was no need to have a closed meeting. It should have been open from the beginning. I think the point of privilege is one that we would ask you to take very seriously.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In relation to this issue, there may be some view taken, as a result of there only being opposition politicians standing, that somehow or other all of the members' privileges have not been breached. It has been my information, further to the point of privilege, that some members of this House were informed prior to the announcement having been made and that in fact their having been advised meant that their attendance was not necessary. It seems to me that the devolution of this information to some members of the House without going to all members of the House is a very bad breach of privilege. In fact, it is the second such case that we have been made aware of in the last two weeks.

If I might, I will just advise again of the fact that some members of the government caucus are to sit on a committee that doles out capital funding for projects around the province. None of the opposition people have been made available to sit on that, because the Premier and his cabinet are going to decide with some of the backbench government who gets the money. It seems to me, that being the case, and now having had opposition politicians refused access, that indeed privileges have not only been seen to have been breached but in fact have been breached.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In addition to that, the mayor of my municipality was actually denied access, and I think that looks very bad. He was thrown out. There's a picture in my press of two police officers throwing him out of the meeting. I think that's absolutely unacceptable, that this would be done to any elected representative in this country where we consider it to be a democratic society.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Very briefly, I will say that as the Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I was invited to this press conference. However, when I arrived one conference had already occurred. The hearing had already taken place with respect to the press. We were barred the right to go in and hear what was being said by Mr McIntyre and others as to what was going on. We were prevented from going into that place. I suppose the member for Markham is quite right with respect to his privileges, but the ironic part is that I, as the Environment critic, was precluded from going into that room.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To all of those members who have raised concerns with respect to an alleged point of privilege, and given the nature of the concerns which have been brought to my attention, I am pleased to take a look at it and to report back to the House later. I do take the matters which have been mentioned very seriously. If there are details which you have not been able to bring to my attention at this moment, I would be most pleased to receive those in writing in the next day or two, if that would assist me in deliberating on this particular point.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LANDFILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I want to take you back to the period of time prior to our most immediate concerns with Friday's announcement. I want to take you back to what you told the people of Whitevale during the last election.

You led people to believe that your government would never put a dump on the farm land in Whitevale. You issued a news release on October 7, 1990. Since you are shaking your head, I quote from that news release: "The New Democrats say that we've got to get tough on protecting irreplaceable farm land."

Why did you tell the people of Whitevale during the last provincial election that the NDP would not put a dump on the farm land in that community?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In the absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy, I'm going to ask the minister responsible for the GTA to answer that question.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): My recollection of what the Premier said was that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: What the Premier did say in fact was that there would be a full environmental assessment, that there would be a fair process set up to choose the sites that are needed.

In fact, if you look at the process that was set up under the IWA, you had a system of looking for sites that had to be found that was based on scientific, on environmental reasons. In fact, that's the process that the IWA went through. If the honourable member is saying that she has a different way, then perhaps she'd share it with us.

Mrs McLeod: We really did not want or need the minister's selective recollections of what the Premier said, and that's why we asked the Premier to tell us why he betrayed the people of the Whitevale community on Friday.

I really do wonder how long the Premier can continue to avoid responsibility for the most damaging policies of his government. Surely he realizes that government has to be a little bit more than going around and making funding announcements during the course of the week.

I will continue to place my question, whomever the Premier would like to have respond on his behalf, to the person who should accept responsibility for the announcements that were made on Friday.

I say to this Premier, it is your government's policies that were at issue on Friday and it is your government's policies that are the reason that so many people in Durham and Peel and York regions are upset about a flawed garbage policy.

1420

It is your policy that York region has to take all of Metro's garbage, it is your policy that led to Friday's announcement that York region is now slated to have the largest dump site in this country, it is your policy that has ruled out all other alternatives and it's your policy that in fact has made a full environmental assessment impossible. I ask you how you can defend your policies and this completely mismanaged process to the residents of Durham and York and Peel.

Hon Mr Philip: Coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who wasn't going to have any environmental assessments at all, I don't think we need that kind of lecture.

The process of 12 different criteria that the IWA used is to look into all aspects --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take his seat, please. Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Philip: The IWA used 12 different criteria to look into all aspects of the environment: social, scientific and economic. It used scientific criteria.

The three sites will now be open to a full, joint Ontario Municipal Board environmental assessment hearing in which this government, or indeed the IWA, has provided intervenor funding. There is more participation in this process, more scientific and open consultation, than any process that was ever devised.

As for the particular Pickering site, it's eight kilometres from Whitevale, so the leader of the official opposition had better check her geography.

Mrs McLeod: I don't know who wrote the minister's answers for him, but clearly whoever did did not understand what was happening in 1990, and the minister does not understand what is happening today.

Let me help your recollections of the process. The Interim Waste Authority has already spent over $50 million finding sites that everybody opposes except the members of your own cabinet. The Bill 143 process has clearly been flawed from the beginning.

It is time to scrap the Interim Waste Authority; it is time to scrap Bill 143, because no one can accept the decisions that have been made under this completely flawed and mismanaged process. Minister, your government has to bring regional governments back into planning for their local waste management needs and that you must allow all the alternatives to be considered.

I ask you, as the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, will you demand of your Premier that he stop this flawed process right now, that you not put millions of dollars more into a process that is clearly a sham? I ask you to ask your Premier whether the people of Peel and Durham and York regions will have to wait for the next election before the Premier gets the message.

Hon Mr Philip: The MPP for York North was quoted on the weekend as saying that if he formed the government or if the official opposition formed the government, there would be no dump site anywhere within any kind of distance of his riding.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, man, I remember somebody else saying that, Ed. The guy in front of you said that.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Philip: This government is not prepared to follow that kind of direction. We have set in place an independent, scientific system that would come out with the most environmentally sensitive sites. That is what has happened, that is what we had funded, and I ask the leader of the official opposition to come clean and to tell us what she would really do if she were the government.

Mrs McLeod: When we have an opportunity to accept the responsibility of government, we will accept the full responsibility for what we commit to and how we follow through.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question will be to the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, we take only some measure of relief from the fact that you have withdrawn that totally offensive advertisement that appeared last week. We take only some measure of relief because we recall that on October 14, you assured the members of this House that your government would not restrict jobs in the public service to members of designated groups. But you went ahead and you advertised a senior position and clearly the applications were restricted to members of designated groups.

Last week you were prepared to defend that advertisement and that approach, so I ask you today: Will you give us an absolute assurance that it is not now, and will never be, the policy of your government to restrict eligibility for positions?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think my statement this afternoon was a fairly clear statement. The statement I made this afternoon very clearly said that the advertisement that the Leader of the Opposition refers to will be suspended and that the policy in question will be reviewed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the minister take his seat, please.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You're having a good day, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Wonderful day. Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: The issues around employment equity are very complex issues. The issues around how you accomplish equality, a level playing field for the designated groups in the OPS -- and, for that matter, in the broader workforce across this province -- are also very complex.

We have said we're going to review the policy. I have not at this point rejected that policy. The reality is that although the goals of employment equity are our goals and we want to find ways to accomplish them, I'm prepared to review the policy based on a number of issues that have been raised over the course of the last week. But at the end of the day, the unlevel playing field which has existed for the qualified employees in the feeder groups for the specific position that was advertised last week, against whom discrimination has gone on and is ongoing, has to be resolved.

Mrs McLeod: The central issue of whether members of these designated groups are underrepresented in so many fields is not the issue that's in question. All we have to do is look around this very Legislature and see the number of women, see the number of visible minorities, see the number of people with physical handicaps, to know that members of designated groups are not fully represented even in this place where we carry out our work. We would all agree that progress has been very slow indeed.

But the minister's statement today and his answer just given to me do not give us any assurance that he understands that limiting access, limiting eligibility, is not the way that you ensure equity. I say in all seriousness to this minister and to his government that employment equity has to be about removing barriers, not putting new ones in place.

As the minister says he is reviewing the role of limited accessibility, I ask him today whether he does not understand that employment equity that is based on quotas and new restrictions to access is not real equity at all. Does he understand that the goal of employment equity is to create a truly equal and open playing field for everyone?

Hon Mr Charlton: It is obviously our goal to end up with a completely open and equal playing field for everyone.

In her question, in her critic's response to my statement this afternoon and in the leader of the third party's response to my statement earlier, I heard repeatedly the rhetoric of "removing barriers." In this review I am prepared to hear from the opposition, as well as the designated groups and others, about how it is that we're going to remove those persistent barriers that the employment equity program that was implemented by the former Liberal government has failed to address, because those barriers are still there, and what it is we have to do to do what they keep saying we need to do, which is to remove the barriers. That's partly what the review is about.

It may be true that we picked the wrong technique; we'll find that out in the review. But the opposition is standing up here in the House and suggesting that we need to remove barriers without putting forward a single suggestion about how we proceed to do that.

1430

Mrs McLeod: When the whole focus of a sound employment equity policy is on removing barriers, how can this minister stand up and say we have no suggestions to make when he dismisses the removal of barriers as simply being rhetoric? That is what employment equity is all about; it is about removing barriers. It is about dealing with the very real barriers to access; it is not about quotas.

I become tremendously concerned, as somebody committed to the goals of employment equity, when the government confuses equal access with guaranteed access. I believe, and I will reiterate, that the goal of employment equity is to make sure that every individual is given a fair and equal opportunity to participate. I don't believe that people in designated groups are looking for guaranteed access. They're looking for fair and equal opportunity and they're looking for open access. Restricting eligibility is clearly the reverse of equal opportunity and you should not be reviewing it.

Minister, I ask you if you will commit today to an employment equity program that is fair and responsible, that is not based on quotas or on new forms of discrimination. If you will make that commitment, will you assure us of your support for the amendments that we've brought forward to the employment equity legislation that would ensure that there are no quotas and that the merit principle is assured by the legislation itself?

Hon Mr Charlton: Firstly, the employment equity legislation the Leader of the Opposition refers to is not my responsibility; it's the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship. The policy my statement of earlier today refers to is an internal government policy that happens to have occurred in advance of that employment equity legislation.

No one could agree more strongly with the Leader of the Opposition that the goal at the end of the day in terms of employment equity is a completely level, equal, truly accessible playing field for all. That's our goal. That's what the review of this policy is about. But the removal of barriers -- because that is what employment equity is all about -- is not just a turn of phrase. It requires some tools that didn't exist in the previous government's programs if we want to accomplish the removal of those barriers.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. It's to you, Premier, because it deals with the overall government policy which the Chair of Management Board is empowered to carry out at one end, and another minister responsible for Bill 79.

Quite frankly I'm concerned with the statement today by the Chair of Management Board who, in implementing, seems to be looking at this not from the view of individuals but from the view of mechanics, a piece of legislation, a football field. Let's make sure we fill it up and count each person as it goes. Oh, there's the football field we want. It's all in balance and in harmony.

I'm also concerned with not dealing with individuals and access to equal opportunity. When you get caught up in the mechanics, you tend to call people feeder groups. I suppose a bureaucrat dealing with the logistics of putting into legislation something you want to do may use the words "feeder groups," but not somebody who is concerned about ensuring equal access and correcting past inequities.

Premier, I therefore ask you this. Your minister today did not apologize. I thought he might even apologize to the member for Etobicoke West for saying, "You can't even read," when this was brought to his attention a month ago. He did not apologize for the policy or for the ad. The minister did not even seem to realize that it was wrong, didn't seem to acknowledge that it was in fact discrimination, the ad and the policy itself, and all we heard today was that he was going to pull the ad.

I would ask you, Premier, would you not agree today that we should pull the entire policy, not just from this minister but from the legislation, from the ministers of your government, and that you as Premier ought to be the one to pull the policy? Will you do that today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I want to make it clear to the honourable member that the statement that was made today by the minister is a statement that has my full support. I think we all have to recognize, and have to recognize particularly in light of the reaction to the ad as well as to the representation of the ad, and I would even say in some circumstances the misrepresentation of the ad, but I'll leave that as it may, in this business that we're in, perception is everything in terms of the perception.

I'll say to the honourable member precisely what I said to my colleagues in caucus at lunchtime today, and that is that we cannot persuade the public of the overall goal of employment equity if the feeling on the part of a large section of the public is that it is exclusive of them.

If the member knows anything about me at all he will understand that I felt, and feel very strongly, that an ad which says that someone can't even apply is wrong. That's wrong and we should not hesitate to say that on the basis of the experience and on the basis of the very clear message that we're getting from the people of the province.

I happen to think that if we're serious about achieving the objective of employment equity and we're serious about achieving success with Bill 79, which has my full support and has for years --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the support of the Minister of Citizenship, we'd better be very clear with the public right now that an advertisement within the Ontario government that says any individual cannot apply who otherwise qualifies in terms of the collective agreement and all the other provisions of the law, if we do that, then we're making a mistake and therefore we have to make it very clear that that will not happen again and that indeed the policy that led to that advertisement needs to be reviewed.

We all agree with the objective. I think we have to look hard at the mechanisms, the means that have been chosen. So I say to the honourable member I am not prepared, as Premier, to say to anyone in this province --

The Speaker: The question has been answered. Will the Premier please take his seat. Supplementary.

Mr Harris: The Premier says, "The members know me," and I do know some of the Premier, although I'm surprised from time to time. It's times when I thought I knew him I get many surprises.

The Premier seems to be saying to me today by way of response that the ad is being pulled solely because it's causing a reaction that he doesn't want. The Premier suggests that the answer does not lie in fighting injustice with more injustice. In the words of historian Michael Bliss, "The government says it is trying to stop racism and sexism, but I think they are raising the awareness of race and sex almost to a fever pitch."

Fever pitch comes into play when one thinks that a policy is very, very wrong, that it is in fact discriminatory. You've said that you wanted the ad pulled. The ad was simply a reflection of implementing a policy. All the ad did was say: "Here's a policy. It's exclusionary, it is discriminatory, we are going to go ahead with this policy and the way we will do it is by having this policy in place." The ad simply reflects that.

1440

I would ask you this, Premier: Will you, in light of that, pull the policy entirely that is seen as discriminatory, because it is discriminatory? Will you pull the policy?

Hon Mr Rae: Any policy which prevents someone from applying for civil service competition, prevents someone from applying altogether for a job, a policy which leads to that, that policy needs to be reviewed and changed. That's what we're saying. That's what I'm saying very clearly, and I don't think there should be any question about that.

The purpose of employment equity is to be anti-discriminatory, it's to be inclusive; it's not to be exclusive and it's not to be discriminatory. So anything which gives rise to the perception that people are being excluded needs to be changed. That's what the minister said today; that's what I'm saying today.

Mr Harris: Premier, it is not just a perception. The ad in fact was a carrying out of a policy. If I read correctly what you said today, that you are going to pull that policy -- I thought I got that 99%. Perhaps it's a week-long process to get there. As long as we get there, I suppose that's the important thing.

Let me ask you then about Bill 79. Today, in response to my question, you said: "I support Bill 79. I hope Bill 79 proceeds." Bill 79 has aspects to it exactly the same as the policy that this ad reflected. Will you then, if you're interested in Bill 79, agree to pull those sections?

Secondly, Bill 79 -- let me give you a second example -- says that a person who is barred from taking a job as a result of the imposed quotas or targets, call them what you will, cannot appeal to the Human Rights Commission.

Premier, I want you to think about this. This Bill 79, confirmed by an amendment brought in in response to some of the groups -- the amendment clarifies it -- says you take away a person's right to appeal to the Human Rights Commission if they feel they are being discriminated against. I suggest being barred from competing for a job is discrimination. That not only violates the spirit of the Human Rights Code itself, but it is clearly itself a case of discrimination. Will you as well, in Bill 79, get rid of this discriminatory provision in your employment equity legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member didn't do me the courtesy of sending me the section of the act which he's referring to.

