The House met at 1331.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
CORNWALL COURTHOUSE
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): It was with great interest that I heard the Premier make a grand announcement last Wednesday about the funding for three new courthouses. The Premier said that the courthouses would streamline service and create 3,000 badly needed construction jobs. Rae added, "This initiative is welcome news for the communities of Hamilton, Windsor and Cornwall."
I have some news for the Premier: The announcement for the provincial courthouse in Cornwall was made by the former Premier over three and a half years ago. Since then, various ministers have attempted to maintain the promise. On October 7, 1991, the former Government Services minister and Attorney General announced, "The building will proceed." On December 3, 1991, the MGS minister added, "It is well under way right now." On April 2, 1992, the MGS minister said, "We should have the shovels in the ground next spring."
Last Wednesday's announcement is positive, but it is not new nor should it be considered an initiative. The residents of my riding have been waiting for a long, long time: since May 14, 1990. In fact, the local newspaper stated, "The NDP government is well on its way to establishing some kind of milestone for foot-dragging." So while I am relieved that the Premier has finally decided to proceed, it is unfortunate that he has delayed the project almost two and a half years.
Premier Rae has also failed to reaffirm a commitment to bring jobs to our area by transferring a ministry, agency or department. I hope the Cornwall area may benefit from the location of one of the new crown corporations.
PERTH SOAP ENTERPRISES
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. In May of this year, Jergens Canada Inc announced that its soap plant would be shut down, putting another 87 people out of work in the town of Perth. Perth has suffered greatly from closures and job losses during the last two and a half years.
Fortunately, due to a cooperative effort between the minister, myself, executives of the newly formed Perth Soap, the mayor and council of the town of Perth, the Lanark county development officer and the Ontario Development Corp, jobs at the Perth soap plant have now been saved.
Yesterday, the newly formed Perth Soap Enterprises company received the Treasurer's approval for a $1-million loan guarantee from the Eastern Ontario Development Corp to ensure the continued operation of this plant. The provincial loan is part of a $1.6-million startup project which will ensure that this plant and these jobs are sustained in the town of Perth.
I would like to thank the minister for her positive intervention in an effort that has saved an industry which has provided employment in Perth for 75 years.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise again today to bring to the attention of this House and the government the need for property tax reform.
Across Ontario our property tax system is riddled with inequities and unfairness. Poor, low-income and moderate-income families, as well as the unemployed, are being penalized by a regressive property tax system which is not based on ability to pay.
In Metropolitan Toronto we have a system which is based on 1940 market values and all of the unfairness and inequity that entails. Many of us have tried to bring Metro's property tax system into the 1990s through market value reassessment and, more recently, through a process called equalization. Although determined in our approach, we have been unsuccessful in making our property tax system in Metro a little fairer.
In November 1992, I introduced a resolution, which passed in this House, in which I asked that education taxes be taken off the backs of property taxpayers. Today I again ask this Parliament and this government to reform in a more meaningful way our antiquated, unfair, unequal, regressive property tax system by removing education financing from property taxes and provide tax relief to those people who need it most.
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Last week Ottawa-Carleton council passed a motion to pull out of a federal-provincial study examining a site for a new interprovincial bridge and also to reject car bridges at all four proposed locations.
This vote represents a historic victory for the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton, who proved that grass-roots democracy can work. Thanks to the hard work of people like Cheryl Parrot, Alf Wahab, Judy Lishman, Joe Courtney, Linda Davis, Peggy MacGillivry, Dan Brunton and many, many other citizens across the region, the politicians have stood up and listened to their demands for a more rational solution in addressing our transportation needs.
However, this is only the first step. As a senior partner in the bridges study group, the provincial government must now endorse the wishes of Ottawa-Carleton residents.
The final decision rests with the Minister of Transportation and his officials, and I hope they have heard the people's message loud and clear. The province cannot impose a new bridge on the region if the people don't want one.
LANDFILL
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Last Friday the NDP government's Interim Waste Authority laid out the final piece of its draconian measure to create three megadumps. The IWA's decision defies logic and it has forced a massive travesty upon York region, in particular on the residents of Vaughan.
From the beginning of the Bill 143 process, the government has spat upon the residents of York region and the people of Durham and Peel. The NDP has denied these people their fundamental right to a review of all alternatives.
The NDP has said no to Kirkland Lake, it has said no to incineration, it has said no to any and all other alternatives. Is this democracy? No. This is what it means to live in Ontario under an NDP regime.
Today a group of committed dump fighters tabled a proposal that works within the parameters of the IWA requirements. This group has demonstrated a less offensive way to dispose of trash in the area where it is created. Unfortunately, this too will probably die.
Interjection.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Downsview.
Mr Cousens: The NDP has dictated all along where the dumps would go.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member for Downsview, please come to order.
Mr Cousens: They will continue to dictate what type of dump will be built. The NDP will create one huge megahole filled with rotting, contaminated garbage in each region.
If the IWA and the NDP think this battle is over, they're mistaken. The battle is just beginning. Bob Rae, Ruth Grier, Bud Wildman, Jim Wiseman, Larry O'Connor and Gordon Mills should all be held accountable for this disastrous decision.
Again, I commit myself to the dump fight in York region. I will continue to call for a review of all alternatives. It will be a long time before the ground will break for a dump site in York region.
1340
KINGSTON TRANSIT FACILITY
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): On Monday, November 8, I was pleased to take part in the ground-breaking ceremonies of the new Kingston Public Utilities transit facility. The funding assistance for this project shows our government's continued commitment towards both public transit and job creation.
As evidence of our support, we are providing the city of Kingston with $3.7 million in funding towards the cost of this new transit facility. That's 75% of the total cost of almost $5 million.
Our assistance also signifies our commitment towards stimulation of local economies, because this project supports jobs in both the construction industry and the transit sector. Construction of the building will create approximately 100 local jobs. It frees up an attractive lot in the downtown core, where the present garage is located, for future development.
Size, location and design of the new Kingston transit facility will be appreciated long after the scheduled completion of the project in August of next year. For example, innovative technology has been used for the outdoor storage of 40 buses, which is easily expandable to accommodate future growth, and the location makes it convenient to provide servicing for Voyageur coaches and highway buses that bring the many tourists to the Kingston area.
I learned at the ground-breaking ceremony that the cooperation between the transit unions and management in planning the new facility was a significant factor in the success of the design and location of the facility.
Projects like this one and the recent announcement of almost $3 million to improve the Norman Rogers Municipal Airport will enhance both the Kingston area and the province's transportation network for years to come.
TIMISKAMING LAND DISPUTE
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I rise today on a matter that's of great urgency to the constituents of Timiskaming. As most of the members know, for 20 years there has been a land caution on 10,000 square kilometres of land in my riding, twice the size of the province of Prince Edward Island. This results from a long-standing land dispute by the Teme-Augama Anishnabai nation and the province of Ontario and, for 20 years, court hearings going all the way to the Supreme Court and off-and-on negotiations.
This summer, an agreement between the Ontario government and the nation was reached. But last weekend, the nation failed to ratify that agreement.
Today I'm standing in my place in this House to call upon this government to lift that land caution. I know that in the end there has to be a negotiated settlement to this, but our patience has run out in the riding of Timiskaming. Enough is enough. We have to get on with development. We have to get on with mineral exploration. This is a very large piece of Ontario. Jobs have been hurt. Jobs have been lost. We have suffered in our economic development in Timiskaming. We have to get on with this.
I would ask that the government immediately seek through the court of Ontario a lifting of this land caution so that we can get on to mineral exploration and other development, and that the government continue with its negotiation, because until we have a negotiated settlement, this will not be settled. It will only be settled through negotiation, but we have to have this caution lifted so that we can get on with development in northern Ontario, and specifically in the riding of Timiskaming.
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I rise today to mark the death of two small independent businesses in my riding of Leeds and Grenville that recently closed their doors.
Jim and Belva Pelehos operated Everyman's Smoke Shop in Prescott for 28 years. The proceeds from their shop were good enough to raise four children, each of whom took their turn behind the counter.
Pat and Eleanor Dickey of Portland recently found themselves in similar straits. After operating the Gallagher Tourist House for seven years, they closed up the inn for the last time on November 1.
Both couples blame the demise of their shops at least in part on high taxes and government red tape. The Pelehoses point to the recession, high provincial and federal taxes, and cigarette smuggling. The Dickeys, in their closure announcement, mention the frustration they felt coping with mounds of government paperwork and high taxes.
The Pelehoses and the Dickeys are only four people. They represent only four full-time jobs and a handful of part-time jobs. But they are examples of the growing anger and frustration small business owners experience every day.
According to the NDP government's 1990 Annual Report on Small Business in Ontario, firms employing fewer than five people made the most significant contribution to job creation. It is these job creators, the likes of the Pelehoses and the Dickeys, who are being driven under by overregulation, exorbitant taxes, and NDP fee and licensing hikes. I urge the government to provide some much-needed first aid to small businesses in the form of reduced taxation and government red tape before more are forced to close their doors.
PAPER INDUSTRY
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take this opportunity to report to the Legislature some of the probably ground-breaking work that's been done in the community of Iroquois Falls between the Abitibi group within that community and the people who work there, through their unions.
As everybody would know, the paper industry has been undergoing some very tremendous downward trends over the past three or four years, not only because of markets but also because of the price itself in regard to the product they produce. This has meant that the paper industry overall, across Canada and North America in general, has been having some really big difficulty being able to keep its doors open and to keep in production.
To rise to that challenge the unions came together with management in order to try to find some solutions by which they tried to safeguard some of the work they have in that community, as Abitibi is basically the biggest employer within that community. They did a number of things that allowed a layoff that was announced some year and a half to two years ago to be minimized to the point that very few people actually now are in a position where they're without work. They've allowed people to take early retirement, go back to school, maintain their seniority and do a number of other things.
As well, they've allowed some modernization to go in the plant by some very unique ways of raising dollars, through employee participation, to be able to increase the overall productivity of that plant.
I say that because far too often in this province, like every other, we are very quick to point out some of the failings of our system, but I think this is one place where we can truly say that the workers at Abitibi, through their unions and the management of Abitibi-Price, in Iroquois Falls have come together to be able to find some solutions to some very difficult problems.
Is the problem over? No. Have they overcome all of the past history within those two groups? No. But at least it's a step in the right direction and we should salute them for the efforts they've had up to now.
LANDFILL
Mr Peter North (Elgin): I rise today on a very important issue to the members of Elgin county. It's an issue that I think needs to be brought to bear. We have in our particular county a landfill which is known as Green Lane landfill. For some time now, since September 1991, that landfill has been closed. The people of Elgin county, through their municipalities, have funded a study of the landfill and developed a plan to move ahead to reopen the landfill and again look towards economic development in Elgin county.
We have, with great difficulty, tried to convey that message to the government of the province of Ontario. We have actually gone through some $2.5 million to go through the process. We've gone through the process and we've been able to get an interim expansion agreement, but not a certificate.
Since that fateful day when we got an agreement, we have had a petition to the executive council and cabinet. We have since that day waited some 81 days, or in Elgin county terms, $810,000 later for a decision from the government of Ontario. We would be pleased to hear that decision at their earliest convenience.
I understand they're in the mood to give landfills away to people who don't want them; perhaps they would consider giving some to people who do.
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We were advised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be attending question period. We have urgent questions for him. Just moments ago I was advised that he would be in the chamber, and I'm just wondering if we could have that point clarified.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member, as he knows, does not have a point of order.
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): He's coming.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Attaboy, Ed.
The Speaker: Indeed, perhaps it's the power of the question itself.
It is now time for oral questions and the honourable member for York Centre.
ORAL QUESTIONS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): My question is indeed for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is responsible I take it for the government's waste management policies at the current time.
I want to take up where I left off yesterday, and I want to reiterate that had the minister or anyone in his cabinet or his caucus had the courage to attend the Interim Waste Authority's press conference last Friday, he or they could have personally evidenced the degree of anger and outrage that has spread all across the greater Toronto area and indeed all across the province as a result of the work of the IWA and the policies of this government.
Today there was another press conference, this one held at Queen's Park. It was organized and attended by five of the citizens' groups that are currently waging a fierce battle against the government's waste management policies, the work of the IWA and the impact of Bill 143.
1350
The purpose of that press conference, and again the minister didn't have the courtesy to attend, was to lend some support for at least a study of certain proposals being made by a group called Resources Not Garbage. That group says it is possible to cut the waste stream by some 81%. They say it is possible to deliver a better environmental solution and one that will save the province over $100 million as compared with the proposals under Bill 143.
I want to ask the minister whether he will simply open the door, stop the train that is going down the track to oblivion, change the policy, change the act and allow these alternative proposals to be studied and compared against his megadump, superdump strategy that's being imposed on the people of the greater Toronto area.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I was at another meeting while the press conference was being held, but I can assure you that staff of the Ministry of Environment and Energy were in attendance, and they were very appreciative that a group that had received funding from this government, funding that was never given by any previous government, was able to come forward with a set of creative and positive ideas, and indeed that they recognized the value of the 3R program which the honourable member and his party have been so critical of. They have some creative and positive ideas, and we will certainly be examining those ideas.
I can tell you that Bill 7 --
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Come down to my riding.
Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member says to come down to his riding. I can tell you that I was at Marmora a couple of weeks ago and those people the Liberals wanted to put a dump on are pretty happy today.
The IWA based its projections on reaching 50% by the year 2000. This government has spent some $49 million on the 3R program in the GTA since coming to power. That's more than any government has done. We have at least shown leadership, rather than waiting around, not dealing with the problem for the last 20 years, the way the previous two governments have.
Mr Sorbara: The minister is wrong. The government has wasted $49 million on a process that will never bear any fruit. I want him to speak directly to the environmental groups that are in the gallery. What they say is that the reason why the proposals by Resources Not Garbage can't be studied, the reason why the Kirkland Lake proposal can't be studied, the reason why a host of other proposals that could solve this crisis can't be studied is because Ruth Grier and Bob Rae passed a bill in this Legislature which said that the only possible solution is a big hole in York region, a megadump in York region, outhouse technology in York region. Nothing else can be studied. We've wasted $50 million on this process and I want to tell the minister that it is not going to succeed.
I want to ask him: Does he insist on waiting until the next general election, when this proposal will go out with this government, or will he simply do the right thing, open the door, open the windows, let the fresh air of new ideas infect this process, and together these citizens' groups, this Parliament and this province can solve this crisis, rather than create an unnecessary war with the people of York region, with the people of Durham and with the people of Peel?
Hon Mr Philip: What the previous government was going to do was go ahead with Whitevale without any kind of environmental assessment, without any kind of environmental checks. That was the policy of the previous government.
This government has said that no project will go ahead without a full environmental assessment, a full inquiry before the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board and, furthermore, that we will fund the intervenors, namely the community groups that have some concern about this in the three communities, to the tune of $1.5 million. That's acting responsibly, not opening dumps without any kind of environmental assessment the way the previous government would have done.
Mr Sorbara: Well, talk about a load of garbage: what the previous government did. The Treasurer says, "What the previous government did," and the Minister of Transportation says, "What the previous" -- oh my God, is this responsible government? Is this what we're getting from this band of reprobates?
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Come to order. Would the member take his seat. I know the honourable member's capacity for the language. I would ask that he place his question in a suitable manner.
Mr Sorbara: I said "band of reprobates." I'll withdraw that because frankly they are a band of -- well, let's not get into that.
I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on whose behalf is he promoting this policy? Yesterday he said that the garbage was going to York region because there was an agreement between York region and Metropolitan Toronto. That simply misstates reality. There is no such agreement, save and except an agreement that Metro Toronto entered into to accept York region's garbage in Keele Valley for the period of the life of Keele Valley and nothing further.
The lunacy of this policy is that aside from Durham and aside from Peel, we're really talking about what to do with the garbage of three million people --
The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.
Mr Sorbara: -- I'm going to do that -- in Metro Toronto. The fact is, I tell the minister, that even Metro Toronto says that the minister's solution is too expensive.
It will not work. They do not want it and they will continue to examine other alternatives and await the defeat of the government.
The Speaker: Will the member please place a question.
Mr Sorbara: I ask the minister once again, will he simply amend the bill to allow other, more viable alternatives to be compared and contrasted and studied as against the megadump policy, and let the best solution win? Will the minister just do that?
Hon Mr Philip: If the honourable member had read the bill, he'd realize that under the present proposal, new technology such as the above-ground landfill proposal that has been proposed this morning by the group can in fact be considered by the IWA. That's part of the proposal. What we have is an independent --
Mr Sorbara: That's stupid, Ed.
The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.
Hon Mr Philip: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I'm being called stupid by the honourable member, but that is in fact the case. It is in fact the case --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Philip: It is in fact the case that that's the smartest remark he could come up with in his attack on the government. That's the case.
The fact is that it can be considered, and I'm sure the IWA will be happy to consider that and any other proposal.
MICHAEL DECTER
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a second question for the Chairman of the Management Board. Mr Minister, later this week Michael Decter, that golden boy of the new democracy in Manitoba, will conclude his 22 months of public service to this province as someone with the rank and status as deputy minister. During that 22-month period, which will terminate this week, Mr Decter has, among other things, served his friend and Premier, Mr Rae, in many capacities, but perhaps most memorably as the enforcer for the NDP's social contract.
The Rae social contract, as we all know, basically asks the people in the public service to do more with less. Mr Decter and Mr Rae have asked us all, invited us all and told us all to pull in our belts.
Is the Chairman of Management Board aware that in his 22 months as deputy minister, Mr Decter has run up bills, personal expenses, totalling $102,410.24? Is the Chairman of the Management Board aware that this golden boy from Manitoba, brought in to enforce the social contract, has in the space of 22 months racked up $102,000 worth of expenses?
1400
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): No, I was not specifically aware of the expense claims of the Deputy Minister of Health, any more than I individually keep track of the expense claims of every other deputy in the government. But in respect to the basic question which the member is raising, as I understand it there is not any significant or outrageous list of expenditures by the Deputy Minister of Health over the course of the months he spent with the government; in fact, a far lower rate of expenditure than his predecessor.
Mr Conway: The documents that I have received, provided by the government, indicate that in that 22-month period, from September 1991 through June 1993, Mr Decter has incurred expenses totalling $102,000, made up generally of some $36,599 for meals, hotels, flights, taxis, a leased car, and some $65,000 worth of relocating and housing expenses, that when you add this all up, you get $102,000, and that when compared with other deputy ministers, it is in fact a very high expenditure.