Mr Harris: Well, it's your bill and your amendment.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. If you have a section which you believe leads to certain conclusions --

Mr Harris: You brought an amendment in to clarify that that's the conclusion.

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member gets up and talks about a fever pitch and then he draws a wide swath right through a piece of legislation and doesn't even refer to what clause.

Mr Harris: Are you saying I can't read just like the member for Etobicoke West can't read?

Hon Mr Rae: No. I'm saying to the honourable member that I'm not sure I share his view or characterization of the impact of Bill 79. I'll put it in as neutral language as I possibly can. Obviously, any suggestions he has to make with respect to the bill will be looked at seriously in committee by the minister and by others, but the suggestion he's making that Bill 79 contains measures which would exclude people from applying for jobs or prevent people from applying for jobs is not correct.

Mr Harris: I'm disappointed that the Premier believes in Bill 79, supports the legislation and he doesn't even know what's in it.

LANDFILL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well. In the gallery today are Allen and Miriam Jefferson. They are in the gallery and I would ask them to stand up.

The Jefferson family have lived on their 100-acre dairy farm since 1953. They are proud of their 40-year record in the community of Caledon. In fact they are proud of their family's farming history in the Peel region since 1845. Unfortunately, Premier, that history may very well come to an end as a result of your proposal to dump garbage on their property.

Premier, in your Agenda for People, not the minister's Agenda for People, your Agenda for People that you campaigned on, that you personally took to the people and you sold, you said you would prevent the conversion of class 1, class 2 and class 3 farm land to non-farm uses. I wonder if you then, Premier, in light of that commitment, would tell Allen and Miriam and their two children what happened to that promise with their class 1 farm land. Could you explain that, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Again, I'm going to let the minister for the GTA answer these questions.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The IWA, in designing its site selection process, placed great emphasis on protecting the best of agricultural land. Indeed, in the early steps of the process, it excluded --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): But there is a surplus of milk, so you can take their farm.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Sorbara: He's not coming anywhere near the question that was asked.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The question was about the Agenda for People. Remember that? That's the pack of baloney you sold when you got elected. Are you afraid to acknowledge it now?

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Mr Philip: In the early stages of the process, the IWA excluded classes 1 to 3 agricultural land, with the exception of those that were in the urban shadow. This is a common practice that is used in various types of development. Indeed, we and the various tribunals recognize that urban pressures continue. The long-term use of urban shadow lands places certain types of agricultural land in doubt. I can tell you that the process was fair, it was open, it was scientific, and decisions have been made on three particular sites.

As someone who in 1975 was an employee of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when the Conservatives were in power, I can empathize that wherever possible, no farm land should in any way be destroyed for any purpose, be it urban sprawl or development or any of the other problems that come with urban living. Therefore, I can certainly empathize with the situation that the particular farm family finds itself in. The fact is that the process for the first time --

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

Hon Mr Philip: -- was open, was transparent and that funding is available for the first time. Intervenor funding is available --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Philip: -- so that the Jeffersons or any other family can make their concerns known, can find the facts and in fact present them to the joint tribunal of the Environmental Assessment Board --

The Speaker: Could the minister please take his seat. The question's been answered.

Supplementary, the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I've never heard such gobbledegook in my life. The fact of the matter is you're building three superdumps on farm lands, and urban shadow or nothing, that's what you're doing.

Your government has certainly gained a reputation for silencing its critics in a whole slew of areas. One of the areas most recently is with respect to the proposed amendments under Bill 8, the minister behind you and the gambling casino bill, where the rights of the people of Ontario who will be objecting to casino sites are being roughshod over by your legislation to preclude them the right to an adequate hearing, which they now have.

Similarly, there are now rumours today that with respect to this IWA process, the combined OMB and Environmental Assessment Board hearings, you're going to have these so-called environmental assessments last for as little as six months.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No.

Mr Tilson: Well, those are the rumours that are flying around. I can tell you we have a great deal of concern with that when we listen to the environmental processes that have gone around this province in the past, where the environment has been the first priority and not political rhetoric, which is what your government has been going through.

My question to the minister is, do you intend to shut down opposition to your plans by short-circuiting the environmental process?

1450

Hon Mr Philip: There's no short-circuiting of the process. For the first time there's a process in which there was $1.5 million given for participant funding at the early stages of this. There's another $1.5 million, then, for intervenor funding for those who may have any concerns about the three proposed dump sites.

It's the most open process possible, and no timetable was set by this government or by the IWA. It would be completely out of character for this government or for any government to interfere in a quasi-judicial body such as the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr Tilson: Your process is so open that four members of this House couldn't get into an IWA announcement. That's how open your process is. It's closed. So much for open government.

Mr Minister, your government has three superdump sites that are now being planned in three regions, and it's an understanding that this process will take up to three years, that it will be in actual operation within three years, and yet no environmental process has taken place, notwithstanding the fact there's at least one dump site in this province -- I believe Halton -- which took 17 years to take place. Yet you're going to ram this through in a process of three years. You're going to have this process in operation by 1996-97.

My question is, with these hearings, can you guarantee to people like the Jeffersons, who vehemently oppose the dump site in their home, that you won't arbitrarily shut them down, that you'll give them the right to a fair hearing, that you won't ram this through in a process, whether it's three months or even three years, that you'll give them the process that people in this province have had over the years? Never before have I seen such a process short-circuited as what you're doing in this province.

Hon Mr Philip: It in fact took Halton five years to identify the site. He'd be more correct if he wanted to look at Lanark, which is taking some eight years.

But I can assure the honourable member that the IWA has set up --

Mr Stockwell: Ed, you don't know what you're talking about. It took 17 years.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: -- the most open process that has ever been given in this province. There have been numerous hearings. All of the material has been open --

Mr Tilson: It is a $51-million flim-flam.

Hon Mr Philip: If the member wants an answer, I'd be happy to give it to him if he'll stop shouting over me. If, on the other hand, he simply wants to raise the rhetoric and not deal with the facts, then I guess it becomes a different matter.

But I can tell you that there is intervenor funding available to any group that wishes, and indeed a spokesperson for the Canadian Environmental Law Association this morning said that he thought it was a very open process and that most environmentalists would support the process as being the most open process that has ever been established by any government in this province.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Premier: Premier, when you embarked on the social contract you made a commitment that health services would not be affected by that contract. At least -- I want to be absolutely accurate -- I certainly recall the Minister of Health making that commitment on many occasions, and in her absence today, Premier, you will have to speak to that commitment.

Almost daily we are hearing about cuts to health care that are directly attributable to the social contract. In order to comply with your social contract legislation, hospitals across the province are going to be forced to close down for as much as three weeks at Christmas.

Premier, I ask how you reconcile the closings and the service cuts that are now occurring with your commitment that access to health care would not be affected by the social contract.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I recall in the House that it was the Leader of the Opposition whose suggestion --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, no. Don't recall anything.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I just want to say that, for the record, in the month of June, when the first round of talks broke down, her suggestion was, "Cut your own budget, cut all the transfer budgets and let them deal with it." So I would say to her, back in 1989-90, before the social contract, change in acute bed staff, November to December, 618; 1990-91, 395. The next year, 1991-92, nearly 700; last year, 500.

When we go back to the Liberal government in 1989-90, we find that there were 600 acute care beds whose staffing was changed in November and December. There was no social contract back then. She was a member of the government, she was a member of the executive council and she was a member of the cabinet. I don't recall her getting up and objecting loudly and vociferously to the fact that at the end of the year and through the Christmas period there was a reduction in the number of beds. She will know perfectly well that every year in the system there's a reduction in the number of beds.

I would say to you that when you compare the social contract to the alternatives, in terms of what else was available to the government to deal with the extent of the financial problems which this province has been facing, I think the solution overall, generally speaking, is as fair as possible.

I would say to the honourable member, we still look to staff and to hospitals and to doctors and to nurses, and to everyone working the system, to ensure that the people of the province are well served, and we believe that that is what will happen. Of course, whenever services are changed --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- it causes a reaction. But I would say to the honourable member, the social contract is now being blamed for everything up to and including the weather and rain. I thoroughly expect the Liberal Party to carry on in that regard and to carry on in that vein. I don't think the charges will stick because I don't think they're a fair reflection of the reality.

Mrs McLeod: If I wanted to get into a debate with the Premier about expenditure cuts to hospitals, I would have asked him about the 2%, 1%, 1% commitment that his government made and then completely reneged on. Or, I might have gone beyond that and I might have asked about that lost weekend that produced the $2 billion in expenditure cuts, with most of the burden falling on hospitals and school boards and municipalities.

The question I asked the Premier today was about the impact of his social contract legislation. Premier, so I can make sure that your recollections are a little more whole than you have indicated today, I would tell you that what we said about your social contract was: do not impose unilateral, arbitrary, restrictive, unmanageable, across-the-board conditions on the hospitals of this province. And that's exactly what your legislation did.

The problem is with your social contract legislation. It is not the only problem, but that's the problem that hospitals are struggling with right now. Let me make it as basic as I can: The only way that the hospitals can make the savings targets that you gave them under the social contract is to give their employees days off. That is the only alternative that your legislation gives to those hospitals. Now, when you give people days off it means that they can't provide service. That means if you give people days off --

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- there will be less service. Can you tell me how you see that as protecting access to health care? Can you tell me how requiring people to take days off and cutting the service helps meet your commitment to ensuring that health care will not be affected by the contract?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the honourable member, she can't have it both ways. She can't stand up in the House as a good Liberal and say, "Get your spending down; save $2 billion," and then say, "But if there'd been a Liberal government, we somehow would have saved $2 billion without affecting transfers to hospitals and without affecting transfers to school boards." If that's the position of the Liberal Party, it has absolutely no credibility with anyone who knows anything about anything to do with health care or anything else in the province of Ontario. It just won't stick.

In that context, asking hospitals and their staff, doctors and nurses and people who provide care, to deal with a problem which we all share as a province, there's no getting around it, and saying, "Try to find the ways." The hospitals in their wisdom decided not to sign a collective agreement across the province with people that would allow them to enact the social contract in a way that we think would have been fair. They chose in their wisdom not to do that. The president of the hospital association and others chose not to do that. In that regard I think it's fair to say that we've exercised, on care for patients, a determination to maintain the system.

When you consider it with the alternatives, when you consider it against the alternatives, and the alternatives that are taking place in each and every other province in this country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- I would say to you that Ontario stands out for fairness, Ontario stands out for decency, and Ontario stands out for preserving services in the face of the cuts that are taking place in every other jurisdiction in the country, and that's the truth.

1500

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm well down on the question list and I wanted to ask the Premier a question about Whitevale. I just wondered, as a point of information, if the member for Durham West might be asking a question on behalf of the people of Whitevale.

The Speaker: The member doesn't have a point of order. The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question as well is to the Premier on this legislation. You've said that the hospitals chose your legislation. You're telling them how silly they were to choose your legislation. It's your legislation that is forcing them to have the days off.

My question follows up on that. Doctors in Ontario now intend to take nine days a year off in response to your social contract. This may result in longer waits for treatment and cancellation of surgery. Given that the purpose of the social contract, your purpose, was to cut the size and cost of the government payroll without cutting services -- it was up to that point that we supported your purpose, that we supported your intention -- can you then tell me what your response is going to be to doctors taking nine Rae days off at the expense of accessibility to patients in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that we have a proposal from the Ontario Medical Association in terms of how it will deal with the impact of the social contract and the agreement which was signed between the government and the Ontario Medical Association.

I'm not going to pronounce today on my view of it. All I would say is that the responsibilities of everybody in the system are very clear. The provision of essential care is absolutely required. It's crucial for everyone to recognize their responsibilities in terms of access and in terms of ensuring that patients do have access.

I would also say to the honourable member that I think it's important that the joint bargaining committee between the OMA and the government be allowed to sit down and consider the various impacts and proposals that are being made and to look at them in a reasonable and, if I may borrow a word which I rather like that the member used earlier, in an unfevered way, and that's the way in which I intend to deal with it.

I think it's important for us not to exaggerate the daily barrage that we get in terms of news, in terms of things being somehow at an unprecedented level in this province. The services that are being provided are being provided well. Of course we're going through financial difficulties in the province; everyone understands that, but let's look at it in a reasoned way. Patients will continue to have access. Doctors will continue to perform their services. People will continue to have access --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to the best medical care system in the world. That happens to be the case and let's put that in some perspective.

Mr Harris: I assume that the doctors then, in reading the response -- they've asked you to pass legislation to let them do this, and I assume from your response that the answers is, "No, go back to the drawing board and work out something else." The doctors will be happy to hear that.

Let me ask you this, Premier: The front page of the Toronto Star yesterday captured a very disturbing scene. An 86-year-old woman is being kept in bed twice a week -- not even getting out of bed -- on Wednesdays and Saturdays as a result of cutbacks. Today there are reports of massive closures of beds and services during Christmas -- massive closures -- far in excess of what we've ever seen before. Today we hear doctors asking you to pass legislation for them so that they can cut out nine full days of service, every one of them, to the people of Ontario -- every one of them.

You and your Minister of Health are responsible for ensuring that services are not cut as a result of your policies. You said the social contract was to cut the size and cost of the wage package without cutting services. It is your role; you are responsible for the delivery of health; you're responsible for hospitals and how they cut; you're responsible for doctors and how they're going to cut out their 4.5% or 5%.

Why are you allowing this to happen without setting clear standards, without setting clear guidelines in conjunction with your restraint measures to ensure that Ontario patients are not suffering?

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the honourable member that I think he started out his question saying the front page of the Toronto Star this and that. I think we have to understand that the government has a responsibility overall, hospitals have a responsibility overall, nurses have a responsibility overall, and doctors have a responsibility overall. It's a profound regret to me that the hospitals and their staff were not able to reach an agreement overall that would have provided a master agreement for the hospital system across the province -- a profound regret to me.

I still believe that when we look at the experience across the board in the province, when we listen to what hospitals have been able to do in various circumstances, we find that there's a remarkable degree to which there are a great many hospitals which have somehow, miracle of miracles, managed to meet their budgets and to meet their savings requirements without effecting layoffs, and without real reductions in service on a permanent basis.

I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that we think that's a message for all the hospitals in the system and for all of us in the system, to do everything we can to see that services are not reduced and in no way are reduced or threatened as a result of the social contract. That's very much what we want to see in place.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Durham West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's really quite unfortunate that I'm going to have to disappoint all my fans, because I think they're anticipating a question, but my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: -- and it has to do with an issue that is of equal importance to a large number of my constituents.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Durham West take his seat, please.

Many seemed pleased that the member for Durham West was recognized in order to pose a question. Perhaps you would allow him to actually be able to place the question. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, and it has to do with the very large area adjacent to my riding called the national-provincial park. I want to emphasize the national part of it and ask the minister if he's had contact with the new government, the Liberal government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: -- that has promised in fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham West take his seat, please.

I asked the House to come to order. The member for Durham West has been recognized by the Chair. I ask members to show some decency and some respect for the member who's been rightfully acknowledged by the Chair.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's really kind of sad that this issue of importance to hundreds of my residents who live adjacent to the Rouge park, who are under some stress and trying to understand the Rouge park management process --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: -- are looking forward to having some answers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: If it is necessary to start naming members, I will do so. I guarantee that the member for Durham West will place his question, regardless of the disrespect that's being shown by some members of this House.

1510

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that because the residents of Pickering have undergone numerous threats. This question is about the national-provincial park.

It has been promised in the past that there would be $10 million forthcoming from the federal government to help create this national-provincial park. I would like to know at this point if the new government in Ottawa has given any indication whether it will continue with that commitment, and if you have heard anything about where it is in terms of helping to plan this valuable resource adjacent to my community.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): At this time, there has been no indication by the new federal government whether or not it intends to honour the commitment of the past federal government that it would be contributing funding to the Rouge Valley Park.

Mr Wiseman: That is one of the major issues. Another major issue has to do with the North Pickering lands. As this House will know, there has been a resolution passed by all the members of this Legislature.

The gun is really starting to come to the heads of these residents. The time frames are starting to be narrowed in terms of the federal government forcing these residents into a situation where their leases are now about to be terminated, where they have to make a decision on whether they can buy or not. This is of immediate importance to these residents in that they face the possibility that by Christmas or the new year at the latest some of them could be faced with eviction and not be in their homes, which I think is of immediate importance to them.

Do we have any indication from the ministers in Ottawa that they have reconsidered their policies on this issue and will in fact help out the residents who face immediate problems with respect to being evicted and losing their homes?

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is right. This question is quite urgent for a number of residents in that area. Unfortunately, at this time no indication has been given by the federal government of its intention to look at the plight of these individuals. We intend to continue to ask, and to follow up with the federal government, if it has any intentions at this point in time of dealing with the legitimate issues presented by the residents of those lands.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): In the absence of the Premier, who seems to refuse to answer questions on his government's disastrous waste management policies, I'll place my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to tell the minister that if he or any member of his caucus had had the courage to attend the IWA announcement last Friday, the minister would not be so confident that the process is ever going to end up in the construction of even one site, not to suggest three landfill sites in the greater Toronto area.

I want to tell my friend the minister that I have never seen my community so outraged and so incensed at the way in which this whole issue has been handled. I want to tell the people and the members of the minister's caucus that so far $50 million has been spent on a process that is going to blow up in the face of the minister come the next election.

My question to the minister simply is this: Why is the minister hiding behind the IWA? Why will the minister not acknowledge that the poison in this deal, that the mistake that was made was made two and a half years ago by Ruth Grier when she was Minister of the Environment, when she insisted that the only solution to waste management in the greater Toronto area for the people of Metropolitan Toronto was to build a landfill site, use outhouse technology, and that the only place that site could go is York region -- why won't the minister acknowledge that was the mistake that was made?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I won't acknowledge that because it's simply not a factual statement. York region has had a coordinated waste disposal agreement with Metro since 1987. I did not hear the honourable member object to that agreement at the time when, under his government, that agreement was in fact signed. As early as 1983, York and Metro signed an agreement for joint working together on the disposal of waste.

It's fairly clear that the Britannia site will close probably in late 1997; the Brock West or Durham site somewhere between March 1994 and as late maybe as 1995; the Keele Valley as early as mid-1997 or as late as perhaps 2003. But however you look at it, there is no magic formula for suddenly wishing away garbage that is created by an industrial society such as that of the greater Toronto area.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: In fact, what this government has come up with in setting up a completely independent system, a system that has no hands on by any politician, is to have a completely fair system in which various sites were examined in a scientific way, using 12 objective criteria. Three sites were chosen, and in fact --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Philip: -- the intervenor funding is available to the honourable member's constituents if they wish to intervene.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The people who watch this question period should know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs simply was watching the clock throughout his answer to make sure that I would not have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question, that I would not have an opportunity to advise --

The Speaker: No, would the member take his seat. First, I understand his concern. The member will know that the time difficulty is not one that suddenly occurred in the last three minutes and 24 seconds. This entire question period has been awkward in order to try to get as many questions as possible on to the floor.

I understand full well the subject material about which the member speaks and his deep concern about it. I did ask the minister to try to conclude his response, as I had encouraged the member to place his question quickly, and in neither case was I successful. But no doubt, with question period tomorrow, we may in fact see more questions along the same subject matter.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish to rise to correct the record. Earlier, in answer to a question, the acting minister responsible for the GTA stated that I said that no dump would be built in my riding. As the minister ought to know, no dump has been proposed for my riding. What I have stated continuously is that I join with my colleague from York Centre in fighting very hard against the dump that is proposed in his riding. We have done that consistently, we will continue to do it, and that dump will not be built.

The Speaker: The member will know a member may correct only his own record. The member for Bruce.

STATUS OF BILL

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have, on another matter, a point of order dealing with a public bill that is being dealt with before committee. I know that you have ruled on a couple of occasions that any issues with respect to points of order coming out of committee must be dealt with in the committee and there must be a report by the Chair of that committee to you.

I have raised on more than one occasion the difficulty in which opposition parties find themselves, since in all committees the opposition is outnumbered by government members and, in fact, they would preclude any question of an order item coming from the Chair of a committee to you for handling.

The question really revolves around Bill 50, which is in the social development standing committee. It comes to the issue of when amendments are in order and when they are out of order. In relation to this bill, which has been of major concern to all of us as we dealt with the social contract, as you will remember, it was introduced as a second bill after Bill 48, which was the real social contract bill and the real expenditure control bill by the government. It was used as a lever, we had suggested, to get certain commitments from other parties at the table on the social contract. It, as a result, had certain very extreme provisions which required certain actions being taken by the government. Now, as we go into committee, we are faced with the withdrawal of whole sections of heavy-handed tactics that the government used at their bargaining and at their negotiations.

In essence, this changes the nature of the bill quite considerably. The principles upon which the bill was sent to committee will be altered and the government will in fact vote against substantial portions of its bill to support the minister's new amendments. At no time will the opposition parties be in a position to overrule the government members; at no time can we require the bill to be brought back in the form that it appeared in at second reading.

1520

My questions are two: First, if the principle of the bill is altered, what does that do to the third reading debate? What does it do, in fact, to the committee of the whole? While I understand that there is some conjecture at this moment as to the very shape of the bill's being reported to you, I have to indicate that since the amendments have been provided by the government to each of our critics, we know that they are intended to be passed and in fact will be passed. So what do we do in committee of the whole? What will we be allowed to do in debate at third reading?

Secondly, if we are to raise very strenuous complaint about the bill itself being altered in committee, how can we bring these issues back to you if a majority of the members, being New Democrats, at all times preclude a report being made to you for assistance and guidance with respect to the change in the nature of the bill?

Those two items, I understand, in some way are hypothetical, although you know, as I do, that having received the notice of the amendments as required under the standing orders which are now open in front of me, we will be faced or confronted with these items. I understand that you don't deal with hypotheticals, but this is the real world. It is a practical question, because at all occasions when that bill comes to be dealt with by us at second reading, we are able to talk about the principle. What do we talk about when the entire bill has been made inoperable, and in fact the principles changed, by the government in committee?

My view, sir, is that the bill ought to have been withdrawn when the amendments are of such major nature, and that in fact an admission should have been made that the bill did not represent good public policy in that regard. Now it seems to me that there should be a ruling that prevents them from gutting the bill and bringing it back ostensibly to complete a reading for a bill that no longer exists.

I don't want to burden you with too much of this, except that that is the practical dilemma with which we are confronted. At the same time, because you won't be confronted with the actual amendments yourself but in fact a report from the committee, I fear that you may decline to take any action after the amendments have been passed and after the report of the committee has been made.

Finally, if it is the case, as I have indicated, that the amendments are made in committee, would you entertain an extended debate around the report of the committee as to whether or not the bill itself is in order? I believe in my own mind that that could be perhaps the only portal for us to have some say about whether or not the report itself could be in order.

So, in essence, two particularly specific questions and a third, perhaps more wishful thinking than otherwise, but I ask for your guidance because this is a very serious matter for all of us as legislators.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I appreciate the concerns which he has brought to my attention. He has answered in part his own question with respect to hypothetical matters.

He is right, of course, that a bill which has completed second reading and has gone to committee may in fact be altered and a different type of debate may ensue at third reading. However, he has raised some serious concerns and ones about which I wish to reflect. I'd be most pleased to chat with him later on regarding the concerns he's raised, because I fully appreciate the matters which he has described to me.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition dealing with casino gambling. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gaming casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I will be affixing my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with its contents.

VITAL SERVICES TO TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas tenants suffer undue hardship when landlords break an obligation to provide vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water; and

"Whereas most municipalities are not fully empowered to compel such landlords to rectify the matter,

"We, the undersigned, hereby request that the government of Ontario enact David Turnbull's private member's bill, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws, to give Ontario municipalities the authority to quickly restore vital services to occupants of rented premises when landlords fail to do so."

This is signed by dozens of my constituents, and I too affix my signature to it.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed in its spring budget of 1993 to impose a tax on beer produced by the general public for their own consumption at brew-on-premises facilities in the province of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, will not accept an attempt to tax our own labour and efforts to make our beer and wine at brew-on-premises facilities for our own consumption.

"Further, we feel this attempt is shortsighted and extremely counterproductive. The Ontario government has bowed to pressure from the multinational brewing interests to level the playing field, and in doing so has failed to understand the brew-on-premises industry and the devastating results of this regressive tax.

"Attempts to further tax our own beer and wine will cause business failures and loss of jobs resulting in revenue loss to local and provincial governments. The brew-on-premises facilities we support contribute to our local and provincial economies and represent the true entrepreneurial spirit which will drive our economic growth in the future."

I agree with this statement and I affix my name to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have another petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth of crime,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I too affix my signature to this.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): With regard to the continuing saga of ferry tolls, this petition is from the Residents Against Ferry Tolls:

"We respectfully request that the members of the Legislature of Ontario direct the Minister of Transportation not to impose tolls on the ferries which are necessary for access to our communities.

"The government's proposal to charge tolls on the ferries will cost individual families thousands of dollars and may very well reduce incomes of businesses whose customers use the ferry by tens of thousands of dollars.

"Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be transferred to the provincial government in Toronto through the new ferry toll. In the long run, the economy of this area will be reduced by millions of dollars.

"The proposed ferry toll is a new tax that this area cannot afford and in the end is a tax that the province cannot afford."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1530

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives, such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with full support and endorsement from Mr Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Mr O'Connor, MPP, Durham York, Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Minister of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA was forced to adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refused to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remained firm in subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria-ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas,

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

This is submitted to you, Mr Speaker, and I will affix my signature as well in support of this petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I've been forwarded a petition from the people in the Yorkview Medical Centre and an accompanying letter which asks me to submit this petition on their behalf. I'm very pleased to do so and I'd like to read the petition. It's addressed to this humble House:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province,

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association-government framework and economic agreement."

I'd like to submit this to you, Mr Speaker, and will not be affixing my name to this petition.

HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This is 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:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it. We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"Also, Bill 55 would make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules or demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We therefore request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45 and Bill 55."

This is signed by 80 people from the city of Niagara Falls.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S ONCOLOGY CARE OF ONTARIO INC ACT, 1993

On motion by Ms Poole, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr57, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc.

CHILDREN'S TOBACCO PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS CONTRE LES EFFETS DU TABAC

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

Bill 118, An Act to protect Children from the Harmful Effects of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke / Projet de loi 118, Loi visant la protection des enfants contre les effets nocifs du tabac et de la fumée de tabac.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member for Ottawa South have a brief outline of his bill?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Each year in Ontario 13,000 people will die from tobacco use. This has been going on for a long time and it will continue to go on into the future unless we attack the problem in an intelligent way.

My bill recognizes that studies show if we don't start smoking by the time we're 20 years of age, we're not going to start. It also recognizes that unfortunately in this province 3,000 kids start smoking every month. My bill will make it harder for our children to gain access to tobacco products. In particular, it prohibits the sale of tobacco to a person under 19 years of age. It prohibits smoking by adults in places where children carry on activities. It also prohibits the sale of cigarettes in packages that contain fewer than 20 cigarettes.

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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel did have the floor when we last participated in this debate. I see he is not present. We will therefore continue in the normal rotation.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I hope the Legislature will bear with me. I am suffering from a rather severe case of laryngitis. In fact, some of you will probably applaud that I do suffer from laryngitis. I'm just getting my voice back, but I felt this bill was so important that, laryngitis or no laryngitis, I had to speak to it.

As I've indicated on previous occasions, I have a very deep concern about the question of justice and how it's administered, not just in this province but throughout Canada. I could start off, I guess, in the vein that many people have in terms of objecting to radar being used to stop speeders. I won't do that because I think anything we can do to make our roads safe is a wise move.

1540

What I'm going to take exception to are a number of things. Despite the assurances in the bill and by the minister that there will be no demerit points for this type of infraction, we have no assurance whatsoever from insurance companies that in fact a person's rate will not go up. I've yet to hear the minister assure us -- either the minister responsible for this bill or the minister who is responsible for insurance companies -- that he has any guarantees from insurance companies that this will not affect people's insurance rates.

It's a very significant fact when one considers that, because of the introduction of the revised bill by the New Democratic Party government, the rates were going up by $100 and $200. This was particularly significant for people on fixed incomes, for seniors and so on. Until I'm satisfied that the minister has done his homework and can guarantee to this Legislature that in fact the implementation of this rather bizarre and, I guess, Orwellian type of catching speeders will not in fact impact on people's insurance, I'm not satisfied that it's a good bill.

The minister, in introducing this bill and all of the press that has been sent out by the government in terms of trying to get the public to support this bill, seemed to indicate that it's there in order to stop accidents on highways by cutting down on speeding. The difficulty I have is that, if a person is travelling, let's say, on a 400 series highway where we have 100-kilometre speed limits and that person is travelling at 150 kilometres, 160 kilometres or 170 kilometres, that person --

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Oh, my goodness.

Mr Callahan: The member says, "Oh, my goodness," but there are reports in the press clippings that I have seen where high-performance cars can very easily get up to that speed without your even knowing you're doing it. But I'm talking about someone in the car, the driver of the car, who in fact gets up to speeds that are well in excess of the posted speed limit. What have you got to stop them? You've got Kodak or whatever it's going to be. They're going to get their picture snapped, and that's hardly going to be a safety feature for the people of this province.

In fact, what you've done is failed to put in place the very necessary policing required to ensure that our roads are safe. I suggest to the minister that when he says this bill's purpose is to cut down on speeding and to make our roads safe, he's dreaming in Technicolor.

I guess the big concern I have too -- as I said before, I'm in favour of safety on the roads, as I think any responsible member of the Legislature would be. The concerns I have -- we have seen a disintegration or a limiting of policing roles, particularly with the Ontario Provincial Police in this province, not due to anything on their part -- they certainly carry out their function in a very responsible way -- but, because of cutbacks such as the social contract program and other endeavours by this government, the policing hours for the OPP have been greatly limited.

We've heard in this House from the member for Cornwall how, during the days of smugglers' alley around the Cornwall area, people of perhaps less than good repute were smuggling cigarettes into Canada and shooting at residents in the area. We found, in fact, that the Ontario Provincial Police, until we raised it in this Legislature, were closed for business between 3 o'clock in the morning and, I think, 7 in the morning, which is probably the critical area at which time smugglers' alley was in high operation.

If this government has demonstrated through that particular pledge of faith that it's prepared to cut back or reduce the services of the Ontario Provincial Police in a very critical area to ensure the safety of the people of Cornwall, how can we possibly accept the fact that this is anything more than an opportunity to simply remove the Ontario Provincial Police in totality from our highways? In fact, I venture to say that since this government was elected, the number of times I've seen Ontario Provincial Police cruisers on the 400 series highways has been very limited. I suggest that has a large degree to do with the government's funding of the Ontario Provincial Police; it has absolutely nothing to do with their failure to perform their responsibilities. The Ontario Provincial Police, in my mind, is one of the finest police forces, not just in this province but perhaps in North America.

I must tell you that in coming back from Ottawa yesterday, I was driving down through, I think it was, Highway 37 and I passed an Ontario Provincial Police detachment. I counted about 15 to 16 cruisers that were parked. Again I say, this is not an indictment of the Ontario Provincial Police. They obviously are being limited in terms of what they can do in carrying out their responsibilities by the moneys that are made available to them through this government.

What does this bill do? What do the people of Ontario think this bill does? Well, they've listened to the arguments from the New Democratic Party saying it's safety. I'm suggesting to you, or have just suggested, a few brief comments as to why it is not safety.