Given the fact that Mr Decter's principal job in the last 18 months has been around the social contract, telling the nearly one million people who work in the broader Ontario public service that they have got to tighten their belts, that they have got to do more with less, is it not exquisitely embarrassing for the government that Mr Decter, the enforcer of this social contract, has racked up this kind of personal expenditure, as I say, $102,000 in 22 months?
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): And is it true that he's going to be the next president of the NHL?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't run the NHL.
Is it embarrassing for the government? No. Let's just be very blunt. As the member for Renfrew North has raised the question, I'm certainly prepared to look into the specific questions he raises, but there are a number of things that have to be made clear at the front end of this.
The member referred to a list of expenses, including accommodation allowances because this particular deputy minister came from another jurisdiction, which is a fairly normal practice. Some deputy ministers, as the member well knows, come from other provinces; some of them come from the bureaucracy in Ottawa from time to time. Governments traditionally have paid for their relocation expenses. Again, in this case, when we do those comparisons, this particular deputy's expenses come up not any significantly different than others who have gone through the same process.
Mr Conway: I appreciate that last point, because the government's own Management Board rules provide, in the enhanced relocation plan criteria, that the special benefits should be paid out to people only if they commit to serving for at least two years. So your pal, this golden boy from Manitoba, has received a very substantial housing and relocation benefit and he has just managed to squeeze in under the minimum requirement. So I have been looking at your rules and they have been applied here most interestingly.
I find it interesting that on June 8, 1993, when Premier Bob Rae was announcing that he was about to introduce social contract legislation that was going to have a very real impact on a very large number of people and public services in this jurisdiction, Michael Decter was down at the Bangkok Garden dining with David Agnew and Ross McClellan and sending a bill of $182.41 to the taxpayer. It wasn't everybody, you see, whose principal job it was to enforce the social contract. This enforcer, this special New Democratic golden boy brought in here --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member pose a question, please.
Mr Conway: -- at a cost of $140,000 of annual salary and $102,000 for the expenses, had, I believe, an obligation to set a better and higher standard.
The Speaker: Would the member take -- the member has posed his question.
Hon Mr Charlton: Again, I repeat two things for the member for Renfrew North. Firstly, I have undertaken to look into the questions that the member has raised. Secondly, the higher standard of performance which the member for Renfrew North refers to, as I've already suggested, exists as compared to some of the appointees from the past.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Yesterday, the Management Board Chair reluctantly pulled an ad which barred many Ontarians from applying for a government job. However, he refused to pull the discriminatory policy behind that ad.
The message this sends is that you intend to proceed with discriminatory hiring; you just won't be so blatant about it. You won't in fact advertise it any more. If this is true, the phone calls that my office is getting today, has been flooded with today, are that you might as well bring back the ads and be truthful about it as to try to smoke us on this and go ahead with the policy and simply pull the ad because the ad was offensive.
You're the minister responsible for employment equity for all Ontarians. Will you acknowledge today that the policy that led to those ads was itself discriminatory, was wrong, and that you will cancel it today?
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): First of all, I'd like to clarify a position, because I think the viewers out there might have some misunderstanding.
First of all, the Management Board is acting on its own initiative. Bill 79 is not passed. So linking the two together is a little bit premature, so to speak.
The area of looking at positive measures is extremely important not only in Bill 79 but in everything that we do, because positive measures, if I can explain, means many different things. So it means that you might have job-sharing, job-shadowing, mentoring, making sure that people who need to have an opportunity could have an opportunity to look at a job they are interested in and have a better understanding of that job.
Yesterday, yes, the Chair of Management Board said he was pulling the ad, but he also said he was reviewing the policy. That is what is happening. The policy is being reviewed by the Chair of Management Board and the ad has been pulled. I don't see what more we can say to you but to say that is happening and we are continuing to look at the issue.
1410
Mr Harris: Because you refuse to cancel the policy, you simply say it's under review, we can only assume that you think that under some circumstances it's okay, as a means to an end, to put up new barriers to employment for some Ontarians. That's the message as long as you leave that policy in place. It sends a very dangerous message to employers in this province.
Under Bill 79, your employment equity legislation for the private sector, you are demanding that employers in the private sector must meet artificial quotas that you cannot meet yourself without discrimination in the public sector. These are in your bill as well. Under your legislation, and by following your example under Bill 79, private sector employers can also bar any identified group from applying for a job.
Minister, while the policy is under review in the public sector, would you not agree that we should halt proceeding in committee with Bill 79, which has the very same provisions in it for private sector employers, until we get the results of your review? Would you not agree that makes sense?
Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, Bill 79 does not have artificial quotas and I think you know that. I think you understand that employers will be setting their own goals and timetables, looking at their own respective communities and looking at the barriers.
Yesterday, I listened very carefully to what the leader of the third party said. I heard him talking about employment equity and that true employment equity was removing barriers. That is exactly what Bill 79 says. It talks about qualitative measures that remove the systemic barriers that exist in today's society.
The member opposite also talks about stopping and halting Bill 79. The positive measures that are listed in Bill 79 are in regulations, not in legislation. What we are discussing right now is the legislation, not the regulations.
Will I withdraw Bill 79? No, because this is an extremely important piece of legislation for everybody in Ontario.
Mr Harris: Minister, you admit that you're reviewing the policy for the public sector, yet you're proceeding with legislation that permits exactly the same thing in the private sector. In fact, you acknowledge that it will be by regulation that none of us will get a chance to debate. No legislator, no employer will get a chance to debate the regulations that this bill permits, and that's even scarier than spelling it out in the legislation.
It's not quotas; it's "numerical goals." You want the listeners out there to know it's numerical goals that have to be achieved, not quotas. Let's be clear about that. I don't know what the difference is.
Your handling of employment equity is indefensible. Yesterday, the Premier admitted he didn't even know that Bill 79 takes away the right to appeal to the Human Rights Commission if you are barred from applying for a job. You're not going to get a chance to debate it. You're going to proceed with it. It could come in by regulation, and Bill 79 -- the Premier didn't even know that.
In committee yesterday, Minister, you dropped a new stack of changes to try to fix the bill at the 11th hour. There is virtual chaos in the committee. Your own members don't know what's in the bill. Your own ministry people don't know what's going to be the result of your policy review. You now have over 50 amendments. Are you so ideologically bent on bringing forward legislation at any cost that you have lost sight of the intent of employment equity?
I didn't say cancel the bill, Minister. I asked if you will suspend proceeding with the bill, withdraw it, until we have a review of the policy for the public sector, and go back to the table and look at measures that will truly result in equity in our province's public and private sector workplaces.
Hon Ms Ziemba: There are many comments that the leader of the third party made, but I wanted to highlight one because I think this is extremely important.
The leader of the third party kept referring to the Premier's remarks yesterday relating to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its code. The code was amended in 1982. In my historical memory, that means that the Conservatives were the government in power, and in my historical memory they were the ones who brought in the amendments to the code that say positive measures can be used for designated group members in the workplace.
It was a very good measure in 1982, as it is in 1993. I have no intention of amending the Human Rights Code through Bill 79, and I would like to say to the member opposite, look at the people who were in government in 1982 who had a very good issue and effective role in human rights issues; don't go back and take away people's rights and don't go back on what you did in 1982.
This bill has been designed by many, many meetings and consultations. I have spoken to many employers who understand what Bill 79 will do, who believe that this will work.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased with the results of Bill 79, and we are committed to making sure that we have fair and equitable representation in all of our workplaces across Ontario, with or without your help.
Mr Harris: I want to tell you that the changes made to the Human Rights Code in 1982 -- I chaired the committee; Dr Bob Elgie brought them in -- didn't anticipate the government --
The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?
Mr Harris: -- bringing in these kinds of positive measures that discriminated.
The Speaker: Order. Will the leader take his seat, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the member for Nipissing please resume his seat.
Interjections.
The Speaker: The leader of the third party with his second question.
PHOTO-RADAR
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Transportation. Late yesterday, your government brought in a motion to shut down debate on your totalitarian, Orwellian, photo-radar cash-grab legislation.
For a government that promised to be open, this closure action is the height of arrogance, the height of exactly everything you campaigned against and you said you were for. Why are you so desperate to ram this legislation through that you are not even willing to listen to any viewpoint other than your own?
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You have been a witness and a party by virtue of your mandate, Mr Speaker. You can attest better than anyone that we have spent a full five days debating this safety initiative -- not one, not two, not three, not four but a full five days -- which is one heck of a lot longer than we were allowed to spend at second reading of any bill when we were sitting there, and then when we sat there, and back and forth for a number of years.
This is a safety initiative. Some 1,100 are losing their lives in Ontario. We shall not be deterred. We wish to make the roads of Ontario the safest in North America because we care about 90,000 lives. We're hoping that this project will not cost too much money. We're going forward.
Mr Harris: The only reason this government is ramming photo-radar through is because it is desperate for cash.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yell louder, Mike.
Mr Harris: It is the Treasurer who is yelling loudly and he is the one who is desperate for cash. That's why you're proceeding.
Hon Mr Laughren: Yell more. Shout more, Mike. Shout louder.
1420
Mr Harris: I understand the Treasurer yelling and screaming and ranting and raving in the Legislature today. He needs the cash.
You, in your haste, are recklessly disregarding the people of Ontario. You are refusing to allow the taxpayers of this province, the people who elected you, to participate in the public policy debate. You have decreed there will be no public hearings, no public input on this bill. You didn't campaign on photo-radar. You have no campaign mandate to proceed. It came right out of left field, so to speak, before the public. You have no right to act without even consulting the public. Will you commit today to allow full public hearings on this bill before proceeding?
Hon Mr Pouliot: If I come out of left field, the member opposite, with respect of course, is straight out of the ballpark.
Mr Speaker, you will recall, perhaps vividly, that when the safety belt as a safety measure, the "Buckle Up" campaign was introduced, people called it an infringement on people's rights. You will recall that when radar was first introduced -- radar traps, if you wish -- again it was called a tax grab by members of the opposition. Whenever we're talking about safety, we're talking about life; nothing short of that. We're hoping this program will not cost the taxpayers too much money. That's the bottom line. We're not interested in making money. That's not what it's about.
Was it a tax grab when it was introduced in California? Was there a tax grab when it reached Arizona? When the Scandinavian countries endorsed this kind of system, was it a tax grab? Why don't we stop imputing motives and stick with the reality that we are determined to make Ontario's roads indeed the safest, not the second-safest but the safest, in North America. That's the crux of the matter. That's what we're doing; no more, no less.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Pouliot: We're going forward.
Mr Harris: The sad fact is this. It is the people of Ontario who are not even allowed into the ballpark. It is the people of Ontario, the public, who have been shut out. When a Progressive Conservative government brought in seatbelt legislation, the public were invited to comment. There were public hearings. There was public debate. We had input on a change of policy. The fact of the matter is Bill 47 is a cash cow, and you need the cash right away. It has less to do with safety than it does with the state of the province's finances.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost?
The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham Centre.
Mr Harris: Minister, if you can hear me over the yelling and screaming of your members, quite frankly, it is legislation that is so full of holes that you feel it won't stand up to public scrutiny, so you're hiding it from the public. Many feel it won't stand up to a court challenge. In your government's first throne speech you said this: "It is a government that will listen to the people." This is the swearing in. You remember that day over at the University of Toronto?
Why in this photo-radar legislation will you not allow the people to come and express their views? Why are you now shutting them out of the process with closure legislation that precludes any public input at all into this change of policy?
Hon Mr Pouliot: The member asks an interesting question. The people are not shut out. There will be some public hearings. There will be two days of public hearings. The House leader made a choice: longer or shorter debate, more or less time at committee. We're going through the process. The committee can sit at night if it wishes --
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You haven't read the motion. There are no public hearings. You don't even know what you're talking about.
The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills, come to order.
Hon Mr Pouliot: -- to accommodate all those people who wish to partake in the legislation.
Mr Turnbull: There are no public hearings. You haven't read the motion.
The Speaker: Would the member for York Mills please come to order.
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: No. Would the member please take his seat. Minister.
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's rather obvious that if anyone stole time from the public, it is they. But let me go back briefly because it's connected, directly related: Speed kills. One out of every six fatalities is caused by people exceeding, surpassing the speed limit. We're not going to --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They fixed the roads with the money. Hire more police.
The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order.
Hon Mr Pouliot: This is a question of morality. This is an obligation. How can we, myself as Minister of Transportation and this government, not seize the opportunity to lessen the carnage that's actually taking place? I don't want to have to carry the guilt and I shall not. This is responsible legislation.
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Pouliot: The people will be able to voice their concerns, to come up with alternatives and as always we shall listen and proceed.
CANCER TREATMENT
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I think it's news to all of us that the Minister of Transportation sets the rules of the House, but my question is to the Minister of Health.
Last Thursday I visited the cancer clinic at the Toronto Hospital. That clinic was totally empty. There wasn't a patient, there wasn't a doctor, there wasn't a therapist and there wasn't a nurse in that cancer clinic. On a normal day, 250 cancer patients receive care at that particular clinic. They receive chemotherapy, diagnostic tests, their progress is evaluated, they receive counselling from nurses and social workers and they receive ambulatory medication. None of those things happened last Thursday.
You said, Minister, that no health care services would be affected by your expenditure cuts and in particular by the social contract. What do you have to say to those 250 cancer patients for whom there was no treatment available? Their health care services were clearly cut.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The circumstances surrounding that closure I assume were related to decisions made by the hospital. I'm not familiar with the fact that that had happened. I am not for a moment saying that there have not been changes in scheduling and adjustments having had to be made as hospitals take into account changes in their funding. But let me say again to the member and to all members that essential and critical services have not been affected by any of the moves or the changes this government has made.
Mrs Sullivan: Ask a patient who was scheduled for treatment if the service he or she was going to receive last Thursday was not an essential and critical service. Ask the patient what he believes about the chemotherapy that he had originally been scheduled for.
Minister, your government, not the hospitals, has caused these service cuts to happen. You have set the rules. You imposed the law to do that. You reduced transfers; you imposed wage freezes; you required the social contract days when staff can't provide the services; you've dictated the early retirements and the layoffs.
Let's be clear about this. You have allowed hospitals and other providers absolutely no flexibility to plan appropriate service reductions that make sound clinical sense. They must cut according to your rules, not to their own priorities, and they have no other options. It's the law, and 250 cancer patients did not receive their treatment in one location last Thursday, completely as a result of your rules. Hundreds of others in other places also won't receive their medically needed treatment as a result of your rules.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.
Mrs Sullivan: You said in Sudbury yesterday, "The whole point of our social contract is to save money." The backs on which you're saving money aren't the hospitals'; they're the patients'.
The Speaker: Does the member have a question?
Mrs Sullivan: What do you have to say to those patients now, and what are you going to say to the hospitals that have no flexibility and no other option than to do what your rules say they have to do?
Hon Mrs Grier: The whole point of the social contract was to save money while at the same time maintaining jobs and maintaining services. Why a cancer clinic was not open on Remembrance Day, I cannot answer today. But let me say to the member that her allegation that there is no flexibility in the arrangements this government has made is completely and absolutely wrong.
1430
I ask her to look at the examples of hospitals which have found greater efficiencies and provided better service as a result of savings. I remind her of a quotation from somebody at Wellesley Hospital last week who said, "Five years ago, we had a $10-million debt, which we've eliminated," and they will not be affected by the social contract because of their planning and their management.
I would also remind her of what is happening in Nova Scotia where the Liberal government has said, "Zap; you're closed," or "Zap; you're cut," and where the workers are saying, "Let us sit down and let us talk together and let us restructure together how we can make these savings." That's what's happening in Ontario and that is what the social contract allows for.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the minister responsible for the dumps of the greater Toronto area, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to return to the press conference that was referred to earlier that was presented by the coalition of citizens' groups which put forward this morning a plan to eliminate the need for massive garbage dumps. Their proposal, as their press release indicates, "will greatly reduce waste, present an innovative option for handling the remaining waste, and will create thousands of jobs."
The minister has indicated that this group received a certain amount of intervenor funding. Of course, the problem with that is that this group was restricted to just certain areas. They weren't allowed to look at the law on rail haul; they weren't allowed to look at such topics as incineration.
Having heard this plan and having -- you may not have read it in detail, but at least your staff having reviewed it -- would you be prepared to place a moratorium on the three dumps that are being planned for the greater Toronto area and at least look at this area, to at least look at this plan extensively and determine whether or not there are good foundations on the excellent submissions that they've put forward?
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I indicated earlier that the staff of the Ministry of Environment and Energy had met with the people who made a very interesting presentation and held a press conference this morning.
I've said that I'd be quite prepared to look at any proposals, but it isn't my role to look at the proposals at the moment except in terms that I'm sure that the Minister of Environment will look at any proposals that will speed up the 3R program that is being so successful.
May I remind the member, however, that it was members of the opposition who had such opposition to Bill 7 that would give municipalities real powers to deal with the waste management problem. Maybe one of the areas that they might start working with is to educate the members of the opposition on the value of Bill 7 and working with the local municipalities on using the processes in Bill 7 and other processes in reducing waste.
The fact is that we have intervenor funding and participant funding and we intend to continue to do that, which is more than any of the two previous governments did.
Mr Tilson: I think the difficulty is that there are new ideas coming forward. It may well be that you may not need the size of these superdumps. The fact of the matter is that there have been defects with respect to the Interim Waste Authority from the very outset. We've even seen it last Friday, when members of this House weren't even able to attend the first press conference.
You refuse to discuss rail haul, you refuse to put forward extensive studies with respect to incineration and now you appear to not be prepared to stall the creation of these superdumps to enable a study of this no-landfill plan. It's become apparent that you need to look at this whole subject more than what you've done.
My second question to the minister is: Having seen the problems that the IWA has created in this province, would you therefore be prepared to cancel the Interim Waste Authority, to cancel the entire process and look at a waste management solution for the entire province of Ontario?
Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member says that the IWA has created a waste problem. The fact is that the waste problem existed and has existed for 20 years and, in fact, industry has been very, very concerned about the fact that, in looking at the greater Metro Toronto area as a place to invest and do business, there was no game plan, there was no reasonable solution proposed by the two previous governments to deal with the waste.
The fact is that Britannia was slated to close in late 1997. The fact is that Brock West and Durham were slated to close in March 1994 or, at the very latest, most optimistic projection, by late April 1995. The fact is that Keele Valley would close as early as mid-1997 or as late as May 2003. You have to deal with the fact that there is garbage out there, that industrial society creates garbage and that you have to have an independent way of looking at what to do with that garbage.
This government has done more to fund research into the reduction of waste and to alternate uses and recycling than any previous government.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Philip: That is why people are coming from all over the world to look at our 3Rs program and the research we're doing in the green industries. I can assure you we'll continue to put taxpayers' money into those industries and into creating new recycle products and finding new ways to reduce and recycle.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Education. As you're aware, the Middlesex County Board of Education participated in a pilot project, one of eight across the province, under phase 1 of your ministry's school-based services program. The pilot project placed a social worker in an individual school in each of the eight different school boards to address the issues of family violence and the effects on children from both an intervention and a prevention perspective. This pilot project was highly successful in Middlesex and the other school boards. Early intervention and the immediacy of onsite response reduced referrals to local agencies in some cases by as much as 70%.
Given the success of the Middlesex County Board of Education and other pilot projects, can you please advise me and other members in this House whether your ministry will build on this positive initiative and provide funding for this project? There have been some concerns that this program could indeed end. I know that the Middlesex county board --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude her question, please.
Mrs Mathyssen: -- and Women's Rural Resource Centre of Strathroy and Area are eager to reserve. Will you continue to fund this project in Middlesex and can we expect funding to be long-term?
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly agree with the honourable member that the project that she's referring to is a successful project. The project placed a social worker in eight schools across the province. I'm certainly pleased to inform the member that the project is now ready to proceed to phase 2 funding for the 1993-94 school year. The Middlesex County Board of Education and the London-Middlesex Roman Catholic Separate School Board, along with the Women's Rural Resource Centre in Strathroy, will be partners in phase 2 of the program. Each school board will receive $12,000, which will flow to the shelter on a fee-for-service basis. Across the province, there will be a total of 41 projects involving 52 school boards and 42 shelters for battered women. The school-based services projects are funded through the wife assault prevention initiatives on the allocation from the Ministry of Education and Training.
ONTARIO ECONOMY
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the first six months' financial results released yesterday, which I think can only be described as troubling and as a damning indictment of Bob Rae's ability to manage the economy.
It was less than six months ago that the budget came out and all of the projections were the Premier's projections on what was going to happen to the economy and the finances. Now we see yesterday's results: retail sales revenue down because of the slower-than-expected growth; corporate tax revenue down as a result of weaker-than-expected profits; the employer health tax revenue down due to lower-than-forecast employment; land transfer tax down, reflecting the weak housing market. All of these things have happened in the six months from when the Premier predicted in his budget what was going to happen in the economy. The economy clearly is performing far worse than the government predicted six months ago.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: What has caused the economy to perform so much worse than you predicted less than six months ago, and when are you going to report to the people of Ontario the true state of the economy?
1440
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I don't really understand the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's closing comment about when we are going to tell him the real state of the economy, as though we've been trying to hold back information, which is simply, of course, patently untrue and, quite frankly, ludicrous for him to say.
The second-quarter finances were published just yesterday, which is about as up-to-date as you can get, it seems to me, in revealing the state of the finances of the province.
I would remind him as well that of the revenue problem, which was substantial, the vast majority was from 1992 income tax settlements from the federal government. That doesn't mean it's the federal government's fault; it simply means that the settlements are divvied up now as those tax returns are completed. It's true as well, of course, that there were declines in revenues in our own source of taxation as well, absolutely, because the rate of growth in the provincial economy has been down, as it has been for Canada as a whole.
As a matter of fact, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would know, I think, that late this morning the federal Minister of Finance announced that the new deficit for the 1992-93 year, not this year, not the six months for this year -- I don't know what those are; perhaps the member for Scarborough-Agincourt could find out for us what they are. What I'm told is that for 1992-93, the number is going to be now $40.5 billion as opposed to the $35.5 billion which was the earlier estimate.
Mr Phillips: You've not answered my question. Why has the economy performed far worse than you predicted six months ago? The people of Ontario deserve an answer.
I don't think you even know your own numbers. You said that the majority was personal income tax. More than half of the revenue shortfall has nothing to do with personal income tax. It has to do with things that you are directly responsible for.
I seriously would like a direct answer out of the Minister of Finance: Why has the economy performed far worse than you predicted less than six months ago? Why is it? Can you explain to the people of Ontario, and not give these flippant answers, what is happening with the economy that is causing it to perform far worse than you predicted less than six months ago? Can you give us an answer to that, Minister?
Hon Mr Laughren: The member asks a flippant question and then complains when I try to give him a serious answer. That doesn't seem very logical to me. I can hardly wait for the member opposite to stand in his place and defend every single thing that his federal counterparts are going to be doing in Ottawa for the next four years.
I want to tell you, we all know that there is a problem in the Canadian economy and that the economic recovery is slower than anyone anticipated -- slower than the federal government anticipated, slower than all other provinces anticipated. For the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to pretend that he can hang on this government the problems in the economy as a whole is absolutely silly and unfairly partisan. I'm surprised that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would stoop to that level.
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will know, of course, that today is the 29th instructional day of the strike of the east Parry Sound elementary panel. Would the minister mind informing this House what specific action he is taking to bring about an end to this dispute?
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly congratulate the member on the positive role that he is attempting, or has been -- I'll wait till his supplementary question comes -- trying to take back home in talking to the parties, and I believe that he's called a public meeting for later this week. I think those are all constructive measures that the member has taken.
But he also understands that through Bill 100, the legislation that guides negotiations, the Education Relations Commission has a role to play. That role is to offer mediation services to bring the parties together and to try to find a settlement, but ultimately it's up to the board and the teachers to find a settlement. That's where that settlement has to be found.
I think the best thing to come out of this place is for all of us to send a message to the board and to the teachers that they should be as concerned about the students as we are, and the only way they can show that concern is to get back to the bargaining table and find a solution.
Mr Eves: The minister will be aware that the second attempt at mediation in this dispute by the ERC failed at about 1 in the morning two Fridays ago. The minister will also be aware, as he has alluded to in his response to the initial question, that there is a public forum meeting being held this Thursday night at Almaguin Highlands Secondary School in Sundridge and South River. So far, the teachers have agreed to come and answer questions, the board members have agreed to come and answer questions, and a representative of the Education Relations Commission has agreed to come and answer questions. Will you do the same?
Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the offer and I saw his kind invitation that he sent to me, but I would say to the member that the Education Relations Commission is the appropriate body to be there, not the Minister of Education. I certainly will look for a full report from the member as well as the Education Relations Commission.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is directed to the minister responsible for women's issues. On the occasion of the eighth annual public education campaign on wife assault prevention, I was pleased to participate in this year's campaign and have given out hundreds of pamphlets and buttons on wife assault from my office.
This year and in previous years, my constituents tell me that they think television ads deliver the message well that wife assault is a crime. Could the minister tell the House how the wife assault prevention campaign is evaluated, and secondly, does the campaign really change the attitude of the public?
Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am pleased to answer the member's question because we have found that the campaigns are successful. After each campaign, we do market research where we ask questions of people as to how many elements of the campaign they've seen, what they remember of them, what attitudes they took away from them.
This year, we found that 92% of those questioned had seen at least one component of the campaign, and of those, 72% were indicating that they understood that the assaultive behaviour was the problem, not the victim. That's a very big improvement. Eighty-nine per cent of those questioned were positively impressed by the campaign and felt that it added to their understanding of the issue of wife assault and the urgency with which they regard the need to act in a concerted community way to end wife assault. So I would say that the campaign is indeed very successful.
CONTROL OF SMOKING
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Health. Every month in this province, 3,000 kids pick up the smoking habit. These kids don't understand the powerful addictive quality of tobacco. They don't understand that 13,000 people will die in Ontario this year from smoking-related illness. What they do understand is that in Ontario it's very easy for them to buy cigarettes.
Your government first talked about the need to pass a law that would restrict children's access to tobacco in April 1991. Your predecessor promised to introduce a bill before summer and you yourself promised to introduce a bill before Christmas. Now we see that it's been removed from your list of bills to be introduced before Christmas. I want you to tell me, Madam Minister, how you, as the Minister of Health for this province, can justify delaying a bill which will prevent our children from starting to smoke.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this issue, which I take very seriously, as does our ministry, because we too recognize the damage that tobacco use does to health and particularly to the health of young people.
Let me caution the member from drawing conclusions from lists that may be leaked in brown envelopes as to what the priorities of this government are. This government decides its priorities and I can assure him that anti-tobacco legislation to guard against young people purchasing tobacco is very high on our list of priorities. I look forward to the utmost cooperation from the opposition, both parties, to get fast passage through the House when it is introduced.
1450
PETITIONS
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that has been submitted to me by residents of the riding of Quinte and it reads:
"To the Legislature of the province of Ontario:
"The government of Ontario has presented to the Legislature of Ontario a bill identified as Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women.
"We, the undersigned, believe most of the items in this bill are discriminatory, racial and inflammatory in nature. This bill, if passed, will create additional costs to employers, double jeopardy, legal entanglements and entirely new bureaucratic hierarchies.
"At this time of financial problems for governments and industries, we, the undersigned, ask you to withdraw or defeat the bill."
DENTURE THERAPISTS
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition and it's being presented, pursuant to standing order 35, to the Parliament of Ontario for it to take action in regard to a matter which is within the authority of the Parliament of Ontario.
"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario and respectfully submit that a denture therapist should be allowed to supply, repair and adjust partial dentures and deal directly with the public without the necessity of supervision by a dentist.
"We, the undersigned, petition the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support and pass as soon as possible the appropriate bill in its entirety."
It's referring to Bill 50 brought to this Legislature in 1991. I have signed this petition and support it.
CASINO GAMBLING
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition regarding casino gambling:
"Whereas the government of Ontario has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and
"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and
"Whereas the government of Ontario has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and
"Whereas the government of Ontario has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and
"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."
I will be signing this petition as I am in agreement with its contents.
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:
"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the opening of any liquor stores on Sunday in the province of Ontario."
This petition has been signed by 373 constituents in my riding of Sarnia and surrounding area. I am in support of this petition and affix my name to it.
PROCEEDS OF CRIME
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 248 names from constituents in municipalities throughout my riding of Dufferin-Peel, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and
"Whereas criminals can also derive profit from interviews or public appearances; and
"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and that of their families,
"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."
I support this bill and have affixed my signature to it.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 11:
That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice, when Bill 47 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;
That the standing committee on general government shall meet to consider the bill on the two regularly scheduled meeting days immediately following passage of this motion. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on the last day of clause-by-clause consideration. At 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a); that the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment, if necessary, until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;
That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;
That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;
That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 5 minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to the government notice of motion number 11, I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to standing order 74, and I will read the standing order:
"When a bill is referred to a standing or select committee after second reading, it shall not be considered in committee until at least five calendar days after the referral, unless a waiver of this interval has been granted on the request of the minister or parliamentary assistant; but no such waiver shall be granted if 12 members register their objection by standing in their places."
I would like to submit to the Speaker that this motion indeed contravenes standing order 74 of our standing orders. Also, just as an aside, of course the minister, to my knowledge, has not requested that this five-day period be waived. The motion, as it's drafted, indicates that immediately following the passage of this motion, this Bill 47 will be considered by the general government committee on the next two regularly scheduled meeting days immediately following the passage of this motion. That would directly contravene standing order 74 of the standing orders of this Legislature.
I would also draw to the Speaker's attention, with respect to the point of order, that a motion was moved in the general government committee itself on October 28 of this year. The motion was moved, I believe, by Mr Wiseman. I'm not going to read the motion in its entirety. I will provide you with a copy of the motion, Mr Speaker. That committee is currently dealing with the Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill 26, and the last line in that motion reads that "having heard from all the witnesses on the existing list of requests, that clause-by-clause consideration of the bill begin on November 18, 1993." That motion having been passed by the committee itself, by I believe unanimous vote of the committee, this proposed notice of motion number 11 would directly contravene that motion of the committee as well and supersede it, I presume.
1500
I would also like to point out to the Speaker that the government has made it quite clear on several occasions during House leaders' meetings that it wants the EBR bill done like pronto, that the two opposition House leaders made a commitment, which we did, to the government House leader last summer that the Environmental Bill of Rights, Bill 26, would be dealt with in committee and clause-by-clause and third reading completed before the House adjourned on December 9.
It now appears that the Environmental Bill of Rights is not so important to the government. In fact, it's not so important, as they want to overrule the unanimous vote of the committee, moved by one of their own members. That EBR is now being shunted aside. After fighting vigorously to proceed with EBR week after week, immediately, now they don't care about EBR any more. "Shove that aside; we want to move in the photo-radar bill," contrary to standing order 74, contrary to a motion passed by the committee.
I would like to make just one final, short point with respect to this proposed government motion, and that is that I received in my office this week, as is usual, a copy of the minutes from the last House leaders' meeting on Thursday, November 4, 1993. House schedule, item 3: Today, photo-radar, Bill 47. Liberals, three or four speakers remaining; Tories, four. It was anticipated that the debate will be completed on November 15; if not then, November 16.
Indeed, on schedule 2, in which the government House leader outlines the schedule for business of the House, it has second reading debate scheduled for both November 15 and 16, today of course being the 16th. The government House leader asked for a commitment from the two opposition House leaders. He wanted to know how many speakers we had. I indicated that we had four. I was mistaken; we only had two. We conveyed that fact to the government House leader yesterday.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): No.
Mr Eves: Yes, we did. The Liberal House leader indicated, and I'm sure he will speak for himself, that he had three or four; he wasn't sure. He was mistaken; he had five. The net result was that there were seven speakers from the opposition parties. We had indicated to him that we had seven or eight.
The government House leader was quite satisfied with that. The government House leader indicated they had no speakers, but, lo and behold, the Minister of Transportation chose to inject himself in the middle of the debate yesterday afternoon, as is not usually the custom for ministers of the crown; they either start off the debate or terminate the debate. So I think that agreement we reached in last Thursday's House leaders' meeting is breached as well. So I'd ask you to take all those points under consideration, Mr Speaker.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's becoming increasingly clear that if we provide information to the government on the number of speakers that we have from day to day -- in fact, I gave the names of the speakers who would be performing on the part of our caucus. I gave the actual names of the speakers. The member for Parry Sound had indicated that there were three, but only two available yesterday. The New Democrats actually chose to put themselves on the floor, doing something that we had not contemplated, taking up time from the debate which would have allowed more of our members to have spoken in contemplation of finishing up today.
The fact remains that this is really not about the second reading debate on this bill. In my view, the point of order ought to be sustained that in fact this type of clause cannot run roughshod over the committee business, having already been set by the committee. I know that this Legislature can direct certain things to be done in terms of scheduling of intersessional days. I know that we make agreements as House leaders to schedule certain things to go on there in the intersession by agreement, usually by unanimous agreement; we develop a consensus.
In this circumstance, this House is taking upon itself to violate the rule that has been specified by my friend from Parry Sound, ie, as to notice that is required before a bill may be considered in committee. It is actually breaking -- unilaterally, in my view -- at the behest of the government House leader, an agreement which was reached among the three House leaders with respect to the Environmental Bill of Rights by taking away days which were considered for clause-by-clause for that bill and injecting Bill 47 for two days into the committee, which is now charged with dealing with the Environmental Bill of Rights.
If there is an absolute reading of what has gone on here, it would appear, by any type of examination of the spirit of the rules, by any stretch of a comparison of what usually goes on in the House leaders' meetings, to be a major violation of the tradition of this place. It is offensive in a way which I find to be particularly designed to take away the right of the members of the opposition to speak. There were only another three or four people who wanted to speak on this, and the people over there were fully aware of it.
Secondly -- and this is what really is a very bad piece, in my view -- it contemplates on ending any opportunity for publicly interested groups to come before a legislative committee and to talk about the various apprehensions that are surrounding this photo-radar bill. This is a new development for this jurisdiction. In fact, if you were able to catch some of the speech of the member for St Catharines, you will know that there is a huge, huge difference of opinion about whether or not electronic surveillance equipment ought to be allowed in other parts of our society. The instance brought up by the member for St Catharines dealt with the workplace. That means that is a major departure from the usual in this province, that no one from outside this Legislative Assembly will be given an opportunity under the auspices of this particular motion.
I find that obviously the problem is not so much on second reading, but it is in fact the government House leader's job to make sure that all opposition is silenced in committee, that in fact there is a timetable which precludes any type of debate. We will end up with but three more days to deal with this, and it seems to me that that will make the process here a faulty one with respect to this bill.
You might note as well, Mr Speaker, that any issues of constitutionality which may have been attacked in the committee will now not be able to be examined except if some person from the Ministry of Transportation comes in and says: "Oh, well, we've decided that it's not going to be a problem. If they want to challenge it, let them challenge it." It is the duty, it seems to me, of the people who have the job as members here to go into those types of questions and to have material available so that they can examine the constitutionality of these bills.
From my standpoint, this particular motion ought to be ruled as being out of order for the violations which were indicated by the member for Parry Sound. Indeed, I think it should be found even more to be out of order since it violates the agreements which had been reached among the House leaders and are unilaterally now jeopardized by this blatant override by the member for Hamilton Mountain.
Hon Mr Charlton: We've just spent an awful lot of time listening to comments from the opposition based on its assumptive interpretations of the resolution and the fact that, in its view, in the first line of the second paragraph of the resolution -- "that the standing committee on general government shall meet to consider the bill on the two regularly scheduled meeting days immediately following the passage of this motion" -- "this motion" refers to the motion this afternoon rather than to the second reading motion completed in paragraph 1. It's the intention of the mover of this motion that that motion referred to in that line is in fact second reading. So I would move --
Interjections.
1510
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre.
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's not amendable.
The Speaker: I'll deal with the member's latter point later.
First, to the honourable member for Parry Sound and to the member for Bruce, it is always that points are presented logically and concisely to the Chair, and that I appreciate.