When one looks at the fact that this is going to allow this government to purchase one or more of these gizmos -- they cost $80,000 each, I understand, mounted on a tree or whatever.

In fact, in British Columbia, where they're getting this idea from, one of the officers, in the news reports that I saw, was actually operating the camera. He saw a car moving along at about 150 or 160 kilometres an hour on the highway and he wanted to get in his car and pursue that vehicle for the very reasons I've opened up with, that this car was a danger to the other users of the road, but he couldn't leave his camera.

Is this what we're going to have? Are we going to have manned cameras or are we going to have unmanned cameras? We don't know. If they're manned cameras, then of course you have a police officer, who is a trained professional to protect the people in this province, being used as nothing more than a Hollywood cameraman. That to me is an absolute waste of the training. It's probably going to drive the officer to retire early, because he joined the police force not to be a cameraman but to be a policeman.

I suggest to you that if you're going to mount them on trees or mount them in strategic locations along the road, you may very well experience what they've experienced in Europe. They have these devices in Europe. They have found that people have located them and destroyed them. They've found that these devices have been shot up, have been battered with rocks, have been destroyed. If that's the case, Mr Minister, and I hope you're listening to my thoughts in this regard and not talking with the other member, you're going to be paying $80,000 every time one of these things is destroyed. You're going to have to make an awful lot of money with that device.

The way I look at it and the way it's reported, on a roll of film of 36 pictures, you could probably pick up an awful lot of money. What's going to happen is that you're going to be snapped without even knowing that you're snapped and you won't find out until a considerable period down the line; I think it's 23 days or something like that that they have to notify you. You're going to get something in the mail and you're going to wonder, "Where was I on the night of 23 days ago?"

In all likelihood, you probably didn't even have the car. It may have been one of your children. The car may have been stolen. We're reading in the press today about the significant increase in cars stolen by young people. They're called the pillow gang. They need pillows, because they're so young, in order to reach the steering wheel. They're stealing cars not just here but in Alberta and throughout Canada. I suggest to you, what if somebody's stolen your car, racing down the highway, gets a ticket and you get the ticket sent to you?

Let's make it even worse. Let's say you have a leased car and it's sent to the leasing company. By the time you get it, the 15 days will have expired and there's no way you're ever going to get to have your day in court. There is a process in the bill for you to then go before a judge and apply to have it reopened on the basis that you didn't know about the conviction, but I suggest that the provisions of the bill itself are machiavellian.

I asked one day last week during the two-minute discussions as to whether or not the New Democratic Party had ever heard of the Magna Carta. I don't think they have. In fact, some of them over there said, "Magna what?"

In this bill is contained a whole bunch of little goodies, and if you examine the bill very closely, you will note a couple that are extremely contrary to any principle of justice and to the Magna Carta or any of our Charter of Rights. It's going to be challenged; there's no question. I hope we can collect enough money to pay for the legal fees to fight a charter challenge.

I think the provincial government of whatever political stripe has a responsibility to the citizens of this province to ensure that when bills are put together and are passed, they are charterproof. We're required to do that. Why should we have to tell the people, the public, to pay a lawyer's fees in order to take it up to the Supreme Court of Canada to prove that we were a bunch of donkeys? I think we have an obligation at the outset to ensure that the bill is charterproof.

1550

I suggest to you that this bill is not charterproof and I will tell you why. Under the Provincial Offences Act, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government -- it was quite a novel act, because what it did was it streamlined the whole process of being able to be charged, to have a trial, to ensure that you could have a trial, that you could plead guilty, and several other options. But what the New Democratic Party government has done in a very crafty way in this bill is that it has ensured -- not just with speeding tickets, but this also deals with parking tickets, believe it or not.

I draw the minister's attention to the fact that subsection 5.1(3) reads as follows: "A defendant who is served with an offence notice may give notice of intention to appear in court for the purpose of entering a plea and having a trial of the matter by attending in person" -- and I underline that -- "or by agent at the court office specified in the offence notice at the time or times specified in the offence notice and filing a notice of intention to appear with the clerk of the court."

What that means is that if someone's car is photographed at the border of Ontario and Quebec and they live in Windsor, they have to travel from Windsor to the Quebec-Ontario border, to that court, to file their ticket and say they want a trial. Then the clerk is required to give them a date for trial and they then have to come back from Windsor again -- they've already travelled from Windsor to the border of Ontario and Quebec, they've driven back home and they've got to drive back from Windsor again for their trial. In the past, under the Provincial Offences Act, as I'm sure anybody who's had a ticket will know, you could mail it in to the office.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Stay closer to home and slow down.

Mr Callahan: The minister is here and he's cavalierly saying, "Just slow down." I'm addressing what I think you should understand is a matter of simply telling the people of the province of Ontario: "Stuff it. You don't get a trial. What we're going to do is we're going to make it so inconvenient for you that you'll just give up and you'll pay your ticket."

Hon Mr Pouliot: Absolutely not.

Mr Callahan: Minister, you haven't been listening to what I've said, because that's precisely what will happen here, the fact that you can no longer mail it in. Why did you take that provision out? Did you take it out because you want people to be so inconvenienced that they will pay the ticket rather than --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's very important that the government of the day hear this gentleman speak, because he's saying a lot of things. It's nice to see that the minister's here, but I don't know whether he's listening and there doesn't seem to be anybody else over there to listen. I don't think there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check if we have a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton South may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Callahan: I want to highlight what I was saying about the question of subsection 5.1(3). No longer can you put a 43-cent stamp on your plea of not guilty and mail it to the court on the Quebec-Ontario border from Windsor. You have to get somebody down there to do it for you, at extreme cost, and of course if the cost is not in line with what your ticket's going to be, you're just going to "Ah, forget it."

I suggest to you that not only did they have the audacity, or the ignorance, one or the other, to do that, but I think it's deliberate. I think they did it deliberately. To make it so impractical and impossible for a person to get a fair trial or even an opportunity for a trial, they put this provision in to make them have to drive from Windsor to the border of Quebec and Ontario.

One can see that they might want to do that with speeding offences, but they're doing it with the poor person who gets a parking ticket down at the Quebec and Ontario border and lives in Windsor. That person can no longer challenge the parking ticket without going to attend, or having an agent, at expense to them, attend at the courthouse on the Quebec-Ontario border to just request a trial.

I always thought that in this country, the democratic society, people were entitled to have trials. This piece of legislation goes a long way towards being Star Chamber or draconian. In addition to that, going back to the Magna Carta and perhaps in any democratic environment, they're entitled to face their accuser. This act has a very interesting twist to it, because if you want to have the police officer there who took the picture or gave you the ticket, you've got to serve notice. It puts the onus on the person who's accused to do all these marvellous things to make sure that he or she can get a trial.

That flies in the face, it seems to me, of big government. Big government has the ability, and certainly under the Provincial Offences Act it streamlined the whole process, to allow people to have their day in court. This bill doesn't do anything like that. This bill in fact discourages people from coming to court and that's a denial of natural justice to those people who are innocent. There are people who perhaps have a legitimate beef that should be aired in a courtroom, and yet this government by this piece of legislation has dramatically and draconianly taken away that right from these people.

I suggest, Mr Minister, you take a look at that because that's certainly a change, a very dramatic change, a 360-degree change from what was provided in the Provincial Offences Act in the past, and it was done deliberately. It was done deliberately because what you want to do is you want to be able to snap as many pictures as you can, get as much money as you can into the coffers of this province and to hell with the constituents of Ontario.

This is just another way of draining more tax money out of the pockets of the people of this province. It amazes me. Every day the Treasurer of this province and the members of the cabinet come up with the most unique ways of draining every last little dollar out of the pockets of people, and they do it in such a way that they're going to deny them. They don't want to waste time. They don't want to give people the right to be heard. That's not on their agenda. Their agenda is to make as much money as they can, spread the largess around and drain taxpayers to the nth degree.

I go back to where I began: It is admirable to try and stop people from driving recklessly, carelessly on highways, but you don't do that by bringing in a Brownie camera; you don't do anything about stopping those speeders who I said were travelling far in excess of the speed limit.

You also take away the possibility that if somebody's travelling on Highway 400 or Highway 401 or Highway 403 and that person happens to be drunk -- I certainly don't want to be on that highway with my family when somebody's snapping that drunk's picture and there's no police officer there to challenge that driver. I don't consider that to be a safe environment for me to drive in, for my family to drive in or for my children to drive in, or anybody else in this province for that matter.

That's in fact what you're doing, and you're not going to get one more nickel out of the Treasurer for this. You won't get any more money for policing in this province. In fact, it will go the other way. I think we'll see less and less of Ontario police cruisers on the highways, and maybe this is a way of giving them permanent Rae days. I don't know. It bothers me.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Come on, Bob. That's not fair. This is a safety issue; money has nothing to do with it.

1600

Mr Callahan: It's not a safety issue.

The next thing I want to say, Minister, is what are these cameras going to be set at? What speed? If it says 100 kilometres on the highway, on the 400 or the 401, are you going to set the cameras at 100 kilometres or are you in fact going to conspire to breach the law with the police and everybody else by setting them at 110 or 120? Who is going to make the choice? Will it be at cabinet? You'll roll the dice to see what the speed will be for this day and next week; everybody gets their choice as to what the speed will be.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The police will make that decision.

Mr Callahan: The minister says the police will make that decision. I suggest to you that the police are required to uphold the law, Minister. They're not allowed to become the Sheriff of Nottingham's private police force to set the speeds contrary to the law. The law is set by the Legislature, and hopefully it's set in a clear enough fashion that the courts can interpret it in a way that's fair to all of the people of this province.

Minister, what you've done is you've got in there that the speed will be set by the police. What if the police decide on a Sunday or a day where it's not too busy: "Why don't we give the people of Ontario a break? We'll set the camera at 150 kilometres an hour so they can speed if they want." It's incredible that you would leave this discretion to the police. The police now do exercise a discretion, but they exercise it on the basis of individual observations that they make as trained officers. They make it on the basis of the person's reason for having exceeded the speed limit.

Hon Mr Pouliot: So we should interfere with a police officer.

Mr Callahan: No, I'm not saying we interfere with police duty at all.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What is it you're saying?

Mr Callahan: What in fact I'm saying is that you have now told them, "Set the camera at 110, 120 kilometres an hour." If that's the case, why don't we raise the speed limit to 120 kilometres per hour? What's the point of telling the police to be the culprits and to be the people who are going to decide what the speed will be at? I find it incredible that we're asking our policemen to now become either lawbreakers or lawmakers -- I'm not sure which.

I would think police officers would find that a little objectionable. I think they're professional people who would like the opportunity to be able to determine whether or not the person they stop has a legitimate reason for perhaps speeding. It also gives them an opportunity to enforce other laws in terms of the question of drinking, the question of seatbelts, all those things that go towards maintaining safety on the highways for every citizen of Ontario.

I also find that this bill is machiavellian in that you can now lose your licence, you can have licence suspended, if you don't pay your fine for breaching the Game and Fish Act. What in the world does the Game and Fish Act have to do with your driver's licence? You're going to put some poor sucker who's a truck driver off the road because he was annoying ducks with his truck, maybe by mistake or maybe by honest mistake. That to me in itself is probably a basic reason why the Supreme Court of Canada at some point in the future will look at this bill and it will say: "Who put that bill together? What government could possibly consider suspending people's licences for a breach of the Game and Fish Act?"

That's not the only bill. This government should be called the regulation government. They love to do things by order in council, by regulation of the cabinet. What that does is allow them to bypass this Legislature entirely. This Legislature becomes, in fact, defunct. We have no role whatsoever. I expect to see an act come out of that government over there that will have one paragraph in it: "This bill will do 1,001 things and it will all be done by order in council."

They think they can fool the people of this province by people thinking: "Well, the Lieutenant Governor, he's a nice guy. He'll look after our interests." I think the people of Ontario should understand that a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is in fact the cabinet, the cabinet of the New Democratic Party, which has all the power to pass that particular piece of legislation without hearing one word from the members of the opposition or even one word from their own members about whether it's right, fair or just.

There are other acts in here which I find amazing. Whoever heard of having your licence suspended for a breach of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act? It's a minimum $500 fine to begin with. If you don't pay the fine, the government is going to jump on you by suspending your licence. So what? Do you think that's really going to get the person to pay it? If they haven't got insurance, they're probably not going to be driving anyway.

The fact is that the suspension of your licence is a serious offence. You're going to have a lot of people out there driving without licences, and therefore without insurance, because they'll be off coverage. What this government is doing is creating a great tax-gathering machine, but they haven't given one jot of thought to the logic of how it all unfolds.

They're also suggesting that there won't be any demerit points for the owner. That's fine; that's understandable. That may be one argument counsel for the government may make before the Supreme Court of Canada. The rest of them would get laughed out of court, but that one might get a couple of the justices' minds thinking that perhaps this is a fair matter.

They can't have their licences suspended. That makes sense too, because you could hardly suspend somebody's licence when you've convicted them, tarred and feathered them, on the basis of some picture that was taken of their licence plate.

I just find it's mind-boggling, and it's indicative of every piece of legislation that's been brought forward by this government. They don't care about people's rights. The most important thing is they want it done quickly. It's kind of like Macbeth, "If you're going to do it, do it quickly," and the maximum revenue to be achieved from it without too much in deductions for cost and overhead. They want to hang on to those moneys to do other things that are just equally as wacko.

I want to finally address something that has been significantly overlooked in this province: the question of a government being able to suspend people's licences for failure to pay a fine. Let me give you this scenario which was told to me by a university student, and there may be people out there watching and perhaps members of the government who will say: "Too bad. They should have done the things they should have done."

This person was at university. They were living off campus. They left school because school was over. They had gotten a ticket and they didn't pay it. The notification of the fine after the conviction was sent to their old address at the university house they were in.

They go back home or they go to a new permanent address, and they notify the Ministry of Transportation when they get home of their new change of address, but not once does that notification of the conviction and the fine come to their attention until -- and I'm sure people watching will remember that this has happened to them -- notification comes in the mail and says, "Your licence is suspended."

Here's the person just about to go away on holidays, or a salesman who needs his car for his job, or a trucker or whatever. He looks at it and he says, "Oh, my gosh, I'd better go down to the courthouse and pay that right away." So they beetle down to the courthouse, pay in cash, and the person taking the money says, "Well, it will take 10 business days for your licence to be reinstated."

It astounds me that in this day of the computer age we can deny a citizen of the province of Ontario -- I'm not talking about the constant offenders. They should know better, because once you've done it once, you should know after that you've got to pay those. I'm talking about people who overlook a fine for the reasons I've just stated, or a whole myriad of other reasons perhaps: that it doesn't come to their attention, that somebody takes the letter out of the box or it doesn't get delivered by Canada Post or whatever. These people are being penalized far beyond any possible penalty one could think of. Their jobs may be on the line. We're talking about an economy where it's important to keep people in jobs. This government is in fact putting out the seeds of destruction for these people by continuing that process.

If the minister has not heard one thing I've said this afternoon about this bill, I hope he would look into the injustice that occurs when a person, through no fault of his or her own, perhaps through inadvertence, winds up not paying a fine and finds that his or her licence is under suspension. Can he ensure that the people who take the cash to pay the fine can at least get the licence back to the person that day as opposed to waiting 10 days and perhaps having that person lose their job?

1610

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess I would like to perhaps build on what the member for Brampton South has indicated about the unfairness of the system. In that regard, I have a letter from a constituent that I think reinforces what the member for Brampton South is saying.

My constituent was caught in a radar trap in the vicinity of Guelph. This was a conventional radar trap. Of course, photo-radar hasn't yet been implemented. But he felt that this was unjust. He felt the radar mechanism wasn't properly working. As a matter of fact, at the time that it was captured, he was in third gear in his Volkswagen and couldn't possibly be speeding.