I think all three House leaders, and indeed I hope all members of the House, are fully aware of the Speaker's views with respect to the orderly conduct of business in the chamber and an opportunity for the three parties on a weekly basis to come to an agreement about how they will proceed. At the same time, members will know that whatever agreements are reached, they are unofficial, and that all the Speaker can deal with are orders of the House. So minutes from meetings, or indeed any pieces of paper that are presented, are not official documents and are not helpful to the Speaker.
Indeed, as the member for Parry Sound has stated, standing order 74, he would take it, would normally be in place. However, I draw his attention to the first line of the resolution, which states, "That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House...." So if this resolution which has now been placed before the House is indeed carried, then in fact the resolution states that whatever is contained in the resolution supersedes any other standing order of the House. That should answer his concern with respect to both whatever was done in the committee and indeed to standing order 74.
As to debate in the House which the honourable member for Bruce referred to, which occurred, the normal rules of debate would apply, and if parties have some particular agreement, which they do reach from time to time, normally they ask for unanimous consent and normally that's granted.
Finally, to the government House leader, if there are amendments to be entertained, they of course must be placed during debate when a particular member has the floor and wishes to place an amendment.
Does the government House leader have any opening remarks for this resolution?
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. As the Speaker of this House, you're responsible for ensuring that the rights and the privileges of the minority members are upheld, and I ask you to hear me out on this point.
I'm our party's rural transportation critic. I have a responsibility to bring the concerns of rural Ontarians to the floor of the Legislature on transportation issues. We've been debating Bill 47, photo-radar, and I've been scheduled to speak on this bill today -- the last speaker, I might add, for our party. However, because the government has shut down the debate on this major bill, I will not be given an opportunity to fulfil my responsibilities as the opposition critic or as the MPP for Grey-Owen Sound.
The members of this NDP government and the Premier promised to be open and to consult. I ask you to review whether this time allocation motion infringes upon my rights. I think it does, Mr Speaker, and I'm asking you to change this.
The Speaker: To the member for Grey-Owen Sound, indeed I appreciate the concern which he expresses. My appreciation for his concern cannot overshadow what is rightfully a resolution in order placed before the House. The standing orders are quite clear. The resolution which has been placed before the House is not out of order, and I regret I cannot be of any particular assistance to the member for Grey-Owen Sound. However, knowing the member as I do, I'm sure that his voice will never be silent and indeed will be heard in this and other debates.
Proceed.
Mr Murdoch: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: What has happened is you have taken my rights away from me, you and this government. They are just a bunch of hypocrites. That's all they are.
The Speaker: To the member for Grey-Owen Sound --
Mr Murdoch: That's what they are, Mr Speaker. They promised --
The Speaker: No, no, no. Would the member take his seat, please.
Does the government House leader have any opening remarks for this one?
Hon Mr Charlton: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Murdoch: They're all a bunch of hypocrites. I'm glad the Speaker agrees with me. You're all hypocrites.
The Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, it is not helpful to him or to the chamber if he continues to repeat unparliamentary language.
Mr Murdoch: It's not helpful for me to come down here and not be able to speak either.
The Speaker: You've been heard. I would ask the honourable member to exercise some restraint so that we can get on with public business.
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm more than certain that the member for Grey-Owen Sound will find the time to make his comments during the course of this afternoon.
Time allocation motions are motions that none of us likes to use. They are from time to time, though, in terms of the government's ability to schedule its business --
Mr Sorbara: It's our time to speak now.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps the first comment that I could make for the member for York Centre is that this minister will speak opening this debate and the opposition parties will split all of the rest of the time. That's the agreement we've reached and that's how it will proceed.
None of us likes to use time allocation motions, but from time to time they become necessary in terms of the scheduling of government business. It has been clear since our discussions in late July that the government was determined to see this piece of legislation pass before we left here this fall, and I know we have different views of what's important in the process of debate.
But I also find it just a little mite strange when, if you sit down and read through the Hansards of the speeches over the five days on this bill, you will find roughly 50% of the time not even addressing the bill, members who need to get their name on the record. If our real concern is about the public and public input, it would have been nice --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the House leader of the government side not to impute motive on behalf of the opposition members as far as putting their name in the order paper and I would ask you to direct him.
The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, I did not find his remarks to be unparliamentary. None the less, an orderly debate is most helpful and perhaps the House leader would keep that in mind.
Hon Mr Charlton: The members opposite are right. I should not impute motives and I apologize for having done that. On the other hand, I do recommend to people that perhaps they look at the things that were said during the course of this debate on second reading, because they might find it very interesting considering the bill that was before this House.
Having said all of that, it was not the intention of this motion, as the House leader for the third party suggested, to disrupt the agreements that had been reached in the committee, agreements which the three of us took some time to help encourage to happen, and it is not now my intention to do that.
That's why I made reference earlier to the need to amend this motion to make it absolutely clear what my intention was, because my intention was that this bill should not go to committee as is the normal process around here until after it had been voted on at second reading, which would not require us then to waive notice or anything else in terms of the other issues which the House leader for the third party raised.
With that, and so that the anxious opposition members who wish to speak to this motion can get on with it, I will simply move my amendment and then yield the floor.
1520
I move that government notice of motion number 11 be amended by removing the words, "following passage of this motion," in the seventh line, and substituting therefor the words, "following the second reading stage."
The time slipped but I've spoken now. It is my understanding that the opposition will split the remaining time.
The Speaker: First, one thing at a time. The debate is now on the amendment rather than on the motion. Secondly, there's a question about allocation of time.
Mr Elston: It's my contention, on a point of order, Mr Speaker, that the change that has already been brought forward now contemplates a different set of circumstances than was originally provided in notice to us. It does in essence provide for time allocation but it changes the nature of the timing of the motion; it changes the nature of the debate around this particular amendment.
My view, therefore, is that we cannot now proceed to deal with this particular government notice of motion number 11 because in effect he has changed the nature of the timing of the hearings which are required in the committee. He has in fact changed his mind and as a result changed the nature of the notice that should have been given to us to prepare for our activities in the committee.
Mr Speaker, I ask that you rule that this debate now is out of order since we were not provided with the notice that is required, bearing in mind the change in the government's mind with respect to timing of this.
The Speaker: On the same point, the member for Parry Sound.
Mr Eves: I would like to concur with the viewpoint just expressed in the point of order raised by the honourable member for Bruce. I believe that by amending the motion, the government House leader in fact has created a different motion for which we need notice to be tabled before 5 pm, according to the standing orders of this place, so we can debate that resolution which indeed is a different resolution. It substantially changes the nature of the resolution and government notice of motion number 11. That's the reason why we had to receive notice and it had to be tabled by 5 pm yesterday.
I'd suggest that if the government House leader really wants to proceed this way, he table this particular notice with the Clerk before 5 pm today so we can debate it tomorrow.
The Speaker: Time allocation motion, as any other motion, is amendable from the floor during debate from either side of the House. It may be that during debate on this particular amendment there may be other amendments which any member may wish to place. The time allocation motion should not be considered in that respect any differently than any other motion. It happens to deal with time allocation but it's a motion which can be amended from the floor during debate. That's precisely what has occurred here. Other members may wish to amend it as well, so it is in order.
Mr Elston: Why do we bother? We have to comply. On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Why do we bother in this place looking at these rules? You require us to live by a general spirit of the rules, but you allow those people to get away with just any kind of change of direction at any whim they seem to like.
I don't like the idea that every time we raise reasonable points of order about the nature of their high-handed, heavy-fisted tactics in here to put through their legislation, you stand up and you protect them. This really does change the nature of this time allocation motion. Just because they want to get this stuff done doesn't mean you have to go high-tailing it to support every time they bring in a change of mind.
I don't have any other way to register my disappointment in the way we are managed in this place than to raise my voice to you because I can tell you, sir, that every time we have a bill which is of major concern, which raises a major public issue, we are stymied; they bring in their change of direction.
It was he who told us we wouldn't have particular opportunities to finish the Environmental Bill of Rights. Now he's changed his mind and he's going to do something different. That changes the direction of his intervention in the committee stages of our Legislative Assembly.
I don't know what else it would take to change the nature of the notice of motion to this House that he was prepared to intervene in the schedule of business, which we had made agreements as House leaders to carry out with respect to the Environmental Bill of Rights. If that is not a notice of a strange departure in the way this business is done, I don't know what it is. If it is not, Mr Speaker, a change in the nature of the motion in front of this House, then I don't know what could be considered to be ever out of order in view of the fact that you suspect that you have to sustain their every change of idea.
If they make a mistake, sir, it is not your obligation to protect them. It is their obligation to confess their mistake and refile, as we have had to refile notices of motion with the table when we have made mistakes. You are not supposed to protect the government. You're supposed to actually protect us and protect this chamber's ability to spend a long time if we feel like it's necessary when mild and major departures are made from public policy; and in this case, when the justice system is being changed, this is a significant departure.
I apologize to you in advance, Mr Speaker, for raising my voice, but my frustration with the manner in which this chamber carries on its business is no longer --
The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.
Mr Elston: I cannot sit idly by and see us being rammed down like we are by these people.
The Speaker: The member should know that the Speaker will enforce the rules. If the rules are not adequate, then the rules should be changed. If the House wishes to change the rules, then the House will do so. The resolution is in order. There is nothing out of order about amending a resolution which is before the House, whether it is this particular resolution or any other. As I mentioned before, it is amendable from both sides of the chamber.
We are now on to the amendment. Does the House leader wish to speak to the amendment? Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr Sorbara: I guess the die is cast, isn't it? The government can abuse the rules. It doesn't have to own up to its mistakes. I guess it was about two years ago or a year and a half ago that they rammed through --
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I came into this chamber after the minister had spoken. I'm told there's an amendment to the motion. I have nothing in writing. As the Transportation critic for the Conservative Party, I demand a copy of that motion. You've now ruled that this is in order, and yet we have nothing in writing, sir. How can we possibly debate this motion and this amendment if we have nothing in writing?
The Speaker: If the member would appreciate a copy of the amendment, it would be available from the table, and he is most welcome to avail himself of a copy of the amendment.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I had prepared to be part of this afternoon's business in this House and speaking on this bill. I have prepared remarks that I wanted to make specifically with regard to this closure motion.
That has now been changed. Do the members of this Legislature not have any right to prepare themselves to take part in the debate that's taking place in this Legislature? Do we not have any right to be prepared when the House leader of the government party comes in and makes an amendment to a resolution that is before the House? Where are our rights as members on this side of the House with regard to changes such as this?
Mr Turnbull: You have every right to prepare yourself.
The Speaker: The member for York Mills will please bring himself under control.
Mr Turnbull: It would be useful if we had this amendment, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: There may be others. In the interest of a more orderly way of conducting business, this House will stand recessed for 15 minutes, and during that time perhaps people can calm down. Whatever copies are required of amendments or any other information which would assist in an orderly debate can be attended to, and then we can have an orderly discussion.
The House recessed from 1530 to 1546.
The Speaker: The honourable member for York Centre.
Mr Sorbara: Welcome back, everybody. We've just had a 15-minute recess after a little dust-up between my friend from Willowdale and some of the members of the opposition.
Just to bring those of you who are tuning back in up to date, this is where we're at. The government has before this Legislature a bill which, when passed, will bring to Ontario a new great revenue generator called photo-radar. The government wasn't happy that the opposition was expressing its opposition to photo-radar, so it did what it gave itself the power to do about a year and a half ago and brought in a closure motion. This, for those of you who don't follow parliamentary procedure, really means a motion to end debate and discussion in the Legislature and, they hope, in the province of Ontario on this very controversial issue as to whether or not we should have photo-radar in the province of Ontario.
They messed that up. The motion was incorrect, so they brought in an amendment to fix up that little error, to fix up their latest mistake, and technically, Mr Speaker, as you know, we are now debating the amendment to the closure motion to cut off debate on Bill 47, which is the bill that is going to bring the good people of Ontario something they have all been waiting for: an opportunity to get nabbed, to get nipped by photo-radar.
I guess it's within the rules that we are permitted not only to discuss this amendment, the tiny little corrective measure, and the time allocation motion, but to say a thing or two on the very substance of this debate; that is, whether or not we should have in Ontario this system of photo-radar.
We have borne witness to the Minister of Transportation, both in question period and during this debate, almost coming to tears when he describes how this new and brilliant initiative on the part of the government is going to enhance safety on the roads in this great province of Ontario. All of us who know anything about what this bill is really all about simply say: "Rubbish. Balderdash." We know what this is about. This is about an opportunity to impose a new tax on the people of Ontario, and in particular on the motorists in Ontario.
I'm actually of two minds about this bill. As a matter of substance, I abhor it. I think it is the most arbitrary, objectionable, obnoxious, repulsive piece of legislation, one of the most repulsive pieces of legislation that the government has brought in, because it just completely abrogates our very long-standing tradition in this province of being innocent until you're proven guilty in a court of law.
The government, with one piece of legislation, is going to set a horrendous precedent which says that this doesn't need to happen any more. "We've now got the technology," the government says, "to nab you with our cameras on the bridge, take a picture of your licence plate, and then several weeks later send you a bill for $150, $200, $250, depending on how fast you were driving, and if you don't pay it, well, the next time you go to renew your licence, you're not going to be able to get it unless you pay the fine."
When the people of Ontario finally, together, realize what the actual terms of this bill are, that they are going to be the victims of this new photo-radar/taxation system, my God, are they ever going to give it to New Democratic Party members in the next election.
I just want to say a word or two about elections, because we've just gone through a general election in Canada and we all know what the results were. In particular, we know what the results were in Ontario. We know the disastrous showing of members of the federal New Democratic Party. But I want to give to you just my own personal experience about what I heard in the many, many days that I campaigned on behalf of candidates during this federal election.
Over and over again what I heard was: "When are we going to get an opportunity to vote them out of office in Ontario? When are we going to get an opportunity to get rid of this Bob Rae NDP government? When is the election going to be?" They would say, "Yes, I think maybe I'll support the Liberal candidate, but, God, I can't wait to vote these guys out of office."
There were many reasons for that, but the great thing about this photo-radar bill is, if they didn't have a reason already to vote Bob Rae's government out of office, for those few people who were still wondering, I want to tell the Minister of Finance, who doesn't have the courtesy to attend this final day of debate on photo-radar, that the Minister of Transportation has given those final few people in Ontario reason enough to vote these scoundrels out of office.
If the social contract wasn't enough, if taking away the rights of a million public servants to bargain their collective agreements, that bill, wasn't enough; if the dumps issue, which is just a tragedy for the people in my riding and all around the greater Toronto area, wasn't enough -- and frankly I think it was enough; if the change on casinos from a party which had proclaimed its opposition to legalized gambling as a tax on the poor wasn't enough; if the change on public auto insurance wasn't enough; if this new little mistake, this white-males-need-not-apply policy wasn't enough; if the Treasurer's budgets -- in budget after budget the Treasurer has imposed new taxes and created more economic catastrophes -- weren't enough; if the sham of Jobs Ontario wasn't enough -- and frankly I think that any one of them would have been enough -- I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, in terms of electoral politics, photo-radar is going to be enough.
Just imagine what they are doing. I want to tell the citizens of Ontario what they can expect after this bill is imposed. Here's the scenario:
You're on Highway 401. It's about midnight. It's a Tuesday evening. It's a clear evening. You're heading home. You're in a little bit of a hurry. You're travelling at the speed that people normally travel at under those circumstances on Highway 401: You're travelling somewhere between 125 and 130 kilometres. You arrive home. Nothing has happened that you know of.
But what really happened is that there was a camera on a bridge overlooking the 401, and it took a picture -- it can do this at night-time -- of your licence plate. Three or four or five weeks later, you, as the owner of that car, will receive a bill in the mail for about $100 or $150 or $200, depending upon your speed, and you will be mad. You will be furious, because the system that you're accustomed to and the system that you thought fair was that if there were a radar trap there and you were stopped and you gave an explanation to the officer, there would be a decision made about whether or not a charge would be laid. If you were still offended, you could take that charge and argue it in a court of law. All of that is gone.
You know what's worse? It doesn't even matter if you were driving. Your son was driving, your daughter was driving, your wife was driving, your employee was driving, your employer was driving -- somebody was driving your car, but that won't matter. That person won't get charged. You're the owner of the car and you, sir, are going to get charged.
It doesn't matter if the person who was driving the car was in the midst of an emergency and there was really quite a justifiable reason for getting from A to B at 120 rather than 100 kilometres an hour. They're going to nab you, sir, because you're the owner of the car. It's the first time in history in Ontario that we've said the person who is liable for a traffic violation is not the person who was violating the law; it's the person who owns the car that was involved in the traffic violation.
I'll tell you something. This has made people in my riding and around the province, when they think about it, just about as mad as anything that this sick, this weirdo, this idiotic NDP government has done in the three-plus years that it's been in power.
I want to read to you a letter I received from one of my constituents which just sort of sets the tone and the flavour of the phone calls that I've been receiving in my riding and the letters that I've been receiving in my riding about photo-radar. It's addressed to Bob Rae, the Premier, and Gilles Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation. It says:
"Gentlemen:
"I must make you aware of how enraged I am with your proposal to enact Bill 47 into the law of this province.
"How dare you assume the right to abolish 1,000 years of British common law by dumping precepts like the right of presumed innocence until proven guilty and the right to confront your accuser in court?
"How dare you thumb your nose at our very Constitution? You know this bill is unconstitutional, and yet you insist you are going to enact it anyway.
"No way will the public be able to check if your equipment is accurate. Weeks later, no one will know how a machine may have been operating on a given day or if it was affected by heat, cold or any other factors. Breathalysers have proven to be faulty on many occasions and some models have been taken out of use...not admissible in court. How will we be able to find out if your machines are accurate, and if they are not, how many people will be forced to pay fines, even though they may not be guilty of an offence?
"This bill is nothing short of -- literally -- highway robbery." She says it's highway robbery, and that's exactly what it is. "Apparently, it has nothing to do with traffic safety, as there are reports that have found that speed enforcement has never been shown to have anything but a negative effect in correlation with crash frequency.
"It has nothing to do with accident prevention either," she writes. "If a driver is in any way impaired while speeding, a police officer is able to assess this at the scene and prevent the speeder from driving any further, thus possibly preventing an accident. A picture of a licence plate two weeks later does nothing at all.
"Since I am not the sole driver of the automobiles registered in my name, I am furious that I will be put in the position of having to keep a daily log of who is driving each car at all times, and then be forced to collect fines on behalf of the government from any one of the number of family members who may have been using a particular car at the time of the alleged offence.
"Clearly, this bill is both illegal and immoral. It is nothing more than taxation without representation or, at its worst, piracy -- armed robbery. The criminals -- the thieves -- are the government of this province who have set themselves up as above and beyond both the Constitution and common law of this country. If this Bill 47 is allowed to pass, Ontario will have been denied the very basis of its existence. We will have passed from democracy to tyranny with barely a whimper," certainly barely a whimper. Debate is being cut off as of today.
"I demand that Bill 47 be thrown out.
"I refuse to live in a 'Big Brother is watching you' society. My ancestors came here for freedom, not rape and pillage by government.
"This bill must not pass.
"Very angrily sincere, Sandra Winton," who lives in my riding, sir. That's just one of the views. That's just a taste of the anger that I have heard from my constituents about this little tax grab.
Now, the minister says: "No, no, no, it's not a tax grab. This is going to enforce safety." I talked to one of York region's finest a few days ago. Actually, I was at the Remembrance Day ceremony and I said --
Mr Stockwell: Bill Attewell?
Mr Sorbara: No, I'm sorry; it wasn't Bill Attewell. It was an officer of York region's police force. I said to him: "What do you hear about photo-radar? What do you think about it?" He sort of chuckled and he said to me, "Oh, my, I hear it is a big, big revenue generator." A big revenue generator. This is what it is. It's an opportunity to arbitrarily tax owners of automobiles without bothering to charge the person who committed the offence.
1600
The government says, "Oh, no, this doesn't change the way in which we go about business." But let's look at it, let's really have a look at where this leads. If you can do photo-radar -- you've got a camera, you take a picture of the licence plate, you send out a bill; if the person doesn't pay it, he or she loses the licence -- why not just use the same kind of procedure for every other traffic violation, more serious and less serious than speeding? Why not just hire some NDP flack -- they're all going to be out of work pretty soon -- to stand at any busy intersection, day or night, where there's a stop sign, and for every driver who doesn't come to a full stop, just click, take a picture of the licence plate, and send him a bill? Why bother having police officers enforce the stop signs of the province?
Let's take another traffic violation, let's say, passing on the right. It happens all the time. You see it all the time on the highways. It's a bad thing to do. Why not just have someone standing on the side of the road taking pictures of licence plates? What need is there to enforce any of the other traffic violations in the Highway Traffic Act? There is a whole host of them. Those of us who drive the roads and highways of Ontario know that there are many more things more serious than travelling at 130 kilometres an hour on Highway 401. There are a lot more serious offences.
If you set the precedent with photo-radar, then, the precedent having been set, you arbitrarily move into a whole bunch of other areas, without due process, without the normal procedures for identifying and apprehending and charging the person who committed the offence. You didn't yield at a yield sign. No need to hire a police officer. My goodness, they're more busy doing other things. Just get some two-bit NDP flack, buy him or her a camera and let them take pictures and send the driver or the owner a bill. That's the precedent that is being set with photo-radar. There's nothing unique about speeding. It's just one of many offences under the Highway Traffic Act in the laws of the province of Ontario.
If we pass this, then we say it's okay, it's all right to do it with any number of offences, not just the Highway Traffic Act. It's not just a highway measure. We could go into other laws in the province of Ontario and say: "There's no need for a police officer to identify an offence. Just take a picture and send out a bill." That's the kind of Gestapo, that's the kind of police state, that's the kind of arbitrariness that is in the philosophical foundation of this bill.
The NDP say: "Oh, no, no, we would never do that. We would never consider enforcing the law in that way." Well, you're doing it right here. You're saying to the people of Ontario that it doesn't matter any more if we don't want to go through the expense of actually stopping an alleged offender and issuing a summons. It's that very precedent, it's giving the benefit of law to such an obnoxious and arbitrary provision, that leads a society like ours down the road to other arbitrary provisions.
It's not, I think, entirely coincidental that we are debating this at the very same time we see that obnoxious ad in the paper which says, "Healthy white males need not apply." It's not coincidental that the government that brings you photo-radar and white males need not apply hiring provisions is the same government that says: "A collective agreement no longer has substance in the province of Ontario. They can be overridden at the whim of a Premier. We can tell a million public servants that the agreements they bargained are no longer the agreements they are going to live under."
It's not coincidental that the same government that brings you photo-radar and the social contract would arbitrarily say almost two and a half years ago, "We will personally make a decision to dump Metro's garbage in York region."
It's not coincidental for a party that for years and years said it was opposed to creating an economy based on chance and based on gambling to be the chief sponsor of a whole system of casinos around the province of Ontario. We're going to trade jobs and technologies to give people opportunities to deal blackjack for the rest of their lives in Windsor or wherever else we are going to get casinos.
It's also not coincidental that out there in every community in Ontario there is a groundswell of discontent and anger against this government the like of which I have never seen in my nine years as a representative in this House and, frankly, as a citizen of the province of Ontario over the past 47 years. People want an election so badly they can taste it. I want to tell my friends on the government side that if you thought it was difficult for your friends the federal NDP members to get a vote or two back on October 25, just you wait: They can taste it.
I was telling my friend from Wentworth East that he might be one of the two or three people to survive. My prediction is that after the next election, there will be perhaps one or two New Democratic Party members left in this House. I acknowledge that he, in the midst of his mild heckling, has had the courage to actually now and again stand up and oppose publicly what his government has done. There are others within the party -- I think of Mel Swart, the former member for Welland-Thorold -- who had the courage to say: "This is a disaster, an ongoing disaster. This is not what the people voted for."
When the people voted on September 6, 1990, they did not expect the social contract, they did not expect the disastrous garbage policies of the New Democratic Party, they didn't expect casinos, they didn't expect the terrible recession that Bob Rae's government has been aiding and abetting over the past three years, and they didn't expect photo-radar. My God, they did not expect photo-radar.
I have to hand it to the Minister of Transportation. If there's anything that could confirm over this last year of this government's mandate this terminally ill government, it will be the bills that people get, having had a picture of their licence plate taken on some lonely highway some late night, a bill -- it could be as high as $200 or $300 -- with a notice saying, "Oh, yes, you have a right to fight this if you can ever remember whether you were there or not and who was driving."
1610
He could do something just a little bit worse. He should put his own picture at the bottom of the summons, just to remind the people that it is Gilles Pouliot, the Minister of Transportation, and Bob Rae, the Premier of Ontario, who bring you this nasty little piece of business. Politically, I couldn't think of anything that will be more damaging in this final year than this little initiative.
The argument that this is about safety does not hold water. The argument that this will change driving habits in Ontario is a crock of you know what. The argument that this is somehow within an overall strategic plan to make Ontario the safest jurisdiction in all the world is a load of bunk.
The truth of the matter is that this is about imposing a new tax, a new levy, in a situation where people are up to here with taxes and depression and unemployment. This is a revenue generator that the Treasurer does not have to announce in his next budget. He has made the Minister of Transportation his henchman, a new tax collector.
I want to tell you something: It saddens me that we use closure once again to drive this measure through. The only little bit of joy that I can take in this bill is that for that small group of people who still might have thought there was some value in offering support to New Democrats in the next general election, well, frankly, this is the one, this is the straw. "This will be enough," the people will say. They will say, I tell you, sir, in the next election, "Get these scoundrels out."
Other than that, I want to tell you that I am going to vote against this bill. I will argue against it in the short committee life that it has and I will advise my constituents that this is among the very many reasons to seek an alternative when, in this democratic society, we have an opportunity to replace a mischievous, incompetent government.
Mr Turnbull: I rise today on what I consider to be a rather obnoxious motion by the government, a government which, when it was elected, came to power and said it was going to be different. Anybody who listened to the claims of this government when it was electioneering in 1990 will know all of the protestations made by Mr Rae as to how they were different.
I would like to read at the beginning of this debate a little bit of the throne speech from 1990, but first of all, just for the benefit of anybody tuning in perhaps and watching this debate, what we are doing is debating a motion to cut off any further second reading debate on photo-radar. Photo-radar is a method which some people have suggested is quite Orwellian in its scope in the fact that the government will now start photographing people and you will get through the mail, some weeks, later a challenge that you have broken the law, which will break the traditional method we have in the English-speaking world in jurisprudence that you have the right to face your accuser.
I have to say that while I believe the vast majority of Ontarians are thoroughly against this legislation, there are some people who, for reasons I will outline in this debate, believe it is the right thing to do and I would not like to portray it as being impossible that there are two sides to this picture.
During the House leaders' meeting last week, it was agreed between the government House leader and the House leaders of the opposition parties that debate would end on photo-radar either Monday or Tuesday of this week, and here we are on Tuesday. During Monday, at 5 o'clock, a motion was brought forward to cut off debate.
Isn't it strange, Mr Speaker? The government already knew that the opposition had almost expended all of its speakers on this issue, but they brought forward closure. Why did they do it? I would suggest it wasn't just to cut off the debate in second reading. Most importantly, it was to cut off any public scrutiny of this.
Anybody who knows the way this House orders its business -- after second reading, it is the tradition to send bills out to committees. Those committees advertise in the press their intention to scrutinize a particular bill and ask for any public submissions whereby those people can phone or write to the clerk of that committee and notify their intention that they would like to speak to a particular bill. But the government has brought forward a motion which suggests -- and I will just read a couple of key passages:
"...the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment." And then, "That the standing committee on general government shall meet to consider the bill on the two regularly scheduled meeting days...."
The first of these days is to be Thursday of this week or whenever we have finished second reading. It appears, because the government has the numbers to pass this motion today, that we will have finished debating second reading at the end of this debate.
Therefore, we know this will be sent to a standing committee for two days of discussion starting this Thursday. That does not allow for any public input because we will need at least two days of debate of clause-by-clause as we go through this fairly complex piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which in fact has all kinds of implications in terms of the administration of justice in this province. It isn't just photo-radar because, like everything this government does, it has packed a whole lot of extra goodies in there that require careful reading to ascertain.
Let me go back to the whole question of open debate and the fact that the citizens of this province are being denied the opportunity to have any public debate of this. I'm reading from the throne speech of 1990, a throne speech which, of course, as everybody knows, was written by Mr Rae and his advisers. I extract one section which says:
"As a group of people accustomed to being on the outside of the established power structures in Ontario, my government will open Queen's Park to those who have never before had an effective voice in the corridors of power. It is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability."
I hear somebody jabbering across the floor: yap, yap, yap. Why are you closing off debate, sir?
I further read, under a section which is entitled "Integrity":
"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." I would say you have lost any trust you may have had. "My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task" -- and I particularly point you to this sentence -- "is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."
What better example of institutional arrogance when the minister knows full well that there is so much controversy over this bill? It is institutional arrogance that they will not allow any public scrutiny.
This throne speech goes on to read:
"We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government. We are under no illusions that this is easy, since the public remains distrustful of governments and other large institutions. It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them."
Another wonderful quote is:
"Public frustration has as much to do with decisions postponed as with the sense that the people have not been heard. We will look for new and better ways to hear and respond to the voices of the people."
What do they mean by looking for new and better ways to hear and respond to the people? They don't even want to use any of the existing methods of listening.
Another wonderful section you might be regaled with is:
"My government appreciates the contributions that its predecessors have made to the life of the province. It is a tradition we will respect. We want the advice, assistance and ideas of the opposition parties."
1620
What could possibly be a plainer example of government arrogance and contempt, not only for the opposition parties but for the public at large, than this motion today to cut off any further debate when it was already known that today we would have finished with all of our speakers, but in addition to that and more significantly, the fact that we are facing the prospect of no public hearings? With two days in committee it will be barely enough to go through clause-by-clause of this very complex piece of legislation.
There is outrage in the public. The only piece of legislation that this government has worked on so far which has produced as much correspondence to my office has been Bill 40, the labour bill, and we all know how much correspondence there was with respect to that legislation. That was over the period of months as people became aware of this.
This has been brought forward for first and second reading since the summer recess and now indeed we're being told that we're going to have two days of discussion in committee, with no public hearings, and one day back in third reading. This is how well this government wants to listen to the wishes of the people.
The correspondence I have had has been overwhelmingly against this legislation, and nobody in this House has the right to suggest that I am not on the side of road safety. You will recall that, ever since I became the Transportation critic for my party, the Progressive Conservatives, in the last two years, I have consistently been the voice in this House demanding that the government move forward with graduated licensing, and finally it made some modest move forward this year. They haven't brought in the legislation, but at least they have finally responded after two years of my urging that they bring forward legislation.
I have been at the forefront of road safety. It's very interesting. I have a copy of the closing statements by Mr Dadamo, the parliamentary assistant, which I believe he's going to read at the end of this debate, and he talks about the real importance of this legislation, talks about road safety being a complex issue and talks about some 1,100 fatalities that occurred on our roads in 1991.
I'm saying to you that this party, the Progressive Conservatives, will always work assiduously to ensure that the roads of this province are as safe as we can possibly make them, and that was the reason, and the sole reason, that for the last two years I have been pushing this government to move forward with graduated licensing.
But when we come to debate of photo-radar, we have a very different type of animal. We have a piece of legislation which is very suspicious in terms of what it wants to do. It has been suggested by virtually everybody who has spoken out against this legislation that the government is using this as a revenue grab. The government members have said, "No, that's not true."
Here is the litmus test as to whether that is true, and the litmus test is as follows: If indeed your concern is only with road safety, then it is quite simple. Dedicate all of the extra revenue that you will achieve through this measure to the police force, not instead of some other source but as additional funds for the police to use for safety measures.
I have challenged the minister over and over again in questions and also in debate in this House and yesterday when this motion was brought in and the minister has never responded. In other words, the government has ignored it and by doing it has failed the litmus test as to whether or not this is a revenue grab.
There is great evidence that the loss of points is probably the greatest way of achieving road safety in terms of getting people to comply with the speed limit. Loss of points is not a feature of this bill. The government says the reason it can't assign any points is because this is a faceless object which can't tell who was driving the car.
If that were true, then we would first of all be undermining the fundamental right that I spoke about earlier that one be able to face one's accuser. If indeed the government was prepared to accept that potential constitutional challenge, then we turn to the question as to why it wouldn't levy points against the driver of the car. They say, "Because we don't know who the driver of the car is."
In debate I have also challenged the government that if this was a concern, they could follow the example of Sun City in Arizona which allows the owner of the vehicle, upon receiving a photo-radar ticket, to go to the police station and make a deposition as to who was driving the vehicle at that time. If you had that mechanism, you would then be able to assess points against the driver, not just the owner.
This would solve many problems. It would solve the burden that exists for car rental companies. The driver may be long gone by the time this government or in fact any government gets around to sending the speeding ticket because the fundamental problem is that speeding tickets and all other documents that flow from government arrive late because government doesn't work very well.
If the government were indeed concerned with safety, then it would make sure that the ticket went out the very next day to the owner of the car and, in addition to that, it would allow that the owner of the car make a deposition as to who was driving, if the owner wasn't driving, and we would assess points. That is the best way of discouraging people from driving unsafely.
Who will be hurt by this bill? Strangely enough, it's that constituency which the NDP has always suggested it speaks for, the poor and the downtrodden, because the affluent can afford to pay the fine and they can drive at speeds with impunity, knowing that all that will happen is that there will be a ticket coming through the mail and they can pay it and perhaps they can even expense it. But those people who don't get expenses and don't get high salaries will not be able to do that. They will be the people who will suffer from this legislation, not the affluent.
I have given two concrete examples, as is the way that I always aim to proceed in this House, of how the government can address these problems with the legislation. I'm not opposition for the sake of opposition. I'm giving concrete examples. Just to reiterate it, in case anybody on the government side has missed the point, if you want to stop people speeding, you will assess points and those points should be to the driver, and to ensure that you get to the driver, you will allow the owner of the car, upon receiving this ticket, to make a deposition as to the name of any other driver.
In addition, I have challenged the government that if this isn't just a revenue grab, as we know it is, then indeed let the government come forward and say, "Yes, we're going to dedicate every extra penny that we get from photo-radar to additional funds for the police for road safety." None of these concerns has been responded to by the government, which only enforces the perception not only of the opposition parties but indeed of the public that this is a revenue grab of the worst kind.
1630
I'd like to just talk for a moment about what some of the witnesses who would like to be able to come to public hearings and will be denied the right to public hearings might have said. Here is a letter from a Dr Hal Kershen from Willowdale, Ontario, and it's a copy of a letter sent to Bob Rae, the Premier. It says:
"Dear Sir:
"As someone who recently lost a teenage son in a motor vehicle accident, I must protest your Bill 47 as virtually ineffective in acting as any form of a deterrent with respect to highway accidents and/or mortality.
"It would have done nothing to protect my son and most other victims of motor vehicle carnage.
"There is no doubt that with nothing more than an economic penalty, it is nothing more than a tax on the right to speed. Critics are quite correct in using the terminology 'tax grab,' in which I am victimized daily by your government."
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Send him back a letter.
Mr Turnbull: I find it somewhat obnoxious that one of the NDP is heckling as I read the letter from a bereaved parent, somebody who lost his child on the roads.
Another paragraph in the letter reads:
"It would be sad to accuse and convict someone on burglary from merely being the owner of a vehicle that was seen carrying goods away from a break-and-enter."
Let's just contemplate what is being said there. If anybody were to suggest that we would charge with break-and-enter the owner of a vehicle that had been used in the execution of a crime, I think there would be absolute outrage, and I would hope there would be outrage from the NDP caucus, but I'm not sure. I'm really not sure, because they don't seem to be listening to what the public is saying.
I cannot believe that the government members have not received many of the same letters that I have received. As I said, this is a copy of a letter which went to the Premier. I know that my office has been absolutely deluged with people wanting to speak to photo-radar. The majority, as I have said before, want to speak against photo-radar, but in fairness, some want to speak for it. It would be appropriate that we scrutinize this bill in the most reasonable way so that all of the opinions can be brought out and can be tested against expert opinion.
I go on with that same letter:
"As a survivor of a traffic fatality who has great personal interest in reducing traffic carnage, I support measures which are sensible and proven in order to prevent the continuing pictures of destruction which I observe daily in the press. Your Bill 47 does nothing in this direction except to infringe upon the rights of myself and my family and friends solely for the purpose of acquiring revenues for your government in your on-again, off-again philosophy of 'Spend our way out of the deficit', 'Decrease the deficit by spending cutbacks.'"