So he thought: "Now, I'll fight that. I'll go and I'll fight it." But the problem is that he works in Toronto, he lives in Toronto, and he had to go to court in Guelph.

So he went to his employer and he said, "Look, I need the day off to go to court so I can fight this." His employer frankly said he couldn't have the time off. He said it would be a waste of time anyway, so don't --

Hon Mr Pouliot: He doesn't work for the government.

Mr David Johnson: He doesn't work for the government. Of course, if you work for the government, you can have all the time off you need, the minister's indicated. But he couldn't get the time off because the employer said it would be a waste of time and he wouldn't win at any rate. So he lost and he had to pay.

Now, through the photo-radar, how many people are going to get tickets that could well be in Guelph or any other area at some considerable distance from their residence? They're going to get this ticket two or three weeks later, even up to a month later, they're going to be presumed to be guilty unless they can somehow prove their innocence, and to do that, they'll have to take time off from work. Many working people cannot take that time off from work to go to some court in some distant place and fight it.

There is something basically wrong with a system that presumes that persons are guilty unless they appear to prove their innocence. I think that's what the member for Brampton South was alluding to.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to compliment the member on his address this afternoon because it certainly hit many of the points that people who are writing to us are talking about.

I think that the full impact of this bill, as he has appropriately noted, will not be seen until such time as there are people who are receiving these tickets. It's one thing for them to receive a ticket when in fact there's a police officer there who has apprehended them. They may not like it but they understand the process and it might even slow them down a bit.

But let us say that someone were going from Toronto to Montreal and the light would be flashing. They would have one ticket, then another ticket and then another ticket. It wouldn't have slowed them down at all. I think the member for Brampton has appropriately pointed out that and some of the other deficiencies of this bill.

He has noted most appropriately that there are going to be ramifications of this bill that perhaps many in the government have not expected. As opposition persons, all of us would be, you might say, rubbing our hands at the thought of the people writing letters to us, giving us calls, talking about the policy of this government in this regard which is making criminals out of many, many of the people on the highway who are driving, under relatively safe conditions, at a speed that may be in excess of the posted limit, which some of my constituents say is an unrealistic limit at this time.

So I think the member for Brampton does a service for members of this Legislature when he points those out. I want to say that he has done it in an articulate manner, a logical manner, a sensible manner and one which I believe would certainly appeal to most of the people in this province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The interesting things about the pronouncements from the member for Brampton South, I believe, are the comments with respect to the ability to appeal or appear in court on cases. It used to be that you could mail in your plea, and if you pleaded innocent, you would be scheduled a court date and you would appear and state your case. Under this plan, this government is so grubbingly looking for money that it's done away with that opportunity as well.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, that hurts.

Mr Stockwell: I know that's a tough word, but this piece of legislation sickens me. It sickens me because it's in the guise of public safety. When this member opposite and his hatchet men and women sit around him offering this up in the guise of public safety when it's nothing but grubbing for money -- and that's really what this issue comes down to; people don't even have an opportunity to defend themselves when they get nailed by photo-radar. The photo-radar is set up in areas that are notoriously undersped areas, limited by local municipalities. People go through there, not people driving crazy, not wild drivers by any stretch, not criminals, and every one of them that goes by is going to be given a ticket, because these people need money so bad they don't care how they get it, whether it's through casinos and selling out principles or whether it's convicting people in absentia by putting a camera on the road taking pictures of licence plates. They don't even care who is driving the car; they just want their money.

The most sickening part is they sit across the floor and they snicker about this, but people who can't afford to pay these bills will be forced to pay them, and they're not speeders; they're law-abiding citizens who drove through areas that are undersped. We know such areas exist. From a socialist government, you'd think something better could come of it, but from this government I expect nothing more than this low-life, money-grubbing attitude.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. If members want to participate, now is their chance. Questions or comments? We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): On this issue, I've listened to the main speaker and I've listened to the comments pertaining to the speaker from the Liberal Party. You'd almost think that there was an argument here to be put forward to take all the speed limit signs down in the province, if you really listen to what's being said.

It's obvious that there are many, many lives lost on the roads today. On our four-lane 400 series highways, it's very difficult for the OPP to pull over every person who's exceeding the speed limit. When we talk about sanity on our roads, we need people to understand that speed limits are posted to be kept. It's law, simple and clear, that you keep the speed limit in this province. People who exceed the speed limit, and some by 30 and 40 kilometres an hour, are doing so at a risk to not only themselves but to my family.

I've heard someone on the other side of the floor today talk about their family. How many innocent families are injured and hurt every day on the roads of this province by people who will not abide by the law? It is the law. I say that photo-radar will go a long way to implanting in people's memory that very law that they should be driving by.

It seems to me that the argument, again, from the other side of the floor is not photo-radar but whether or not there should be a speed limit. I believe that most reasonable people would understand that there should be a speed limit and every measure should be taken to make sure that speed limit is enforced.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The member for Brampton South has two minutes in response.

Mr Callahan: I have listened carefully to all the members, and I thank you for your comments, particularly the member for Norfolk. I guess he's never sped. I still leave the question hanging out there: Who is going to say what the speed is that these cameras will be set at?

Mr Jamison: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to just inform the member opposite that I do take my driving very seriously.

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

Mr Callahan: I should tell the members of the Legislature that the first thing the minister should do is go out and examine all the signs in this province, because I would venture to say that if you were stopped on the Don Valley Parkway I could get your charge dismissed because those signs are illegal. They have no kilometre tags on them. Most of the signs around this province have no kilometre tags on them. In fact, if you investigate the law, you'll find that those are not enforceable speed limits and you could have tickets thrown out all over this province. So the first thing I suggest you do is get your act in order and make sure that the signs that are up are lawful so that the people of this province will be protected.

1620

Finally, I have to say to you, Mr Minister, who is going to be doing the decision-making of what is the appropriate speed you can travel at in this province? Will it be the Legislature of Ontario or will it be the guy or lady behind the camera? Will they decide one day it will be 140, one day it will be 130, one day 120? Who's going to make that decision, Minister? I hope this is going out to committee, because I think you're going to find out an awful lot about your bill that doesn't make sense. Perhaps we can craft a decent bill that will be fair to everyone and perhaps ensure that safety is the first thing and not money.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Before we proceed with further debate, I have an announcement to make. I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Projet de loi 17, Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Considering we had royal assent, there should at least be a quorum from the government.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present.

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

The Acting Speaker: We can resume second reading debate on Bill 47. The honourable member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I haven't had a day on which I won a vote in the Legislature since September 6, 1990, when the New Democrats took power, and here is another one. We will bring forward our point of view, quite a different point of view from that of the government. Because the New Democrats have such a large majority and because their whips are so powerful, the likelihood of anyone on the other side of the House in the government changing their minds is extremely unlikely, because it hasn't happened in the last three years.

There's a sense of discouragement that I carry as I begin to discuss Bill 47. I know that all I can have is the satisfaction of having put on the record some of my concerns about this bill. I want to do so. It is my right, it is my obligation and I now look forward to doing it. But having said that, I just begin with such a sense of frustration, because there are so many people out there in the province of Ontario, when they elected their members to the Legislature, they thought things would be better. They had a euphoric feeling, "Now we've sent these people off to Queen's Park and they're going to do something for us." Well, I'll tell you what they're doing for them today. This government is in the process of passing yet another bill that is going to cost them more money. It's going to put them up against the wall even more. This is just another way for the government to shove it down the throats of the people of the province of Ontario.

There is nothing good about at least the part of the bill that I'm going to talk most about. There are parts of the bill that are good.

Mr Bradley: What parts? Name them.

Mr Cousens: Well, the Game and Fish Act: "No person shall use a vehicle or a vessel for the purpose of chasing, pursuing, worrying, molesting, killing, injuring or destroying any animal or bird." Now, that's good. I couldn't even do that word.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You didn't want to be in this picture, I'm telling you.

Mr Cousens: I know, but I'm concerned primarily with the photo-radar, when there are so many other issues that are confronting people in Ontario, where the government could be reducing its amount of spending, it could control its costs, it could eliminate fraud, it could do something about the underground economy. Instead, no, here we have Bill 47 as a way for the government to raise more money.

Why doesn't the government establish some sense of priority, do something in the areas where it can really contribute to the betterment and wellbeing of the province? Why don't we do something? If you're concerned about money, stop misappropriating and spending money in the wrong ways. Do something about the underground economy. Do something about the health card fraud. Do something about social assistance fraud. But, no, those items have not been addressed. They're not faced up to. We are instead looking for another way of raking in more chips for the province of Ontario.

Photo-radar is the issue in this bill, among a number of other items, but the one issue that hurts me most is the intrusion on my own civil liberties. Every person has the right to face their accuser. I don't think there's anything more important than for a person who, when they're accused of something, can stand up and defend that right. Instead there will be, on the highways and byways of the province of Ontario, cameras taking a picture of your car as it goes down the road. If it's over the speed limit -- and in this bill we don't get any indication of how much over the speed limit it has to be -- it will take a photograph of that car, it'll show the licence, it'll give the time and it'll give the speed. Then, possibly a month later, the owner of the car -- not necessarily the driver; the owner of the car -- will receive a bill in the mail.

I can just tell you, Mr Speaker, though many people don't pay attention to what goes on in this Legislature, those of us in opposition see this as a tremendously large intrusion to the personal, private rights of people in this province. It's a removal of their civil liberties. It is wrong for the government to just say: "Hey, because we've got a picture, therefore you're going to pay. Then, if you don't pay, even though you may challenge it, your licence renewal will be obstructed."

This is a way of taking away our rights. It's a fundamental right of our society to protect yourself. You have no way of protecting yourself from this camera that'll be on the roads. It is a money-grabbing opportunity of this government; that's what it is. How much money are they going to raise? Who knows. It's a huge opportunity that the government is taking upon itself to raise funds, to raise money.

Does it act as a deterrent? Does this, as a way of having photo-radar, do anything to bring people to be more careful on the highways? I think not. The moment that you're just sending a bill out, it's just a way of punishing the poor. You're not coming along and improving the driving habits, because there's no point reduction. If you went and had a point allocated, as well as getting a ticket for speeding and having to pay that bill, and also had some points added to your system, then there'd be a way of making it happen.

I see this government as having sidestepped the fundamental issues that are important. Why doesn't the government begin to do something about the problems I see on the highway: tailgating? What are you going to do? You just have to drive down any of the parkways coming into Toronto -- the 401, any major highway -- and look at the infractions that people are carrying out. Are we doing anything about them? Not at all. This bill is only an attempt for the government to raise added revenues. Why don't we do something about tailgating?

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're sinister.

Mr Cousens: I am sinister. The honourable minister is correct, because to me --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're imputing motives.

Mr Cousens: I am imputing motives; you are correct. I am saying that, as a government, you are failing to really deal with the fundamental problems of what's going on on the highways today. What is being done about the people who drive at different speeds on the highways, those who are going too slow in the left-hand lane and slowing up traffic? What is being done to those who are the rapid lane changers who are coming in and out of traffic? Nothing. What is being done to increase our vigilance on impaired drivers? What are we doing about people who are hogging the left lane?

1630

There are numerous problems on our highways in the province of Ontario, but this bill does not begin to address them. All this bill is doing, along with some of the other factors that I've talked about with the Game and Fish Act and the tightening up of regulations, is another way for the government to raise funds. I'm saying that if the government really wants to do something to reduce the accident rate in the province, if the government is genuinely interested in helping people be more careful on the highways, then there are other things we can be doing.

What we could be doing, for a start, is having better training, having better education, having more frequent renewal of drivers' licences, having more consistent review of the safety of a car to see that it's really roadworthy. The only time it is really checked is when it changes hands. Should some of these cars that are on the road not be checked more frequently?

Why aren't we doing more to build highways? Some of those highways, where they are just two-lane highways, need to be widened. If we knew that the money coming from this new photo-radar collection system that the province is introducing was going towards the construction of more highways, then there might be some beauty to it. But that is not even a guarantee, because the money raised by this bill alone will go into the general treasury and will just disappear in the spending habits of the New Democratic government.

I'm convinced that this government really doesn't know what it's doing. The RCMP has done an assessment of the different kinds of devices that are used to photograph vehicles. Two of the common ones, Multanova and Gastometer, are two of the more common systems that are in use in other jurisdictions. The fact is that there is no guarantee they are accurate in giving the speed at which a car is travelling, so therefore how can you come along and bring in a bill like this and be certain it's even going to hold up in court? There are other questions yet to be answered.

I understand what the government's trying to do. The government is trying to raise money to carry on with all the other programs it has. If the government wants to do that, I'd say to start on something else first: Start by saving money rather than raising more money; start by looking at where you're already spending more than you need to be.

If you were to look carefully at the health card fraud, the Provincial Auditor has indicated that there's over $750 million a year being lost through health card fraud. Let's do something about that. There is money that is going to come off the deficit right away. Do something about the massive fraud on health cards in our province.

If you're going to be vigilant about drivers on the highway, why not be vigilant about those people who are in breach of the law with their health cards? One person recently had three health cards when she went into the emergency department of a hospital. Why have three cards? Why have a million more health cards in the province of Ontario than there are people? Can't you begin to deal with it?

Look at the companies in the private sector where they've got their own business cards; they're plastic and they've got systems that they have installed so they can protect those cards. There's a value to them. Is there not a value then to our own health card? The answer is fundamentally yes. Then why aren't we doing more to protect that little piece of plastic?

Mr Murdoch: It's an easier way to grab money.

Mr Cousens: Unfortunately, as my honourable friend says, it's just an easier way to grab money. Deal with the big issues. Unless this is going to be a big fund-raiser for the province of Ontario, I'm saying, come back and look at the issues that are already staring you in the face, the very issues that have to do fundamentally with health card fraud and social assistance fraud.

There is another example. Is there anyone going out now to find the number of people in the province of Ontario who are violating the systems in place for social assistance? Minimal. Have we really begun to touch on the number of people who are taking our system for a ride? I'm saying, instead of coming along and raising more money here -- and that's what this is, just another way of raising funds for the province of Ontario -- why not look at existing systems that need to be refined and improved?

It's painfully difficult, but as we in the province of Ontario have come to live in a way in which is possibly beyond our means, we are now at a point where the province has such spending habits that we have failed to live within our means for a long period of time, so the accumulated deficit for the province is something that future generations are going to have to pay.

This deficit that accumulates year after year -- the government has said there will be a $10-billion deficit this year; it is probably going to be closer to $12 billion. People find it hard to imagine and describe what a $12-billion debt amounts to. All I can tell you is that it's huge and is getting bigger. Unless we start living within our means, future generations will have to end up paying off our spending spree.

I'm looking for ways in which this government can be honest with itself. This is not an honest way of raising funds. It's not an honest way of dealing with the problems on the highways. It's not an honest way of dealing with the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Murdoch: Would you say they're dishonest?

Mr Cousens: The Speaker is such an alert person that she would have me retracting that. So rather than challenge this very capable Speaker and be put in the position of calling the government dishonest, which I'd like to do, I won't do that right now. There are ways in which I could say it, but it amounts to a form of being dishonest and I challenge the government to come clean on it.

I don't know where we can begin to deal with the issue. The government has heard excellent presentations by members of our caucus. In fact, I have listened to presentations by members of the Liberals as well. The Liberals, I think, are just jealous that they didn't think of this earlier when they were in power because they probably would have done this themselves. It's just another way of raising money. Don't ever forget the fact that the --

Mr Perruzza: Where are the Liberals? How come there are none here?

Mr Cousens: They don't want to hear me. The fact there are no Liberals here is no really serious reflection on them. I think the big thing I'm worried about with the Liberals has more to do with the way they raised taxes when they were in power and the fact that they're just jealous they didn't think of this idea first. They probably, themselves, would have liked to have seen this brought in earlier.