When we contacted the writer of this letter to ask for permission as to whether I could read this into the record today, the doctor's comments were that this was a letter he dashed off in the heat of the moment. If he could, he would love to polish it, because he thinks he could bring out some of these points even more poignantly. But this is a letter straight from the heart of a bereaved parent, a parent who doesn't believe that photo-radar will work and does believe that this is a tax grab.
What more valid a person to speak to than this bereaved parent? And what more valid a person to speak to than the people who are contacting my office who have taken the trouble to say that photo-radar is the right thing to do? We should listen to the public, but instead what we're doing is closing down debate, not just of second reading, but we're not allowing any public input.
I was absolutely appalled during question period today when my leader, Mike Harris, asked the Minister of Transportation about this absolute about-face with respect to the government's position that it would have open government and yet it was not allowing public input, and the minister suggested, "Oh, yes, we're allowing public input." Twaddle. Absolute twaddle.
They've allowed two days. Two days will be barely enough for clause-by-clause, because indeed we have been told in the motion today that the question "shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading." Whether or not we have heard all of the clauses in committee, this bill will be ordered for third reading debate, with no allowance for committee of the whole debate of this.
We have no time for public input, and indeed, even if we had time, we have no period of notice in which to inform the public. For anybody who might be watching or subsequently reading this debate, I will point out that the normal course of events when we have public input is that notice is posted in papers across the province stating the time and the committee in which a given issue will be debated, allowing for those people to contact the clerk and set up a time at which they may join this important discussion and at least give their contribution. This is not being allowed in this instance.
We turn again to the fact that the government recognizes, obviously from the weight of mail it's receiving, that this is not going down very well with the electorate. So they want to brush it under the carpet and get on with their monumental tax grab, and that is what they're doing. They've moved to make sure that all further debate of a substantive nature is cut off in second reading. They have moved to ensure that there will be no public input whatsoever and it will be ordered back to the House for one day of third reading debate.
It used to be the tradition of this House that there was very little debate at third reading, and the reason for that was because they would fix it beforehand. But this government has traditionally not fixed anything, and that is why third reading has stretched out.
But let us go back to the very beginning of the piece. This is an obnoxious piece of legislation and it's an even more obnoxious motion to cut off debate by Her Majesty's loyal opposition. The minister and the government should be sanctioned for this, but the only sanction this government understands is being locked out at the polls. Of course, it is the Premier's choice as to when he goes to the electorate. We don't believe that he will go until the very end of his mandate, because he knows how disgusted the public is with this government that told a great story as to how open it was going to be and that has absolutely closed down the process by which government could listen to the people.
The safety arguments should be aired with the public, but I would suggest they're questionable. If they were valid, I would bow and I would vote for the legislation, but I cannot vote for this the way it is. In fact, I have to say that as debate wore on, I became more and more convinced of the government's ulterior motives. I don't believe this is a safety question. I believe this is a tax grab of monumental proportions.
It is also significant that we're moving to this Orwellian society, which was predicted for 1984 but apparently is going to arrive in 1993, a society which will take pictures of its citizens -- in fact, it isn't even the citizens; it's the vehicles of the citizens -- and will charge them and will not allow for any input as to who the real driver was, will not allow any modifications to ensure that safety issues are addressed by the police, because the police are underfunded. They're underfunded because of the actions of this government.
1640
When this government speaks about the 1,100 fatalities in 1991, they could have addressed that by bringing forward graduated licences much more expeditiously. Instead, they didn't. We still don't have the legislation before us. For two years I've been asking for that. But photo-radar gives revenue, and revenue is very interesting to this government. They have taken every step they can to seize as much money as possible, and that is the true intent of this government.
I would suggest to anybody who watches this debate that they should bombard the government with letters demanding public scrutiny of this policy, and I hope they will send me, David Turnbull, the PC critic for Transportation, a copy of that correspondence because we will certainly use it, take it down and use it against you, as the police say.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want to take an opportunity to put some concerns on the record. I enjoyed the remarks of the last member, particularly with regard to the issue of the money, because I hear the members in the government benches saying that this is not about money, that they're not looking to simply grab taxes.
I've flown a proposal in the past -- can't seem to get it up on to the table, but I think it would work here. That is, when a government introduces a revenue generator -- and there's another word for revenue generator in government. What might that be? This is a quiz. It might be "tax." When a government introduces a tax, they should say specifically how much money they want to raise, how long it's going to take to raise it and what they're going to do with the money.
I think that's the big question with the public. They say: "We don't have any idea." There was great fanfare in the budget where the Treasurer announced that he was eliminating the dreaded tire tax and the commercial concentration tax. Both of those taxes generated total revenue of about $150 million a year. They replaced it, without quite the same fanfare, you understand, with an insurance tax that would generate $715 million a year. So they went from $150 million in a couple of taxes to one new tax of $715 million.
While this is not a debate about the insurance tax, I use that as an example. Tell us what you're going to do with the money. If indeed you're going to fund your annual $10-billion deficit, tell us that's what it's going for, show us a plan, how long it will take to eliminate it.
Let's take this example. If in fact the government was being honest and would admit that photo-radar is clearly a tax, clearly a system used to generate revenue, tell us what you're going to do with the money. I would make a couple of suggestions. Do you want to talk about improvements in safety? Do you want to talk about better driving conditions? Come on out to Mississauga and I'll show you Highway 403.
Maybe if you were to take a specific amount of the money that you raise from photo-radar and say you're going to put it into improving safety, how about some lights? We could use some lighting along that stretch of road; better pavement -- it's breaking up. I've had all kinds of complaints about people getting their windshields chipped. There have been a number of accidents. The member opposite says he's experienced the same thing.
There have been a number of accidents. I've often wondered how many of those accidents were caused by flying debris coming off the highway from all the trucks that are using it and smashing into the windshield of a car, causing the driver to veer off the road or into another car. I'm quite sure there would be a number of accidents that would have occurred as a result of that. You can solve that problem by putting money into improving the road, into improving the lighting.
Let me just take the example of what happens when someone takes a snapshot. The driver could be one of our kids. The driver goes on home, doesn't know that he got a speeding ticket. The owner of the vehicle gets the ticket in two or three months' time.
What does that do to the driver of the vehicle? I suggest to you that if that driver of the vehicle is actually pulled over by a police officer, there's a lot more --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: The member's yacking away; it's quite interesting.
There's a lot more impact on that driver than someone else who owns the vehicle getting a ticket in the mail three months from now. It's fairly intimidating. Think about it. You get pulled over. If you don't have to get pulled over to get a ticket, what does that do to drinking and driving?
I think our society has been extremely successful in eradicating in many ways -- we haven't eliminated it -- but in cutting down on the number of fatalities on our highways due to drunk driving. Does photo-radar add to that in any way whatsoever? As a matter of fact, if you know that all there is out on Highway 403 -- and you've got to go home from a bar somewhere -- is a camera, I don't know that that's going to deter you from going out on the road at all.
I think the issue of safety -- this government is throwing it up as being, "This is the reason we're doing it." Does it make the roads in the Caledon Hills any safer, where all those kids were killed in that terrible accident on Mother's Day last year? Are you going to put cameras on all the country roads?
As I understand this bill, you're going to experiment with a couple of busy highways in the GTA. I guess you're going to put one on the 401 in an unmarked car and one on the 403 maybe. Why? For safety, or because that's where the largest concentration of vehicles happen to be, so you can snap, snap and get a lot of revenue coming in. It's clear.
What about northern Ontario? Look at the carnage on the highways in northern Ontario. Talk to me about Highway 69. I go to Parry Sound often. That system of pulling over that was originally put in, I guess, under the Conservative government -- if people understand how the system works where the slower vehicle pulls over to allow the vehicle going a little faster to go by, or the trailers pull over or whatever, if that system works -- well, I think it did improve the situation, having that system, but it doesn't work.
What's happened? The government has taken down the signs to explain to the many tourists that now use our roads all year round -- it's not just in summer. In fact, you see the signs with a great big tarp over them, telling the slower vehicles to pull over. Why?
How long is it going to take us to get the four-laning of Highway 69? The member for Sudbury East would know. She travels that road a lot. For years and years and years we have been seeing that road go a little bit at a time. If you want to take the money you're going to raise, tell us you're going to improve Highway 69. Tell us you're going to four-lane that road at least all the way to Parry Sound and ultimately all the way to Sudbury.
If you really believe this is a safety issue, take the revenue and put the money into safety. But I don't see that happening. What do we have here? We have the black hole of government revenue. The Minister of Finance needs money, so we're going to bring in a system that some people -- I know it's in use in Scandinavia and in Germany and other places. But let me tell you, if you want to use that example, on the autobahn there's no speed limit, period, in Germany. Why don't we do that? You can't have it both ways.
The reality is that this is an infringement upon people's rights. If it specifically was going to be where the money would be used and put into the infrastructure, where I honestly felt it would save lives, then maybe I'd reconsider my feelings on this. But we don't believe that.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the public, and certainly I, don't trust this government. We think this is just another trick. We've supported graduated licensing. We're not against everything the government does. The graduated licensing principle -- I'm the father of three sons. I know what it's like to lie awake at night and be frightened and worried that your kids aren't home and to wait to hear the garage door open to know you can go to sleep. It's a terrible thing, but it's part of parenthood.
I understand the concerns people have. What we want is safer roads; we want better lighting; we want more policing. If you're going to generate additional revenue through something like photo-radar, then be specific. Tell us how much money you're going to generate and where you're going to spend the money to try to effect the improvements.
There are many areas in the province: I think Highway 116 in Ottawa is another example.
1650
Mr Elston: Highway 16.
Mr Mahoney: It's Highway 16 in Ottawa. There are many examples where the members from that community have asked the government for some time now to four-lane that road, to improve it. If you've ever been on it, and I have, boy, you get on it and it's just a temptation to put your foot down. That's not what this particular bill is about.
I accuse the government of simply, in typical fashion, wrapping itself around an issue that is not the issue at all. Don't try to tell us you're going to save lives with photo-radar. Tell us you're going to save lives with improved capital spending on roads. Tell us you're going to save lives with graduated licensing. I accept that. Speed it up. Let's get it into place as soon as we can. Tell us you're going to save lives with better education for young drivers, with better education for all drivers.
We have drivers who come from all over the world to this country. Perhaps they drove on the opposite side of the road. Do we have a program that brings them in and teaches them how to drive in Canada? No, we don't. We just simply turn them loose. Maybe that would be an area we should take a look at.
There are many things the government can do to try to improve the quality of driving, the safety out there. In the limited time that's available to me, I want to tell you that I don't think photo-radar is one of them. This is a trick by the Finance minister to pad his financial problems, to solve his financial problems. It may well do that. I can see millions of dollars in revenue coming into the government as a result of this. Let me tell you something else: You will see it when you go home in your constituency weeks and when the House rises and your phones in your community offices ring off the wall from people who are getting speeding tickets in the mail, and they didn't even know that you jammed this through.
In closing, let me say that jamming it through is really what we should be debating. Again in typical fashion, when this government took power, it changed the rules. They put limitations on the length of time we're allowed to speak in this place due to, I guess we could call it, the Kormos bill, due to the activities of Peter Kormos when the NDP was in opposition. They've eliminated any attempt or any ability of the opposition to properly and fully debate. Just to exacerbate that, this current House leader has brought in a motion of closure, which is really what we're talking about today.
I know it doesn't bother the members opposite, because they want to effect closure on every bill the government introduces. This is draconian, this is most undemocratic, but not unlike the New Democratic Party.
Mr McLean: I wish to take part in this debate today. I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the government notice of motion and the amendments that were brought in with regard to Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice.
The government prefers to fall back on this type of undemocratic process, closure, far too often when we bring in legislation rather than dealing effectively with the real problems that are facing the people of Ontario.
As our House leader had mentioned earlier on, there were eight speakers who wanted to speak in the normal process of legislation. That did not happen. The minister spoke yesterday for half an hour or better and brought in a closure motion which is being debated here today. However, there has been some straying from that motion, because it is dealing with a very important piece of legislation. It's dealing with photo-radar, a system that I would dare say the majority of the people in this province are opposed to.
We have had overregulation with this government. We've had Bill 40, the job-killing bill which amended the Labour Relations Act. It has no regard for the social and economic consequences and it is symbolic of the anti-business, anti-job, anti-worker, anti-prosperity agenda that has prevailed with this government.
This government's move to hike the minimum wage to 60% of the industrial wage is costing 53,000 jobs, another aspect of this government's what I might call a 1% problem that it's producing, and that is what I'm telling you.
We recently witnessed a government that is creating an entirely new batch of resentments with its now-withdrawn Job Mart ad. What was that all about last week, and now trying to legislate quotas with its employment equity legislation?
The people in this province are confronted with a government that prefers to cut off public debate by using this closure motion, and it wants to regulate the business in this House. The people of Ontario want their government to take positive, effective and affirmative action to put a stop to fraud, waste and overregulation, because it siphons our money, steals our jobs and closes our companies.
The people of Ontario are stuck with a government that has jettisoned its morals. I trust you will all remember the news release put out by Bob Rae on August 19, 1990, titled An Agenda for People. The second paragraph reads:
"This is a great province. But how much greater it would be if it truly belonged to the people, served the needs of the people, worked for the people. Instead, we have a government today driven by a narrow and self-interested agenda, ignoring what needs to be done."
Was Bob Rae talking about the current NDP government? We all remember Bob Rae promising that the people of Ontario would have access to the halls of power. It is the same Bob Rae who leads his merry band of socialists in a program of erecting walls and barriers by continuing to change the rules that govern the business of this House, such as two half-days in committee dealing with this very important Bill 47, with really no public input at all.
This government goes out of its way to use regulations, walls, barriers and red tape to confuse, confound and frustrate the people of Ontario when their elected representatives try to obtain the services, assistance and access to programs they need and deserve. Our constituency office gets that daily, weekly, on a regular basis, where we don't get calls returned from ministries. This government has made it extremely difficult for business, workers and families to believe that there is any form of hope or opportunity on the horizon.
We have had many challenges in this province, yet we've always managed to recover and prosper, but it doesn't happen by accident. I believe recovery and prosperity will come to the people of Ontario once again in spite of this government and in spite of its draconian measures, like this government notice of motion number 11 we're debating here today.
I have serious reservations about this government's ongoing policy of closing off debate as early as possible on much of the legislation that passes through this chamber. This is a government that fails to grasp the principle that is fundamental to the democratic process, that each individual member of this House, whether sitting on the government side or on the opposition benches, has an opportunity to participate in the policy decisions of this Legislature.
The contributions of all members must reflect the wishes and views of their constituents. That is what it is all about, to bring the views of our constituents here and to be able to make sure that when legislation is being dealt with, these views are part of this legislation.
I respect the views and opinions of the people of Simcoe East who elected me to make their concerns known in this building. Believe me, my constituents know they can pick up a pen or a telephone and I'll respond to what they have to write and say.
People throughout Ontario have become disillusioned with politicians who made all kinds of promises and commitments, and once they were elected and formed a government, forgot those promises and disregarded those commitments. We've seen that with the recent selection of landfill sites, we've seen that with automobile insurance, we've seen that with casino gambling, we've seen that with Sunday shopping and now we're seeing it with this government's motion that warps the democratic process in the province of Ontario.
There are also some other commitments that were made in 1990. I want to read just briefly a section of it. It says in this Agenda For People:
"Men and women across Ontario have told me they don't want promises that can't be kept. They don't trust parties that pretend to serve every need and satisfy every demand. That's the cynical way of the Liberals. That's the cynical way of the government in Ontario and Ottawa today.
1700
"New Democrats offer a different approach. We acknowledge that our Agenda for People will not meet every need and we can't satisfy every demand. Instead, our platform for this election represents a new beginning for Ontario" -- well, they sure got that right -- "An Agenda for People that begins the work of making our tax system fairer, restoring our environment" -- and we read about that and hear about it daily in this House with regard to the new dump sites -- "protecting people and their jobs" -- the social contract has really done that -- "alleviating poverty" -- more people on welfare than we can ever imagine -- "making homes more affordable" -- this is their commitment; yes, the prices have certainly come down -- "and building a stronger north" -- whether it's the 40,000 profitable corporations that pay no income tax or the developers who donate thousands of dollars to the Liberals while making millions. This is what on August 19 they were saying they would change.
Madam Speaker, I'm telling you, the people know the record of this government and they know the problem of change. The changes in this amendment to the motion with regard to the timing of the motion and the nature of the timing of the hearings, and the debate that went on here earlier today with regard to that very issue was something that I have never seen in this Legislature before.
I've spoken about the closure motion. I want to speak briefly about Bill 47. That was why the closure motion was brought in.
We're wondering who's going to receive the fine money. Do any municipalities have any share of this at all?
Why is it that there are two half-days of public hearings with regard to this so-called important piece of legislation that was so important they brought closure in?
When we look at the revenues of this government, we have our gas tax, we have our fuel tax, we have our licensing. Those taxes bring in more revenue than what the whole Ministry of Transportation spends. That was never the intent. So I ask you: What is the intent of this revenue grab that we see taking place within this?
Are our insurance companies going to be looked at?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I was just going to ask if the Speaker saw a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please check 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: The member for Simcoe East has the floor.
Mr McLean: I was just getting warmed up, but I wanted to put some of the questions on the record that we're not going to have the opportunity to be able to get from this government with regard to this bill.
The question that I had with regard to the fines is, are insurance companies going to be made aware of what these fines are? Is that going to go against your insurance premiums? We're not getting any answers from this, and we will not have the opportunity to get answers because we're not going to have full public hearings on it.
This bill is kind of like a spy. It's radar. You're driving down the road and you don't know that anybody's watching you. It's like "Big Brother knows best." Well, I'm not so sure that that is the way we operate in this country.
The graduated licence system is something that we have supported, and we have been looking at that aspect. I would say that if we took the money that we're spending on this program and put it into education with regard to the graduated licence program, everybody in this province would be far, far ahead of what we are and what we're dealing with today.