The province of Ontario has been a leader in this country for years on end. We have now become a leader in a way I don't want to be associated with. We're a leader in the collection of taxes. We're a leader in the way in which people are unemployed. We're a leader in the way in which this government is forcing more and more regulation on business. We're a leader in the way in which this government has closed down businesses. We're a leader in the way in which this government has not tried to work as partners with labour and business.

Here again we see the government setting up, in its own philosophical way, another straw person, and this straw person is going to be, "Hey, we will go and collect more money from you."

There isn't a person in this Legislature who doesn't on some occasion or another exceed the speed limit. There isn't one of us who doesn't at times realize that because of the flow of traffic we are having to keep pace with it; it would be unsafe to travel at that speed. Now what will happens is you'll just have that camera working overtime, clicking away, and at the same time it's like a cash register clicking more money into the coffers of the province of Ontario. A month later we'll get the bill and then we have to pay it.

Mr Perruzza: Is it okay when you get caught in a regular radar now, breaking the law, and you get fined? You would agree that's okay, right?

1640

Mr Cousens: I have not been stopped by radar for a very long period of time. The fact of the matter is that I've tried to become very much more careful in my driving habits. But the fact is that my car might well be driven by someone else when this ticket is assigned. It may be driven by someone I've lent the car to, someone who borrowed it; it may be stolen at that point; it may be a rental car that I'm responsible for. So at that point I am totally out of control with what's going to happen.

I myself will not be responsible for what happens, but I'll end up having to pay for it. The way the system works, I personally will be liable for what someone else has done. That is not right. That's part of what I'm objecting to: a violation of my own personal rights.

To me it becomes a very simple form of justice. If I am responsible for something, then I want to be apprehended. I know that I have a responsibility for that. As this works, how can we be sure that the person who is truly responsible is going to be the one who learns the lesson? It's going to be the owner of the vehicle who receives the penalty. I don't think that helps anybody.

Why not face up to the opportunity that we as a province have and get on with some of the priorities that we as a province and country should be going after, not just coming out and saying, "We're going to raise more money here"? If you're concerned with speeders, then let's do something about the whole highway problem.

As we've looked at this bill, it is not really the solution. I don't know how we can stop the government from proceeding with this bill. The government has decided that it's going to do it, along with so many other bills that are before this House. It is their intent to bring in legislation and to have it passed. We may disagree with it. It may sound as if we're just trying to make a point that they don't understand.

I know that my colleague Mr Murdoch and others have sat back and understood that our civil liberties are at stake. The moment you come along and give us a ticket for something that we didn't necessarily do, you are indeed at that point violating our own human rights. We see this as a sick way of raising additional funds for the province of Ontario and we see this as having no real deterrent to those who are speeding on the highway. In fact, what it will do as much as anything is it will fine the poor people who may not necessarily be able to carry out their own livelihood by virtue of the way this is going to be assigned.

What is the economic impact of this going to be? Is this going to be another deterrent to tourism in the province of Ontario? Is this going to be another reason why people will say, when they look out from other provinces or states, "Why come to Ontario?" Is this going to be something that is highlighted in our tourist brochures: "Come to Ontario because we're going to have photo-radar"?

We have a war going on in the province of Ontario. It's more of a war with the government. The government has set itself up as the final judge and arbiter of all things. If there were a minority government in place right now, I can guarantee you that the government would not be proceeding with this bill. There would not be support from the other two parties. I've heard the Liberals at least say in public today that they're prepared to fight it, and I can assure you that our party would not support it. So there has to be some sense that can come forward that this government will begin to rethink its positions.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret H. Harrington): I'd just like to make sure that everyone realizes they will have time for questions and comments after this speaker is finished.

Mr Cousens: I thank you for the opportunity to raise these issues. I think there are issues on the highways that we want to see addressed. Certainly, this Bill 47 doesn't begin to touch on them. This is really only another way, under another name, for the government to raise more money. It's just another form of taxation.

I have to say it's too bad they have to do it this way. It's too bad they can't begin to address some of the other problems on the highways. We have Mothers Against Drunk Driving in my area genuinely concerned about doing things. I don't see this as being any help in that. I don't see this bill as being any assistance at all to stopping some of those people on the other highways who tailgate, speed at different levels, change lanes, hog lanes. There are so many other issues that could be addressed. Let's do something about the whole safety of driving. Let's do something about our highways. Let's not just do it by bringing in Bill 47 and photo-radar.

It is a violation of our human rights. I disagree with it fundamentally. I will vote against it and I just hope that some members of the government will begin to think for themselves and not allow the whip to just push them into voting for it when in fact they may think better of it.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have questions and/or comments.

Mr Perruzza: I'd just like to take my two minutes to respond very briefly to some of the arguments that were made by my honourable friend the member for Markham. It's really sad when we're talking about something as serious as safety on our highways -- and we all know what happens on our highways. We all see the pictures and we see the faces, more often than not, of the families who suffer the consequences for people who get on the highways who will speed and will take the lives of both themselves and other people.

We can take this issue and, along with all of the other issues that government deals with -- and my honourable friend challenged this when he said: "There are so many others things that are so pressing for this government to do and to be doing. Why are you dealing with this?"

While we deal with the substantive issues associated with the economy, we also have to deal with the issue of safety on our highways, and I think this will go some way to dealing with that very substantial problem. In my view, if it causes one individual -- one, not a whole host of them -- to slow down and not take the life of another, whether it be their own or someone else's, I ask the question, through you to my honourable friend: What is the life of an individual worth? What price would you put on that one life?

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Perruzza: I will ask him to take his two minutes to answer that question.

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat, please. Are there further questions and/or comments?

Mr David Johnson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Markham because, contrary to the previous speaker, I think he has raised several very pertinent issues to this House and he has asked about the effectiveness of the photo-radar. He has asked: Is this simply a way to generate revenue or is this addressing a real concern?

Perhaps to strengthen his arguments, which I think stand on their own, I have the annual report of the Metropolitan Toronto Police. It's interesting. You may note that over the period from 1988 to 1992, total Criminal Code offences have increased each and every year, from some 246,000 in 1988 up to 310,000 in 1992. That's where there's a real problem, a real concern, that Criminal Code offences have increased each and every year.

I hear from the government: "Accidents, accidents. This is for safety. We're trying to promote safety." If you look at the number of accidents, they have actually decreased from 75,000 in 1988 to 57,000 in 1992, so the accidents have gone way down in Metropolitan Toronto. Look at the number of fatal accidents: 107 people died in 1988; 88 people died in 1992. Now, 88 people are 88 too many, but the number of fatal accidents has gone down in Metropolitan Toronto. Look at the number of injury accidents, persons injured per year: 1988, 18,000. It's gone down each and every year until in 1992 it's 11,500.

There again, and I think this is what the member for Markham is saying, this is purely a money grab, that we are improving the record of safety on our streets and we don't need the photo-radar. It's purely there to generate revenue.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions and/or comments? I recognize the member for Lambton.

1650

Mrs MacKinnon: Bill 47 is long, long overdue, very long overdue, as are the demerit points for not wearing a seatbelt.

I was really quite elated last week when I was around visiting in various municipalities. In Lambton county now they're all called mayors; we don't have any reeves. There were two who came to me and said, "Have you ever thought about putting in photo-radar?" Of course, I put a great big smile on my face, and I said, "We're already debating that in the House." They were quite happy about it.

I have not had a police officer, and I've talked to them too, tell me that they are not in favour of it. As a matter of fact, they do favour it because in Lambton county, as many of you know, it's a very, very rural riding and they will be only too happy not to have to travel the 402 which runs all through rural Lambton and go and use their efforts to better cause in the urban and the more heavily populated areas and the unpopulated areas of the 402. Put photo-radar on it and that's fine. They don't need to go there unless they're called for other reasons.

We've heard it for years and years and years. Speed kills. We see it every night on the news. Photo-radar, once you get your picture taken and you find out you've been speeding, you'll remember who was driving, you'll remember where you were and you'll pay your fine.

I hear talk about insurance rates. Maybe they'll be affected; maybe they won't. I think they should be, personally. Sometimes I wonder about my own insurance. It gets kind of heavy at times. In cases of excessive speed, my hope would be that the fine would be so high that the person who was driving 150 kilometres, as the honourable member across the floor spoke about a little while ago, that driver wouldn't be able to drive again for at least a year -- 150 kilometres, I ask you.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and or comments? I recognize the member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I'm going to have an opportunity to speak at more length, I think, on this marvellous project of the infamous Minister of Transportation perhaps later on today, but if not today, the next time that this bill appears on the order paper.

I don't want to get, at this point, into the details of the remarks that I'm going to be making, but I'll tell you one thing: The phone has not stopped ringing. The phone has not stopped in my constituency office. People stop me on the street and they say to me, "Are they really doing this?" They consider this little piece of nastiness, I say to my friend the consumer minister, kind of the pièce de résistance.

There are, I would suggest, to be conservative, perhaps 15 or 20 reasons in the minds of virtually every citizen of Ontario to vote against the government in the next general election, but this one, this photo-radar one, after the minister starts sending out his little taxation notices: "We saw you, two weeks ago, speeding on the 404 highway. Here's a bill for $150." That will be the pièce de résistance. If for no other reason, if they loved the social contract, if they loved the turnabout on auto insurance, if they loved every other miserable little action of this NDP government, I'll tell you something: They will rely on the Minister of Transportation's little revenue grab as good enough to send these scoundrels out of office in about 18 months, and frankly, I can't wait.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham now has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cousens: I do thank other honourable members for their comments, and in particular the member for Don Mills and his experience from being mayor of East York --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I'm coming to my honourable friend. But his experience certainly highlights some of the experiences within Metropolitan Toronto and I think further confirms the position I was trying to make. So I thank him for his remarks.

The one thing that Mr Sorbara said, though, is when he, in the middle of his statement, says, "to be conservative." I thought that was really something that I'd like to see more in that honourable member from York Centre. But the fact is the people in York region, and I share adjoining ridings to Mr Sorbara, are very much as he describes them. I don't think I gave enough time to that in my comments.

They're really upset at this whole issue and I haven't talked to anyone in my riding, unlike the member for Lambton, where people are saying they really support it. So maybe you're talking to a different kind of person than Mr Sorbara and I are talking to in York region. I would say it's not something you're going to want to put in your brochures for your next election campaign, because the people there are going to be saying this is just another tax grab on the part of you and Mr Rae and his government.

I have to chuckle at the member for Downsview. The member for Downsview is one of the most entertaining of all members in the House, and when he stands up and starts to ramble as he did, it always makes me feel that there's hope for the New Democrats. He at least has a point of view and he expresses it well, but he doesn't understand the situation. I have to believe that the New Democrats have failed to appreciate the anger the people of the province of Ontario have on this issue. It really epitomizes how this government is more interested in raising money than it is in trying to solve the problems that it has. I think you're going to be judged harshly for it.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further members who wish to participate in this debate? I recognize the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Madam, I thank you very kindly. It's always a difficult issue, and I'm sure that you will share in the impasse, in the dilemma. Hence the hesitation before embarking on what the government, on what this side of the House, sees as an opportunity, an obligation, one could say, to do what's right in terms of a safety agenda.

What is being introduced under the auspices of photo-radar is not a catalyst when we're referring to safety, yet it is an important component in our battle, in our constant efforts, people who are focused will say "in our war," to make Ontario highways, the roads in this province, the 23,000 kilometres of highways, add to it the 3,000 bridges and those connecting lanes, the safest not only in Canada but in North America.

The record of Transportation Ontario is not immaculate. We all know only too well of the catastrophes, of the calamities of victims, loved ones who have lost their lives, of the $9 billion -- although it is secondary indeed; the human dimension comes first -- that it costs Ontarians. But the human cost, Madam, and if you had that opportunity -- and you're an educated person -- in your capacity here, with respect, you must, however, after chairing all those debates, know who's telling the truth. I don't wish to impute motives on other members. It would mean that I have a monopoly, that I feel I am right, and my opinion is open to question. That's the exercise in which we partake. More importantly, suffice it, our record is one of constant improvement.

You will recall when the government of Ontario made it compulsory, made it mandatory, made it the law of the land here in Ontario to wear a safety belt inside a vehicle. Do you recall? Because I do so vividly. I've screened Hansard and I remember almost verbatim what was said. Questions were raised: Was it picking the pockets of people? Was it a revenue situation? What about restrictions, what about people who were perhaps obese, people who had a weight problem? The arguments went on and on and on and on. In the meantime, the focus remained of the obligation of the government of the day, today the third party, to do what was right, to go forward, yes, to answer the questions, but to go forward.

1700

Today we have a rate of compliance of 84%. You have 6.5 million motorists in the province of Ontario. Those are Ontarians with a licence in good standing. They pay handsomely, they pay dearly for the privilege. Our obligation is to recognize their rights to access the privilege, to make sure that we're reasonable and consistent in our approach. But coupled with that opportunity is also the onus, the obligation as a driver to follow the rules of the exercise, the obligation that you have as a driver. One of those rules is that you must buckle up because it saves your life, it saves the lives of others, "in case of."

Eighty-four per cent of Ontarians are now complying. Remember, there are 6.5 million people in our province with a licence in good standing, seven million cars and recreational vehicles and hundreds of thousands of commercial vehicles. Two years ago, 73% of people in Ontario wore their seatbelts. We're now up to 84% -- 11% more in two years. Our fatality rates are going down, partly because of the adherence, partly because people choose, as a style, to wear their safety belts.

You have three jurisdictions where, if you don't wear your safety belt, you lose points off your licence. You start from the premise of 15. Starting January 1 in Ontario, if you get caught --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister on this point of order but I think it's necessary to bring to your attention this following breach of the traditional orders of this House. The minister is participating in a debate --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Madam Speaker, he's taking my time.

Mr Sorbara: The minister doesn't appear to be listening to the point of order.

We have just been advised that notwithstanding that many members in this Legislature want to speak and oppose this bill on behalf of the people we represent right around the province because we believe it to be bad legislation, the minister has just brought in a time allocation motion which will prohibit members from speaking and arguing against this draconian, fascist measure.

Interjection: What's that language? That is unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Everything is in order. I would ask the minister to proceed with his comments.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker: It is the tradition of this House that the members should be allowed to debate an issue fully. The fact is that the government has brought forward, once again, time allocation, which it has done successively on so many pieces of legislation in the past. For the Minister of Transportation to be coming forward and taking up the time is inappropriate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for York Mills. This is not a point of order. Nothing is out of order. I would ask the minister to proceed with his comments.

Mr Jamison: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: It's become obvious that the minister has had a goodly amount of his time reduced by these interruptions. I would ask that some time be put back on.

The Acting Speaker: I would like the minister to resume his comments. The member for Grey, do you have a point of order?

Mr Murdoch: First of all, my riding's Grey-Owen Sound, Madam Speaker, and I think this is a point of order: I don't believe there's a quorum in the House to even listen to the minister.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the clerk to see if there is a quorum present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Would the minister continue his remarks.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will. I thank you again.

Mr Sorbara: Explain why you brought in time allocation. Cut the nonsense. Cut the gibberish. Tell us why you brought it in.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Mr Sorbara: I would like to know why you brought in time allocation. That's what I'd like to know.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: Explain that. This is the debate. That's the real issue. You don't want to debate in here any more.

The Acting Speaker: Will the member for York Centre come to order. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The member for York Centre persists in raising his voice, and hopefully in vain. With respect, Madam Speaker, he has made a remark that I cannot let by even with any degree of tolerance, good understanding among members that characterizes more often than not this Assembly, and that is the remark where the member said that the minister was bringing forward, was sponsoring a fascist piece of legislation. None of us here is fascist. As the minister of the crown responsible for Transportation, I would like you to examine the records, and I think the member for York Centre should have the courage, and I know he has, as an honourable member, to issue to you, of course, first and foremost, his apologies for the unfortunate word "fascist."