There are some sections in this bill that do concern me. It has to do with the time specified in the offence notice and filing a notice of intention to appear with the clerk of the court. This is if you want to appeal the fine that you have been issued, and if you want to appeal it, you have 15 days to make that appeal after you've received that notice. That sometimes is not too long.
"9.1(1) If a defendant who has given notice of an intention to appear fails to appear at the time and place appointed for the hearing, the defendant shall be deemed not to dispute the charge." That means you pay, you're guilty, you have no chance to dispute it.
I want to talk about subsection 17(2): "If a defendant gives notice of an intention to appear, a proceeding may be commenced in respect of the charge if it is done within seventy-five days after the day on which the alleged infraction occurred." So you have a period of time, up to 75 days, the court has, to proceed with regard to the hearing.
The other section is subsection 18.1(2), proceeding commenced: "...a proceeding may be commenced in respect of the charge if it is done within seventy-five days after the day on which the alleged infraction occurred." There are two sections that pertain to that very issue.
In subsection 18.2(1) we look at no response to impending conviction notice: "A defendant who has been given a notice of impending conviction shall be deemed not to dispute the charge if fifteen days have elapsed since the defendant was given the notice..." That means that once you get the notice, if you don't in 15 days make an appearance to appeal that or oppose it, then you're automatically deemed to be guilty.
Recording of conviction: "Upon receiving a certificate requesting a conviction, the clerk of the court shall record a conviction and the defendant is then liable to pay the set fine for the offence."
In subsection 18.4(2), we're looking at a parking infraction. There's been not a lot of talk about how this photo-radar is going to work with regard to parking infractions. It says, "...a justice shall examine the certificate of parking infraction and shall without a hearing enter a conviction in the defendant's absence and impose the set fine for the offence if the certificate is complete and regular on its face." That says to me that if you're in a parking area, this system is going to work much the same as photo-radar. I don't know how the justice will enter a conviction with respect to a parking infraction. Is he going to do it under a bylaw of a municipality without proof of the bylaw that creates the offence? That's what it says in here. It's going to be under the bylaw of the municipality. So it talks very much about the parking infractions.
Subsection 48.1(1) also refers to, "The certified statements in a certificate of offence or certificate of parking infraction are admissible in evidence as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated therein."
When we look at the contents of this bill, we really have some problems with it, and it's not going to give the people of this Legislature and the people of this province a fair hearing with regard to the whole aspect of hearings.
"Section 68 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) Costs incurred in enforcing the deemed court order or judgement shall be added to the order or judgement and form part of it."
So the individual who's going to be sent this licence plate and his speed that he was going has now got to pay for the cost of the total court time. Whether it's the cost for the police officer to go or the court, this is all going back on to the individual.
1710
Subsection 69(2): "A justice of the peace who is satisfied that payment of a fine is in default,
"(a) shall order that any permit, licence, registration or privilege in respect of which a suspension is authorized under any act because of a non-payment of the fine be suspended until the fine is paid;
"(b) shall order that any permit, licence, registration or privilege in respect of which any act authorizes a refusal to renew, validate or issue the permit, licence, registration" -- they will not get their licence until all the fines are paid.
It goes on under "Highway Traffic Act permits" which has to do with the default, "shall direct that until the fine is paid, (a) validation of any permit held by the person who has defaulted be refused; and (b) issuance of any permit to the person who has defaulted be refused."
When we look at these aspects of this bill -- and there are some others here that I want to just bring out in the open because there are a lot of people who have not realized it. I want to read this one important section. It says the liability to pay the fine and the term of imprisonment if the fine is not paid. We talk about the inability to pay the fine:
"If the justice is satisfied that the person who has defaulted is unable to pay the fine within a reasonable period of time, the justice may (a) grant an extension of time allowed for payment of the fine; (b) require the person to pay the fine according to a schedule of payments established by the justice; (c) in exceptional circumstances, reduce the amount of the fine or order that the fine does not have to be paid."
I want to get here to the -- "(a) if the amount that has not been paid is not greater than $50, one day; or (b) if the amount that has not been paid is greater than $50, a number of days equal to the sum of one plus the number obtained when the unpaid amount is divided by $50" -- this is getting confusing.
This is a piece that's in this legislation that says, "The term of imprisonment shall not exceed the greater of (a) 90 days and (b) half of the maximum number of days of imprisonment that may be imposed on conviction of the offence that the person who has defaulted was convicted of."
So if you're in the photo-radar, you get caught, you don't pay your fine, I just relayed to you the aspects of this bill that pertain to that. You could serve up to 90 days. Not only that, but you can't get your driver's licence renewed until the fine is paid for. We know that. That's also in here.
The other aspect of the bill is that if you're under 18 years of age, you own a car, you don't fit into that category, you're exempt from that. That's one of the exemptions:
"Subsections 20(6) to (19) do not apply if the person who has defaulted is less than 18 years old or the fine was imposed on conviction of an offence under subsection 31(2) or (4) of the Liquor Licence Act."
If you're old enough to get a driver's licence and you have the responsibility of driving your car and if you want to speed and get caught in the radar, then why should you be exempt? That's an important question the minister who's bringing this bill forward should answer very clearly. I thought we treated all people equal.
There's no permit when photo-radar unpaid:
"If an owner of a vehicle is in default of payment of a fine imposed for a conviction based on evidence obtained through the use of a photo-radar system, an order or direction may be made under section 69 of the Provincial Offences Act directing that (a) if the owner holds a permit, validation of that owner's permit be refused until the fine is paid; or (b) if the owner does not hold a permit, the issuance of a permit be refused until the fine is paid."
These are some of the sections of the act that should be brought out and should be dealt with in detail. I didn't hear the minister yesterday indicating with regard to those very issues that I have spoken about, with regard to the photo-radar system and the evidence of it.
There are a couple of sections to this bill that a lot of people have not been informed about. In those sections -- mainly our section 3 which amends the Game and Fish Act to deal with certain administrative, recordkeeping and enforcement concerns. At the present, the act contains two provisions that establish offences that may be committed either with a vehicle or with some other mode of transportation.
If a reference is made to one of the provisions by subsection or clause, it is not clear whether a vehicle or some other mode of transportation is involved. The bill eliminates this difficulty by treating offences committed with a vehicle and offences committed with other modes of transportation as separate offences.
There's one other section to this Bill 47 and it's section 4. It amends the Liquor Licence Act by providing that no person shall be imprisoned for conviction of unlawful possession of liquor or being intoxicated in a public place.
Why is that being taken out? Why is that being changed? Those are some of the questions that we're not going to get full commitment from the minister on. I can assure you that the minister will probably not be in committee. It will be his parliamentary assistant who will be dealing with it.
Not only that, there's another section here that pertains to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, made by regulation. So really what's going to happen, in essence, is that the regulations are going to be made by the cabinet, which is what the Lieutenant Governor in Council is all about, and any changes that they deem necessary are going to be prescribed after this bill is passed. So when we look at the regulations, they certainly leave room for a lot of considerations.
There's a section in here with regard to the Game and Fish Act, there's section 4 with regard to the Liquor Licensing Act and here we are dealing with photo-radar legislation. This is this afternoon's debate on a motion and an amendment to the motion. We should have been debating and finalizing this bill today instead of spending the afternoon dealing with a closure motion. Not only that, but it's going to go to committee for two half-days and then it's going to come back to the House for third reading. Are we going to bring in closure again when this comes to third reading? In essence, it could have been done today.
The attitude of this government by bringing in closure, the attitude of this government that said it was open and fair to the people of this province and wanted to hear what the people are saying, is not open. They're not listening to the people. They're not listening to the people on the announcement that the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet made last week and reversed the decision on it this week. What input did the people have into that decision other than what was raised here in the House? But I can tell you there are a lot of people who were phoning over that very issue with regard to the discrimination.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to spend some time with regard to this closure motion and I wanted to speak briefly with regard to Bill 47 because it's a money grab and people who have been talking to me are not very happy with it. I just wanted to put those remarks on the record.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the member for Simcoe East. Are there further speakers who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Timiskaming.
Mr Wood: Say thank you for all those passing lanes.
Mr Ramsay: I'm going to talk about that. The members across the way are already asking me if I would thank them for some of the passing lanes on Highway 11. I think that relates to this particular bill and I certainly will talk about highway safety and the construction. There have been some good things in that and I will certainly mention that when the time comes. They'll be listening to that, I'm sure.
We find ourselves here today, unfortunately at the end of the debate now, that has come about by the government House leader moving a motion for time allocation, which means, and I talk to the people watching this evening, that now basically debate is restricted in this House. The government has said that enough's enough.
They believe that 10 hours of debate are enough, and that's about all the debate we've had on this particular bill, the photo-radar bill that we're talking about and that I will talk a little bit about this evening; and that when two opposition parties in this House that represent almost half of the people of this province through almost half of the seats in this Legislature are against this particular bill, when there is that sort of opposition to a particular piece of government business, this government believes debate should be stifled, and therefore the House leader brought forward this motion that we're to close off debate for this particular bill.
So now what we're doing, of course, is debating that particular motion. It gives us an opportunity, a very slim opportunity now and our very last opportunity, as we only have probably 40 minutes to go this evening, to discuss this particular bill. But what it does now is stifle debate completely on this particular bill.
In fact I've been informed by our House leader, the member for Bruce, that another time allocation motion now has been moved by the government on another bill. I would imagine that this is what we're going to be seeing between now and the Christmas break: legislation by time allocation and by closure motions. That's unfortunate in a democracy where we were elected, very few of us, 130 to represent almost 10 million people, to speak the minds of those people, those folks back home.
I see it as an impingement upon my rights to be able to get up in my place to represent the people, in my case, of the riding of Timiskaming in northern Ontario, to reflect their views about each particular bill as it comes along. This is now being stifled, and we are not pleased about that over here and we're not pleased with the trend of the NDP government in bringing that forward.
1720
Interjection.
Mr Ramsay: I mentioned that. As the House leader said, I did bring forward that we have another one today, so I think it's going to be legislation by time allocation as we go towards Christmas, and that's very unfortunate.
I think at first I'd like to talk a little about what photo-radar is. This is a relatively new idea for this jurisdiction, but I understand that this idea was first proposed and is in use in France, and that there are a couple of North American jurisdictions that now utilize this technique. Basically, what the technique is is that a camera is placed in a position on a busy highway or thoroughfare so that it can capture on film the licence plate of a vehicle that the mechanism has determined has been exceeding the speed limit.
There's been great debate in this House as to, in a sense, the kind of morality of this type of operation, because this is a rather new type of policing technique that we've seen in Ontario. I think that's what I'd like to zero in on right now: Is this type of entrapment technique really policing?
I think that's what the problem is: The government sees this type of thing, this type of apparatus as policing and that's the last type of thing I consider to be policing. I consider policing to be having contact with police officers in Ontario, and having been in contact with police officers means that it's an educative process. When I am stopped -- I have to admit here in front of all the people in the House and beyond that I, like anybody else, am stopped on the highway -- and I'm issued tickets when I exceed the limits, as I do sometimes, I take my medicine like anybody else.
With that summons that I receive for the speeding offence, I receive that contact with the police officer. I receive, if you will, that lecture from the police officer who is there to enforce that particular law. The police officer is telling me, in that lecture, why I should not be speeding and what the dangers of speeding are. In my particular area where I would be driving from North Bay, after flying from Toronto to North Bay, up to my home in Timiskaming -- a distance of about 170 kilometres -- there are other hazards such as rock cuts and moose on the highway, and there are a lot of reasons in northern Ontario besides the ones in southern Ontario why you would not want to be speeding.
When you come in contact with the police officer, you are reminded of the dangers of speeding on the highway. The police officer will say: "Mr Ramsay, I think you should be slowing down. There are dangers up ahead. It's now dusk and it's June and you know that moose will be coming out on to the road, and it's highly dangerous to be driving at a fast speed and doing that."
I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that with this type of apparatus, this sort of entrapment apparatus, all that you're going to get is the entrapment from this. The driver is not going to get the education, the learning, the reminder, as human beings that we all are and need. We're not going to get that. What we're going get after a few weeks, in the mail, is a ticket that says, "On such and such a date, at such and such a place, the licence plate of your car was captured on film by a particular ticketing device," which we are speaking about today. A large summons is going to be there with, unfortunately, the opportunity to pay a fine.
That's just one end of policing. Why this is becoming necessary is the priorities of this government. This government is underfunding our police in Ontario. I have had provincial police and local police from my area and from other areas, in particular northern Ontario, come to me and tell me of instances of how detachments are closed for long times, during the evening especially and over the night-time hours.
Some of the major detachments are located on the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario where's there's all sorts of traffic of all sorts of different types, from people who have escaped from penitentiaries and are going across the country to people who have committed crimes. The Trans-Canada Highway is obviously one of the main routes out of Ontario to other parts of this country, and some of these detachments are closed for two, four, six, in some cases eight hours a night. This is extremely dangerous.
We've seen incidents of police officers who, because of the understaffing, were on their own in the middle of the night on dark, long stretches of the Trans-Canada Highway. As I said, with the type of traffic that's going through that area, they are being placed in very dangerous situations. We've seen incidents where that danger has resulted in injury to our police officers, the men and women who put their lives on the line for us.
That's the reason we're here debating this particular bill, why the government's looking at this particular apparatus. They're trying to basically replace police officers. They're trying to find some new high technology that will basically replace policing. It's a lack of understanding of what policing is.
Policing is communities and people becoming involved directly with police officers, those men and women who serve us. Through that we are reminded of what the laws are; we are convinced that we should be adhering to those laws. Through that contact with our police officers, who are showing by example how we should be deporting ourselves, we learn how we should be deporting ourselves.
This is especially true on the highway, where any one of us, who would not consider ourselves to be interested or even in any way involved in criminal activity, from time to time for various reasons might exceed the speed limit and find ourselves with a speeding offence. This happens to many of us. It's not right that we do this, but obviously this is why we have and need good policing on our highways. What this government is doing is forgoing that better policing, that better enforcement on our highways, for this type of high-tech apparatus.
Once you start taking the police off the highways, of course, then you put yourselves into other danger, because speeding is only one reason why you would want police officers on the highway. On the highway we look mostly to our police officers for help, so we want them on our highways because if we get into traffic accidents or mechanical breakdowns we want to make sure that the police are there, not only to protect us while we're in that particular vulnerable situation but to be able to offer the assistance we may need in order for us to get on our way again. That's a particular concern when we see the cutting down of police patrolling, especially in northern Ontario, where we have long, vast and sometimes isolated stretches of highway.
Madam Speaker, I don't know if you've experienced driving on some of those stretches in northern Ontario in January and February of the year, but where I live -- and it's not all that far north from here in relative terms to how far north Ontario does go -- it's very cold in January and February and the last thing you want to have happen to you is to be stranded on a lonely, dark stretch of highway when it's 40 below zero Celsius and Fahrenheit, as it is the same. That's the last thing you want to have happen to you.
We want good policing. We want our police officers out there on the highway, not only for enforcing our speeding laws and other traffic laws but also for making sure they're there for what their primary purpose is, to help people. That's what policing's about.
The other thing that police are doing out there, of course, is enforcing all the rest of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. What this particular device is going to do is just enforce one tiny bit of it.
Before I conclude, I'd like to talk about what my colleagues across the way were talking about and thank them for some of the highway improvements that have happened in my particular area over the last year; I think that's part of this too.
In my particular case, and for many people who travel two-lane highways extensively throughout southern Ontario and through the north, a frustration level will build up when there's not enough opportunity to pass slow-moving vehicles. When that happens, that causes many of us, though we shouldn't, to speed up beyond what the limits are.
Two-lane highways serve our province very well, but it's important that those two-lane highways have ample truck-climbing lanes so that people can get around trucks, and also car-passing lanes so that we can move past slow-moving traffic on those highways.
If we had a system that was almost contiguous, three-lane highways through the combination of all these passing lanes and truck-climbing lanes working both ways, then we would have a much more even flow of traffic through the two-lane highway system of Ontario, which is pretty good but right now is a bit, I would say, underengineered for the amount of traffic we have today.
1730
In my particular area -- I was fortunate this year -- we had the construction of six passing lanes between Temagami and just north of New Liskeard. I'm going to have an opportunity to take my colleague the MPP from Bruce up there tomorrow, as he's going to be touring the riding of Timiskaming, and I'm going to show him some of those passing lanes. You can greatly see from just a few passing lanes in a small area such as what I'm speaking of, the 60-mile stretch from Temagami to north of New Liskeard, that you really do start to get a much more rapid flow of traffic. That decreases the frustration level of drivers and therefore that also decreases the amount of speeding that drivers are tempted to embark upon.
I would just say in conclusion that it is obviously a shame that this debate is being stifled by the government through its motion of time allocation. We are obviously sorry for that because it's going to slow this debate and stop it off completely.
I think this is an area where we have to be discussing further and further the ramifications of using electronic high-tech devices to provide our policing, moving away from the men and women who provide the policing in Ontario today. It's a shame we don't have the time to really get into that debate of what policing should be in Ontario, how our highways should be monitored by our police officers, but that's the nature of this government. They're shutting down debate, and as our House leader says, the next motion for time allocation is before us again. It looks like this is the way the government will do business between now and the Christmas break.
Mr Murdoch: It is my pleasure to be able to speak on this motion to close down debate on what I wanted to debate. It seems ironic that we have to do it this way, but with a socialist government, I guess they've decided this is the way we're going to debate things from now on. Some of them are going to leave now, I guess. That's fine.
What this motion is doing is closing down the debate, as we've heard, on the photo-radar, which if I'd had a chance to debate, I would have, if they hadn't brought this motion in. I'm sure there were maybe a couple of more Liberal people who wanted to vote on this also, but we have a socialist government and I guess they've decided this is the way they want to run Ontario. They don't want to give us the right to debate on bills. When they get in a corner, they just say: "Well, Mr Speaker, we're going to just close the House down. We're not going to let anybody speak on it." This is what they do.
As I said, it's closing down photo-radar. One of the worst things about this is they're not going to let the public debate it. This was going to be second reading. Normally what happens from that is it goes to a committee and the public have a chance to explain whether they like the bill or not. This government decided it's not even going to let the public talk about it.
We all know why. This government over here doesn't care about safety. That's not their problem. Their problem is they're broke. They've spent this province into a hole and they've got to find some way of getting out of it. So this is a money-grab bill, that's all it is, and this is what they want to do with the money: They're going to put it into general revenue.