Going back to the focus, to what we have here, we still have fully 1,100 people in the year 1992, last year, 1,100 Ontarians who lost their lives on Ontario's roads; 90,000 were injured. Those are significant numbers. It's better than the year before, it's better than it's been for the past eight to 10 years, but you still have 90,000 people who were hurt and 1,100 people who were killed, from all walks of life. It could have been the toddler, the little one; it could have been the senior citizen. No one is immune, not only because you might be the one who initiates, who causes the accident, but because you could be the victim.

One out of six, more than 150 people in one year in Ontario, were killed because speed kills.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Will the member for Grey-Owen Sound come to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's the reason why they died. That's what the police report says. That cannot be questioned. You've seen them; you've heard about them. Picture this. We'll do it together. Friday night on Highway 401 between 9 pm and 2 am and repeated on Saturday night, 9 pm to 3 am. You're in the centre lane. You're going back to the privacy and comfort of your home after a visit to family members in the suburbs, and what is it you see in the left lane? You're going 100 kilometres an hour, for it is posted. You're a law-abiding citizen. It's at night.

1710

Mr Sorbara: The province has been in the left-hand lane three years too long.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have warned the member for York Centre that the Minister of Transportation has the floor and I would like to be able to hear his remarks. If he has comments, he may make them afterwards. I have now warned you and I just want to make sure you understand. Would the minister continue.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you again, Madam Speaker.

They just whiz by at 140 at times, at 150. Some have been clocked at 160, 165 kilometres on those machines. We as the government have to say -- well, we're going to a safety belt. You must wear your safety belt. That goes some ways. You will have a graduated driver's licence so people will be more responsible.

Mr Bradley: That's good.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's good. You already have a radar system in place with those women and those men in blue. You have speed limits. People get caught for speeding. That's okay. We're not soft on crime. The government is determined. We know what we're doing.

Some 1,100 people lose their lives. The insurance premiums are high; we're trying to reduce it. We have an obligation to the 6.5 million licensees.

In Calgary, it's worked so well that it's now going to Edmonton. They had the same problems in California. California has more people than the whole of Canada. They have photo-radar in place. Have we heard members of the opposition say what is being done in California is a tax grab, what is being done in England is a tax grab, what is being done in New Zealand is a tax grab, in all the Scandinavian countries is a tax grab? We haven't heard that. It becomes a safety issue when it's done elsewhere, but when the New Democratic Party takes the same responsibility, it becomes a tax grab. You have to be reasonable and consistent in your argument.

The police say it's right. You will adhere to the most advanced technology. Things change. This is not punitive action. One thing that will not change is that if you're within the speed limit, you will never be charged. If you exceed, if you surpass, today you may be charged. Under our pilot project, you may be charged. It's really no big difference to what is already taking place. The government of Ontario will not be inside the cruisers. The government of Ontario knows the difference between legislation and the work of the police. We shall operate at arm's length.

Remember those women and those men in blue, those people who dedicate their lives to the enforcement of statutes, of the laws in our province and elsewhere? Well, they will be responsible for monitoring compliance. Of course, and that's a foolproof prediction, you will see less people at the trauma unit at Sunnybrook on Friday night and Saturday night. You will see less people on the 401 going straight from the car to the bag, being dead, dead, dead. You will see less of that. You will see less people being cheated out of a life of aspirations, dreams and realization, because speed kills.

That's the focus here. It's a pilot project. We will iron out the bugs, but for sure there will be fewer fatalities with the introduction of not a catalyst but photo-radar. It will remind people not to speed.

People have said: "Well, what about the driver? I'm the owner of the car. My son or daughter" -- in my case hypothetical, but in most cases real. Wouldn't you wish to know if you had a son, a daughter, a spouse to whom you lend your car and they're going 150, 125, at excessive speed? Wouldn't you wish to know that they're doing it? How many people does that entail? How many times do we lend our car? Look at it individually. We can't answer that, of course, but let's do it. How many people have driven my car in the last year?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pouliot: My spouse, Suzanne, has driven the car. We're co-owners. I'm a person of moderate means, so we're co-owners of the car.

Mr Murdoch: Do you know where your car is now?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am not aware of anyone else. If I would lend it to friends, they're responsible people. They have the means. They all have a small car. They all have a car or a truck where I live, so there's really no need. The same circumstances apply to pretty well most of us.

What I have some difficulty understanding -- and if you say it often enough, sometimes you end up believing it. If you see harmful intent in people, ulterior motives in people, sometimes you lose focus. We've been accused left and right -- and I shouldn't be defensive, for I'm very proud of this legislation -- of going to pick the pockets of people. There hasn't been one member of the opposition who went this far -- because it's their party line; they get their marching orders -- to say: "What if it were true, all this? What if there was nothing devious about this? What if it was not a tax grab? What if they really care?"

Nobody has a monopoly. Caring is not a cartel; it belongs to each and every one. But if you have an opportunity that exists, modern technology that will make the system better without infringing on the rights of people, and if you see that opportunity pass and you don't seize it when it does, then it is far worse, far worse indeed, than accusations, than the shouting from members of the opposition and the third party, for it is their right in this Legislature; far worse, because then you have to live, and in some cases you begin to die a little bit. You say, "I haven't done my job."

But if you know that you have seized every opportunity, not to restrict people, oh, no, but to make the system a little better each and every time -- it's called evolution. It's going from the horse and buggy to the modern age. You must seize each and every opportunity, and you must stand. Oh, sure, you get bruised, but what's more important? Some 1,100 Ontarians lost their lives. One sixth of it was caused by excessive speed, whether we like it or not. We don't like it. It's not a carnage; it's a calamity.

I can recall vividly some accidents that would not have happened if we had adherence to safety components. I read the results of inquiries. I was appalled and shocked in fact when I heard, and for months after until the inquiry and the recommendations reached us, vis-à-vis the Caledon accident on that fateful Saturday night when a car was passed going on top of the hill and -- bang -- the collision.

I just said to myself, when I was awakened by one of our MTO persons telling me about the aspects of that tragedy when eight young Ontarians lost their lives, that when they saw the other car for that second or two, they must have all begun to die a little, although the reports said the end came very suddenly; the force of impact was sufficient to ensure that.

1720

I would be the first one to -- maybe not the first one -- but in my humble capacity as minister, and I say this with all the sincerity at my command: If I really felt it's more important that this was a tax grab, a way to pick the pockets of people under the auspices, under the guise, of speeding, that it's going to make a switch as a government -- my God, I don't need it that much, you see. I don't need it that much. I believe in this as a component, no more, no less, in making the roads of Ontario the safest roads. Every place where photo-radar has been in force, each and every jurisdiction -- I've talked about Victoria, Australia, I've talked about Calgary, I've mentioned England --

Interjection: Germany.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- Germany, thank you; the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, and each and every place it proved to be a deterrent. It did not completely eliminate excesses in speeding, but it was a significant deterrent. We have laws that are in place now, we have the monitoring of compliance; modern technology will make it that much better.

I want to thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker. I wish to thank members of the opposition and, just as importantly indeed, members of our caucus; in fact, all members who have listened intently to the debate. We have struck a good balance. It's important and this Bill 47 recognizes the importance for balance under its equilibrium. It's found in the compendium, in the spirit, in the intent, of what we are proposing and what we are debating at second reading. I'm proud to be associated with this project and I thank you indeed for allowing me the time to speak this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and/or comments? The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: Madam Speaker, I'm glad you have given me an opportunity to speak; you almost threw me out, I was so enraged at the tone of the member's speech. The minister used to be a great democrat, but in the midst of his heart-rending speech about what a great project this is, we get notice over here that there will be no more debate on this subject. This is it; notwithstanding that I've had at least two dozen calls in my constituency office from people saying, "Please oppose this thing strenuously." And the great New Democrats, who are neither new nor democratic, simply advise us that: "Friends, the debate is over. We're bringing in time allocation; it's all over." Do you know why that is? Because the minister and his friend the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, want the revenue.

I'll tell you what: As I said earlier, I just can't wait for the minister to get his way. We know one thing for sure: It's not going to improve safety on our roads; not one iota. Notwithstanding all the heart-rending words -- I think I almost detected a tear emanating from the minister's eyes as he passionately pleaded for this new and marvellous way of enhancing safety on the road. The minister should give us a break. I mean, we can't tolerate this horse doo-doo from a minister who should know better. This is money in the bank for the government but, frankly, as far as the people are concerned, this is it. As I said earlier, if there is no other reason to vote these scoundrels, these imbeciles, out of office, when the bills start coming in -- I can just see it: You open up the mail and you find that three weeks ago on Highway 401 you were going over 120 and you got a bill for $150. Boy oh boy, that'll give me reason enough to vote against these guys.

Mr Turnbull: Today we have a rather interesting turn of events. Time allocation has been brought in on this particular bill by the government, a bill which is highly controversial. Quite frankly, I have never received as much correspondence on a bill as I have received on this particular one. I have spoken specifically in the House against this bill and the ways in which, if they were going to implement it, at least it would be fairer.

The minister comes forward after time allocation has been laid down before us and takes up the time of other members. The minister's completely in control of the agenda, and yet he is taking up the time of the members of the opposition in debating this. We are charged with representing the view of the people who don't agree with the NDP. Yet this minister comes in, speaks using our time, and not only that, absolutely, utterly refuses to address the main points which I brought -- I am the Transportation critic for our party -- refuses to respond to the specific allegations I made.

This is a revenue grab. If it isn't, you would have responded to my challenge that if it wasn't a revenue grab then at least you could dedicate all of the extra funds to the police forces for extra safety enforcement. Instead, you have ignored that. That is the acid test by which you can prove this.

Also, I have suggested that in Sun City in Arizona you're allowed to make a deposition as to who was the driver, and then that driver will be charged as opposed to the owner of the car. You've absolutely ignored, in your remarks, any of the references which I made in my debate.

Minister, I know you've got a big enough staff to know exactly what I said as our opposition critic. You have not responded to it. I expect an answer today, sir.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I wanted to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by the minister and also some of the remarks from other colleagues within this Legislature.

This is one bill that I've had a tremendous amount of calls and letters and complaints about in my riding. When you look at the aspects of this bill with regard to photo-radar, and to be able to allow the police and the radar system to work against what we call justice, where are the rights of the people with regard to this bill?

The minister didn't indicate, when he was talking about how safe it would be, about the speed limit in Germany, about the speed limit in other countries, about the speed limits in other jurisdictions. The minister has not indicated how he expects this bill to work, other than it's a great tax grab that this government wants. It's dollars that they want. I've seen the financial report for the third quarter, out today, that indicates a bigger deficit than what they anticipated. So I can see that it's nothing but a money grab.

I'm surprised that the minister would bring in a bill and bring in closure to limit debate on such a very important piece of legislation. This has gone on in other bills. I noticed what went on in the Legislature today with the questions that were asked of the Premier. The Premier does not want to answer the questions; he refers them. I know the Premier is going to get some questions with regard to this bill. I have seen letters to the editor. I have seen many write-ups in the paper with regard to the photo-radar legislation. It's nothing but a tax grab, and the minister knows it.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Sorbara: Etobicoke West was first.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): We're going around. We're trying to be fair to everybody.

I would certainly like to congratulate the Minister of Transportation for his comments on this particular bill and also for taking the initiative to look at ways and means of reducing fatalities and accidents on the highways.

This debate reminds me a little bit of the debate when we talked about the seatbelt issue, when people talked about invading their rights and not giving them their choice as to wearing a seatbelt or not. But the bottom line is just like this legislation: This legislation will reduce fatalities on our highways, just like the minister has said.

1730

Mr Stockwell: That's absolutely nuts. If you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. If you speed, the licence plate gets the ticket.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Hayes: I was just thinking of another method of reducing the speed on our highways. This photo-radar is nothing new, because we've had the aircraft patrol with the cameras for many years in this province.

Mr Stockwell: Come on, get a grip. They pull you over.

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

Mr Hayes: The bottom line is that these people are talking about this being nothing but a tax grab, but I'm sure if we sat down and looked at the figures, the cost of the aircraft patrol, for example, it would cost the taxpayers a lot more money than what is happening here.

Just like the minister has said, he's spoken to the police, I've spoken to some Ontario Provincial Police and I'm not going to get up here and say they think this is the greatest thing and this is the total answer, but what the police officers have told me is that whatever you can do to reduce accidents and fatalities in this province is good.

The Acting Speaker: The minister now has two minutes to respond.

Mr Sorbara: He's had about 16 months to represent his community. How could you do this to your --

The Acting Speaker: Order. You will have time to respond.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome comments from the members. A very valid point was raised by the critic for the third party, the Progressive Conservatives, inasmuch that with the gadgetry, if you wish, of the system that is proposed, you don't have the ability, period, of getting the camera inside the vehicle. Therefore it becomes impossible to make a foolproof judgement on who is driving, C or E. That's logical; that's common sense. We should all understand this.

This is a pilot project and the system will get better and we will have more ability to respond to your question directly. I take the point very seriously and I commend you for it. You're the first one, to my knowledge, who has mentioned it. We will be working on it to make sure we don't have court challenge after court challenge after court challenge. But we need to introduce and to integrate the technology that will give us that flexibility and that exactitude, for it is important.

I again wish to thank all members. We've had more than ample opportunity. This debate has gone on for a long, long time. I've taken a few minutes of the precious time of this House, no more, and I've listened intently to everything that everyone had to say. It is my understanding that the majority of interested parties have had more than ample opportunity to voice their opinions, which is always welcome as I respect them and their opinions, of course.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I regret very much that unfortunately, because of the rules which were imposed on this House by Premier Rae in June of last year, the members of the Legislature will be severely restricted in their ability to bring to this House the viewpoints of their constituents and the appropriate arguments when legislation is before the House. As a result, this particular debate on this piece of legislation is being terminated by the Premier of the province of Ontario by imposing closure on this House, restriction on the debate.

It's interesting to note that a bill that is this controversial will be allowed to have only two days in a committee of the Legislature and one day in committee of the whole within this House. So there are severe restrictions, and there are many people, I'm sure, on all sides of the House who would like to have expressed their views on this piece of legislation. I regret that very much, but it doesn't surprise me.

The government uses the hammer whenever it has problems with any of its legislation, particularly when it's of a controversial nature, but it does not enhance the legislative system and it does not enhance the role of our constituents who have only one person to speak for them; that is, the person they elected to the House. They can't vote for the Premier's staff. They can't vote for the civil service. They can't vote for all the special-interest groups that speak to the Premier's office. But they can, through their member, have access to debate in this Legislature.

I also note that despite the controversy of this bill, there will be no provision for any public input by public hearings of the Legislature. I would have thought that at least the government would want to hear those arguments before proceeding with the bill, which by the way contains more than photo-radar; it contains some other measures which are quite concerning to me.

The purpose of the bill, clearly in my mind, on the part of the government is to raise funds. It is a ruse to have the Minister of Transportation carrying this bill, introducing this bill into the Legislature. It is clearly a bill on behalf of the Treasurer. This government is cash-strapped. It is chasing business out of this province. We have plant closings going on. They are absolutely desperate for money and so they're going to bleed it out of the constituents we represent in one way or another. This bill represents one measure which will in fact bleed money out of our constituents, and do it unknowingly to those constituents, until a few weeks later when they receive a letter from Big Brother through the mail saying that they have violated the laws of the province.

I would say that it would be an isolated incident, except we've seen many examples of this. The Ministry of Transportation, for instance, is a place where you'd find this happening. It is my understanding that the ministry now wants to go to a system where people would pay their licences five years ahead. That's so they can gather all the money now to meet their financial crisis and leave whatever government follows them -- because surely there will be another government -- with no revenue left.

Mr Stockwell: They're doing it.

Mr Bradley: My friend from Etobicoke West convinces me that in fact they are doing it. That's exactly what's happening at this time.