If they were concerned about the safety on our highways like they claim, if they were even a bit concerned about the safety on the highways, they would take this money that they're going to grab from the people and they would put it into safety measures on the highways. But no, they're going to take this money, give it to Floyd Laughren, the Treasurer, and he'll fritter it away on some of his crazy ideas that they come up with. They have no concern about safety at all. All this is is a money grab.
I brought up in the House some time ago, a couple of weeks ago maybe, a safety problem we have in our area on Bayview Hill, between Meaford and Owen Sound. I got a letter from Transportation before mine even hit the media that they weren't going to do that. They have no concerns. They don't care that this is a big, long hill and there are accidents there. That's not their concern. They say, "Well, we have no money."
Now they're coming up with one of the biggest tax grabs that's ever happened in Ontario, and this money is just going to go into the general revenue, nowhere to help out people on safety.
The people out there won't be fooled that this government is even concerned about safety. We all know they're not. If they really were, then they would be announcing in this House that, hey, this money's going to go into roads, it's going to help out the roads and it's going to make roads safer for our people. But no, they don't care.
The thing about this bill is that there's no trial. You don't have a chance to say whether you are innocent or guilty. They way things work now, if you're caught in a radar trap and you're speeding, and even if you weren't or you think you weren't, at least in your own mind you weren't, you have at least a chance to sign the fine that you get. You can send that in and you can go to court and you can plead your case. With this bill, the photo-radar bill, all you're going to get is a photograph of your licence plate. It will come in the mail a month later or whatever and it will say you were speeding at a certain spot. You may not even have been there, but this is what's going to come in the mail, and you're guilty.
You're supposed to be innocent before proven guilty. This doesn't work any more. With this socialist government, that's what happens. I guess some of us deserve this, because this is what the people of Ontario put in, but I'm sure they won't be putting them in any longer. They will get rid of this government pretty fast. This government's been hypocritical, it's been whatever. They're still here; that's the unfortunate part. If they had any backbone at all, they would stand up now and say: "Hey, guys, we have no mandate to do all these things that we're doing. We'll call an election to see whether people really do want us."
Interjections.
Mr Murdoch: You hear some of them laughing over there, and they know they don't want any election right now. They know they'd be gone and they just would not want that to happen.
Another thing about this bill, though, since it's a money grab -- and again, we have a government that doesn't think before it puts things forward. I don't think they've ever even thought of what is going to happen, the cost of this when some people challenge it in court, the cost there is going to be for lawyers and things like this. For them to fight for a bill that's unconstitutional, it's going to cost them probably more money in the start. But let me tell you, it is just a money grab. That's what it is.
One of our members mentioned some weeks ago that the crows seem to be disappearing in the area. Well, they'll probably have to use some of this money to import some crows back in, because they are eating crow pie all the time, there's no doubt about that. They'll be eating a lot more of it before this bill is done and before other bills are done.
So what do they do? They bring in a closure bill to shut us up. They say, "Hey, we're not going to let you debate this any longer. We don't want to hear about our mistakes. We don't want to hear about how stupid we are. We don't want to hear those things, so we're just going to bring in a bill and close you down. That's what we're going to do to you. We don't want to hear all these things that are terrible about us," even though they're true.
A lot of people out there are saying a lot of bad things about these people, and I'm sure most of them looked at this editorial that was in the paper. It says, "Smile, You're on Photo-Radar." I'm sure some of the people on the other side of the floor cringe when they read some of the things that are said about them in there, and they're all true. Maybe I wouldn't have gone as far as some of the things he said about some of them personally, but what he's saying in that editorial -- it's by John Downing -- is so true that it must make them feel pretty bad when they have to read things like that about them in the paper. I'm sure they don't have them framed up on the walls of their offices.
Another problem with this photo-radar bill is you don't lose points. Again, it's just a money grab. We're going to be fining a licence plate, and that's all it is. If you happen to own cars that you rent or a limousine service and things like that, if you're not driving, you're going to get the bill. It doesn't matter. They really don't care over there, because as long as they get the money, they're happy. That's all they want.
Mr Elston: They're probably going to go out chasing people trying to get some speed.
Mr Murdoch: I'm sure they will. I'm sure they may get a lot of tickets too as they try to speed away from the people who want to talk to them, because they don't want to consult with anybody. That was one of their big promises when they got in, that it would be open government. "We're going to consult. We're going to listen." Well, this resolution that they've brought in to be voted on today puts off all the debate. They're not going to let the people have their say. Yet when they got in, they said: "Oh, no. We're going to be open. We're going to listen to everyone." They've certainly showed that they don't want to do that.
This is just one of the times they've done this. They've done this before. They're great at this. They've probably done it more than any other government around. I don't know whether it's something that's the mentality of the socialists that they want everybody to dislike them or not, but there aren't many people out there they haven't touched yet to make them dislike them. But this will be one way of doing it. The amount of people who will be upset with this when they put it into force -- they should get the remaining few people who are left who may like them at this point. There won't be too many after that, I'll tell you.
1740
Another thing: They're going to rely on cameras. Can you believe that? They're going to take the personal thing out of this. At least now if you're speeding or something, you get stopped by a police officer, you're given a ticket and you have a right to say something. Now we're going to rely on cameras.
What happens if the camera isn't working right, if somehow it's set wrong? Then we're still going to get all these things in the mail. And you know who's going to get the people into the office complaining: You and I, Mr Speaker, and these people over here.
These people have no idea what real life's all about. I'm sorry; they're in a dream world. The unfortunate part is they think they got elected because the people wanted them. It was a protest vote, and they still haven't figured that one out. But that's fine. They will figure it out in the next election.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): One solution: Don't speed.
Mr Murdoch: I hear from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. He says, "Don't speed." I agree. If you get caught speeding, you should pay your speeding fine.
I disagree with cameras where we don't know whether they'll be accurate. No one knows what speed limit they're going to set them at. If the speed limit's 50 kilometres, are they going to set them at one over that? We don't know that. They don't know that. They probably don't even know where they're going to get the cameras yet. But I do know that they do have some police officers trained in this, because there are some from our area who have been down here in Toronto training to do this.
They are gearing up to pass this. They know they have the majority. As I said before, when they start to hear too much that criticizes them and they can't take it, they say, "Hey, we're going to stop that. We're Big Brother," just like the cameras they're putting out on the highways. It's Big Brother going to be looking over your back at all times.
In here they do the same thing. They try to limit my chance to debate on this. I have to do it through a motion of closure, the only chance I get to debate on this. My chance was squashed, just because they said: "Hey, we're the government and we're not going to let you speak. When we get tired of listening to you, we close it down."
But if they were sitting on this side, they'd be screaming and hollering. They'd be crawling around like a bunch of rats. They complain more than any other government that they didn't have a chance to speak. Now they do the opposite.
So what do we do with a bunch like this? I guess we have to put up with them for another 18 months. As the Premier says, "We'll be here for another 18 months." I guess he's starting to count the days. If you think of that, that should be only two more sessions. Hopefully, we have to put up with this bunch for only two more sessions and then they're gone. We can only hope that.
For the people out there who are listening, there is hope yet. We only have two more sessions of this. I don't think they're bright enough to get enough bills through that they will hurt us that much more. But there are two more sessions left, for which we will have to put up with them.
Here they are: They have secret meetings on the dump issue. They don't invite our members to sit in on them. Yet now they're going to put cameras out on the road to take pictures of people going by.
So what do we do with this bunch? The whole thing is, I think the major thing is, we've got a government that's out of control. They have no idea of what they're doing. The best thing is to make sure we don't tell them when they're doing things wrong.
This is what they're doing with this kind of legislation, by coming in -- and then they change it too. Right in the middle of the day, they say, "We're going to put an amendment to it." They don't bother telling us. David Turnbull, who is the critic for transportation in the urban centre, has been steering this bill through. They never bothered to tell him that they're going to change the amendment.
They just come in and number one Speaker here says, "Oh, it's okay." He doesn't try to help us out. I'm disappointed in that. I'm disappointed in number one Speaker in this House, that he didn't try to help us out. But he didn't.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Whoa, have some respect for the office.
Mr Murdoch: Maybe we should have. I hear from the Minister of Transportation that we should have respect for his office. Well, I guess maybe we should for there, but we can't any have any respect for his office, because his office is going to be gone in a few days.
Once we get these four new great crown corporations that are going to dole out the money to the roads and bridges, we won't need this minister. We'd be better off without him now, but we will not need him in a few months. When they get the new crown corporations set up, the Minister of Transportation will be gone. They won't need him. Maybe they're going to give him a commissioner's job. Who knows? But we certainly won't need him around this House, because his job's going to become redundant. We won't need the Finance minister.
You guys are going to change all the rules; there's no doubt. Then they won't have to have any credibility. But they have no credibility now; they already know that. What they're doing is putting it off on to commissions and boards and crown corporations because they don't have the guts to stand up and speak to the people when they challenge. They just don't, and I'm sorry that I have to say that, but it's unfortunate.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Maybe we can go to the Senate.
Mr Murdoch: The Minister of Transportation, if he would sit in his seat, maybe we could listen to him, but he doesn't want to sit in his own seat, which I can understand. I'd be ashamed to sit in that seat also if I had done the things he had done.
I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, it's a money grab. I want to tell you about a place in Priceville. I already brought this up, but the Speaker wasn't here at the time. They want to become a community watch neighbourhood. They put up some signs. His Transportation ministry charges them $160. So they say, "Can we put some flowers in the flower boxes on the bridge?" "Oh, we want another $160." What do you call this if it isn't a money grab? It's just like this one, another money grab.
It's nice to see that the minister is here to listen to this.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): How about that hill again?
Mr Murdoch: We could maybe tell you about the Bayview hill that you tell me this is for safety -- I brought it up earlier, but you weren't in the House, so now maybe I can tell you again -- between Meaford and Owen Sound. We've asked for it to be fixed up. It's a long hill. You don't have any money.
Maybe if he would take this money and put it into things like that, he might have some credibility. But all he wants to do is take the money, throw it into Floyd Laughren's pot so that he can go out and spend it on some other foolish thing that this government will want to do.
There you are, Mr Speaker. If this minister had anything to do with the government over there, he would be keeping this money for himself to spend on safety. But obviously this minister's just a front man. They set him out in the front, they dress him up, they send him here and that's all he can do. He can bring in silly bills like this, but he has no idea what he's going to do with it.
I am really disappointed in this government. This is another one of their follies. I can't vote for this. It's too bad that we have to have government run this way to keep us quiet.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate and to lend my concern about the resolution that's before us to end the debate on the bill.
I think the people who are viewing this should understand that what is being proposed here is that we no longer will have an opportunity to raise some serious and legitimate concerns about what this bill is going to do.
I think, as everybody understands, essentially it is a total invasion of privacy. It is a tax grab. It is something that is, in my opinion, the start of a very dangerous trend. I'm surprised that an NDP government would head in this direction. The Minister of Transportation looks incredulous, but I am amazed that an NDP government would head down this road.
I don't know where you're going to end. I don't know where you will stop using hidden photography to catch people who may or may not be violating the law. I think that's worthy of debate. I'm surprised the NDP backbenchers aren't encouraging a much broader debate, because clearly what's driving this is the government is desperate for revenue.
Hon Mr Pouliot: That is false, that is incorrect.
Mr Phillips: The minister is saying it is false. Then that's exactly why we need a broader debate. But he won't allow the debate. He'll sit there and say it's false and not permit this Legislature to have a debate. If it's false, then I'd like the debate, Minister. I don't want you closing off debate on this. If it's false, then let's have a full debate.
But I am saying this is a tax grab of $200 million, and it heads down a very dangerous route. I think some people in the public understand that what we're talking about here is that you are beginning organized spying on people. I hope I'm not exaggerating this, but once you start this, I don't know where it ends. I really don't know where it ends. That's why there's a need for a full debate on this.
Where do you stop? Is speeding bad? As my colleague said, why not have it at all the stop signs, then, and catch all of those people? Where do you stop using hidden cameras? Where do you stop that? That's what the debate should be about, not about a $200-million tax grab.
1750
There is a steady stream of people coming to the government with harebrained schemes on ways that you can raise money, and this is a big moneymaker. I don't doubt that. The Minister of Finance is coming in. It's a huge moneymaker. There is no doubt about that. But surely the debate around here should be how long and how far we are prepared to use hidden cameras to raise revenue, where do you stop and what regulations should you put on it.
The Minister of Finance has arrived. I have no doubt that there is, as I say, a steady stream.
The casino's another example. Which of the NDP backbenchers ever thought you would be defending casino gambling on the basis that it is good for the province of Ontario? Did anybody? Did any NDP backbencher, three years after you got elected, think you would ever be standing up and saying, "Casino gambling's great"? Do you know why you're doing that? Because there is a steady stream of people coming to the Minister of Finance's office with schemes to find ways to raise money. You are starting with the casinos.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Your federal friends have been there three weeks and we're already $5 billion out of whack.
Mr Phillips: The Minister of Transportation would obviously like a longer debate on this, but no, he's going to close the debate off. He will sit here and try to heckle, but he will not allow a legitimate debate on some very significant and legitimate issues around where you are heading, where you are going as a government.
The first major signal about this government to me was when the OPP were called in to investigate an absolutely minor leak to the opposition. I'm not exaggerating this when I say that this bill has the potential to start the government down the road to using, as I say, hidden cameras. I don't know where you draw the line; speeding now, other things in the future.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Be specific, Gerry. What do you mean?
Mr Phillips: We hear lots of heckling now around issues that I think we should be having a legitimate public debate on. I would like to get the public involved in this debate. What do they think about this? What do they think about a government that will now use unmanned or unattended cameras to raise money? That's a debate we should have.
As I say, I have no doubt that what's driving this is the Minister of Finance saying, "Listen, we are desperate to raise money." As I say, every person with a scheme is traipsing into his office saying: "Here's a machine. This is a moneymaking machine." I forget what the cameras are designed to raise per camera, but it's enormous.
The public should understand I think what the government's doing. This is the same government that in the next two years is going to sell $500 million worth of jails. Can you imagine that? Some $500 million worth of jails they are going to sell. The reason I'm raising this is it illustrates how desperate this government is for money.
Mr Sorbara: Who buys jails?
Mr Phillips: My colleague said, "Who buys jails?" Is this the time to be dumping $500 million worth of jails on the market? Who is going to buy $500 million worth of jails? It's clear it's a scam. The government will sell $500 million worth of jails to itself, pay itself $500 million and then lease them back.
The point I'm making is, when you realize things like casinos, I don't think any NDP member ever imagined when they ran they would have to stand up and support casinos across this province. I don't think any NDP member when they ran thought they would have to get up and say, "Listen, I support selling $500 million worth of jails to ourselves and then leasing them back." I would be amazed if any NDP member thought they would be required to support what I think can only be described as a dangerous intrusion on individual private rights. That's a debate we have to have, surely.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Maybe Patti Starr would like to buy one.
Mr Phillips: The Minister of Transportation may choose to heckle because he hasn't got the courage to have a public, open debate on this. He'd rather sit there and heckle and try and end the debate, force this vote through, which they will do in about six minutes, so the debate's over. But isn't it a debate that at least the NDP backbenchers think we should have?
I will tell you, this issue disturbs me, and I don't come to it recently. The Ministry of Correctional Services -- there is now a program whereby people who are incarcerated can be let free to their homes in return for bracelets where they will be monitored. Now, I have had difficulty with that issue. I've had real difficulty with that issue. It happened to be an issue that we approved when we were in government, but I had concerns about it.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, on the road to Damascus.
Mr Phillips: Exactly. That's exactly my point, and that is that this is a step down a road where we do not see the end. It is a step down the road to using hidden cameras to secure prosecutions against people to raise money, and I don't know where you end that. I really don't know where you end that. That's exactly why --
Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): When did you suddenly acquire a conscience, Gerry?
Mr Phillips: I really appreciate the Minister of Natural Resources heckling, and I will say to him: You don't have the courage to have a public debate on this. He will stand back there and heckle, as they're doing, trying to stop the legitimate debate on it. They are heckling because they don't want a public debate.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Tell us about a conscience.
Mr Phillips: The Minister of Transportation once again is heckling because they know they cannot stand to have this go out for a public debate where the public can come and tell us what they think about this. What do they think about this? They will understand it is a revenue grab. It is not a safety issue.
I will say to the Minister of Transportation, if you want to undermine the public's confidence in their legal system -- and I must say that our police forces in this province have worked since the country started to establish a sense of confidence. One of the great things about this province and this country is that the public has an enormous sense of confidence in its police forces. If you want to do something that helps to undermine that confidence -- because they will think and they will assume, "This came from the police force; they caught me speeding." They won't realize that this is an NDP moneymaking machine on the side of the road designed to try and extract more money out of the public. They will assume it is the police force that has done this.
I can't imagine anything that will make the public more angry than getting these tax bills in the form of a speeding ticket, never having seen, never having a chance to defend themselves, never having a chance to explain the circumstances around which that took place.
I say it is a revenue grab; it is a tax grab. It heads down a very dangerous route. I don't know where the government is going to draw the line, because if you do it with speeding, you can do it with all sorts of other things, and we won't have that debate. Furthermore, as I say, I think it will do significant damage to the relationship between the public of Ontario and our fine police organizations of Ontario.
With that, I gather it is the intent that the debate should wrap up because now the government will have its will. Now the government will vote to pass this resolution that will stop the debate that should be taking place on an important bill, about which we, and I think the public of Ontario, have significant reservations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you very much. This completes the debate on government notice of motion number 11.
Mr Charlton has moved an amendment to government notice of motion number 11. Will the amendment carry? Agreed? No.
All those in favour of Mr Charlton's amendment please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. It's a 15-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1801 to 1816.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would all members please take their seats. We will now be dealing with Mr Charlton's amendment to government notice of motion number 11. All those in favour of Mr Charlton's amendment will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.
Ayes
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's amendment will please rise and be recognized by the clerk.
Nays
Beer, Bradley, Brown, Chiarelli, Cleary, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 63, the nays are 36. I declare the amendment carried.
We will now deal with the motion as amended, again by Mr Charlton. Same vote? Agreed. The ayes are 63, the nays are 36. I therefore declare the motion carried.
It being beyond 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 pm.
The House adjourned at 1821.