This just follows on. It should not be a surprise to anybody that this government is bringing in a revenue bill. This is what you call a cash cow. The police know it; the government knows it; the civil service knows it; the advisers to the government know it. The people of this province, when they start receiving the bills through the mail, are going to know it and are going to let their members know about it.

We've disguised this piece of legislation, which is a revenue bill, as a so-called safety bill. There are many safety provisions that could be dealt with by this government that I think would find pretty universal support among the electorate and certainly among members of this House.

For instance, I think members of this House generally agree with some form of graduated licensing. There are some problems with the bill, but there have been hearings. Those hearings have been very helpful because people, particularly from the rural part of the province, have indicated what some of the problems would be for new drivers in areas that aren't urban, where there isn't access to public transportation, for instance.

I think that by hearing some of the flaws that might be in a bill, the government can make changes and perhaps get support. For instance, the opposition parties might have been opposed to graduated licensing at the beginning. If the necessary changes are made, you may see some consensus among members of the Legislature in this regard.

I come back to the fact that we won't have a chance. My friend the member for York North, who wanted to deliver an impassioned speech on this, will be prevented from doing so by Bob Rae's rules. The only thing I regret is that my good friends in the Progressive Conservative Party voted for those rule changes. It must have been disconcerting to many members of the Conservative Party who recognized why this would be draconian legislation to see that their party leader, Mike Harris, talked them into voting for it.

I think the two members here would be the kind of members who would recognize that. The member for Leeds-Grenville is a member who has been in the House a long time. He respects the House; he respects those kinds of things. The member for Etobicoke West is one of the smartest politicians in the urban sense that I know; the member for Grey-Owen Sound, an individual who certainly is cognizant of those things political. They know how wrong it was to vote for that particular legislation. However, be that as it may, we must allow our friends to the political right to make those decisions as they see fit.

There will be a termination of this debate. My friend from Lincoln is here. He might have wanted to defend this bill or he might have wanted to point out some of the disadvantages. He doesn't get the opportunity to do so now. I am here to fight for my friend the member for Lincoln, or the member for Brantford who is here, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, others who might well have wanted to --

1740

Mr Sorbara: His office is at the Eaton Centre.

Mr Bradley: Well, my colleague tells me that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is moving to the Eaton Centre --

Mr Sorbara: Brand-new offices.

Mr Bradley: -- to brand-new and newly decorated offices. Perhaps that's why the government needs the money that will be emanating from this particular piece of legislation.

Now, I believe that if the government had wanted to address its funding problems, instead of imposing this legislation on the House, it would've eliminated all the polling. I remember Bob Rae, the Premier of this province, making impassioned speeches in this House, directing questions to the government of the day, be it Conservative or Liberal, expressing his disgust with the fact that the government would be spending money on polls to tell the government what it thinks. I can remember the days when the NDP knew what it stood for and didn't have to take a poll to see which puff of wind was blowing in which direction before it could move in one direction or another.

Or self-serving advertising that we used to see: I can well recall some advertising from the Conservative Party that was: "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it. Conserve it." "Preserve," "conserve" -- very close to Conservative.

Today, I know my friend the member for Etobicoke West would be opposed to that kind of nonsense, because he's a new member of the Conservative Party. But we're seeing the same kind of advertising take place with this government, at the public expense and, of course, of a self-serving nature.

Perhaps they could eliminate the construction of the WCB building, which is not needed. Or they could quit giving grants to their left-leaning friends who simply support them in one way or another by getting grants from the government. Those are some of the ways they could in fact eliminate some of the waste around here.

It is obvious then that the government is desperate, because business is fleeing from Ontario, because plants are closing down, because few people want to invest here unless they're getting a handout from the government. So what do they do? They come in with measures that one would never expect an NDP government to bring forward.

They have casino gambling, which the NDP in its lifetime opposed. Stanley Knowles, who sits at the table in the federal House, must shake -- by the way, he's only one of 10 New Democrats who can now sit in that House, and not as an elected member, but at the table as a guest of the House -- and must shudder when he sees such things as casino gambling.

Now we have photo-radar following on. No wonder my friend the member for Welland-Thorold of years gone by is calling for the resignation of the Premier of this province.

What this reminds me of is a concentration of police efforts on areas where they're not as important as other areas. For instance, I can recall the other night seeing police officers out putting tickets on vehicles on side streets at 9 o'clock at night. I commented to one of them at the time that I didn't think that was a particularly good use of police officers' time when there's crime to be fought. I strongly support our police officers in their fighting of crime and I don't think they should be diverted from it through this kind of nonsense.

There's a concern about electronic surveillance. Can members of this House wonder what it would be like if in fact another government were bringing in legislation which would permit or call for electronic surveillance of people in the workplace? There would be a revolution taking place in this House.

In a very wonderful publication, Labour 1993, published by the St Catharines and District Labour Council, Karen Nussbaum, who is the president of SEIU Local 925, wrote an article which says: "High-Tech Snooping -- Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace." She makes some compelling arguments as to why it is dangerous when you have this kind of electronic surveillance that the government is now embarking upon through this bill. Let me quote a bit here:

"Electronic Spying Leads to Stress Award.

"The CAW won a recent appeal in Quebec that resulted in benefits to an Air Canada reservations employee who is off work on a stress-related illness caused by harassment by her supervisor. The CAW argued that using electronic monitoring and measuring equipment was harassment."

Indeed, I think a lot of people in this province would agree and would apply the logic contained in this particular ruling to the legislation the government is bringing forward.

There are many arguments that are made here against electronic surveillance. You have to be consistent on the other side of this House. You can't say, "Well, it's okay for this but it's not okay for that." Electronic surveillance is electronic surveillance, and I think the Information and Privacy Commissioner brought out a report a couple of weeks ago where he expressed some concern about that as well.

The other concern I have about this legislation is that the electronic monitoring and photo-radar are aimed at the vehicle as opposed to the driver. I think there's a recognition that it's the driver who should pay the penalty, that it's the driver who should be lectured by the police officer for committing the crime and not someone who happens to own the vehicle. Yes, one can make the argument that there will be a secondary admonishment of that particular person, but I think it takes it a step away, makes it less effective and is unfair when the ticket comes to the person who is the owner of that vehicle.

I know those who own car rental agencies, for instance, and those who own businesses where the vehicle is driven by someone else are going to be unfairly impacted by this legislation. But what is particularly disturbing, particularly from an NDP government, though the more I watch it in action, the more it appears like a Reform Party government in many of its provisions. My friend from York North says, "No matter how we vote, we get a Tory government in Ontario."

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): York Centre.

Mr Bradley: But here we have a piece of legislation which gives a licence to rich people to speed. In other words, since there are no points taken off, since there is not a direct impact, my understanding is, on insurance rates as a result of this, that means the more money you've got, the more chance you have to speed with virtual impunity, the only penalty being a financial penalty.

So the party which supposedly represents the underrepresented, represents those who in society have modest incomes, is a party that is again socking it to those in the lower-, moderate- and middle-income field and allowing the rich to be able to speed while the poor have a different rule applied. I would expect that of perhaps another political party much to the right of everyone, but I would not expect that of an NDP government.

We also know that the effect on insurance and the effect on demerit points are a far greater influence on most drivers than simply the fine. That's what gets me back to the fact that it is a cash cow, that what this government is really interested in is the money it can derive from this, because socking it to people on demerit points is effective -- I would say most people would agree with that -- and of course nobody wants to pay significantly higher insurance rates, so that can be a significant factor.

There's something else about this. People in this province have to know that all money goes into the consolidated revenue fund. This isn't going back to drivers; this isn't going back to roads; this isn't going back to anything to do with running the Ministry of Transportation; it is going into the consolidated revenue fund to be squandered by the government in whatever way it sees fit or to be spent, if one wants to be positive about it, on things other than anything to do with the Transportation ministry, and that's what one has --

Interjection: Tires.

Mr Bradley: Exactly. Any tax, any charge that comes in, goes into the consolidated revenue fund. I caution the government, which was so opposed to this in past days, to be opposed to it again today.

There are some things that have to be addressed on the highways. One is the dangerous driving. What we have to do is get the dangerous drivers off the road. These are people, for instance, who are switching lanes incessantly in very narrow opportunities. If you watch them go down the highway, they go from lane to lane to lane, wreaking havoc on the highway.

A second group of people are those who are tailgating, getting right up behind the car in front of them and putting themselves and others in a very dangerous situation. Those are people who deserve to be appropriately dealt with by the authorities. They are driving in a dangerous fashion.

But if you can tell me that at 12 o'clock midnight, when there are no cars on the road on some two-lane highway in rural Ontario, you have to have a photo-radar sitting there to catch people going, instead of 80 kilometres, 90 or 95 kilometres in those circumstances, then I think you're really looking for money. Also, I think the police have an opportunity to chase those in dangerous situations, bad weather conditions, for instance, or construction areas, who are violating the law. Those again are the kinds of people who should be ticketed.

1750

There's another group out there that a lot of people don't like to mention, but they're called the left-lane bandits. These are people who get out in the left lane of the highway and poke along and encourage people to be passing them on the right, people to be passing them on the left, people to be passing them in the centre lane, yet there doesn't seem to be any provision to deal with those people.

I'm not suggesting there aren't areas that have to be addressed. In fact, the government is bringing forward some measures, as previous governments have, to try to enhance safety. For instance, I mention their significant support for some form of graduated licensing so that new drivers have tougher provisions on them as they learn how to drive. They develop better habits. They're often younger drivers who are impressionable and want to impress others with certain things they do in their vehicles. I think when you went around the province, you found some pretty good support. I think you found on this side of the House and that side of the House a pretty good consensus that there was a need for a form of graduated licensing in this province. That's something that will certainly be an improvement.

There is support today, and I think there always has been, strong support, for the wearing of seatbelts and the new seats they have for young children in vehicles. That's a safety measure that I think there's a pretty good consensus for in terms of support.

I think there's support for better-constructed vehicles, when you have air bags in them, the new kinds of restraints that are there, the new ways in which vehicles are constructed. When governments, particularly at the federal level, compel these safety measures, there is good support. Even though in some cases it costs a little more for the vehicle, people tend to support those kinds of safety measures, that kind of safety construction.

People support better driver training. It boggles the mind to think that a person can get a licence and have never driven on a highway. There are lots of things that happen during that test, and the tests are tougher today than they were in the past. Heaven knows, it's hard to get an appointment any more to get a test because of the social contract and the backup that's existing there, but people would say better driver training would be very helpful. Let's get those habits changed at the very beginning, or driver retraining for those who are chronic and dangerous violators of the laws of the province.

People will support the expenditure of capital funds on better-constructed highways. The people who reside in certain areas -- Highway 403; Highway 401 in western Ontario -- have had some accidents where cars have jumped the median. One can say there's good support for putting the necessary blockage in that middle lane. I listen to people from that part of the province who say, "We're delighted to see that happen, because it provides another safety measure."

There's consensus in that. It's not just some cash cow, because it's costing money, but most people are in favour of that kind of expenditure which will enhance safety because they know that it has nothing to do with raising funds for the government, that it has nothing to do with raising a profile or meeting a political need, that it's meeting a safety need. That's why there's considerable support for that kind of measure. The government will find that there will be consensus in the House on matters of that kind.

There is support for throwing the book at dangerous drivers, for really being tough on those who are dangerous. Let me tell you of a situation I think of that's particularly dangerous; that is, the people who speed through zones which are school zones at a time when the kids are coming out. Again, there's a good consensus that those people should be hit hard. I see the police vehicles from time to time hiding in certain places, watching for that in a school zone, where there's a lot of violation taking place that could be directly dangerous to children. People support that kind of thing. They don't support something which is simply a cash cow.

People support being very hard on those who are driving with suspended licences, who have repeatedly had their licence lost as a result of traffic violations and who continue to drive. People are prepared to be tough on those people.

I notice that the RCMP is opposed to photo-radar. Now there is an organization which is widely respected throughout the world, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it has indicated its opposition. The member for Leeds-Grenville quoted extensively from the RCMP and its opposition to the concept of photo-radar.

We have a bill before us that has very dangerous provisions, even though I read in the Toronto Star of May 14 "Ontario Road Deaths at Lowest Since 1954." Had there been a significant increase, I would say perhaps the government was trying to respond to a significant increase, but instead there had been a decrease, which tells me even more that it's a matter of money.

There have been people who have written some articles that I commend to members; I won't quote them entirely. Jim Kenzie writes in the automotive section of the Toronto Star. John Downing, who is an editor at the Toronto Sun, writes as follows: "It hasn't got the notoriety yet that it deserves but the" -- and he calls it the "Boob Rae government"; I'm just quoting, I'm not saying that -- "Boob Rae government is about to live up to its name and inflict another money grab on us while pretending it's a safety measure."

This is an objective person, John Downing. He says:

"Photo-radar is just what you would expect from that name. An $80,000 gizmo can take pictures of the rear licence of a speeding car, day or night. A month later, the owner of the licence plate gets a colour photo in the mail, and the fine amount.

"Fighting it will be near impossible. You pay, whether the car was stolen, being driven without permission, was on its way to a fire or birth etc, all the stuff usually sorted out by the cop that stops you."

While I understand some of the concern about leaving discretion to police officers, on the other hand, I think a lot of police officers are quite reasonable when there is a legitimate explanation, and I mean legitimate, not just an excuse, but a genuine reason that would excuse a person from it, such as taking someone to the hospital or something of that nature. Photo-radar will not ask that question. You'll simply be penalized by it.

Mr Downing goes on to say, "Photo-radar is found in Bill 47, which has various changes for the administration of justice, including those the opposition claim would make it easier for an appeal to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada than to fight a parking ticket in Ontario." He goes on to make some rather interesting comments.

Jim Kenzie, and I won't go into great detail, says that a lot of the study that he has done indicates that this is a cash cow and that it is not something which is primarily designed for safety.

There are some other provisions of the bill which make me concerned, and that is how you can get access to the courts, particularly if you're out of town. All of us as members of Parliament have had calls from people who have had problems with tickets they got somewhere else. Now, when you're the Solicitor General, you have to not deal with those because you're not allowed to, or you get into trouble, but other members of the government can pass them along to the appropriate authorities who can make a decision.

This is a person who's from Middlesex county who gets a ticket in downtown Toronto, and he was never in downtown Toronto, but the ticket comes back to this person, and if he wants to fight it, we're now making it much more difficult to fight that, because it says persons wishing to dispute a charge will be required to do so "on the notice." Also, in some areas, to be designated by regulation, defendants will be required to file notice of intent to dispute in person or through an agent "and cannot mail the notice." Well, that's fine if you live in that community, but if you live far away and you have to come under this provision, it's a definite imposition. It's a very impractical provision.

It says, "Defendants can be convicted without a hearing if they fail to appear at trial." Well, they're going to have to go through a long process of explaining why they're not there and have somebody believe that process. It is often a case where people cannot make it to a trial of that kind easily and they end up getting convicted without a hearing.

"No person in default can be jailed if he or she is unable to pay the fine." Persons under 18 don't pay fines. You may have some problems with that.

I see that the time has almost expired, and that is the time for the debate on this whole legislation. It doesn't do much good, but I warn the government that you are in a real problem with this legislation. I'm surprised to see an NDP government bring it forward. I'm very concerned that you'll not bring it out for public debate; that is, through public hearings. I can tell you that this is simply a cash cow, a revenue producer for the government of the province of Ontario.

If you'd bring forward other measures, genuine measures that deal with genuine safety issues, you would find great support among those of us who are in the opposition and among the people of this province.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of the fact that time allocation has been imposed on this debate, I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent to extend the sitting until 8 o'clock so that those of us who want to say something on this bill will have an opportunity to do that.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: It is now 6 of the clock. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1801.

15 novembre 1993